Talk:Air traffic controller

message: This article is interesting, but has some creeping NPOV problems which need fixing Darkov 17:31 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:Well, it definately has a pro-controller POV.  On the other hand, whether that's justified is hard for anyone not a controller to estimate, and I can't imagine a controller not having the same POV :).  I'd have to say that if controllers had the same error rate as my own profession, computer science, it would be horrendous.  -- Pakaran 20:39, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: At any one moment only one person can 'have the picture' in a given situation: a concept which is incomprehensible outside air traffic control. 
I doubt that aviation psychologists would agree with that assertion.  I also doubt that only one person could ever 'have the picture' or else ATCs could never hand over their load to someone else.  One solution would be to delete the article completely and wait for someone else to enter something which was hopefully less partisan. A less radical approach would be to remove all of the absolute statements and see what people do about that.  The article on air traffic control is much more balanced but is very much written from a regular public transport perspective.  --CloudSurfer 07:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV problems 

message: I made a small but fairly significant edit to this page.  I deleted the bit that said that "brain fade" is almost never a reason for a break, because it's absolute garbage.
For those that would dispute this, I'd point to significant amounts of literature and studies that have been done to show the opposite.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/ANSandA/fatigue/section6.htm (specifically 6.1.5, Time On Position) is a good example.
Nearly every major ATC provider in the industrialized world has a two-hour guideline for maximum time on position between breaks, and for this reason I feel fairly safe and justified in making this edit.
Discussion to follow, I'm sure.  :)
Paul
ZSE
:Paul, I think you did fine -- adding supported statements should not be controversial. The article has been through two "major rewrites" -- see above -- but still has a few severe blots here and there. --Dhartung | Talk 00:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain fade 

message: It was a shame to have to re-write this one, as it was an interesting narrative that appears to have been written by a fellow controller.  However it was lacking concision, badly POV and US-centric.  I've completely re-written it.
I haven't removed the introduction on Air Traffic Control.  My head tells me that this doesn't belong here, but I'm loathe to remove it completely.  If this offends other wikipedians' sensibilities, feel free to replace it with a link to the Air Traffic Control article.
BaseTurnComplete 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write 

message: I see that someone has changed the length of the OJT phase from 6 to 12 months to 2 to 5 years.
The busiest sectors of UK ATC take a maximum of 1 year's OJT, and that's in some of the busiest and most complex airspace in the world.  I can't for a second believe that OJT elsewhere takes significantly longer than that, unless the training is very inefficient.  I've changed this back.BaseTurnComplete 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I rv'd as it looked like vandalism.  It might be worth just having a single general comment though.  Also it seems that in the U.S. you classify some training (e.g. strip-bashing) as OJT that we don't over here - here OJT only formally starts when you first sit at the radar.  That pushes our OJT in busy units closer to the 18 month mark, but still not 2 - 5 years! BaseTurnComplete 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember also that your entire country is roughly the same size as a medium sized state over here.  You guys likely don't see the volume that a hub like New York or Aurora or LA sees... in an ARTCC, controllers don't jump right on a scope, they spend a lot of time learning center procedures and the nuances of a sector before theyre allowed to control.  The facility training program for Center controllers is pretty rigorous... not to denigrate the ATC you folks do in the UK, but you just can't compare the traffic counts. --69.143.69.249 23:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: London's comparable in traffic and complexity to the busiest US centers, remembering that lots of busy airports in a smallish area that you correctly point out massively increases the complexity of the traffic.  However it's still only 18-or-so months for unit training in London.  I think it's just a case of different training systems.86.132.198.177 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 years OJT ??? 

