FAA Hiring Controllers

I've heard that the contract tower at San Carlos, CA (SQL) has been having trouble finding controllers who are willing to work for what the contractor is willing to pay. The level of service has been seriously declining there.
 
Palmpilot said:
I've heard that the contract tower at San Carlos, CA (SQL) has been having trouble finding controllers who are willing to work for what the contractor is willing to pay. The level of service has been seriously declining there.
Click to expand...

Contract towers are a different animal. The pay does not compare with FAA salaries (and benefits), and you must already have a Control Tower Operator (CTO) certificate and 12 months experience to be hired by most contract towers so the pool of people who can work for them is limited. Typically former military waiting to get an FAA spot and FAA controllers who have hit their mandatory retirement age. There are also a few mills ($$$) that turn out students with a CTO and then let them work at a private tower to gain their 12 months.

Pay is also fairly fixed by location and not subject to negotiation by the controllers or by the contract tower company. Expensive areas have this problem with low level FAA towers too. So much so that on top of government locality pay some facilities are getting a COLA and an incentive increase.
 
I toured the facility in OK City last summer. If I remember correctly, they hire between 500 and 800 per year, depending on need.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Contract towers are a different animal. The pay does not compare with FAA salaries (and benefits), and you must already have a Control Tower Operator (CTO) certificate and 12 months experience to be hired by most contract towers so the pool of people who can work for them is limited. Typically former military waiting to get an FAA spot and FAA controllers who have hit their mandatory retirement age. There are also a few mills ($$$) that turn out students with a CTO and then let them work at a private tower to gain their 12 months.

Pay is also fairly fixed by location and not subject to negotiation by the controllers or by the contract tower company. Expensive areas have this problem with low level FAA towers too. So much so that on top of government locality pay some facilities are getting a COLA and an incentive increase.
Click to expand...

I had an interview with LZU tower back in the day. A whopping $42K starting salary! :( Actually would have been twice my E-5 salary at the time so not all that bad considering.
 
Velocity173 said:
I had an interview with LZU tower back in the day. A whopping $42K starting salary! :( Actually would have been twice my E-5 salary at the time so not all that bad considering.
Click to expand...

The pay is... rough... to say the least.

IWA is doing enough ops to deserve an FAA tower around a level 6 or higher and is still an FCT.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Expensive areas have this problem
Click to expand...

No qualifier needed. "sunshine tax" comes in many forms, low pay for the locality COL line is but one such manifestation. The point is a good millions of people clearly think the trade is worth it, so it is so (retirees, 2nd career types, non-primary breadwinners, etc). For those of us that don't, geoarbitrage is the only game left, complete with the opportunity costs (distance and absence from family, travel costs, etc). Nothing new under the sun.

What I don't have a lick of sympathy for, is denizens of high COL desirable areas complaining about lack of staff for services. Exclusionary attitudes have consequences, and the serfs don't owe anyone a 2 hour commute to a $10/hr (inflation adjusted for pre-Covid) service job.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Contract towers are a different animal. The pay does not compare with FAA salaries (and benefits), and you must already have a Control Tower Operator (CTO) certificate and 12 months experience to be hired by most contract towers so the pool of people who can work for them is limited. Typically former military waiting to get an FAA spot and FAA controllers who have hit their mandatory retirement age. There are also a few mills ($$$) that turn out students with a CTO and then let them work at a private tower to gain their 12 months.

Pay is also fairly fixed by location and not subject to negotiation by the controllers or by the contract tower company. Expensive areas have this problem with low level FAA towers too. So much so that on top of government locality pay some facilities are getting a COLA and an incentive increase.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why SQL doesn't have an FAA tower, because In recent years, there has been a lot of traffic there. Their numbers are probably dropping now though, because they have been restricting pattern operations due to the staffing issue.
 
hindsight2020 said:
No qualifier needed. "sunshine tax" comes in many forms, low pay for the locality COL line is but one such manifestation. The point is a good millions of people clearly think the trade is worth it, so it is so (retirees, 2nd career types, non-primary breadwinners, etc). For those of us that don't, geoarbitrage is the only game left, complete with the opportunity costs (distance and absence from family, travel costs, etc). Nothing new under the sun.

