United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

April 1997 AVIATION SAFETY

Opportunities Exist for

FAA to Refine the

Controller Staffing

Process

GAO/RCED-97-84

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-271807 

April 9, 1997

The Honorable Frank Wolf

Chairman

The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Transportation

 and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable James L. Oberstar

Ranking Minority Member,

 Committee on Transportation

 and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

In response to your request, this report discusses the results of our review of the Federal

Aviation Administration’s (FAA) efforts to address short- and long-term controller staffing needs.

The report contains recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation aimed at enhancing

FAA’s ability to forecast and meet these needs.

As arranged with your offices, unless you announce its contents earlier, we plan no further

distribution of this report until 7 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send

copies of the report to the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator of the FAA; other

appropriate congressional committees; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions, I can be reached at (202) 512-2834. Major contributors to

this report are listed in appendix III.

John H. Anderson, Jr.

Director, Transportation Issues
Executive Summary

Purpose The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for managing the

nation’s air transportation system so more than 18,000 aircraft can

annually carry 500 million passengers safely and on schedule. Because of

significant hiring in the early 1980s to replace strikers who had been fired,

many of FAA’s more than 17,000 air traffic controllers may become eligible

to retire within the next decade, raising concerns that FAA could be left

with too few fully trained controllers.

The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on

Transportation, House Committee on Appropriations, and the Ranking

Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

asked GAO to (1) identify the key variables FAA uses to project future

controller staffing needs and evaluate their reasonableness; (2) determine

whether the agency has identified a sufficient number of controller

candidates to satisfy its short- and long-term staffing needs and evaluate

FAA’s plans to train new controllers; and (3) identify impediments that

hinder FAA from staffing air traffic control (ATC) facilities at specified

levels.

Background In 1981, thousands of air traffic controllers who participated in a

nationwide strike were fired and barred by a presidential directive from

reemployment with FAA as air traffic controllers. As a result of the strike,

FAA hired thousands of new controllers to rebuild its controller workforce.

In 1995, following the repeal of the directive, FAA began rehiring some of

the fired controllers.

FAA uses staffing standards forecast models to determine the staffing

needs for controllers and to formulate its annual staffing and budget

requests. The models forecast needs using (1) periodic industrial

engineering studies that measure the amount of time it takes a controller

to perform necessary work tasks; (2) estimates of growth in air traffic; and

(3) estimates of attrition among controllers. The models are also used to

determine the specified level of controllers FAA needs to operate its ATC

facilities.

Air traffic controller candidates currently receive training from several

sources. Most candidates with no prior controller experience currently

receive initial training at one of four post-secondary educational

institutions that participate in FAA’s collegiate training initiative program or

Page 2 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Executive Summary

at the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium.1 In addition, other

candidates receive training as part of FAA’s cooperative education

program, which allows students to receive controller training while

completing academic requirements toward a college degree. Once hired by

FAA, these candidates receive an average of 2 to 4 years of on-the-job

training at ATC facilities before being fully certified as controllers.

Candidates with prior experience, such as former FAA or Department of

Defense controllers, receive refresher training at the FAA Academy in

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, as well as shorter on-the-job training.

Results in Brief FAA uses two key variables—estimates of air traffic growth and controller

attrition—to project future controller staffing needs. While FAA’s estimates

of air traffic growth are reasonable, GAO’s analysis indicated that FAA could

be overstating retirements, which account for most controller attrition, for

fiscal years 1999 through 2002. Rather than using actual information on

controllers’ age and service time to project future retirements, FAA bases

its estimates on assumptions about when controllers will be eligible to

retire.

FAA has identified a sufficient number of controller candidates to meet its

short-term staffing needs in fiscal years 1997 and 1998. However, beyond

fiscal year 1998, it is uncertain whether current sources can provide the

controller candidates FAA will need to meet its hiring goals for fiscal years

1999 through 2002. The majority of available candidates are controllers

who were fired in 1981 and who FAA officials believe could be eligible to

retire within a few years of reemployment. However, FAA has not

conducted any analysis to support this position. To help meet its long-term

hiring goals, FAA is expanding its collegiate program to include more

schools and has reactivated the cooperative education program.

Beginning in fiscal year 1998, FAA will require that all new controllers

receive some training at its Academy. FAA believes that this will reduce

on-the-job training time and costs. This revision, however, could increase

the federal costs of initial controller training because FAA will pay a

portion of training expenses currently being paid by participants in the

collegiate program.

FAA officials identified several principal impediments that hinder their

ability to staff ATC facilities at specified levels. The first is FAA

1

The Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium is a federally funded program under which students

receive intensive air traffic controller training. The Congress established the program in 1989 to

supplement FAA’s controller training program.

Page 3 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Executive Summary

headquarters’ practice of generally not providing funds to relocate

controllers until the end of the fiscal year, which causes delayed controller

moves and continued staffing imbalances. The second impediment is the

limited ability of regional officials to recruit controller candidates locally

to fill vacancies at ATC facilities. In addition, FAA regional officials also

believe that limited hiring of new controllers in recent years has hindered

their ability to fill vacancies. Partly due to these impediments, as of

April 1996 about 53 percent of ATC facilities were not staffed at levels

specified by FAA’s staffing standards. Specifically, these facilities were

either more than 10 percent over or more than 10 percent under specified

levels. Although FAA officials believe certain circumstances justify

deviations from the staffing standards, there are facilities where staffing

differences are not justified. FAA has implemented several initiatives to

improve its ability to staff the facilities at specified levels. It is too early,

however, to determine the effectiveness of these initiatives.

Principal Findings

FAA Could Improve Its

Forecasts of Controller

Staffing Needs by Using

Available Data

The two key variables that FAA uses to project controller staffing needs are

estimates of future air traffic growth and future controller attrition. FAA’s

projections of air traffic growth have been reasonable. In fiscal years 1991

through 1995, FAA’s estimates of the amount of air traffic to be handled by

certain facilities differed by between 0.6 and 7.4 percent from the actual

levels. Since the projections are designed to be accurate within 10 percent,

FAA officials believe that these estimates are accurate enough for its

purposes.

GAO could not evaluate the reasonableness of FAA’s projections for

controller attrition because FAA does not maintain previous projections

that GAO could compare to actual attrition levels. However, in examining

the process FAA uses to estimate attrition, GAO found that FAA’s projections

of retirements—which account for most attrition—may be overstated. FAA

bases its projections on assumptions they make about when controllers

will be eligible to retire rather than using available data on actual

retirement eligibility. GAO found that many controllers may not qualify for

retirement as early as FAA assumes. In addition, FAA assumes that the same

percentage of controllers will retire in the future as in the past but does

not have a basis for this making this assumption.

Page 4 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Executive Summary

While definitively predicting how many controllers will retire in any year is

nearly impossible, FAA could improve its attrition estimates by using actual

information on the age and service time of recent retirees and current

controllers. Using data on actual retirements from fiscal years 1992

through 1996, GAO found that, on average, controllers retired when they

had about 31 years of federal service and were about 56 years old.

Combining these data with similar data on current controllers, GAO

estimated that retirements could be significantly lower than FAA projects

for fiscal years 1999 through 2002. For example, while FAA projects that

510 controllers will retire in fiscal year 2002, data on recent retirees

indicate that the number of retirees in fiscal year 2002 could range from

211 to 273 controllers.

Because it takes about 3 years to fully train a new controller, if actual

retirements differ significantly from FAA’s estimates, it could take FAA

several years to adjust its hiring to reflect actual retirements. If FAA

overestimates the number of future retirees, it would have too many

controllers for several years, resulting in increased costs. If FAA

underestimates the number of retirees, it could be several years before

fully trained controllers are available, which could result in an increase in

overtime for the remaining controllers and, in extreme cases, flight delays

due to decreased levels of FAA operations.

Short-Term Staffing Needs

Can Be Met, but

Uncertainty Exists About

FAA’s Ability to Meet

Long-Term Needs

A sufficient number of candidates are available from various sources to

meet FAA’s plans to hire 1,300 new controllers in the short term, fiscal

years 1997 and 1998, including former FAA and Department of Defense

controllers as well as graduates from the collegiate program and the

Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium.

In the long term, however, it is uncertain whether current sources can

provide the new controllers FAA plans to hire during fiscal years 1999

through 2002. The majority of available candidates are controllers who

were fired from FAA during the 1981 controller strike. FAA officials believe

that these controllers may only fill staffing needs in the short term because

many of them could retire at the same time as current controllers. While

data on the age and service time of the former controllers who qualify for

rehire are available, FAA has not analyzed these data to determine when the

former controllers would become eligible to retire and thus would need to

be replaced.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Executive Summary

To ensure that it has enough controller candidates, FAA is expanding the

number of post-secondary schools participating in the collegiate and

cooperative education programs. According to FAA officials, the collegiate

program will include 18 additional schools by September 1997.

FAA intends to provide a portion of initial controller training for all

collegiate program candidates at the FAA Academy in order to standardize

training on the latest equipment and reduce on-the-job training time and

costs. However, under this approach, FAA will assume some of the costs of

training that many candidates in the collegiate program are currently

paying. FAA has not analyzed the cost-effectiveness of changing its

approach to training new controllers.

FAA Officials Identified

Impediments That

Contribute to Staffing

Imbalances at ATC

Facilities

In April 1996, FAA’s total controller workforce was 17,163, compared to the

staffing standard of 17,465—a difference of about 2 percent. However,

when GAO examined staffing at specific ATC facilities, there was a greater

difference between actual staffing and the standards at about half of the

facilities. Specifically, about 21 percent of ATC facilities were staffed at

levels more than 10 percent above FAA’s standards, while 32 percent of ATC

facilities were staffed at levels more than 10 percent below the standards.

While some differences may be acceptable because of certain

circumstances, such as workload factors that are unique to particular

facilities, FAA headquarters officials acknowledged that some facilities

have too many controllers, while others have too few.

FAA regional officials told us that one impediment to alleviating the staffing

imbalances is FAA’s practice of waiting until the end of the fiscal year to

distribute funds to relocate controllers among facilities. Funds initially

designated to move controllers are used during the year to supplement

cost increases for other operating expenses. According to FAA regional

officials, this practice delays controller moves, creates uncertainty, and

inhibits the timely and effective allocation of resources within the regions.

FAA headquarters officials agreed that this practice causes problems but

told GAO that sufficient funds have always been available to pay for

controller moves by the end of the fiscal year.

A second impediment, according to regional officials, is that they have

limited authority to hire new controllers from their geographic areas. FAA

headquarters officials agreed and explained that they currently require

that most new controllers come from two pools of candidates—the

controllers who were fired in 1981 or graduates of the collegiate

Page 6 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Executive Summary

program—regardless of the candidates’ geographic preferences. This often

requires new controllers to move in order to get hired. Once hired, many

new controllers request transfers to other more desirable facilities. More

local recruiting, FAA officials explained, would help reduce the number of

controller transfers and resignations, particularly at facilities that are hard

to staff, because newly hired controllers would begin working in their

preferred geographic areas.

A third impediment, cited by officials in all FAA regions, is limited hiring in

recent years because of budget constraints, which has resulted in fewer

new controllers being assigned to some ATC facilities. Regional officials

told us that new controllers are needed to fill vacancies created by

attrition, as well as to provide a buffer against future retirements.

According to these officials, an inability to fill vacancies has led to

increased overtime and reduced controller training at some facilities.

While FAA is proposing a variety of initiatives to address its staffing

problems—including more regional recruiting and hiring, and instituting

an interim incentive pay program for hard-to-staff facilities—it is too soon

to determine their effectiveness.

Recommendations To improve FAA’s process for estimating and meeting future controller

staffing needs, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Transportation

direct the Administrator of FAA to (1) incorporate actual information on

the age, years of service, and retirement eligibility date of current

controllers into its projections of future controller retirements; (2) use age

and service data to determine when controllers fired in 1981 and rehired

could retire and therefore would need to be replaced; and (3) monitor the

costs of training for collegiate program graduates hired in fiscal years 1997

and 1998 to determine whether anticipated savings will be realized under

the revised training program.

