U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–137 PDF 2005

THE STATUS OF THE AIR TRAFFIC

CONTROLLER WORKFORCE

(108–73)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 15, 2004

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

JACK QUINN, New York

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana

BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MAX BURNS, Georgia

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

VACANCY

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

MIKE THOMPSON, California

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JACK QUINN, New York

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana, Vice Chairman

BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

VACANCY

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BOB FILNER, California

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Blakey, Hon. Marion, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration ............ 8

Ebbs, George H., Jr., President, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University ........... 31

Hecker, JayEtta S., Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, U.S. General

Accounting Office ................................................................................................. 8

Marlin, Ruth E., Executive Vice President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association ..................................................................................................... 31

Stefani, Alexis, Deputy Assistant Inspector General, U.S. Department of

Transportation ...................................................................................................... 8

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 73

Lipinski, Hon. William O., of Illinois ..................................................................... 77

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Blakey, Hon. Marion ............................................................................................... 42

Ebbs, George H., Jr. ................................................................................................ 50

Hecker, JayEtta S .................................................................................................... 53

Marlin, Ruth E. ........................................................................................................ 80

Stefani, Alexis .......................................................................................................... 96

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

Hecker, JayEtta S., Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, U.S. General

Accounting Office, responses to questions from Rep, Johnson of Texas .......... 71

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

Minneapolis Community and Technical College Air Traffic Control Training

Program, statement ............................................................................................. 107

Perks, Christopher T., Senior Airman, Air traffic Control Specialist, North

Carolina Air national Guard, letter, June 26, 2004 .......................................... 114

Rivera, Carlos R., letter, June 15, 2004 ................................................................. 115

(1)

THE STATUS OF THE AIR TRAFFIC

CONTROLLER WORKFORCE

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

AVIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. MICA. I would like to call the Aviation Subcommittee to

order.

Good morning and welcome to this morning’s hearing relating to

the status of our Nation’s air traffic control workforce. We will go

ahead and get started. I expect the Ranking Member to join us.

The order of business for today’s hearing will be opening statements first by members and I will recognize those who have comments to begin the hearing. The second part of the hearing after

that will deal with two panels of witnesses. We have some from the

Administration and some from the private sector, an association

and a university.

We are expecting votes shortly and we want to go ahead and get

started. I will start with this opening comment.

The world’s safest and most reliable air traffic control system is

in great danger. However, that looming threat is not terrorists or

rogue actions but rather, the mass retirement of its aging workforce. President Reagan, who we mourned last week, fired some

12,000 striking air traffic controllers 23 years ago and now their

replacements are retiring in great numbers. Not since the 1981

PATCO strike has the Federal Aviation Administration been faced

with such a formidable task and that task today is in hiring large

numbers of air traffic controllers.

By the FAA’s own estimates, nearly half of its 15,000 air traffic

controllers, some 7,100, could retire over the next nine years. By

comparison, over the past eight years, we lost only 2,100 air traffic

controllers. The Federal Aviation Administration clearly has a significant challenge in addressing this so-called bubble of retirements

that are expected to increase sharply beginning just a few years

from now.

In June 2002, the General Accounting Office and as recently as

a few weeks ago, the Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, conducted reviews and audits regarding the FAA’s

air traffic control workforce. Both of these agencies have made recommendations to improve upon the FAA’s process for better determining the skill sets and numbers of controllers retiring and the
2

facilities that are impacted. We look forward to hearing these two

agencies’ observations and recommendations.

Let me also acknowledge and thank Administrator Marion

Blakey for being with us today. I know from previous conversations

with the Administrator that she is diligently working to address

this issue. We also will hear from Ruth Marlin with the National

Air Traffic Controllers Association; Dr. George Ebbs, President,

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University from Daytona Beach, Florida.

Because it takes years to train and gain the experience and skills

needed to be a proficient air traffic controller, we must act now to

keep our system from being crippled in the near future. We must

also establish a seamless hiring and training process for our air

traffic controllers and use the most efficient and cost effective

methods available to achieve that goal. Under today’s ever tightening budget constraints, we must explore ways of doing things that

not only bring efficiencies and cost savings to this process, but also

ensures that safety is never compromised.

This matter is of serious interest not only to the entire subcommittee but certainly has the attention and support of the full

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman, Mr.

Young. It is also important to the Professional Air Waves Systems

Specialists, the National Association of Air Traffic Control Specialists, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association and members

of various groups that represent some of our air traffic controllers

and all of us here today and the traveling public as well.

With those opening statements, I am pleased to recognize the

Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing

to track the progress of the FAA in implementing the mandate of

Congress in Vision 100 that they develop a plan to fill the projected

vacancies that will become a hemorrhage of air traffic controllers

in 2007. This is a legacy of the firing of the PATCO controllers by

Ronald Reagan. What we did was scramble around for some time

and finally managed to train a new group of controllers but they

are all going to be reaching retirement age in 2005 since so many

were hired at once because of the mass firing.

I am hoping to hear today from the Administrator about concrete

plans and proposals. There is going to have to be a strong push by

the Administration because our colleagues here, for instance, have

arbitrarily capped the number of screening personnel available to

TSA causing catastrophic lines at certain airports with the full support of the Administration. I fear they are headed down the same

path with air traffic controllers and I am not quite certain what

they think they are going to do three or five years from now. There was a $14 million request last year which did recognize at

least some effort on the part of the Administration but the Appropriations Committee zeroed out that request and now this year

there is no additional request by the Administration. So I am not

certain how it is we are going to resolve the issue of a shortfall of

up to half of our workforce five years from today or even three to

four years from today when it takes three to five years to train

them, if we aren’t hiring replacements now and training them especially since a good deal of it is on the job training.
3

I approach this hearing with a good deal of interest and hope the

mystery of how this is all going to be resolved will be resolved and

laid out for us today by the Administrator.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Additional opening statements? Mr. Hayes?

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate everyone being here today.

I have a couple thoughts. I am a particular advocate for, fan of

and supporter of our air traffic control system and appreciate what

the folks do. I want to make sure we have an environment that will

attract the best and brightest and encourage the FAA and this

committee and the Congress to hire the necessary folks so that we

don’t have the shortfall.

I do have a slightly different view from my friend, Mr. DeFazio,

on what happened. As I recall, there as an illegal strike that resulted in a mass firing, the point being not which of us is right or

wrong but we want to be sure that we avoid the kind of situation,

and I don’t have that much memory, that resulted in both of those

actions. Safety, safety, safety. These controllers do a great job. I

talked to them as recently as yesterday afternoon.

Ms. Blakey, I have found you to be extremely attentive, very

helpful and most gracious in your willingness to listen to us and

others, so I am very optimistic that the professionals we have in

the system will help us find ways to attract the folks we need.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing and

look forward to working through this and coming out with safety

on the other end of the tunnel.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman.

Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and our

ranking leadership. Your leadership in this important matter is to

be commended and I welcome our witnesses this morning.

Our Nation’s aviation system is vital to our economy and way of

life and we cannot afford to short change either one. The future

success of our Nation’s aviation industry is greatly dependent upon

our investment today. Adequate investment in equipment modernization in addition to recruitment and retention of capable aviation personnel and critical components in ensuring our air safety

and efficiency for many years to come.

Success in the aviation equation will only be as good as the sum

of the parts. Our Nation’s 15,000 air traffic control specialists serve

as a vital component to this equation. However, based on estimates

from the FAA as well as DOT Inspector General, over half of the

controller workforce could retire over the next nine years. FAA further estimates that 25.5 percent of controllers eligible to retire will

leave in the first year of eligibility resulting in increased workload

for the remaining personnel.

I have heard firsthand from air traffic controllers that service the

multiple airports within my congressional district and one of their

primary concerns next to keeping air traffic control out of the

hands of privatization centers on the possible vacuum created by

the retirement crunch. Further, as evidenced by the 2002 GAO report, FAA regional officials who are responsible for ensuring that

FAA’s air traffic facilities are adequately staffed are equally con-
4

cerned about FAA’s replacement hiring policies. According to the

report, eight of nine regional officials would like FAA to allow them

to hire new controller staff so that experienced, fully qualified controllers will be ready when current controllers retire.

The report also cites that several regions stated they had made

formal or informal requests to FAA headquarters to obtain additional controllers who could be hired and trained in advance of future requirements. In May 2001, officials from the Southwest region of FAA, the region which encompasses my congressional district, formally requested 48 additional staff members to ensure that

quality customer service is maintained, budgetary concerns are addressed and controller attrition is dealt with.

Unfortunately, in April 2002, FAA denied the region’s request

citing operational constraints. Passenger travel on commercial airlines is expected to reach 1 billion by 2014 and a lack of experienced controllers is going to have many negative consequences. Reactionary policies regarding this matter are not an option. We must

begin to address this issue head on. America’s flying public expects

and deserves nothing less.

Again, I welcome our witnesses and look forward to hearing from

them on this very important subject matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Porter.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your

calling the hearing today, and my fellow colleagues who have also

urged this hearing on a very important and urgent situation facing

our air traffic control workforce.

Ms. Blakey, I also would commend you for being willing to find

solutions to problems and appreciate your help this year and look

forward to working with you on this problem that we are addressing today.

There is a lot of dedicated professional controllers at McCarran

Tower in Las Vegas. The TRACON and those folks in the tower are

the local experts and we depend upon them in the community to

provide that safe traveling experience through McCarran with over

30 million visitors a year in the Las Vegas area.

I personally had the opportunity to tour the tower and TRACON

folks and must commend them for the hard work they perform and

also their expertise. I would urge my colleagues to also visit their

local towers if at all possible.

As mentioned earlier this morning, America is facing a crisis in

the supply of new controllers with the retirement of generations of

controllers hired after the strike of 1981. The FAA needs to take

action now to begin hiring the trainees to become professional controllers because it takes up to three years to train as you know better than I. They also need to fix the problem as soon as possible

so that this does not become apparent nationwide.

I question the methodology that is being used in estimating that

only 25 percent of controllers will leave in the first year of their

eligibility for retirement. I think that is something we have to look

closely at. In my conversations with the controllers, they are unanimous in their desire to retire as soon as possible, if at all possible.

This is not because of a lack of concern for our aviation system, or
5

a dislike for their careers. Rather, it is a response to the already

inadequate staffing that has left them overworked in many cases

and to a flawed management system that has strained relations between the controllers and executives at the FAA.

I urge the Administrator to take concrete steps now to adjust

planning based on the maximum possible retirement from the ATC

force and to create real incentives for controllers to continue to

work if they choose and to change the culture at FAA in the new

air traffic control PBO to make our air traffic control system a real

partnership between the Government and our air traffic controllers

to benefit all aviation customers.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I very much appreciate this hearing. I think it is an important

act of responsibility for you to call this hearing now to focus on this

important issue. I don’t like to throw around the word crisis. This

is the age in which that word is used to describe virtually every

situation in Government, but when the GAO and the Department

of Transportation have used crises language, I do think it is time

to pay attention. There are parts of the country where controllers

are already on a six day work week. The crisis is not supposed to

be even here yet.

I will tell you a figure that caught my eye that in about six

years, three-quarters of the controllers at the ten busiest airports

can retire. That caught my attention because these include the airports in this region, the airports used by every member of Congress. I agree with the gentleman who preceded me, that the notion

that only 25 percent would get out of Dodge when they could. This

is a high pressure job. These men and women have skills that are

transferable in many other ways and it is wishful thinking that

with the pressures on them and with the marketability of their

skills, they will hang around to earn what often is less money than

they can make elsewhere.

By the way, in my other committees, there have been joint hearings of the House and the Senate because this is the same problem

that we find for Federal employees in general. That is to say, we

are reaching a point where huge numbers will be able to retire and

we don’t have a strategy in place to replace them. You might be

able to do without some people in some other agencies, but I am

very concerned about a staffing crisis of controllers. Already there

has been over the last two decades, a 50 percent increase in workload but only a 12 percent increase in staffing. One of the things

I want to hear is whether technology somehow has made up for

that but that already, it seems to me, raises a question, leave alone

an ordinary staffing crisis on top of it.

I think it is time for a strategy to be spelled out in detail and

indeed given the need for overlap, the long time it takes for training, I think it is time to have a written plan and time frame for

ameliorating this crisis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Moran?
6

Mr. MORAN. Thank you.

