Each year, over 18,000 aircraft and more than 500 million passengers travel through the air transportation system in the United States. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has responsibility for managing this system and ensuring the safe and efficient movement of air traffic. To successfully accomplish this mission, FAA must have a sufficient number of adequately trained air traffic controllers working at air traffic control (ATC) facilities. Currently, FAA operates nearly 400 ATC facilities and employs over 17,000 individuals in its controller workforce. For nearly a decade after the air traffic controller strike in August 1981, FAA had to rebuild its controller workforce. Between fiscal years 1982 and 1990, FAA hired thousands of controllers to replace those fired by a presidential directive in 1981 and indefinitely barred from seeking future employment as FAA controllers. Most controllers hired during that period have remained with FAA. In August 1993, the bar was repealed through a presidential memorandum, and in 1995, FAA began rehiring some of the former controllers. FAA anticipates that a large number of these controllers, in addition to the controllers who did not participate in the strike and controllers hired after the strike, will become eligible to retire beginning in the early 2000s, when they first meet minimum retirement qualifications. Air traffic controllers play a critical role in the nation’s air transportation system. Specifically, controllers are responsible for ensuring the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic in the air and on the ground. Controllers manage air traffic visually and through the use of various types of equipment, such as radars and computers, at various ATC facilities—control towers, terminal radar approach control (TRACON) facilities, and air route traffic control centers (commonly called “en route centers”). Controllers’ responsibilities for managing air traffic vary according to the type of ATC facility. For instance, controllers that work at control towers are responsible for ensuring the safe separation of aircraft on the ground and in flight in the vicinity of airports, generally within a 5-mile radius. These controllers manage the flow of aircraft during takeoffs and landings and coordinate the transfer of aircraft with adjacent ATC facilities as aircraft enter or leave an airport’s airspace. Controllers working at TRACON facilities manage the arrival and departure of aircraft within a 5- to 30-mile radius of airports. Controllers working at en route centers manage aircraft beyond a 30-mile radius. These controllers assign aircraft to specific routes and altitudes to separate aircraft while they are flying along federal airways or when operating into or out of airports not served by a terminal facility. These controllers also coordinate the transfer of aircraft control with adjacent en route centers or terminal facilities. The typical en route center has responsibility for more than 100,000 square miles of airspace, which generally extends over several states. Depending on the location of the en route center, some controllers manage domestic, international, and oceanic air traffic. Figure 1.1 shows how controllers working at the different ATC facilities track aircraft during ground, take off, landing, and in-flight operations. As of April 10, 1996, FAA operated 387 ATC facilities, consisting of 24 en route centers and 363 terminal facilities. FAA determines the appropriate level of staffing for its ATC facilities by using staffing standards forecast models. These models produce staffing standards—the specified level of controller staff needed to manage the ATC system, within 10 percent. For example, the staffing standards indicated in fiscal year 1996 that there should have been 17,465 controllers in the controller workforce. The standards also specified staffing levels for each ATC facility, but according to FAA officials, the facility-level standards are not designed to be as accurate as the national standards. FAA relies on a number of sources to fill its controller positions. These sources are (1) individuals with no prior controller training or work experience in the ATC environment, (2) individuals who have received some controller training but generally do not have work experience in the federal ATC environment, and (3) individuals with prior controller work experience. The first group includes individuals who respond to vacancy announcements for controller positions. The second group includes graduates of the collegiate training initiative (CTI) program, who received initial ATC academic and technical skills training prior to being hired by FAA as controllers. This type of training introduces the students to the terminology, airspace configurations, and technical skills necessary to manage air traffic and operate equipment. The third group includes former controllers fired in 1981, who were members of the Professional Air Traffic Controller Organization (PATCO) union; former controllers who left FAA voluntarily and are eligible for reinstatement; and former Department of Defense (DOD) civilian and military controllers. Controller candidates who have no prior controller training or work experience had received initial controller training at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. However, FAA discontinued initial controller training for newly hired controllers at the Academy in 1992 due to a sharp decrease in controller hiring. Candidates who currently receive initial controller training through the CTI program are trained at one of four CTI schools located in various parts of the country. These schools are the Community College of Beaver County in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania; Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia; University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, North Dakota; and University of Alaska-Anchorage in Anchorage, Alaska. The type, length, and cost of controller training provided by the CTI schools vary, and students pay the cost of their training at all these schools. In addition, in 1989 the Congress established the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium (MARC) in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, to train controller candidates. Unlike the CTI schools, the MARC program is not part of a broader academic program, and the cost of training MARC students is paid by federal funds. Controller candidates with prior controller work experience, such as former PATCO members and former DOD controllers, are not required to repeat the initial controller training when hired by FAA. However, they must complete certain refresher courses at the FAA Academy. Once assigned to an ATC facility, controllers are classified as “developmental controllers” until they complete all requirements to be certified for all of the ATC positions within a defined area of a given ATC facility. It generally takes new controllers who have had only initial controller training 2 to 4 years—depending on the availability of facility staff or contractors to provide on-the-job training—to complete all the certification requirements to become full-performance-level (FPL) controllers. It normally takes individuals who have prior controller experience 1 to 2 years to become FPL controllers. Controllers working at FAA’s ATC facilities are eligible to retire under two sets of retirement rules—the general retirement rules for federal employees and special rules for controllers only. Depending on when they were hired, controllers are covered by either the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). Under these rules, controllers can retire if they meet certain age and years-of-service requirements. For example, a controller who is 55 years old can retire after 30 years of federal service. Under the special controller retirement rules, controllers may be able to retire earlier than under the general CSRS and FERS rules if they have enough service time as an active controller or immediate supervisor. For instance, controllers can retire at age 50 if they have spent at least 20 years as an active civilian controller or immediate supervisor or at any age if they have spent at least 25 years as an active civilian controller or immediate supervisor. Table 1.1 summarizes all of these rules. In March 1996, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, House Committee on Appropriations, and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asked us to examine FAA’s efforts for addressing future and existing controller staffing needs. Specifically, we were asked to (1) identify the key variables FAA uses to project future controller staffing needs and evaluate their reasonableness, (2) determine whether FAA has identified a sufficient number of controller candidates to satisfy its short- and long-term controller staffing needs and evaluate FAA’s plans to train new controllers, and (3) identify impediments that hinder FAA from staffing ATC facilities at specified levels. To address the first objective, we interviewed officials in FAA’s Office of Air Traffic Resource Management, Office of Human Resources Management, and Office of Business Information and Consultation who are responsible for managing the controller workforce and preparing the staffing standards models. These officials provided information on the data used to support FAA’s staffing requests, including FAA’s projections of air traffic and attrition, which we compared to available