Transportation Research Board
Special Report 314

Federal Aviation Administration’s
Approach for Determining
Future Air Traffic Controller
Staffing Needs


Committee for Study of Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Controller Staffing

Transportation Research Board

Board on Human–Systems Integration
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
                         OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Transportation Research Board
Washington, D.C. 20001
www.TRB.org
2014



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Transportation Research Board Special Report 314 Federal Aviation Administration’s Approach for Determining Future Air Traffic Controller Staffing Needs Committee for Study of Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Controller Staffing Transportation Research Board Board on Human–Systems Integration Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education Transportation Research Board Washington, D.C. 20001 www.TRB.org 2014

OCR for page R1
Transportation Research Board Special Report 314 Subscriber Category Aviation; safety and human factors Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.org or national- academies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu). Copyright 2014 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This study was sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data TO COME. ISBN 978-0-309-29513-0 ii

OCR for page R1
The Nation Academy of Sciences is a private, nonpr nal o rofit, self-perpe etuating society of distinguish scholars eng y hed gaged in scientific and engineeri research, de c ing edicated to the furtherance of science and tecchnology and to their use for t o the general we elfare. On the au uthority of the charter granted to it by the Co c d ongress in 1863 the Academy has a mandate that 3, y e requires it to advise the fe t ederal governm on scientifi and technica matters. Dr. R ment ic al Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Scie A ences. The Nation Academy of Engineering was establishe in 1964, und the charter of the National Academy of nal o g ed der l Sciences, as a parallel org a ganization of ouutstanding engi ineers. It is auto onomous in its administration and in the seleection of its membbers, sharing with the Nationa Academy of Sciences the re w al esponsibility fo advising the f or federal governm ment. The Nation Academy of Engineering also sponsors en nal f a ngineering prog grams aimed at meeting natio needs, t onal encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achiev s d vements of eng gineers. Dr. C. D (Dan) Mote Jr., D. e, is president of the Nationa Academy of Engineering. t al f The Institu of Medicin was establish in 1970 by the National A ute ne hed Academy of Scie ences to secure the services of e eminent me embers of appr ropriate profess sions in the exa amination of po olicy matters peertaining to the health of the pu ublic. The Institu acts under th responsibility given to the National Acade ute he y N emy of Science by its congre es essional charter to be r an adviser to the federal government and on its own in g d, nitiative, to iden ntify issues of m medical care, reesearch, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is pre esident of the In nstitute of Med dicine. The Nation Research Council was or nal C rganized by the National Acad e demy of Scienc in 1916 to a ces associate the br road community of science and technology with the Academ purposes o furthering kn y d w my’s of nowledge and aadvising the fed deral governmen Functioning in accordance with general po nt. olicies determin by the Aca ned ademy, the Cou uncil has becom the me principal opperating agency of both the National Academ of Sciences and the Nation Academy o Engineering i y N my s nal of in providing services to the government, th public, and th scientific an engineering c s g he he nd communities. T Council is The administere jointly by bo the Academ and the Ins ed oth mies stitute of Medic cine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone an Dr. C. D. (D h nd Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vi chair, respec a ice ctively, of the National Resea N arch Council. The Trans sportation Research Board is one of six ma divisions o the National R ajor of Research Coun The missio of ncil. on the Transpo ortation Resear Board is to provide leadership in transpor rch rtation innovat and progress through rese tion earch and informmation exchange conducted wi e, ithin a setting that is objective interdisciplin t e, nary, and multimmodal. The Bo oard’s varied activvities annually engage about 7,000 engineers scientists, and other transpo 7 s, d ortation research and hers practitioner from the pub and private sectors and academia, all of w rs blic e whom contribu their experti in the public ute ise c interest. Th program is su he upported by sta transportatio departments federal agenc including t component ate on s, cies the administrat tions of the U.S Department of Transportation, and other o S. o organizations an individuals i nd he interested in th developme of transporta ent ation. www.TR RB.org www.nati ional-academi ies.org iii

