REVIEW OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER 

FACILITY TRAINING PROGRAM 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Report Number: AV-2008-055 

Date Issued: June 5, 2008 
U.S. Department of 

Memorandum

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General 

Subject: ACTION: Review of the Air Traffic Controller 

Facility Training Program 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Date: June 5, 2008 

Report Number AV-2008-055 

From: David A. Dobbs 

Principal Assistant Inspector General 

 for Auditing and Evaluation 

Reply to 

Attn. of: JA-10 

To: Acting FAA Administrator 

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

Administration’s (FAA) air traffic controller facility training program. Our 

objectives were to (1) assess the adequacy of FAA’s plans to effectively train an 

increasing number of new controllers at the facility level and (2) determine FAA’s 

progress in implementing key initiatives for reducing facility training time and 

costs. We conducted the review between June 2007 and March 2008 and visited 

the FAA Training Academy and 20 air traffic control facilities. Exhibit A details 

our review scope and methodology. Exhibit B lists the facilities visited during the 

audit. 

We last reviewed FAA’s facility training program in June 2004.1

 During that 

review, we found that FAA provided minimal oversight of the program at the 

national level, even though facility training is the longest and most expensive 

portion of the training process. We recommended that FAA compile national 

statistics on key performance measurements, establish a baseline to better manage 

the time and costs associated with the controller facility training process, and 

include these in developing a centralized tracking system for facility training. 

 

1

 OIG Report Number AV-2004-060, “Opportunities To Improve FAA’s Process for Placing and Training Air Traffic 

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

www.oig.dot.gov. 

i
BACKGROUND 

In 1981, following a period of labor unrest, an overwhelming majority of the air 

traffic control workforce went on strike. When 10,438 striking controllers did not 

return to work in 1981, then-President Reagan fired them. To make up for the 

loss, FAA hired over 8,700 new controllers between 1982 and 1983, and, between 

1983 and 1991, FAA hired an average of 2,655 controllers each year. By the end 

of fiscal year (FY) 1992, the strike recovery period had ended and controller hiring 

stabilized to the level of “one retirement—one hire.” This hiring wave created a 

large pool of controllers who have reached or will reach retirement eligibility at 

roughly the same time. 

In December 2004, FAA issued its first annual Controller Workforce Plan (CWP) 

detailing its strategy for hiring and training new air traffic controllers. In the 2008 

update of the CWP, FAA further outlined its plans for hiring approximately 

17,000 new controllers through 2017. A significant challenge for FAA will be 

training and certifying the large numbers of newly hired or “developmental” 

controllers at their respective facilities; controllers can take up to 3 years to 

complete training. 

Developmental controllers and transferring veteran controllers face a demanding 

training process at their assigned locations.2

 The training is conducted in stages 

and consists of a combination of classroom, simulation, and on-the-job training 

(OJT). After controllers complete classroom and simulation training they begin 

OJT, which is conducted by a Certified Professional Controller (or CPC) who 

observes and instructs trainee controllers individually as they work the control 

position. 

Controllers in training achieve certification on each position as they move through 

the various stages. After they have certified on all positions within their assigned 

area, they are commissioned as a CPC at that facility. Training new controllers to 

the CPC level is important for two reasons: (1) only CPCs are qualified to control 

traffic at all positions of their assigned area and (2) only CPCs certified for at least 

6 months (at their assigned locations) can become OJT instructors for other new 

controllers. FAA must have enough OJT instructors at all locations if it is to 

achieve its ambitious hiring and training plans for the next 9 years and beyond. 

It is important to note that new controllers who have completed portions of 

training and certified on a position can independently staff that position. 

However, controllers are not qualified CPCs until they have certified on all 

positions within their assigned area. In addition, using position-qualified 

 

2

 For the purposes of this report, we included both new controllers (developmentals) and transferring veteran 

controllers in training (CPC-ITs) as developmentals. 

ii
controllers extensively to staff positions can lengthen the time required for them to 

become CPCs since they are not training on other new positions. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

Overall, we found that FAA’s facility training program continues to be extremely 

decentralized and the efficiency and quality of the training varies among locations. 

We found similar problems in 2004, and, with the influx of developmental 

controllers, some facilities are now struggling to meet training demands. FAA is 

taking actions at the national level to get this important program on track. For 

example, FAA increased the use of contractor training support from 53 facilities in 

2004 to 190 facilities in 2007. This is clearly a step in the right direction; FAA 

now needs to ensure there are no gaps in this important contractor support as it 

pursues new training initiatives. Many of FAA’s other efforts are still in the early 

stages of implementation. To enhance its facility training program, FAA needs to 

take the following actions. 

FAA must establish realistic standards for the number of developmental 

controllers that facilities can accommodate. As of December 2007, 

developmental controllers comprised over 25 percent of the national controller 

workforce—up from about 15 percent in 2004. FAA plans to increase this number 

to over 30 percent, which would be the highest percentage of developmental 

controllers in the past 15 years. 

In its CWP, FAA estimates that the controller workforce at each facility can 

comprise up to 35 percent of developmental controllers and still maintain 

operations and accomplish training. FAA also estimates that if facilities exceed 

that amount, their training times would significantly increase because the number 

of developmental controllers would surpass available training capacity. 

We found that many facilities meet or exceed the 35-percent level. As of 

December 2007, 70 facilities nationwide (over 22 percent of all FAA air traffic 

control facilities) exceeded that level, compared to just 22 in April 2004. This 

represents a 218-percent increase in just 3 years. For example, according to 

FAA’s national training database, as of December 2007: 

• Teterboro Tower had 12 CPCs and 13 developmental controllers (52 percent 

developmental). 

• Oakland Center had 163 CPCs and 101 developmental controllers (38 percent 

developmental). 

• Las Vegas Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) had 22 CPCs and 

22 developmental controllers (50 percent developmental). 

iii
Many facility managers, training officers, and union officials we spoke with 

disagreed with FAA’s estimated acceptable percentage level. They stated that in 

order to achieve effective controller training while maintaining daily operations, 

the maximum percentage of developmental controllers should be limited to 

between 20 and 25 percent of a facility’s total controller workforce. 

Further, FAA’s 35-percent estimate was originally intended to determine how 

many developmental controllers could be processed through the FAA Academy, 

not how many new controllers could be trained at individual facilities. However, 

it appears that FAA is now using that percentage as a benchmark for all facilities. 

FAA Headquarters officials agreed that “no one size fits all” when determining 

how many trainees a facility can accommodate; however, given the various sizes 

and complexities of FAA’s more than 300 facilities, the Agency must re-examine 

its estimate and identify (by facility type) how many developmental controllers 

facilities can realistically accommodate. 

FAA must ensure the standards developed address individual facilities’ 

training capacity. In February 2007,3

 we reported that FAA centralized its hiring 

process, which helped to eliminate duplicative efforts and allowed individual 

facilities to identify prospective new controllers up to 1 year in advance of hiring. 

FAA has hired 3,450 new controllers since 2005, but its hiring process is now 

outpacing the capabilities of many air traffic facilities to efficiently process and 

train new hires. During our review, facility managers at numerous locations stated 

that developmental controllers assigned to their facilities had to wait for extended 

periods of time before starting the simulator portion of their training because the 

number of developmental controllers exceeded facility training capacity. 

For example, the Miami Center had 98 developmental controllers (or 34 percent of 

the facility’s controller workforce) as of December 2007. Facility management 

and the local representative for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

(NATCA) both agreed that the facility lacked the physical capacity to effectively 

train such a large population of developmental controllers, even when they were 

evenly distributed throughout the various stages of facility training. Consequently, 

developmental controllers’ facility training was delayed by as much as 9 months. 

FAA managers identified several key factors that affect a facility’s ability to 

accept and train new controllers. For example, managers stated they must have a 

sufficient number of OJT instructors to accommodate developmental controllers. 

This is important because a significant part of training for a developmental 

controller involves working live traffic with an OJT instructor. Each control 

 

3

 OIG Report Number AV-2007-032, “FAA Continues To Make Progress in Implementing Its Controller Workforce 

Plan, but Further Efforts Are Needed in Several Key Areas,” February 9, 2007. 

iv
position has a minimum and maximum number of hours allotted for OJT, which is 

often the longest and most difficult part of facility training. 

Managers also identified limitations to a facility’s training capacity that can 

impact the number of new controllers a facility can realistically accommodate. 

These include the availability of classroom space, simulators, and contract 

instructors to conduct the classroom and simulator portions of training. 

Finally, managers told us that the need to instruct current CPCs on new equipment 

or new procedures takes precedence over developmental controller training and 

therefore can limit the availability of classroom and simulator capacity for training 

new controllers. 

To ensure that it does not overload facilities with developmental controllers, FAA 

needs to take steps to mitigate these factors before determining where and when to 

place new hires. 

FAA needs to continue encouraging veteran controllers to transfer to higherlevel, busier locations. We also found that fewer veteran controllers are 

transferring from lower-level, less complicated facilities to higher-level, busier 

locations. From April 2004 to December 2007, the number of transferring veteran 

controllers decreased by nearly 34 percent (from 1,217 in 2004 to 808 in 2007). 

As a result, some facilities that previously relied exclusively on transferring 

veteran controllers to fill vacancies have been forced to redesign their training 

programs to accommodate the growing numbers of inexperienced controllers. 

Facility managers stated that these issues significantly increase the time it will take 

new controllers to become certified. 

For example, at the Chicago TRACON, managers told us they had to extend their 

facility training program by 10 weeks to accommodate the additional training 

needs of inexperienced, developmental controllers. The facility had historically 

received more experienced controllers. 

FAA is aware of this concern and announced a new program in January 2008 that 

offers a retention incentive bonus to veteran controllers at key facilities if they 

remain with the Agency after becoming eligible to retire. Those actions are a step 

in the right direction; FAA should report the preliminary results of this incentive 

in its next update of the CWP and ensure its busiest facilities benefit from veteran 

controllers’ valuable experience. 

Some stakeholders also have expressed concerns over the fact that many 

developmental controllers are now being placed directly at busy, higher-level 

facilities with no prior experience. At the request of Chairman Costello of the 

v
House Subcommittee on Aviation, we are reviewing controller training failures 

(developmental and transferring controllers who fail training either at the FAA 

Academy or at their assigned facility). As part of that review, we are examining 

possible root causes of training failures, which could include the facility level 

where new controllers are placed. In addition, at the request of Senator Durbin of 

Illinois, we are reviewing factors, training-related or otherwise, that could affect 

controller fatigue. 

FAA needs to clarify responsibilities for oversight and direction of the facility 

training program at the national level. Since the creation of the Air Traffic 

Organization (ATO), FAA has assigned national oversight responsibility for 

facility training to the ATO’s Vice President for Terminal Services and Vice 

President for En Route Services. In addition, the ATO’s Vice President for 

Acquisition and Business Services oversees new controller hiring and the FAA 

Academy training program, and the Senior Vice President for Finance oversees the 

development of the CWP. All four offices play key roles in the controller training 

process. 