message: "...the benefits of the job include a stable structured shift pattern..."
For what it's worth: during the course of a 5 day week I will usually work 3 different time slots. On a good week I'll work 2 days starting at 1500, 2 days starting at 0700 then finish up with a mid-shift. That means I have 2 quick turns (shifts with the minimum allowed 8 hour rest period). Last month a coworker was on leave and I was covering his mids. My weekly schedule then was 15-15-7-M-M. That meant I had 3 consecutive shifts with the minimum allowed 8 hours between them. I realize that because I work at a relatively small facility that is open 24hrs, my schedule is probably more erratic then many others. However in the 5 years or so that I've been fortunate enough to be a controller I don't recall many people mentioning the great the work hours or how nice it is to work holidays and weekends when talking about the benefits of the job. Sykocus 16:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch. That sort of shift pattern would be illegal for a controller in the UK.  7-7-14-14-22-22-Rest-Off-Off-Off is the norm at 24 hour units here.BaseTurnComplete 21:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stable Schedule 

message: Would it be of any worth if I put in a few words about the Swedish training? I'm from Sweden, and sent in my application for ATC education a few days ago. Obviously I don't know all too much, but I could certainly provide a couple of sentences. Jack Daw 13:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish training 

message: I think it is necessary to have a picture depicting a civilian ATC on the job. As of know there are only military ones. FEVB (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian ATC 

message: This is probably a bit nitpicky and not that important when considering the article as a whole, but I don't believe the description of the movie Ground Control is accurate. The article states that Kiefer Sutherland's character (Jack Harris) "caused the crash of an airliner due to an operational mistake". Now I am not a controller myself, but having recently watched this movie, I can say that I don't believe he caused the crash. Transair 290 reported flames on engine #2. Harris immediately went into action to clear traffic and gave him emergency clearance to land. He also got them to report the number of souls on board. The only "mistake" I could see is that he advised Transair 290 to ignore TCAS and continue it's descent. Again, I am not a controller, but it is my understanding that a TCAS Resolution Advisory has a higher priority than ATC. Was it because they were following emergency procedures or was this truly an operational error? If it was, then the error was the pilot's, right? The pilot ultimately makes the decision of who's orders to follow.--Sbarne3 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References 

message: Kind of reads like a job ad, is there a template for that? Also, a loooot of weaseling. Rajakhr (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Job ad 

message: I ran across the Control Tower Operator page on a random search; it's a stub and an orphan, and links out to a number of red links.  I considered simply proposing deletion of Control Tower Operator, but I'm no expert on the subject, and I see it does include a few details about the certification process (albeit without references) that might be worth incorporating here...  so I thought I'd toss out a merge proposal, and see what people think.  --DGaw (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Any thoughts, anyone?  If not, shall I just tag the CTO article for removal?  --DGaw (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the level of response, it appears eliminating the Control Tower Article is uncontroversial, so I'm going to go ahead and redirect it here. --DGaw (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The Spain section of the article exhibits poor English, and looks as if written by a Spanish ATC himself/herself (e.g. blaming the government and ATA for the problems in the system). Especially given that there is an ongoing labor conflict between controllers and their employer, it would be advisable that the article is revised in more neutral terms, and if posible including both points of view in the dispute.  MarkamBey (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take a look at current Spanish events, you will know that section reflect only controllers POV. An example: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/economia/Defensa/asume/control/trafico/aereo/Espana/frenar/caos/elpepueco/20101203elpepueco_12/Tes --Comae 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of Spain's section 

message: I am new to this, but the following edit was mine:
11:09, 4 August 2011 50.92.221.220  (talk)  (19,330 bytes) (Took out info added Jan 2011 which quotes questionable research from the early 1980's. Removed contradictory mention of regular schedules.)  (undo) (Tag: references removed) 
There was a section added on 19 January 2011 by Psychomagician which quoted two papers from the very early 1980's both published in Washington, DC by Federal Aviation Administration Office of Aviation Medicine. The third reference appears to be one of these papers republished with the word "surprising" added to the title. I note that these papers come out exactly around the time of the American air traffic controller's strike which was famously ended by Reagan. I feel confident there is more current and much more independent research into the matter within the last 30 years and that this section was not added in good faith. I also will note that this paragraph was seemingly added to directly conflict with the information that proceeded it. I could not let it stand! 
I also took out the last sentence regarding work schedules which directly conflicted information in paragraphs above.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.221.220 (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed inflammatory section in "Stress" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Air traffic controller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001192916/http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ahr/jobs_careers/occupations/atc/hr_policies/emp_120/ to http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ahr/jobs_careers/occupations/atc/hr_policies/emp_120/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: — Assignment last updated by EdereOmnes (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 202 - Thu