My Etihad flight from North America increased 3 fold compared to pre corona, I am not sure what people in important roles are paid so less with environment so toxic
It's not really the same problem but a good example of the end result (spoiler alert: dead peoples). Lake Constance was mostly due to faulty procedures, technical intervention and bad habits (letting a colleague work alone during night shift coffee breaks) and those lessons have been well learned as Skyguide is now one of the safest ANSP, refusing to increase capacity because of all those safety measures.
FAA is another really scary story. 6 days of 10h shifts with 8 to 9h of rest is just insane. As a euro ATCO I know for a fact that we would never accept that, we have way more days off, a minimum of 11h rest time and are never called to work more nor work more than the contracted hour. As a matter of fact it is the opposite, we usually work less hours a day than what is planned.
Maybe it is a different work culture between US and EU but we won't sacrifice ourselves for the company. If we are understaffed we will let it happen, reduce capacity or even close some airspace and let the company lose money and credibility.
Anyway, as we often say, everybody working in the aviation industry is tired because of the shifts. Just don't let the PAX know about it.
Usually I like to just read comments, get a feel for where society is. I love the comments in this, it can be summarized as "throw AI at it" and "more tax dollars will fix it".
Lets all forget that we have put the airline industry on government life support through regulation and bailouts, thats turned the biggest companies into tumors that survive off their (literal) monopoly rights. We can all pretend we didnt dehumanize the staff on/off-board with vaccine mandates that simultaneously violated their human rights and failed to stop infection or transmission (as they were promised).
Yep, fat, lazy, unprincipled american voters to the rescue, throw in some rhetoric about how we are going to tax the rich (then tax poor/middle class people who dont have their own LLC), replace the workers woth AI, and incoherently froth about your political opponents.
Or, you know, we could start privatizing it. Calm down, its OK, I was a nuclear reactor operator in the navy, I can assure you it will only ever get worse.
Except, the jab didnt prevent infection or transmission, so what difference does it make?
More pertinently, you are referring to the ends justifying the means. If Hitler had succeeded in making a utopian society where everything is just great, would he have been justified in the methods he used to achieve it?
There will always be some ambitious goal, something society could achieve, if we could just get these people on board. You know, they are just in the way, they are holding society back! What follows that logic is never good for society, and look at what its created in ours; there is a contingent of ~60 million americans that never got vaccinated and are royally pissed about those mandates, probably tens of millions more that were effectively coerced into vaccination, and of these groups a disproportionate amount are gun owners.
So, greater good, is it a good thing that something like 50 million gun owners now see their political opponents as a threat to their way of life? Do you think that kind of force could be stopped if things ever turned sour in this country? Are you so certain in the authority and power of your own political alliance that you dont think thats, an issue?
Yikes. What a weird thing to try to make it about race. So to clarify, if you're not white and male, then obviously you're just not serious about a job because you're a "diversity" hire and not a serious person. Got it.
Right, so if you're not the hiring manager, how do you know someone is a "diversity hire" though? Isn't it racist to just assume someone was hired as a "diversity hire"? Most importantly, people tend to hire people like themselves, if the hiring manager is white it's most likely they'll hire someone who is white regardless if they're more qualified, but I doubt anyone ever questions those hires.
You should not know and should not take it in consideration but in the USA this is part of the application. I understand the whole point is to make sure diverse candidate are not discriminated against (and of course that would be a ridiculous thing to do), but it seems to have been perverted into caricaturical discrimination _for_, even favoring a diverse incompetent candidate over a non-diverse competent one.
> but it seems to have been perverted into caricaturical discrimination _for_, even favoring a diverse incompetent candidate over a non-diverse competent one.
That's a crazy claim told without any proof. I don't see any studies, sources linked in your comment. That just sounds like your own anecdotal perspective.
> Are you saying there is not a single non white male among the veteran group?
I am not saying that and yes that would be obvious. That doesn't negate anything about how it's on the "diversity hires" and not the veterans pointed out in this thread, lol
It's all just speculation.
> The point is, people in this position should be hired based on merit regardless of their race, sex, or anything else.
What's your proof that people aren't hired based on merit regardless of their race, sex, or anything else though? Just wild speculation on your part? lol
I was complaining about them caring about diversity so much that they drastically reduced the hiring standards so they could fill ATC with diverse candidates quickly.
Also, I think it's racist and discriminatory towards young white people.
The most obvious answer is people flew, drove, and studied less and so all the things people are bringing up are showing up worse than average after due to lack of practice. I definitely drive way less now / thenm
To stimulate discussion perhaps? Because it is a related topic (regardless of whether or not there is direct correlation). Hiring people based on skin color rather than skills is a problem, esp. with industries where lives are at stake.