What I don't have a lick of sympathy for, is denizens of high COL desirable areas complaining about lack of staff for services. Exclusionary attitudes have consequences, and the serfs don't owe anyone a 2 hour commute to a $10/hr (inflation adjusted for pre-Covid) service job.
Click to expand...
I heard that the pay at SQL is not much over half of what it is at FAA towers in the area. What can we denizens do to correct this?

The FAA tower at Palo Alto (PAO), which is only seven miles away from SQL and similar in COL, has no staffing issues, and is said to be a very popular spot for controller training. SQL is the only contract tower in the Bay Area, and is the only one that I've heard of having trouble hiring enough controllers. Outside the Bay Area, Sacramento Executive (SAC) is contract, and I've heard that they are having staffing issues too.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/FCT_Map.pdf

I'm not sure what you mean by exclusionary attitudes. The only reason I've heard of for people having long commutes in this area is cost of living differences.
 
Daleandee said:
Why the age discrimination?
Click to expand...

Because it’s a job that requires rapid fire decision making. The odds are better that a person at 30 has less cognitive decline than say someone at 50. Not to mention, if they hire a 50 yr old, they’ll only get 6 more years until mandatory retirement. Not much of an investment.

Similar to what I was told in the Army. Max age at the time for flight school was 29. They wanted applicants that they could get 20 yrs out of them before they retired or generally started experiencing grounding medical conditions.
 
yeah, I'm surprised by that minimum $43,727. I know that's the bottom end, and that alone says nothing at all about how fast or how high it ramps up from there, but honestly I expected the bottom to be a bit higher than that.
 
Palmpilot said:
The FAA tower at Palo Alto (PAO), which is only seven miles away from SQL and similar in COL, has no staffing issues, and is said to be a very popular spot for controller training.
Click to expand...
Off topic, but a lot folks are under the impression that certain FAA Air traffic facilities are designated training facilities (and conversely insinuating that other facilities are for experienced controllers only) for air traffic controllers. That is not true. All facilities are training facilities. New controllers are assigned based on academy performance, personnel preferences and staffing needs. All new controllers to a facility require training, regardless of previous experience, and every facility is set up to provide training.

I think some controllers are more obviously green than others, and when a pilot hears obvious trainees on more than one occasion they assume that facility is a "training facility". Nevertheless, it would be quite inefficient and disruptive for a controller to move to an area, train for a couple years, and then get moved to another area (only to be trained in that local area as well).

All that said, this may very well be completely different for military facilities. I'm not familiar at all with Army/Navy/AF air traffic programs, but I suspect there's a ton more training and moving around and cycling through of personnel, so perhaps certain facilities are more training focused than others...but I doubt it. Maybe our military controller experts can weigh in...
 
Velocity173 said:
Because it’s a job that requires rapid fire decision making. The odds are better that a person at 30 has less cognitive decline than say someone at 50. Not to mention, if they hire a 50 yr old, they’ll only get 6 more years until mandatory retirement. Not much of an investment.

Similar to what I was told in the Army. Max age at the time for flight school was 29. They wanted applicants that they could get 20 yrs out of them before they retired or generally started experiencing grounding medical conditions.
Click to expand...

They hire a 50 year old, put them in a center, they might get 2-3 years of actual CPC time nowadays.
 
Brad Z said:
Off topic, but a lot folks are under the impression that certain FAA Air traffic facilities are designated training facilities (and conversely insinuating that other facilities are for experienced controllers only) for air traffic controllers. That is not true. All facilities are training facilities. New controllers are assigned based on academy performance, personnel preferences and staffing needs. All new controllers to a facility require training, regardless of previous experience, and every facility is set up to provide training.

I think some controllers are more obviously green than others, and when a pilot hears obvious trainees on more than one occasion they assume that facility is a "training facility". Nevertheless, it would be quite inefficient and disruptive for a controller to move to an area, train for a couple years, and then get moved to another area (only to be trained in that local area as well).