Agency Comments We provided copies of a draft of this report to FAA for its review and

comment. FAA officials, including the Acting Deputy Associate

Administrator for Air Traffic Services, concurred with our

recommendations and provided clarifying comments which have been

incorporated as appropriate.

Page 7 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

12

Role of Air Traffic Controllers in the U.S. Air Transportation

System

12

Available Controller Candidates and Air Traffic Controller

Training

14

The Two Sets of Retirement Rules That Affect Controllers’

Eligibility for Retirement

15

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 16

Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve

the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of

Controller Staffing

Needs by Using

Available Data

19

Controller Staffing Needs Are Based on Staffing Standards

Forecast Models

19

FAA’s Recent Staffing Requests Reflect Its Estimates of Increased

Controller Attrition

21

Workload Estimates Are Reasonable, but Attrition Estimates May

Overstate Future Retirements

24

Five Factors Limit the Reasonableness of FAA’s Projections of

Long-Term Controller Needs

27

Data on the Age and Service Time of Recently Retired Controllers

Indicate That Fewer Controllers Could Retire in Future Years

Than FAA Has Forecast

31

Conclusions 38

Recommendation 39

Agency Comments 39

Chapter 3 

FAA Can Meet

Short-Term Staffing

Needs While

Developing Plans to

Address Long-Term

Needs

40

A Sufficient Number of Controller Candidates Is Available to Fill

Short-Term Staffing Needs

40

Rehiring of Former PATCO Members May Only Fill Staffing

Needs in the Short Term

41

FAA Is Expanding Its Controller Candidate Pool to Address

Long-Term Staffing Needs and Is Revising Its Controller Training

Program

43

Conclusions 46

Recommendations 47

Agency Comments 47

Page 8 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Contents

Chapter 4 

FAA Has Identified

Several Impediments

That Hinder Its Ability

to Staff ATC Facilities

at Specified Levels

48

Many ATC Facilities Are Not Staffed at Specified Levels 48

FAA Officials Identified Impediments That Contribute to Staffing

Imbalances at ATC Facilities

52

FAA Has Several Initiatives Under Way to Address Staffing

Differences

55

Conclusions 57

Appendixes Appendix I: Explanation of the Model We Used to Estimate

Future Controller Retirements

60

Appendix II: FAA Regional Offices, Air Traffic Control Facilities,

and NATCA Representatives Contacted for Our Review

62

Appendix III: Major Contributors to This Report 63

Tables Table 1.1: Retirement Eligibility Rules for Controllers 16

 Table 2.1: FAA’s Controller Workforce, Fiscal Years 1993-96 21

 Table 2.2: FAA’s Estimates of Controller Hiring, Attrition, and the

Total Controller Workforce, Fiscal Years 1997-2002

22

 Table 2.3: Actual and Predicted Levels of En Route Center

Activity in Millions of Aircraft Handled, Fiscal Years 1991-95

25

 Table 2.4: FAA’s Estimates and Actual Controller Retirements

and Resignations, Fiscal Year 1995

26

 Table 2.5: Projections of Controller Retirements According to

FAA’s Staffing Plan and Those Derived From Age and Service

Data, Fiscal Years 1997-2002

37

 Table 3.1: Controller Hiring and Available Controller Candidates,

Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998

41

 Table 4.1: Summary of PCS Funding, Spending, and Moves for

Fiscal Years 1993-97

53

 Table I.1: Estimated Number of Controller Retirements Based on

Age and Service Time

61

Figures Figure 1.1: Aircraft Tracking at ATC Facilities 13

Figure 2.1: FAA’s Controller Workforce Compared to the Staffing

Standards, Fiscal Years 1993-96

20

Figure 2.2: FAA’s Estimates of the Number of Controllers Eligible

for Retirement, Fiscal Years 1997-2007

23

Page 9 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Contents

Figure 2.3: FAA’s Estimates of the Number of Controllers

Becoming Eligible to Retire Compared to Those Projected to

Retire, Fiscal Years 1997-2006

30

Figure 2.4: FAA’s Retirement Projections Compared to the

Annual Number of Controllers Reaching 31 Years of Federal

Service, Fiscal Years 1997-2011

32

Figure 2.5: FAA’s Retirement Projections Compared to the

Annual Number of Controllers Reaching 56 Years of Age, Fiscal

Years 1997-2011

34

Figure 2.6: FAA’s Retirement Projections Compared to

Retirement Projections Based on Controllers’ Age and Years of

Federal Service, Fiscal Years 1997-2011

36

Figure 3.1: Comparison of FAA’s Existing and Revised Training

Programs

45

Figure 4.1: Comparison of the Current Number of Controllers and

Staffing Standards Levels for En Route Centers

50

Figure 4.2: Comparison of the Current Number of Controllers and

Staffing Standards Levels for Terminal Facilities

51

Abbreviations

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATO Office of Air Traffic Operations

ATS Air Traffic Services

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System

CTI collegiate training initiative

DOD Department of Defense

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FERS Federal Employees Retirement System

FPL full performance level

GAO General Accounting Office

MARC Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium

NATCA National Air Traffic Controllers Association

PATCO Professional Air Traffic Control Organization

PCS permanent change of station

TRACON terminal radar approach control

Page 10 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Page 11 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Each year, over 18,000 aircraft and more than 500 million passengers

travel through the air transportation system in the United States. The

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has responsibility for managing this

system and ensuring the safe and efficient movement of air traffic. To

successfully accomplish this mission, FAA must have a sufficient number of

adequately trained air traffic controllers working at air traffic control (ATC)

facilities. Currently, FAA operates nearly 400 ATC facilities and employs

over 17,000 individuals in its controller workforce.1

For nearly a decade after the air traffic controller strike in August 1981,

FAA had to rebuild its controller workforce. Between fiscal years 1982 and

1990, FAA hired thousands of controllers to replace those fired by a

presidential directive in 1981 and indefinitely barred from seeking future

employment as FAA controllers. Most controllers hired during that period

have remained with FAA. In August 1993, the bar was repealed through a

presidential memorandum, and in 1995, FAA began rehiring some of the

former controllers. FAA anticipates that a large number of these

controllers, in addition to the controllers who did not participate in the

strike and controllers hired after the strike, will become eligible to retire

beginning in the early 2000s, when they first meet minimum retirement

qualifications.

Role of Air Traffic

Controllers in the U.S.

Air Transportation

System

Air traffic controllers play a critical role in the nation’s air transportation

system. Specifically, controllers are responsible for ensuring the safe,

orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic in the air and on the ground.

Controllers manage air traffic visually and through the use of various types

of equipment, such as radars and computers, at various ATC

facilities—control towers, terminal radar approach control (TRACON)

facilities,2

 and air route traffic control centers (commonly called “en route

centers”).

Controllers’ responsibilities for managing air traffic vary according to the

type of ATC facility. For instance, controllers that work at control towers

are responsible for ensuring the safe separation of aircraft on the ground

and in flight in the vicinity of airports, generally within a 5-mile radius.

These controllers manage the flow of aircraft during takeoffs and landings

and coordinate the transfer of aircraft with adjacent ATC facilities as

1

The controller workforce comprises about 14,500 ATC specialists (controllers), 2,000 first-line

supervisors, and 560 air traffic management coordinators.

2

FAA classifies TRACON facilities and control towers as terminal facilities. Therefore, to maintain

consistency, we use this term when referring to ATC facilities in this report.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 1 

Introduction

aircraft enter or leave an airport’s airspace. Controllers working at TRACON

facilities manage the arrival and departure of aircraft within a 5- to 30-mile

radius of airports. Controllers working at en route centers manage aircraft

beyond a 30-mile radius. These controllers assign aircraft to specific

routes and altitudes to separate aircraft while they are flying along federal

airways or when operating into or out of airports not served by a terminal

facility. These controllers also coordinate the transfer of aircraft control

with adjacent en route centers or terminal facilities. The typical en route

center has responsibility for more than 100,000 square miles of airspace,

which generally extends over several states. Depending on the location of

the en route center, some controllers manage domestic, international, and

oceanic air traffic. Figure 1.1 shows how controllers working at the

different ATC facilities track aircraft during ground, take off, landing, and

in-flight operations. As of April 10, 1996, FAA operated 387 ATC facilities,

consisting of 24 en route centers and 363 terminal facilities.

Figure 1.1: Aircraft Tracking at ATC

Facilities

Air Route Traffic


Control Center

TRACON/Airport


Tower

Airport


Take-off

Airport


Landing

FAA determines the appropriate level of staffing for its ATC facilities by

using staffing standards forecast models. These models produce staffing

standards—the specified level of controller staff needed to manage the ATC

system, within 10 percent. For example, the staffing standards indicated in

fiscal year 1996 that there should have been 17,465 controllers in the

controller workforce. The standards also specified staffing levels for each

Page 13 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 1 

Introduction

ATC facility, but according to FAA officials, the facility-level standards are

not designed to be as accurate as the national standards.

Available Controller

Candidates and Air

Traffic Controller

Training

FAA relies on a number of sources to fill its controller positions. These

sources are (1) individuals with no prior controller training or work

experience in the ATC environment, (2) individuals who have received

some controller training but generally do not have work experience in the

federal ATC environment, and (3) individuals with prior controller work

experience.

The first group includes individuals who respond to vacancy

announcements for controller positions. The second group includes

graduates of the collegiate training initiative (CTI) program, who received

initial ATC academic and technical skills training prior to being hired by FAA

as controllers.3 This type of training introduces the students to the

terminology, airspace configurations, and technical skills necessary to

manage air traffic and operate equipment. The third group includes former

controllers fired in 1981, who were members of the Professional Air

Traffic Controller Organization (PATCO) union; former controllers who left

FAA voluntarily and are eligible for reinstatement; and former Department

of Defense (DOD) civilian and military controllers.

Controller candidates who have no prior controller training or work

experience had received initial controller training at the FAA Academy in

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.4

 However, FAA discontinued initial controller

training for newly hired controllers at the Academy in 1992 due to a sharp

decrease in controller hiring.

Candidates who currently receive initial controller training through the CTI

program are trained at one of four CTI schools located in various parts of

the country. These schools are the Community College of Beaver County

in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania; Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia;

University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, North Dakota; and University

of Alaska-Anchorage in Anchorage, Alaska. The type, length, and cost of

controller training provided by the CTI schools vary, and students pay the

cost of their training at all these schools. In addition, in 1989 the Congress

3

In January 1991, FAA established the CTI program to test whether postsecondary educational

institutions could provide and validate controller training and screening. This program was intended to

supplement FAA’s controller training program.

4

The FAA Academy in Oklahoma City provides management and technical training to controllers,

inspectors, and other FAA personnel.

Page 14 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 1 

Introduction

established the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium (MARC) in

Eden Prairie, Minnesota, to train controller candidates. Unlike the CTI

schools, the MARC program is not part of a broader academic program, and

the cost of training MARC students is paid by federal funds.

Controller candidates with prior controller work experience, such as

former PATCO members and former DOD controllers, are not required to

repeat the initial controller training when hired by FAA. However, they

must complete certain refresher courses at the FAA Academy.

Once assigned to an ATC facility, controllers are classified as

“developmental controllers” until they complete all requirements to be

certified for all of the ATC positions within a defined area of a given ATC

facility. It generally takes new controllers who have had only initial

controller training 2 to 4 years—depending on the availability of facility

staff or contractors to provide on-the-job training—to complete all the

certification requirements to become full-performance-level (FPL)

controllers. It normally takes individuals who have prior controller

experience 1 to 2 years to become FPL controllers.