I appreciate you and the Ranking Member of this subcommittee

holding this hearing. I think it is an important topic. I wanted to

put into the record and use this opportunity of my opening statement to put into the record an e-mail, a constituent letter, which

I think raises some awfully important points and hits home. My

constituent writes that she is writing to express concern over the

looming air traffic controller shortage. Her husband was hired by

the FAA in February 2003 and still does not have the funding to

start his training, although she says they spend billions in mandatory overtime. The six day work week many centers use will result

in accidents sooner or later. It is more a sure thing than another

terrorist attack, she points out. She indicates that Europe’s JAA

just released a finding that a plane crash in 2002 that killed 71

people was due to controller error. If overworked, understaffed people working in what is known as one of the most stressful jobs does

not seem like a recipe for disaster to you, she is asking what do

I think is a recipe for disaster.

I have a couple of points about this. Congress has spent a lot of

time looking at terrorist activities, certainly a high priority for us

in the aviation world. I think my constituent raises an awfully important point about airline safety as it relates to traffic control

pressure and stress. I also think an awfully interesting point is the

idea that this individual was hired in February 2003 and has yet

to receive training based upon lack of funding.

I look forward to hearing the testimony today and appreciate the

FAA’s interest in this topic. I look forward to working with them

and the Administration to see that these kinds of issues are addressed and we can assure the flying public of as safe as possible

airways.

Thank you very much.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman.

Ms. Berkley.

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very

important hearing.

The air traffic controller workforce is made up of some of the best

professional workers this country has. Every day these men and

women hold the safety of the flying public in their hands and judging from the air traffic controllers in southern Nevada, who I know

well, they perform their jobs with professionalism, devotion and

precision. Having spent a considerable amount of time in the air

traffic control towers at McCarran Airport in north Las Vegas, it

takes an extraordinary human being to be able to handle this very

important, necessary and specialized job.

Passenger traffic at McCarran Airport is up nearly 15 percent

this year. New airlines have added service and established airlines

continue to expand their existing networks to include more flights

to Las Vegas. In addition, within the next decade, the Clark County Department of Aviation is expected to begin construction of a

new airport in the Valley south of Las Vegas. To accommodate for

the growth in the Valley’s aviation system, adding more controllers

will become a necessity.

The number of controllers eligible for retirement in the next nine

years coupled with the length of time it takes to hire and train new
7

controllers will have a dramatic impact on our workforce. I am concerned that busy airports such as McCarran and new airports like

Ivanpaw will be greatly and adversely affected. We must work now

to avert a crisis in the future.

Mr. Chairman, this hearing is very timely and gives us a chance

to review the situation and work together for solutions. As you can

tell from the comments of my colleague from southern Nevada who

sits on the other side of the aisle, this is not a bipartisan issue. It

affects all of us and is very important to all of us. I want to thank

all of you for being here. I am most anxious to hear your testimony.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentlelady.

Additional opening statements? Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Mr. DeFazio for

calling this hearing on this important subject today.

We all, I think, have heard over the past few years concerns

about the problems we are about to face with the number of air

traffic controllers that will be retiring over the next nine years. I

think the FAA has estimated that about one-half of the controllers

will be eligible to retire and may retire over the next nine years.

I would associate myself with the remarks by my colleague, Ms.

Marlin. I think it is naive to believe that only 25 percent of the

workforce who will be eligible to retire will in fact leave. I think

the number will be much greater than that. I have recently met

with and over the last two years had several meetings with my

controllers in both southwestern Illinois and the St. Louis metropolitan area. They have expressed concerns to me that we are really headed down the path to major problems unless action is taken

now.

Let me, again, thank you for calling the hearing today on this

important topic and I look forward to hearing from the Administrator and our witnesses about the plan, how we are going to address this issue, how we are going to recruit, train and have qualified air traffic controllers in the future to meet the demand as our

controllers through attrition leave the agency.

Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman.

Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.

I appreciate you and the Ranking Member pursuing this because

this is an opportunity where we can hopefully intercede before we

have a real crisis. The reality is that when we look at the Administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget request, it does not provide any

funds to hire additional air traffic controllers. Yet, both the General Accounting Office and the DOT’s Inspector General are forecasting major staffing shortages. The FAA estimates that over 50

percent of the controller workforce will require over the next ten

years.

As someone who represents Newark International Airport, I can

tell you that the staffing shortage at Newark right now is of great

concern to me. We are supposed to have 40 and we have 31. Despite the funny math that I am told often it doesn’t add up to

where we need to be. Clearly, that is the immediate issue. In the

next three to four years, Newark’s controller staffing will likely

plummet unless the FAA begins to budget and hire a replacement
8

workforce. I would almost want to believe maybe the Administration is ignoring the issue in the hopes the air traffic control system

will be privatized and the problem would no longer be the Federal

Government’s but rather the entity that assumes private control.

Newark International is an airport that is amongst the busiest

in the Nation. It also has probably one of the tightest air spaces

in the Nation. It is like a straightjacket sandwiched in between

Kennedy and LaGuardia, so you have three major airports all sharing the air space, all having military issues as well in terms of air

space. It is incredibly tough. I know we are in the midst of trying

to have a redesign but in the interim, this is about safety, about

security as well and if we don’t have the staffing, God forbid that

we have to land aircraft as we did on that fateful day, September

11, that is not only at staffing levels but in terms of experience,

then we have a major problem.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, having spent hundreds of millions

of dollars to make sure this industry can survive September 11th,

that we are being pennywise and pound foolish in this regard.

I read the Administrator’s comments before the Senate Commerce Committee. I believe she recognizes the problem but the Administration does not reflect that by virtue of their budget request.

I hope she will shed some light on that and I would also like to

hear some light on Newark specifically.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman.

Additional opening statements? If not, we will proceed with our

first panel of witnesses. I would like to welcome the Honorable

Marion Blakey, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration;

JayEtta S. Hecker, Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, U.S.

General Accounting Office; and Alexis Stefani, Deputy Assistant

Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation. Welcome to

all of you.

We will hear from all witnesses and then go to questions. We will

welcome again, Administrator Blakey. Welcome and you are recognized

TESTIMONY OF HON. MARION BLAKEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; JAY ETTA S. HECKER, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TEAM, U.S. GENERAL

ACCOUNTING OFFICE; AND ALEXIS STEFANI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

Ms. BLAKEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you and Mr. DeFazio for the opportunity to address the subcommittee today. I also want to thank all of you for

the votes of confidence and our air traffic controllers and our managers for running literally the safest system of air traffic control in

the world.

The issue of controller staffing is an important one for us to address today and so I welcome the opportunity because it is critical

to the FAA’s ability to operate and maintain the safest and most

efficient transportation system in the world. Right now, we have

unparalleled safety levels, the lowest fatal accident record in history and we do intend to keep it that way.
9

Hiring and placing an appropriate number of controllers at our

facilities is a key element in maintaining the safety of the system.

I know you agree that we must pay particular attention to staffing

levels. Approximately 350 controllers will no longer be certified to

control traffic under age restrictions within the next three years.

We are addressing your concerns and are working to ensure that

we have an adequate number of controllers on position and in the

pipeline to make sure the system is operating smoothly.

From surveying the situation over the years, we know that controllers typically do not retire when they first become eligible. As

you can see from the chart in front of us, our experience to date

indicates that only one-quarter of our controllers typically retire in

their first year of eligibility. This has proven to be the case over

many years. At year seven when retirements again spike as you

will see on the chart, a vast majority of those retiring have reached

the age of 56. This type of information helps us project our future

retirements.

As you can see from the next chart, our projections of controller

retirements have been accurate. The blue bar represents our projections while the yellow bar represents actual retirements. As you

know, we compare our projections to our staffing standards to determine what our hiring in any one year should be.

With that as a backdrop, we were asked by the Congress to explore several alternatives to address controller hiring and staffing.

So I am here to report today that we are preparing regulations permitting controllers under certain conditions to remain in the workforce beyond their mandatory separation age of 56. However, we

believe that less than 20 percent of controllers will exercise this option and there may be increased operating costs that have to be

considered as well.

In addition, we have implemented a pilot program in the southern region to reduce the number of workers comp recipients

through disability retirements. We have already resolved 6 percent

of our outstanding cases and since last July, we have resolved 12

individual claims and extended 26 new job offers.

We are looking at increasing the number of hours that employees

work operational positions and perform non-operational duties. We

have an initiative underway in the Eastern Region and will provide

results to you in December on this.

Likewise, we are going to better manage sick leave usage. The

controller workforce used more than 100 percent of its sick leave

allowed last year, roughly the same totals as this year. We have

set a goal of 8 percent reduction in sick leave which should result

in significant productivity gains.

Lastly, we will be looking at the question of reducing training

time. We have established a work group to review the training

process with input from NATCA and we look forward to designing

a more efficient and more effective training system. In addition, I

would like to provide the highlights from a report on controller

staffing and training that we are preparing at the request of this

committee as a part of Vision 100. The report will be our action

plan and as you directed, it will be complete in December.

Our preliminary findings indicate that we must intensify our

focus on training, ensure appropriate distribution of developmental
10

controllers throughout our facilities, and make greater use of simulation in training. With safety being our paramount concern, the

fundamental principle for training is that it cannot add risk. We

know that training is unique to each controller option and facility,

as well as the individual experience that a student brings to the

job. Depending on the experience of the controller and the facility

complexity, the training required to meet full certification we believe can vary from 18 months to 3.8 years. Of course we have to

be careful not to move controllers in training to the floor of our

towers, TRANCONs and so forth too quickly. When they reach the

floor, we must also balance the number of certified controllers with

trainees.

As you can see from the next chart, the last ten years we have

historically maintained a ratio of 85 percent certified professional

controllers to 15 percent developmental which has served us very

well. Attempting to train too many developmental controllers at

once may reduce the efficiency of the entire operation and we have

to manage the flow of developmentals to ensure there is not an excessive number of trainees in any one location. Adequate time on

position, controlling live traffic with an instructor, is key to successful training for each developmental.

With respect to simulation, the FAA is looking at increasing the

use of high fidelity training simulators so that we can decrease the

time and overall cost of controller training. The increased use of

more sophisticated simulators will produce the same kind of cost

efficiency we have been seeing for many years in the training of

airline pilots. MIDA recently completed a worldwide survey that

has led to successful development of a training prototype that we

believe will be of value to our understanding of the opportunities

in this area.

In closing, I would like to emphasize our commitment to safety.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s effort to address concerns in

training and staffing will never diminish that fundamental principle.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward

to your questions.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

We will now hear from JayEtta Hecker, Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, U.S. General Accounting Office. Welcome and you

are recognized.

Ms. HECKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you

and members of the subcommittee. I am very honored to be here

to address this important issue about the challenges FAA is facing

in effectively managing the air traffic control workforce.

I think all of us remember the summer of 2000 when capacity

limitations of the overall system produced near gridlock conditions

and while a combination of factors temporarily reduced traffic significantly and the pressure on air traffic control system, air traffic

is now back to pre–9/11 levels in many areas and once again the

urgency for focusing on this problem is here.

We applaud the subcommittee’s focus on this and will try to contribute with three key areas. First, the magnitude and timing of

the pending wave of controller retirements; second, the challenges

FAA faces in assuring a well qualified air traffic control workforce
11

is in place to step into the gap; and finally, the broader institutional or environmental problems that also affect the ability of the

system to meet future demands.

On the magnitude and timing of the pending wave, clearly as all

of you have recognized, it is substantial, it is inevitable and it is

imminent. FAA really faces a bow wave of thousands of air traffic

controller retirements over the coming decade. As several of you alluded to, our 2002 report pointed out that that over half of the controller workforce would retire, not be eligible, but would retire over

the next ten years; about 93 percent of supervisors would be eligible to retire; and the retirement eligibility would be most severe in

the facilities experiencing the most traffic. FAA estimated that they

would experience retirements at a level three times higher than

those experienced in the past five years or so.

While our review is somewhat dated, I think all of you have recognized that both FAA and the Inspector General are continuing to

report this bow wave of retirements. The question is will FAA be

ready for it?