data on actual traffic and attrition. We also used personnel data supplied by FAA to estimate the age and service characteristics of future retirees on the basis of characteristics of actual retirees between fiscal years 1992 and 1996. Additional information on how we made these projections is in appendix I. We did not, however, verify the validity of the staffing estimates generated by the staffing standards forecast models because the National Research Council—which is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering—was reviewing FAA’s methodologies for estimating the number of controllers needed at ATC facilities. However, the Council was not reviewing the part of the models that estimates future attrition. Furthermore, the Council expects to issue a final report in the spring of 1997. To address the second objective, we interviewed officials at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the MARC, and the four CTI schools to obtain information on the number of controller candidates trained at those facilities during fiscal years 1993 to 1996 and the annual capacity of these facilities to train new controllers. We also interviewed FAA headquarters officials and analyzed pertinent data to determine (1) what was the pool of controller candidates available to meet anticipated staffing needs, (2) whether FAA had developed plans to satisfy long-term staffing needs, and (3) what actions FAA had under way to expand the pool of available controller candidates. To address the third objective, we compared controller staffing levels specified by FAA’s controller staffing standards with actual staffing at the national, regional, and facility levels as of April 10, 1996. We also reviewed pertinent documents and interviewed officials in FAA’s Air Traffic Resource Management Office and the National Air Traffic Controller Association (NATCA) in Washington, D.C. To obtain a nationwide perspective on controller staffing issues, we sent a survey to, followed by a semistructured telephone interview with, air traffic managers at the nine FAA regional offices. In addition, we sent the same survey to air traffic managers at 15 ATC facilities (see app. II), including 3 en route centers, and at 12 terminals, as well as NATCA representatives located at the Eastern, Great Lakes, and Southern regions to obtain their perspectives on (1) their staffing needs as compared to current controller staffing levels and the impact of these differences on controller operations, (2) the impediments or principal causes of staffing differences at ATC facilities, and (3) the initiatives FAA has under way to address the impediments. We selected a judgmental sample of 15 ATC facilities to obtain geographical diversity and a representative mix of facilities where the current controller staffing levels were greater or less than the 10-percent difference acceptable to FAA. The three NATCA regions were selected because all 15 ATC facilities that we contacted were located in these regions. We conducted our review from April 1996 through February 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We provided copies of a draft of this report to FAA for its review and comment. FAA officials, including the Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services, commented on the report, and changes in response to their comments are contained throughout the report. FAA’s projections of future controller staffing needs are primarily based on its staffing standards forecast models that use two key variables to forecast future needs—estimates of future air traffic growth and estimates of future controller attrition. While the air traffic estimates have been reasonable, FAA could not provide data needed to evaluate its attrition estimates. FAA’s attrition estimates could overstate retirements in future years because the agency has not compiled some of the information needed to determine when controllers will be eligible to retire and because it does not consider available data on controllers’ age and service time in its attrition estimates. By analyzing such data, we found that controller retirements could be significantly lower than FAA projects beginning in 1999. Historically, FAA has based its staffing requests on its long-standing staffing standards forecast models—it uses separate models for en route centers, TRACON facilities, and control towers. The models forecast the number of controllers that will be needed by using three types of data: periodic industrial engineering studies that measure the amount of time it takes a controller to perform necessary work tasks, such as assigning an airplane to a new altitude; estimates of changes in air traffic activity; and estimates of future controller attrition. According to FAA officials, the staffing standards process undergoes periodic revision to update data and improve methodologies. As a result of these updates, FAA’s estimate of the total number of controllers it needs can change from year to year. According to FAA officials, its models have been used to estimate controller staffing needs at ATC facilities nationwide, plus or minus 10 percent, and have served as key components for formulating FAA’s annual budget. Before being submitted to the Congress, the staffing budget is reviewed within FAA, as well as by the Department of Transportation and by the Office of Management and Budget. The size of the controller workforce grew each fiscal year from 1981 through 1992, when it reached 17,982 controllers. In fiscal year 1991, the last full year in which FAA offered initial training only at its Academy in Oklahoma City, FAA hired a total of 1,235 new controller candidates. Subsequently, FAA’s hiring of new controllers decreased significantly because it had more controllers than specified by the staffing standards. Between fiscal years 1993 and 1996, FAA hired a total of 611 new controllers—fewer than the 1,513 who had left the controller workforce over the same period—resulting in a decrease in the size of the controller workforce (see fig. 2.1 and table 2.1). According to FAA officials, most of the decrease in the size of the controller workforce was due to the congressionally directed initiative to contract out the functions of lower-level control towers to private companies, instead of staffing them with FAA employees. As part of a larger presidential effort to reduce the number of federal employees, in 1994 FAA also offered a retirement incentive, called a buyout, to staff, including those controllers who worked at the towers whose functions were contracted out. In fiscal year 1995, FAA’s end-of-year controller workforce dropped below the level specified by the staffing standards. Although the actual controller workforce differed from the staffing standards by as much as 400 in some years, nationwide staffing levels were well within the standards’ 10-percent tolerance level. This report does not evaluate FAA’s staffing standards. We have previously reported on FAA’s staffing standards, and FAA has taken action to address our prior recommendations. In addition, the standards process is currently undergoing a congressionally requested review by an expert panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences. The study was requested to determine if a comprehensive methodology could be developed to provide more accurate estimates of the required number of controllers at each ATC facility, and its findings are expected to be published in the spring of 1997. After the controller workforce dropped below the levels specified by the standards in 1995, FAA initiated plans to increase hiring. FAA currently plans to increase both hiring and the overall size of the controller workforce over the next 4 years. In fiscal year 1997, FAA requested and received funds to hire 500 new controllers—250 to replace controllers expected to leave the workforce that year and 250 to meet projected future needs. FAA’s fiscal year 1998 request includes funds for 800 new controllers—300 replacements and 500 new positions. Table 2.2 provides FAA’s estimates of controller hiring, attrition, and the total workforce through fiscal year 2002. As the table shows, estimated attrition is expected to increase from 280 controllers in fiscal year 1997 to 550 controllers in fiscal year 2002. According to officials at FAA headquarters, the attrition estimates that support its recent staffing requests are based in part on the staffing standards forecast models and in part on another method that is intended to address an anticipated increase in the number of controllers eligible to retire. This second method is based on FAA’s assumption that 20 percent of those who are eligible to retire will do so each year. According to FAA officials, because many controllers hired after the 1981 PATCO strike will first be eligible to retire around fiscal year 2001, they expect more controllers to retire each year as more become eligible. Figure 2.2 shows FAA’s estimates of the number of controllers who will become eligible to retire each year though fiscal year 2007, as well as the estimated size of the total pool of those eligible to retire each year through fiscal year 2002, the last year of FAA’s controller staffing plan. However, FAA officials were not able to specify how much of the estimated increase in attrition is predicted by the staffing standards forecast models and how much is derived from its estimate of future retirements. In addition to reflecting changes in the number of controllers eligible to retire, FAA’s staffing plan