OCR for page R1
Transportation Research Board 2014 Executive Committee* Chair: Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing Vice Chair: Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center, and Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia (Past Chair, 2013) James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor and Director, Centre for Geoinformatics, School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St. Andrews, Fife, United Kingdom John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix Michael W. Hancock, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, California Chris T. Hendrickson, Duquesne Light Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Bank of Montreal Capital Markets, and Chairman, Utah Transportation Commission, Huntsville, Utah Gary P. LaGrange, President and CEO, Port of New Orleans, Louisiana Michael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Providence Joan McDonald, Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany Abbas Mohaddes, President and CEO, Iteris, Inc., Santa Ana, California Donald A. Osterberg, Senior Vice President, Safety and Security, Schneider National, Inc., Green Bay, Wisconsin Steven W. Palmer, Vice President of Transportation, Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Mooresville, North Carolina Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor, University of Texas, Austin (Past Chair, 2012) Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri Kumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, Texas Paul Trombino III, Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames Phillip A. Washington, General Manager, Regional Transportation District, Denver, Colorado Thomas P. Bostick (Lt. General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) Alison Jane Conway, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, City College of New York, New York, and Chair, TRB Young Members Council (ex officio) Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) ___________________________ * Membership as of June 2014. iv

OCR for page R1
David J. Friedman, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) Paul N. Jaenichen, Sr., Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) Therese W. McMillan, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) Michael P. Melaniphy, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, and Acting Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) Robert J. Papp (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (ex officio) Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) Peter M. Rogoff, Acting Under Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida (ex officio) Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) Barry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, California (ex officio) Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) v

OCR for page R1
Board on Human–Systems Integration Nancy J. Cooke (Chair), College of Technology and Innovation and Department of Biomedical Informatics, Arizona State University Ellen J. Bass, College of Computing and Informatics and College of Nursing and Health Professions, Drexel University Pascale Carayon, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering and Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement, University of Wisconsin-Madison Sara J. Czaja, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Industrial Engineering, University of Miami Francis (Frank) T. Durso, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology Andrew S. Imada, A.S. Imada and Associates, Carmichael, CA Karl S. Pister (NAE), University of California, Berkeley (Emeritus) David Rempel, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco Matthew Rizzo, Department of Neurological Sciences, University of Nebraska Medical Center Barbara Silverstein, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Olympia, WA David H. Wegman, Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell (Emeritus) Staff Barbara A. Wanchisen, Board Director Mickelle Rodriguez, Program Coordinator vi

OCR for page R1
Committee for a Study of Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Controller Staffing Amy R. Pritchett, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Chair Mathias Basner, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Peter J. Basso, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (retired), Rockville, Maryland Lawrence M. Cole, Aloft Aviation Consulting, Fredericksburg, Virginia Mary L. Cummings, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina Francis T. Durso, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta John J. Fearnsides, MJF Strategies, LLC, Washington, D.C. Andrew LeBovidge, National Air Traffic Controllers Association, Spring, Texas Amedeo R. Odoni, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Norman T. O’Meara, Logistics Management Institute, McLean, Virginia Clinton V. Oster, Jr., Indiana University (emeritus), Troy, Montana Roger Wall, FedEx Corporation (retired), Kent, Washington Transportation Research Board Staff Stephen R. Godwin, Director, Studies and Special Programs Jill Wilson, Study Director Mark S. Hutchins, Program Officer Amelia Mathis, Administrative Assistant vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface S ection 608 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95) required the National Academy of Sciences to study “the air traffic controller standards used by the [FAA] to estimate staffing needs for FAA air traffic controllers to ensure the safe operation of the national airspace system [NAS] in the most cost effective manner.” The project “shall consult with the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the FAA certified under section 7111 of title 5, United States Code, and other interested parties, including Government and industry representatives.” The complete study charge is provided in more detail in Chapter 1. In addition to the present study, the act tasked the National Research Council (NRC) with conducting two further studies related to the NAS: 1. An examination of the assumptions and methods that FAA uses in estimating the number of airway transportation system specialists needed to maintain and certify the equipment in the NAS, and 2. An examination of the Next Generation Air Transportation System’s enterprise software development approach and safety and human factor design. A report on the first item (NRC 2013) and a preliminary report on the second item (NRC 2014) have been issued. The request for the present study originates in the National Air Traffic Controllers Association’s (NATCA’s) interest in having a robust, science-based method for determining the appropriate staffing at individual air traffic control (ATC) facilities. FAA’s estimates show many facilities staffed at levels at or above the high end of their estimated staffing range, even though some such facilities require mandatory overtime to manage traffic adequately. NATCA had urged Congress to adopt a requirement for a third-party assessment of appropriate staffing at individual facilities. However, after consultation with congressional staff, the request that emerged from the House–Senate conference focused on the appropriateness of FAA’s overall staffing forecast and the most cost-effective approach to staffing that does not compromise safety. This study examines the methods used by FAA to estimate how many controllers are needed to staff its ATC facilities and the processes used to staff facilities consistent with these estimates. The committee’s investigation of FAA’s staffing process was complicated by the lack of adequate documentation of much of this process. The committee was heavily dependent on FAA to provide details of its staffing process through in-person briefings, teleconferences, and e- mail correspondence. In a number of instances, FAA staff members were asked to check the accuracy of the committee’s factual summaries of what it learned. Thus, the report includes a large number of personal communications (teleconferences with FAA staff, small group meetings at FAA, and questions answered through e-mail) rather than references to published papers, conference proceedings, and the like. As used throughout the report, the term “staffing standards” is defined narrowly by FAA to mean mathematical models used to relate controller workload and air traffic activity. Hence, these staffing standards, sometimes referred to as staffing models, constitute only one part of the larger process whereby FAA determines air traffic controller staffing levels. Consistent with vii