All that said, this may very well be completely different for military facilities. I'm not familiar at all with Army/Navy/AF air traffic programs, but I suspect there's a ton more training and moving around and cycling through of personnel, so perhaps certain facilities are more training focused than others...but I doubt it. Maybe our military controller experts can weigh in...
Click to expand...

All military facilities are training facilities as well. Even more so than FAA / contract because of a much higher turnover of controllers. While you get an FAA “pink card” out of school, it doesn’t mean jack until you get position quals on the back. With controllers spending 3-5 years at a facility before they’re off to another base, it’s a constant state of training.

Then, probably half the controllers either get washed out or they don’t even get facility rated before shipping out to their next duty station. They’ll even carry a little excess staffing compared to civ because of deployment demands. So you’ll have guys attached to the tactical stuff, they get pulled for overseas deployment or large scale exercises. Gotta have enough non deployable station controllers to make up for the loss. That’s where the DOD civ guys like @Timbeck2 come into play.
 
Am I eligible? Applicants must:
  • Be a U.S. citizen
  • Be registered for Selective Service, if applicable (Required for males born after 12/31/1959)
  • Be younger than 31 years old before the closing date of the application period (with limited exceptions)
  • Have either three years of general work experience or four years of education leading to a bachelor’s degree, or a combination of both
  • Speak English clearly enough to be understood over communications equipment
  • Be willing to relocate to an FAA facility based on agency staffing needs
I take it that the ones that don't speak clearly, or speak too fast, get fast-tracked and sent to JFK.
 
Brad Z said:
Off topic, but a lot folks are under the impression that certain FAA Air traffic facilities are designated training facilities (and conversely insinuating that other facilities are for experienced controllers only) for air traffic controllers. That is not true. All facilities are training facilities. New controllers are assigned based on academy performance, personnel preferences and staffing needs. All new controllers to a facility require training, regardless of previous experience, and every facility is set up to provide training.

I think some controllers are more obviously green than others, and when a pilot hears obvious trainees on more than one occasion they assume that facility is a "training facility". Nevertheless, it would be quite inefficient and disruptive for a controller to move to an area, train for a couple years, and then get moved to another area (only to be trained in that local area as well).

All that said, this may very well be completely different for military facilities. I'm not familiar at all with Army/Navy/AF air traffic programs, but I suspect there's a ton more training and moving around and cycling through of personnel, so perhaps certain facilities are more training focused than others...but I doubt it. Maybe our military controller experts can weigh in...
Click to expand...
I may have read too much into the rumor I heard. As best I can remember, what was said was that PAO was a popular assignment because it could be a stepping stone to better jobs at nearby places like SFO, OAK, and SJC. (It's a VERY busy airport.) :dunno:
 
Velocity173 said:
All military facilities are training facilities as well. Even more so than FAA / contract because of a much higher turnover of controllers. While you get an FAA “pink card” out of school, it doesn’t mean jack until you get position quals on the back. With controllers spending 3-5 years at a facility before they’re off to another base, it’s a constant state of training.

Then, probably half the controllers either get washed out or they don’t even get facility rated before shipping out to their next duty station. They’ll even carry a little excess staffing compared to civ because of deployment demands. So you’ll have guys attached to the tactical stuff, they get pulled for overseas deployment or large scale exercises. Gotta have enough non deployable station controllers to make up for the loss. That’s where the DOD civ guys like @Timbeck2 come into play.
Click to expand...
And there’s the enlistment thing. Some do their four years and don’t re-enlist. They may say this ain’t no fun no more and get out and go fly helicopters or sumpin’.:fingerwag: Or what ever it is, maybe it’s more than four nowadays. In the early 80’s the Navy was getting 5 year enlistments if you wanted to be a Controller. In the early 2000’s the Airforce was still doing 4.
 
Palmpilot said:
I may have read too much into the rumor I heard. As best I can remember, what was said was that PAO was a popular assignment because it could be a stepping stone to better jobs at nearby places like SFO, OAK, and SJC. (It's a VERY busy airport.) :dunno:
Click to expand...
Trivia time. There was a time when San Carlos was the busiest single runway airport in the US. Probably the world.
 
