REVIEW OF SCREENING, PLACEMENT, AND 

INITIAL TRAINING OF NEWLY HIRED AIR 

TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS

Federal Aviation Administration

Report Number: AV-2010-049

Date Issued: April 1, 2010
U.S. Department of

Memorandum

Transportation

Office of the Secretary

of Transportation

Office of Inspector General

Subject: ACTION: Review of Screening, Placement, and 

Initial Training of Newly Hired Air 

Traffic Controllers 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Report Number AV-2010-049 

Date: April 1, 2010

From: Lou E. Dixon

Assistant Inspector General 

 for Aviation and Special Program Audits 

Reply to 

Attn. of: JA-10 

To: Federal Aviation Administrator

This report provides the results of our audit of the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA’s) policies and procedures for screening, placing, and 

initially training newly hired air traffic controllers. Over the next decade, FAA 

plans to hire and train nearly 15,000 new controllers to replace those who were 

hired after the 1981 strike and are now retiring. With this large influx of new hires 

planned, examining and improving its processes for integrating new controllers 

into the current workforce will be a significant challenge for FAA. 

We conducted this review at the request of Representative Jerry F. Costello,

Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Aviation. Chairman Costello expressed 

particular concern about whether FAA’s screening test identifies candidates’ 

potential to become air traffic controllers and whether the FAA Academy 

adequately trains candidates before FAA places them at facilities. 

Accordingly, our audit objectives were to (1) evaluate how FAA determines 

whether candidates have the requisite abilities to become successful controllers, 

(2) determine what procedures FAA uses to place controllers at air traffic 

facilities, and (3) assess whether the initial training provided by the FAA 

Academy adequately prepares new controllers for facility on-the-job training 

(OJT). We conducted this review between December 2008 and October 2009 in 

accordance with government auditing standards prescribed by the Comptroller 

General of the United States. Exhibit A details our scope and methodology. 

Exhibit B lists the specific organizations we visited or contacted. 
2

RESULTS IN BRIEF

FAA’s process for selecting and placing new controllers does not sufficiently

evaluate candidates’ aptitudes before placing them at facilities. Currently, FAA 

does not use results of its controller aptitude test (the Air Traffic Selection and 

Training test, or AT-SAT) to determine the level of facility in which new 

controllers are placed. Instead, FAA assigns new controllers to locations based 

primarily on their facility choice and available vacancies. As a result, new 

controller candidates are being assigned to some of the busiest air traffic control 

facilities in the Nation with little consideration of whether they have the 

knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to become certified controllers at those 

locations. These include critical facilities within the National Airspace System, 

such as the Southern California Terminal Radar Approach Control and the 

Chicago O’Hare and Atlanta Hartsfield Air Traffic Control Towers. 

FAA also does not use candidates’ initial performance at the Academy to 

determine the level of facility in which new controllers are placed. Although all 

controller candidates must attend 2 to 3 months of initial training at the Academy 

after passing AT-SAT, controller candidates are assigned to a facility before 

entering Academy training.

Initial training at the FAA Academy is currently focused more on short-term 

memorization rather than developing a long-term skill set and, according to 

facility managers, does not adequately prepare candidates to begin facility training

at their assigned locations. Facility managers we spoke with stated that candidates 

arrive after passing Academy training unprepared to begin facility training, often 

requiring additional time and resources to refresh them on subjects previously 

taught at the Academy. FAA internal studies have noted similar concerns. In an 

internal analysis conducted in November 2007, FAA found that Academy training 

needed to focus more on basic air traffic control concepts—such as phraseology,

issuing clearances, and aircraft characteristics—and less on retaining knowledge 

just long enough to pass a test. The study recommended numerous changes to 

initial training, but more than 2 years since its completion, changes have not been 

implemented.

We are making recommendations to FAA on actions needed to improve its 

controller screening, placement, and initial training programs.

BACKGROUND

After the 1981 controller strike, FAA screened candidates primarily using a 

9-week training course taught at the FAA Academy. The program proved highly 

effective at identifying candidates’ potential abilities—with only a 57-percent pass 

rate for the 27,925 controller candidates screened between 1981 and 1992. 
3

However, this process was expensive, costing about $20,000 per candidate, so 

FAA began developing AT-SAT in the 1990s to achieve a less costly and more 

streamlined screening tool to identify candidates with the best controller aptitudes. 