OCR for page R1
viii Federal Aviation Administration’s Approach for Determining Future Air Traffic Controller Staffing Needs clarification and guidance from congressional staff, the committee took a broader approach and considered the processes that FAA uses to model the number of controllers it needs and to adjust the modeled output on the basis of the judgment of facility managers and others, as well as the numbers of controllers actually added to the workforce and transferred among facilities. Appointed by NRC, the study committee consists of 12 academicians, consultants, and current and retired air traffic controllers. Members have expertise in ATC and management, human factors, aviation safety, fatigue and sleep research, workforce planning, staffing models, aviation demand and management, public policy, economics, and budgeting. Biographical information concerning the committee members appears at the end of the report. The full committee met five times between January 2013 and January 2014; at these meetings, it received briefings from FAA and other organizations, including Airlines for America (A4A), Airservices Australia, and the United Kingdom’s National Air Traffic Services (NATS). Over the same period, small groups of committee members also met (in person or by teleconference) with FAA staff on more than 20 occasions to discuss details of the agency’s controller staffing process. Despite these efforts to gather information from FAA, the committee had difficulty in obtaining clear and consistent descriptions of the staffing process and in establishing that the process steps are applied consistently. As part of the committee’s information-gathering activities, members visited several of FAA’s ATC facilities (the Atlanta, Potomac, and Seattle Terminal Radar Approach Control facilities and the Atlanta Center), as well as the Delta Air Lines Operations Center in Atlanta. A committee subgroup met with representatives of the National Transportation Safety Board to discuss controller fatigue issues. To help inform comparisons between controller staffing processes used by FAA and by organizations in other countries, the committee obtained white papers from air navigation service providers (ANSPs) in Australia, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom describing their approaches to controller workforce planning. As part of this benchmarking effort, a subgroup of the committee held a conference call with Ralph Riedle, former Managing Director of Operations at Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS) in Germany. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The committee thanks the many organizations and individuals that contributed to the study through formal presentations, correspondence, telephone calls, and informal discussions. The participation of the following individuals in the committee’s information-gathering activities is gratefully acknowledged: Rich McCormick, Tim Arel, Heather Biblow, Steve Bradford, Glen Buchanan, Gene Burdick, David Burkholder, Carl Burrus, Arthur Furnia, Todd Hoot, Rick Huss, Gretchen Koch-Noble, Stephen Lloyd, Darendia McCauley, Mike McCormick, Elliott McLaughlin, Finlay Mungall, Lynn Ray, Roger Schaufele, Nan Shellabarger, Joseph Teixeira, Dan Williams, and Mike Williams, FAA; Eugene Freedman, Dean Iacopelli, and Jeff Richards, NATCA; Greg Tennille, MITRE Corporation; Frank Danielski and Matthew Hampton, U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General; Dan Allen, FedEx (member, A4A ATC Council); Kevin Brathwaite and Richard McCormack, Grant Thornton; Jessica Clevenger, Georgia Institute of Technology; Kate Bleckley, Dana Broach, Cristina Byrne, Jerry Crutchfield, Linda Pierce, and Kevin Williams, Civil Aerospace Medical Institute; Kelly Krokos, American Institutes for Research; Ralph Riedle, DFS (retired); and Dan Bartlett, National Transportation Safety Board.