Blaming DEI is a dog-whistle for 'people should know their place' The Free Beacon, Fox News, and the other last four you listed are in the business of telling old white people to be afraid of everything.
It's the same as denying someone a job because they are not culture fit for a company. It's because the people doing the hiring only want to hire people from their background, college, etc.
The safety issues and staffing levels have been an issue since Reagan fired the PATCO ATC workers. It's getting worse because traffic loads are increasing and it is getting harder to staff for a stressful safety-critical job.
> Blaming DEI is a dog-whistle for 'people should know their place'
This is a very common trope: claim to have dog-level hearing for detecting what people really mean. Very often, including likely this time, it's totally inaccurate, and just means no discussion can be done as one of the parties relentlessly ad hominems the other.
It took 10 years after Reagan fired the controllers to get the workforce back to pre-1981 levels. This caused a ripple effect because the people that were hired were around the same age. The result was the FAA had to deal with large sections of the ATSC workforce retiring at 56(the legal maximum for an air traffic controller) in bunches. The FAA has struggled since this to maintain adequate staffing levels due to high stress nature of the job.
> The staffing issue at FAA dates back to 1981 when air traffic controllers went on strike and President Reagan fired them en masse. Subsequent hiring created a retirement wave around 2005 that the agency has long struggled to address.
The retirement wave just means that they didn't hire to plan for succession properly. That's not a union task. And many presidents have come and gone between Reagan and now; it seems strange not to mention that and talk as though he set in motion an unswervable chain of events.
Air traffic is up this year only 4%, would that naturally correspond to a 65% increase in significant incidents?
The issue isn't whether or not people are tacitly insisting certain people "deserve" to be in certain positions due to their race/background, and those against DEI are lamenting the loss of the soft apartheid we had in the US that gradually eroded with the civil rights movement. The issue is: in chasing demographic targets, are jobs lowering their standards for employment, and are those lowered standards causing a hazard for those impacted by the performance of those who work those jobs?
The load on the National Airspace System (NAS) has been growing each year, with slight a dip due to COVID.
The FAA has provides 20-year outlooks for a set of metrics, including the number of operations performed with the NAS.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-06/FY2022_42_FA...
See Page 33 and 34 for a breakdown in the numbers. We're looking at 50 million to 62 million operations per year within the NAS.
The question asking if DEI is lowering standards is bunk because it is pre-loading the assumption that the best qualified workers are the what was there traditional (straight white males) and that somehow allowing others in requires lowering some standards.
For the purposes of the FAA air traffic control specialists, everyone who applies must go to the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City, OK and pass the the courses and tests provided there.
They are then transferred to their home facilities where they must become certified for the position that they have been hired in. This requires additional tests, training, simulations, shadowing, and fully supervised workloads. If you become certified for a position and sector, it means that you can safely manage air traffic. Failure at any step along the way means that you wash out. The FAA does not lower standards for ATCS.
See the following research paper on ATCS failure rates, rationales, and percentages.
https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi...
>The question asking if DEI is lowering standards is bunk
>The FAA does not lower standards for ATCS.
What's your take on this then?
>The hiring process for aspiring federal air traffic controllers from approved Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) institutions has undergone several revisions in recent years. Prior to 2014, graduates from AT-CTI programs were given preferential hiring from the FAA. In 2014, the FAA announced that AT-CTI graduates would equally compete with thousands of people the FAA calls βoff the street hiresβ--anyone can literally walk in off the street without any previous training and apply for a federal air traffic control job. To apply, the FAA requires that a candidate has United States (U.S.) citizenship, a high school diploma, speaks English, and passes the FAAβs new Biographical Questionnaire (BQ).
>Another concerning perspective from AT-CTI administrators is that CTI graduates are at an employment disadvantage with the new hiring initiatives. One of the responding administrators expressed concern that off the street applicants have increased odds of employment over CTI applicants because CTI students are combined in track one with Veteranβs Readjustment Appointment (VRA) applicants putting CTI students second while all off the street applicants are grouped as one and have an equal opportunity for selection.
>The new FAA hiring protocol for federal air traffic controllers that was implemented in February 2014 included several significant changes. In particular, the FAA reduced the role of the CTI-approved program; therefore, the only remaining advantage for CTI graduates is that they are eligible to bypass the Air Traffic Basics Course, which is the first five weeks of qualification training at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City (FAA, 2018). In addition, the FAA introduced the Biographical Questionnaire which was envisioned to predict controller performance through a process of asking individuals to recall their typical and/or specific behaviors from earlier times in their lives. But due to the lengthy process of hiring and training an air traffic controller which can take several years, it is too soon to conclude whether the FAAβs new hiring policies improved the ability to hire individuals who are more likely to successfully become federal controllers (FAA, 2017b).