In designing AT-SAT, FAA scientists performed a detailed analysis to identify the 

specific tasks that controllers must complete and measure the skills that support 

those tasks. Currently, FAA employs the following three-step indoctrination 

process for newly hired air traffic controller candidates:

• Screening: AT-SAT consists of an 8-hour series of aptitude tests. Controller 

candidates with no previous air traffic control experience and those who have 

graduated from a Collegiate Training Initiative program are screened using ATSAT.1

• Placement: After completing screening, new candidates are assigned to a 

facility location. This is done by creating a list of facility vacancies and eligible 

applicants. A group of air traffic facility managers then meets at least once a 

quarter and attempts to match the assignment preference of each candidate to the 

needs of specific air traffic control facilities. Air traffic control facilities are 

categorized by levels (4 through 12) based on the complexity and number of 

operations. Level 4 facilities are the least complex while Level 12 are the most 

complex. Controllers’ base salaries are determined by the level of the air traffic 

control facility to which they are assigned.

 Candidates must score at least 70 percent on the exam to be considered 

for employment. Controller candidates with prior air traffic control experience, 

such as ex-military controllers, are exempt from taking AT-SAT. 

• Initial Training: Before they begin training at their assigned facilities, most 

new controllers must complete 2 to 3 months of initial training at the FAA 

Academy. This training consists of lectures and simulation problems in basic air 

traffic control concepts and procedures. Upon completion of these courses, the 

candidate must then pass the Performance Verification, or PV. This is a final 

examination of learned knowledge and skills using simulators and is overseen 

by current operations supervisors from selected air traffic facilities.

FAA Is Not Using Its AT-SAT Screening Tool Effectively

FAA does not use AT-SAT results to determine the level of facility in which new 

controllers are placed even though the number of inexperienced controller 

candidates being hired and screened by AT-SAT is increasing. For example, the 

number of new hires with no prior air traffic control experience increased from 

7 percent of those hired in fiscal year (FY) 2007 to approximately 72 percent 

during the first half of FY 2009. This has resulted in an increase of inexperienced 

controllers being assigned to high level air traffic control facilities. As shown in 

 1 (CTI) Colleges that provide FAA-accredited courses in air traffic control principles. 
4

the chart below, in FY 2008, 58 percent (881 of 1510) of all newly hired 

controllers with no prior air traffic control experience were placed at Level 10 

through 12 facilities (the busiest and most complex in the Nation). These include 

facilities such as the Southern California Terminal Radar Approach Control and 

the Chicago O’Hare and Atlanta Hartsfield Air Traffic Control Towers. 

Figure 1. Facility Placement of New Controllers with No Prior Air 

Traffic Control Experience During FY 2008

Source: Aviation Careers Division, FAA Academy

In addition, overall AT-SAT scores have been higher than originally expected. 

Although the FAA scientists who designed AT-SAT predicted that only 

67.5 percent of all applicants would pass AT-SAT as originally designed, nearly 

93 percent of all applicants currently achieve a passing score. AT-SAT has a high

pass rate primarily because FAA reweighed elements from the original test, based 

on concerns of possible adverse impacts, which ultimately reduced focus on 

specific air traffic control aptitudes. 

FAA also groups AT-SAT results by placing all passing scores into two broad 

“score bands” making it difficult to match a controller’s aptitudes with the 

appropriate facility level. Candidates who score from 70 to 84.9 are ranked as 

“Qualified,” while those who score from 85 to 100 are ranked as “Well Qualified.” 

Therefore, a candidate who scored an 85 percent on AT-SAT could unknowingly 

be assigned to a Level 12 facility over a candidate that scored 100 percent. 

Without a more effective means of measuring the potential for success at high 

level facilities, FAA runs the risk of being unable to retain a sufficient number of 

qualified controllers at some of the most critical facilities within the National 

Airspace System. Early indicators show this is an issue that needs to be closely 

monitored as more new controllers end training. For example, although most new 

controllers are still in various stages of training (currently over 3,200 according to 

FAA), of the 233 new controllers with no prior air traffic control experience who 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

68

127

195

123 116

213

269

399

New Hires

Facility ATC Level
5

ended training during FY 2008, 109 did not certify at their assigned location. The 

Civil Aeronautical Medical Institute (CAMI) plans to conduct a statistical 

assessment of AT-SAT to determine if the test scores could be used for 

ascertaining the level of facility in which candidates would likely succeed. 

However, CAMI scientists we spoke with candidly expressed doubt about the 

test’s ability to effectively screen controller candidates.

FAA Places New Controllers at Facilities Based Primarily on 

Candidates’ Preferences

FAA currently assigns new controller candidates to facilities by considering 

candidates’ location preference, a summary of information from their employment 

application, and a list of job openings. As shown in figure 2, controller candidates 

are assigned to a facility before they undergo medical and security screening, 

receive a tentative employment offer from the Agency, or attend the FAA 

Academy for initial training. Candidates are not even given a face-to-face 

interview with FAA officials prior to receiving their facility assignment. 