The Two Sets of

Retirement Rules That

Affect Controllers’

Eligibility for

Retirement

Controllers working at FAA’s ATC facilities are eligible to retire under two

sets of retirement rules—the general retirement rules for federal

employees and special rules for controllers only. Depending on when they

were hired, controllers are covered by either the Civil Service Retirement

System (CSRS) or the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). Under

these rules, controllers can retire if they meet certain age and

years-of-service requirements. For example, a controller who is 55 years

old can retire after 30 years of federal service. Under the special controller

retirement rules, controllers may be able to retire earlier than under the

general CSRS and FERS rules if they have enough service time as an active

controller or immediate supervisor. For instance, controllers can retire at

age 50 if they have spent at least 20 years as an active civilian controller or

immediate supervisor or at any age if they have spent at least 25 years as

an active civilian controller or immediate supervisor. Table 1.1

summarizes all of these rules.

Page 15 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Table 1.1: Retirement Eligibility Rules

for Controllers Type of retirement Age Years of service

CSRS (applicable for most

federal employees hired

before 1984)

62 5

60 20

55 30

FERS (applicable for most

federal employees hired in or

after 1984)

62 5

60 20

55 to 57a 30

Special controller retirement

under either CSRS or FERS

(service time must be as an

active controller or immediate

supervisor)

50 20

any 25

aRetirement eligibility under FERS is subject to a minimum retirement age that differs depending

on the birth date of the employee.

Source: Office of Personnel Management’s publications.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

In March 1996, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee

on Transportation, House Committee on Appropriations, and Ranking

Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

asked us to examine FAA’s efforts for addressing future and existing

controller staffing needs. Specifically, we were asked to (1) identify the

key variables FAA uses to project future controller staffing needs and

evaluate their reasonableness, (2) determine whether FAA has identified a

sufficient number of controller candidates to satisfy its short- and

long-term controller staffing needs and evaluate FAA’s plans to train new

controllers, and (3) identify impediments that hinder FAA from staffing ATC

facilities at specified levels.

To address the first objective, we interviewed officials in FAA’s Office of

Air Traffic Resource Management, Office of Human Resources

Management, and Office of Business Information and Consultation who

are responsible for managing the controller workforce and preparing the

staffing standards models. These officials provided information on the

data used to support FAA’s staffing requests, including FAA’s projections of

air traffic and attrition, which we compared to available data on actual

Page 16 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 1 

Introduction

traffic and attrition. We also used personnel data supplied by FAA to

estimate the age and service characteristics of future retirees on the basis

of characteristics of actual retirees between fiscal years 1992 and 1996.

Additional information on how we made these projections is in appendix I.

We did not, however, verify the validity of the staffing estimates generated

by the staffing standards forecast models because the National Research

Council—which is the principal operating agency of the National Academy

of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering—was reviewing

FAA’s methodologies for estimating the number of controllers needed at

ATC facilities. However, the Council was not reviewing the part of the

models that estimates future attrition. Furthermore, the Council expects to

issue a final report in the spring of 1997.

To address the second objective, we interviewed officials at the FAA

Academy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the MARC, and the four CTI schools

to obtain information on the number of controller candidates trained at

those facilities during fiscal years 1993 to 1996 and the annual capacity of

these facilities to train new controllers. We also interviewed FAA

headquarters officials and analyzed pertinent data to determine (1) what

was the pool of controller candidates available to meet anticipated staffing

needs, (2) whether FAA had developed plans to satisfy long-term staffing

needs, and (3) what actions FAA had under way to expand the pool of

available controller candidates.

To address the third objective, we compared controller staffing levels

specified by FAA’s controller staffing standards with actual staffing at the

national, regional, and facility levels as of April 10, 1996. We also reviewed

pertinent documents and interviewed officials in FAA’s Air Traffic Resource

Management Office and the National Air Traffic Controller Association

(NATCA) in Washington, D.C.

To obtain a nationwide perspective on controller staffing issues, we sent a

survey to, followed by a semistructured telephone interview with, air

traffic managers at the nine FAA regional offices. In addition, we sent the

same survey to air traffic managers at 15 ATC facilities (see app. II),

including 3 en route centers, and at 12 terminals, as well as NATCA

representatives located at the Eastern, Great Lakes, and Southern regions

to obtain their perspectives on (1) their staffing needs as compared to

current controller staffing levels and the impact of these differences on

controller operations, (2) the impediments or principal causes of staffing

differences at ATC facilities, and (3) the initiatives FAA has under way to

address the impediments. We selected a judgmental sample of 15 ATC

Page 17 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 1 

Introduction

facilities to obtain geographical diversity and a representative mix of

facilities where the current controller staffing levels were greater or less

than the 10-percent difference acceptable to FAA. The three NATCA regions

were selected because all 15 ATC facilities that we contacted were located

in these regions.

We conducted our review from April 1996 through February 1997 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We provided copies of a draft of this report to FAA for its review and

comment. FAA officials, including the Acting Deputy Associate

Administrator for Air Traffic Services, commented on the report, and

changes in response to their comments are contained throughout the

report.

Page 18 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

FAA’s projections of future controller staffing needs are primarily based on

its staffing standards forecast models that use two key variables to

forecast future needs—estimates of future air traffic growth and estimates

of future controller attrition. While the air traffic estimates have been

reasonable, FAA could not provide data needed to evaluate its attrition

estimates. FAA’s attrition estimates could overstate retirements in future

years because the agency has not compiled some of the information

needed to determine when controllers will be eligible to retire and because

it does not consider available data on controllers’ age and service time in

its attrition estimates. By analyzing such data, we found that controller

retirements could be significantly lower than FAA projects beginning in

1999.

Controller Staffing

Needs Are Based on

Staffing Standards

Forecast Models

Historically, FAA has based its staffing requests on its long-standing staffing

standards forecast models—it uses separate models for en route centers,

TRACON facilities, and control towers. The models forecast the number of

controllers that will be needed by using three types of data:

• periodic industrial engineering studies that measure the amount of time it

takes a controller to perform necessary work tasks, such as assigning an

airplane to a new altitude;

• estimates of changes in air traffic activity; and

• estimates of future controller attrition.

According to FAA officials, the staffing standards process undergoes

periodic revision to update data and improve methodologies. As a result of

these updates, FAA’s estimate of the total number of controllers it needs

can change from year to year.

According to FAA officials, its models have been used to estimate

controller staffing needs at ATC facilities nationwide, plus or minus

10 percent, and have served as key components for formulating FAA’s

annual budget. Before being submitted to the Congress, the staffing budget

is reviewed within FAA, as well as by the Department of Transportation and

by the Office of Management and Budget.

The size of the controller workforce grew each fiscal year from 1981

through 1992, when it reached 17,982 controllers. In fiscal year 1991, the

last full year in which FAA offered initial training only at its Academy in

Oklahoma City, FAA hired a total of 1,235 new controller candidates.

Subsequently, FAA’s hiring of new controllers decreased significantly

Page 19 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

because it had more controllers than specified by the staffing standards.

Between fiscal years 1993 and 1996, FAA hired a total of 611 new

controllers—fewer than the 1,513 who had left the controller workforce

over the same period—resulting in a decrease in the size of the controller

workforce (see fig. 2.1 and table 2.1). According to FAA officials, most of

the decrease in the size of the controller workforce was due to the

congressionally directed initiative to contract out the functions of

lower-level control towers to private companies, instead of staffing them

with FAA employees. As part of a larger presidential effort to reduce the

number of federal employees, in 1994 FAA also offered a retirement

incentive, called a buyout, to staff, including those controllers who worked

at the towers whose functions were contracted out. In fiscal year 1995,

FAA’s end-of-year controller workforce dropped below the level specified

by the staffing standards. Although the actual controller workforce

differed from the staffing standards by as much as 400 in some years,

nationwide staffing levels were well within the standards’ 10-percent

tolerance level.

Figure 2.1: FAA’s Controller Workforce

Compared to the Staffing Standards,

Fiscal Years 1993-96

1993 1994 1995 1996

16,500

17,000

17,500

18,000

End-of-year controller workforce

Controllers in workforce

Staffing standard forcast

Source: FAA’s data.

Page 20 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

Table 2.1: FAA’s Controller Workforce,

Fiscal Years 1993-96 Fiscal year 1993 1994 1995 1996

Start-of-year controller workforce 17,982 17,688 17,544 17,322

Workforce specified by the staffing

standards 17,327 17,329 17,535 17,486

Newly hired controllers 220 134 157 100

Attrition 514 278 379 342

End-of-year controller workforce 17,688 17,544 17,322 17,080

Source: FAA’s Air Traffic Staffing Plan and Staffing Standards.

This report does not evaluate FAA’s staffing standards. We have previously

reported on FAA’s staffing standards, and FAA has taken action to address

our prior recommendations.1

 In addition, the standards process is

currently undergoing a congressionally requested review by an expert

panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences. The study was

requested to determine if a comprehensive methodology could be

developed to provide more accurate estimates of the required number of

controllers at each ATC facility, and its findings are expected to be

published in the spring of 1997.

FAA’s Recent Staffing

Requests Reflect Its

Estimates of

Increased Controller

Attrition

After the controller workforce dropped below the levels specified by the

standards in 1995, FAA initiated plans to increase hiring. FAA currently plans

to increase both hiring and the overall size of the controller workforce

over the next 4 years. In fiscal year 1997, FAA requested and received funds

to hire 500 new controllers—250 to replace controllers expected to leave

the workforce that year and 250 to meet projected future needs. FAA’s

fiscal year 1998 request includes funds for 800 new controllers—300

replacements and 500 new positions. Table 2.2 provides FAA’s estimates of

controller hiring, attrition, and the total workforce through fiscal year

2002. As the table shows, estimated attrition is expected to increase from

280 controllers in fiscal year 1997 to 550 controllers in fiscal year 2002.

1

See FAA Staffing: Improvements Needed in Estimating Air Traffic Controller Requirements

(GAO/RCED-88-106, June 21, 1988).

Page 21 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

Table 2.2: FAA’s Estimates of

Controller Hiring, Attrition, and the

Total Controller Workforce, Fiscal

Years 1997-2002

Fiscal year

Start-ofyear

controller

workforce

Planned

new hires

Estimated

attrition

End-of-year

controller

workforce Net change

1997 17,080 500 280 17,300 +220

1998 17,300 800 300 17,800 +500

1999 17,800 650 400 18,050 +250

2000 18,050 700 450 18,300 +250

2001 18,300 350 500 18,150 –150

2002 18,150 422 550 18,022 –128

Source: FAA’s Air Traffic Staffing Plan.

According to officials at FAA headquarters, the attrition estimates that

support its recent staffing requests are based in part on the staffing

standards forecast models and in part on another method that is intended

to address an anticipated increase in the number of controllers eligible to

retire. This second method is based on FAA’s assumption that 20 percent of

those who are eligible to retire will do so each year. According to FAA

officials, because many controllers hired after the 1981 PATCO strike will

first be eligible to retire around fiscal year 2001, they expect more

controllers to retire each year as more become eligible. Figure 2.2 shows

FAA’s estimates of the number of controllers who will become eligible to

retire each year though fiscal year 2007, as well as the estimated size of the

total pool of those eligible to retire each year through fiscal year 2002, the

last year of FAA’s controller staffing plan. However, FAA officials were not

able to specify how much of the estimated increase in attrition is predicted

by the staffing standards forecast models and how much is derived from

its estimate of future retirements.

Page 22 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

Figure 2.2: FAA’s Estimates of the Number of Controllers Eligible for Retirement, Fiscal Years 1997-2007

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

2,400

2,800

3,200

3,600

Fiscal year

Controllers

Estimated pool of controllers who would have become eligible for controller retirement in previous fiscal years

Estimated pool of controllers who would become eligible for controller retirement in the designated fiscal year 

Source: FAA’s data.

Page 23 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

In addition to reflecting changes in the number of controllers eligible to

retire, FAA’s staffing plan also differs from the annual staffing levels

projected by the staffing standards in several other ways. First, the plan

anticipates hiring replacements 3 years before they are needed to provide

them with adequate training. In this way, FAA will have fully trained

replacements for those who retire. According to FAA officials, the plan also

reflects an effort to spread out hiring over several years to reduce the

training burden on its Academy and ATC facilities. Thus, because FAA’s

staffing plan is designed to hire enough controllers to be at the level

specified by the standards in fiscal year 2002, controller staffing is

expected to again be above the standards in fiscal years 1998-2001.