Because of these overlapping responsibilities, we found significant confusion at 

the facility level. During our review, facility managers, training managers, and 

even Headquarters officials were unable to tell us who or what office was 

ultimately responsible for facility training. FAA needs to clarify responsibility for 

oversight and direction of the facility training program at the national level and 

effectively communicate those roles to facility managers. 

FAA needs to implement key initiatives for facility training from its 2004 

Controller Workforce Plan. FAA has not implemented several key initiatives 

relating to facility training that it first proposed in its 2004 CWP. Those included 

“developing, implementing, and enforcing a policy that assigns facility training as 

a priority second only to operations.” This was to be accomplished by (1) placing 

developmental controllers only at facilities that had available training capacity, 

(2) requiring facility managers to suspend training only for critical operational 

necessities, and (3) establishing nominal “time-to-certify” metrics and holding 

managers accountable for achieving those targets. FAA never issued this policy. 

FAA also stated in the 2004 CWP that it would “conduct a thorough review of 

facility training to ensure it begins where the Academy ends. This review will 

take into consideration other efficiency gains identified in this plan and will result 

in facility training programs tailored to meet the needs of developmental 

controllers of the future.” FAA intended this effort to help reduce the time it takes 

new controllers to become CPCs; however, FAA never conducted the evaluation. 

In June 2004, we recommended that FAA develop and implement a national 

training database to collect data from field facilities, analyze the data at the 

vi
national level, and determine if there were any trends (positive or negative) that 

required intervention. FAA subsequently included the national OJT training 

database as an initiative in its December 2004 CWP. According to FAA, 

implementing the initiative would include recommending best practices to facility 

managers based on a “snapshot” of the database by March 2006 and then applying 

the best practices by May 2006. 

In the 2007 update of the CWP, FAA stated that it had “fully implemented the onthe-job training database for both en route and terminal training.” We found, 

however, that while facilities were entering their training data on a monthly basis, 

FAA Headquarters was not reviewing the data for accuracy. During our review, 

we tested the accuracy of the underlying data. We found that while data from the 

en route facilities appeared to be fairly accurate, data from terminal facilities were 

not. Examples of obvious inaccuracies include the following: 

• At four terminal facilities, the database indicated that the average times for 

developmental controllers to certify and become CPCs at those locations were 

actually negative numbers. 

• At one terminal facility, the database showed that one developmental controller 

had certified as a CPC nearly 6 months before he arrived at the facility. 

• At a Level 6 air traffic control tower (one of the least complicated types of 

facility operated by FAA), the database showed that two developmental 

controllers each took 7.94 years to become CPCs. 

We also found that FAA Headquarters did not consistently use the database to 

identify positive or negative trends. For example, at the end of our audit, we 

observed that managers from the en route division were using the data to identify 

anomalies among various en route facilities’ training efforts; however, managers 

within the terminal division were not. This could be related to the accuracy of the 

data entered by terminal managers. 

FAA needs to begin using the national OJT database to identify trends at 

individual facilities that could indicate training problems and take corrective 

actions as needed. Until FAA is assured that the data in the national training 

database are accurate in both en route and terminal divisions, it cannot use these 

data to identify anomalies or best practices from the national statistics. 

To its credit, FAA has successfully started an important initiative—increasing the 

use of training simulators. High fidelity tower simulators were recently installed 

at four towers: Chicago O’Hare, Miami, Ontario, and Phoenix. The simulators 

can be programmed with scenarios and occurrences exclusive to those airports, 

using actual aircraft with their respective call signs. By using simulators, 

controllers gain inherent knowledge of a particular airport, its airspace, and 

vii
application of air traffic procedures for that specific location. The simulators also 

have a function that writes software for additional airports; this allows controllers 

from surrounding facilities to utilize the simulators as well. 

Results thus far indicate that simulators at towers are a valuable training tool. For 

example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames 

Research Center evaluated this training and found that it took 60 percent fewer 

days for developmental controllers to complete ground control training at the 

Miami tower. At Chicago O’Hare, NASA reported that it took developmental 

controllers 42 percent fewer days to complete ground control training as a result of 

simulator training. 

FAA plans to install 12 additional simulators this year (6 at large airports and 6 at 

the FAA Academy) and 12 next year (at other airports). FAA must ensure that 

this effort remains on track to capitalize on the significant success that this training 

has demonstrated. 

FAA also recently added high fidelity simulators at several en route centers. 

According to FAA Headquarters officials, these systems are to be used only until 

the En Route Automation Modernization program is complete and should help to 

reduce the backlog of developmental controllers in training at those locations.4

 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

Our recommendations focus on the actions FAA should take to improve its facility 

training program to achieve its plans for hiring and training 17,000 controllers 

through 2017. They include the following: 

• Convene a working group to identify a target percentage or percentage range of 

developmental controllers that facilities can realistically accommodate while 

maintaining daily operations. 

• Include in the next update to the Controller Workforce Plan the actual number 

of CPCs, CPC-ITs, and developmental controllers by location to provide 

stakeholders with an accurate representation of the controller workforce. 

• Develop a process for placing newly hired controllers based on the factors that 

affect available facility training capacity. 

• Include the initial results of the Agency’s new controller retention bonuses in 

the 2009 update of the Controller Workforce Plan. 

• Implement key training initiatives that were included in the December 2004 

Controller Workforce Plan. 

 

4

 These simulators were not in use during our site visits. 

viii
We are making 12 recommendations, which are listed on pages 21 and 22. 

SUMMARY OF AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL RESPONSE 

We provided FAA with our draft report on March 31, 2008, and requested its 

comments within 15 calendar days. We received FAA’s comments on 

May 19, 2008. FAA concurred or partially concurred with 10 of our 

12 recommendations and agreed to take the following actions: 

• Convene a working group to identify target percentages of developmental 

controllers that facilities can accommodate. 

• Develop a contingency plan for actions needed for continuing training support. 

• Establish additional methods for disseminating successful training methods. 

• Ensure that installation of simulators remains on track. 

FAA did not, however, provide milestones for implementing the planned actions 

for all 10 recommendations. We therefore request that FAA provide us with that 

information. 

FAA did not agree with our recommendation to include the actual number of 

CPCs, CPC-ITs, and developmental controllers by location in its next annual 

update to the Controller Workforce Plan. FAA stated that it does not believe that 

an annual snapshot of this information accurately depicts the dynamics of a rapidly 

changing controller workforce. 

We strongly believe that periodic comparisons of the controller workforce provide 

critical data points for the Congress, the Secretary, and other stakeholders who 

must help ensure FAA has enough certified controllers to safely operate the 

National Airspace System. This is particularly important given the length of time 

required for new controllers to become CPCs. Training new controllers to the 

CPC level is critical because only CPCs are qualified to control traffic at all 

positions of their assigned area, and only CPCs can become OJT instructors for 

other new controllers. Having enough OJT instructors at all locations is a vital 

part of FAA’s plan to hire and train 17,000 new controllers through 2017. 

Since FAA does not believe a recurring update to its annual Controller Workforce 

Plan accurately portrays the changing dynamics of the controller workforce, then it 

should provide that information on a more frequent periodic basis (e.g., quarterly) 

to FAA’s congressional committees of jurisdiction and our office under separate 

ix
x

cover. We therefore request that FAA reconsider its position on this 

recommendation. 

FAA also did not agree with our recommendation to issue written guidance that 

holds managers accountable for achieving nominal “time-to-certify” metrics. 

FAA stated that additional written guidance is not needed since it already 

established nominal time-to-certify metrics in the FY 2008 Air Traffic 

Organization and Service Level Strategic Mapping Plans; these plans were issued 

after we completed our audit fieldwork. 

Although FAA stated it disagreed with our recommendation, it took actions that 

directly addressed it. A non-concurring response normally indicates that the 

Agency neither agrees with the recommended action nor intends to address it. In 

this instance, FAA’s actions appear to address our concern, and we expected the 

Agency would concur with the recommendation and explain any proactive actions 

taken in its response. While FAA did not choose this approach, its actions taken 

address the intent of the recommendation, we therefore consider it closed. 

FAA’s comments and our response are fully discussed on pages 22 through 25. 

FAA’s full response is included in its entirety as the appendix to this report. The 

specific actions required from FAA for each recommendation are discussed on 

page 25. 

We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of FAA representatives during this 

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

366-1427 or Daniel Raville, Program Director, at (202) 366-1405. 

# 

cc: FAA Chief of Staff 

 Anthony Williams, ABU 100 

 Martin Gertel, M-1 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

FINDING: FAA MUST IMPROVE ITS FACILITY 

TRAINING PROGRAM TO SUCCESSFULLY ACHIEVE 

ITS PLANS FOR HIRING AND TRAINING 17,000 NEW 

CONTROLLERS THROUGH 2017........................................................ 1

FAA Is Currently Training More New Controllers Than It 

Has In the Past 15 Years .................................................................. 2

FAA’s Reports to Stakeholders Must Reflect the 

Changing Composition of the Controller Workforce.......................... 3

FAA Must Establish Realistic Standards for the Level of 

Developmental Controllers That Facilities Can 

Accommodate ................................................................................... 4

FAA Must Ensure the Standards Developed Address 

Individual Facilities’ Training Capacity .............................................. 5

FAA Must Continue To Encourage Veteran Controllers 

To Transfer to Busier, Higher-Level Facilities ................................... 7

FAA Needs To Clarify Responsibilities for Oversight of 

the Facility Training Program at the National Level ........................ 11

FAA Must Ensure There Are No Gaps in Training 

Support as It Pursues a New Training Contract Initiative................ 12

FAA Needs To Implement Key Initiatives Designed in 

2004 To Improve Facility Training................................................... 13

RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................ 21

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR 

GENERAL RESPONSE....................................................................... 22

EXHIBIT A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ..................................... 26

EXHIBIT B. FACILITIES VISITED OR CONTACTED........................ 27

EXHIBIT C. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS 

REPORT .............................................................................................. 28

APPENDIX. AGENCY COMMENTS................................................... 29 
1

FINDING: FAA MUST IMPROVE ITS FACILITY TRAINING 

PROGRAM TO SUCCESSFULLY ACHIEVE ITS PLANS FOR 

HIRING AND TRAINING 17,000 NEW CONTROLLERS THROUGH 

2017 

FAA is currently training more new controllers than it has in the past 15 years. 

The percentage of developmental controllers within the controller workforce has 

increased from about 15 percent in 2004 to about 25 percent in 2007. As a result, 

FAA is facing a fundamental transformation in the composition of its controller 

workforce that will require improvements in its facility training program. We 

found that FAA’s facility training program continues to be extremely 

decentralized and the efficiency and quality of the training varies extensively from 

one location to another. We found similar problems in 2004. 

FAA is taking actions at the national level to get this important program on track. 

