The FAA's Real Air Traffic Control Crisis Runs Much Deeper(viewfromthewing.com)
viewfromthewing.com
The FAA's Real Air Traffic Control Crisis Runs Much Deeper
https://viewfromthewing.com/collision-on-final-approach-sparks-dei-blame-game-the-faas-real-air-traffic-control-crisis-runs-much-deeper/
102 コメント
Visual separation at night in dense airspace has no checks and no margin for error. There is no way for anyone to tell whether the crew is tracking the correct aircraft or whether they are correctly guessing its attitude etc.
That practice is plainly asking for an accident to happen.
That practice is plainly asking for an accident to happen.
In the UK I know traffic is indicated with a relative position and altitude: “traffic at your 10 o’clock, 2 miles, altitude 1500 feet”.
The ATC for the Reagan crash did not indicate a relative or absolute position, only referencing “the CRJ”, which might be hard to identify in the dark, and the helicopter pilot may have assumed he “had visual”, but was looking at a different aircraft.
The ATC for the Reagan crash did not indicate a relative or absolute position, only referencing “the CRJ”, which might be hard to identify in the dark, and the helicopter pilot may have assumed he “had visual”, but was looking at a different aircraft.
I keep seeing comments that no relative position was given but ATC does provide detail in their initial communications, though not subsequent.
> Traffic just south of the Woodrow Bridge, a CRJ, it's 1,200 feet setting up for Runway 33.
> Traffic just south of the Woodrow Bridge, a CRJ, it's 1,200 feet setting up for Runway 33.
The way this airspace is set up is very unusual where there is only about 150 feet of separation between the approach and the helicopter route. Normally there would be at least 500 feet and more likely 1000 feet of separation. Also the controller did call out the traffic but he wasn’t that specific about where it was, just that it was a CRJ, which you can’t even really tell at night. He also didn’t call out the traffic to the jet. To be fair to the controller though, he was working two positions simultaneously due to a controller shortage. He might have been able to be more helpful if he wasn’t so busy that night.
The controller was specific about the location of the CRJ during initial communication with the Blackhawk.
> Traffic just south of the Woodrow Bridge, a CRJ, it's 1,200 feet setting up for Runway 33.
Subsequent communications in the following minute from both parties were not specific.
> Traffic just south of the Woodrow Bridge, a CRJ, it's 1,200 feet setting up for Runway 33.
Subsequent communications in the following minute from both parties were not specific.
That article makes a very valid point that they need new technology and training, but can't due to internal failures and the whims of congress.
What happened with this accident is a wake call but nothing will change -- the current administration is interested in destroying institutions, not building them up.
What happened with this accident is a wake call but nothing will change -- the current administration is interested in destroying institutions, not building them up.
I imagine this one hits pretty close to home for Congresscritters. You might see some action.
> You might see some action.
One would hope, but it's a tricky thing to do and it's so much easier to do media performances for your constituents.
TFA mentioned that they tried modernizing way back and it was a failure. To make it succeed would require both adequate funding and good governance -- both currently in short supply.
Ironically, DOGE would be perfect for this role if it did what it says on the tin (the GE part of the name). My spidey sense on that it that it's really about doing a Jack Welch number on disliked organizations. But hey, Welch made GE into the powerhouse it is today so there's hope! /s
One would hope, but it's a tricky thing to do and it's so much easier to do media performances for your constituents.
TFA mentioned that they tried modernizing way back and it was a failure. To make it succeed would require both adequate funding and good governance -- both currently in short supply.
Ironically, DOGE would be perfect for this role if it did what it says on the tin (the GE part of the name). My spidey sense on that it that it's really about doing a Jack Welch number on disliked organizations. But hey, Welch made GE into the powerhouse it is today so there's hope! /s
GE powerhouse? Beg to differ.
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/08/26/jack-welch-screwed-up-g...
I had a trailing `/s` there. It was not a compliment on my part.
Ah, didn't notice. My bad.
Flying the helicopter mission with only one crew chief may also have contributed if the chef was distracted or not looking/watching out the left side of the helicopter for the airplane, possibly looking out the right side and/or watching the airport.