Velocity173 said:
Because it’s a job that requires rapid fire decision making. The odds are better that a person at 30 has less cognitive decline than say someone at 50. Not to mention, if they hire a 50 yr old, they’ll only get 6 more years until mandatory retirement. Not much of an investment.

Similar to what I was told in the Army. Max age at the time for flight school was 29. They wanted applicants that they could get 20 yrs out of them before they retired or generally started experiencing grounding medical conditions.
Click to expand...


There ought to be a law ...
 
Daleandee said:
There ought to be a law ...
Click to expand...
My understanding of the age requirement, after working with an ex ATL ARTCC guy, is that literally 1/3 of your career is in training. The middle third you’re in your own. The last third you are the trainer.
They need all the years.
 
Daleandee said:
Why the age discrimination?
Click to expand...

So FBI, DEA, most other federal law enforcement. Many state and local police departments and firefighters have and age limit to be hired and and forced out to retire.
 
TommyG said:
So FBI, DEA, most other federal law enforcement. Many state and local police departments and firefighters have and age limit to be hired and and forced out to retire.
Click to expand...

I understand what their reasoning is but 31 seems to be quite young as a cutoff for entry. But it is government and they do as they want ... *




* ... and I don't have to like it and they don't care if I don't. :)
 
Daleandee said:
I understand what their reasoning is but 31 seems to be quite young as a cutoff for entry. But it is government and they do as they want ... *




* ... and I don't have to like it and they don't care if I don't. :)
Click to expand...
The 31 year old law came in 1972. Following the 1969 Sickout. At the time Controllers were just any ‘ol civil servant. Retirement age was whatever it was, I don’t remember, probably around 65. It was rare for a Controller to reach it. Burnout, loss of mental acuity to do the job, or some combination thereof. The Air Traffic Controllers Act of 1972 was the result. Mandatory retirement at 56. Eligible for Retirement at 50. Maximum entry age 31.
 
luvflyin said:
And there’s the enlistment thing. Some do their four years and don’t re-enlist. They may say this ain’t no fun no more and get out and go fly helicopters or sumpin’.:fingerwag: Or what ever it is, maybe it’s more than four nowadays. In the early 80’s the Navy was getting 5 year enlistments if you wanted to be a Controller. In the early 2000’s the Airforce was still doing 4.
Click to expand...

Yeah not sure what the percentages are but very few of my friends stayed past their initial enlistment. I was dumb and went 4 more years for a lousy $16K bonus. It’s pretty much a dead end career for officers as well so not many of them stick around. Exception are the warrants that became LDOs. Not even sure they do that anymore.
 
For many years, recruiters were telling ATC trainees that the enlistment was 6 years. Only within the last few years they were caught in their lie and now most are only 4 years.

I have an age waiver which allowed me to be hired after I turned 31 as a civilian. It works on the back side too as I can work as long as I keep passing the class two physical. Most have mandatory retirement at 54.
 
luvflyin said:
Trivia time. There was a time when San Carlos was the busiest single runway airport in the US. Probably the world.
Click to expand...
Highly doubtful and certainly not any time since 1990.

Looking at the traffic court figures, it was likely that PAO was the busiest single-runway airport until 1993, when SAN overtook it.
 
kkoran said:
Highly doubtful and certainly not any time since 1990.

Looking at the traffic court figures, it was likely that PAO was the busiest single-runway airport until 1993, when SAN overtook it.
Click to expand...
Circa 1980, San Carlos was the busiest single runway airport in the US
 
luvflyin said:
Palo Alto may have been at one time, maybe is now, I dunno. But around 1980, San Carlos was. It wasn’t the busiest Runway, but it was the busiest single runway airport.
Click to expand...
I didn't start flying until 1991.
 
Timbeck2 said:
For many years, recruiters were telling ATC trainees that the enlistment was 6 years. Only within the last few years they were caught in their lie and now most are only 4 years.