For example, FAA increased the use of contractor training support from 

53 facilities in 2004 to 190 facilities in 2007. FAA also is increasing the use of 

training simulators at towers. Many of FAA’s other efforts are still in the early 

stages of implementation. To enhance its facility training program, FAA needs to 

take the following actions to ensure it can successfully hire and train 17,000 new 

controllers through 2017: 

• Reflect the changing composition of the controller workforce in reports to its 

stakeholders. 

• Establish realistic standards for how many developmental controllers’ facilities 

can accommodate. 

• Ensure the standards developed address individual facilities’ training capacity. 

• Continue to encourage veteran controllers to transfer to busier, higher-level 

facilities. 

• Clarify responsibilities for oversight of the facility training program at the 

national level. 

• Ensure there are no gaps in facility training contract support. 

• Implement key initiatives designed in 2004 to improve facility training. 

Finding
2

FAA Is Currently Training More New Controllers Than It Has In the 

Past 15 Years 

The long expected surge in controller attrition has begun. Since 2005, 

3,300 controllers have left the workforce.5

 The total rate of attrition was 

23 percent higher than FAA projected; however, FAA has accelerated its hiring 

efforts to fill vacancies. Since 2005, FAA has hired 3,450 new controllers—

25 percent more than projected. 

A key issue for addressing the surge in controller attrition is training new 

controllers to the CPC level at their assigned facility. Facility training for air 

traffic controllers is conducted in stages and consists of classroom, simulation, and 

OJT. Each stage represents a different control position or group of control 

positions, depending on whether the facility is en route or terminal. Facility 

training begins in the classroom, where developmental controllers learn facilityspecific rules and procedures. These rules and procedures are often practiced in 

simulation training. 

After developmental controllers complete classroom and simulation training for a 

stage, they begin OJT on the operational position. A CPC conducts this part of the 

training and oversees and instructs developmental controllers individually as they 

work the control position. Each control position has a minimum and maximum 

number of OJT hours allotted for training. 

A developmental controller can be certified by his or her supervisor on a control 

position at any time between the minimum and maximum number of OJT hours. 

Developmental controllers achieve certification on each position as they move 

through the training stages. After developmental controllers have certified on all 

assigned positions within the control room area, they are commissioned as a CPC 

at that facility. 

It is important to note that new controllers who have completed portions of 

training and certified on a position can independently staff that position; however, 

controllers are not qualified CPCs until they have certified on all positions within 

their assigned area. Therefore, using position-qualified controllers extensively to 

staff positions can lengthen the time required for them to become CPCs since they 

are not training on other new positions. 

Training new controllers to the CPC level is important for two reasons: (1) only 

CPCs are qualified to control traffic at all positions of their assigned area and 

(2) only CPCs certified for at least 6 months (at their assigned locations) can 

become OJT instructors for other new controllers. Maintaining a sufficient 

 

5

 Attrition includes retirements, resignations, promotions to supervisory or non-controller positions, training failures, 

and deaths. 

Finding
3

number of OJT instructors at all locations is a critical component of FAA’s hiring 

and training plans. 

As a result of increasing controller attrition, FAA is facing a fundamental 

transformation in the composition of its controller workforce that will require 

improvements to its facility training program. The overall percentage of 

developmental controllers in the controller workforce has grown substantially over 

the past 3 years. As shown in table 1, from April 2004 to December 2007, the 

overall size of the controller workforce remained relatively constant; however, 

during the same period, the number of controllers in training increased by 1,375, 

or 62 percent, while the total number of CPCs decreased by 1,302. As a result, 

FAA is now training more new controllers than it has in the past 15 years. 

Table 1. Total Controller Workforce Composition 

Date CPCs Controllers in 

Training 

Total 

April 2004 12,328 2,209 14,537 

December 2007 11,026 3,584 14,610 

Difference (-1,302) +1,375 +73 

Source: OIG analysis of FAA data 

FAA’s Reports to Stakeholders Must Reflect the Changing 

Composition of the Controller Workforce 

While the number of controllers in training has increased significantly since 2004, 

FAA’s reports to its stakeholders do not reflect this change. This is because FAA 

does not differentiate between CPCs and controllers in training in its CWP (“in 

training” includes both developmental controllers and CPC-ITs6

). FAA only 

reports the total number of controllers at each location. In our opinion, FAA 

should report the number of CPCs and the number of controllers in training 

separately for each location. Differentiating those figures by location could 

provide Congress and the Secretary with critical data on the current composition 

of the controller workforce and provide a benchmark for year-to-year 

comparisons. 

 

6

 CPCs in training (CPC-IT) are veteran controllers who transferred from another facility and are in training to learn 

the procedures and airspace of their new locations. 

Finding
4

FAA Must Establish Realistic Standards for the Level of 

Developmental Controllers That Facilities Can Accommodate 

In April 2004, developmental controllers made up about 15 percent of the national 

controller workforce. As of December 2007, that percentage had risen to about 

25 percent. FAA expects this percentage to increase to as much as 30 percent. 

FAA estimates that the controller workforce at each facility can comprise up to 

35 percent in developmental controllers and still maintain operations and 

accomplish training. This estimate assumes annual attrition of about 10 percent, a 

2- to 3-year time period for developmental controllers to become fully certified, 

and a steady forecasted growth in air traffic. FAA also estimates that if facilities 

exceed that amount, their training times would significantly increase because the 

number of developmental controllers would surpass available training capacity. 

We found that many facilities already meet or exceed FAA’s acceptable 

percentage of developmental controllers. In April 2004, 22 facilities nationwide 

were above the 35-percent level. By December 2007, that number had increased 

to 70 facilities—a 218-percent increase in 3 years. For example, according to 

FAA’s national training database, as of December 2007: 

• Teterboro Tower had 12 CPCs and 13 developmental controllers (52 percent 

developmental). 

• Oakland Center had 163 CPCs and 101 developmental controllers (38 percent 

developmental). 

• Las Vegas TRACON had 22 CPCs and 22 developmental controllers 

(50 percent developmental). 

Figure 1. Picture of an Air Traffic Controller 

on Position at a Radar Scope 

Finding
5

Most facility managers, training officers, and union officials we spoke to 

disagreed with FAA’s estimate of an acceptable level of developmental 

controllers. They stated that in order to achieve effective controller training while 

maintaining daily operations, the maximum percentage of developmental 

controllers should be limited to between 20 and 25 percent of a facility’s total 

controller workforce. 

The difference between FAA’s estimate and the estimates given to us by veteran 

controllers and managers is disconcerting, especially since so many facilities 

already exceed the FAA limit. Further, FAA’s 35-percent estimate was originally 

intended to determine how many developmental controllers could be processed 

through the FAA Academy, not how many new controllers could be trained at 

individual facilities; however, it appears that FAA is now using that percentage as 

a benchmark for all facilities. 

FAA Headquarters officials we spoke with agreed that “no one size fits all” when 

determining how many trainees a facility can accommodate. We agree, given the 

various sizes and complexities of FAA’s more than 300 facilities. Therefore, FAA 

should convene a working group that includes facility managers, training 

managers, and union representatives to identify a target percentage or percentage 

range of developmental controllers that facilities (both en route and terminal) can 

realistically accommodate while maintaining daily operations. 

FAA Must Ensure the Standards Developed Address Individual 

Facilities’ Training Capacity 

In January 2006, the ATO centralized the entire controller hiring process. The 

Aviation Careers Division in Oklahoma City now coordinates all controller hiring, 

including processing and evaluating applications, tracking medical and security 

clearances, and assigning individual candidates to specific air traffic control 

facilities. We found that centralized hiring improves process efficiency by 

eliminating duplication of effort. 

FAA’s hiring process is now outpacing the capability of many air traffic facilities 

to efficiently process and train newly hired controllers assigned to their location. 

During our review, several facility managers stated that developmental controllers 

assigned to their facilities had to wait for extended periods of time before 

commencing the training program because the number of developmental 

controllers at their locations exceeded the facility training capacity. 

Finding
6

For example: 

• The Atlanta En Route Center received 76 developmental controllers in 

FY 2006. In FY 2005, however, the facility had installed the User Request 

Evaluation Tool (new controller technology for separating aircraft). Because 

the facility was required to train its existing controllers on the new technology, 

it had fewer simulators available for developmental controllers’ OJT. As a 

result, the facility was unable to train most developmental controllers from 

July 2005 to April 2006. This resulted in developmental controllers waiting up 

to 1 year before they could begin or recommence their facility training. 

• As of December 2007, the Miami Center had 98 developmental controllers (or 

34 percent of the facility’s controller workforce). Facility management and the 

local NATCA representative both agreed that the facility lacked the physical 

capacity to effectively train such a large population of developmental 

controllers, even when they were evenly distributed throughout the various 

stages of facility training. Consequently, developmental controllers’ facility 

training was delayed by as much as 9 months. 

FAA managers identified several key factors that affect a facility’s ability to 

accept and train new controllers. For example, managers told us that they must 

have a sufficient number of OJT instructors to accommodate developmental 

controllers. This is because a significant part of training for a developmental 

controller involves working live traffic with an OJT instructor. Each control 

position has a minimum and maximum number of hours allotted for OJT, which is 

often the longest and most difficult part of facility training. 

Managers also identified limitations to physical training capacity at facilities that 

can impact the number of new controllers a facility can realistically accommodate. 

These include the availability of (1) classroom space, (2) simulators, and 

(3) contract instructors to conduct the classroom and simulator training. 

Finally, managers told us that the need to instruct current CPCs on new equipment 

or new procedures takes precedence over developmental controller training and 

therefore limits the availability of classroom and simulator availability for new 

controllers (as was the case at the Atlanta En Route Center). 

Although FAA’s centralized hiring process greatly improved the Agency’s ability 

to hire new controllers, FAA needs to ensure that it does not overload facilities 

with developmental controllers. Therefore, FAA needs to take steps to mitigate 

these factors before determining where and when to place new hires. 

Finding
7

FAA Must Continue To Encourage Veteran Controllers To Transfer to 

Busier, Higher-Level Facilities 

We found that fewer veteran controllers are transferring from lower-level, less 

complicated facilities to higher-level, busier locations. From April 2004 to 

December 2007, the number of transferring veteran controllers (CPC-ITs) dropped 

by nearly 34 percent (from 1,217 in 2004 to 808 in 2007). With the surge of 

developmental controllers in the workforce, FAA cannot afford to lose the 

valuable experience that veteran controllers from lower-level facilities could 

provide at some of the busiest facilities in the Nation, even if just for several years. 

According to FAA facility managers, fewer veteran controllers are transferring 

due to new work rules that significantly changed the controller pay system. These 

rules were enacted by FAA after it declared an impasse in negotiations with 

NATCA. FAA then implemented a new contract and work rules on 

September 5, 2006, under authority of its personnel reform legislation. 