TCAS has limitations as you suspect. Below 1000 feet it doesn't make Resolution Advisories (RA) because of the very real risk that it could steer a pilot into terrain. Below 500 feet it doesn't deliver aural warnings, only the visual ones. These are both limitations of the tech as it exists right now, and in theory pilots should be aware of this and be extremely cautious.
Personally I'm in favor of the "Swiss cheese" model of accidents, in which a lot of errors might routinely happen, but they're blocked from leading to an accident by other measures. When however the holes in the cheese line up... boom. There's evidence that there was a culture of accepting near-misses along this route, there's evidence that the training flight ignored best practices, there was a single ATC person managing rotary and fixed wing in that airspace, it was night time, the jet was making an approach to the shorter runway, etc etc.
On any given night one or two of these factors might have lined up, but not all of that. That night however they all lined up, and people died. This notion of failure in depth is the driving force between the total nature of an NTSB investigation, they don't want to find the LAST failure, they want to find ALL of the failures.
Personally I'm in favor of the "Swiss cheese" model of accidents, in which a lot of errors might routinely happen, but they're blocked from leading to an accident by other measures. When however the holes in the cheese line up... boom. There's evidence that there was a culture of accepting near-misses along this route, there's evidence that the training flight ignored best practices, there was a single ATC person managing rotary and fixed wing in that airspace, it was night time, the jet was making an approach to the shorter runway, etc etc.
On any given night one or two of these factors might have lined up, but not all of that. That night however they all lined up, and people died. This notion of failure in depth is the driving force between the total nature of an NTSB investigation, they don't want to find the LAST failure, they want to find ALL of the failures.
How much or what parts of atc can be automated?
If have a feeling it’s what musk will try to do.
If have a feeling it’s what musk will try to do.
Amazes me how much the AI generated slop artwork puts me off the actual content of the article, which I'm assuming is of greater quality.
Makes you assume the article is also at least partially generated by AI
Makes you wonder if an LLM wouldn't be the perfect air traffic controller.
Only one on duty? How about 100 agents continually monitoring
Only one on duty? How about 100 agents continually monitoring
This kind of thinking is why AI hype is dangerous.
Thinking is never bad, it's what happens afterwards that's important.
Certain types of thoughts are definitely "bad" regardless of what comes after.
I'm not sure I'd agree, "Intrusive thoughts" can happen to anyone for example, and it doesn't mean you're a bad person because you literally cannot control them. But what you can control, is acting/listening to those thoughts or not, which for me would be the important part.
> Intrusive thoughts
An intrusive thought is not necessarily a bad one. Bad thoughts are those that are counter-productive and should be avoided. e.g. self loathing, hatred, paranoia and many more.
> it doesn't mean you're a bad person
Nobody suggested that.
> you can control, is acting/
One's thoughts can also be controlled to a large degree. This is why people practice meditation, affirmations, cultivation of wisdom, gratitude etc.
An intrusive thought is not necessarily a bad one. Bad thoughts are those that are counter-productive and should be avoided. e.g. self loathing, hatred, paranoia and many more.
> it doesn't mean you're a bad person
Nobody suggested that.
> you can control, is acting/
One's thoughts can also be controlled to a large degree. This is why people practice meditation, affirmations, cultivation of wisdom, gratitude etc.
> Makes you wonder if an LLM wouldn't be the perfect air traffic controller.
It really doesn't.
It really doesn't.
What happens when a situation that the agent hasn’t been trained on occurs?
Is it going to have the critical thinking skills to understand the situation and make the right decision or is it going to just hallucinate some impossible answer and get people killed?
I’m not saying human controllers don’t make mistakes but this should be one of the last areas to fully automate.
Is it going to have the critical thinking skills to understand the situation and make the right decision or is it going to just hallucinate some impossible answer and get people killed?
I’m not saying human controllers don’t make mistakes but this should be one of the last areas to fully automate.
< ai cant do math
< Let it direct airplanes
< Let it direct airplanes
Makes you wonder if LLMs are in the comments section trying to keep the hype going
This is just the modern equivalent of clip art laden docs from the "desktop publishing" days, it'll pass.
I assume the issue is that stock photography costs money.