That leads me to the second question about the fundamental

challenges that are rather significant that FAA faces in both hiring

and training the number of well qualified controllers and the adequacy of a strategy to really achieve that end. Basically, as you

know, because it takes two to four years and sometimes even

longer to train controllers, hiring and training decisions have to be

made with a longer term perspective. However, we found that FAA

has been following a process of generally hiring replacements only

after an experienced controller leaves. This clearly doesn’t take into

account the time it takes to train a replacement to become a fully

qualified controller.

The hiring challenges are clearly to have effective screening so

that we reduce the high washout rate or failure rate of trainees

which wastes time and money and importantly the time of controllers to train those new hires. The training challenges include limits

in the capacity of the training center in Oklahoma City where in

the past there were bulges of new hires, and I think this was alluded to by one of the members, new trainees in some cases have

been idle for extended periods due to the absence of timely, available training at the training center.

The more significant training bottleneck is really the limited capacity of the air traffic control facilities. Because there is this need

for an essential overlap period, we believe there will be a requirement for a temporary increase in the numbers and total cost of the

controller workforce but eventually these more senior, higher salary controllers will retire and be replaced by new controllers at

lower salaries. Our report recommended that FAA develop a comprehensive workforce plan to deal with these challenges. Unfortunately, FAA has not yet finalized that plan although our recommendation was put into law in Vision 100 and as you know, that

plan is now due in December of this year.

The second is adapting to and recognizing the policies that are

actually creating incentives for the use of smaller aircraft. Just last

week when we had the hearing on the state of the aviation industry, we heard specifically about the concern that there is a rapid

growth in the use of regional jets and other small aircraft, air taxis
12

and fractional ownership. This substantially increases the controller workload while simultaneously moving fewer passengers and

generating fewer ticket taxes for ATC operations.

The final context is really assuring that the future training, the

placement, and the contract with controllers in the future is sufficiently nimble so that there can be timely and efficient adjustments

to address the very dynamic shifts that are occurring in traffic patterns. Examples include downsizing of St. Louis, the USAirways

pulling out of Pittsburgh, and the significant growth that we have

seen at Dulles with the introduction of Independence Air there. So

there is a need for a nimble quality to the workforce in the future

that really has to be a part of that plan.

Quickly, would like to emphasize that I think there is some good

news. We think there is important progress in FAA recognizing

that the bubble is a serious problem, that it has to be addressed

on a facility basis, and that training needs to be improved. Again,

one of the most important things that not much mention has been

made about today is the importance of the focus on cost accounting,

on performance, and efficiency as this important challenge is addressed.

That concludes my statement and we very much appreciate the

opportunity and would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

We will now hear from Alexis Stefani, Deputy Assistant Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation. Welcome and you

are recognized.

Ms. STEFANI. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, we

appreciate the opportunity to testify today.

Two weeks ago, we issued a report on placing and training of air

traffic controllers in light of the expected increase in attrition. FAA

currently estimates that over 7,000 controllers will leave the agency during the next decade. To put that number into perspective,

over the past eight years, total attrition was about 2,000 controllers. It is clear that as a result of the anticipated increase in attrition, FAA will need to begin hiring and training controllers at levels the agency has not experienced since the early 1980’s.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss three issues that we see

as key to FAA successfully managing this challenge. First, developing better attrition estimates by location. FAA annually prepares

national estimates of expected attrition within the controller workforce that are based on attrition rates for the prior three years. We

found this to be a reasonable method for estimating attrition at the

national level but those estimates are not built from the bottom up.

FAA needs better information on exactly how many are leaving,

when and where.

Most locations we visited during our audit had estimates of attrition over the next two years but each location used different information to develop their estimates. For example, one facility only

projected mandatory retirements while another projected attrition

for transfers but not retirements and a third included all types of

attrition, retirements, transfers, resignations and removals. Because of these differences in the way the estimates were made,

there were wide variances in the numbers projected from facility to

facility. We recommended that FAA establish a system to uni-
13

formly estimate controller attrition by location and adjust their nationwide estimates as needed. FAA has agreed with our recommendation and is examining ways to better refine its estimating

process.

However, an important point is that if FAA simply replaces retiring controllers one for one at each location, it will only perpetuate

existing staffing imbalances. Various groups have repeatedly expressed concerns that some FAA air traffic facilities are either

overstaffed or understaffed but determining the extent of those imbalances is problematic because the FAA staffing standards are not

precise.

Again, while the staffing numbers are reasonable at the national

level, the National Academy of Sciences found they could not be

used to provide highly accurate estimates of staffing requirements

at individual facilities. More accurate staffing standards are an absolute necessity if FAA is to place controllers where they are needed most.

In our opinion, key for developing better standards is an accurate

labor distribution system. The system FAA has chosen to track its

controller workforce is called CRU-X. The controllers have raised

valid concerns about the pending retirements and getting an accurate labor distribution system in place is an area where their help

is needed. CRU-X deployment has been on hold for almost two

years while FAA and NATCA continue negotiations over its implementation. Considering the retirement numbers facing FAA, in our

opinion FAA and NATCA need to make implementing CRU-X a priority.

The second issue I would like to discuss is that FAA does not assess newly hired controllers’ abilities before they are placed at facilities. As you know, FAA facilities are categorized by levels, the

higher the level, the more the demand is placed on the controller’s

judgment skills and decision-making abilities. However, new controllers are placed without assessing their abilities to successfully

complete training at the facility. Currently the placement process

is primarily driven by simply where the vacancies occur.

At the locations we visited, we found multiple instances where

developmental of controllers spent years in training without being

able to certify only to be transferred to a less complex area or to

a lower level facility where on-the-job training started again. We

recommended and FAA agreed to develop an assessment process

for identifying new controllers’ potential to certify at a facility and

to use this information in the placement process.

The final issue I would like to address today is the most challenging one for FAA. That is reducing the time and cost associated

with training new controllers on the job while still achieving results. The on-the-job training process is the longest part of the

training a controller receives. At the locations we visited, the overall average time for a newly hired controller to become certified

averaged 3.1 years but in some cases, it took as long as seven years

to certify. We found that the on-the-job training process was very

decentralized. Since the mid–1990’s, the FAA has provided minimal

nationwide oversight of this portion of the training. For example,

FAA does not have nationwide statistics on key measures such as
14

the time it takes a controller to certify, where and when training

failures occur or the total cost to provide on the job training.

At the 17 facilities we visited, we had to compile the data on the

various aspects of on the job training and we found wide variances.

For example, during fiscal year 2002 and 2003, although both facilities had about the 70 developmentals, New York Center had 15

training failures while the Washington Center had 4. At the New

York Center, however, it took an average of 3.8 years to certify but

we compared it to Minneapolis Center where developmentals took

an average of 1.3 years. We were unable to determine the specific

reasons for the variances. However, we found many factors affect

on-the-job training including the hiring source of the controllers,

the facility level, local training policies and local operational needs.

For example, the Minneapolis Center with an average of 1.3

years primarily gets their replacements from controllers that have

transferred from other facilities while the New York Center which

took 3.8 years, took new controllers from either DOD work or graduates from FAA-approved colleges. To prepare for the hiring and

training of new controllers over the next eight years, it is imperative that FAA determine better ways for reducing the time and cost

associated with on the job training. This would include exploring

options such as an improved placement process, better prepared

candidates, increased educational requirements and enhanced simulation training at larger facilities. But to do this, they need the

basic data to manage the program. We have recommended and

FAA has agreed to coordinate a study to establish nationwide baseline statistics and develop a tracking system to better analyze,

monitor and manage its on-the-job training process. Clearly these

actions are a step in the right direction and the key will be follow

through.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to

answer any questions.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

We will start a round of questions. I have some to begin.

The GAO testified that only one controller was hired in 2004 so

far, is that what you said, Ms. Hecker?

Ms. HECKER. That is what we have been told.

Mr. MICA. Ms. Blakey, did you want to respond?

Ms. BLAKEY. That is correct.

Mr. MICA. Why?

Ms. BLAKEY. Because we are currently above our staffing standard in terms of number of controllers. In other words, we have

more controllers in the system currently than the staffing standard

calls for.

Mr. MICA. One of the problems we have is it takes from 3.1 to

7 years to certify these folks on average. Is that a correct statistic

I heard, Ms. Stefani?

Ms. STEFANI. The data was from 17 locations. We don’t have

them nationwide, but it took on average 3.1 years.

Mr. MICA. But some even longer. One of you had testified to that.

Unless we have these folks in place, they are not getting the on the

job experience and at some point the numbers of retirements are

going to kick in. You say this is all factored in and the hiring of

one is adequate?
15

Ms. BLAKEY. We probably should drop back a moment because

I would point out that this Congress was the one that chose not

to fund the additional positions that we asked for this year. As you

recall, the Administration in the President’s budget asked for an

additional 302 positions to address the hiring bubble. The Congress

chose to not fund those and in fact asked us to address a number

of other measures which in my testimony I pointed out. They range

from the issue of trying to right size our facilities and move people

to where they are needed to realigning with the staffing standard

to looking at training to determine if there are not greater efficiencies to issues of reducing our sick leave for greater productivity,

reducing workers comp again on the productivity issue. So there

were a number of things that we were asked to tackle by this Congress and that is what we are doing this year. We take those instructions very seriously.

Mr. MICA. I just wanted to make certain we had that clear for

the record.

Also you mentioned a host of things Congress asked you to look

at. One that wasn’t mentioned as are there any efficiencies gained

from better technologies being implemented? Obviously a great

deal of the work that is done relies on technologies. Are you also

looking at the issue of technology as a factor in replacing workforce

numbers?

Ms. BLAKEY. We certainly are. I will tell you that historically the

technologies that have been implemented in the FAA facilities have

largely gone to efficiencies for the airlines and for our customer

base, if you will, not so much from the standpoint of manpower and

productivity gains for the FAA itself.

However, there are several technologies that we are currently

implementing that do address that and begin to give us greater

ability to provide a more efficient system, if you will, in terms of

the technologies helping us to keep our costs down and that is also

a function of manpower. Eighty percent of our operating costs is

manpower.

Mr. MICA. I was also interested in the cost of the program of

training, the Government cost, at the Oklahoma Center. I am told

it can range from $15,000 for terminal operator en route $27,000

and we have some other costs but if you took the $23.645 million

we spent at Oklahoma and divide it by the number of graduates

that we run through there, we are looking at a cost close to $38,000

per individual. I am told not only do we pay for their education and

expenses, but we also pay them a salary during their period at the

center. Is that correct?

Ms. BLAKEY. That is correct.

Mr. MICA. We have 13 institutions now that are providing certified programs to produce air traffic controllers and also train for

other ATC positions. Has anyone ever looked at turning some of

this over to the private sector where in most cases, I know the individual pays for their own education and training and isn’t paid

when they are going to school. Has any thought been given to looking at shifting some of this to the private sector, Ms. Blakey?

Ms. BLAKEY. Certainly it is true that in this country most people

going into those professions pay for their initial training themselves. This is a question that has been raised and it is one that
16

we are looking at as part of the plan that we are preparing to address the larger number of retirements that are coming up because

there is obviously greater cost efficiency in this and if we do find

it is possible to construct a way that individual students at least

for initial training could pay some of those costs, perhaps even on

the basis that would allow them to reimburse once they are certified controllers and making very good income, we will look at that

as well. We are certainly seeing good results out of the private sector schools, the CTI schools that are training controllers who obviously paying their own way in those schools.

Mr. MICA. That was my next question. I believe either GAO or

the IG looked at the ability to have these folks certified. Have there

been any studies or did either of you review the performance of

those who come from these schools versus those who are trained

solely from an FAA program?

Ms. STEFANI. We did collect data at the 17 facilities to look at

where the developmental was from and compared that to how long

it took them to certify. We found that basically the MARC graduates, those that are coming into the en route environment, took

about 3.3 years which was similar to the average we saw. The CTI,

which are those 13 schools that have predominantly the terminal

environment, they took a shorter time, 2.5 years, but nationwide,

the data is not available to make any conclusions about these

schools. We were impressed with what we saw but we don’t know,

there is just not enough information available.

Mr. MICA. I am not sure if you would call it wash out rates or

rates of those leaving the program. Is here any information about

success based on the background of these individuals and their previous training?

