By
giving its imprimatur to affirmative action, the Supreme Court has helped AA
become a palpable part of the American experience. Offered here in a moment is
an evaluation of that doctrine as it relates to air controllers.
The
air traffic control system that has been nothing short of miraculous.
Old-timers like me can never be complacent about this matter; we remember too
well the old days when buying the paper in the morning risked facing a
half-page headline announcing a new air crash. The FAA, however, has not been
able to keep its hands off the system. Specifically, character and personality,
not technical skills are now the first hurdle for would-be
controllers.
Until
two years ago most would-be air controllers would apply for training at a CTI
(Collegiate Training Initiative) School. If admitted based on some combination
of their academic record and piloting experience, and if able to finish the
program, candidates would qualify to sit for the eight-hour AT-SAT, a test
primarily of skills relevant to the job. Upon passing that test, and after an
interview, they would be eligible for FAA training, at the end of which they
could work as apprentice controllers for two years and then be certified as
full-fledged controllers. In
2014 the FAA overhauled the system. Most important, CTI experience was no
longer its first test for admission to FAA training. Nor did aviation
experience count, only a high school degree, a few years of work experience in
any area, and a passing score on a Biographical Questionnaire (to be discussed
shortly). Only then are candidates eligible to take the AT-SAT and, upon
passing, qualify for FAA training. The result: one-third of those qualifying
for FAA training now have no CTI, military or other aviation-related training.
At the same time, over 90% of air traffic control students have failed the
biographical test, including some who had extensive military experience and who
had earned the highest scores on their AT-SAT exams. These folks were thus
ineligible for ultimate FAA certification.
How
to assess the FAA changes, especially given a shortage of controllers? On the
one hand, since human lives hang in the balance, more than the usual amount of
caution would seem to be called for before an overhaul. The horror felt over
the recent loss of the EgyptAir plane shows how deeply invested we are in
airline safety. On the other hand, the testing system, for reasons that are not
clear, has resulted in relatively few minority and women controllers. (The FAA
has been tight-lipped about air control matters. What is known is that the pass
rate for minorities on the AT-SAT in 2015 was only two-thirds
that of whites.)
In
the light of contemporary economic and political conditions, no one can
seriously deny that it would be wonderful to leave our children a world in
which minorities are proportionately represented in employment. In this
respect, the old system was indeed “broke,” a point highlighted by acknowledged
EEOC pressure on the FAA to ensure a more inclusive air control system and by
FAA chief Michael Huerta’s specific
statement on the diversity objectives of the FAA.
In
keeping with its original and continuing mandate to ensure safe and efficient
air travel, the public face the FAA puts on possible tension between the two
goals is a firm denial that any diversity objective lies behind the changes.
How to proceed? Since the FAA has shied away from any real analysis, we
have to do it ourselves.
Air
traffic controllers would seem to be like pilots and surgeons who, above all,
must master highly technical skills. Under the new FAA policy , however, the
first test for qualification is not knowledge but “risk
tolerance,” “dependability,” “cooperation,” “resilience,” and “stress
tolerance,” qualities that the AT-SAT test cannot reveal.
Hence
the Biographical Questionnaire. But does the BQ measure the very qualities the
FAA claims to seek? For obvious reasons test questions are not released.
Fortunately, however, a few items from the mostly multiple choice 2014 test
have leaked out. “The number
of different high school sports I played in was A) 4 or more… B) 3… C)
2… D)1… E) Didn’t play sports.” “I would rather be known as a person who is
very a. determined b. respectful.” I am more a, eager, b. considerate.” Daily
News Los Angeles. “I would rather be known as a person who is very a.
determined b. respectful.” Other questions related to how candidates
describe “your ideal job” and the major cause of “your failures.”
Can
these tests be taken seriously, especially when students self-assess in the
privacy of their own homes, and can thus be coached, when tests can be retaken,
and when controllers spend their shifts in control rooms? Will these kinds of
questions say anything useful about risk tolerance et al? Will the major causes
of perceived failure change from year to year?
As
might be expected, reports
of cheating have emerged. A group of sympathetic FAA employees
apparently fed some minority candidates questions as well as “correct” answers.
(I have not been able to learn what discipline those employees faced.)
But
beyond the cheating and the self-assessment, it is simply inconceivable that
the number of sports activities a candidate played in high school is more
relevant to success in air control than successful service as an air traffic
controller in the military for five years. Indeed, a report by
the government’s own Office of Aerospace Medicine calling for Questionnaire
“biodata” to be tested for validity supports this skepticism.
Since
we cannot be sure that the FAA can be trusted to put safety first, its initial
mandate, one has to wonder whether diversity might be weighted too heavily.
The larger point here is that the FAA has not been straight with us. The
first order of FAA business then should be to explain itself in full. Has
technology replaced the need for technical skill? If the FAA continues to
stonewall, we are left with the kind of government arrogance that rallies
people to Donald Trump and, to the extent that the FAA is training people who
may not have competitive skills, to a distinct sense of foreboding.
Dan
Subotnik, Professor at Touro Law School, is author of “Toxic Diversity, Race,
Gender, and Law Talk” (NYU) and many articles (the latest in Academic
Questions).