Figure 2. FAA Current Screening, Placement, and 

Initial Training Process

Source: FAA and Office of Inspector General

The facility placement process is conducted by a Centralized Selection Panel, 

consisting of managers from selected air traffic facilities, that assigns candidates 

using a referral list. As shown in figure 3, (an actual referral list used in January 

2009), these panel members have only limited data on candidates’ AT-SAT results 
6

(column C). They primarily base facility assignments on applicants’ geographical 

choices by state (columns E and F) and applicants’ choices on their desired type of 

facility—either en route or terminal (columns G and H). 

Figure 3. Example of Referral Lists Used by 

Centralized Selection Panels

FAA Does Not Use Academy Training as a Performance Criteria in Its 

Placement Process

The FAA Academy provides an opportunity for many experienced controllers to 

evaluate candidates in a controlled environment. However, FAA does not use 

candidates’ performance during initial training in determining the level of facility 

in which the candidates are placed. FAA personnel at FAA Headquarters, the 

FAA Academy, and selected air traffic control facilities almost unanimously 

supported making facility assignments after Academy graduation. Though they 

had some reservations about how much useful knowledge could be gained from

the short time that candidates spend in initial training, they agreed that the 

repositioned placement process would be more performance-based. Figure 4 

shows that candidates preparing to attend the FAA Academy could be sent to a 

Pre-Employment Processing Center, at which time they could receive their 

training option assignments (En Route or one of the Terminal options), based on 

their employment application. 
7

Figure 4. Recommended Screening, Placement, and 

Initial Training Process

Source: Office of Inspector General

Actual facility assignments could be made after Academy graduation, based on the 

candidates’ Academy training performance and the data currently being used, such 

as prioritized vacancies and candidates’ preferences. By moving the placement 

decision after initial training, FAA could be in a better position to match 

potentially high performing candidates to appropriately complex facilities. 

Additionally, students would be motivated to maximize their personal 

performance, since their assignment location, as well as their pay, would depend 

on their own performance. 

FAA Initial Academy Training Does Not Provide the Fundamentals 

Necessary for New Candidates To Begin Facility Training

As currently structured, the FAA Academy does not provide new controller 

candidates with sufficient instruction in the fundamental air traffic control 

knowledge and skills necessary to become certified controllers. Air traffic 

managers we interviewed cited weak basic skills in all candidates when they arrive 

at their assigned location to begin their facility training. This is largely due to the 

training and testing procedures at the FAA Academy, which facilitate student 

learning for the purpose of passing a specific test, instead of long-term retention of 

basic air traffic control procedures.

The FAA Academy’s current classroom lecture and testing process makes it easy 

to learn new material in order to pass the next test, and then forget the information 

learned. FAA officials describe this as the “learn and dump” approach to 

Academy training. In a November 2007 study conducted by the Controller 
8

Training and Development Group, FAA found that Academy training methods 

need to focus more on learning and retaining basic air traffic control concepts.2

...there needs to be more emphasis placed on fundamentals such as 

phraseology, procedures, issuing clearances, aircraft characteristics, 

separation, point outs, and handoffs. An assessment of training conducted 

by ATO-S [safety] recommended increased emphasis on critical job 

functions and to minimize the ‘learn and dump’ syndrome in which 

students learn something just long enough to pass the test.

 

According to the Group report: 

The report further recommended air traffic simulator problems that more 

effectively challenge the knowledge and skills students obtain in the En Route

Academy training. All of these changes should encourage the study and 

application of air traffic control fundamentals. These concerns were reinforced 

during interviews we conducted with air traffic facility managers. Facility 

managers stated that they assume Academy graduates have no basic air traffic 

control knowledge and begin initial training again when Academy graduates arrive 

at their assigned facility. Other managers develop written assessments to 

determine the level of basic knowledge of each Academy graduate and then tailor 

a training program for each one. 

Final Performance Verification Tests Do Not Adequately Assess Whether 

Candidates Have the Core Skills Needed To Succeed as Air Traffic 

Controllers

All students attending the FAA Academy are required to pass Performance 

Verification (PV) before reporting to their assigned facility. The PV consists of 

two parts: a knowledge test and a performance skills assessment. The knowledge 

test is given halfway through the Academy training program, and every candidate 

that has taken this test has passed. The performance skills assessment is a set of 

simulated air traffic scenario problems given at the end of the Academy program. 