Ms. STEFANI. Not that I am aware of. We have information from

the 17 locations that I could get you but I don’t have anything nationwide.

Mr. MICA. Ms. Blakey, are you aware of any information on that

point?

Ms. BLAKEY. The FAA used to collect that kind of information up

through about 1993. When the major wave of hiring stopped and

really leveled off, for whatever reason, the agency then ceased to

collect the wash out rates vis a vis various institutions. We are

going to begin that again. In fact, we have already started.

Mr. MICA. I think that is important to look at.

A final point. It may have been GAO again who testified that we

are going to lose 93 percent of the management level supervisors?

Ms. HECKER. Yes. We reported that about 93 percent of the current supervisors would become eligible to retire.

Mr. MICA. In what period of time?

Ms. HECKER. That was our estimate two years ago that by 2011,

93 percent. I think the base was that 28 percent were already eligible. We have a chart on that in our statement and they are all at

higher levels, both the base and in the first few years, you get

many more becoming eligible each year. So there is going to be tremendous turnover at that level.

Mr. MICA. FAA, did you want to respond to how you are going

to deal with that particular vacuum?
17

Ms. BLAKEY. We will be promoting from our controller ranks into

the supervisory ranks. That is a time honored approach that has

served us very well. Obviously that means we will be putting more

in the pipeline for trainees and bringing more people into the system. We certainly can address the need for operational supervisors

that way and we will be.

Mr. MICA. Mr. DeFazio?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Blakey, it is sort of a strain that runs through a lot of hearings and I understand you are physically, verbally or mentally constrained by your political minders downtown but what I always say

to the administrators and others who come before me whether it

is the Chief of the Forest Service, the TSA or you is that you also

have a job as a professional running a vital agency to give us your

best opinion and you did frankly say it was the fault of Congress,

which I agree with and which I did not support, that you didn’t get

the 302 people you asked for last year.

That kind of then begs the question of if you needed 302 people

last year with 800 becoming eligible for retirement and you didn’t

get them, and another 800 become eligible for retirement this year,

why didn’t you ask for any? It sounds like suddenly the OMB or

whoever it was down there who encouraged or worked with the appropriators up here to arbitrarily cut your numbers have suddenly

come to a meeting of the minds and you didn’t ask for the people

this year. How is it if we needed 302 last year and you didn’t get

them, a number retired, another 800 become eligible, we don’t need

any this year? I don’t understand what the plan is.

If I look over the future, if you don’t ask in this fiscal year and

you don’t get any, since you asked in the last one and you didn’t,

it is probably not likely you will get them if you don’t ask for them.

We go up to the next fiscal year and if we start with the next fiscal

year and just use the optimistic assumption that we could hire as

many people as we needed and train them in three years, there

would be during that time period another 4,400 people becoming eligible for retirement. In reaction to 800 becoming eligible for retirement this year, you asked for 300, so if one extrapolates, it looks

like you are going to be asking for some awful big numbers just

after the election.

Ms. BLAKEY. What I would say is simply this. The Congress in

choosing not to support the Administration’s request for additional

controllers.

Mr. DEFAZIO. A subset of the Congress, present company excluded.

Ms. BLAKEY. I am willing to exclude present company. I appreciate that fact. The fact is that obviously we do have built into our

budget last year, this year replacements for the current one on one

replacement of the folks who are retiring. Let us always bear that

in mind that there is certainly a pipe that we are going to be continuing to address those.

The question is the overlap, if you will, doing more than one on

one hiring and when does that need to begin. As I say, we took

very seriously the Congress’ instructions that we had not addressed

a number of things, that the feeling of members was that we

should. In determining exactly when we do need to begin that over-
18

lap and when we do really need to step up the pace on putting people into the pipeline.

Issues such as waiving age 56, obviously if you do not have effectively a mandatory retirement age of 56, that does change the

equation. The issues of productivity, the issues of how fast you can

train, so we are working very hard on all that this year. We are

going to be issuing regulations that provide the opportunity to

waive age 56 within what we think are appropriate guidelines. All

of this changes these equations. This is not a static system.

On top of that, of course, you have the dynamic in aviation itself

in terms of traffic. We have been going through a period where it

was totally unpredicted, obviously the slump in traffic after 9/11

and now the build up, but as noted by several members here, that

build-up has changed a lot. It was not where we expected and the

same nature that we expected.

I mention those things because this is a calibration that we are

working very hard on this year to get right. When we do submit

a plan to you in December, it is my expectation that we will also

be addressing the flow rate, if you will, and when we do need to

begin overlapping control.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So the plan, per the congressional request, would

be made available in December. I have already seen some leaked

documents that purport to show domestic budgetary requests post

election but I would hope that your work on this plan is going to

coincide and/or be supported by the Administration in terms of a

request for the next fiscal year. Is there any discussion of that ongoing because I assume it is going to ask for more positions?

Ms. BLAKEY. This is certainly a plan that we are working on concert with OMB and others in the Administration and I feel confident it will be one that is factored into our budget request as well.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I think it was Ms. Hecker who talked about hiring

one. As I understand what Ms. Blakey is saying they are regularly

replacing people who retire but we have this other hiring need.

Your hiring of one is over and above the replacement of the retirees, is that correct?

Ms. HECKER. No, sir. In fiscal 2004 to date, FAA has lost over

400 controllers. Those controllers have not been replaced. Basically

the actual number of onboard controllers has been reduced by the

400 and the 1 is a net of 399 reductions.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Ms. Blakey, I thought in response to my question,

you were talking about the regular replacement of people and

needs beyond that. She is saying we are down 399 on the year.

Ms. BLAKEY. We did hire in September just before the fiscal year

that Ms. Hecker is referring to several hundred controllers who

have been trained this year and been going into those positions. At

the same time, again I would point out that we have been above

the staffing standard. Even currently as of a couple days ago, we

were 89 people, 89 controllers above the numbers we need overall

through the system. So one has to recognize that and how careful

work has been to try to move people to facilities where we can address the issues of understaffing and at the same time try to address those that are overstaffed. The pattern essentially is that you

find we have somewhere around 160 of our towers and TRACONs

that are currently overstaffed against the staffing standards, you
19

have about 10 of the en routes that are understaffed. So we are

looking at those things and as Ms. Hecker is referring to the issue

of losing controllers, remember one of the things we are doing is

promoting controllers from the controller workforce into the supervisory workforce. Another requirement the Congress placed on us

for this year was to increase the overall number of supervisors. By

the end of this year we intend to hit 1,726 which is the number

we were instructed to hit. There is a phenomenon going on there

of promoting people up and again, as we reach the end of the year,

we will undoubtedly make sure that we have the right number for

our staffing standard.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Ms. Hecker, they didn’t lose as many, some of

them were promoted. Did you see where they went, whether they

retired or were promoted?

Ms. HECKER. It is definitely true, these aren’t all people who left

FAA but they are not working the scopes.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. OK. I am puzzled about the beyond age 56

assumption. I think Ms. Blakey said less than 20 percent would

probably choose to stay if they were fully eligible, correct?

Ms. BLAKEY. Congressman DeFazio, that is our estimate. This is

one of those things that we will only know once we issue the guidelines and then see. That is our best estimate based on some information surveying of managers and discussions with those who have

seen parallels in other industries.

Mr. DEFAZIO. One last question. I did have one other great question, which I will think of later, Mr. Chairman, but it is gone right

now.

Mr. MICA. While you are regaining your composure.

Mr. DEFAZIO. If I could, our colleague read from a letter where

he talked about a constituent whose husband had been hired in

February 2003 but was not yet able to be trained. That seems like

a real problem, and I know you can’t comment on the specific circumstance, but is that a normal wait time for someone who has

been hired to get into the training program?

Ms. BLAKEY. I frankly can’t comment on that one. I did note a

number of assertions on that letter which like most things that are

anecdotal coming from someone who is well intentioned but not a

part of the system, were wildly off base. For example, the person

asserted that we were spending billions in overtime. A figure like

that sort of boggles the mind. I am actually very pleased with our

overtime picture because I think what you see right now is we are

very judiciously using overtime. I am proud of our controllers and

managers on this because right now we are running at only 1.88

percent of our overall personnel costs in overtime which is well

within industry standards. You never want to have no overtime

usage because that indicates you probably are not using the workforce as well as possible, but that is a very good figure. The overall

totals for last year were $54.8 million, again a very appropriate figure.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Duncan?

Mr. DUNCAN. I was interested in the Chairman’s questions about

these 13 institutions that are training air traffic controllers or people in related fields. Can any of you give me a rough guess or do

you have the figures as to how many people get that type of train-
20

ing or how people graduate from those programs each year? Do we

have any idea? None of you seem to know that it looks like.

Ms. BLAKEY. It depends on which facility and of course which

year. Let me give you a little bit of information on that. Basically

as I see it right now, the number of people we have put through,

this year MARK had 48 students go through it, they also have another class coming up with 24 students. That is the number there.

The number for the academy, I am going to get you those figures

because what I have is overall costs rather than numbers of people.

Mr. DUNCAN. I think today what you have all across this country

is thousand and thousands of maybe hundreds of thousands of college graduates who can’t find good jobs with just Bachelor’s degrees

like they used to years ago, so all of them are going to graduate

school and you have many thousands who are getting degrees in

fields in which there are almost no jobs. I think if the word got out

there was going to be a need in this field, there would be many,

many, almost untold numbers who would be interested in going

into this if they knew the job prospects were good.

Also, I think at one time I was told we got quite a few air traffic

controllers from the military. Do we have any figures on that? How

many military air traffic controllers are there and how many are

shifting over each year?

Ms. BLAKEY. The actual figures on those I would love to get you

after the hearing. Just as an example, on this group of collegiate

trainings, CTI schools that we have used, we are going to have a

total of 1,591 graduates to pull from. You can see we really do have

a good base there of well trained young people.

Mr. DUNCAN. So you are getting roughly 1,600 graduates from

these programs each year. Is that what you are saying?

Ms. BLAKEY. That is what it looks like to me on this chart.

Again, I would have to look at it year over year.

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me ask also, how many applications for air

traffic controller positions does the FAA have if we looked right

now in the FAA computers, how many applications are pending,

rough guess?

Ms. BLAKEY. We have several different pools. We have the former

military and they divide into two groups. We have an entry age of

31, you are supposed to be 31 or younger coming into air traffic

control so all this training and experience will pay off over a period

of time. We do have an exception for the military so they can come

in on two tracks that way and we have a good healthy pool there.

We also have, as I say, the collegiate training program and I gave

you figures on that, the MARK Program which can take more students. They would like to graduate more students. That is one that

can respond with more. Then we have a little less than 300 right

now that are on the rolls that are sort of off the street. We gave

an exam and allowed people to apply and they are also available

to us. There is a certain number still from the old PATCO rolls

that could be reemployed. So you have quite a few different pools

there you could draw from.

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you ever advertise for air traffic controllers or

do you have so many people who have already applied that you feel

there is no need to advertise? I don’t know, I am just asking.
21

Ms. BLAKEY. We have not so far really needed to advertise. It is

a highly sought after profession and there has never been a problem with recruiting. I think I heard an ad that NATCA ran on the

radio just the other day helping us out in terms of making people

aware of the fact there is an upcoming wave of retirements and

people should apply. I think we do have some help on that front.

Mr. DUNCAN. The attrition rate, there were 2,100 over the past

eight years. Percentagewise, is that about the same, lower, higher

than a comparable big business in the private sector? I think that

is something we surely should know also. I would appreciate it if

somebody could submit some information about that as well.

Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes.

Mr. MICA. I am going to ask if you would chair for a few minutes

but one question before I leave. I have votes right next door I have

to run for and come back. The figures I have been given are that

in 2004 we trained a total of en route and terminal 116 to date and

in 2003, we trained 249 en route, 168 which is a total of 417. I

talked about the cost before of being able $27,000. That was based

on full capacity. In fact, the cost for 2003 was $56,834 per student.

I would like you to check these figures. So far to date, we have only

trained 116. The 116 is $230,172 per student trained. Of course we

are only halfway through 2004. This contract is based with the

Washington Consulting Group for $23.7 million in 2003 and an estimate for 2000 for $26.04 million. It seems that contract should be

based on number of people produced versus the amount of money,

a set amount of money for the contract. Do you want to respond?