Before the imposed contract, CPCs assigned to a specific facility had their existing 

pay levels “grandfathered.” That is, their base salary remained unaffected as long 

as they remained at their assigned facility. Under the new pay rules, however, 

once controllers transfer to a new facility, their pay would be adjusted to the new 

pay bands enacted in September 2006. 

In many cases, this could significantly decrease CPCs’ base salaries, which may 

discourage them from transferring to higher-level, busier facilities. As shown in 

table 2, a CPC transferring from a Level 9 facility (such as Baltimore-Washington 

International) to a Level 12 facility (such as Chicago O’Hare), which is much 

more complex, could actually lose about $7,000 in base pay (from $113,295 to 

$106,200). FAA’s personnel reform allows the Agency to waive the salary 

adjustments if deemed appropriate on a case-by-case basis. 

Finding
8

Table 2. Comparison of Controller Pay Bands 

Pay Bands 

Old Pay System 

(ATC Pay System) 

New Pay System (ATSPP) 

(Includes 2007 Pay Band Increase) 

Minimum Maximum ATC Level Minimum Maximum 

$44,800 $62,720 3 N/A N/A

$47,822 $66,951 4 $37,800 $50,925

$54,278 $75,989 5 $37,800 $50,925

$59,978 $83,969 6 $45,475 $58,600

$66,277 $92,788 7 $46,100 $63,725

$73,236 $102,530 8 $53,775 $71,400

$80,925 $113,295 9 $56,100 $79,325

$93,063 $130,288 10 $63,775 $87,000

$97,947 $137,126 11 $68,500 $98,525

 $102,846 $143,984 12 $76,175 $106,200

Note: New pay system effective as of January 7, 2007 

Source: FAA 

FAA is aware of this concern and announced a new program in January 2008 that 

offers a retention incentive bonus to veteran controllers at key facilities if they 

remain with the Agency after becoming eligible to retire. In our opinion, those 

actions are a step in the right direction—the key now will be follow through. FAA 

should report the preliminary results of this incentive in its next update of the 

CWP and take steps to ensure its busiest facilities benefit from veteran controllers’ 

valuable experience. 

As a result of the decrease in transferring veteran controllers, we found that many 

facilities have had to redesign their training programs, particularly so at large 

terminal facilities. Although en route facilities are generally the largest air traffic 

control facilities, their training programs have always been designed to include the 

training needs of even the least experienced developmental controllers. 

This is not the case at large terminal facilities such as the Potomac, Atlanta, or 

Chicago TRACONs. In the past, large terminal facilities relied primarily on 

experienced CPCs transferring from lower-level, less complex facilities to fill their 

vacancies. This is no longer the case, however, as developmental controllers are 

now increasingly being assigned directly to higher-level terminal facilities. 

The number and type of facility training stages are different for en route and 

terminal facilities. Even within the terminal area, developmental controller 

training differs between towers and TRACONs. Generally, at towers, facility 

training incorporates Stage II through Stage V, while TRACON facility training 

incorporates Stage II, then Stages VI and VII. En route facility training consists of 

Stages II through IV. Figure 2 below shows the difference between the training 

processes and the various stages. 

Finding
9

Figure 2. En Route Versus Terminal Training Processes 

Source: FAA 

Historically, CPCs transferred to increasingly complex terminal facilities at higher 

pay scales as part of their career progression. Although CPC-ITs had to certify on 

each position at the new facility, they normally became certified faster than 

inexperienced, developmental controllers because of their previous experience in 

controlling air traffic. Until recently, prospective terminal controllers were seldom 

assigned to large TRACONs and towers, without first learning to control air traffic 

at slower-paced, less complex terminal facilities. 

We found that where facilities are forced to redesign their training programs to 

accommodate new hires, it takes longer for controllers to certify as CPCs. 

Finding
10

For example: 

• At the Potomac TRACON, managers historically received very few 

inexperienced, newly hired developmental controllers. According to those 

managers, most new controllers transferred to the facility from lower-level 

facilities and had previous experience controlling traffic. Since most of the 

TRACON’s current new controllers are inexperienced, developmental 

controllers, the TRACON’s management is considering adding a 6- to 7-week 

class to review basic air traffic fundamentals. The facility manager also told us 

that existing minimum and maximum training hours assigned to each training 

stage are determined at her “best guess.” 

• At the Chicago TRACON, managers had to extend their facility training 

program by 10 weeks to accommodate the additional training needs of 

inexperienced, developmental controllers. This facility historically received 

more experienced controllers. 

• At the Atlanta TRACON, managers stated that, prior to 2007, they had never 

trained any inexperienced, developmental controllers. As a result, managers 

convened a working group to redesign the facility’s training program. The 

updated facility training order, which was released in August 2007, established 

new classroom and OJT training hours for developmental controllers with no 

prior air traffic control experience. 

Some stakeholders have expressed concerns that many developmental controllers 

are now being directly placed at busy, higher-level facilities with no prior 

experience. We are conducting other related audits to review this issue. At the 

request of Chairman Costello of the House Subcommittee on Aviation, we are 

reviewing controller training failures (developmental and transferring controllers 

who fail training either at the FAA Academy or at their assigned facility). As part 

of that review, we are examining possible root causes of training failures, which 

can include the facility level where new controllers are placed. 

In addition, at the request of Senator Durbin of Illinois, we are reviewing factors, 

training-related or otherwise, that could affect controller fatigue. The National 

Transportation Safety Board identified this issue after the crash of Comair flight 

5191 in 2006. We are focusing our current efforts at Chicago O’Hare Tower, 

Chicago TRACON, and Chicago Center but may review other locations and 

FAA’s national efforts based on the results of our work at Chicago. 

Finding
11

FAA Needs To Clarify Responsibilities for Oversight of the Facility 

Training Program at the National Level 

In our June 2004 report, we concluded that facility training was decentralized and 

FAA provided minimal management oversight of facility training at the national 

level. During our current review, we found that significant confusion persists. 

For example: 

• Facility managers were still confused as to what office is ultimately 

responsible for facility training. Air traffic facility managers we interviewed 

across the country were unable to tell us who or what office at FAA 

Headquarters is in charge of facility training. They consistently reported that 

no one manages facility training at the national level. 

• The ATO’s Director of Technical Training and Development stated that while 

he was in charge of most aspects of training for controllers, he was not 

responsible for the facility training program. He stated that the responsibility 

for facility training rested with the Vice Presidents for Terminal and En Route 

facilities. 

• FAA’s National Training Order 3120.4L indicates that the Controller Training 

Division has overall responsibility for facility training. The order states the 

following: “As directed by the Chief Operating Officer (COO), the Vice 

President, Acquisition and Business Services, is responsible for Air Traffic 

technical training. The Manager, Controller Training Division, is delegated 

authority in all matters related to the training programs and policies described 

in this order.” However, there is no “Controller Training Division” listed in 

the Agency’s organization chart under FAA’s Acquisition and Business 

Services or under FAA’s Air Traffic Organization. 

FAA Headquarters officials stated that after FAA created the ATO, it assigned 

national oversight responsibility for facility training to the ATO’s Vice President 

for Terminal Services and Vice President for En Route and Oceanic Services. In 

addition, the ATO’s Vice President for Acquisition and Business Services 

oversees new controller hiring and the FAA Academy training program, and the 

Senior Vice President for Finance oversees the development of the CWP. All four 

offices play key roles in the controller training process. 

We found that these overlapping responsibilities are causing the confusion at the 

facility level. FAA needs to communicate who has the authority and 

responsibility for oversight and direction of the facility training program at the 

national level and include this information in the next update of FAA’s National 

Training Order 3120.4L, which is due this summer. 

Finding
12

FAA Must Ensure There Are No Gaps in Training Support as It 

Pursues a New Training Contract Initiative 

FAA is pursuing a new controller training initiative: Air Traffic Control Optimum 

Training Solutions (ATCOTS). According to FAA officials, the Agency initially 

planned to contract out as much as 80 percent of controller training. The scope of 

the contract was to include initial recruitment and hiring, FAA Academy training, 

and major portions of controller facility training; however, FAA has since altered 

both the proposed contract scope and the proposed timeline. 

FAA now plans to consolidate two existing contracts—Washington Consulting 

Group (WCG) and Oklahoma University (OU)—to provide performance-based 

controller training support. The OU contract currently provides instructors and 

administrative support to the FAA Academy, while the WCG contract provides 

similar support services to air traffic control facilities. On August 1, 2007, FAA 

placed the following “contract opportunity statement” on its website: 

As a result of the analysis and the examination of potential alternatives, the 

originally envisioned wide-ranging contracting effort does not represent the 

best solution. Rather, air traffic controller training will be improved by 

consolidating the two existing contracts (Washington Consulting Group 

contract and Oklahoma University contract) into one performance-based 

contract. There will be no change to the current FAA training infrastructure. 

The FAA is in the process of restructuring ATCOTS so that the chosen 

service provider will be required to continually improve performance in order 

to keep abreast of changing FAA requirements. To this end, the FAA is 

seeking comments on the draft PWS (Performance Work Statement), 

potential performance metrics, pricing structures, and proposed acquisition 

timeline. 

According to air traffic control managers, the current WCG contract is an effective 

means of providing classroom and simulation training to developmental 

controllers because contract trainers are usually experienced, retired air traffic 

controllers from that location. In addition, using contract trainers to provide the 

classroom portion of OJT frees up controllers to provide OJT on live air traffic. 

Table 3 below shows how FAA has significantly expanded the WCG contract 

support for facility training over the past 3 years. 

Finding
13

Table 3. WCG Contract Support, 2004 to 2007 

Updates Number of Facilities 

Supported 

Number of WCG 

Employees 

September 30, 2004 53 486 

November 7, 2007 190 825 

Source: FAA 

FAA plans to award a contract for ATCOTS to a single vendor by June 2008. 

That timeframe, however, is already more than 1 year behind the original target 

date. If the date of award slips again, there could be serious consequences to the 

facility training program because the WCG contract expires in September 2008. 

According to facility managers, the training support provided by the WCG 

contract is a critical component for managing their training programs. In fact, 

many facility managers stated that training at their locations would cease 

altogether if the contract ended without support replacement. In our opinion, FAA 

needs to develop a contingency plan for actions needed to ensure continuous 

training support during the change from the current WCG contract to any followon contract. 

FAA Needs To Implement Key Initiatives Designed in 2004 To 

Improve Facility Training 

FAA has made limited progress toward key initiatives relating to facility training 

that it first proposed in its December 2004 Controller Workforce Plan. We found 

that while the annual CWP presented a comprehensive list of initiatives for 

training new controllers, each subsequent update provided fewer details 

concerning the status of the training initiatives. Specifically, FAA has not 

(1) developed a written policy governing the use of developmental controllers for 

operational purposes, (2) consistently analyzed data in the national training 

database to identify trends (both in en route and terminal) and communicated best 

practices, and (3) conducted a comprehensive evaluation of facility training. All 

of these were key training initiatives proposed in the 2004 CWP. 