This publication specifically questions whether the new hiring process selects more qualified individuals than the old hiring policies. It also seems to corroborate some of the claims made in the Wall Street Journal article:
>> The safety issues and staffing levels have been an issue since Reagan fired the PATCO ATC workers.
This seems to be you shoehorning in political beliefs. You can't analyze a situation by taking a list things done by politicians you don't like and picking out the ones with the same keywords.
It's not reasonable to blame a recent 65% year over year increase in safety events to an event that happened 42 years ago. Federal Air Traffic Control was created 45 years before Reagan's firings, so they've had as much time to recover from Reagan that as they had to get to wherever they were when Reagan came along.
DEI where D = Diversity, E = Equity (NOT Equality) and I = Inclusion.
Diversity is achieved for sake of achieving the diversity. When they do not find qualified people who are described to be diverse, they lower the standards in every industry. Same is the case for FAA.
FAA lowering their standards to increase diversity
From the article: The FAA discarded its longtime use of the difficult cognitive assessment test and implemented instead a new, unmonitored take-home personality testβa biographical questionnaire. Among the questions asked are: βThe number of high school sports I participated in was β¦ β βHow would you describe your ideal job?β βWhat has been the major cause of your failures?β βMore classmates would remember me as humble or dominant?β
Here is another example of lowering standards: Oregon governor signs bill ending reading and math proficiency requirements for graduation
From the article: Backers argued the existing proficiency levels for math and reading presented an unfair challenge for students who do not test well, and Boyle said the new standards for graduation would aid Oregon's "Black, Latino, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color."
Again, it comes to, lower the standards for everyone to achieve diversity. Proponents of diversity blow the horn that it raises our standards, which is a lie. That would be true if there were true diversity, based on merit but DEI is all about Equity same outcome irrespective of skills, efforts or qualifications.
From what to what? What counts as βserious?β What percentage of flights? Which kind of flights? How many of them are commercial passenger (as opposed to cargo)? Can the variance be ascribed to noise?
Sorry if some of these questions can be answered from the paywalled article. But my gut says that this is making news out of nothing important.
> In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, there were 503 air traffic control lapses that the F.A.A. preliminarily categorized as βsignificant,β 65 percent more than in the prior year, according to internal agency reports reviewed by The Times. During that period, air traffic increased about 4 percent.
Is there a plane about to crash? Say 1 for not sure, 2 for normal business hours, 3 for no, or 4 for I'M SORRY I didn't catch that, say 1 for not sure...
That's assuming AI still stay as it is forever.
In 3-5 years every job that can be done on a computer will be able to be done better by an AI designed for that job. The only issue will be adoption, not the tech itself.
All jobs done on a computer are information processing. AI is approaching human level information processing in every benchmark we can throw at it. By the time it eclipses all trained humans, using an AI to do a human job will be a no-brainer, as AI's:
1. Don't require health insurance/mental health leave/PTO
2. Can work 24/7
3. Are infinitely replicatable
4. More interpretable/modifiable than human intelligence
2 years ago the best AI art models were worse than 99% of human artists, now they're better than 99% of them. The same thing will happen to every skill that isn't based on motor/sensory abilities.
FWIW Obamaβs administration instituted a diversity program for ATC that gave points to people that did poorly in school and havenβt had a job recently and penalized people with pilots licenses or military ATC experience and other qualifications. The ATC was considered βtoo whiteβ.
In essence they worked backwards to figure out how to hit their arbitrary diversity targets without considering the lives of everyone that flies. Yes, they put your life at risk to fulfill an anti-racism agenda. This is criminal.
"Affirmative Action Lands in the Air Traffic Control Tower", Wall Street Journal (June 2, 2015): https://archive.is/lDyOB
>A recently completed six-month investigation by Fox Business Network found that the Federal Aviation Administration has quietly moved away from merit-based hiring criteria in order to increase the number of women and minorities who staff airport control towers. The changes come despite the fact that the FAAβs own internal reports describe the evidence for changing the hiring process as βweak.β
>Until 2013, the FAA gave hiring preference to controller applicants who earned a degree from one of its Collegiate Training Initiative schools and scored high enough on an eight-hour screening test called the Air Traffic Selection and Training exam, or AT-SAT, which measures cognitive skills. The Obama administration, however, determined that the process excluded too many from minority groups.
This is very troubling if it is true, but the reporting felt a bit thin. If there was an article with interviews and more concrete evidence I would be more satisfied.