Ms. BLAKEY. Yes. In fact, your figures are quite accurate but I

want to separate a couple things out if I might. The Washington

Consulting Group does a great deal of training in the field and a

good bit of this is for ongoing training as well as particular graduates. So you have to separate that out I think probably against

the figures that Chairman Mica cited for the 116 this year at the

Academy, 417 last year at the Academy. You really should divided

that against the cost of the Academy and then separate out on the

job training and training that is done in the field because they are

separate things. Obviously we do continue to provide training to

our controller workforce on an ongoing basis.

Mr. DUNCAN. [Presiding] Let me finish up by saying this. Mr.

DeFazio got into this and maybe you got into it but it seems ridiculous to me that it takes apparently in some places up to 7 years

to certify an air traffic controller after they have had their training.

Seven years for on the job training seems awfully strange to me

after somebody has received all the training but also I think we

need to get information about how long on average it is taking a

person from the time they are hired until the time they are actually placed on the job. If that is taking some unusually long period

of time, then that seems to me to need to be worked on.

This is the first time I have heard these figures about 160 air

traffic control centers being overstaffed and 10 being understaffed.

That is the first time I have heard that but that is something we

need to check out as well. Thank you very much for being with us

today.
22

Ms. BLAKEY. Congressman Duncan, let me be sure I didn’t

misspeak. The centers are the ones that are understaffed on the

whole. Those are the ten. Our towers and TRANCONs are 164 was

the last figure.

Mr. DUNCAN. I probably misspoke too, I meant 160 air traffic

control operations or towers or TRACONs and all the variations.

Ms. BLAKEY. I will say this. We too are concerned about the idea

of anyone staying in the system for as long as seven years without

becoming certified. Obviously that is a function of setting standards

for our managers, having expectations of how on the job training

should proceed and we are certainly going to have a much more focused system where everyone understands what are reasonable parameters and then we begin to train against those and work

against those and make the system work.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. [Presiding] Thank you.

Ms. Johnson, you are recognized.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

I have a question for Ms. Hecker. According to the GAO’s report

in 2002, the southwest region has the third largest apportionment

of air traffic controller specialists at 2,008. Could you elaborate a

bit on the implications projected retirements would have on this

particular region?

Ms. HECKER. I am not familiar with that. There are different

classes of groups and each one is critical. Anywhere there is a disproportionate share of retirements is going to create special problems. I would have to look into that and add it to the record or provide that information for you.

Ms. JOHNSON. OK. Ms. Blakey, Section 221 of Vision 100 required the FAA to develop a comprehensive human capital workforce strategy to determine the need for more air traffic controllers

as identified in the GAO report. I know you have commented some

on this but could you comment further on what your findings revealed and the status so far?

Ms. BLAKEY. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this, Congresswoman, because we are very enthusiastic about this plan that

we are developing and we will be reporting to you in December. I

think what we see there is there are tremendous opportunities to

enhance the training process we are using, making it more efficient, looking at how we can take best advantage of the terrific

kinds of training that does occur out in the private sector from the

CTI schools, from MARK, from the military workforce which obviously already has been engaged in controlling traffic, as well as

how we best have our Academy make sure when they go to the

field, when they step up to the scopes, they have the best possible

background.

The other part of this is there is a new study that Mitre has done

that we are going to look at very closely on the use of high fidelity

simulators. Simulators are coming more and more into the workforce in a variety of places. I have had the good opportunity to go

to Embry-Riddle, for example, who I know you will hear from later,

and see their simulators which are very impressive. I have also had

the opportunity to look at several University of Alaska, et cetera

and the ones we use at the Academy. I think this is going to give

us more and more ability to do what is done in the field of training
23

airline pilots. That is to bring people up to speed on the actual traffic they will be seeing but have it in a no risk environment where

many more scenarios can be played out.

Those are some of the kinds of things in training that we are

going to be addressing in this, as well a surveying to determine on

a much more granular basis, the actual needs going to be out there,

which facilities, which years, therefore what the actual needs are

we are going to have. That obviously varies because facilities, the

en route environment is different from the tower and the TRACON

environment and the amount of time to train is different.

All of that, if we can calibrate this correctly, I think we will have

a much more precise human capital strategy in this regard that

will pay off for all of us. That is our intent.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much and I yield back.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Pearce, you are recognized.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Blakey, you mentioned that maybe the training costs might

be overstated and could be made more clear if we looked at the

broader numbers. Could you make those available to us?

Ms. BLAKEY. I would be happy to.

Mr. PEARCE. Appreciate that.

Ms. Hecker, you mentioned on page three of your report that just

before you were talking about the 400 controllers that were lost

and 1 that was replaced, that last year we hired 762 new controllers. Can you tell me the number of losses we suffered out of the

system in the year we hired the 762?

Ms. HECKER. I don’t have that number. Perhaps you do.

Ms. STEFANI. I have it. It is 405 controllers.

Mr. PEARCE. So when it says it was last year, last year was 2003

or 2002?

Ms. STEFANI. 2003.

Mr. PEARCE. So in 2003, we lost 405 and we hired 762, so that

gives about 300 and something going into this year, correct? We

have actually hired more people than we lost in the one year so

those kind of stack up as an inventory of controllers available to

offset the losses of this year, correct?

Ms. HECKER. It was the target that was in the contract at that

time.

Mr. PEARCE. Ms. Hecker, you made a big point that we hired 400

and replaced 1. In fact, I see that on page 1, I see it on page 4 and

I see it on page 12, a recurring theme and yet never do you say

it is offset by the fact that we actually hired a 200–300 more in

a previous year than what our losses were. I don’t see the balance

in there to give a real assessment to me as I am reading your report. Am I doing the logic wrong on that?

Ms. HECKER. I think we were looking at each year. So in 2003,

there was a rate of hiring, part of it was driven by contract target.

Because of the cost of that, a lot of hiring was done in 2003 in the

very last month of the year, about a third of the hiring was done

in that period. Those are all the people in the Academy this year

that were hired at the end of 2003 and 2004 was the year FAA

asked for 302 positions, made a case it was important. They had

already gotten to the increase from 2003.
24

Mr. PEARCE. I understand that but my question is isn’t it a fact

you have about 300 extra people in the system before you get to

this year? You are raising the alarm and sitting on this side of the

table, I try to separate the alarms from the false alarms from the

false, false alarms and no where in here do you admit or say we

have 89 extra people that were overstaffed right now. You have

raised an alarm without saying, we should worry about it but you

have to offset your concern with this and you have to offset your

concern with the fact that we hired 762 and only lost 405, so we

actually have a little push coming into the year and instead you

concentrate on the 400 to 1 factor, page 3, page 9, page 12 and I

think at some point it would have been nice for me to see that balance rather than having to kind of root it out of the figures.

Ms. HECKER. Our focus is really on the plan. That is what our

report focused on. We did not conclude that we knew what the

number was, or that there ought to be hiring at any given level.

It is the absence of the plan and the importance of a strategy that

integrates all of the factors, where they are needed, moving people

from where they are overstaffed to understaffed, the ability to train

them and train them efficiently.

Mr. PEARCE. If we could then take your comment here, Ms.

Blakey presented to me a fairly consistent look at the retirement

figures, that we are going to get 24 percent this year and it is going

to drop way down the next year and year seven is going to pop

back up. Is that just a false assumption? In other words, did you

look at their projections and conclude that to be a very faulty assumption or did you not look at it?

Ms. HECKER. We did look at their projections and did several

other things. We did a representative survey of all the controllers

and basically found that over one-third of them said if they were

forced to work overtime or six day weeks, it would increase their

likelihood of retiring. So if we are in an environment where as the

numbers go down that workload and stress level increases, that

number which was for a 2001–2002 period, the number of 25 percent the first year is a factual number.

Mr. PEARCE. That is very compelling but then the offsetting factor, we had to get not from your report but from Ms. Blakey is that

we are at 1.88 percent over time which is not nearly at the threshold that pushes the retirement rate to the extremes that your report seems to want to suggest. For myself, I found your report to

need much more external input to really evaluate your report correctly.

Ms. Blakey, if you would convey my appreciation to the system,

I will tell you that I have flown for 30 years, I have 11,000 hours

flying in the system and I have the highest regard for the professionalism of the people we run into. I sat last year in the tower at

Roswell and worked with the controllers, watched what they are

doing and always am amazed at the way they can handle the traffic. If you would just convey that.

If we consider the great thresholds to be the problem that Ms.

Hecker mentioned, what do you anticipate in the 2008–2011 range

where it appears the great surge will happen? How do you visualize getting ahead of it? I don’t think you need to hire five and ten

years ahead. How do you see getting ahead of that?
25

Ms. BLAKEY. I think we believe we need to have a plan that addresses this surge in retirements on a number of levels. As you

heard, I outlined a number of things we are trying to do to have

the most efficient system possible and to address ways of having

the most productivity engineered into this.

All of that said, I think there is no question that at some point,

we should cease the one for one replacement hiring and begin to

overlap the controller workforce. What we are trying to do this year

with this plan is calibrate this correctly, get this right so that as

we move forward, we have a good system and everyone knows what

to expect in this. I think that is also important because as you see

there are a lot of students in these schools who are willing to step

up, willing to put in their own money and be trained. There are

others out there that form good pools as well and we want everyone

to have an idea about how this is going to progress and what they

can expect. That is our commitment.

Mr. PEARCE. I would also add that the simulation I think is very

effective, having used simulators in almost all the aircraft I fly. I

think it saved me making mistakes in the air and a great savings

to my employer or myself. I think there is a great future and you

can simulate just about the exact thing you will see in front of a

scope. I would encourage that but thanks to the FAA and the controllers.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Thank the gentleman.

Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you.

Madam Administrator, am I to understand from your answer to

Ms. Johnson’s question on Vision 100 that the FAA has national

estimates on how many controllers will retire but you don’t at this

point know exactly if they are at the busiest facilities? Is that part

of what you are going to achieve in your report in December?

Ms. BLAKEY. That is our intent. One of the things that has been

the case, as you know, is that for a number of years, we have not

had pressure on the system to try to drill down to that degree.

When you look at the question of retirement, you have to be very

careful about not in anyway implying there is coercion of individuals about their plans, age discrimination, those kinds of concerns

are ones which are there for surveying employees and having our

managers be highly exacting about all of that has been something

we have tried to be careful about.

We do know this. The staffing standard that we have been using

as certainly proven the test of time. The National Academy of

Sciences evaluated it and we see that standard as being accurate

plus or minus 10 percent at the facility level. The staffing standard

doesn’t project retirement but it does give us the benchmark about

where we are trying to hit in terms of numbers of people in those

facilities.

The issue of the busiest facilities, I certainly echo the concern

that I think we should begin addressing those facilities first where

we have shortages, where we see the busiest facilities, certainly in

terms of where we are going to be placing a priority, you can count

on that and that will be a part of our calculations.

Mr. MENENDEZ. To the extent that you can within the context of

either constraints you just spoke of, you are going to try to ascer-
26

tain what are some of the staffing shortages at the busiest facilities

and you are going to prioritize those?

Ms. BLAKEY. Correct.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Let me be provincial in my next question. For

several years, my colleagues in New Jersey and I have worked to

try to get the FAA to staff Newark with its full contingent of air

traffic controllers. In 2002 alone, the agency saved between

$900,000 and $1.2 million in pay compensation and benefits for the

five to seven controller positions that were not filled while spending

only about $131,000 for overtime to cover understaffed shifts. Over

the past five years, the savings from understaffing Newark tower

approaches the $5 million mark.

By comparison, other Eastern Region facilities such as the

ARTCCs and the New York TRACON spent as much on overtime

in a single two week period as Newark did in all of last year. Currently the tower is staffed with only 29 fully certified professional

controllers, along with 7 trainees instead of its full, allocated contingent of 40. Several of these controllers now need intense training over the next few years in order to become certified at Newark

which has a historical failure rate of about 70 percent.

If they are to improve this dismal training record at Newark, we

have to ensure that the daily training regimen is not jeopardized

by staffing shortages due to the unwillingness to call in controllers

on overtime to cover understaffed shifts. Otherwise, in a worse case

scenario, Newark tower would be in a position as early as the end

of this year where it is under staffed by up to 10 controllers and

that much closer to the pending wave of controller retirements we

have been discussing.