To its credit, however, FAA has successfully implemented an important 

initiative—increasing the use of training simulators. In addition, FAA has begun 

disseminating facility best practices through national working groups and monthly 

training teleconferences. 

Finding
14

FAA Must Mandate That Controller Training Be Prioritized 

Once developmental controllers have certified on a sector, they can independently 

work that sector for the facility; however, developmental controllers do not 

become CPCs until they certify on all sectors within their assigned areas, usually 

between five and seven sectors. Training new controllers to the CPC level is 

important for two reasons: (1) only CPCs are qualified to control traffic at all

positions of their assigned area and (2) only CPCs certified for at least 6 months 

(at their assigned locations) can become OJT instructors for other new controllers. 

It is important to note that new controllers who have completed portions of 

training and have been certified on a position can independently staff that position 

to alleviate short-term staffing shortages. Controllers are not qualified CPCs, 

however, until they have certified on all positions within their assigned area. 

Therefore, using position-qualified controllers extensively to staff positions can 

lengthen the time required to become CPCs since they are not training on other 

new positions. 

In its 2004 CWP, FAA stated that it would “develop, implement and enforce a 

policy that assigns facility training as a priority second only to operations.” This 

was to be accomplished through the following actions: 

• Placing developmental controllers only at facilities that had available training 

capacity. 

• Requiring facility managers to establish OJT as a facility priority and only 

allow suspension of training for critical operational necessities. 

• Establishing nominal “time-to-certify” metrics for en route and terminal 

training programs and hold managers accountable for achieving those targets. 

We found that FAA never issued a policy to implement those requirements. In 

fact, at almost every facility we visited, managers continued to use developmental 

controllers in some sort of operational capacity for controlling traffic. Some 

facilities used developmental controllers repeatedly to supplement staffing for 

operations. 

Additionally, FAA did not establish a policy for holding managers accountable for 

achieving nominal “time-to-certify” metrics for en route and terminal training 

programs. These are both critical initiatives, and FAA must follow through with 

its planned actions and ensure they are implemented. 

Finding
15

FAA Must Use Its National OJT Training Database To Identify Trends and 

Establish Facility Training Best Practices 

In June 2004, we recommended that FAA develop and implement a national 

training database to collect data from field facilities, analyze the data at the 

national level, and determine if there were any trends (positive or negative) that 

required intervention. FAA subsequently included the national OJT training 

database as an initiative in its December 2004 CWP. According to FAA, 

implementing the initiative would include recommending best practices to facility 

managers based on a “snapshot” of the database by March 2006 and then applying 

the best practices by May 2006. 

In the 2007 update of the CWP, FAA stated that it had “fully implemented the onthe-job training database for both en route and terminal training.” We found, 

however, that while facilities were entering their training data on a monthly basis, 

FAA Headquarters was not reviewing the data for accuracy. During this review, 

we tested the accuracy of the underlying data. We found that while data from the 

en route facilities appeared to be fairly accurate, data from terminal facilities were 

not. Examples of obvious inaccuracies include the following: 

• At four terminal facilities, the database indicated that the average times for 

developmental controllers to certify and become CPCs at those locations were 

actually negative numbers. 

• At one terminal facility, the database showed that one developmental controller 

had certified as a CPC nearly 6 months before he arrived at the facility. 

• At a Level 6 air traffic control tower (one of the least complicated types of 

facility operated by FAA), the database showed that two developmental 

controllers each took 7.94 years to become CPCs. 

We also found that FAA Headquarters did not consistently use the database to 

identify positive or negative trends. For example, at the end of our audit, we 

observed that managers from the en route division were using the data to identify 

anomalies among various en route facilities’ training efforts; however, managers 

within the terminal division were not. This could be related to the accuracy of the 

data entered by terminal managers. 

FAA must begin using the national OJT database to identify trends at individual 

facilities that could indicate training problems and take the corrective actions 

needed. Until FAA is assured that the data in the national training database are 

accurate in both en route and terminal divisions, it cannot use the data to identify 

anomalies or best practices from the national statistics. FAA must take the actions 

necessary to ensure that the entered data are accurate. 

Finding
16

At the end of our audit, we observed FAA Headquarters managers discussing best 

practices at the national level and communicating those initiatives to facilities 

through national working groups. In addition, training managers from both 

terminal and en route facilities were participating in monthly training 

teleconferences to discuss training difficulties and other suggestions. 

During our facility visits, we learned of several unique training methods devised 

by facility managers. For example: 

• At the Atlanta TRACON, all new developmental controllers begin facility 

training on the least complex airspace controlled by the facility. Once the 

developmental controller has gained both experience and confidence in his or 

her abilities, the manager moves the new controller to more complex airspace. 

Though developmental controllers have only recently been assigned to the 

TRACON, training records indicate that they seem to be completing the 

certification process much more quickly than those first placed in more 

complex areas. 

• At the Las Vegas TRACON, 40 percent of the OJT instructors have less than 

5 years of training experience. As a result, managers selectively use less 

experienced instructors on less complicated airspace and more closely oversee 

their development as instructors. The more experienced instructors are then 

available to teach the more complicated areas. 

• At the Las Vegas TRACON, managers alternate developmental controllers 

between training and operations to ensure their progression in facility training 

while maintaining sufficient staffing levels to control traffic. Once a 

developmental controller certifies on a position, he or she then spends 4 hours 

out of each shift staffing that position and another 4 hours training on new 

positions. As the developmental controllers certify on other positions, they 

also are rotated through additional control positions to stay current on the 

airspace and procedures of each position. 

• At the Jacksonville En Route Center, the training manager rotates 

developmental controllers as remote pilot operators in simulator problems. 

Remote pilot operators are often contract employees who assist controller 

training by acting as “pilots” in a simulator setting. This practice initially helps 

new personnel to become familiar with the facility’s airspace, basic air traffic 

control, and communications procedures. As developmental controllers 

proceed through training, the remote pilot operations reinforce their newly 

learned skills. 

Finding
17

• At the Oakland En Route Center, officials have proposed that FAA directly 

hire contract remote pilot operators as air traffic controllers. According to 

managers at Oakland, employees working as remote pilot operators go through 

a substantial amount of training that includes learning air traffic control and 

communications skills, as well as knowledge of facility airspace and 

procedures. The managers noted that because of the training required to 

become a high performing remote pilot operator, they often demonstrate the 

skills needed to become an air traffic controller. They also suggested that 

recent graduates of colleges and universities affiliated with FAA’s Collegiate 

Training Initiative Program could be productively employed as remote pilot 

operators while awaiting FAA appointments or undergoing medical and 

security clearance processing. 

We shared some of these initiatives with other en route and terminal facility 

managers during our facility visits. In numerous instances, facility managers 

expressed interest and told us they intended to try some of the initiatives within 

their own training programs. 

In our opinion, these are the types of best practices that FAA should gather at the 

national level and disseminate to field facilities, and FAA Headquarters managers 

now appear to be undertaking those actions. FAA should encourage such efforts 

and identify other methods for effectively communicating best practices. 

In past audits, we found similar needs for communicating best practices. For 

example, in May 2007, we reported7

 on runway safety efforts at four airports that 

had experienced a surge in runway incursions in 2005 and 2006—Boston, 

Chicago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles. We found that airport operators at all 

four locations responded to the rise in runway incursions by improving airport 

lighting, adding better signage, and improving runway and taxiway markings. 

While the implementation of these actions varied among the airports, they all had 

the potential to reduce runway incursions system-wide. Other than informal 

networking, however, there were no formal means for the various users to share 

actions that had reduced or prevented runway incursions at their locations. 

Our recommendations included developing an automated means, such as 

establishing an intranet site through the Regional Runway Safety Offices, to share 

best practices for reducing runway incursions with all users of the National 

Airspace System. In response, FAA implemented a best practices website for 

runway safety in December 2007. FAA should consider implementing a similar 

website for its facility training program. 

 

7

 OIG Report Number AV-2007-050, “Progress Has Been Made in Reducing Runway Incursions, but Recent Incidents 

Underscore the Need for Further Proactive Efforts,” May 24, 2007. 

Finding
18

Figure 3. Picture of a Tower Station 

Source: FAA 

FAA Must Comprehensively Evaluate the Facility Training Program 

In the December 2004 Controller Workforce Plan, FAA stated that it would 

conduct a thorough review of facility training to ensure it begins where the 

Academy ends. This review will take into consideration other efficiency gains 

identified in this plan and will result in facility training programs tailored to 

meet the needs of developmental controllers of the future. This effort will 

contribute to the Agency’s goal to reduce the time to CPC. 

FAA stated that it planned to adjust the facility training program based on this 

evaluation by December 2006. FAA repeated the same statement in the 2006 

update of the CWP but completely eliminated any mention of this initiative in its 

2007 update. 

We found that FAA never conducted the evaluation or made adjustments to the 

facility training program that were planned for completion by December 2006. 

Consequently, all facility training changes to date were made by facility staff 

without national guidance or oversight and were based solely on individual facility 

needs. 

To eliminate duplicative efforts in redesigning training programs at each facility, 

FAA needs to conduct a comprehensive review of facility training as stated in the 

2004 CWP. This will ensure that efficiencies are realized throughout the redesign 

process and will allow larger facilities to modify their programs to accept new 

hires for the first time. 

Finding
19

FAA Must Ensure That the Planned Increased Use of Simulators Remains 

On Track 

FAA’s 2004 CWP included initiatives for increasing the use of training simulators 

at towers and en route facilities (see figure 4). To its credit, FAA has successfully 

implemented this important initiative and must ensure that it remains on track. 

FAA recently installed simulators at four towers—Chicago O’Hare, Miami, 

Ontario, and Phoenix. The simulators can be programmed with scenarios and 

occurrences exclusive to those airports, using actual aircraft with their respective 

call signs. By using simulators, controllers gain inherent knowledge of a 

particular airport, its airspace, and application of air traffic procedures for that 

specific location. The simulators also have a function that writes software for 

additional airports; this allows controllers from surrounding facilities to utilize the 

simulators. 

Figure 4. Picture of Controllers Using a Tower Cab Simulator 

Source: FAA 

Results thus far indicate that simulators at tower facilities are valuable training 

tools, and managers of facilities with simulators are pleased with the results. 

NASA Ames Research Center evaluated this training, and its results confirm the 

value of simulators (see table 4 below). For example, NASA’s evaluation found 

that it took 60 percent fewer days for developmental controllers to complete 

ground control training at the Miami tower. At Chicago, NASA reported that it 

took developmental controllers 42 percent fewer days to complete ground control 

training. 