Officials we interviewed in eight of FAA’s nine regions expressed concerns

about the adequacy of the future controller workforce that were similar to

those expressed by headquarters officials. The regional officials were

concerned about an increase in attrition in the coming years due to the

pending retirement eligibility of those controllers who did not strike, those

hired after 1981, and former PATCO members who have been rehired by FAA.

Many of these officials also emphasized that FAA needs an adequate supply

of new controllers to provide time to train replacements for those who

retire.

Workload Estimates

Are Reasonable, but

Attrition Estimates

May Overstate Future

Retirements

The first key variable FAA uses to project future controller staffing needs is

an estimate of the growth in the volume of air traffic, which FAA’s Office of

Aviation Policy and Plans derives from a model that includes several

measures of overall economic activity (e.g., the consumer price index) and

aviation-specific statistics, as well as expert opinions on future trends.

These estimates have been closer to actual traffic levels in the short term

than over longer periods. For example, between fiscal years 1992 and

1995, the estimates of activity at en route centers that were made 1 year

earlier came, on average, within 1 percent of the actual level of activity.

The estimates made 4 years earlier were, on average, 7.4 percent higher

than the actual level (see table 2.3). According to FAA officials, these

estimates are reasonable because they fall within the 10-percent tolerance

level of its models.

Page 24 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

Table 2.3: Actual and Predicted Levels

of En Route Center Activity in Millions

of Aircraft Handled, Fiscal Years

1991-95

Fiscal year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Average

percentage

difference

between actual

and projected

levels

Actual level 36.2 37.2 37.6 38.9 40.2

Level predicted 1 year

earlier 38.5 37.3 37.5 37.9 39.8 0.6 %

Level predicted 2 years

earlier 39.1 39.6 38.3 38.4 38.6 2.2 %

Level predicted 3 years

earlier 39.7 40.1 40.6 39.4 39.3 4.9 %

Level predicted 4 years

earlier 40.3 40.8 41.0 41.5 40.3 7.4 %

Source: FAA’s Aviation Forecasts, fiscal years 1996-2007.

In addition to estimates of future workload, FAA’s staffing standards

forecast models use projections of future attrition to determine controller

staffing needs. These projections, called pipeline models, are based on

actual experience over a recent 3-year period. FAA looks at who entered

and left the controller workforce through several methods, such as

retirement or resignation, promotion, or moving to or from a staff position.

Using 3 years of data on actual movements, FAA determines what

percentage of controllers entered or left the workforce by each method,

then projects that percentage to future years. For example, in fiscal year

1995, 114 of 6,432 controllers at en route centers (or 1.8 percent) retired or

resigned. By performing the same comparison for fiscal years 1993

through 1995 and averaging the results, FAA determined that on average

1.69 percent of the controllers at en route centers retired or resigned

during that period. FAA then used this percentage to project future

retirements or resignations of controllers at its en route centers. By using

similar calculations for all types of controller movements to estimate the

net gain or loss of controllers, FAA annually determines how many new

controllers need to enter the training pipeline as replacements. FAA uses a

separate model that uses similar variables to estimate the pipeline needs

of its TRACON facilities and control towers. FAA’s two pipeline models are

currently based on actual changes in its controller workforce during fiscal

years 1993 through 1995 and are used to forecast the workforce needed for

fiscal years 1996 through 2006.

Page 25 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

While the pipeline models include estimates of the number of controllers

who leave the workforce to take staff positions or return from such

positions each year, according to agency officials, the number of

controllers leaving to take such positions has roughly equalled the number

of controllers returning, so there has been little net impact on the overall

size of the controller workforce. Also, agency officials estimate that the

number of controllers resigning from the workforce without qualifying for

retirement will remain steady at about 40 controllers per year. As a result,

although the models forecast attrition from all sources, the forecasts for

new controllers are primarily the result of retirement estimates.

We asked FAA for previous versions of its pipeline models so we could

compare attrition estimates made by earlier models to actual data from

recent years. Because FAA does not maintain copies of the models from

previous years, officials could not provide us with attrition estimates for

years prior to fiscal year 1995. However, FAA did provide copies of the

models used to project attrition for fiscal year 1995. Table 2.4 shows that

20 more controllers retired or resigned in fiscal year 1995 than projected

by the terminal and en route center models. Without data from earlier

years, however, we were not able to evaluate the reasonableness of the

attrition estimates produced by FAA’s previous pipeline models.

Table 2.4: FAA’s Estimates and Actual

Controller Retirements and

Resignations, Fiscal Year 1995

Type of facility

Projected

retirements

Actual

retirements Difference

Actual attrition

as a

percentage of

total workforce

Terminal

(TRACON and

tower) 129 145 16 1.8%

En route center 110 114 4 1.7%

Total 239 259 20 1.7%

Source: FAA’s 1995 and 1996 pipeline models.

Page 26 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

Five Factors Limit the

Reasonableness of

FAA’s Projections of

Long-Term Controller

Needs

Because the actual rate at which controllers retire depends on the

decisions of thousands of individual controllers, definitively predicting

how many controllers will actually retire in any year is impossible. Most

controllers hired under FERS are required to retire from actively controlling

air traffic when they first become eligible, if they are at least 56. In

contrast, most controllers hired under CSRS are not subject to mandatory

retirement rules, unless hired after 1972.2

 According to FAA officials, if a

controller is not subject to mandatory retirement, such considerations as

the state of the economy and the family status of the controller can affect

the controller’s decision about whether to continue working after

becoming eligible to retire. Because such considerations are not within

FAA’s control, either a greater or lesser number of controllers could retire

than forecast. If attrition estimates are too high, FAA could hire too many

controllers, unnecessarily increasing the cost of operating the nation’s ATC

system. If attrition estimates are too low, FAA could have fewer controllers

than needed, causing an unanticipated increase in the use of overtime and,

in extreme cases, flight delays to ensure that the safety of the ATC system

would not be compromised.

Despite the difficulty of accurately predicting future needs, FAA has to

estimate these needs to justify its budget requests for staffing and

equipment. Without accurate projections of controller staffing levels and

retirements, FAA cannot hire sufficient replacements and provide them

with the 2 to 4 years of training needed to achieve full performance level.

However, five aspects of the way FAA determines its projections of future

staffing needs raise questions about the reasonableness of projections in

future years.

Percentage of Controllers

Eligible to Retire Is

Expected to Change

FAA’s practice of estimating attrition as a fixed percentage of the controller

workforce may not accurately reflect future attrition because the agency

expects to experience a significant increase in the number of controllers

becoming eligible to retire in the next several years. For example, between

fiscal years 1995 and 2000, FAA estimates that the number of controllers

who will become eligible for retirement each year will remain relatively

constant at about 330 to 440. However, FAA also estimates that in fiscal

year 2001, the number eligible to retire will increase to 522 controllers, in

fiscal year 2002 to 841 controllers, and in fiscal year 2007 to 1,361

controllers. Should these estimates prove correct and more controllers

become eligible to retire, it is likely that more controllers will exercise

2

Under both systems, the President and the Secretary of Transportation have the authority, under

certain circumstances, to waive mandatory retirement up to age 61 for individual controllers.

Page 27 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

their option to retire. Since retirements account for most controller

attrition, it is possible that the percentage of controllers who actually leave

the workforce will be different than was experienced in fiscal years 1993

through 1995.

Attrition Estimates Could

Be Inflated by Data From

Buyout in 1994

The staffing standards forecast models estimate future attrition according

to data on actual attrition during fiscal years 1993 through 1995. However,

during fiscal 1994, 139 of the 510 controllers who retired voluntarily took

the buyout previously described. Most of these controllers worked at

level-1 towers, which were being contracted out to the private sector.

Because FAA does not plan to offer buyouts for controllers in the future,

including the departure of these controllers in estimates of future

retirements could inflate future attrition estimates.

Changes in the Workforce

Could Affect Retirement

Rates

Several of the regional FAA and NATCA officials we interviewed questioned

the reliability of using data on past retirees to predict future retirement, as

FAA’s staffing standards forecast models do. These officials indicated that

recent changes in the workforce, including an increased workload, a

better educated workforce, and the establishment of mandatory

retirement rules, suggest that controllers who are working today may not

retire at the same rate as past retirees. For example, these officials noted

that because controllers with a college education could have more options

for post-FAA employment, they could be more likely to retire early.

FAA’s Models Do Not

Estimate the Impact of

Future Changes in

Technology or Policy

FAA’s staffing standards forecast models do not consider future changes in

FAA’s technology or policy. For example, FAA is currently purchasing new

ATC equipment and developing a plan to allow for “free flight,” or the

ability of pilots to set their own flight path in certain areas. There was no

consensus, however, among the FAA regional and headquarters officials

that we spoke with on the impact of these changes. While some believe the

changes will only increase the reliability of the air traffic system, others

believed there will be a long-term increase in productivity, resulting in a

need for fewer controllers in the future. Others anticipate a short-term

decrease in productivity while controllers learn to use the new equipment.

In addition, FAA is finalizing changes to its training program (see ch. 3) that

could reduce the training burden on local ATC facilities. To the extent that

current controllers and supervisors are used to provide on-the-job-training

for newly hired controllers, these changes could allow the facilities to use

more staff to control traffic. Because these changes are still being

Page 28 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

developed, FAA has no way to quantify their impact on controller workload.

However, if FAA continues to estimate future needs by looking at past

performance without regard for planned changes, it will not be able to

take advantage of the increased efficiency those changes could deliver

until several years after they are implemented.

FAA Lacks Comprehensive

Data on When Controllers

Will Be Eligible to Retire

As discussed earlier, FAA’s hiring plan for controllers is based on two main

factors—the staffing standards forecast models and an adjustment to

account for an increase in the number of controllers eligible to retire.

However, the accuracy of FAA’s estimates of controller retirements may be

limited because FAA has not determined exactly when each controller can

become eligible to retire, because of a lack of easy access to data on

controllers’ work history. Specifically, FAA estimates, on the basis of past

retirement rates, that future retirements will equal about 20 percent of

those controllers eligible to retire each year. Figure 2.3 shows FAA’s

estimates of the number of controllers who will become eligible to retire

each year, as well as the number expected to retire though fiscal year

2002, the last year of FAA’s current staffing plan.3

 This figure illustrates

FAA’s position that the number of retirees will increase as the number of

those eligible increases.

3

FAA’s retirement estimates differ by 40 controllers from its total attrition estimates to account for the

number of controllers estimated to permanently leave the workforce every year for reasons other than

retirement. FAA estimates that this rate will remain fairly constant through fiscal year 2002.

Page 29 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

Figure 2.3: FAA’s Estimates of the Number of Controllers Becoming Eligible to Retire Compared to Those Projected to

Retire, Fiscal Years 1997-2006

Estimated pool of controllers elegible for special controller retirement, by fiscal year

FAA's estimate of annual controller retirements, assuming all controllers qualify for special controller retirement

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Fiscal year

Controllers

Source: FAA’s data and GAO’s analysis of FAA’s data.

While it is logical to conclude that more people would retire if more

became eligible, the accuracy of FAA’s projections is limited because the

agency has not compiled the data necessary to determine when each

controller will be eligible for special controller retirement. While FAA can

Page 30 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

determine when an individual controller will be eligible to retire, the

information is not currently stored in a way in which it could be used to

determine the retirement eligibility of FAA’s entire controller workforce.

Instead of actual retirement eligibility data, FAA has based its estimates of

future retirements on the assumption that all controllers spend their entire

career as active controllers. For example, FAA has assumed that all

controllers who are at least 50 years old and have worked for FAA for at

least 20 years would be eligible to retire. While this assumption could

prove true in many cases, data from FAA’s pipeline models have indicated

that more than 1,300 controllers moved between the controller workforce

and staff positions each year between 1993 and 1995. Because many

controllers spend at least some time in staff positions where they do not

actively control traffic, the date on which they become eligible for special

controller retirement may be later than the one FAA has used in its

estimates. As a result, they could retire later than FAA has anticipated.