In addition, the heightened security zone requires each of the

towers in the area identify each and every plane within the Air Defense Identification Zone which is a 30 mile radius around Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark. Thus, controllers have to identify an

extra 100–200 flights a day because of that unique set of circumstances.

While the tower is still understaffed, and they are also trying to

train the new hirees with the 70 percent failure rate, and they

have the extra requirements of the Air Defense Identification Zone,

how does the FAA anticipate the current workforce will be able to

do all this with an overtime budget of less than $25,000 to the end

of this year.

Ms. BLAKEY. Certainly a number of things factor into the issues

of overtime but let me just touch on the issue of the figures we are

using because I would point out that our data in terms of Newark

basically call for staffing standards of 29. The contract we are operating under there calls for 40, we have 37 actually on board but

again the staffing standard is 29. I think the fact, as you point out,

they are operating with a relatively low call on overtime indicates

we are not running into major problems from the standpoint of

understaffing. Overtime is a key indicator from that standpoint.

Mr. MENENDEZ. They are low on overtime not because of the

staffing issue, they are low on overtime because there is a prohibition within the budget for them to do so. That is not because they

don’t have the wherewithal. You have 29 certified, 7 trainees, 2

controllers out due to medical reasons, 1 controller leaving to go to
27

the Potomac TRACON in June, 1 controller leaving in about a year,

there is a bid out for a staff specialist and that funding comes in

October and will probably come from the controller workforce, so it

highly likely that facility will have only 32 controllers by the fall

because the net gain of 3 is offset by the 2 departures. So we can

play numbers games. The reality is we are understaffed at Newark,

the reality is the overtime does not allow us to be able to deal with

the challenges of training at a facility that has a 70 percent failure

rate. I don’t think we dispute that and we have a 70 percent failure

rate there.

The way I see it, in one of the busiest airports in the Nation, in

an airport that has a straightjacket in terms of air space, an airport that has the extra requirement of the Air Defense System, and

an airport that had one of the flights of September 11, the last

thing we need is not to be fully complemented and not to have the

wherewithal and that doesn’t even deal with the retirement issues

we have talked about. I hope we can have a better response to

Newark than we have had today.

Ms. BLAKEY. Again, we have to rely on what we believe are the

actual numbers that are needed in the facility. The actual number,

the staffing standard calls for in Newark is 29. Again, currently we

have 37 actually on board. I am sure you will be pleased to know

that in addition to that, we expect to bring on 5 more there by the

first of October. So we certainly are addressing the concerns you

are speaking to, although again I don’t think we see indications

this is truly a case of understaffing.

One of the things I will do is go back and look at the overtime,

look also at the question of time on the boards. Another indication

of how a facility is doing is the amount of actual time spent on the

scopes working traffic. I would be happy to take a look at that as

well.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate that. I don’t know about the five

coming on board but I will be happy to call you in October if they

are not there.

Ms. BLAKEY. It is good to hear your oversight. Thank you very

much.

Mr. MICA. [Presiding] Thank the gentleman.

Mr. Beauprez.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Thanks for the panel. I think this has been a very

good hearing. I appreciate the candor with which you have answered all the questions. I have a couple and I will be very brief

because obviously we are getting called to vote.

Ms. Blakey, in her testimony Ms. Hecker said the FAA has a policy of only hiring after an experienced employee leaves. I ran businesses before and I could never function quite that way successfully, especially in the context of trying to put myself in your position of making sure our air is safe, air traffic is safe. Is that really

your policy?

Ms. BLAKEY. In recent years, what we have done is when we

know a controller intends to retire, be promoted up, transfer or

whatever it is, we then draw from the pools of trainees we have

coming through the Academy and the schools and put them into

those facilities roughly simultaneous with that individual leaving.

Remember that the responsibilities that controllers have are within
28

that facility somewhat interchangeable, so it is not quite like a

business where you have a unique employee and you really do have

to have them sit side by side and do that same thing for the one

that is actually leaving. We also have experienced controllers there

and supervisors who will be working with them when they come

into the facility. The main thing is to have your numbers correct

and not have too many trainees in a facility at a given time. If you

see that may happen, then you may have to adjust that facility by

facility but it is correct nationally, we are replacing as we go.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Let me stay on that point. I wrote down a ratio

of roughly 15 I think you called them developmentals to 85 percent

certified. How do you manage that within a facility where you have

relatively small numbers on the floor at one time?

Ms. BLAKEY. You try to get it right. As I have looked at it, facility by facility it has ranged from 14 to 17 percent at times. In other

words, we are trying to hit it right but obviously in a given month,

you may have it off slightly but that is something we watch very

carefully.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. You really do that facility by facility and not systemwide where you might have a facility that is dominated by a

very high percentage of developmentals.

Ms. BLAKEY. That is correct. I am certain someone could step up

and cite in x facility you have more developmentals than that and

that may be the case, but it is a fluid situation as you can appreciate. In some cases, people are already working several sectors.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. You are trying very hard not to get too far away

from that 15 percent of developmentals in a facility at one time?

Ms. BLAKEY. That is right. Remember, you are developmental

until you are certified in all sectors of the facility. So you can still

be useful in working traffic for quite a while and not be fully certified.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Last question. I wrote down also on my notes

that in several of the opening statements there was not very subtle

illusion claimed that what the FAA really wants is the system of

air traffic controllers to collapse in a crisis situation and the real

scheme here is to let the system fail and thus force it to become

privatized. Is that what is going on?

Ms. BLAKEY. The whole issue of privatization is an absolute red

herring. I have testified, as have others in this Administration, to

that time and again. No, we are running and very proud to be running a Federal system of air traffic control. In my estimation, that

is the way it will stay. Certainly this Administration has no intention to privatize air traffic control or to change the status of our

controller workforce overall and the way we approach the system.

We are also very proud of the fact that we do have a group of

towers that are run by contractors. They do a great job in our

smaller communities. I think many of you know that and actually

have seen the benefit of that. That has been true for many years.

In fact, that program was enlarged during the last Administration.

This Administration has not made any changes there except as a

few have been added because these communities need them and

that is the most cost efficient way to provide it. No, we are not

moving to privatizing.
29

Mr. BEAUPREZ. I found that to be a pretty outrageous claim because obviously we are playing with peoples’ careers but also playing with the public’s safety. I can’t imagine any Administration

under any circumstances playing with the public safety.

Ms. BLAKEY. Certainly not this one.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman.

We have about five minutes and I have two requests for time on

this side. Mr. Oberstar?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. I will be brief.

This crescendo of retirements in the air traffic control system is

no surprise to me. This was evident like a freight train coming

down the track since the firing of air traffic controllers in 1981 and

the subsequent rebuilding of the air traffic control workforce and

every one of your predecessors has had to look that issue square

in the eye and prepare for the obvious, 20 years down the road

there are going to be retirements. It is a problem dumped in your

lap, not a problem of your creation, but it is a problem for the FAA.

I think it is fortunate that this committee with the foresight of our

chairman and participation of all the members, directed the FAA

to develop a plan for the replacement of those controllers.

I have been at this issue for 20-plus years. At various times, FAA

has counted people as controllers who weren’t controlling traffic

and not counted people who were talking to traffic, that is first line

supervisors who are doing at least ten percent of their time controlling traffic and then counting air traffic assistance as they were

once called and now developmentals .

I just want for the record, of that 15,000 plus workforce, I want

to know the exact number of controllers who are developmentals

and an exact number who are FPLs. I don’t expect you to give that

number now and we don’t have time to go into it. You have an anticipated 7,100 retirement eligible by 2012, you have another 2,000

needed controllers to sustain growth as growth returns to the aviation system. Where is the plan? You are supposed to develop it by

December and it really should not be a plan newly developed but

one that is on going and revised year by year. I want to know how

you are going to get to that 2,000 controllers that are going to be

needed and why has there been no flag raised about the cutback

in funding for the Minneapolis Training Center, the MARK Program, Minneapolis Community College system? I know Chairman

Mica has raised the issue of using such facilities as Embry-Riddle

and the others, University of North Dakota as a tower simulator,

Alaska has a tower simulator program, Miami Dade has a tower

simulator program. Those are very tough positions to fill and takes

a great deal of intensive training. It also takes a lot of training for

route controllers and TRACON controllers. I don’t understand why

the flag wasn’t raised when last year the Appropriations Committee just chopped the funds out for the private center.

Ms. BLAKEY. As you know that did happen, that was an action

of the Congress. Even without the funding for MARK this year, we

proceeded and have in fact funded several classes of MARK students out of our base. MARK has certainly delivered very well

qualified students over the years and I can’t speculate on the Congress’ intent there but as I say, we did step up and we have supported several classes.
30

Mr. OBERSTAR. I hope that as we get into this appropriations

process, FAA will raise its very considerable powerful and compelling voice to say don’t cut the funding from these facilities, they are

doing the training for half the cost of Oklahoma City, Embry Riddle is doing it for about the same value and for less cost. We ought

not to be cutting back at the very time we need to build up this

workforce.

I remember what happened when the air traffic control workforce

went to zero. It was an extremely safe system. There were very few

airplanes flying.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman.

Mr. Honda, you have about one minute.

Mr. HONDA. I will be very brief. It is basically the same question

asked another way. I was really concerned about your assertion

about the FAA’s ATCs being overstaffed.

I understand there is 1,250 developmentals in the system and I

guess the real question is do you consider and do you count them

as part of your overall controller staffing?

Ms. BLAKEY. We do count developmentals. Remember that they

do control traffic. In fact, in some cases, they are well qualified and

checked out on a number of sectors in the facility.

Mr. HONDA. Are these certified?

Ms. BLAKEY. They will not be certified until they are checked out

on all sectors.

Mr. HONDA. So they are not certified and you count them as the

certified staffing as far as air traffic controllers?

Ms. BLAKEY. No, we don’t count them as certified staffing but we

do count them in the overall numbers of controllers.

Mr. HONDA. But they are not quite qualified as of yet?

Ms. BLAKEY. They are not qualified in all sectors.

Mr. HONDA. Don’t you think that is a problem?

Ms. BLAKEY. I think it actually has stood us very well in terms

of the efficiency of the system. As I say, we look at a lot of measures and to this point the question of are they providing support

in those towers and TRACONs, the answer is yes, they are.

Mr. HONDA. I have been in air traffic control areas and I have

been in the simulation place also at NASA and I also landed a 747

without any mishap. Would you trust me to be in there? I don’t

think so because I am not certified. I think that is a real problem

in terms of giving out our numbers and leaving an impression that

we are well staffed. I think that is the wrong way to give us information.

Ms. BLAKEY. Certainly I think it would dramatically change the

equation if we suddenly declared all the work being done by developmental controllers in our facilities cannot be counted and should

not be considered a part of the workforce. It has been for many,

many years and they are doing a very good job.

Mr. HONDA. Maybe it should be stated clearly in print that is

what they are being used for although they are not certified and

are trainees.

Ms. BLAKEY. We do have those figures and I would be happy to

get you the break out on it.
31

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman. We have less than three minutes remaining in this vote. We will stand in recess until 1:00 p.m.

I will excuse this panel and thank you for your participation.

[Recess.]

Mr. MICA. The subcommittee will come back to order.

I appreciate the patience of the two members of our second panel

during those recorded votes.

I would like to welcome to our subcommittee our second panel

which is composed of Ruth E. Marlin, Executive Vice President of

the National Air Traffic Controllers Association and Dr. George H.

Ebbs, Jr., President, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. I know

these two individuals represent others. It is impossible to have

every one of those who are serving our air traffic control system

and their various organizations, managers and other employee representative groups with interest. The same holds true for some of

the universities that are involved in training our air traffic control

personnel from an academic standpoint, but we welcome statements from others and will leave the record open without objection

for a period of two weeks and we invite others who are interested

from those groups to add testimony and comments to the official

record of this subcommittee hearing.

With those comments, I am pleased to recognize, first, Ruth Marlin, Executive Vice President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association. Welcome and you are recognized for your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF RUTH E. MARLIN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; AND GEORGE H. EBBS, JR., PRESIDENT, EMBRYRIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY

Ms. MARLIN. Good afternoon, Chairman Mica, Mr. DeFazio and

members of the subcommittee.