These problems are observed and evaluated by front-line managers who are 

current air traffic controllers. Almost 95 percent of all candidates pass this 

assessment and then begin their facility training. However, FAA Academy, 

CAMI, and facility personnel had several criticisms of this part of the current PV

process. For example:

• The PV assessment is limited to either pass or fail. Therefore, facility 

managers know little useful information about the specific training needs of 

their incoming candidate controllers. Specifically, managers in the field cited 

 2 En Route Initial Qualification (Stage 1) Training Redesign Front End Analysis: Requirements, Deficiencies, and 

Opportunities for Improvement, November 2007.
9

weaknesses in air traffic controller fundamentals such as phraseology and 

aircraft characteristics. Pass or fail scores also mean FAA is missing a critical 

metric to analyze the relationship between training performance and later 

potential job performance.

• There is no objective standard by which the PV is graded. Scores are based 

strictly on the subjective assessment of the designated examiners, which we 

found can vary extensively. For example, we found instances where 

candidates passed the PV with two loss of separation errors during the PV 

while other candidates failed the PV with no loss of separation errors.

The PV could be redesigned as a comprehensive final assessment that ensures 

candidates have the ability to succeed in facility training. Specifically, it could be 

designed to assess the specific skills needed to begin facility training and be 

uniformly applied. This could reduce the attrition rate during facility training by 

screening out underperforming candidates before they reach their air traffic 

facility. The November 2007 study conducted by the Controller Training and 

Development Group also suggested significant changes to the PV similar to those 

we have identified.

FAA Has Not Implemented Changes Recommended by the Controller 

Training and Development Group

Despite the critical nature of air traffic controller training at a time when FAA is 

increasing its hiring of inexperienced new candidates, FAA is only now planning 

to implement the changes recommended by the 2007 Controller Training and 

Development Group. According to the Group, the En Route training redesign will 

be implemented in 2010. However, by then it will have taken more than 2 years to 

implement the results of a study that uncovered significant deficiencies. FAA 

needs to expedite this implementation. 

FAA is also planning to redesign the FAA Academy training program for the 

Terminal courses. To date, there have been workgroup discussions about 

redesigning the structure and classes of the program. Some suggestions include 

following a plan similar to the En Route training redesign breaking training into 

groups of candidates going to facilities of similar complexity, and developing new 

classes. However, the redesign of the Terminal program is moving significantly 

slower than the En Route program. FAA needs to respond more proactively to its 

own analysis and implement the recommendations from the November 2007 study 

in its redesign of both the En Route and Terminal training programs.
10

CONCLUSION

Air traffic controllers play a critical role in maintaining the safety and efficiency 

of the National Airspace System. FAA continues to face a tremendous challenge 

in carrying out its goals to hire and train 15,000 new controllers over the next 

decade to replace those who were hired after the 1981 strike and are now retiring. 

To effectively achieve this goal, FAA needs to redesign its screening, placement, 

and initial training processes to ensure that candidates have the core skill set 

needed for advanced training, thereby mitigating potential safety risks. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that FAA:

1. Evaluate the current AT-SAT test and redesign it so that it results in air traffic 

controllers being placed at locations according to their skill sets.

2. Assign controller candidates to a facility based on their Academy performance 

in conjunction with data currently available. 

3. Implement the recommendations of the November 2007 Controller Training 

and Development Group for both En Route and Terminal Academy training. 

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSE 

We provided our draft report to FAA for comment on January 26, 2010, and 

received FAA’s formal response on March 18, 2010. In its response, FAA 

partially concurred with our recommendations and disagreed with some of our 

report’s conclusions, pointing to various successes the Agency has had in hiring

and training the next generation of air traffic controllers. We do not question 

FAA’s past accomplishments or its dedication to safety. We have been following 

and reporting on FAA’s progress in this important area since 2003 and have 

recognized FAA’s achievements, particularly with its successful efforts to 

centralize and expedite its hiring process for new controllers. However, we have 

also made numerous recommendations for improving its controller training 

processes, which FAA has generally agreed with and successfully implemented. 

For example, in 2004, we recommended that FAA develop and implement a 

national training database, which the Agency currently uses to oversee its large 

and diverse facility training efforts.3

 3 OIG Report Number AV-2004-060, “Opportunities To Improve FAA's Process for Placing and Training New 

Controllers in Light of Pending Retirements,” June 2, 2004. OIG reports are available on our website: 

www.oig.dot.gov.
11

To build upon these successes, however, it is important to continually assess and 

improve the placement process—especially since most new controllers now being 

hired have no previous air traffic control experience, a significant change from 

several years ago. Yet, FAA’s response to our report indicates that the Agency 

believes the process it has used for some time is sufficient. Given the rapidly 

changing demographics of the controller workforce, we question why FAA would 

not be more receptive to other opportunities to improve this critical process. 