And writing has costs too, so if someone is going to look for a way to avoid paying for photography, they are probably also looking for a way to avoid the costs of writing.
If you are running your own blog, often you have the skills to write but not do art... a lot of writers look to AI as a cheap shortcut for this problem.
It appears to be someone’s personal blog.
So what as normies can we do about this? Boycott air travel? Write congress? I'm seriously considering postponing any upcoming air travel. If a core component of safe air travel is antiquated and lacking in resources then it seems incredibly foolish to risk our lives any further taking this form of transportation.
So is someone making jokes of our reality? No really, think about it:
RONALD REAGAN AIRPORT has a disaster because of decades-long crisis of too few air-traffic controllers available?
Reagan fired thousands upon thousands of ATC because they dared to ask for proper wages.
That seems like an odd place to put his name.
(oh and this had nothing to do with DEI, just like all attacks on DEI are ridiculous and just people being trolls for entertainment)
RONALD REAGAN AIRPORT has a disaster because of decades-long crisis of too few air-traffic controllers available?
Reagan fired thousands upon thousands of ATC because they dared to ask for proper wages.
That seems like an odd place to put his name.
(oh and this had nothing to do with DEI, just like all attacks on DEI are ridiculous and just people being trolls for entertainment)
What about the meta-metaphors of a literal "american airline" full of civilians minding its own business and following the rules and then literally t-boned by an american war machine. Also, they were leaving Dwight D. Eisenhower airport in Kansas. Eisenhower, the supreme commander of allied forces in WW2 who warned against the "military industrial complex". Wichita has so many air-related industries there that it was once known as the "Air capital of the world" and it's still its primary industry.
There's probably also something there about the fact that the plane was a Canadian one (Bombardier) whose name means "the guy releasing the bombs in a bomber". And also, the Bombardier company was started by a guy just trying to get people around (mass transit) in the winter time (via the first good snowmobiles B7, B12 - powered by american-made engines from Ford/Chrysler). And the helicopter was from a US company started by a Russian immigrant (Sikorsky) who immigrated to the US to escape the Russian Revolution after making bombers (that hold bombardiers) in WW1. And the helicopter crashed into a river, Potomac, named after the Algonquian word for a native american city and was itself named after a native american war chief (Black Hawk) that fought alongside the Canadians/British in the war of 1812 (where the white house and capitol were set on fire) to "push away white settlers". The helicopter left a fort (Fort Belvoir) named after a former slave plantation. The airfield it departed was named after a WW2 aviation engineer (Davison) and where Army One, the helicopter that carried Eisenhower, used to be based. In addition to the Black Hawks, the airfield is also home to 4 cessnas used in civilian air patrol - made in Wichita.
There's probably also something there about the fact that the plane was a Canadian one (Bombardier) whose name means "the guy releasing the bombs in a bomber". And also, the Bombardier company was started by a guy just trying to get people around (mass transit) in the winter time (via the first good snowmobiles B7, B12 - powered by american-made engines from Ford/Chrysler). And the helicopter was from a US company started by a Russian immigrant (Sikorsky) who immigrated to the US to escape the Russian Revolution after making bombers (that hold bombardiers) in WW1. And the helicopter crashed into a river, Potomac, named after the Algonquian word for a native american city and was itself named after a native american war chief (Black Hawk) that fought alongside the Canadians/British in the war of 1812 (where the white house and capitol were set on fire) to "push away white settlers". The helicopter left a fort (Fort Belvoir) named after a former slave plantation. The airfield it departed was named after a WW2 aviation engineer (Davison) and where Army One, the helicopter that carried Eisenhower, used to be based. In addition to the Black Hawks, the airfield is also home to 4 cessnas used in civilian air patrol - made in Wichita.
[deleted]
The air traffic controller union was asking for a 32-hour work week and a $10,000 a year raise. The counter offer would give them salaries higher than the private sector, but keep the work week at 5 days instead of 4. So they went on strike.
After the workers disobeyed a Federal judge's orders to return to work, they were fired.
EDIT: It's so funny that if you make any comment that doesn't tow the left wing narrative here on HN you're down voted. I'm not right or left, but find it kinda sad.