OCR for page R1
Preface ix The committee thanks all those who organized and hosted its visits to FAA’s ATC facilities and to the Delta Air Lines Operations Center. Thanks go also to the authors of the ANSP white papers—Jason Harfield and Rodd Sciortino of Airservices Australia, Sid Koslow of Nav Canada, Nanda Hoefel of DFS, and Jonathan Astill and colleagues of NATS. The committee is particularly grateful to Messrs. Harfield, Sciortino, and Astill, who gave generously of their time in traveling to and participating in the third committee meeting in July 2013 and responding to follow-up questions. This study was performed under the overall supervision of Stephen R. Godwin, Director, Studies and Special Programs, Transportation Research Board. The committee gratefully acknowledges the work and support of Jill Wilson, study director, and Mark S. Hutchins in facilitating information-gathering activities and assisting the committee in the preparation of its report. The committee also acknowledges Karen Febey, who managed the review process; Norman Solomon, who edited the report; Juanita Green, who managed the production; Jennifer J. Weeks, who prepared the manuscript for prepublication web posting; and Javy Awan, Director of Publications, under whose supervision the report was prepared for publication. Thanks go to Amelia Mathis for arranging meetings and providing administrative support to the committee. This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The committee thanks the following individuals for their review of this report: Colin Drury, State University of New York (emeritus), Buffalo; Antonio Elias, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Dulles, Virginia; John Fischer, Congressional Research Service (retired), Washington, D.C.; Mark Hansen, University of California, Berkeley; Mark Harrison, University of California, Los Angeles; Paul Hogan, Lewin Group, Fairfax, Virginia; Melissa Mallis, M3Alertness Management, LLC, Courtdale, Pennsylvania; Michael Powderly, Airspace Solutions, Marietta, Georgia; and John Strong, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. Although these reviewers provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the committee’s findings or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review was overseen by National Academy of Sciences members Charles Manski, Northwestern University, and Susan Hanson, Clark University (emerita). Appointed by NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. —Amy R. Pritchett, Chair Committee for a Study of FAA Air Traffic Controller Staffing

OCR for page R1
x Federal Aviation Administration’s Approach for Determining Future Air Traffic Controller Staffing Needs REFERENCES Abbreviation NRC National Research Council NRC. 2013. Assessment of Staffing Needs of Systems Specialists in Aviation. National Academies, Washington, D.C. NRC. 2014. Interim Report of a Review of the Next Generation Air Transportation System Enterprise Architecture, Software, Safety, and Human Factors. National Academies, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
Preface xi Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and abbreviations used in the report are listed below. A4A Airlines for America AATF Airport and Airway Trust Fund AIP Airport Improvement Program AIR21 Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century ALA Office of Labor Analysis ANSP air navigation service provider ARTCC air route traffic control center ASA Airservices Australia ASIAS Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing System ASRS Aviation Safety Reporting System ATADS Air Traffic Activity Data System ATC air traffic control ATCT airport traffic control tower ATO Air Traffic Organization ATSAP Air Traffic Safety Action Program BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics CAMI Civil Aerospace Medical Institute CANSO Civil Air Navigation Services Organization CBO Congressional Budget Office CEW controller equivalent workforce CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPC certified professional controller CPC-IT certified professional controller in training CWP controller workforce plan DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung DSFM daily staffing forecast model DSR daily staffing requirements ERAM En Route Automation Modernization ERR employee request for reassignment EVT En Route Validation Tool FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulations FCT Federal Contract Tower Program FFT field focus team FRMS Fatigue Risk Management System FTE full-time equivalent FY fiscal year GA general aviation GAO Government Accountability Office GOMS goals, operators, methods, and selection rules HSI human–systems integration ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