FAA’s response also suggests that our recommendations are based on our own 

supposition, with which we take exception. Our conclusions and 

recommendations are based on extensive analyses of FAA’s own data and 

numerous interviews with FAA and contract personnel responsible for managing 

controller training on a daily basis at the FAA Academy and air traffic facilities. 

Those personnel include facility, training, and operations managers; first-line 

supervisors; FAA and contract instructors; union representatives; CAMI scientists;

Terminal Facility Training Redesign task force participants; and bargaining unit 

controllers. Nearly all of these personnel agreed that FAA needs to improve its 

methods for placing new controllers. In addition, facility managers and 

supervisors repeatedly told us that new controllers are arriving at their facilities 

unprepared to begin facility training. FAA’s response indicates that there is a 

substantial difference of opinion between FAA Headquarters management and 

field personnel about the effectiveness of the current controller placement process. 

Despite its partial concurrence, FAA generally agreed with the corrective actions 

we recommended. For recommendation 1, FAA stated that it plans to complete its 

ongoing evaluation of the fairness, reliability, and utility of the AT-SAT battery 

[series of tests] as a potential tool to assist in guiding placement decisions by 

December 31, 2012. In its response to a similar recommendation we made in our 

2004 report, FAA stated at that time:

A significant part of AT-SAT administration is the ongoing validation of the 

instrument. . . . The FAA is hopeful that the data gathered will help us 

understand how a newly hired controller’s AT-SAT score relates to their 

training and performance as an on-the-job developmental controller. 

Depending on the results, this information may allow us to improve our 

placement processes to better match high aptitude with high-level facilities. 

We are hopeful that by the end of 2012 and 8 years of study, FAA will be able to 

determine conclusively if it can effectively use AT-SAT as a tool in guiding its 

placement decisions. We consider the recommendation addressed but open 

pending the completion of FAA’s study. 

For recommendation 2, FAA stated that it has a long and successful track record 

for effectively selecting, training, and assigning new controllers to positions in 
12

facilities. However, as we cited in our report, early indicators and statements from 

facility managers show this area warrants additional management attention and 

course redesign and redirection. Although most new air traffic controllers are still 

in various stages of training, of the 233 new controllers with no prior air traffic 

control experience who ended training during FY 2008, 109 did not certify at their 

assigned location. Additionally, since the beginning of FY 2008, FAA reassigned 

more than 300 new controllers to lower level facilities, and an additional 227 new 

controllers requested reassignment. While FAA’s response emphasized the 

success of its current placement process and disagreed with “the mechanism of the 

recommendation,” FAA did agree to study restructuring it based on individual

controllers’ Academy performance. FAA stated that it will complete the study by 

December 2012. We consider the recommendation addressed but open pending 

the receipt of a written study evaluating whether Academy performance can be 

used in the placement of new controllers. 

For recommendation 3, FAA partially concurred, stating that while the 2007 En 

Route “front-end” analysis was used in redesigning the En Route initial training 

course, it did not cover Terminal training. FAA further stated that it developed 

and completed a separate analysis for the Terminal environment, which it will use 

in redesigning the Terminal initial training course. The intent of our 

recommendation was to take lessons learned from the En Route analysis and apply 

them to Terminal training so that it does not take another 4 years from study 

completion to training course redesign. FAA stated that it will adopt the lessons 

learned in the En Route initial training course redesign. Therefore, we consider 

this recommendation addressed but open pending completion. 

In summary, we will continue to closely monitor FAA’s actions to address our

recommendations, particularly in light of FAA’s dismissive tone regarding their

merit. 

ACTIONS REQUIRED

FAA’s planned actions and target dates are responsive to our recommendations. 

We consider these recommendations addressed pending completion of the planned 

actions. We appreciate the cooperation of FAA representatives during this audit. 

If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 366-

0500 or Dan Raville, Program Director, at (202) 366-1405.

#

cc: FAA Deputy Administrator 

FAA Chief of Staff 

Martin Gertel, M-100 

Anthony Williams, ABU-100
13

Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology

EXHIBIT A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

We conducted this performance audit December 2008 to October 2009 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 

we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. The following scope and methodology 

were used in conducting this review at FAA Headquarters, the FAA Academy, and 

five Air Traffic facilities.

To evaluate the current performance of FAA’s screening, placing and initial training 

process for newly hired controllers, we collected information from FAA’s National 

Training Database. We requested data on all newly hired controllers from fiscal year 

(FY) 2008 who either attrited from facility training or successfully completed on-thejob training. We factored out all controllers whose training was still in progress 

because the final outcome of their on-the-job training was unknown.