also differs from the annual staffing levels projected by the staffing standards in several other ways. First, the plan anticipates hiring replacements 3 years before they are needed to provide them with adequate training. In this way, FAA will have fully trained replacements for those who retire. According to FAA officials, the plan also reflects an effort to spread out hiring over several years to reduce the training burden on its Academy and ATC facilities. Thus, because FAA’s staffing plan is designed to hire enough controllers to be at the level specified by the standards in fiscal year 2002, controller staffing is expected to again be above the standards in fiscal years 1998-2001. Officials we interviewed in eight of FAA’s nine regions expressed concerns about the adequacy of the future controller workforce that were similar to those expressed by headquarters officials. The regional officials were concerned about an increase in attrition in the coming years due to the pending retirement eligibility of those controllers who did not strike, those hired after 1981, and former PATCO members who have been rehired by FAA. Many of these officials also emphasized that FAA needs an adequate supply of new controllers to provide time to train replacements for those who retire. The first key variable FAA uses to project future controller staffing needs is an estimate of the growth in the volume of air traffic, which FAA’s Office of Aviation Policy and Plans derives from a model that includes several measures of overall economic activity (e.g., the consumer price index) and aviation-specific statistics, as well as expert opinions on future trends. These estimates have been closer to actual traffic levels in the short term than over longer periods. For example, between fiscal years 1992 and 1995, the estimates of activity at en route centers that were made 1 year earlier came, on average, within 1 percent of the actual level of activity. The estimates made 4 years earlier were, on average, 7.4 percent higher than the actual level (see table 2.3). According to FAA officials, these estimates are reasonable because they fall within the 10-percent tolerance level of its models. In addition to estimates of future workload, FAA’s staffing standards forecast models use projections of future attrition to determine controller staffing needs. These projections, called pipeline models, are based on actual experience over a recent 3-year period. FAA looks at who entered and left the controller workforce through several methods, such as retirement or resignation, promotion, or moving to or from a staff position. Using 3 years of data on actual movements, FAA determines what percentage of controllers entered or left the workforce by each method, then projects that percentage to future years. For example, in fiscal year 1995, 114 of 6,432 controllers at en route centers (or 1.8 percent) retired or resigned. By performing the same comparison for fiscal years 1993 through 1995 and averaging the results, FAA determined that on average 1.69 percent of the controllers at en route centers retired or resigned during that period. FAA then used this percentage to project future retirements or resignations of controllers at its en route centers. By using similar calculations for all types of controller movements to estimate the net gain or loss of controllers, FAA annually determines how many new controllers need to enter the training pipeline as replacements. FAA uses a separate model that uses similar variables to estimate the pipeline needs of its TRACON facilities and control towers. FAA’s two pipeline models are currently based on actual changes in its controller workforce during fiscal years 1993 through 1995 and are used to forecast the workforce needed for fiscal years 1996 through 2006. While the pipeline models include estimates of the number of controllers who leave the workforce to take staff positions or return from such positions each year, according to agency officials, the number of controllers leaving to take such positions has roughly equalled the number of controllers returning, so there has been little net impact on the overall size of the controller workforce. Also, agency officials estimate that the number of controllers resigning from the workforce without qualifying for retirement will remain steady at about 40 controllers per year. As a result, although the models forecast attrition from all sources, the forecasts for new controllers are primarily the result of retirement estimates. We asked FAA for previous versions of its pipeline models so we could compare attrition estimates made by earlier models to actual data from recent years. Because FAA does not maintain copies of the models from previous years, officials could not provide us with attrition estimates for years prior to fiscal year 1995. However, FAA did provide copies of the models used to project attrition for fiscal year 1995. Table 2.4 shows that 20 more controllers retired or resigned in fiscal year 1995 than projected by the terminal and en route center models. Without data from earlier years, however, we were not able to evaluate the reasonableness of the attrition estimates produced by FAA’s previous pipeline models. Because the actual rate at which controllers retire depends on the decisions of thousands of individual controllers, definitively predicting how many controllers will actually retire in any year is impossible. Most controllers hired under FERS are required to retire from actively controlling air traffic when they first become eligible, if they are at least 56. In contrast, most controllers hired under CSRS are not subject to mandatory retirement rules, unless hired after 1972. According to FAA officials, if a controller is not subject to mandatory retirement, such considerations as the state of the economy and the family status of the controller can affect the controller’s decision about whether to continue working after becoming eligible to retire. Because such considerations are not within FAA’s control, either a greater or lesser number of controllers could retire than forecast. If attrition estimates are too high, FAA could hire too many controllers, unnecessarily increasing the cost of operating the nation’s ATC system. If attrition estimates are too low, FAA could have fewer controllers than needed, causing an unanticipated increase in the use of overtime and, in extreme cases, flight delays to ensure that the safety of the ATC system would not be compromised. Despite the difficulty of accurately predicting future needs, FAA has to estimate these needs to justify its budget requests for staffing and equipment. Without accurate projections of controller staffing levels and retirements, FAA cannot hire sufficient replacements and provide them with the 2 to 4 years of training needed to achieve full performance level. However, five aspects of the way FAA determines its projections of future staffing needs raise questions about the reasonableness of projections in future years. FAA’s practice of estimating attrition as a fixed percentage of the controller workforce may not accurately reflect future attrition because the agency expects to experience a significant increase in the number of controllers becoming eligible to retire in the next several years. For example, between fiscal years 1995 and 2000, FAA estimates that the number of controllers who will become eligible for retirement each year will remain relatively constant at about 330 to 440. However, FAA also estimates that in fiscal year 2001, the number eligible to retire will increase to 522 controllers, in fiscal year 2002 to 841 controllers, and in fiscal year 2007 to 1,361 controllers. Should these estimates prove correct and more controllers become eligible to retire, it is likely that more controllers will exercise their option to retire. Since retirements account for most controller attrition, it is possible that the percentage of controllers who actually leave the workforce will be different than was experienced in fiscal years 1993 through 1995. The staffing standards forecast models estimate future attrition according to data on actual attrition during fiscal years 1993 through 1995. However, during fiscal 1994, 139 of the 510 controllers who retired voluntarily took the buyout previously described. Most of these controllers worked at level-1 towers, which were being contracted out to the private sector. Because FAA does not plan to offer buyouts for controllers in the future, including the departure of these controllers in estimates of future retirements could inflate future attrition estimates. Several of the regional FAA and NATCA officials we interviewed questioned the reliability of using data on past retirees to predict future retirement, as FAA’s staffing standards forecast models do. These officials indicated that recent changes in the workforce, including an increased workload, a better educated workforce, and the establishment of mandatory retirement rules, suggest that controllers who are working today may not retire at the same rate as past retirees. For example, these officials noted that because controllers with a college education could have more options for post-FAA employment, they could be more likely to retire early. FAA’s staffing standards forecast models do not consider future changes in FAA’s technology or policy. For example, FAA is currently purchasing new ATC equipment and developing a plan to allow for “free flight,” or the ability of pilots