After the workers disobeyed a Federal judge's orders to return to work, they were fired.
EDIT: It's so funny that if you make any comment that doesn't tow the left wing narrative here on HN you're down voted. I'm not right or left, but find it kinda sad.
There are privately-employed air traffic controllers?
The salaries were in comparison to the private sector. TBH I'm not sure what jobs & ages they chose to compare Federal salaries to the private sector. Seems kinda arbitrary. Perhaps it was in comparison to private sector union workers?
Yes, a number of smaller airports are staffed by contract tower controllers.
Do the reasons for firing them (looked it up, over 11,000 !) even matter?
Because the remainder and future employment prospects for ATC simply looked at how they were treated and how they had absolutely no options and decided to NOPE NOPE out of that profession.
And so here we are:
naming airports after people whose actions eventually led to the specific reasons for the disaster
Because the remainder and future employment prospects for ATC simply looked at how they were treated and how they had absolutely no options and decided to NOPE NOPE out of that profession.
And so here we are:
naming airports after people whose actions eventually led to the specific reasons for the disaster
You said "Reagan fired thousands upon thousands of ATC because they dared to ask for proper wages." All I did was correct you, and I didn't do so rudely. The rational reaction would be, "Huh, this issue is more complex than I initially thought. I should learn more about it."
Why isn't air traffic control run by the military in the US like it is in other countries?
In the 1980’s Reagan fired all members of PATCO, the air traffic controller union and replaced them with military personnel until a new cohort could be trained.
here are the bits as I've come to understand them:
- there was a similar incident just the day before where a helicopter's path came close to a similar plane. It was high enough, so the plane received the TCAS (traffic alert/collision avoidance) 'resolution advisory' warning and made the proper actions.
- warnings from TCAS are inhibited under 1000ft because they would be full of false/nuisance warnings that close to the ground and potentially suggest unsafe evasive maneuvers.
- the helicopter was following a designated route along the river as the general guide
- the helicopter went a bit higher than the designated ceiling (and that probably happens pretty often).
- the incoming airplane was following the 'glideslope' of the 'instrument landing system'
- the helicopter crew may have been wearing night vision goggles. such goggles can affect ability to see periphery. Also, nighttime lights of a city can appear bright and distracting.
- the helicopter crew of 3 may have been less than other similar flights
- airplane was initially looking to land on the longer runway #1 but was asked by the ATC to use #33 instead (their smaller plane could use it fine). They take awhile considering it and then accept it. They had to slightly change the angle of their approach. This may have been a choice to simplify the workload for the ATC controller.
- There was one controller handling both the plane and helicopter traffic and one left earlier
- the plane and atc use VHF to communicate while the military helicopter uses UHF, thus, the plane had no awareness of any communications with the helicopter
- the ATC mentions the presence of the plane to the helicopter. the helicopter says they see them and request "visual separation" which is basically 'we can see them, so we can move around them accordingly'
So, it's possible the helicopter was looking at a different plane/set of lights when they mentioned that they had them in sight. Another plane had just taken off from runway 1. It's also possible that they saw the CRJ plane and just misjudged its location (maybe due to the turn they were making for the alignment to land?).
As for systems issues, it seems there's no way for ATC to know just which plane a helicopter (or other plane) is referring to when they 'confirm' seeing it.
It's interesting to note that some airlines actually forbid "visual separation" at nighttime due to the safety concerns (misidentifications, conflicting city lights, human perception). (eg, KLM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rdapQfJDAM)) US ATC might prefer visual separation which means that planes can be closer together in lining up to land whereas an instrument approach means a bigger gap. (More planes landing means more money for airports?)
It seems like the 'glidescope' area when landing should be treated like a 3d extension of the runway -- keep planes and craft out of it during a plane's landing. Anything crossing into it should be treated like a "runway incursion" (which is also clearly a problem that the US needs to fix...In someways, this crash might be seen as an extension of that issue?)
There needs to be a way to verify just which planes a craft is "confirming visual' of - especially at night.
- there was a similar incident just the day before where a helicopter's path came close to a similar plane. It was high enough, so the plane received the TCAS (traffic alert/collision avoidance) 'resolution advisory' warning and made the proper actions.