We obtained a list from the Civil Aeronautical Medical Institute (CAMI) of all 

controller candidates who attended the FAA Academy and were screened with the Air 

Traffic Selection and Training test (AT-SAT). We compared these two data sets and 

developed a list of all controllers who had been screened with the AT-SAT and had 

completed or attrited from training during FY 2008. This data set was analyzed by 

the Senior Statistician for the Office of Inspector General to determine the 

effectiveness of FAA’s screening, placing, and initial Academy training programs.

Finally, to determine common causes and factors that contributed to the training 

attrition rate, we conducted numerous interviews with FAA and contract personnel 

responsible for managing controller training on a daily basis at the FAA Academy and 

air traffic facilities. Those personnel include facility, training, and operations 

managers; first-line supervisors; FAA and contract instructors; union representatives; 

CAMI scientists; Terminal Facility Training Redesign task force participants; and 

bargaining unit controllers.
14

Exhibit B. Organizations Visited or Contacted

EXHIBIT B. ORGANIZATIONS VISITED OR CONTACTED

FAA Headquarters, Washington, District of Columbia

National Air Traffic Controllers Association Headquarters, Washington, District of 

Columbia

FAA Training Academy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Aviation Careers Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Civil Aeronautical Medical Institute, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Eastern Regional Service Center, Atlanta, Georgia

Potomac Terminal Radar Approach Control

Atlanta En Route Center

Atlanta Terminal Radar Approach Control

Atlanta Hartsfield –Jackson International Airport
15

Exhibit C. Major Contributors to This Report

EXHIBIT C. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT

Name Title 

Daniel Raville Program Director 

Robert Romich Project Manager 

Erik Phillips Senior Analyst 

Petra Swartzlander Statistician

Benjamin Huddle Analyst

My Phuong Le Analyst

Mi Hwa Button Analyst

Andrea Nossaman Writer/Editor
16

Appendix. Agency Comments

APPENDIX. AGENCY COMMENTS

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Memorandum

Date: March 18, 2010

To: Lou Dixon, Assistant Inspector General for Aviation and Special Program 

Audits

From: Ramesh K. Punwani, Assistant Administrator for Financial Services/CFO

Prepared by: Anthony Williams, x79000

Subject: OIG Draft Report: Screening, Placement, and Initial Training of Newly Hired

Air Traffic Controllers

Over the past few years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has demonstrated a proven

capability to select the best possible candidates to become air traffic controllers, train them to 

exacting standards, and ensure only the most qualified certify to control the more than 7,000 

aircraft aloft at any moment over the continental United States controlled airspace. Controller 

candidates are trained to the most rigorous standards in the world, including multiple levels of 

classroom, simulator, and on the job training before they can reach certified professional

controller status. This multi-step process requires placing candidates coming out of the

Academy in facilities near where they are willing to live and work. At those facilities, the 

candidates continue their learning and development in a closely supervised, structured 

environment. It is an erroneous conclusion to assert that FAA’s process for selecting and

placing new controllers is ineffective, based only on the limited evaluation of test processes and

locations presented in the OIG draft report. It is also not clear that all of the report’s

recommendations fully comport with contemporary human capital management practices.

Furthermore, the OIG draft report provides no analytical basis to support any conclusion that its

recommendations would actually improve the process. While the FAA continues to explore

scientifically based potential improvements and refinements to its candidate selection and

training processes to make them more efficient, U.S. air traffic controllers are among the best in

the world and FAA’s training is second to none.

New Controllers Bid Locations Where They are Willing to Live and Work

With the considerable and well publicized analyses of efforts to improve human capital

management at FAA, the OIG draft report’s implication that new controllers should be assigned

a location based on the results of a test score is surprising. FAA is not a military organization

that shifts and moves staff at will, rather it is managing a highly skilled, unionized civilian

workforce, whose viewpoints must be factored into decision making. However, it is not simply a
17

Appendix. Agency Comments

matter, as implied in the draft report, of new controller choice. Controllers are screened and

hired with the intent of filling vacancies at specific locations, but must successfully pass 

interviews before being assigned to any specific facility. Once assigned to a facility, they first

attend initial training at the FAA Academy and then continue their extensive development

through a period of closely monitored academics, simulations, and on the job training. Initial

academy training is only 10 percent of the total training given to air traffic control students and

successful completion of academy training is no guarantee of success in the field. While the

draft report expresses concern about the facility level new controllers may be assigned to, any

new controller is given extensive training and then must demonstrate the capability to function

effectively at a given facility to continue there as an air traffic controller. While FAA recognizes

that there may be potential means to further improve the efficiency of this process, and is

working to achieve those efficiencies, its dedication to safety is unwavering. FAA is continuing

research into its testing and development process to further improve the efficiency of the

processes used to screen candidates to increase the likelihood of new controller success at the

facilities where they are assigned.