I am Ruth Marlin, Executive Vice President of the National Air

Traffic Controllers Association. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the staffing shortage facing our Nation’s air traffic control system.

We are here today because we recognize the system is confronting a staffing shortage of crisis proportions. In the immediate future and without adequate numbers of certified controllers, we cannot safely meet the needs of our Nation’s air travelers. The controller shortage affects more than just the day to day operation of the

air traffic control system. Without adequate staffing, we simply do

not have the resources to increase capacity, modernize equipment

and redesign air space.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the need to plan

more precisely in hiring, training and placement of new controllers

and we agree that this is very important but we cannot delay the

hiring while these plans are being developed. We need to move forward to bring more controllers into the system to fill known vacancies while we improve our systems of predicting future vacancies.

NATCA is eager to assist the agency and this Congress with refining that process.

The bottom line is that Congress must provide the resources to

allow the FAA to increase controller staffing to accommodate the

training needs in the system and the FAA must be permitted to get
32

ahead of the retirements so that we can stay ahead of the problem.

This is not simply a problem we can put off until another year because delaying the solution makes the problem worse. We can no

longer wait and at many locations, we have waited far too long already.

I don’t want to use this time to restate what the previous panel

has said. I believe we all agree it is a problem that must be addressed but the statistics don’t tell the whole story. We need to look

at the operation and what the real life environment is across the

country with just two examples. In Los Angeles, the center is authorized 309 controllers but has only 276 on board. Of those, only

219 are certified professional controllers and they expect that number to drop to 206 this year. That number will further be depleted

if we fill supervisor vacancies with onboard controllers.

In Chicago’s TRACON, we face a steadily declining number of

certified professional controllers. The facility is authorized 101 controllers and currently only has 73 who are certified professional

controllers and of those, 20 are eligible to retire today. I talked to

the representative from Chicago this morning and one has already

announced his retirement; 17 more will become eligible in the next

three years. The managers in Chicago have relied heavily on overtime just to keep the traffic moving through one of our Nation’s

busiest hubs.

Operational errors are up, morale is down and the controllers are

leaving faster than expected but this problem is not sudden or unexpected. We have known about it and we have a choice. Whether

or not we allow our Nation’s aviation transportation infrastructure

to collapse under its own weight is a choice. Either we will continue to be a world leader in aviation or we will not. Either we will

meet the needs of the Nation’s traveling public or we will not, but

it is a choice.

My members are doing everything they possibly can to keep their

collective heads above water but only Congress and the Administration can throw them a life boat. NATCA is prepared to work

with the FAA and Congress to address this crisis before it becomes

insurmountable. We have identified some real solutions, some

things we can do now to make a real difference. Most important

is to start addressing the known vacancies today. The Inspector

General’s report identified that transferring controllers, certify in

half the time as a new hire. We need to allow those controllers to

move up through the system now to fill those known vacancies and

create new vacancies at lower activity facilities where new hires

have the greatest chance of success.

Allowing these certified professional controllers to move into

these positions will reduce the training time needed and at the

same time improve our success rate. This is an important corollary

step and it is not a new idea. We have seen it work in the past.

Finally, we need to make sure that existing resources are used

as they are expected. Congress has mandated that we increase the

number of supervisors. We need to ensure that we do not further

cause controller staffing shortages by depleting the ranks in filling

these positions and then remove those supervisors from the operational watch backfilling with controllers in charge.
33

The CIC Program has been very successful but if we use that

program to allow more supervisors to move into administrative positions, we further shorten the operational workforce. We need to

take advantage of the programs that work while we prepare for the

future.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we cannot and

must not take the fact that our Nation has the safest and most efficient air traffic control system for granted. The reality is we are

facing a very serious staffing crisis and we need to start training

now. In fact, we needed to start training yesterday to make sure

we have enough controllers to do the job right. Our training program is difficult and it should be difficult because we are asking

people to be responsible for thousands of lives at any moment. If

we do not address this problem and make sure we have enough

controllers and provide quality training, we will see delays, congestion and even worse and that is not a solution any of us want to

see.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee

and I welcome any questions you may have.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

We will hear from our other witness before we have questions.

That witness is Dr. George Ebbs, President, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Welcome and you are recognized.

Mr. EBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.

I am honored to appear before your subcommittee representing

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

With your indulgence I would like to take must a moment to introduce Embry-Riddle to those present. We were founded in 1926

as a training school for aviators and aviation mechanics. We remain true to our calling as an institution specializing in teaching

the theory and practice of professional disciplines directly related

to the fields of aviation and aerospace.

In 1968, Embry-Riddle became the world’s first fully accredited

university devoted exclusively to education and research in the

aviation and aerospace industry. As these industries have grown,

so have we. Today, Embry-Riddle has two residential campuses,

one in Daytona Beach, Florida and one in Prescott, Arizona. In addition to the 5,000 students in Daytona and the 2,000 enrolled in

Prescott, Embry-Riddle also provides course offerings and degrees

to more than 20,000 military and civilian professionals throughout

our extended campus network in 130 locations worldwide.

Embry-Riddle offers a number of Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees

in aviation and aerospace-related fields ranging from aeronautical

science which is our under graduate professional pilot program, air

traffic management, aviation safety and security, meteorology and

aerospace engineering, as well as human factor psychology, airport/

airline management and space physics.

Embry-Riddle works on a daily basis with Federal agencies such

as the FAA, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National

Weather Service and the Department of Defense providing expertise in undertaking research, education and training projects. Our

instructors teach the Air Force Academy cadets how to fly and

Embry-Riddle faculty provide safety training for over 600 Air Force

safety officers each year in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
34

All in all, Embry-Riddle is actively engaged in the education,

training, growth and development of almost every area of aviation

and aerospace here in the United States and throughout the world.

Who we are and what we do applies with special force to the

topic before your committee today, the status of the air traffic controller workforce. At Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, almost

500 students are currently enrolled in our air traffic management

program. To accommodate the popularity and the growth of this

program initiated in the fall of 2000, we have just hired our sixth

full-time faculty member dedicated specifically to this program.

Our air traffic control training program is not only the Nation’s

largest among the 13 collegiate training initiative institutions, but

our students on average I would suggest are the best prepared of

any with skills and training at least equal to those who graduate

from the ATC Academy in Oklahoma City. All of our graduates

have consistently qualified for entry into the air traffic control OJT

environment and the feedback we receive from the FAA underscores our assessment of their capabilities and their superior performance.

There are two reasons for this success. First, our faculty have

outstanding credentials. We are the only school where every ATC

faculty member has at least 20 years of experience as an air traffic

controller and has an earned Doctorate or Master’s degree. Second,

our instructional environment is unrivaled. Our simulation equipment is industry standard and state of the art. Embry-Riddle was

among the first to install the Adacel tower simulator. NASA, the

FAA and the Air Force have since followed suit and now have identical equipment.

The Nation faces a significant need for new controllers in the

next ten years as our ATC system modernizes and expands and importantly, as we have heard today, many current, long service controllers retire. With Embry-Riddle’s programs, faculty and facilities

designed specifically to educate quality air traffic controllers,

Embry-Riddle stands ready to play a significant role in helping

meet this growing need in a timely manner and at no additional

cost to the Government.

There are two impediments to directly increasing controller supply that I would urge you and your committee to consider. First,

today, every member of Embry-Riddle’s ATC graduating class must

attend an additional two month training program in Oklahoma

City before they move into the ATC OJT environment. We believe

this is an unnecessary and costly step. Were Embry-Riddle granted

the same status as the FAA Academy and Minneapolis Community

Technical College, and were we permitted to send our graduates directly to the OJT environment, the FAA could realize significant

savings in both time and expense.

What is contained in our four year, ATC curriculum meets and

exceeds the training program currently required at Oklahoma City.

Consequently, our graduates currently experience unnecessary

delays entering the OJT program, a program for which they are already well qualified. The FAA is spending scarce resources training

already qualified personnel who don’t require it.

I would also like to add and emphasize that Embry-Riddle students pay for their own education. Therefore, from an FAA perspec-
35

tive, training costs are zero. The motivation for our students entering this program at their own expense is the reasonable prospect

of FAA employment at graduation.

Second, I would urge you and your committee to consider an accelerated ATC program housed at Embry-Riddle. The program

would target aspiring air traffic controllers who already have a college degree. With a program such as this, we could deliver an additional 600 trained air traffic controllers to the FAA annually. This

figure is about 60 percent of what some of the projections are estimated for the national requirement but current Federal rules limit

Embry-Riddle to training only degree seeking students. From our

perspective, this restriction serves no educational or public policy

purpose. We would urge its elimination.

To prepare for this accelerated program, Embry-Riddle can acquire the necessary equipment and the necessary faculty without

cost to the FAA. Once the equipment and faculty are in place, we

can train a degreed controller, utilizing an intense and demanding

curriculum, in about six months. Assuming entering classes of

about 100 students every two months, we feel confident that

Embry-Riddle can graduate 600 new controllers annually. These

graduates would be trained to the same exacting standards to be

fully qualified for immediate OJT entry into the FAA ATC system.

Equally important, they will have paid for the education themselves.

We believe these two reforms can be easily implemented, significantly increasing the number of highly qualified, new ATC controllers, a significant savings for the FAA and to the Nation. The FAA

incurs approximately $6,000 in per diem costs and $12,000 in salary for each student who attends the Academy. If Embry-Riddle

graduates were allowed direct entry into the OJT workforce, those

savings to the FAA alone could approach as much as $18 million

annually, not to mention the embedded FAA personnel and facilities costs.

As you and your colleagues address the air traffic controller

issue, I would urge you to consider private sector alternatives that

can provide qualified controllers at minimal cost to the Government. We at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University are up to this

challenge.

Thank you for this opportunity and I would be happy to answer

any questions.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

I might ask our first witness, Ms. Marlin, you have just heard

Mr. Ebbs describe private sector training that would eliminate the

attendance by their graduates at the Oklahoma City Academy.

What would be your position on such a move?

Ms. MARLIN. The fundamental role of the Academy, while they

do provide training, is a screening program and the job of the Academy there is to screen out those people that have a low chance of

success in the field. When the screen has been used as a screening

process, we have had much higher success rates in the field which

saves a lot of money. In order for us to determine that someone is

not going to be successful, we might have employed that individual

for years, so I think we need to take a hard look. The data is available, the Academy has been used as a screening process and has
36

also been used as pure training. We need to look at the differential

success rates before we make that sort of a decision and see if in

the long run, it is more cost effective for the Government to screen

out these employees earlier and provide them with an opportunity

to pursue a different career course rather than spending several

years with the FAA only to find they are not successful.

Mr. MICA. It appears also that there seems to be a screening

process or review process. None of these folks are brought on as

certified air traffic controllers, that is earned over their actual inservice functioning. You don’t feel that is adequate in sorting out

folks, that we need this I thought it was more of an academic or

training program and you say it is a filtering program?

Ms. MARLIN. The program at the Academy is the Air Traffic Control Screen Program. That is the name of the course that was given

when I went through it. While they do provide training, they train

you to a certain level to see if you have met certain standards. I

think there is an opportunity to look at the available data and the

success rates because we have used the Academy in both ways and

make some good sound decisions rather than jump into it without

doing that evaluation.

Mr. MICA. The Minneapolis operation is certified to have people

go through that operation and then directly to work sites, is that

correct?

Ms. MARLIN. That is correct.

Mr. MICA. That is a private sector operation with public support,

correct?

Ms. MARLIN. That is correct.

Mr. MICA. So there wouldn’t be much difference if we had similar

programs of certification. We do already certify all of the 13 universities, correct, Mr. Ebbs?

Mr. EBBS. That is correct.

Mr. MICA. Is there something missing in those programs that

needs to be done at a higher level? You have been through the system and have maybe seen those individuals who have gone

through, I think there is the term, off street hires versus those who

have previous training. I think most of the off street hires have had

some other aviation experience, is that correct?

Ms. MARLIN. It is not required.

Mr. MICA. It is not required?

Ms. MARLIN. No.

Mr. MICA. But I think most of them do have some, I was told.