to set their own flight path in certain areas. There was no consensus, however, among the FAA regional and headquarters officials that we spoke with on the impact of these changes. While some believe the changes will only increase the reliability of the air traffic system, others believed there will be a long-term increase in productivity, resulting in a need for fewer controllers in the future. Others anticipate a short-term decrease in productivity while controllers learn to use the new equipment. In addition, FAA is finalizing changes to its training program (see ch. 3) that could reduce the training burden on local ATC facilities. To the extent that current controllers and supervisors are used to provide on-the-job-training for newly hired controllers, these changes could allow the facilities to use more staff to control traffic. Because these changes are still being developed, FAA has no way to quantify their impact on controller workload. However, if FAA continues to estimate future needs by looking at past performance without regard for planned changes, it will not be able to take advantage of the increased efficiency those changes could deliver until several years after they are implemented. As discussed earlier, FAA’s hiring plan for controllers is based on two main factors—the staffing standards forecast models and an adjustment to account for an increase in the number of controllers eligible to retire. However, the accuracy of FAA’s estimates of controller retirements may be limited because FAA has not determined exactly when each controller can become eligible to retire, because of a lack of easy access to data on controllers’ work history. Specifically, FAA estimates, on the basis of past retirement rates, that future retirements will equal about 20 percent of those controllers eligible to retire each year. Figure 2.3 shows FAA’s estimates of the number of controllers who will become eligible to retire each year, as well as the number expected to retire though fiscal year 2002, the last year of FAA’s current staffing plan. This figure illustrates FAA’s position that the number of retirees will increase as the number of those eligible increases. While it is logical to conclude that more people would retire if more became eligible, the accuracy of FAA’s projections is limited because the agency has not compiled the data necessary to determine when each controller will be eligible for special controller retirement. While FAA can determine when an individual controller will be eligible to retire, the information is not currently stored in a way in which it could be used to determine the retirement eligibility of FAA’s entire controller workforce. Instead of actual retirement eligibility data, FAA has based its estimates of future retirements on the assumption that all controllers spend their entire career as active controllers. For example, FAA has assumed that all controllers who are at least 50 years old and have worked for FAA for at least 20 years would be eligible to retire. While this assumption could prove true in many cases, data from FAA’s pipeline models have indicated that more than 1,300 controllers moved between the controller workforce and staff positions each year between 1993 and 1995. Because many controllers spend at least some time in staff positions where they do not actively control traffic, the date on which they become eligible for special controller retirement may be later than the one FAA has used in its estimates. As a result, they could retire later than FAA has anticipated. Rather than estimating future retirements on the basis of assumptions about who will be eligible to retire, FAA could use actual information on the age and service time of those controllers who retired in recent years, as well as current controllers, to predict future retirements. Using data provided by FAA, we conducted such an analysis and found that, on average, controllers could retire later than projected by FAA’s fiscal year 1999 through 2002 staffing plan. The simplest way to use recent experience to estimate future retirements is to apply the average age and service time of recent retirees to those controllers currently working for FAA. Using this approach, we found that, on average, controllers who retired in fiscal years 1992 through 1996 had about 31 years of federal service. Fewer than 15 percent retired with 25 years of federal service or less, one of the requirements for special controller retirement. As figure 2.4 shows, should current controllers not retire until they have earned 31 years of federal service, the number of retirees will be much lower than FAA has projected for each year between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. In fact, while FAA expects 510 controllers to retire in fiscal year 2002, the first year in which at least 510 current controllers reach 31 years of federal service is fiscal year 2008. Next, we looked at the age of the controllers who retired during the past 5 years and found that their average age was about 56. This age is also significant because federal law mandates that most controllers hired under FERS and controllers hired under CSRS after 1972 retire from actively controlling air traffic at age 56 unless granted an exemption. As figure 2.5 shows, the number of controllers who will turn 56 is lower than the number FAA expects to retire each year between fiscal years 1997 and 2002. The first year in which at least 510 current controllers turn 56 is fiscal year 2009. While using data on either the age or the service time of current controllers can illustrate changes in the characteristics of future retirees, it is preferable to base estimates of future retirements on both variables because future retirees must meet both age and service criteria. According to the official responsible for FAA’s staffing standards forecast models, such an analysis would project future retirements more accurately than the current staffing standards models. However, such an analysis is also more complicated. To illustrate the combined effect of the age and service of current controllers, we developed a probability model based on both factors to project when each current controller would be likely to retire. Figure 2.6 compares FAA’s retirement projections with our model’s projections for fiscal years 1997 through 2011. For each fiscal year between 1999 and 2002, our model projects that at least 100 fewer controllers will retire than FAA estimates. Using this model, the number of estimated retirees does not exceed 510 controllers until fiscal year 2008. Appendix I explains the model in more detail and contains additional data. Table 2.5 compares the number of controller retirements FAA has projected with projections based on age, service time, and a combination of both. As this table shows, while FAA’s estimated levels of retirements are close to those calculated using the age and service data in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, the difference between the number of potential retirements under FAA’s assumptions and the projections derived from the age and service data is greater in later fiscal years. FAA officials said that the accuracy of the agency’s retirement estimates is not a significant issue because the agency monitors retirements monthly and can hire more or fewer controllers as needed in future years should its predictions prove inaccurate. However, while FAA can adjust its hiring plans annually to ensure that the actual controller workforce remains equal to the levels specified by its standards, that does not eliminate the need for accurate projections because of the time needed to fully train a new controller. FAA tries to hire new controllers about 3 years before the retirement of those they are intended to replace. As a result, while adjusting hiring to reflect actual retirements each year can ensure that FAA has the correct number of controllers in its workforce, this approach will not ensure that FAA has an adequate number of fully trained controllers. While we do not question the need for FAA to hire enough controllers to safely operate our nation’s ATC system in the current budget cycle, we are concerned that, should future controller retirements more closely follow the projections derived from FAA’s data on controllers’ age and service time, the agency could hire too many controllers in later years. Should fewer controllers retire than FAA has forecast, this would in effect increase the cost of running the ATC system because FAA would be paying for both its new controllers and those who the agency anticipated would retire but did not for several years. Considering the salary of starting controllers and the time it takes to fully train them, hiring new controllers before they are needed can be costly. For example, FAA’s estimate of future retirees for fiscal year 2002 differs from those projected by using age and service data by between 211 controllers and 273 controllers. A new controller currently makes about $29,000 annually, and once benefits are added, the total cost of employing a new controller reaches about $40,000 annually. Because it takes about 3 years for a new controller to reach the full performance level, the approximate cost of the salary and benefits for a fully trained new controller totals about $120,000 for the first 3 years. If actual controller retirements in fiscal year 2002 are 211 controllers to 273 controllers fewer than FAA projects, FAA would spend between $25.3 million and $32.8 million between