Data on the Age and

Service Time of

Recently Retired

Controllers Indicate

That Fewer

Controllers Could

Retire in Future Years

Than FAA Has

Forecast

Rather than estimating future retirements on the basis of assumptions

about who will be eligible to retire, FAA could use actual information on

the age and service time of those controllers who retired in recent years,

as well as current controllers, to predict future retirements. Using data

provided by FAA, we conducted such an analysis and found that, on

average, controllers could retire later than projected by FAA’s fiscal year

1999 through 2002 staffing plan.

The simplest way to use recent experience to estimate future retirements

is to apply the average age and service time of recent retirees to those

controllers currently working for FAA. Using this approach, we found that,

on average, controllers who retired in fiscal years 1992 through 1996 had

about 31 years of federal service. Fewer than 15 percent retired with 25

years of federal service or less, one of the requirements for special

controller retirement. As figure 2.4 shows, should current controllers not

retire until they have earned 31 years of federal service, the number of

retirees will be much lower than FAA has projected for each year between

fiscal years 1998 and 2002. In fact, while FAA expects 510 controllers to

retire in fiscal year 2002, the first year in which at least 510 current

controllers reach 31 years of federal service is fiscal year 2008.

Page 31 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

Figure 2.4: FAA’s Retirement Projections Compared to the Annual Number of Controllers Reaching 31 Years of Federal

Service, Fiscal Years 1997-2011

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Fiscal year

Controllers

FAA's estimate of controller retirements each year 

Number of controllers reaching 31 years of federal service each year

Number of retirements projected 

by FAA for fiscal year 2002 (510)

Source: FAA’s projections and GAO’s analysis of FAA’s data.

Page 32 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

Next, we looked at the age of the controllers who retired during the past 5

years and found that their average age was about 56. This age is also

significant because federal law mandates that most controllers hired under

FERS and controllers hired under CSRS after 1972 retire from actively

controlling air traffic at age 56 unless granted an exemption. As figure 2.5

shows, the number of controllers who will turn 56 is lower than the

number FAA expects to retire each year between fiscal years 1997 and 2002.

The first year in which at least 510 current controllers turn 56 is fiscal year

2009.

Page 33 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

Figure 2.5: FAA’s Retirement Projections Compared to the Annual Number of Controllers Reaching 56 Years of Age, Fiscal

Years 1997-2011

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Fiscal year

Controllers

FAA's estimate of controller retirements each year 

Number of controllers reaching 56 years of age each year

Number of retirements 

projected by FAA for fiscal 

year 2002 (510)

Source: FAA’s projections and GAO’s analysis of FAA’s data.

While using data on either the age or the service time of current

controllers can illustrate changes in the characteristics of future retirees, it

Page 34 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

is preferable to base estimates of future retirements on both variables

because future retirees must meet both age and service criteria. According

to the official responsible for FAA’s staffing standards forecast models,

such an analysis would project future retirements more accurately than

the current staffing standards models. However, such an analysis is also

more complicated. To illustrate the combined effect of the age and service

of current controllers, we developed a probability model based on both

factors to project when each current controller would be likely to retire.

Figure 2.6 compares FAA’s retirement projections with our model’s

projections for fiscal years 1997 through 2011. For each fiscal year

between 1999 and 2002, our model projects that at least 100 fewer

controllers will retire than FAA estimates. Using this model, the number of

estimated retirees does not exceed 510 controllers until fiscal year 2008.

Appendix I explains the model in more detail and contains additional data.

Page 35 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

Figure 2.6: FAA’s Retirement Projections Compared to Retirement Projections Based on Controllers’ Age and Years of

Federal Service, Fiscal Years 1997-2011

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Fiscal year

Controllers

FAA's estimate of controller retirements each year 

Estimate of controller retirements each year based on age and service time

Number of retirements projected by

FAA for fiscal year 2002 (510)

Source: FAA’s projections and GAO’s analysis of FAA’s data.

Page 36 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

Table 2.5 compares the number of controller retirements FAA has projected

with projections based on age, service time, and a combination of both. As

this table shows, while FAA’s estimated levels of retirements are close to

those calculated using the age and service data in fiscal years 1997 and

1998, the difference between the number of potential retirements under

FAA’s assumptions and the projections derived from the age and service

data is greater in later fiscal years.

Table 2.5: Projections of Controller Retirements According to FAA’s Staffing Plan and Those Derived From Age and

Service Data, Fiscal Years 1997-2002

Fiscal year

FAA’s estimate of

controller

retirements

Controllers with 31

years of federal

service

Controllers

reaching 56 years

of age

Estimate of

controller

retirements based

on age and service

time

Range of differences

between FAA’s

estimate and other

estimates

1997 240 267 96 198 27 to 144

1998 260 209 139 211 49 to 121

1999 360 181 169 214 146 to 191

2000 410 198 192 237 173 to 218

2001 460 290 199 270 170 to 261

2002 510 237 261 299 211 to 273

Total 2240 1382 1056 1429

Source: FAA’s Staffing Plan and GAO’s analysis of FAA’s data.

FAA officials said that the accuracy of the agency’s retirement estimates is

not a significant issue because the agency monitors retirements monthly

and can hire more or fewer controllers as needed in future years should its

predictions prove inaccurate. However, while FAA can adjust its hiring

plans annually to ensure that the actual controller workforce remains

equal to the levels specified by its standards, that does not eliminate the

need for accurate projections because of the time needed to fully train a

new controller. FAA tries to hire new controllers about 3 years before the

retirement of those they are intended to replace. As a result, while

adjusting hiring to reflect actual retirements each year can ensure that FAA

has the correct number of controllers in its workforce, this approach will

not ensure that FAA has an adequate number of fully trained controllers.

While we do not question the need for FAA to hire enough controllers to

safely operate our nation’s ATC system in the current budget cycle, we are

concerned that, should future controller retirements more closely follow

the projections derived from FAA’s data on controllers’ age and service

Page 37 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

time, the agency could hire too many controllers in later years. Should

fewer controllers retire than FAA has forecast, this would in effect increase

the cost of running the ATC system because FAA would be paying for both

its new controllers and those who the agency anticipated would retire but

did not for several years. Considering the salary of starting controllers and

the time it takes to fully train them, hiring new controllers before they are

needed can be costly. For example, FAA’s estimate of future retirees for

fiscal year 2002 differs from those projected by using age and service data

by between 211 controllers and 273 controllers. A new controller currently

makes about $29,000 annually, and once benefits are added, the total cost

of employing a new controller reaches about $40,000 annually. Because it

takes about 3 years for a new controller to reach the full performance

level, the approximate cost of the salary and benefits for a fully trained

new controller totals about $120,000 for the first 3 years. If actual

controller retirements in fiscal year 2002 are 211 controllers to 273

controllers fewer than FAA projects, FAA would spend between

$25.3 million and $32.8 million between fiscal years 2000 and 2002 to hire

and train those replacements that would not be needed.

Conversely, if FAA did not hire enough controllers to replace those who

retired, those who remained would have to handle more of the workload.

According to FAA officials, this increased workload could cause an

unanticipated increase in the use of overtime, and, in extreme cases, lead

to flight delays caused by the reduction in services at some air traffic

facilities. According to FAA officials, while such delays would be costly to

the airlines and their passengers, the delays would not affect flight safety.

FAA was not able, however, to provide us with the data needed to estimate

the costs associated with such delays.

Although officials we interviewed in eight of the nine FAA regions

anticipated a significant increase in retirements in the next 10 years, they

disagreed on how soon this increase could occur. While some stated that

they expected to see a significant increase by fiscal years 2001 or 2002,

others believed retirements would not increase significantly until fiscal

year 2005 or later.

Conclusions Because air traffic controllers are responsible for the safety of millions of

passengers each year, better estimates by FAA of the future attrition of

controllers would help ensure that the agency hires and trains an adequate

workforce. While hiring enough controllers to meet future needs created

by increases in air traffic and attrition, especially from retirements, is

Page 38 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 2 

FAA Could Improve the Accuracy of Its

Forecasts of Controller Staffing Needs by

Using Available Data

essential, hiring more controllers than needed would increase the overall

cost of running the nation’s ATC system. On the other hand, hiring too few

controllers would also be costly, due to an increased use of overtime and

flight delays. Predictions of the number of controllers FAA will need in the

future depend on many unknown variables, including how the workload of

controllers might change as a result of technological advances, policy

changes, and the future attrition rate of the current workforce. While there

is no way to exactly predict how many controllers will retire in each of the

next 15 years, the accuracy of FAA’s methods of forecasting future staffing

needs can be improved if FAA uses some key information on the age and

service of current controllers.

Recommendation We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the

Administrator of FAA to incorporate actual information on the age, years of

service, and retirement eligibility date of current controllers into its

projections of future controller retirements.

Agency Comments Although FAA officials told us that they have management controls in place

to adjust for actual attrition, they agreed with our recommendation and

plan to take action to better project future controller retirements.

Page 39 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 3 

FAA Can Meet Short-Term Staffing Needs

While Developing Plans to Address

Long-Term Needs

FAA plans to hire about 1,300 new controllers in fiscal years 1997 through

1998 to meet its short-term controller staffing needs. A sufficient number

of controller candidates is available to fill these staffing needs. The

majority of candidates available are former PATCO members who left the

controller workforce during the 1981 strike and could be eligible to retire

at the same time as current controllers.

In fiscal years 1999 through 2002, FAA plans to hire a large number of new

controllers to satisfy its long-term controller staffing needs. Because it is

uncertain whether enough controller candidates will be available from the

current sources to fill these needs, FAA officials have announced plans to

expand the CTI program to include more schools and have reactivated the

cooperative education program.1

 Furthermore, FAA has also developed

plans to revise its new controller training program by requiring all new

controller candidates enrolled in the CTI and MARC programs to receive

standardized training at the FAA Academy before being assigned to ATC

facilities. FAA believes that the revised training program will reduce

on-the-job training time and costs at the facility level. However, agency

officials have not performed any analyses to determine if the expected

savings will offset the increased costs FAA will incur by providing training

at the Academy to all newly hired controllers.

A Sufficient Number

of Controller

Candidates Is

Available to Fill

Short-Term Staffing

Needs

FAA hired 257 new controllers during fiscal years 1995 through 1996 to

meet its controller staffing needs. One hundred and twelve (or 44 percent)

of the new controllers were former PATCO members, 99 (or 39 percent)

were CTI and MARC graduates, and the remaining 46 (or 18 percent) were

cooperative education program graduates, air traffic assistants working at

the FAA, and former FAA and DOD controllers.2

FAA plans to begin significantly increasing controller hiring by adding 500

new controllers in fiscal year 1997 and 800 new controllers in fiscal year

1998. The new controllers will consist of former PATCO members, CTI and

MARC graduates, cooperative education graduates, and former FAA and DOD

controllers. As shown in table 3.1, we found that more than enough such

controller candidates are available from these sources to fill FAA’s

projected staffing needs for fiscal years 1997 and 1998.

1

The cooperative education program is a work study program in which students have alternating

classroom study and career-related work experience. This program allows students to become familiar

with ATC facilities and operations while completing requirements toward a college degree.

2

Percentages exceed 100 percent because of rounding.