Academy Training Provides Basic Skills for Development in the Field

FAA’s air traffic control training academy is the world’s preeminent facility of its type, capable

of providing basic air traffic control training to individuals with the appropriate aptitude from the

general public. During the last round of hiring, initiated in July 2009, FAA received 9,072

applications for a limited number of openings. Of these, 6,378 candidates passed through initial

screening processes and FAA ultimately referred 5,516 for testing. A total of 3,148 scored 85 or

above and were considered “well qualified.” The FAA must consider all 3,148 prior to selecting

individuals who scored below 85. Ultimately, the FAA will select and hire about 500 of the very

best, most qualified candidates from this list, thus screening out 95 percent of the original

applicants.

Currently there are about 3,640 new hire controllers moving through the training system. To

address the well anticipated retirement wave, this number is considerably greater than it was in

the 1990s, but still lower than historic norms in the post-strike era of the 1980s. The current

large number of developmentals has required some adjustments throughout the system. The

Academy continues to provide the basic skills training to new controllers, including a

fundamental understanding of terminology, processes, and equipment. While this basic training

is somewhat critically referred to in the OIG draft report as “short term memorization,” it is

necessary to establish a basic understanding of the terminology, process, and equipment as a

foundation for the more advanced and specific skills needed as an air traffic controller taught at

the facility. With the large numbers of new controllers passing through the system, adjustments

have been needed downstream from the Academy as well and facilities, including some of the

busier terminal radar approach controls (TRACONs), have had to place increased emphasis on

new controller development. FAA recognizes that this has placed increased responsibilities upon

some facility managers who are unaccustomed to the skill level of new controllers they may be

receiving. FAA has already made progress in this area. For example, it is implementing

initiatives to help high level Terminal facilities train new hire students assigned to them. These

initiatives include adding three weeks of additional simulation scenarios at the FAA Academy

for selected students who are assigned to large TRACONs. This Terminal workshop is under

development and will be implemented in May 2010. The FAA is currently studying the potential

of implementing an alternative hiring process that would place new controllers in lower level

facilities and select more experienced controllers into larger, more complex facilities. FAA will
18

Appendix. Agency Comments

continue monitoring high level facilities such as TRACONS to determine whether further

actions could assist in this area.

FAA Continues to Refine and Improve Controller Test and Evaluation Process

FAA relies upon a carefully designed testing process to serve as one initial screen for new

controller candidates. The existing Air Traffic Selection and Training Test (AT-SAT) required

years of development to ensure that it was accurate, fair, and appropriate. Its predecessors were

challenged extensively in court, and AT-SAT was carefully designed to withstand any similar

challenge. The test was intended to provide a scientifically based screen to better identify

potentially successful air traffic controllers, to increase the efficiency of training and reduce the

training failure rate and its associated costs. It has achieved these objectives. Nonetheless, FAA

recognized early on the potential for further improvements to the testing process. It has been

carefully laying the scientific foundation that is necessary to support modifications to the 

ATSAT. This is a painstaking, detailed, and time consuming process to ensure that changes to the

test are well supported, appropriate, and reliable. FAA plans to complete its evaluation of

revised AT-SAT testing within about two years, and subsequently begin implementation.

OIG Recommendations and FAA Responses

OIG Recommendation 1: Evaluate the current AT-SAT test and redesign it so that it results in

air traffic controllers being placed at locations according to their skill sets.

FAA Response: Partially Concur. While the FAA agrees that the AT-SAT should continue to

be an effective element of the air traffic controller hiring selection process, there is not sufficient

scientifically documented evidence that the test, or a modified version thereof, will be a useful

tool to assist in matching new controllers with their service locations. The AT-SAT was

designed and demonstrated only to be a useful indicator of whether a candidate possesses the

requisite skills and abilities to become an air traffic controller. In its present incarnation, it was

neither designed nor intended to offer a mechanism to match trainee performance with the

specific needs of an individual facility.

The draft OIG report ignores the success of the FAA’s recent air traffic controller hiring and

training effort. In the last five years, the FAA has hired over 7,000 new air traffic controllers and

over 3,000 have completed their training to certified professional controller so far. In FY 2009

alone, there was a 48 percent increase, compared to FY 2008, in the number of controller

candidates who completed their certifications. The FAA’s formidable accomplishment in this

area was recognized in February 2009, when the DOT Inspector General testified to Congress

that the FAA has “done what I can only say is a remarkable job in hiring replacements for

controllers who have decided to leave.”