fiscal years 2000 and 2002 to hire and train those replacements that would not be needed. Conversely, if FAA did not hire enough controllers to replace those who retired, those who remained would have to handle more of the workload. According to FAA officials, this increased workload could cause an unanticipated increase in the use of overtime, and, in extreme cases, lead to flight delays caused by the reduction in services at some air traffic facilities. According to FAA officials, while such delays would be costly to the airlines and their passengers, the delays would not affect flight safety. FAA was not able, however, to provide us with the data needed to estimate the costs associated with such delays. Although officials we interviewed in eight of the nine FAA regions anticipated a significant increase in retirements in the next 10 years, they disagreed on how soon this increase could occur. While some stated that they expected to see a significant increase by fiscal years 2001 or 2002, others believed retirements would not increase significantly until fiscal year 2005 or later. Because air traffic controllers are responsible for the safety of millions of passengers each year, better estimates by FAA of the future attrition of controllers would help ensure that the agency hires and trains an adequate workforce. While hiring enough controllers to meet future needs created by increases in air traffic and attrition, especially from retirements, is essential, hiring more controllers than needed would increase the overall cost of running the nation’s ATC system. On the other hand, hiring too few controllers would also be costly, due to an increased use of overtime and flight delays. Predictions of the number of controllers FAA will need in the future depend on many unknown variables, including how the workload of controllers might change as a result of technological advances, policy changes, and the future attrition rate of the current workforce. While there is no way to exactly predict how many controllers will retire in each of the next 15 years, the accuracy of FAA’s methods of forecasting future staffing needs can be improved if FAA uses some key information on the age and service of current controllers. We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator of FAA to incorporate actual information on the age, years of service, and retirement eligibility date of current controllers into its projections of future controller retirements. Although FAA officials told us that they have management controls in place to adjust for actual attrition, they agreed with our recommendation and plan to take action to better project future controller retirements. FAA plans to hire about 1,300 new controllers in fiscal years 1997 through 1998 to meet its short-term controller staffing needs. A sufficient number of controller candidates is available to fill these staffing needs. The majority of candidates available are former PATCO members who left the controller workforce during the 1981 strike and could be eligible to retire at the same time as current controllers. In fiscal years 1999 through 2002, FAA plans to hire a large number of new controllers to satisfy its long-term controller staffing needs. Because it is uncertain whether enough controller candidates will be available from the current sources to fill these needs, FAA officials have announced plans to expand the CTI program to include more schools and have reactivated the cooperative education program. Furthermore, FAA has also developed plans to revise its new controller training program by requiring all new controller candidates enrolled in the CTI and MARC programs to receive standardized training at the FAA Academy before being assigned to ATC facilities. FAA believes that the revised training program will reduce on-the-job training time and costs at the facility level. However, agency officials have not performed any analyses to determine if the expected savings will offset the increased costs FAA will incur by providing training at the Academy to all newly hired controllers. FAA hired 257 new controllers during fiscal years 1995 through 1996 to meet its controller staffing needs. One hundred and twelve (or 44 percent) of the new controllers were former PATCO members, 99 (or 39 percent) were CTI and MARC graduates, and the remaining 46 (or 18 percent) were cooperative education program graduates, air traffic assistants working at the FAA, and former FAA and DOD controllers. FAA plans to begin significantly increasing controller hiring by adding 500 new controllers in fiscal year 1997 and 800 new controllers in fiscal year 1998. The new controllers will consist of former PATCO members, CTI and MARC graduates, cooperative education graduates, and former FAA and DOD controllers. As shown in table 3.1, we found that more than enough such controller candidates are available from these sources to fill FAA’s projected staffing needs for fiscal years 1997 and 1998. In August 1993, after nearly 12 years, the bar on hiring former PATCO members was repealed, and they were allowed to compete for employment as air traffic controllers within FAA. To date, FAA has hired 112 former PATCO members—37 in fiscal year 1995 and 75 in fiscal year 1996. The age range of former PATCO members hired in fiscal years 1995 and 1996 was 42 to 67, and the average age was 50.2 years. According to FAA’s data, the age range of the over 4,400 former PATCO members eligible for rehire in fiscal year 1996 was 37 to 68, with the average age being 49.9 years. The majority of the FAA officials interviewed at the headquarters, regional, and facility levels commented that while former controllers have prior controller work experience and could be a solution to the controller staffing problem, they could only be a short-term solution. The officials commented that many of the former PATCO members already hired or still eligible to be rehired could retire within a few years after being reemployed with FAA because their average age is about 50. We could not verify what the officials told us because FAA has not compiled the data necessary to determine when current controllers, including former PATCO members already hired, will become eligible to retire under the different controller retirement rules. FAA officials commented that although they will rely on former PATCO members in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, and possibly in later years, to fill controller vacancies, they are uncertain about how long these former controllers will be able to work as air traffic controllers and when they will need to be replaced. The officials believe that because of the age range of the former controllers and the different retirement rules, FAA could be faced with an even more critical staffing shortage in future years because many former PATCO members and current controllers may be eligible to retire at the same time. Nevertheless, the officials told us that they have not conducted any analyses to determine when the former PATCO members currently in the controller candidate pool will become eligible for retirement. In addition to the 1,300 new controllers FAA plans to hire in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 to meet its short-term staffing needs, FAA plans to hire a large number of new controllers in fiscal years 1999 through 2002 to meet its long-term controller staffing needs. To satisfy the agency’s long-term staffing needs, FAA officials said they expect to get some controller candidates from current sources. Specifically, the officials commented, and CTI and MARC officials agreed, that these schools can produce at least 200 graduates per year under their existing programs, which represents about 800 candidates during this 4-year period. PATCO members may also provide some controller candidates, and there is high interest from former FAA and DOD controllers to fill controller positions. However, taken together, these current sources may not provide enough controllers after fiscal year 1999. To expand the pool of available controller candidates, FAA headquarters officials announced in January 1997 their plans to expand the CTI program to include 18 additional schools and to reactivate the cooperative education program. According to FAA officials we interviewed, schools currently offering aviation degrees and located near hard-to-staff facilities will be given higher priority. The officials believe this approach will provide a better geographical match between staffing needs at the facility level and the available candidates. The final school selections will be completed by September 1997. Although FAA has decided on the number of schools to include in its expanded program, the officials could not tell us the number of controller candidates they expect to be available from these programs to meet their long-term staffing needs. In addition to expanding the pool of available controller candidates, FAA officials told us that they have revised the agency’s initial controller training program. This revision will be the third major change in FAA’s training program within the past 10 years. Until fiscal year 1990, all new controller candidates were required to receive initial screening and controller training, which included academic and skill-building training, at the Academy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. In fiscal years 1990 and 1991, FAA began relying on the MARC and CTI schools, respectively, to supplement its training program and to make more