Page 40 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 3 

FAA Can Meet Short-Term Staffing Needs

While Developing Plans to Address

Long-Term Needs

Table 3.1: Controller Hiring and

Available Controller Candidates, Fiscal

Years 1997 and 1998

Source of

candidates

Controllers to

be hired in

fiscal year 1997

Controller

candidates

available for

hire in fiscal

year 1997

Controllers to

be hired in

fiscal year 1998

Controller

candidates

available for

hire in fiscal

year 1998

Former 

PATCO members

300 4483 e 3,983

CTI and MARC

graduates

150 200a e 250b

Cooperative

education

graduates

c Unknownd e Unknownd

Former FAA and

DOD

controllers

c Unknownd e Unknownd

Total 500 At least 4,683

candidates

800 At least 

4,233

candidates

aFAA, CTI, and MARC officials estimated that a total of 100 new CTI and MARC graduates will

become controller candidates in fiscal year 1997. The other 100 candidates are CTI and MARC

graduates currently on FAA’s “waiting list” to be hired.

bFAA, CTI, and MARC officials estimated that a total of 200 new CTI and MARC graduates will

become controller candidates in fiscal year 1998. The other 50 will be CTI and MARC graduates

not hired in fiscal year 1997.

cFAA officials estimated that about 50 new controllers will be hired during fiscal year 1997 from

the pool of cooperative education graduates and former FAA and DOD controllers.

dAlthough the exact total is unknown, FAA believes that many former FAA and DOD controllers

will be available in future years to fill controller vacancies because of the large number of inquires

received from these candidates.

eFAA officials initially told us that in fiscal year 1998 they plan to hire 500 former PATCO

members, 250 CTI and MARC graduates, and 50 candidates from the pool of cooperative

education graduates and former FAA and DOD controllers. While commenting on a draft of the

report, the officials told us that they are reexamining the number of candidates to be hired from

each of these sources.

Source: Data from FAA and the CTI and MARC programs.

Rehiring of Former

PATCO Members May

Only Fill Staffing

Needs in the Short

Term

In August 1993, after nearly 12 years, the bar on hiring former PATCO

members was repealed, and they were allowed to compete for

employment as air traffic controllers within FAA. To date, FAA has hired 112

former PATCO members—37 in fiscal year 1995 and 75 in fiscal year 1996.

Page 41 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 3 

FAA Can Meet Short-Term Staffing Needs

While Developing Plans to Address

Long-Term Needs

The age range of former PATCO members hired in fiscal years 1995 and 1996

was 42 to 67, and the average age was 50.2 years.3

 According to FAA’s data,

the age range of the over 4,400 former PATCO members eligible for rehire in

fiscal year 1996 was 37 to 68, with the average age being 49.9 years.4

 The

majority of the FAA officials interviewed at the headquarters, regional, and

facility levels commented that while former controllers have prior

controller work experience and could be a solution to the controller

staffing problem, they could only be a short-term solution. The officials

commented that many of the former PATCO members already hired or still

eligible to be rehired could retire within a few years after being

reemployed with FAA because their average age is about 50. We could not

verify what the officials told us because FAA has not compiled the data

necessary to determine when current controllers, including former PATCO

members already hired, will become eligible to retire under the different

controller retirement rules.

FAA officials commented that although they will rely on former PATCO

members in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, and possibly in later years, to fill

controller vacancies, they are uncertain about how long these former

controllers will be able to work as air traffic controllers and when they

will need to be replaced. The officials believe that because of the age

range of the former controllers and the different retirement rules, FAA

could be faced with an even more critical staffing shortage in future years

because many former PATCO members and current controllers may be

eligible to retire at the same time. Nevertheless, the officials told us that

they have not conducted any analyses to determine when the former PATCO

members currently in the controller candidate pool will become eligible

for retirement.

3

Since some former PATCO controllers were hired prior to 1972, they are not subject to mandatory

retirement rules.

4

FAA developed its list of eligible PATCO members in 1993 after about 4,500 fired controllers

responded to a job announcement in September 1993.

Page 42 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 3 

FAA Can Meet Short-Term Staffing Needs

While Developing Plans to Address

Long-Term Needs

FAA Is Expanding Its

Controller Candidate

Pool to Address

Long-Term Staffing

Needs and Is Revising

Its Controller Training

Program

In addition to the 1,300 new controllers FAA plans to hire in fiscal years

1997 and 1998 to meet its short-term staffing needs, FAA plans to hire a

large number of new controllers in fiscal years 1999 through 2002 to meet

its long-term controller staffing needs. To satisfy the agency’s long-term

staffing needs, FAA officials said they expect to get some controller

candidates from current sources. Specifically, the officials commented,

and CTI and MARC officials agreed, that these schools can produce at least

200 graduates per year under their existing programs, which represents

about 800 candidates during this 4-year period. PATCO members may also

provide some controller candidates, and there is high interest from former

FAA and DOD controllers to fill controller positions. However, taken

together, these current sources may not provide enough controllers after

fiscal year 1999.

To expand the pool of available controller candidates, FAA headquarters

officials announced in January 1997 their plans to expand the CTI program

to include 18 additional schools and to reactivate the cooperative

education program. According to FAA officials we interviewed, schools

currently offering aviation degrees and located near hard-to-staff facilities

will be given higher priority. The officials believe this approach will

provide a better geographical match between staffing needs at the facility

level and the available candidates. The final school selections will be

completed by September 1997. Although FAA has decided on the number of

schools to include in its expanded program, the officials could not tell us

the number of controller candidates they expect to be available from these

programs to meet their long-term staffing needs.

In addition to expanding the pool of available controller candidates, FAA

officials told us that they have revised the agency’s initial controller

training program. This revision will be the third major change in FAA’s

training program within the past 10 years. Until fiscal year 1990, all new

controller candidates were required to receive initial screening and

controller training, which included academic and skill-building training, at

the Academy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. In fiscal years 1990 and 1991,

FAA began relying on the MARC and CTI schools, respectively, to supplement

its training program and to make more controller candidates available. FAA

hired CTI and MARC graduates and placed them directly at ATC facilities,

bypassing any training at the Academy. The graduates completed their

on-the-job training, which consisted of classroom and hands-on

instructional training provided by FPL controllers and contractors, at the

facilities. In fiscal year 1992, however, FAA stopped providing initial

controller training for newly hired controllers at the Academy because of a

Page 43 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 3 

FAA Can Meet Short-Term Staffing Needs

While Developing Plans to Address

Long-Term Needs

sharp decrease in controller hiring. Nevertheless, the MARC and CTI schools

continued to provide controller training even though only 250 graduates

were hired by FAA from fiscal years 1992 through 1995.

Beginning in fiscal year 1998 under its revised controller training program,

FAA will require all controller candidates enrolled in the CTI and MARC

programs to successfully complete the technical skill-building portion of

initial controller training at the Academy before being assigned to a

facility. The CTI and MARC controller candidates will continue to receive

academic and some technical skill-building training at their schools. Newly

hired controllers, other than ones from the CTI and MARC programs, will

receive academic and technical skill-building training at the Academy.

Former PATCO members, as well as FAA and DOD controllers will continue to

receive refresher training at the Academy. Figure 3.1 compares FAA’s

existing and revised training programs.

Page 44 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 3 

FAA Can Meet Short-Term Staffing Needs

While Developing Plans to Address

Long-Term Needs

Figure 3.1: Comparison of FAA’s Existing and Revised Training Programs

Not an FAA employee

FAA employee

Candidate College training Academy training Facility training

MARC or CTI 

graduate

(existing)

MARC or CTI 

graduate

(proposed)

New controllers

Rehired controllers

Technical

Academic and technical

Refresher technical

Academic

Academic and technical

On-the-job training

On-the-job training

On-the-job training

On-the-job training

Source: FAA’s data.

FAA believes that the revised approach to controller training will reduce

on-the-job training time and costs at the facility level because all new

controllers entering ATC facilities will receive standardized training on the

latest ATC equipment and will be well versed in existing ATC policies,

procedures, and requirements. The officials told us that in the long term,

the Academy can provide the skill-building training more efficiently than

hundreds of individual ATC facilities. Furthermore, the officials said that

they expect graduates of a combined CTI-Academy training program to

spend less time in on-the-job training because the Academy will give them

early experience working with the ATC equipment actually used at the

facilities.

Page 45 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 3 

FAA Can Meet Short-Term Staffing Needs

While Developing Plans to Address

Long-Term Needs

Although FAA headquarters officials commented that revising the

controller training program will reduce training time and costs at the

facility level, we did not find nor could FAA provide evidence to support

this position. While some CTI schools do not have the latest ATC equipment,

they are able to simulate air traffic conditions. Moreover, FAA could not

provide evidence that there is any difference between controllers trained

on the latest ATC equipment and simulators. Although FAA believes that it

may realize some cost savings from centralizing training at the Academy,

federal training costs will increase in the short term because FAA will pay

the expenses for a portion of the training of CTI graduates, who currently

pay these costs themselves as part of the controller training curriculum.

Despite the lack of data on controller training costs, FAA still plans to

revise its training program—without knowing whether the anticipated

reduction in training time and costs for newly hired controllers will occur

and offset increased training costs at the Academy. During the 1997

calendar year, FAA plans to hire CTI and MARC graduates with and without

Academy training. By monitoring its training costs and following the

progress of the two groups of new controllers, FAA could determine

whether the anticipated savings will be realized.

Conclusions FAA predicts that it will need to hire about 3,400 new controllers over the

next 6 years. Although a sufficient number of controller candidates are

available to meet the agency’s short-term staffing needs, the majority of

the candidates are former PATCO members, who could, if hired, be eligible

for retirement at the same time as many current controllers. Because FAA

does not know when these controllers will retire, it is uncertain when they

will need to be replaced. In addition, it is uncertain whether FAA’s current

sources for controller candidates can provide a sufficient number of

candidates to meet its long-term staffing needs. Therefore, FAA’s efforts to

expand the pool of available candidates could help to address this

potential problem.

Although FAA officials believe that revising the existing controller training

program will reduce on-the-job training time and costs, this change could

result in FAA incurring training costs currently being paid by controller

candidates. Also, since FAA has no data to support it assertion that CTI and

MARC graduates take longer to complete on-the-job training than other

controller candidates or that centralizing a portion of the training at the

Academy will reduce training costs, the savings FAA expects to gain from

Page 46 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 3 

FAA Can Meet Short-Term Staffing Needs

While Developing Plans to Address

Long-Term Needs

revising its program may not offset the increased training costs at the

Academy.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the

Administrator of FAA to (1) determine, for future planning purposes, when

former PATCO members currently in the controller candidate pool will

become eligible to retire and would need to be replaced, by evaluating

demographic data, such as the former controllers’ age, years spent actually

controlling traffic, and years of potential retirement eligibility, and

(2) monitor the training costs for CTI and MARC graduates hired in fiscal

years 1997 and 1998, who will be trained under the old and new programs,

to determine whether the anticipated savings will be realized and whether

such savings will offset the increased costs of providing centralized

training at the Academy.

Agency Comments FAA officials agreed with our recommendations and plan to take action to

better determine when controllers will retire and the cost of training new

controllers.

Page 47 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 4 

FAA Has Identified Several Impediments

That Hinder Its Ability to Staff ATC

Facilities at Specified Levels

Controller staffing at the national and regional levels closely reflected the

levels specified by the staffing standards. However, we identified

significant differences between actual staffing and the levels specified by

the standards at about half of FAA’s ATC facilities. According to FAA officials,

certain circumstances, such as workload factors unique to particular

facilities, justify deviations from the standards. In addition, FAA officials

believe that some differences are justified on the basis of the professional

judgment of facility managers. However, they also believe that some

facilities have too many controllers, while others have too few, relative to

the workload at the facilities.

FAA officials pointed out that at facilities where there are too many or too

few controllers, several factors hinder FAA’s ability to alleviate the staffing

differences. These impediments include FAA’s practice of waiting until the

end of the fiscal year to distribute funds to move controllers, regional

officials’ inability to conduct regional hiring of new controllers, and

limited hiring in recent years of new controllers to fill vacancies. Although

several FAA officials commented that staffing differences can not be totally

alleviated, FAA has proposed a variety of initiatives to address existing

differences. Because these initiatives are relatively recent, their

effectiveness may not be known for several years.

Many ATC Facilities

Are Not Staffed at

Specified Levels

As of April 10, 1996, we found that at the national and regional levels, there

were only slight differences between the actual number of controllers and

the levels specified by the standards. For example, at the national level,

the actual controller workforce was 17,163, compared to 17,465 as

specified by the staffing standards, representing a difference of less than

2 percent. At the regional level, the actual staffing levels for all nine

regions were within 5 percent of the levels specified by the standards.