Finding
Finding

20

Table 4. Results of NASA Ames Air Traffic Simulator Evaluation 

Facility - Position Percent Fewer Days 

To Complete Training

Percent Fewer Hours of 

OJT Training 

Ontario Tower - Ground 31 percent 59 percent 

O’Hare Tower - Ground 42 percent 38 percent 

Miami Tower - Ground 60 percent 21 percent 

Source: FAA 2007 Controller Workforce Plan Update 

FAA plans to install 12 additional tower simulators this year (6 at large airports 

and 6 at the FAA Academy) and 12 next year (at other airports). 

En route facilities are using dynamic simulation labs to support their facility 

training programs. A more advanced program—the En Route Training Simulation 

System—will provide simulation capabilities until the En Route Automation 

Modernization is fully functional beginning in FY 2008. This program will be 

used at the Salt Lake, Albuquerque, Miami, and Washington en route centers; 

managers are optimistic that it will reduce the number of students backlogged in 

the training program at those four facilities. These simulators were not in use 

during our site visits. 
21

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that FAA: 

1. Convene a working group that includes facility managers, training managers, 

and union representatives to identify a target percentage or percentage range 

of developmental controllers that facilities (by facility type—both en route 

and terminal) can realistically accommodate while accomplishing facility 

training and daily operations. 

2. Include in the next update to the Controller Workforce Plan the actual 

number of CPCs, CPC-ITs, and developmental controllers by location to 

provide stakeholders with an accurate picture of the current composition of 

the controller workforce. 

3. Establish a method for placing newly hired controllers at facilities that 

considers the availability of OJT instructors, classroom space, and simulators 

as well as training requirements of existing CPC staff. 

4. Include the initial results of the Agency’s new controller retention bonuses in 

the 2009 update of the Controller Workforce Plan. 

5. Designate authority and responsibility for oversight and direction of the 

facility training program at the national level in the next update of FAA’s 

National Training Order 3120.4L, which is due this summer. 

6. Develop a contingency plan for actions needed to ensure continuous training 

support during any change from the current WCG contract to any follow-on 

contract. 

7. Issue written guidance requiring facility managers to establish OJT as a 

facility priority and only allow suspension of training for critical operational 

necessities. 

8. Issue written guidance that holds managers accountable for achieving 

nominal “time-to-certify” metrics for en route and terminal training 

programs. 

9. Establish procedures for ensuring the accuracy of data input into the national 

training database and use the database to identify trends (negative and 

positive) at individual facilities (en route and terminal) that could indicate 

training problems and take corrective actions as needed. 

Recommendations
22

10.Establish additional methods for disseminating successful training methods 

used at individual facilities that could be applied at other locations (en route 

and terminal), such as an intranet website for facility training. 

11.Conduct a comprehensive review of facility training as stated in the 2004 

Controller Workforce Plan. 

12.Ensure that the installation of additional simulators at terminal and en route 

facilities remains on schedule to capitalize on the significant success this type 

of training has demonstrated thus far. 

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSE 

We provided FAA with our draft report on March 31, 2008, and requested its 

comments within 15 calendar days. We received FAA’s comments on 

May 19, 2008. FAA fully concurred with 8 of our 12 recommendations, partially 

concurred with 2, and non-concurred with 2. 

Full Concurrence 

FAA concurred with the following recommendations and provided milestones for 

implementing the planned actions: 

• Convene a working group to identify target percentages of developmental 

controllers that facilities can accommodate (recommendation 1). 

• Develop a contingency plan for actions needed for continuing training support 

(recommendation 6). 

• Establish additional methods for disseminating successful training methods 

(recommendation 10). 

•Conduct a comprehensive review of the facility training program 

(recommendation 11). 

•Ensure that installation of simulators remains on track (recommendation 12). 

We consider these recommendations resolved and open pending completion of the 

planned actions. 

Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Response
23

FAA also concurred with the following recommendations but did not provide 

milestones for implementing the planned actions: 

• Establish a method for placing newly hired controllers at facilities that 

considers available training resources (recommendation 3). 

• Designate authority and responsibility for oversight of the facility training 

program (recommendation 5). 

• Establish procedures for ensuring the accuracy of data input to the national 

training database (recommendation 9). 

We request that FAA provide implementation milestones, and upon receipt we 

will consider these recommendations resolved and open pending completion of the 

planned actions. 

Partial Concurrence 

FAA partially concurred with the following recommendations: 

• Include results of the Agency’s new controller retention bonuses in the next 

update to the Controller Workforce Plan (recommendation 4). 

FAA stated that to imply that only retention bonuses have an effect on staffing 

levels would be misleading. Further, FAA stated that it does not believe that 

the Controller Workforce Plan is the appropriate medium to provide such 

information. 

Although we never implied that retention bonuses were the only factor that can 

affect staffing levels, we believe FAA should track the impact of this incentive 

to ensure the bonuses are effective in retaining veteran controllers at the 

facilities where they are most needed. On condition that FAA will provide the 

results of the retention bonuses upon request from our office or other 

stakeholders, we will consider this recommendation closed. 

• Issue written guidance requiring facility managers to establish OJT as a 

priority and only allow suspension of training for critical operational 

necessities (recommendation 7). 

Our recommendation reflects FAA’s 2004 Controller Workforce Plan, which 

states that the Agency will “develop, implement, and enforce a policy that 

assigns facility training as a priority second only to operations.” In its 

response, FAA stated that the recommended guidance will be coordinated and 

issued by the En Route and Oceanic Services and the Terminal service units. 

Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Response
24

We question FAA’s partial concurrence, since its response implies it plans to 

issue the guidance as we recommended. We request that FAA clarify whether 

it actually plans to issue the recommended guidance as stated and inform our 

office of the planned issuance date. Upon receipt of that information, we will 

consider this recommendation resolved. 

Non-Concurrence 

FAA did not agree with the following recommendations: 

• Include the actual number of CPCs, CPC-ITs, and developmental controllers 

by location in its next annual update to the Controller Workforce Plan 

(recommendation 2). 

FAA stated that it does not believe that an annual snapshot of this information 

accurately captures the changing controller workforce and that the information 

would be of little use to readers of its Controller Workforce Plan. 

We strongly believe that periodic comparisons of the of the controller 

workforce provide critical data points for the Congress, the Secretary, and 

other stakeholders who must ensure FAA has enough certified controllers to 

safely operate the National Airspace System. This is particularly important 

given the length of time required for new controllers to become CPCs. 

Training new controllers to the CPC level is critical because only CPCs are 

qualified to control traffic at all positions of their assigned area, and only CPCs 

can become OJT instructors for other new controllers. Having enough OJT 

instructors at all locations is a vital part of FAA’s plan to hire and train 

17,000 new controllers through 2017. 

Since FAA does not believe a recurring update to its annual Controller 

Workforce Plan accurately portrays the changing dynamics of the controller 

workforce, then it should provide that information on a more frequent periodic 

basis (e.g., quarterly) to FAA’s congressional committees of jurisdiction and 

our office under separate cover. We therefore request that FAA reconsider its 

position on this recommendation. 

• Issue written guidance that holds managers accountable for achieving nominal 

“time-to-certify” metrics (recommendation 8). 

FAA stated that additional written guidance is not needed since it already 

established nominal time-to-certify metrics in the FY 2008 Air Traffic 

Organization and Service Level Strategic Mapping Plans, which were issued 

after we completed our audit fieldwork. 

Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Response
Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Response

25

Although FAA stated it disagreed with our recommendation, it took actions 

that directly addressed it. A non-concurring response normally indicates that 

the Agency neither agrees with the recommendation nor intends to address it. 

In this instance, FAA’s actions appear to address our concern, and we expected 

the Agency would concur with the recommendation and explain any proactive 

actions taken in its response. While FAA did not choose this approach, its 

actions taken address the intent of our recommendation; we therefore consider 

the recommendation closed. 

FAA General Comments 

FAA included two general comments in its response: 

• First, FAA states that using 2004 data as a benchmark year for comparing the 

composition of the controller workforce to later years is misleading because 

there was an exceptionally small number of trainees within the workforce in 

2004. We chose 2004 as a benchmark for comparison purposes based on two 

factors: (1) 2004 was the last year we audited this program; therefore, the base 

year created a natural benchmark for all our comparisons; (2) 2004 was the 

year FAA first published its plans for addressing the expected surge in 

controller retirements (the Controller Workforce Plan). 

• Second, in regards to the new pay rules which could significantly decrease 

CPCs’ base salaries when transferring to higher-level, busier facilities, FAA 

stated our report ignored the fact that the Agency preserved the ability to use 

tools to incentify [sic] transferring controllers as necessary (Article 108). 

FAA’s statement is incorrect. Our report discussed in detail FAA’s planned 

incentive bonuses and recommended that FAA report the effectiveness of those 

efforts. We would also direct FAA to page 7 of our report, the last sentence of 

the fourth paragraph, in which we state, “FAA’s personnel reform allows the 

Agency to waive the salary adjustments if deemed appropriate on a case-bycase basis.” 

ACTIONS REQUIRED 

For recommendations 1, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12, no further information is required. In 

accordance with Department of Transportation 8000.1C, we request that FAA 

provide us with the following information within 15 calendar days. For 

recommendations 3, 5, and 9, please provide us with the implementation dates of 

the planned actions. For recommendation 4, please provide us with the initial 

results of the controller retention bonuses to date. For recommendation 7, please 

clarify whether the Agency plans to issue the recommended guidance as stated 

and, if so, inform our office of the planned issuance date. We request that FAA 

reconsider its position regarding recommendation 2. 
26

EXHIBIT A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted 

Government Auditing Standards prescribed by the Comptroller General of the 

United States. As required by those standards, we obtained evidence that we 

believe provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. We conducted the audit between June 2007 and March 2008 

using the following methodology. 

During this audit, we visited FAA Headquarters, the FAA Training Academy, the 

National Air Traffic Controllers Association Headquarters, 6 en route facilities, 

and 14 terminal facilities. We reviewed and analyzed FAA’s December 2004 

Controller Workforce Plan and its associated FY 2006 and FY 2007 updates. 

Members of the audit team also attended an FAA conference concerning the 

proposed ATCOTS and planned milestones. 

To evaluate the controller facility training program at the national level, we 

interviewed several FAA Headquarters officials. We also reviewed updated 

facility staffing levels and ranges, discussed the status of the national training 

database with FAA Headquarters officials and facility managers, evaluated 

Controller Workforce Plan initiative timelines and discussed the proposed 

ATCOTS. During site visits, we reviewed the status of facility training programs 

and average training times and evaluated facility-specific best practices. We also 

asked facility managers if they shared effective best practices with other facility 

managers. 

To determine the status of key 2004 Controller Workforce Plan initiatives, we 

conducted interviews with managers at all levels of the Agency. We were 

specifically interested in determining if FAA had developed a written policy 

mandating that developmental controller training be prioritized over operational 

staffing. We also determined the status of the national training database, the 

national evaluation and redesign of the facility training program, and facility 

training simulators. 