controller candidates available. FAA hired CTI and MARC graduates and placed them directly at ATC facilities, bypassing any training at the Academy. The graduates completed their on-the-job training, which consisted of classroom and hands-on instructional training provided by FPL controllers and contractors, at the facilities. In fiscal year 1992, however, FAA stopped providing initial controller training for newly hired controllers at the Academy because of a sharp decrease in controller hiring. Nevertheless, the MARC and CTI schools continued to provide controller training even though only 250 graduates were hired by FAA from fiscal years 1992 through 1995. Beginning in fiscal year 1998 under its revised controller training program, FAA will require all controller candidates enrolled in the CTI and MARC programs to successfully complete the technical skill-building portion of initial controller training at the Academy before being assigned to a facility. The CTI and MARC controller candidates will continue to receive academic and some technical skill-building training at their schools. Newly hired controllers, other than ones from the CTI and MARC programs, will receive academic and technical skill-building training at the Academy. Former PATCO members, as well as FAA and DOD controllers will continue to receive refresher training at the Academy. Figure 3.1 compares FAA’s existing and revised training programs. FAA believes that the revised approach to controller training will reduce on-the-job training time and costs at the facility level because all new controllers entering ATC facilities will receive standardized training on the latest ATC equipment and will be well versed in existing ATC policies, procedures, and requirements. The officials told us that in the long term, the Academy can provide the skill-building training more efficiently than hundreds of individual ATC facilities. Furthermore, the officials said that they expect graduates of a combined CTI-Academy training program to spend less time in on-the-job training because the Academy will give them early experience working with the ATC equipment actually used at the facilities. Although FAA headquarters officials commented that revising the controller training program will reduce training time and costs at the facility level, we did not find nor could FAA provide evidence to support this position. While some CTI schools do not have the latest ATC equipment, they are able to simulate air traffic conditions. Moreover, FAA could not provide evidence that there is any difference between controllers trained on the latest ATC equipment and simulators. Although FAA believes that it may realize some cost savings from centralizing training at the Academy, federal training costs will increase in the short term because FAA will pay the expenses for a portion of the training of CTI graduates, who currently pay these costs themselves as part of the controller training curriculum. Despite the lack of data on controller training costs, FAA still plans to revise its training program—without knowing whether the anticipated reduction in training time and costs for newly hired controllers will occur and offset increased training costs at the Academy. During the 1997 calendar year, FAA plans to hire CTI and MARC graduates with and without Academy training. By monitoring its training costs and following the progress of the two groups of new controllers, FAA could determine whether the anticipated savings will be realized. FAA predicts that it will need to hire about 3,400 new controllers over the next 6 years. Although a sufficient number of controller candidates are available to meet the agency’s short-term staffing needs, the majority of the candidates are former PATCO members, who could, if hired, be eligible for retirement at the same time as many current controllers. Because FAA does not know when these controllers will retire, it is uncertain when they will need to be replaced. In addition, it is uncertain whether FAA’s current sources for controller candidates can provide a sufficient number of candidates to meet its long-term staffing needs. Therefore, FAA’s efforts to expand the pool of available candidates could help to address this potential problem. Although FAA officials believe that revising the existing controller training program will reduce on-the-job training time and costs, this change could result in FAA incurring training costs currently being paid by controller candidates. Also, since FAA has no data to support it assertion that CTI and MARC graduates take longer to complete on-the-job training than other controller candidates or that centralizing a portion of the training at the Academy will reduce training costs, the savings FAA expects to gain from revising its program may not offset the increased training costs at the Academy. We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator of FAA to (1) determine, for future planning purposes, when former PATCO members currently in the controller candidate pool will become eligible to retire and would need to be replaced, by evaluating demographic data, such as the former controllers’ age, years spent actually controlling traffic, and years of potential retirement eligibility, and (2) monitor the training costs for CTI and MARC graduates hired in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, who will be trained under the old and new programs, to determine whether the anticipated savings will be realized and whether such savings will offset the increased costs of providing centralized training at the Academy. FAA officials agreed with our recommendations and plan to take action to better determine when controllers will retire and the cost of training new controllers. Controller staffing at the national and regional levels closely reflected the levels specified by the staffing standards. However, we identified significant differences between actual staffing and the levels specified by the standards at about half of FAA’s ATC facilities. According to FAA officials, certain circumstances, such as workload factors unique to particular facilities, justify deviations from the standards. In addition, FAA officials believe that some differences are justified on the basis of the professional judgment of facility managers. However, they also believe that some facilities have too many controllers, while others have too few, relative to the workload at the facilities. FAA officials pointed out that at facilities where there are too many or too few controllers, several factors hinder FAA’s ability to alleviate the staffing differences. These impediments include FAA’s practice of waiting until the end of the fiscal year to distribute funds to move controllers, regional officials’ inability to conduct regional hiring of new controllers, and limited hiring in recent years of new controllers to fill vacancies. Although several FAA officials commented that staffing differences can not be totally alleviated, FAA has proposed a variety of initiatives to address existing differences. Because these initiatives are relatively recent, their effectiveness may not be known for several years. As of April 10, 1996, we found that at the national and regional levels, there were only slight differences between the actual number of controllers and the levels specified by the standards. For example, at the national level, the actual controller workforce was 17,163, compared to 17,465 as specified by the staffing standards, representing a difference of less than 2 percent. At the regional level, the actual staffing levels for all nine regions were within 5 percent of the levels specified by the standards. In response to our survey, FAA regional and NATCA officials said that a larger number of controllers were needed than the levels specified by the staffing standards. More specifically, FAA officials in six of the nine regions commented that nearly 1,100 additional controllers were needed in their regions. In contrast, FAA’s staffing standards indicated that over 400 additional controllers were needed in those regions. FAA officials in the other three regions considered their current staffing levels adequate to meet their needs. According to NATCA representatives, controller staffing needs were even greater at the regional level than those reported by FAA’s regional officials. For example, according to NATCA’s estimates, FAA needs an additional 1,750 controllers in the three regions they represent, while FAA regional officials estimated that only 670 additional controllers are needed in those regions. FAA headquarters officials told us that different staffing needs estimates exist because FAA regional officials and NATCA representatives use different approaches to determine the estimates. However, FAA headquarters officials rely on validated engineered staffing standards. In responding to our survey, most of the FAA regional officials told us that they based their estimates on the staffing standards, as well as other data, such as staffing needs information gathered directly from facility managers. In addition, NATCA officials reported using data on facility workloads and projected attrition. We did not verify the validity of the data or the procedures reported to us by the regional FAA and NATCA officials. As shown in figure 4.1, staffing levels at 16 of the 24 en route centers were within 10 percent of the levels specified by the standards. Four of the eight remaining facilities were staffed at levels greater than 10 