In response to our survey, FAA regional and NATCA officials said that a

larger number of controllers were needed than the levels specified by the

staffing standards. More specifically, FAA officials in six of the nine regions

commented that nearly 1,100 additional controllers were needed in their

regions. In contrast, FAA’s staffing standards indicated that over 400

additional controllers were needed in those regions. FAA officials in the

other three regions considered their current staffing levels adequate to

meet their needs. According to NATCA representatives, controller staffing

needs were even greater at the regional level than those reported by FAA’s

regional officials. For example, according to NATCA’s estimates, FAA needs

an additional 1,750 controllers in the three regions they represent, while

Page 48 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 4 

FAA Has Identified Several Impediments

That Hinder Its Ability to Staff ATC

Facilities at Specified Levels

FAA regional officials estimated that only 670 additional controllers are

needed in those regions.

FAA headquarters officials told us that different staffing needs estimates

exist because FAA regional officials and NATCA representatives use different

approaches to determine the estimates. However, FAA headquarters

officials rely on validated engineered staffing standards.

In responding to our survey, most of the FAA regional officials told us that

they based their estimates on the staffing standards, as well as other data,

such as staffing needs information gathered directly from facility

managers. In addition, NATCA officials reported using data on facility

workloads and projected attrition. We did not verify the validity of the data

or the procedures reported to us by the regional FAA and NATCA officials.

As shown in figure 4.1, staffing levels at 16 of the 24 en route centers were

within 10 percent of the levels specified by the standards. Four of the eight

remaining facilities were staffed at levels greater than 10 percent over the

staffing standards, whereas the other four facilities were staffed at least

10 percent under the standards levels.

Page 49 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 4 

FAA Has Identified Several Impediments

That Hinder Its Ability to Staff ATC

Facilities at Specified Levels

Figure 4.1: Comparison of the Current

Number of Controllers and Staffing

Standards Levels for En Route Centers

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Within 10% of the 

standards

10% to 25% over 

the standards

More than 25% 

over the 

standards

10% to 25% 

under the 

standards

16

3

4

1

Source: FAA’s data.

In contrast to en route centers, we found that 165 (or 45.5 percent) of the

363 terminal facilities were staffed at levels within 10 percent of the

staffing standards, as shown in figure 4.2. Another 77 terminal facilities (or

21.2 percent) were staffed at levels greater than 10 percent above the

staffing standards, while the remaining 121 facilities (or 33.3 percent) were

staffed more than 10 percent below the staffing standards.

Page 50 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 4 

FAA Has Identified Several Impediments

That Hinder Its Ability to Staff ATC

Facilities at Specified Levels

Figure 4.2: Comparison of the Current

Number of Controllers and Staffing

Standards Levels for Terminal

Facilities

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA

AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA

AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAA AAA AAA AAA

AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA

AAA AAA AAA AAA

45.5%

13.5%

19.8% 6.6%

14.6%

Within 10% of the 

standards

10% to 25% over 

the standards

More than 25% 

over the 

standards 10% to 25% 

under the 

standards

More than 25% 

under the 

standards

Source: FAA’s data.

FAA officials at the headquarters, regional, and facility levels acknowledged

that significant differences exist between actual staffing and the levels

specified by the standards at many terminal facilities. However, they also

noted that the standards are used as a management tool in conjunction

with professional judgment and that certain circumstances could cause

terminal facilities to justifiably deviate from the standards. Circumstances,

such as changes in air traffic levels or a given terminal facility’s capacity,

could increase or decrease the number of controllers needed. For

example, officials in FAA’s Southern Region told us that ongoing airport

improvements, which are expected to be completed in the summer of

1997, have the potential to significantly increase the capacity at a principal

international airport in that region. As a result of these improvements, the

officials commented that controller staffing needs could increase

significantly. Although they could not estimate the exact number of

additional controllers needed because the impact of the increased capacity

will not be known until the airport improvements are completed, they

indicated that the additional staffing needs are not reflected in the latest

Page 51 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 4 

FAA Has Identified Several Impediments

That Hinder Its Ability to Staff ATC

Facilities at Specified Levels

staffing standards. Circumstances such as these often explain why some

facilities are overstaffed or understaffed relative to the staffing standards.

However, FAA headquarters officials acknowledged that there are facilities

where staffing differences are not justified and pointed out that they are

working to address staffing problems.

FAA Officials

Identified

Impediments That

Contribute to Staffing

Imbalances at ATC

Facilities

FAA officials at the headquarters, regional, and facility levels identified a

number of impediments that hinder FAA’s ability to reduce staffing

differences at facilities where there are too many or too few controllers

relative to their workloads. These impediments include FAA’s practice of

not providing funds to move controllers until the end of the fiscal year, a

practice that delays the prompt movement of controllers to fill vacancies,

and regional officials’ inability to recruit local candidates to minimize

controller transfers among facilities. In addition, regional officials we

contacted cited the recent lack of hiring and the need for a continuous

source of new controllers to fill vacancies caused by ongoing attrition. The

officials also said that other factors, such as their inability to attract

controllers to less desirable facilities, quality of life concerns, and

unexpected attrition, will continuously impede their ability to alleviate

staffing differences.

Reprogramming of Funds

Delays Controller Moves

FAA designates a specified amount of funds at the beginning of the fiscal

year for permanent-change-of-station (PCS) moves to relocate controllers

from facility to facility to address staffing needs. Also, these funds are

used to fill critical managerial and controller vacancies nationwide and

maintain an appropriate level of controllers at ATC facilities. We found that

FAA does not distribute the majority of PCS funds until the end of the fiscal

year. FAA headquarters officials told us that PCS funds are often used as

discretionary funds throughout the fiscal year to supplement shortfalls in

the Air Traffic Services (ATS) budget. These funds are reprogrammed to

pay for cost increases related to salaries and for the contract tower and

weather programs.

FAA headquarters officials told us that while PCS moneys are used to

supplement cost increases for other ATS operations during the year, there

have been sufficient funds by the end of the fiscal year to pay for all

requested and approved controller moves. These end-of-year funds are

available because other ATS units do not spend all moneys budgeted for

their operations. FAA headquarters officials then reprogram the unspent

funds to pay for controller moves. For example, as shown in table 4.1, FAA

Page 52 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 4 

FAA Has Identified Several Impediments

That Hinder Its Ability to Staff ATC

Facilities at Specified Levels

designated $17.5 million in fiscal year 1996 for PCS moves. Initially, ATS

distributed $3.7 million in PCS funds and reprogrammed $13.8 million to

supplement cost increases for the contract tower and weather programs.

Subsequently, ATS made an additional $19.2 million available for PCS

moves, which was not provided to the FAA regions until the end of the

fiscal year.

Table 4.1: Summary of PCS Funding, Spending, and Moves for Fiscal Years 1993-97 (Dollars in Millions)

Fiscal year

Funds initially

designated for PCS

moves

Initial distribution

from appropriated

PCS funds

PCS funds

reprogrammed to

other ATS units

Total ATS funds

spent for PCS

moves

PCS controller

moves

1993 No data $8.5 No data $21.7 552

1994 $21.6 4.3 $17.3 14.1 333

1995 17.5a 14.4 3.1b 39.8 882

1996 17.5 3.7 13.8 22.9 456

1997 15.5 2.5 13.0 15.5c 319c

Source: FAA data.

a$17.5 million earmarked by the Congress.

bPCS funds held in reserve, distributed at end of fiscal year.

cEstimate.

According to FAA regional officials we surveyed, the practice of

distributing PCS funds at the end of the fiscal year delays the prompt

transfer of controllers. At facilities where vacancies are not filled

promptly, overtime use may be excessive and some controllers may be

denied opportunities to take leave or attend training. In addition, regional

officials commented that reprogramming PCS funds creates uncertainty

and inhibits the effective allocation of resources within their regions. They

believe that a stable distribution of funds throughout the fiscal year would

help them better address existing staffing differences. A majority of facility

managers we surveyed also expressed concerns about PCS funding levels,

and several commented that the availability of sufficient PCS funds would

help them reduce staffing differences at ATC facilities.

We found that officials at the FAA headquarters, regional, and facility levels

had different views about whether sufficient funds have been available in

past years to pay for all requested PCS moves. While FAA headquarters

officials stated that sufficient funds for requested and approved PCS moves

have been available by the end of the fiscal year, a majority of the regional

Page 53 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 4 

FAA Has Identified Several Impediments

That Hinder Its Ability to Staff ATC

Facilities at Specified Levels

officials we surveyed said that sufficient PCS funds were often not available

for all controller moves throughout the fiscal year. We could not verify

what the officials told us because FAA does not maintain information on

the number of PCS moves initially requested and subsequently approved at

the end of the fiscal year. FAA headquarters officials commented that the

practice of using PCS funds to supplement cost increases for ATS operations

could create problems in the controller workforce in the future if FAA

continues to experience substantial shortfalls in its overall budget.

Specifically, the FAA headquarters officials told us that if funds were not

made available by the end of a fiscal year, controller moves could not be

made, and staffing differences at ATC facilities could increase. FAA

headquarters officials noted, however, that the agency’s flexibility to

provide PCS funding throughout the fiscal year has been constrained by the

necessity to have discretionary funding available to supplement potential

budget shortfalls, such as cost increases related to salaries and contract

programs.

Lack of Ability to Conduct

Regional Hiring Hinders

Alleviation of Staffing

Problems at ATC Facilities

Although FAA regional officials have the authority to recruit controller

candidates for facilities in their regions, they do not have the ability to

recruit locally due to constraints in hiring on an agencywide basis. While

some regional officials have recruited controller staff under certain

circumstances, they must generally select new controllers from the

available pool of controller candidates—primarily former PATCO members

and graduates from the four CTI schools and MARC—regardless of the

candidates’ geographic preferences.

FAA officials also told us that the ability to recruit locally would help

improve retention because new controllers could be recruited directly

from their preferred geographic areas. FAA headquarters officials believe

that controllers tend to stay longer in locations more desirable to them,

thereby, reducing the potential for controller transfers from facilities with

staffing problems.

In response to our survey, regional and terminal facility officials also told

us that localized hiring would allow them to recruit and retain controllers

in areas where hard-to-staff facilities are located. Under current practice, a

controller from a small town in the Midwest may be placed at a facility in a

large metropolitan area that is difficult to staff. As a result, the controller

may later request a transfer to another facility that the controller prefers

or resign from FAA; such events may cause a staffing shortage and

adversely affect employee morale.

Page 54 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 4 

FAA Has Identified Several Impediments

That Hinder Its Ability to Staff ATC

Facilities at Specified Levels

Regional Officials Cite a

Lack of Recent Hiring and

the Need for New

Controllers to Address

Staffing Differences

Officials in all nine of FAA’s regions expressed concerns about the lack of

recent hiring and the need for a continuous supply of new controllers to

fill vacancies due to transfers, promotions, and retirements at ATC

facilities. The majority of regional officials said that an ongoing supply of

newly hired controllers would help address staffing shortages that

increase the use of overtime and limit opportunities for controllers to take

leave or attend training. In response to our survey, some officials raised

concerns that the shortages could increase if large numbers of controllers

retire in future years. For example, officials in the Great Lakes Region told

us that although they hired 40 new controllers in fiscal year 1996, these

new controllers were insufficient to replace the controllers lost through

ongoing attrition. In addition, officials in the Western-Pacific Region told

us that a sufficient supply of new controllers is needed for lower-level

facilities, which serve as a staffing source for higher-level ATC facilities.

Although the Western-Pacific officials said that they have been working

with headquarters officials to acquire more new controllers for their

region, they have been unsuccessful because FAA has hired very few new

controllers in recent years.