- warnings from TCAS are inhibited under 1000ft because they would be full of false/nuisance warnings that close to the ground and potentially suggest unsafe evasive maneuvers.
- the helicopter was following a designated route along the river as the general guide
- the helicopter went a bit higher than the designated ceiling (and that probably happens pretty often).
- the incoming airplane was following the 'glideslope' of the 'instrument landing system'
- the helicopter crew may have been wearing night vision goggles. such goggles can affect ability to see periphery. Also, nighttime lights of a city can appear bright and distracting.
- the helicopter crew of 3 may have been less than other similar flights
- airplane was initially looking to land on the longer runway #1 but was asked by the ATC to use #33 instead (their smaller plane could use it fine). They take awhile considering it and then accept it. They had to slightly change the angle of their approach. This may have been a choice to simplify the workload for the ATC controller.
- There was one controller handling both the plane and helicopter traffic and one left earlier
- the plane and atc use VHF to communicate while the military helicopter uses UHF, thus, the plane had no awareness of any communications with the helicopter
- the ATC mentions the presence of the plane to the helicopter. the helicopter says they see them and request "visual separation" which is basically 'we can see them, so we can move around them accordingly'
So, it's possible the helicopter was looking at a different plane/set of lights when they mentioned that they had them in sight. Another plane had just taken off from runway 1. It's also possible that they saw the CRJ plane and just misjudged its location (maybe due to the turn they were making for the alignment to land?).
As for systems issues, it seems there's no way for ATC to know just which plane a helicopter (or other plane) is referring to when they 'confirm' seeing it.
It's interesting to note that some airlines actually forbid "visual separation" at nighttime due to the safety concerns (misidentifications, conflicting city lights, human perception). (eg, KLM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rdapQfJDAM)) US ATC might prefer visual separation which means that planes can be closer together in lining up to land whereas an instrument approach means a bigger gap. (More planes landing means more money for airports?)
It seems like the 'glidescope' area when landing should be treated like a 3d extension of the runway -- keep planes and craft out of it during a plane's landing. Anything crossing into it should be treated like a "runway incursion" (which is also clearly a problem that the US needs to fix...In someways, this crash might be seen as an extension of that issue?)
There needs to be a way to verify just which planes a craft is "confirming visual' of - especially at night.
Uh oh, you posted something factual that invites questions. HN not going to like this...
>>>Facing pressure to diversify an overwhelmingly white workforce, the FAA began using a biographical test as a first screen of candidates. Minority candidates were fed “buzz words” to bump their resumes up to top priority. Apparently saying your worst subject in school was science served as a golden ticket. Correct answers to the take-home biographical questionnaire were given in their entirety. These questionnaires were later banned. This was dumb, but it’s not the problem.<<<
Ok, besides the fact that this, along with the evidence that the magic keywords were given in secret to special groups, is blatantly illegal, after they banned it, what did the criteria become? What is the criteria today?
Did they switch to a primarily merit/skills based assessment of candidates? Did they lower standards and if so, by how much? Have they tracked their assessment performance against real-world performance across the ATC pool?
>>>Facing pressure to diversify an overwhelmingly white workforce, the FAA began using a biographical test as a first screen of candidates. Minority candidates were fed “buzz words” to bump their resumes up to top priority. Apparently saying your worst subject in school was science served as a golden ticket. Correct answers to the take-home biographical questionnaire were given in their entirety. These questionnaires were later banned. This was dumb, but it’s not the problem.<<<
Ok, besides the fact that this, along with the evidence that the magic keywords were given in secret to special groups, is blatantly illegal, after they banned it, what did the criteria become? What is the criteria today?
Did they switch to a primarily merit/skills based assessment of candidates? Did they lower standards and if so, by how much? Have they tracked their assessment performance against real-world performance across the ATC pool?
So how it works is there's a selection process to go to ATC school/training.
Just getting into training doesn't mean you get to be a controller, you get tested a lot and hard with very representative work (a close relative failed this actually), and only get to be an ATC if you pass well enough.