To determine national controller staffing levels, we analyzed FAA’s national 

staffing database. We then compared the data with staffing ranges in the 2007 

Controller Workforce Plan update to determine if FAA is accurately presenting the 

status of facility staffing. We also analyzed the percentage of trainee controllers in 

the workforce and determined which facilities had a higher percentage of trainees 

than FAA recommends. We also compared a staffing “snapshot” of two periods to 

determine if the composition of the workforce has changed. 

Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology 
Exhibit B. Facilities Visited or Contacted 

27

EXHIBIT B. FACILITIES VISITED OR CONTACTED 

En Route Centers 

• Atlanta Center 

• Chicago Center 

• Jacksonville Center 

• Miami Center 

• Oakland Center 

• Washington Center 

Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON) 

• Atlanta TRACON 

• Chicago TRACON 

• Las Vegas TRACON 

• Potomac TRACON 

Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCT) 

• Atlanta ATCT 

• Chicago Midway ATCT 

• Chicago O’Hare ATCT 

• Dulles ATCT 

• Jacksonville ATCT 

• Las Vegas ATCT 

• Manassas ATCT 

• Miami ATCT 

• Reagan National ATCT 

• Palwaukee ATCT 

FAA Headquarters, Washington, District of Columbia 

FAA Training Academy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 

National Air Traffic Controllers Association Headquarters, 

Washington, District of Columbia
28

EXHIBIT C. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT 

Name Title 

Daniel Raville Program Director 

Robert Romich Project Manager 

Erik Phillips Senior Analyst 

Katherine Yutzey Senior Analyst 

Mi Hwa Button Analyst 

Mark Gonzales Analyst 

Kevin Montgomery Analyst 

Andrea Nossaman Writer-Editor 

Exhibit C. Major Contributors to This Report 
29

APPENDIX. AGENCY COMMENTS 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Memorandum 

Date: May 19, 2008 

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

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

Prepared by: Anthony Williams, x79000 

Subject: OIG Draft Report: Air Traffic Controller Facility Training Program Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Thank you for providing us the opportunity to review and comment on your draft report entitled: “Air 

Traffic Controller Facility Training Program Federal Aviation Administration,” dated March 31. This 

report contains twelve recommendations. The FAA concurs with recommendations 1,3,5,6,9, 10, 11, 

and 12; non-concurs with recommendations 2 and 8; and partially concur with recommendations 4 

and 7. 

Following the overall comments is the FAA’s response to each recommendation. 

Overall Comments

The FAA will hire and train nearly 17,000 new air traffic controllers over the next 10 years. 

Simultaneously, the agency must manage today’s air traffic while integrating new technologies into 

air traffic operations. While developmental training is very important, we do not think it is more 

important than the overall operational performance of the National Airspace System (NAS). 

The FAA set ambitious training goals in the first Controller Workforce Plan (CWP), published in 

December 2004. One of those goals compressed the training time required to reach Certified 

Professional Controller (CPC) status from three to five years down to two to three years. We are very 

proud of the progress we are making in both our Terminal and En Route facilities towards this goal. 

The goal, however, was an internal one, not an operational requirement, and we believe that the 

subject report overstates the consequences to the NAS should our training times exceed those 

established in the original Plan. 

Developmental controllers can and do control traffic as they progress towards CPC status. This has 

been a practice in FAA facilities for the last 40 years. Our on-the-job training (OJT) program is 

designed to provide trainees with sufficient seasoning time as well as opportunities to develop their 

skills. Facilities often allow them to work under the direction of a supervisor in order to gain 

Appendix. Agency Comments 
30

experience, so even if the process takes longer, it can result in a more-seasoned trainee. However, no 

trainee works live traffic independently until the controller has been certified to work that traffic 

position. 

The OIG draft report correctly states that one of the benefits of developmentals progressing to CPC is 

that only CPCs can in turn provide OJT to other developmentals. However, as long as there are 

sufficient numbers of CPCs to provide OJT, as well as staff the more difficult positions that 

developmentals cannot, there is no pressing need for facilities to sacrifice operational performance in 

order to simply train developmentals. 

OIG Recommendation 1: Convene a working group that includes facility managers, training 

managers, and union representatives to identify a target percentage or percentage range of 

developmental controllers that facilities (by facility type—both en route and terminal) can 

realistically accommodate while accomplishing facility training and daily operations. 

FAA Comments: Concur. The FAA will convene a workgroup to identify a percentage range target 

for developmental controllers based on facility type. This target range is simply a guideline that 

indicates that a facility has a particular number of trainees in its pipeline. Where each of those 

trainees are in the training cycle, as well as other facility level indicators such as traffic forecasts, 

retirement forecasts, overtime usages, technology integration projects, etc., must all be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis to determine whether a facility is potentially in need of management focus. 

Furthermore, training and other facility indicators are dynamic and will evolve throughout the year, 

rendering “point in time” snapshot of trainee ratios less meaningful. The FAA will determine the 

composition of this workgroup. We anticipate this workgroup will hold its first meeting no later than 

June 1. 

OIG Recommendation 2: Include in the next update to the Controller Workforce Plan the actual 

number of CPCs, CPC-ITs, and developmental controllers by location to provide stakeholders with an 

accurate picture of the current makeup of the controller workforce. 

FAA Comments: Non-Concur. The agency does not believe that providing a snapshot at this level of 

information once a year in our update to the CWP accurately captures the dynamic staffing profile or 

status of this workforce. There are 314 FAA facilities with different staffing levels. As we continue to 

bring in a new generation of controllers, the numbers in these categories could change frequently. 

Furthermore, trainees can and do control traffic as they progress towards CPC status. The service 

units track the progress of individual trainees through the training database, and take appropriate 

action as necessary throughout the year. Publishing annual static snapshots of total trainees by facility 

will be of little meaningful use to readers of the Controller Workforce Plan. 

OIG Recommendation 3: Establish a method for placing newly hired controllers at facilities that 

considers the available number of OJT instructors, available classroom space, the available number of 

simulators, and training requirements of existing CPC staff. 

FAA Comments: Concur. The resources above should be considered as a factor in the placement of 

developmentals in facilities. As a means to achieving this, the facility training managers and the 

headquarters program managers in the En Route Service Unit have collaborated on a training 

schedule that identifies the number of new employees each facility is capable of handling at one time, 

the number of available OJT instructors, lab availability, and incoming technological changes that 

will impact training within the facility. This schedule was established for the current fiscal year and 

has been in use since October. The schedule for fiscal year (FY) 2009 has been developed and will be 

finalized during the third quarter of this year. 

Appendix. Agency Comments 
31

The Terminal Service Unit will convene a working group made up of facility and training managers 

whose goal will be to establish “feeder facilities” taking into account the available number of OJT 

instructors, available classroom space, the available number of simulators, and contract training 

support. The expectation is that once certified, controllers from the feeder facilities will progress to 

higher level facilities. Future hiring plans will allocate a predetermined percentage of new hires to 

these feeder facilities. 

OIG Recommendation 4: Include the initial results of the Agency's new controller retention bonuses 

in the next update of the Controller Workplace Plan. 

FAA Comments: Partially concur. Offering retention incentives is a common, long-standing practice 

in both government and the private sector but retention bonuses are just part of an overall “toolkit” of 

strategies the FAA uses. Staffing dynamics at each facility are different; therefore, different strategies 

may be needed to ensure appropriate staffing. To imply that only retention bonuses have an effect on 

staffing levels would be misleading. Consequently, FAA does not believe that the Workforce Plan is 

the appropriate medium to provide such information, but if requested, FAA would provide it to the 

OIG separately. 

OIG Recommendation 5: Designate authority and responsibility for oversight and direction of the 

facility training program at the national level in the next update of FAA’s National Training Order 

3120.4L, which is due summer 2008. 

FAA Comments: Concur. As noted in FAA Order 3120.4L and cited in the draft report, the 

Manager, Controller Training Division (now Air Traffic Controller Training and Development Group, 

AJA-51) is delegated authority in all matters related to the national training program and policies 

described in this Order. In addition, AlA-51 sets national program policy and guidance for air traffic 

technical training through this Order. 

ATO En Route, Terminal, and System Operations are responsible for ensuring their facility training 

program requirements are in accordance with FAA 3120.4. These lines of business are responsible for 

conducting their respective training programs. 

ATO Safety provides oversight for facility training. They conduct periodic facility evaluations. The 

results are consolidated and reported to Terminal, En Route and System Operations service units to 

address. 

OIG Recommendation 6: Develop a contingency plan for actions needed to ensure continuous 

training support during any change from the current WCG contract to any possible follow-on 

contract. 

FAA Comments: Concur. The Training Support for Air Traffic (TSAT) contract (WCG support to 

the field) and the Air Traffic Control Optimum Training Solution (ATCOTS) procurement are both 

administered in the office of the Director ATO Technical Training and Development. Both program 

managers have been communicating to ensure that there is no lapse in training support during the 

change from the current TSAT contract and the follow-on contract. The contingency plan is to award 

a bridge contract to the TSAT vendor on a month-to-month basis until award of ATCOTS. Both 

program managers will be monitoring the status of the ATCOTS procurement to ensure that there is 

adequate time to implement any follow-on contractual actions. 

OIG Recommendation 7: Issue written guidance requiring facility managers to establish OJT as a 

facility priority and only allow suspension of training for critical operational necessities. 

Appendix. Agency Comments 
32

FAA Comments: Partially Concur. Guidance will be coordinated and issued by the En Route and 

Oceanic Services and the Terminal service units. This guidance however will not place training above 

operational integrity which could potentially introduce delays into the system, and artificially drive up 

staffing requirements, which we do not believe is in the best interest of the flying public. 

OIG Recommendation 8: Issue written guidance that holds managers accountable for achieving 

nominal “time-to-certify” metrics for en route and terminal training programs. 

FAA Comments: Non-Concur. Additional written guidance is not needed to establish accountability 

for air traffic managers. Nominal time to certify metrics, e.g., three years in the en route option, have 

already been established and are contained in the FY 2008 ATO and Service Level Strategic Mapping 

Plans (SMP). These expectations have been communicated through the Service Area and Service 

Delivery Points. Air Traffic Managers have been briefed on these performance expectations and 

tracking is being accomplished through the National Training Database. The national Air Traffic 

Technical Training Managers for both En Route and Oceanic Services and Terminal Services 

accomplish required follow-up to ensure compliance with these goals, with non-compliance being 

properly justified. 

In addition, a training metric has been established in the SMP which tracks the number of 

developmentals on track to make CPC in three years or less. The results are shown in terms of a 

percentage. Ninety percent on track is the goal for both En Route and Terminal service units. 

OIG Recommendation 9: Establish procedures for ensuring the accuracy of data input into the 

national training database and use the database to identify trends at individual facilities (en route and 

terminal) that could indicate training problems and take corrective action as needed. 

FAA Comments: Concur. FAA created a national OJT database that tracks all developmentals in all 

phases of facility training. Both En Route and Terminal personnel input training completion data for 

all developmentals while facility training is under way. 