Ms. MARLIN. Currently, I believe most do. At the time we were

doing the mass hiring up through 1992, some did and some did not.

I can tell you that I did not.

Mr. MICA. You did not. You were off street, as they say, into the

program?

Ms. MARLIN. That is correct.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Ebbs, you would say you could save about $18,000

on average in per diem costs. These students are also paid while

they go through that?

Mr. EBBS. That is correct.

Mr. MICA. I think it is something we need to look at, particularly

if we get into a situation where we have a need to ramp up the

hiring and training.
37

I am not familiar with the Washington group. That is a private

contractor who does provide this service at the Oklahoma Center,

correct. Are you familiar with them at all, Ms. Marlin?

Ms. MARLIN. Yes. The Washington Consulting Group provides

contract training to the FAA. I believe most of their contract is provided for simulation instruction and classroom instruction at field

facilities, primarily centers, but they are also at some large

TRACONs.

Mr. MICA. Do they also have the contract to do the training at

the FAA center or are there FAA personnel that do the training or

both?

Ms. MARLIN. I can tell you it used to be by FAA personnel. I

don’t know how that has changed over the years.

Mr. MICA. I just wondered if there is some magic to this Washington Group to perform some of those services versus degree certified universities that have programs that are also certified by

FAA for this type of training. Are there any differences that you

know of Mr. Ebbs?

Mr. EBBS. Not that I know of. I am not actually familiar with the

Washington Consulting Group but if they are doing the work of the

training and development for the FAA, I should think there are

other options as well.

Mr. MICA. It has been described as more of a screening process

I guess prior to actually beginning to learn more of the operational

side of air traffic control.

There have been some impasses between labor and air traffic

controller representational groups and FAA. I think some of it also

revolves or evolves around the staffing levels and some of the sort

of the bottom line requirements. Some of that has delayed the process of hiring. Ms. Marlin, where is the problem?

Ms. MARLIN. Sir, we are not at a labor impasse with staffing, nor

have we ever been. We had a staffing agreement, it was the first

staffing agreement we had ever come to with the FAA in 1998.

That expired in 2000. By mutual agreement of the parties, it expired, so we do not have a current staffing agreement. We are

working collectively to try and refine the staffing standard and the

process but we are not in active negotiations on the issue.

Mr. MICA. We heard this CRU-X which is the labor distribution

system FAA has chosen to track hours worked by air traffic controllers. There is also an impasse or we have problems with getting

an agreement on what should be contained in that. Are you familiar with the problems with CRU-X?

Ms. MARLIN. Yes, I am. It was characterized this morning as negotiations over implementation. We are actually working to make

the software work properly. Our difficulties with the agency have

not been on the implementation but whether or not the program

will work. It is my understanding that if fielded tomorrow, it would

crash. So last weekend, in fact, Sunday, I received a message that

we had made a significant step forward and agreed to port the

functions of CRU-X onto a more stable software program. So in

terms of the functions, we have not had a problem. It was a technical problem with the software.

Mr. MICA. How long do you think it would be before that system

would be operational?
38

Ms. MARLIN. Since they just decided to move it, I haven’t had

any of our technical experts really evaluate how long it would take.

We are hoping to move very quickly because we would like to see

some accurate information not only on controller eligibilities but on

actual work productivity. The measures we have today only measure a portion of the controller’s work.

Mr. MICA. Mr. DeFazio?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Marlin, earlier we had some discussion of the time it takes

someone to become fully certified taking between three and seven

years. Can you give us some insight into what the discrepancies result from or what the differences result from?

Ms. MARLIN. The fundamental reason why it takes longer at

some facilities to certify than others is staffing. At the New York

Center, for example, where we have seen controllers take seven

years to certify, it is because their training is interrupted for long

periods of time in order to use them as operational controllers on

their sectors where they are certified. So their training program is

delayed because they are needed to be used as an active resource

and they are unable to continue on the training. That is why it

takes seven years. It is not that person is in continual training. It

is that we lack the staffing to provide them with that training to

get them to certification which is why we are so very concerned

about this issue today. If we allow the system to become shorter

staffed, training times will be longer, not shorter.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Didn’t Ms. Blakey tell us that you are in fact over

staffed?

Ms. MARLIN. I believe she stated that and said that 160 towers

are overstaffed. We are looking to get the information on which 160

towers. That leaves 135 that are understaffed as well as the centers. The problem with going on a facility number, saying we have

160 that are overstaffed is those could be 160 facilities where the

staffing complement is 12 or 14, so one person approaches 10 percent over staff versus an en route center that is 35 controllers

short. When we look at facilities to say this number of facilities is

overstaffed, we don’t get a good picture about the system’s needs.

The problem we see is the most likely facilities to have an overstaffing situation are the low level facilities because they have a

continual turn. As people come in, other people are waiting to

leave. So while there are those two people there, the person waiting to move up, you have an extra person in facility. This has been

exacerbated in the last year and a half when the FAA put a freeze

on promotions. So we have people who have bid on available vacancies at facilities where the FAA identified a need, at those short

staffed facilities across the country that have the most impact and

those controllers have been unable to go there. So we created an

artificial staffing overage at a lower level facility while we continue

to see the shortages at the higher level ones.

Mr. DEFAZIO. The freeze was put in place while they are assessing the needs of the system?

Ms. MARLIN. No, it was purely for budgetary reasons because as

a controller moves to a higher level facility, they will eventually get

a pay raise and it has a stronger effect on the budget.
39

Mr. DEFAZIO. Was that generated by the Administration or was

that mandated by Congress?

Ms. MARLIN. No, the freeze was a unilateral decision of the agency.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So, we have an Appropriations Committee which

was short-sighted in terms of authorizing additional controllers, we

have an Administration that won’t allow people to be promoted,

and overstaffed lower level facilities because they don’t want to

carry the burden of that person’s promotional costs?

Ms. MARLIN. That is correct. A lot has been made when we

talked about moving people of the cost of a permanent change of

station move. I would like to point out in the GAO report to this

committee in 2002, it showed 80 percent of controller moves receive

no permanent change of station funding whatsoever.

Mr. DEFAZIO. If either of you could respond, I am curious if there

are any longevity studies on the retention levels or any other performance statistics on people who were trained outside of the Academy and people trained through the Academy?

Ms. MARLIN. I don’t believe the FAA has aggregated that data.

Certainly it is available because they have personnel records on

every employee but I have not seen any studies where they looked

at the success rates, that looked at level of facility, hiring source,

time to train but certainly the data is available. It just needs to

be analyzed.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Ebbs?

Mr. EBBS. I have been told nothing.

Mr. DEFAZIO. It probably would be a wise thing for the FAA to

be looking at, it would seem

Mr. EBBS. I would think so.

Mr. DEFAZIO. The other question, Mr. Ebbs, you talked about an

accelerated program for people with degrees?

Mr. EBBS. The technicality today of moving into the program requires you are a degree seeking student as opposed to a student

already having a degree.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Who sets that standard?

Mr. EBBS. I believe that is part of the agreement with the 13

schools the FAA has established. That means if someone wishes to

change careers, they would like to become a professional pilot, they

can go back and become certified by getting all the FAA ratings

and move on through their training and become a commercial aviator.

On the other hand, if you wish to become an air traffic controller,

that is not open to you because the degree seeking aspect of it is

not fully met. That is how the statute has been interpreted. So

none of the 13 schools, including ourselves, are able to provide additional training and certification for someone in this particular

line of work because they would not be accepted into the Academy.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Just on the issue of the additional two months required of your students, would that be part of the curriculum for

someone like Ms. Marlin who went through the entire 15 week

course? Is the two months specially designed for people who come

from other institutions or is that the last two months of your 15

week course or is it some part of the regular course? I don’t quite

understand that.
40

Ms. MARLIN. I believe it is the same program regardless of your

hiring source. They could probably look at eliminating a portion of

the training element for those students coming from CTI schools

and simply focus on the testing portion.

Mr. EBBS. I think she is quite right. This is were we basically

have some concerns. A student going through a four year degree

program at Embry-Riddle today ends up with almost 1,500 hours

in directly and indirectly related air traffic control, environmental

meteorology and the like. About 210 of those hours are very similar. Having been through that, a graduate has also had another

1,300 hours of we think very important training and development

in their education which makes them a very, very solid professional

hire. To go back to Oklahoma City, at the conclusion of the four

year degree program to have the 200 hours repeated seems unnecessary, seems to keep people from the system who could move in

quicker and importantly, expending funds that could probably be

better spent elsewhere.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I think we have some grounds for agreement there.

Ms. Marlin stated that. There is a screening function and a training function and perhaps the training part could be waived and we

could look at the screening.

Mr. MICA. Do either of you know if there is a legislative prohibition or a legislative requirement that mandates they must go

through Oklahoma City? Is it law or just a rule of FAA, an FAA

edict?

Ms. MARLIN. I believe it is just an FAA policy at this point. I

don’t think it is even an administrative rule. Is it?

Mr. EBBS. I think it has been standard operating procedure. That

is the way they have always done it.

Ms. MARLIN. It is just agency policy.

Mr. MICA. It is not by law?

Mr. EBBS. It is an FAA order apparently.

Ms. MARLIN. That makes it agency policy.

Mr. MICA. It is not a law. So it could be changed.

I think this has been enlightening. I want to find out, Ms. Marlin, you said the Washington group not only trains and participates

with FAA employees in Oklahoma City but they also do training

in the towers?

Ms. MARLIN. They do classroom and simulation training at some

large TRACONs and the en route centers.

Mr. MICA. Do you know whether that is part of the $27 million

contract this year?

Ms. MARLIN. That is.

Mr. MICA. It is?

Ms. MARLIN. Yes.

Mr. MICA. There is not additional payment for those services?

Ms. MARLIN. Not that I am aware of.

Mr. MICA. We will check that.

Mr. EBBS. Mr. Chairman, also we understand that this consulting group, it is all recurrent training, they are not involved in the

OJT training at all. So we would not find them in Oklahoma City

from what I understand. Is that correct?

Ms. MARLIN. No, that is incorrect. In the controller training

phase, particularly in the honor environment, each phase is pre-
41

ceded by a classroom period, a simulation period and then the OJT.

It is interspersed into the program. That will be at the radar associate position and then at the radar position. The Washington Consulting Group provides support for the labs, writing the problems

and instructors. Most of those functions, if we had a fully staffed

air traffic controller complement, could be taken over by existing

FAA employees utilizing available time but because we are short

staffed, the Washington Consulting Group was brought in I believe

just after the strike to assist with that.

Mr. MICA. We are trying to sort through this issue of making certain we have available qualified air traffic control personnel, both

at the terminal level, at the en route level, supervisors, others and

it is obvious it does take a substantial amount of time, even with

training whether it is through someone being employed off the

street or through an extensive university course to also be certified

as an air traffic controller. That is a correct statement, I would

imagine.

We don’t have statistics as to how these individuals perform who

have come from the various background and training but I think

that would be helpful. Maybe we could request FAA staff if we can

get them to do an analysis or possibly GAO from an independent

standpoint or IG, one or the other so we can have some hard data

on that.

I do appreciate you both providing testimony today as we sort

through making certain we have a ready, trained and also experienced workforce on hand to meet the needs of the air traffic control

system.

Any final comments, Ms. Marlin?

Ms. MARLIN. No. Just to thank the committee for their focus on

this very important issue. We need to get some progress sooner

rather than later.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Ebbs?

Mr. EBBS. Thank you as well for inviting me. The only point I

would like to emphasize is some things made earlier this morning

regarding simulation and the quality of training might also go to

reduce the cycle we heard is averaging about 3.1 years. There are

both technological solutions and I think also preparatory solutions,

meaning a better trained, incoming recruit, preferably a college

graduate who has had the kind of training I think we and some

of the other schools deliver may aid us in reducing that average

time and have basically a better professional.

Mr. MICA. Again, we appreciate you both providing testimony

today. As I mentioned, we picked two individuals who represent

one private university and the other one of our air traffic control

representative groups. We welcome additional testimony from other

universities and other employee and professional groups and others

interested in providing their input to the subcommittee. For that

purpose, we are going to leave the record for a period of two additional weeks.

There being no additional business to come before the Aviation

Subcommittee at this time, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, 1:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115

Æ