I think maybe you misread the article, because it explicitly says "Note that leaving behind qualified applicants from Collegiate Training isn’t why we don’t have more controllers"
Just getting into training doesn't mean you get to be a controller, you get tested a lot and hard with very representative work (a close relative failed this actually), and only get to be an ATC if you pass well enough.
I think maybe you misread the article, because it explicitly says "Note that leaving behind qualified applicants from Collegiate Training isn’t why we don’t have more controllers"
But if the standard to get into school was lowered (not saying it was as I have no evidence), that it would alter the output. If not in quality then in volume.
The author's argument is that aptitude requirements did not change, but what changed is that some candidates were now less experienced after not having gone through ATC degrees. (But the author doesn't attribute the tragedy to that, in any case, so speculating about a counterfactual is something else.)
I saw that. But it's laced with political overtones. The question is not just # of controllers, it's the quality of controllers.
Have they lowered the standards to get through ATC school? What is the truth?
Just asking so I have ammunition against right-wing arguments.
Have they lowered the standards to get through ATC school? What is the truth?
Just asking so I have ammunition against right-wing arguments.
I assume you want ammunition against your own arguments. But I'm confused about what you're asking: you were talking in your original comment about the _admissions_ process to ATC academy, and now you're talking about the process to _graduate_ from ATC academy. So let me see if I'm clear about what you're asking: despite the fact that aptitude requirements to get into ATC academy did not change, are you asking about whether the standards to _leave_ ATC academy were lowered? What would an answer to that question prove?
No, they haven’t lowered the standard to graduate.
How do you know? Do you work for FAA?
We wouldn't have to guess and allow for right-wing conjectures if FAA were just transparent on the process and if any changes have been made.
We wouldn't have to guess and allow for right-wing conjectures if FAA were just transparent on the process and if any changes have been made.
> We wouldn't have to guess and allow for right-wing conjectures if FAA were just transparent on the process and if any changes have been made.
There's no world where you out-research every conspiracy theory, especially all the right-wing ones during an Trump/RFK/Musk era.
But for what it's worth the family member who failed was a minority, even though my father was an ATC, so all else being equal you'd expect them to have a relatively good set of chances (just due to genes, if that's a thing).
There's no world where you out-research every conspiracy theory, especially all the right-wing ones during an Trump/RFK/Musk era.
But for what it's worth the family member who failed was a minority, even though my father was an ATC, so all else being equal you'd expect them to have a relatively good set of chances (just due to genes, if that's a thing).
Good context for the "magic keywords" from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42901362 which is now folded:
> The list is on the last page of this document: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17Vi9dDtZvbwHDafrygRG... It looks like it's a page that was photocopied from a book about how to write a resume. It's a list of dozens of incredibly generic verbs like "manage", "analyze", "administer", "make", "improve", "design", etc. pretty much any resume will have at least some of these verbs.
So it's not a secret code, but rather "tailor your CV for the job, ok?"
> The list is on the last page of this document: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17Vi9dDtZvbwHDafrygRG... It looks like it's a page that was photocopied from a book about how to write a resume. It's a list of dozens of incredibly generic verbs like "manage", "analyze", "administer", "make", "improve", "design", etc. pretty much any resume will have at least some of these verbs.
So it's not a secret code, but rather "tailor your CV for the job, ok?"
Not only was it blatantly illegal. How do you trust the overall judgment of the people who signed off on it? Who thinks it’s okay the make a mandatory screening test for air traffic controllers where the scoring rubric is basically random and has a 90% failure rate unless you have secret information from affiliated groups.
What else did they think was a good idea?
What else did they think was a good idea?
tl; dr
-- "Pinning Last Night’s Disaster On Diversity Hiring Is Unsupportable"
I'm sure this is multifactorial and the other factors are probably as or more important, but especially if you are familiar with the very egregious specifics of the FAA diversity hiring scandal (https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-...), "is unsupportable" here is a strong claim that is playing the classic and well-worn role that "there's no evidence" often does in bad journalism: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence-is-a...
I dug into one of the claims in the blog, and as far as I can tell, he's completely misinterpreting the evidence. The blog says:
> An FAA employee and then-president of the NBCFAE's Washington Suburban chapter, provided NBCFAE members with "buzz words" in January 2014 that would automatically push their resumes to the tops of HR files.