OCR for page R1
xii Federal Aviation Administration’s Approach for Determining Future Air Traffic Controller Staffing Needs IFR instrument flight rules NAS National Airspace System NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NATCA National Air Traffic Controllers Association NATS National Air Traffic Services NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System NRC National Research Council NTSB National Transportation Safety Board OIG Office of the Inspector General OJT on-the-job training OMB Office of Management and Budget OPAS Operational Planning and Scheduling OPC on-position controllers OPD optimized profile descent PATCO Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization PQC position-qualified controller PTT positions to traffic REDAC Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee SCM shift coverage model SMS safety management system SUI service unit input TAF Terminal Area Forecasts TAF-M Terminal Area Forecast Modernization TARP Traffic Analysis and Review Program TRACON terminal radar approach control TRB Transportation Research Board TVT Terminal Validation Tool UAS unmanned aircraft systems USDOD United States Department of Defense USDOT United States Department of Transportation VFR visual flight rules

OCR for page R1
Contents Summary.........................................................................................................................................1 Safety in Staffing .......................................................................................................................2 Determination of Workforce Size ..............................................................................................2 Cost-Effective and Safe Scheduling ..........................................................................................4 Budgets and Cost-Effectiveness ...............................................................................................5 1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................7 Air Traffic Controller Functions and Facilities .........................................................................7 Staffing Challenge ...................................................................................................................12 FAA’s Staffing Process............................................................................................................14 Charge to the Committee .........................................................................................................15 Organization of Report ...........................................................................................................17 2 Aviation Safety and Controller Staffing ..............................................................................19 Indicators of the Relationships Between Controller Staffing and Aviation Safety .................19 Safety of FAA’s Contract Tower Program ..............................................................................22 Fatigue and ATC ......................................................................................................................23 Moving Forward: Monitoring for Staffing’s Impact on Safety and on Safety Culture ...........28 Summary ..................................................................................................................................31 Findings and Recommendations ..............................................................................................32 3 Evaluation of Staffing Standards .........................................................................................36 Model-Based Generation of Staffing Standards ......................................................................36 Staffing Range Inputs and Calculation ....................................................................................47 Schedule Creation ....................................................................................................................48 Communication and Engagement ............................................................................................49 Summary ..................................................................................................................................50 Findings and Recommendations ..............................................................................................50 4 Development and Implementation of Staffing Plan ............................................................53 Facility Staffing Status .............................................................................................................53 Staff Planning...........................................................................................................................59 Annual Staffing Plan ................................................................................................................60 Staffing Plan Execution ...........................................................................................................62 Transfers ..................................................................................................................................63 Strategies to Improve Facility Staffing ....................................................................................66 Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................................69

OCR for page R1
5 Staffing Implications of the Next Generation Air Transportation System ......................73 Potential Long-Term Impact of NextGen on Staffing .............................................................73 NextGen Considerations and the Controller Workforce Plan..................................................74 Effective Controller Training and Selection for NextGen Operations ....................................75 Staffing Pressures with NextGen Near- and Midterm Deployment ........................................76 Controller Participation in the NextGen Development Process ..............................................76 Findings and Recommendations ..............................................................................................77 6 Current and Estimated Budgets for Air Traffic Control Staffing ....................................80 Current Budget .........................................................................................................................80 Revenues ..................................................................................................................................84 Future Revenues.......................................................................................................................88 Anticipated ATO Budgets........................................................................................................89 Policy Options..........................................................................................................................91 Summary ..................................................................................................................................95 7 Findings and Recommendations...........................................................................................97 Safety and Controller Staffing .................................................................................................97 FAA’s Process for Estimating Controller Staffing Needs .......................................................99 Staff Planning and Execution of Staffing Plan ......................................................................102 New Technology and Operations with NextGen ...................................................................104 Overall Consistency, Transparency, and Communication with Regard to Controller Staffing ..................................................................................104 Controller Productivity and Traffic Activity .........................................................................105 Affordable Controller Staffing ...............................................................................................107 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................108 Appendix: Federal Aviation Administration’s Methodological Approach to the Preparation of Terminal Area Forecasts .................................................................................111 Legacy TAF ...........................................................................................................................111 Terminal Area Forecast Modernization .................................................................................112 Study Committee Biographical Information ...........................................................................114