Recognizing the potential exists to further refine and improve the process for matching new

controllers to their assignments, the FAA has already begun exploring using AT-SAT, or a

variation of it, to assist it in making placement decisions. The research necessary to support this

type of testing has been underway and was described to the OIG during the course of its review.

Researchers at the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) are currently conducting two

studies of AT-SAT in this regard. The first study is examining the reliability, fairness, validity,

and usefulness of AT-SAT over the long term (i.e. whether it is a reasonable predictor of

controller success). This includes evaluating new, alternative, and redesigned tests for the
19

Appendix. Agency Comments

battery. The second study is to gather and evaluate evidence on whether AT-SAT can be used as

a tool to assist in guiding placement decisions for new controllers. The intent is to both

continually improve the current examination and to make any changes needed to meet emerging

requirements for the air traffic controller occupation. All changes to the examination or how it is

used will be made only after there is sufficient scientific evidence to support those changes and

uses.

As described earlier, this type of development must be scrupulously performed and documented

in a manner that will provide sufficient basis to support a decision to move in this direction. The

FAA plans to complete its evaluation of the fairness, reliability, and utility of the AT-SAT

battery as a potential tool to assist in guiding placement decisions by December 31, 2012.

OIG Recommendation 2: Assign controller candidates to a facility based on their academy

performance in conjunction with data currently available.

FAA Response: Partially Concur. FAA has a long and successful track record for effectively

selecting, training, and assigning new controllers to positions in facilities. As indicated earlier,

within the context of contemporary human capital practices, it is not possible for FAA to have a

single focus for assigning new controllers to a facility. As described in the response to

recommendation one, no mechanism is presently available that would provide an explicitly

quantitative, data-driven method for matching controllers and facilities. Even if there was, there

are numerous other factors that must be considered, such as the new controller's preference and

the results of interviews.

The FAA is not convinced that using Academy performance or AT-SAT data for placement

would be any more effective as a predictor of success than the current system of placement.

Initial training at the academy is intended to help the student begin field training, and not

necessarily to become certified controllers. As such, initial academy training is only 10 percent

of the total training given to air traffic control students and successful completion of academy

training is no guarantee of success in any facility. More than 90 percent of new controller

training is accomplished at air traffic control facilities due to significant variations in airspace,

air traffic, and air traffic control procedures and agreements, particularly in the terminal

environment. Of the 881 controllers that were assigned to level 10-12 facilities in FY 2008, 585

were assigned to En Route Centers. These facilities have considerable experience in training new

hires from all hiring sources and should have no trouble training the vast majority of these

developmentals to certified professional controller.

While FAA does not agree with the mechanism of the recommendation, it does agree, that it

would be useful to explore whether there are additional means that could enhance FAA’s already

successful process for placing new controllers at facilities. This includes not only exploring the

potential for testing to be factored into the process, but also redesign of the initial academy

training courses, which in turn will provide a more comprehensive and objective student

assessment strategy that may be used for possible evaluation and placement purposes. The FAA

intends to accomplish this by December 31, 2012.

OIG Recommendation 3: Implement the recommendations of the November 2007 Controller

Training and Development Group for both En Route and Terminal Academy Training.

FAA Response: Partially Concur. The FAA agrees that the November 2007 report had value
20

Appendix. Agency Comments

to redesign the En Route initial training course; however, we do not agree that the same front-end

analysis covers Terminal training. The 2007 front-end analysis was developed for the En

Route environment only and consequently, the recommendations made are germane only to En

Route. As a result of FAA’s efforts in response to the 2007 report, the new En Route course will

go into service during the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 to coincide with the transition of the

majority of En Route centers to the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) platform (the

course delivers instruction on ERAM and hence the delay in implementing the course). The

specifics of the En Route course’s student assessment strategy are currently undergoing

refinement.

The FAA agrees that an objective student assessment strategy in initial controller training at the

Academy is essential to further improve the process. Since the 2007 report pertains to En Route

only, the FAA subsequently developed and completed a front-end analysis for the Terminal

environment akin to the referenced 2007 analysis. The Terminal initial training courses are

currently undergoing their own evaluation and redesign, which will close any identified gaps in

the student knowledge and skills expected of an Academy graduate. The FAA will also adopt

lessons learned in the En Route initial course redesign with its new student assessment strategy.

The FAA intends to complete and implement the Terminal course redesign by the end of

calendar year 2012.