"Fox Business (officially known as Fox Business Network, or FBN) is an American conservative business news channel and website publication owned by the Fox News Media division of Fox Corporation."
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Business
Here's an academic publication from 2018, but it doesn't seem to make any explicit claims about diversity related reasons for the changes in the hiring process:
>The hiring process for aspiring federal air traffic controllers from approved Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) institutions has undergone several revisions in recent years. Prior to 2014, graduates from AT-CTI programs were given preferential hiring from the FAA. In 2014, the FAA announced that AT-CTI graduates would equally compete with thousands of people the FAA calls βoff the street hiresβ--anyone can literally walk in off the street without any previous training and apply for a federal air traffic control job. To apply, the FAA requires that a candidate has United States (U.S.) citizenship, a high school diploma, speaks English, and passes the FAAβs new Biographical Questionnaire (BQ).
>Another concerning perspective from AT-CTI administrators is that CTI graduates are at an employment disadvantage with the new hiring initiatives. One of the responding administrators expressed concern that off the street applicants have increased odds of employment over CTI applicants because CTI students are combined in track one with Veteranβs Readjustment Appointment (VRA) applicants putting CTI students second while all off the street applicants are grouped as one and have an equal opportunity for selection.
>The new FAA hiring protocol for federal air traffic controllers that was implemented in February 2014 included several significant changes. In particular, the FAA reduced the role of the CTI-approved program;
therefore, the only remaining advantage for CTI graduates is that they are eligible to bypass the Air Traffic Basics Course, which is the first five weeks of qualification training at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City (FAA, 2018). In addition, the FAA introduced the Biographical Questionnaire which was envisioned to predict controller performance through a process of asking individuals to recall their typical and/or specific behaviors from earlier times in their lives. But due to the lengthy process of hiring and training an air traffic controller which can take several years, it is too soon to conclude whether the FAAβs new hiring policies improved the ability to hire individuals who are more likely to successfully become federal controllers (FAA, 2017b).
A few weeks ago I heard about this from another pilot; I found several sources with a minimum of effort. I only fly in Europe, so I have zero personal experience with what is going on in US, but the narative makes sense to me as I saw it personally in other areas.
>NYT cites overworked employees as the cause but leaves out the ongoing and dangerous agenda in the FAA to prioritize diversity over merit.
I was looking for more info on your claim, not another claim from someone else that only says something was being left out, without actually showing the very thing that was purported to have been elided.
Maybe the problem is diverse employees have less power to negotiate changes and improvements in the workplace like the issues cited in the NY piece - building and infrastructure issues and the short staffing.
Agreed on this (the DEI part, not the obama part. It's much bigger than that.). Previously it was a mutual understand that ATC wouldn't get snarky with pilots in th air until they are on the ground as pilots have the final say.
Lately on youtube, i've seen nothing but bad behavior from ATC. And let's just say, there were certain qualities that were common between the incidents.
What, that 90% of them are from contracted towers, whose contractor can get away with understaffing and overworking their controllers, and the controllers know they won't face consequences, because the FAA has no better solution (money, personnel) for staffing said towers and there's no political drive to force the issue?
It's sad that this is getting downvoted. What you posted is a fact and it should be addressed. We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand just because it's an issue of race.
I think if it were a fact, it would be supported by argument and evidence. What we have here is simply a claim, which was not supported by any evidence. I am perfectly willing to accept that poorly thought out diversity policies can have adverse effects on organizations, which is especially troubling if that organization manages vital infrastructure. But I would need to see good evidence, and argument with that evidence, to prove it, and not just a claim standing alone.
I have no idea whether affirmative action in Air Traffic Control has anything to do with increased incidents. Either way, I think affirmative action as applied here is a travesty.
There's still a lack of any hard evidence beyond a speculative Fox News | Tucker Carlson | Sean Hannity dog whistle article.
The primary article of this submission indicates more that overall systemic changes from the top are the root cause rather than being entirely the workers fault; less staff, more hours, reduced training, etc.
2. People don't leave on HN, demanding an answer and waiting 34 minute before nuking from orbit is illogic.
3. There was a source and some information to support the claim. Also part of the claim is self-explanatory (lowering the standards for new hires to meet some hiring targets).
4. There is ample evidence in so many other places about the effects of lowering standards to meet diverse hiring targets. I cannot publish the results in my own company with close to 100,000 employees because they are not public, but they exist and they are embarrassing at least.
I am not the one that made the claim and I am not interested to support or explain it, but I am disappointed by the reaction: cancel any discussion that does not fit your views. Burn Giordano Bruno at stake, he did not present proof enough and fast enough.