percent over the staffing standards, whereas the other four facilities were staffed at least 10 percent under the standards levels. More than 25% over the standards 10% to 25% under the standards FAA officials at the headquarters, regional, and facility levels acknowledged that significant differences exist between actual staffing and the levels specified by the standards at many terminal facilities. However, they also noted that the standards are used as a management tool in conjunction with professional judgment and that certain circumstances could cause terminal facilities to justifiably deviate from the standards. Circumstances, such as changes in air traffic levels or a given terminal facility’s capacity, could increase or decrease the number of controllers needed. For example, officials in FAA’s Southern Region told us that ongoing airport improvements, which are expected to be completed in the summer of 1997, have the potential to significantly increase the capacity at a principal international airport in that region. As a result of these improvements, the officials commented that controller staffing needs could increase significantly. Although they could not estimate the exact number of additional controllers needed because the impact of the increased capacity will not be known until the airport improvements are completed, they indicated that the additional staffing needs are not reflected in the latest staffing standards. Circumstances such as these often explain why some facilities are overstaffed or understaffed relative to the staffing standards. However, FAA headquarters officials acknowledged that there are facilities where staffing differences are not justified and pointed out that they are working to address staffing problems. FAA officials at the headquarters, regional, and facility levels identified a number of impediments that hinder FAA’s ability to reduce staffing differences at facilities where there are too many or too few controllers relative to their workloads. These impediments include FAA’s practice of not providing funds to move controllers until the end of the fiscal year, a practice that delays the prompt movement of controllers to fill vacancies, and regional officials’ inability to recruit local candidates to minimize controller transfers among facilities. In addition, regional officials we contacted cited the recent lack of hiring and the need for a continuous source of new controllers to fill vacancies caused by ongoing attrition. The officials also said that other factors, such as their inability to attract controllers to less desirable facilities, quality of life concerns, and unexpected attrition, will continuously impede their ability to alleviate staffing differences. FAA designates a specified amount of funds at the beginning of the fiscal year for permanent-change-of-station (PCS) moves to relocate controllers from facility to facility to address staffing needs. Also, these funds are used to fill critical managerial and controller vacancies nationwide and maintain an appropriate level of controllers at ATC facilities. We found that FAA does not distribute the majority of PCS funds until the end of the fiscal year. FAA headquarters officials told us that PCS funds are often used as discretionary funds throughout the fiscal year to supplement shortfalls in the Air Traffic Services (ATS) budget. These funds are reprogrammed to pay for cost increases related to salaries and for the contract tower and weather programs. FAA headquarters officials told us that while PCS moneys are used to supplement cost increases for other ATS operations during the year, there have been sufficient funds by the end of the fiscal year to pay for all requested and approved controller moves. These end-of-year funds are available because other ATS units do not spend all moneys budgeted for their operations. FAA headquarters officials then reprogram the unspent funds to pay for controller moves. For example, as shown in table 4.1, FAA designated $17.5 million in fiscal year 1996 for PCS moves. Initially, ATS distributed $3.7 million in PCS funds and reprogrammed $13.8 million to supplement cost increases for the contract tower and weather programs. Subsequently, ATS made an additional $19.2 million available for PCS moves, which was not provided to the FAA regions until the end of the fiscal year. According to FAA regional officials we surveyed, the practice of distributing PCS funds at the end of the fiscal year delays the prompt transfer of controllers. At facilities where vacancies are not filled promptly, overtime use may be excessive and some controllers may be denied opportunities to take leave or attend training. In addition, regional officials commented that reprogramming PCS funds creates uncertainty and inhibits the effective allocation of resources within their regions. They believe that a stable distribution of funds throughout the fiscal year would help them better address existing staffing differences. A majority of facility managers we surveyed also expressed concerns about PCS funding levels, and several commented that the availability of sufficient PCS funds would help them reduce staffing differences at ATC facilities. We found that officials at the FAA headquarters, regional, and facility levels had different views about whether sufficient funds have been available in past years to pay for all requested PCS moves. While FAA headquarters officials stated that sufficient funds for requested and approved PCS moves have been available by the end of the fiscal year, a majority of the regional officials we surveyed said that sufficient PCS funds were often not available for all controller moves throughout the fiscal year. We could not verify what the officials told us because FAA does not maintain information on the number of PCS moves initially requested and subsequently approved at the end of the fiscal year. FAA headquarters officials commented that the practice of using PCS funds to supplement cost increases for ATS operations could create problems in the controller workforce in the future if FAA continues to experience substantial shortfalls in its overall budget. Specifically, the FAA headquarters officials told us that if funds were not made available by the end of a fiscal year, controller moves could not be made, and staffing differences at ATC facilities could increase. FAA headquarters officials noted, however, that the agency’s flexibility to provide PCS funding throughout the fiscal year has been constrained by the necessity to have discretionary funding available to supplement potential budget shortfalls, such as cost increases related to salaries and contract programs. Although FAA regional officials have the authority to recruit controller candidates for facilities in their regions, they do not have the ability to recruit locally due to constraints in hiring on an agencywide basis. While some regional officials have recruited controller staff under certain circumstances, they must generally select new controllers from the available pool of controller candidates—primarily former PATCO members and graduates from the four CTI schools and MARC—regardless of the candidates’ geographic preferences. FAA officials also told us that the ability to recruit locally would help improve retention because new controllers could be recruited directly from their preferred geographic areas. FAA headquarters officials believe that controllers tend to stay longer in locations more desirable to them, thereby, reducing the potential for controller transfers from facilities with staffing problems. In response to our survey, regional and terminal facility officials also told us that localized hiring would allow them to recruit and retain controllers in areas where hard-to-staff facilities are located. Under current practice, a controller from a small town in the Midwest may be placed at a facility in a large metropolitan area that is difficult to staff. As a result, the controller may later request a transfer to another facility that the controller prefers or resign from FAA; such events may cause a staffing shortage and adversely affect employee morale. Officials in all nine of FAA’s regions expressed concerns about the lack of recent hiring and the need for a continuous supply of new controllers to fill vacancies due to transfers, promotions, and retirements at ATC facilities. The majority of regional officials said that an ongoing supply of newly hired controllers would help address staffing shortages that increase the use of overtime and limit opportunities for controllers to take leave or attend training. In response to our survey, some officials raised concerns that the shortages could increase if large numbers of controllers retire in future years. For example, officials in the Great Lakes Region told us that although they hired 40 new controllers in fiscal year 1996, these new controllers were insufficient to replace the controllers lost through ongoing attrition. In addition, officials in the Western-Pacific Region told us that a sufficient supply of new controllers is needed for lower-level facilities, which serve as a staffing source for higher-level ATC facilities. Although the Western-Pacific officials said that they have been working with headquarters officials to acquire more new controllers for their region, they have been unsuccessful because FAA has hired very few new controllers in recent years. Officials at the FAA headquarters, regional, and facility levels commented that