It's true that this person said that in the email, but if you actually look at the list of buzzwords, it's clear that this person was bullshitting and inflating his own importance (or maybe just fundamentally misunderstanding something). The list is on the last page of this document: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17Vi9dDtZvbwHDafrygRG... It looks like it's a page that was photocopied from a book about how to write a resume. It's a list of dozens of incredibly generic verbs like "manage", "analyze", "administer", "make", "improve", "design", etc. pretty much any resume will have at least some of these verbs. There's just no way you could build a system that would use these verbs to secretly screen in resumes of people who are in the know because everyone uses these verbs. A far more plausible explanation is that this guy was trying to make himself sound more powerful than eh really was.
The email this person sent is awful, but it seems to be one person's very misguided attempt to push an agenda, not some sort of secret plot by FAA.
> An FAA employee and then-president of the NBCFAE's Washington Suburban chapter, provided NBCFAE members with "buzz words" in January 2014 that would automatically push their resumes to the tops of HR files.
It's true that this person said that in the email, but if you actually look at the list of buzzwords, it's clear that this person was bullshitting and inflating his own importance (or maybe just fundamentally misunderstanding something). The list is on the last page of this document: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17Vi9dDtZvbwHDafrygRG... It looks like it's a page that was photocopied from a book about how to write a resume. It's a list of dozens of incredibly generic verbs like "manage", "analyze", "administer", "make", "improve", "design", etc. pretty much any resume will have at least some of these verbs. There's just no way you could build a system that would use these verbs to secretly screen in resumes of people who are in the know because everyone uses these verbs. A far more plausible explanation is that this guy was trying to make himself sound more powerful than eh really was.
The email this person sent is awful, but it seems to be one person's very misguided attempt to push an agenda, not some sort of secret plot by FAA.
You are conflating multiple different instances of current FAA employees providing outside racial identity groups with both hard and soft answer keys, the buzzword filter was just the first stage.
Later and probably most egregiously, there was a completely nonsensical and arbitrary biographical questionnaire which was scored like:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.182...
Later and probably most egregiously, there was a completely nonsensical and arbitrary biographical questionnaire which was scored like:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.182...
15. The high school subject in which I received my lowest grades was:
A. SCIENCE (+15)
B. MATH (0)
C. ENGLISH (0)
D. HISTORY/SOCIAL SCIENCES (0)
E. PHYSICAL EDUCATION (0)
16. Of the following, the college subject in which I received my lowest grades was:
A. SCIENCE (0)
B. MATH (0)
C. ENGLISH (0)
D. HISTORY/POLITICAL SCIENCE (+15)
E. DID NOT ATTEND COLLEGE (0)
29. My peers would probably say that having someone criticize my performance (i.e. point out a mistake) bothers me:
A. MUCH LESS THAN MOST (+8)
B. SOMEWHAT LESS THAN MOST (+4)
C. ABOUT THE SAME AS MOST (+8)
D. SOMEWHAT MORE THAN MOST (0)
E. MUCH MORE THAN MOST (+10)
If the buzzwords that Snow provided turned out to just be something he pulled from a resume book rather than insider information, why should we believe that the answer keys were any more accurate?
Look at the exam and scoring rubric: https://kaisoapbox.com/projects/faa_biographical_assessment/
Look at questions 29 and 33. The first (about whether negative feedback bothers you) is a plausible question but the grading is completely nonsensical. The second question, about art/dance classes you took in college, is nonsensical both as to the question and the answers. These seem obviously designed to be gamed with secret information.
This was used as a mandatory screen for several years. The FAA didn’t fix it, Congress found out and banned it. How many people at the FAA saw this and green lighted it?
Look at questions 29 and 33. The first (about whether negative feedback bothers you) is a plausible question but the grading is completely nonsensical. The second question, about art/dance classes you took in college, is nonsensical both as to the question and the answers. These seem obviously designed to be gamed with secret information.
This was used as a mandatory screen for several years. The FAA didn’t fix it, Congress found out and banned it. How many people at the FAA saw this and green lighted it?
I found the question and answer weights as well as some primary source documents on the methodology in the court file.