Other Circumstances

Hinder FAA’s Ability to

Address Staffing Needs

Officials at the FAA headquarters, regional, and facility levels commented

that certain circumstances will continuously affect their ability to alleviate

staffing differences. These circumstances include (1) FAA’s inability to

attract controllers to facilities located in less desirable—remote or

high-cost—areas; (2) quality of life concerns, such as controllers’ desire to

live in certain parts of the country; (3) unanticipated attrition resulting

from controller retirements, resignations, and deaths; and (4) unexpected

changes in air traffic in certain areas, such as the openings and closings of

air carrier hubs.

FAA Has Several

Initiatives Under Way

to Address Staffing

Differences

FAA headquarters officials cited several initiatives under way at the

headquarters, regional, and facility levels to address staffing differences.

These initiatives include programs to promote regional recruitment and

hiring of new controllers for regions with staffing problems, an interim

incentive pay program to attract controllers to facilities with long-standing

controller staffing problems, and the creation of the Office of Air Traffic

Operations (ATO) within FAA headquarters to better coordinate controller

transfers and develop an information-based method to more accurately

determine controller staffing needs at the facility level.

Page 55 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 4 

FAA Has Identified Several Impediments

That Hinder Its Ability to Staff ATC

Facilities at Specified Levels

Regional Recruitment and

Hiring Would Reduce

Staffing Differences

As part of its initiatives to alleviate staffing problems, FAA is considering

actions to increase hiring directly from areas with hard-to-staff facilities,

such as expanding the CTI program to include more schools near these

facilities and reactivating the cooperative education program. By creating

a pool of candidates near hard-to-staff facilities, FAA expects that regions

can attract additional new controllers from their preferred geographic

areas. Under the proposed initiatives, regional officials will play a greater

role in recruiting employees on a more localized basis.

In response to our survey, the majority of regional officials we contacted

told us that a greater role in local hiring would significantly help reduce

controller staffing differences. Moreover, FAA officials told us that

localized hiring would reduce the costs for PCS moves and produce a more

motivated and satisfied controller workforce.

Interim Incentive Pay

Program Is Designed to

Address Staffing

Differences

In April 1996, FAA established an interim incentive pay program, similar to

a pay demonstration program implemented in 1989, to attract controllers

to seven major facilities that have a history of staffing problems.1

 This

program provides an incentive of 10-percent of the base pay for controllers

working at these seven facilities: the New York En Route Center, New

York TRACON facility, Chicago En Route Center, O’Hare TRACON facility,

O’Hare Tower, Bay TRACON facility, and Oakland En Route Center. The

interim incentive program is intended to be in effect until fiscal year 1998

when a new ATS pay system is expected to be implemented. The new pay

system is one of several efforts under FAA’s new personnel reform

initiatives, which the agency began implementing in April 1996.2

In response to our survey, officials at the Chicago En Route Center

commented that the interim incentive pay program has played an

important role in attracting new controllers to their facility. For example,

over the last year, several new controllers have transferred to the facility,

which has helped address staffing problems. FAA headquarters officials

told us that they expect the interim program will help recruit and retain

controllers at other hard-to-staff facilities until a long-term program is in

place, such as the new pay system FAA is developing.

1

In 1989, FAA implemented the Pay Demonstration Program to recruit and retain experienced

controllers at hard-to-staff facilities. Controllers working at the selected facilities were given an

additional 20 percent premium pay. This program ended in June 1994 because of budget constraints.

2

The FAA Administrator was given the authority to reform the agency’s personnel system under the

1996 Transportation Appropriations Act.

Page 56 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 4 

FAA Has Identified Several Impediments

That Hinder Its Ability to Staff ATC

Facilities at Specified Levels

Office of Air Traffic

Operations Oversees

Controller Allocations to

Reduce Staffing

Differences

In early 1996, FAA headquarters created ATO to (1) ensure that facilities are

staffed at appropriate levels, (2) verify that newly-hired controllers are

placed where critical staffing vacancies exist, and (3) monitor regional

staffing allocations, among other resource allocation functions. ATO

officials work with headquarters, regional, and facility officials to ensure

that staffing imbalances do not occur due to controller transfers or

reassignments and to verify that new controllers are placed where

vacancies exist.

For example, ATO officials gather information on staffing requirements and

air traffic operations from regional and facility officials to verify that

facilities are staffed according to current needs. Using this information,

ATO officials have consulted with headquarters officials who are

responsible for agencywide resources and budgeting to make

recommendations on staffing allocations. As part of this process, ATO

officials have monitored controller moves and transfers to ensure that

staffing imbalances do not occur because of changes in controller

allocations. Agreement between ATO and other headquarters officials must

be reached on changes in controller allocations.

To better address staffing needs at ATC facilities, ATO has developed and is

testing a new computer program to provide a mechanism for air traffic

managers in FAA headquarters, regions, and facilities to evaluate the past

utilization of controller resources and more effectively project controller

staffing requirements. According to ATO officials, the new computer

program will provide more accurate facility-level staffing requirements

than the staffing standards because it includes operational data on the

number of hours controllers have actually performed ATC functions and

activities such as training, leave, and administrative duties. ATO officials

told us that the new computer program will also provide a standardized

method to better project controller staffing needs at individual ATC

facilities. They plan to use this program in conjunction with the staffing

standards. FAA is currently pilot testing this program at some en route

centers, with plans to have it fully operational by the end of fiscal year

1997.

Conclusions While FAA officials face several impediments that have hindered the

alleviation of staffing differences at many terminal facilities, the

impediments are not insurmountable. However, FAA’s practice of

distributing PCS funds at the end of the fiscal year not only delays

controller transfers but could create staffing problems in future years. FAA

Page 57 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Chapter 4 

FAA Has Identified Several Impediments

That Hinder Its Ability to Staff ATC

Facilities at Specified Levels

officials recognize the potential for these problems but face difficult

choices in their efforts to move controllers to fill critical vacancies, while

maintaining the flexibility to respond to budget shortfalls throughout the

fiscal year. Although FAA’s recent initiatives may reduce some staffing

differences, it is too soon to determine their effectiveness.

Page 58 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Page 59 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Appendix I 

Explanation of the Model We Used to

Estimate Future Controller Retirements

To estimate the number of potential controller retirees over the next 15

years, we developed a computer model that simulates the retirement

patterns of the current controller workforce. The model uses data from the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on the age and federal service time

of controllers who retired in fiscal years 1992 through 1996 to project the

future retirement date of current controllers. Because the rate of

retirements due to disability is not expected to differ significantly over

time, such retirements were excluded from our analysis.

The key to our retirement model is the probability of retirement for an age

and length of service combination, called a “cohort.” To develop the

probabilities, we used 17 3-year age ranges and 17 3-year length of service

categories. For example, controllers between the ages of 55 and 57 and

those with between 34 and 36 years of service were grouped together. For

each fiscal year from 1992 through 1996, we determined the total number

of controllers in each age and length of service combination and the

number of those controllers who had retired.1

 The probability of

retirement for any age and length of service cohort was then calculated by

simply dividing the total number of retired controllers by the total number

of controllers in that cohort. The probabilities were then averaged over the

5 years to arrive at a final retirement probability for each cohort. The

resulting probabilities can be envisioned as a table with 17 rows for the

various age ranges and 17 columns for the various categories for length of

service. This table, called the retirement probability matrix, served as the

basis for the model we used to project each controller’s retirement.

The model used FAA’s data on the age and length of service of the 17,019

controllers who were actively working as controllers or supervisors as of

October 1, 1996. Each controller’s age and length of service was then

entered and the probability of the controller’s retirement was determined

using the retirement probability matrix. For example, a controller between

the ages of 55 and 57 with 34 to 36 years of service had a probability of

retirement of 0.19. A uniform random number between 0.00 and 1.00,

inclusive, was then generated for that controller. In this example, if the

random number were between 0.00 and 0.19, inclusive, we estimated that

the controller would retire in fiscal year 1997. If the random number

exceeded 0.19, we added 1 year to that controller’s age and 1 year to that

controller’s length of service. This process was repeated for each of the

17,019 controllers.

1

In our analysis, we included those controllers who accepted buyouts, such as the fiscal year 1994

buyout described in chapter 2. During such buyouts, employees can retire with less service time and at

a lower age than required for normal retirement. Therefore, because FAA does not plan any future

buyouts for controllers, our model may slightly overestimate the number of future retirements.

Page 60 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Appendix I 

Explanation of the Model We Used to

Estimate Future Controller Retirements

The process was then continued for those controllers who were not

estimated as having retired in 1997 but with each controller now being 1

year older and with 1 more year of service. As before, the controller’s new

age and new length of service determined the probability that the

controller would retire in that year. Random numbers were then

generated, a retirement decision was made for each of the remaining

controllers, and each controller was either counted as having retired in

1998 or 1 year was again added to both the age and the length of service.

This process was repeated 15 times to represent a 15-year horizon.

Because we were dealing with a process that is of a probablistic nature

(i.e., a controller may or may not have retired in any one year), we

repeated the process 300 times. The results for the 300 iterations were

then averaged to estimate the number of controllers retiring in year 1

through year 15 (representing fiscal years 1997 though 2011).

The following table presents the results of this analysis. It shows the

minimum, average, and maximum number of controllers estimated to

retire during each fiscal year between 1997 and 2011.

Table I.1: Estimated Number of

Controller Retirements Based on Age

and Service Time Fiscal year

Minimum

retirementsa

Average

retirementsb

Maximum

retirementsc

1997 159 198 230

1998 177 211 256

1999 168 214 249

2000 198 237 283

2001 232 270 310

2002 260 299 343

2003 298 335 397

2004 310 371 420

2005 349 410 463

2006 410 459 514

2007 448 507 570

2008 512 565 636

2009 557 626 687

2010 599 673 743

2011 645 724 790

aThe lowest number of retirees projected by the model’s 300 iterations, by year.

bThe average number of retirees projected by all of the model’s 300 iterations, by year.

cThe greatest number of retirees projected by the model’s 300 iterations, by year.

Page 61 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Appendix II 

FAA Regional Offices, Air Traffic Control

Facilities, and NATCA Representatives

Contacted for Our Review

FAA Regions Alaskan Region - Air Traffic Division

Central Region - Air Traffic Division

Eastern Region - Air Traffic Division

Great Lakes Region - Air Traffic Division

New England Region - Air Traffic Division

Northwest Mountain Region - Air Traffic Division

Southern Region - Air Traffic Division

Southwest Region - Air Traffic Division

Western-Pacific Region - Air Traffic Division

Air Traffic Control

Facilities

Great Lakes Region Chicago, Illinois - Air Route Traffic Control Center

Green Bay, Wisconsin - Air Traffic Control Tower

Minneapolis- St. Paul, Minnesota - Air Traffic Control Tower

Youngstown, Ohio - Air Traffic Control Tower

Pontiac, Michigan - Air Traffic Control Tower

Champaign, Illinois - Air Traffic Control Tower

Grand Rapids, Michigan - Air Traffic Control Tower

Southern Region Miami, Florida - Air Route Traffic Control Center

Sarasota-Bradenton, Florida - Air Traffic Control Tower

Jacksonville, Florida - Air Traffic Control Tower

Chattanooga, Tennessee - Air Traffic Control Tower

Daytona Beach, Florida - Air Traffic Control Tower

Fayetteville, North Carolina - Air Traffic Control Tower

Pensacola, Florida - Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility

Eastern Region New York City, New York - Air Route Traffic Control Center

National Air Traffic

Controllers Association

(NATCA)

NATCA Eastern Region1

NATCA Great Lakes Region

NATCA Southern Region

1

Telephone interview conducted; completed survey not returned to us.

Page 62 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Appendix III 

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources,

Community, and

Economic

Development Division

Nancy A. Boardman

Alice G. Feldesman

Lynne L. Goldfarb

Isidro L. Gomez

Wanda T. Hawkins

Mitchell B. Karpman

David A. Rogers

Marnie S. Shaul

James R. Sweetman, Jr.

Office of the General

Counsel

David K. Hooper

(341485) Page 63 GAO/RCED-97-84 Refining FAA’s Controller Staffing Process
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100