• There are target training days allotted for each stage of training for each developmental. This 

data can be rolled up by facility, region, or service unit. 

• This data is reviewed at Headquarters regularly by facility and managers are held accountable 

when they are over the time allotment in each training phase. 

• The data is also reviewed for trends, problems, and other areas that may need attention. 

• This tracking system has significantly reduced facility training time by injecting transparency 

and accountability into the system. 

• This system will continue to be upgraded to include information on each developmental from 

selection to CPC. 

In addition, there is an error check on the system which tests for the most common types of errors. 

We have contract support which tests the accuracy of data inputted on a regular basis. The FAA is 

changing some of the categories the facilities use to input data and are eliminating the option of 

“other” as an entry option to increase the accuracy of the data. This data is used to identify trends and 

bring to light those facilities that might have training issues or problems that need to be resolved. 

Those facilities not making flight plan goals are highlighted. 

Due to multiple training variables at field facilities, it is more challenging for terminal to input 

consistent data into the system. To remedy this, we recently began conducting an ongoing Training 

Appendix. Agency Comments 
33

Summit with respective training stakeholders who represent Terminal, En Route, and other elements 

of air traffic. In these meetings, this issue has been presented and the recommendation was made to 

create a task force to develop a process ensuring accurate, consistent, and efficient data input for the 

system. This team is currently being formed. 

OIG Recommendation 10: Establish additional methods for disseminating successful training 

methods used at individual facilities that could be applied at other locations (en route and terminal), 

such as an internet website for facility training. 

FAA Comments: Concur. Dissemination of successful training practices is important to assist 

facilities in improving training performance. In accordance with the CWP, the FAA is bringing on 

new hires at a pace not seen in recent history. This in turn creates an accelerated demand for training. 

Training managers throughout ATO field facilities are developing innovative solutions to help 

developmentals acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to get certified. 

For example, we recently formed a training work group that crafted a Strategy for Training to address 

the specific needs of the FAA and to forge goals for the future ATO training system. This strategy is 

being developed in a phased approach involving all relevant stakeholders and lays out vision, goals, 

implementation strategy, and initiatives. 

We are also conducting weekly training summit meetings with respective training stakeholders to 

share best practice and other relevant training and development information. These stakeholders 

represent a cross-section of air traffic functions in headquarters, at the academy, and in the field 

facilities. The Director, Technical Training and Development has also compiled a comprehensive list 

of training information, facts, trends, and statistics which, once approved, will be placed on the 

directorate website. This site also includes other relevant training information and we foresee it 

evolving to include more best-practice information about training methods at the facility level. 

Finally, our Terminal and En Route Services have been implementing efforts as well. For example, 

the En Route and Oceanic Services Unit currently conducts monthly training telecons including 

detailed discussions of facility performance and initiatives taken to improve training performance. En 

Route and Oceanic Services also conducts an annual Quality Assurance and Training conference at 

which goals, initiatives, and recognition of outstanding training performance is accomplished. 

OIG Recommendation 11: Conduct a comprehensive review of facility training as stated in the 2004 

Controller Workforce Plan. 

FAA Comments: Concur. The contractor that wins the ATCOTS procurement will perform an initial 

analysis of the current environment and establish benchmarks for the existing training processes 

within 90 days of contract award. The contractor will also conduct analysis and recommend 

improvements to the program in order to increase quality and efficiency while meeting our controller 

proficiency requirement. 

OIG Recommendation 12: Ensure that the installation of additional simulators at terminal and en 

route facilities remains on schedule to capitalize on the significant success this type of training has 

demonstrated thus far. 

FAA Comments: Concur. En Route and Oceanic Services has completed the installation of the En 

Route Training Support System (ERTSS) at six targeted facilities and at the Academy. This solution 

relied heavily on commercial off-the shelf hardware, and previous FAA Academy successful software 

(SIGNAL) to provide additional training capacity at targeted facilities. The ERTSS solution enables 

Appendix. Agency Comments 
Appendix. Agency Comments 

34

En Route and Oceanic Services to redeploy these systems as previous sites ease a training backlog 

situation. 

Also, Terminal Services is on schedule to install 12 tower simulators in FY 2008. Site surveys have 

been held at the Academy and at five of the six operational sites. The sixth site survey started the 

week of April 7, 2008. The six FAA Academy systems will be installed by August 2008. The six 

operational systems will be installed by September 2008. We are still on schedule to install the 

remaining 12 tower simulators by September 2009. 

Comments on Findings: 

Page 3 - Table 1. OIG shows a growth in trainee percentages off an artificially low base. At 15.2 

percent, the draft report depicts one of the lowest trainee percentages in the last 40 years for 

comparison. End of fiscal year trainee ratios have historically been higher than even the 24.5 percent 

December 2007 level for most of the last 40 years. See Figure 5.3 on page 28 of the 2008 update to 

the Controller Workforce Plan for a more complete picture of historical trainee ratios. 

Page 7 - CPC-IT transfers are down primarily because the FAA is doing a better job of managing the 

transfers to facilities where we need them and discouraging transfers where we don’t. In the decade 

before we ramped up our hiring again in FY 2005, transfers were a relatively larger source of talent to 

replace controller attrition due to retirements, promotions, etc. Now that new hires are being 

reintroduced to the system at more normal levels, CPC-ITs will playa relatively smaller role in the 

replacement cycle. However, we will continue to solicit CPC-IT transfers to supplement staffing at 

individual facilities as necessary as we have the tools to do so a part of the current contract. The OIG 

draft report also states that if controllers transfer to a new facility their pay “would” be adjusted to the 

w pay bands. This statement is inaccurate in that it ignores the fact that FAA preserved the ability to 

use tools to incentify transferring controllers as necessary (see pay Article 108). 
The following pages contain textual versions of the graphs and charts included in this 

document. These pages were not in the original document but have been added here to 

accommodate assistive technology. 
Review of the Air Traffic Facility Training Program

Section 508 Compliant Presentation 

Table 1. Total Controller Workforce Composition 

12,328 Certified Professional 

Controllers 

2,209 Controllers 

in Training April 2004 14,537 in total 

11,026 Certified Professional 

Controllers 

3,584 Controllers 

in Training December 2007 14,610 in total 

Total difference 

between time 

periods: 73 more 

controllers 

difference 

Difference between 

April 2004 and 

December 2007 

1,375 more 

Controllers in 

Training 

1,302 less Certified Professional 

Controllers 

Source: OIG analysis of FAA data 

Table 2. Comparison of Controller Pay Bands 

Under the old pay system (Air Traffic Control Pay System), the minimum and 

maximum salaries for controllers at air traffic control (ATC) levels 3 through 12 were 

as follows: 

ATC Level Minimum Salary Maximum Salary 

ATC Level 3 $44,800 $62,720

ATC Level 4 $47,822 $66,951

ATC Level 5 $54,278 $75,989

ATC Level 6 $59,978 $83,969

ATC Level 7 $66,277 $92,788

ATC Level 8 $73,236 $102,530

ATC Level 9 $80,925 $113,295

ATC Level 10 $93,063 $130,288

ATC Level 11 $97,947 $137,126

ATC Level 12 $102,846 $143,984

Under the new pay system, the minimum and maximum salaries for controllers at air 

traffic control (ATC) levels 3 through 12 are as follows (note: these figures include 

the 2007 pay band increase): 
ATC Level Minimum Salary Maximum Salary 

ATC Level 3 Not applicable Not applicable

ATC Level 4 $37,800 $50,925

ATC Level 5 $37,800 $50,925

ATC Level 6 $45,475 $58,600

ATC Level 7 $46,100 $63,725

ATC Level 8 $53,775 $71,400

ATC Level 9 $56,100 $79,325

ATC Level 10 $63,775 $87,000

ATC Level 11 $68,500 $98,525

ATC Level 12 $76,175 $106,200

Note: New pay system effective as of January 7, 2007 

Source: FAA 

Figure 2. En Route Versus Terminal Training Processes 

Terminal facility training involves the following: 

Stage 2: Flight data. Steps to completion are (1) classroom training, (2) on-the-job 

training, and (3) certification. 

Stage 3: Clearance delivery. Steps to completion are (1) classroom training, (2) onthe-job training, and (3) certification. 

Stage 4: Ground control. Steps to completion are (1) classroom training, (2) on-thejob training, and (3) certification. 

Stage 5: Local control/cab coordinator: Steps to completion are (1) classroom 

training, (2) on-the-job training, and (3) certification. 

Stage 6: Non-radar terminal control: Steps to completion (if applicable): (1) 

classroom training, (2) simulation training (3) on-the-job training, and (4) 

certification. 

Stage 7: Radar control: Steps to completion (if applicable): (1) classroom training, (2) 

simulation training (3) on-the-job training, and (4) certification. 

Note: the order of stages 3 through 7 may be changed at the discretion of the facility 

manager. 
Average training time to reach certified professional controller level is as follows: 

• High-level terminal (ATC level 9 through 12) = 36 months. 

• Mid-level terminal (ATC level 6 through 8) = 24 months 

• Low-level terminal (ATC level 4 through 5) = 8 months 

En route facility training involves the following: 

Stage 2: Assistant controller (flight data). Steps to completion are (1) classroom 

training, (2) on-the-job training, and (3) certification. 

Stage 3: Non-radar and radar associate (RA). Steps to completion are (1) classroom 

training, (2) on-the-job training, (3) simulation, and (4) certification. (Note: 

certification on two positions qualifies a developmental to work independently and to 

proceed to stage 4 training. 

Stage 4: Radar controller: Steps to completion are (1) classroom training, (2) on-thejob training, (3) simulation, and (4) certification. (Note: certification on two 

positions qualifies a developmental to work independently. Note: developmentals 

continue training on remaining RA and other positions until they reach Certified 

Professional Controller. Note: average training time to reach Certified Professional 

Controller equals 36 to 60 months.) 

Source: FAA 

Table 3. Washington Consulting Group (WCG) Contract Support, 2004 to 2007 

As of September 30, 2004, the number of facilities supported was 53. The number of 

WCG employees was 486. As of November 7, 2007, the number of facilities 

supported was 190. The number of WCG employees was 825. 

Source: FAA 
Table 4. Results of NASA Ames Air Traffic Simulator Evaluation 

Facility - Position Percent Fewer Days To 

Complete Training 

Percent Fewer Hours of 

OJT Training 

Ontario Tower – Ground 

position 

With the use of simulators, it took 

controllers 31 percent fewer days 

to complete training. 

59 percent fewer hours of 

on-the-job training 

O’Hare Tower - Ground 

position 

With the use of simulators, it took 

controllers 42 percent fewer days 

to complete training. 

38 percent fewer hours of 

on-the-job training 

Miami Tower - Ground 

position 

With the use of simulators, it took 

controllers 60 percent fewer days 

to complete training. 

21 percent fewer hours of 

on-the-job training 

Source: FAA 2007 Controller Workforce Plan Update