I have an age waiver which allowed me to be hired after I turned 31 as a civilian. It works on the back side too as I can work as long as I keep passing the class two physical. Most have mandatory retirement at 54.
Click to expand...

My old roommate got wrapped up in an enlistment dispute. Thought he was signing up for 4 yrs but the recruiter apparently changed the paperwork to 6 yrs. He fought it and got out at 4. I thought the dude would never do anything with his life after the Corps but he’s a doctor now. Completely blew me away.
 
luvflyin said:
Trivia time. There was a time when San Carlos was the busiest single runway airport in the US. Probably the world.
Click to expand...

I would have thought Kai Tak (Hong Kong) or Narita (in the 1980s) would be the busiest single runway airport.
 
Kritchlow said:
My understanding of the age requirement, after working with an ex ATL ARTCC guy, is that literally 1/3 of your career is in training. The middle third you’re in your own. The last third you are the trainer.
They need all the years.
Click to expand...

that would be nice…

I CPC’ed in January of 2022. My facility applied for, and was granted, a waiver that allowed me and a couple others to start training people on D sides before we hit a year CPC. So I had about 6 months of not being involved in training. I will be a trainer until I move to another facility, where I will be a trainee again. Once I certify there, I will get 6 months of no training before I start training others.

I’ve heard that the maximum entry age is in part so that we can get 25 years of good time for our pensions. I doubt that’s the only or biggest reason.
 
Palmpilot said:
I've heard that the contract tower at San Carlos, CA (SQL) has been having trouble finding controllers who are willing to work for what the contractor is willing to pay. The level of service has been seriously declining there.
Click to expand...
I can confirm . The level of service has gone to ****. They been cutting hours as well, not that I blame them when they have one controller for ground and air
 
I think the controller shortage is going to bite us.
In the safety department (if it has not already).

On Friday, a familiar center voice sounded absolutely exhausted, done, played out.
I was seriously worried for the guy, couldn't figure it out.
Then he gave new routing to someone, "But sir, that waypoint is behind us"
He sounded like he cared about his goof but that was to be expected in his current state.
I checked off later with "Don't let them work you too hard", he immediately responded "Too late".
 
This sounds like a problem suited to an AI solution. My only experience is from the pilot side, unless you count tours of facilities and the occasional conversation w/ a controller. But it seems that a large percentage of the time the process is pretty straight forward. We already have car GPS that can reroute based on traffic conditions further down the line that there is no way for a driver to know about. No reason an AI setup w/ proper networking couldn't handle the mundane routing of aircraft.

I am not advocating removing all humans from the equations. After all, we'd need someone to keep an eye on the machines and jump in for actual emergencies, etc. But it seems like it would be a case where it could be used to help alleviate the existing problem.

* we're talking about our current gov't, that has ATC using antiquated equipment already
** we're talking about something that would take time and money to come to fruition (developing, trialing, limited live testing, live, and a few other steps I forgot)
*** Would probably not be in our lifetimes
 
guest user said:
This sounds like a problem suited to an AI solution.
Click to expand...

Sometime back I attempted to open a thread about the use of AI to combat the ever increasing air traffic. But because I used a video in the first post it was sent to the abyss hole known on POA as "Aviation Media" and died the death.

Boeing and a company called SparkCognition are working on a joint venture they call SkyGrid. It seems the beginning will be to use AI to automate routes for unmanned vehicles (commercial drones) as a start.

One thing to be pointed out is that for all this traffic these controllers and pilots are still communicating with simplex radios that only allow one person to speak at a time. One answer to that being explored is with Data Comm: https://www.volpe.dot.gov/safety-ma...-communication-between-pilots-and-controllers

I have no idea what the future is so I'm just guessing here. Certainly our controllers on here could give us a much better idea of what is required with some intelligent input as to what will actually work and what would cause more problems than it would fix (the FAA is good about the latter).

I learned early on that in business (and situations such as these) the best answers and ideas will come from the folks with their feet on the ground i.e. the ones doing the work. Hopefully the FAA will listen to them as they search for the answer to the massive growth of sky traffic that is upon us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top