certain circumstances will continuously affect their ability to alleviate staffing differences. These circumstances include (1) FAA’s inability to attract controllers to facilities located in less desirable—remote or high-cost—areas; (2) quality of life concerns, such as controllers’ desire to live in certain parts of the country; (3) unanticipated attrition resulting from controller retirements, resignations, and deaths; and (4) unexpected changes in air traffic in certain areas, such as the openings and closings of air carrier hubs. FAA headquarters officials cited several initiatives under way at the headquarters, regional, and facility levels to address staffing differences. These initiatives include programs to promote regional recruitment and hiring of new controllers for regions with staffing problems, an interim incentive pay program to attract controllers to facilities with long-standing controller staffing problems, and the creation of the Office of Air Traffic Operations (ATO) within FAA headquarters to better coordinate controller transfers and develop an information-based method to more accurately determine controller staffing needs at the facility level. As part of its initiatives to alleviate staffing problems, FAA is considering actions to increase hiring directly from areas with hard-to-staff facilities, such as expanding the CTI program to include more schools near these facilities and reactivating the cooperative education program. By creating a pool of candidates near hard-to-staff facilities, FAA expects that regions can attract additional new controllers from their preferred geographic areas. Under the proposed initiatives, regional officials will play a greater role in recruiting employees on a more localized basis. In response to our survey, the majority of regional officials we contacted told us that a greater role in local hiring would significantly help reduce controller staffing differences. Moreover, FAA officials told us that localized hiring would reduce the costs for PCS moves and produce a more motivated and satisfied controller workforce. In April 1996, FAA established an interim incentive pay program, similar to a pay demonstration program implemented in 1989, to attract controllers to seven major facilities that have a history of staffing problems. This program provides an incentive of 10-percent of the base pay for controllers working at these seven facilities: the New York En Route Center, New York TRACON facility, Chicago En Route Center, O’Hare TRACON facility, O’Hare Tower, Bay TRACON facility, and Oakland En Route Center. The interim incentive program is intended to be in effect until fiscal year 1998 when a new ATS pay system is expected to be implemented. The new pay system is one of several efforts under FAA’s new personnel reform initiatives, which the agency began implementing in April 1996. In response to our survey, officials at the Chicago En Route Center commented that the interim incentive pay program has played an important role in attracting new controllers to their facility. For example, over the last year, several new controllers have transferred to the facility, which has helped address staffing problems. FAA headquarters officials told us that they expect the interim program will help recruit and retain controllers at other hard-to-staff facilities until a long-term program is in place, such as the new pay system FAA is developing. In early 1996, FAA headquarters created ATO to (1) ensure that facilities are staffed at appropriate levels, (2) verify that newly-hired controllers are placed where critical staffing vacancies exist, and (3) monitor regional staffing allocations, among other resource allocation functions. ATO officials work with headquarters, regional, and facility officials to ensure that staffing imbalances do not occur due to controller transfers or reassignments and to verify that new controllers are placed where vacancies exist. For example, ATO officials gather information on staffing requirements and air traffic operations from regional and facility officials to verify that facilities are staffed according to current needs. Using this information, ATO officials have consulted with headquarters officials who are responsible for agencywide resources and budgeting to make recommendations on staffing allocations. As part of this process, ATO officials have monitored controller moves and transfers to ensure that staffing imbalances do not occur because of changes in controller allocations. Agreement between ATO and other headquarters officials must be reached on changes in controller allocations. To better address staffing needs at ATC facilities, ATO has developed and is testing a new computer program to provide a mechanism for air traffic managers in FAA headquarters, regions, and facilities to evaluate the past utilization of controller resources and more effectively project controller staffing requirements. According to ATO officials, the new computer program will provide more accurate facility-level staffing requirements than the staffing standards because it includes operational data on the number of hours controllers have actually performed ATC functions and activities such as training, leave, and administrative duties. ATO officials told us that the new computer program will also provide a standardized method to better project controller staffing needs at individual ATC facilities. They plan to use this program in conjunction with the staffing standards. FAA is currently pilot testing this program at some en route centers, with plans to have it fully operational by the end of fiscal year 1997. While FAA officials face several impediments that have hindered the alleviation of staffing differences at many terminal facilities, the impediments are not insurmountable. However, FAA’s practice of distributing PCS funds at the end of the fiscal year not only delays controller transfers but could create staffing problems in future years. FAA officials recognize the potential for these problems but face difficult choices in their efforts to move controllers to fill critical vacancies, while maintaining the flexibility to respond to budget shortfalls throughout the fiscal year. Although FAA’s recent initiatives may reduce some staffing differences, it is too soon to determine their effectiveness.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) efforts to address short- and long-term controller staffing needs, focusing on: (1) the key variables FAA uses to project future controller staffing needs and evaluate their reasonableness; (2) whether FAA has identified a sufficient number of controller candidates to satisfy its short- and long-term staffing needs and evaluate FAA's plans to train new controllers; and (3) impediments that hinder FAA from staffing air traffic control (ATC) facilities at specified levels. GAO noted that: (1) FAA uses two key variables to project future controller staffing needs; (2) while FAA's estimates of air traffic growth are reasonable, GAO's analysis indicated that FAA could be overstating retirements, which account for most controller attrition, for fiscal years (FY) 1999 through 2002; (3) rather than using actual information on controllers' age and service time to project future retirements, FAA bases its estimates on assumptions about when controllers will be eligible to retire; (4) FAA has identified a sufficient number of controller candidates to meet its short-term staffing needs in FY 1997 and 1998; (5) however, beyond FY 1998, it is uncertain whether current sources can provide the controller candidates FAA will need to meet its hiring goals for FY 1999 through 2002; (6) the majority of available candidates are controllers who were fired in 1981 and who FAA officials believe could be eligible to retire within a few years of reemployment; (7) however, FAA has not conducted any analysis to support this position; (8) to help meet its long-term hiring goals, FAA is expanding its collegiate program to include more schools and has reactivated the cooperative education program; (9) beginning in FY 1998, FAA will require that all new controllers receive some training at its Academy; (10) FAA believes that this will reduce on-the-job training time and costs; (11) this revision, however, could increase the federal costs of initial controller training because FAA will pay a portion of training expenses currently being paid by participants in the collegiate program; (12) FAA officials identified several principal impediments that hinder their ability to staff ATC facilities at specified levels; (13) the first is FAA headquarters' practice of generally not providing funds to relocate controllers until the end of the FY, which causes delayed controller moves and continued staffing imbalances; (14) the second impediment is the limited ability of regional officials to recruit controller candidates locally to fill vacancies at ATC facilities; (15) in addition, FAA regional officials also believe that limited hiring of new controllers in recent years has hindered their ability to fill vacancies; (16) partly due to these impediments, as of April 1996, about 53 percent of ATC facilities were not staffed at levels specified by FAA's staffing standards; (17) there are facilities where staffing differences are not justified; (18) FAA has implemented several initiatives to improve its ability to staff the facilities at specified levels; and (19) it is too early, however, to determine the effectiveness of these initiatives.