While I'm actually an outsider, what struck me about the situation is shown in the following paragraphs:

Prior to 1998 there were approximately 60 FAA terminal and enroute air traffic control Instructors at the Academy, comprised of some of the most experienced controllers from the largest/busiest airports in the world (Chicago TRACON, Dallas Tower, New York TRACON, Atlanta Center, Cleveland Center, etc). Since pay reclassification in 1998, the FAA’s Academy has lost, without replacement, approximately 46% of its FAA instructors who have accepted assignments back to field positions.

Where they can return to the salary level consistent with their active controller peers. In a corporate setting where one may have similar experience and qualifications as a corporate office but are not receiving similar pay, it's because they, in fact, are not corporate officers. In this case, the controllers are controllers - and hopefully some of the best ones! They aren't just like them - they ARE them.

In a recent attempt to shore up the depleted staff of instructors, the FAA announced five vacancies for bid. Only 22 bidders applied for these vacancies. These bidders were primarily from the smaller facilities that do not work the volume of traffic the more experienced controllers from hub facilities deal with daily. Prior to the pay reclassification of 1998, the Academy received approximately 70 bidders PER VACANCY. This offered a broad panel of candidates with diverse backgrounds and experience from which to choose. As evidenced by the recent vacancy bid, these experienced controllers show no interest in bidding to instructor positions that offer no career incentive nor pay equality.

so what I get out of this is that the premier controllers are not motivated to train new controllers.. as a frequent flyer, I want a system where the very best are training the new controllers. I don't believe the engineer/QA comparison works here.. there's no revenue model influencing these salary levels. In a corporate environment, programmers and engineers make more because they are in short demand and drive product development. QA does so only indirectly and are easier to find. If I ran a national ad for a position in my company and received only 4 applicants for the position from hundreds or thousands across the country, I would be gravely concerned about (a) the quality of the applicants and (b) what was wrong with my offer. Certainly, 4 is better than two. Can't dispute that, but I don't think it goes to the heart of the issue.

With large scale Controller retirement looming, (as a result of the mass hiring to fill the 1981 strike vacancies) the Academy will not be capable of producing enough adequately trained replacements to fill the void left by the retired controllers. Controllers from busy facilities are better equipped to instruct the controllers of tomorrow on techniques and methods for dealing with the congestion and spacing problems they will be facing. The absence of these instructors will not be clearly visible until our system is filled with new controllers trained by less experienced instructors. What will the cost to fix the problem be then?

The FAA is insisting on relearning the lessons learned in the early 80’s when the field controllers’ pay grade was increased and the Academy instructors’ was not. The management at field facilities began complaining that the new hires they were receiving from the Academy were inadequately trained. There was no incentive for experienced specialists (instructors) to seek assignment at the Academy due to the lower pay grade.

they fixed it then and, I believe, they need to fix it now.

The lack of attention to the FAA training programs goes beyond the personnel issue. Airport delays and automation improvement have been hot topics in the news over the last few years, and the FAA is struggling to maintain a positive public image. Since training is not readily visible, funds have not been diverted there. The FAA recently announced that every Enroute Center was now equipped with the new controller scopes and automation – DSR. What didn’t get such broad dissemination was that the FAA Academy is still training new hire controllers on the old system that is no longer in use at any facility in the country. The current plan is for the Academy to get two systems for training development, but lab systems for hands-on student training won’t arrive for at least two more years. This example is a highlight, not the extent, of the FAA’s lack of emphasis on training programs at the Academy.

This reminds me of my days in the Marines when they trained me to fix radios that were no longer in use. When I got to the field, I had never seen the radios I need to repair.. but noone's life was in my hands!

I really have no interest in 'swaying' anyone.. if you react as I did, you will probably see the logic I see to support these 700 people. If you don't, you won't and that's fine.


Thanks, all!