My interpretation is that this was not "obviously designed to be gamed with secret information", it was just bad methodology. They had a goal of screening out 70% of applicants, but the remaining 30% of applicants needed to have a demographic balance that would not constitute a disparate impact, and they had to do this in a legally defensible way. Working backwards from that goal, they took biographical data that they had collected in the 80s and 90s and constructed a test program that, they believed, would give them the result they wanted. So if the answer weights are logically nonsensical, it's not because they were building in a secret password, it's because that's what happens when you build a model that's overfit on a small number of datapoints.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.182...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4542755/139/24/brigida-...
My interpretation is that this was not "obviously designed to be gamed with secret information", it was just bad methodology. They had a goal of screening out 70% of applicants, but the remaining 30% of applicants needed to have a demographic balance that would not constitute a disparate impact, and they had to do this in a legally defensible way. Working backwards from that goal, they took biographical data that they had collected in the 80s and 90s and constructed a test program that, they believed, would give them the result they wanted. So if the answer weights are logically nonsensical, it's not because they were building in a secret password, it's because that's what happens when you build a model that's overfit on a small number of datapoints.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.182...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4542755/139/24/brigida-...
Wow. I thought I remembered something like that but I thought it sounded too extreme and wouldn't be easily supportable, so I left it out of my other comment. So this test:
1) was designed to statistically select for members of favored identity groups and against members of disfavored identity groups, and not in any way to measure ATC job aptitude, resulting in highly-scored questions like "The high school subject in which I received my lowest grades was" where the only correct answer was "Science", and failing the test disqualified you permanently
and
2) current FAA employees distributed the exact answer key to outside racial identity organizations to give to their members
1) was designed to statistically select for members of favored identity groups and against members of disfavored identity groups, and not in any way to measure ATC job aptitude, resulting in highly-scored questions like "The high school subject in which I received my lowest grades was" where the only correct answer was "Science", and failing the test disqualified you permanently
and
2) current FAA employees distributed the exact answer key to outside racial identity organizations to give to their members
What were they fitting for?
What is your source for how the biographical assessment was graded? If you read the tracingwoodgrains blog post, he is saying that Shelton Snow, the guy from the association of black employees left voicemails telling people what the correct answers to the biographical assessment questions were. But if you read my comment above, this person seems to have been pretending to have insider knowledge and access - the secret buzzwords he sent around seem to just be a photocopy from a generic resume writing book. I don't think anything that Snow said about the application process can be taken at face value.
If you have another source for how the assessment was actually graded, I'd love to see it, but as far as I can tell, these claims are coming from a guy who seemed to just be making stuff up.
If you have another source for how the assessment was actually graded, I'd love to see it, but as far as I can tell, these claims are coming from a guy who seemed to just be making stuff up.
The scoring rubric is in the litigation documents (in the Google drive linked in the website). ECF 139-26 has one copy.
I think it's unfortunate if this is your only take away.
Two things can be true at once:
A) Diversity hiring is unrelated to the crash
B) There is a real scandal with hiring and the FAA
What I have read so far about this situation is outrageous. My understanding is that in 2014, Obama appointed a head of the FAA who wanted to diversify the workforce.
They introduced a biographical questionnaire which had rather arbitrary criteria for passing. It appears to have been explicitly designed to fail people that do not know the magical answers. The failure rate was 90%.
This is not the only example, but perhaps the most egregious questions: you are asked what your best subject was in highschool. If you answered science, you get 15 points (a substantial amount). No points for any other subject. Next, you're asked your best subject in college. If you answer history, you get 15 points. No points for any other subject.
Here is an alleged recreation of the test: https://kaisoapbox.com/projects/faa_biographical_assessment/
There are supposedly voicemails in which they helped select candidates pass this biographical questionnaire by providing their preferred race/gendered candidates with the answers. I haven't been able to find a voice mail online, but Fox Business reported that these voicemails exist.
Per a 2016 Yahoo Finance article, an internal FAA report falsely cleared the employee of wrongdoing.
It's my understanding that there is currently a lawsuit making its way through the courts regarding this. It's also my understanding that some allege that the problems are not all resolved yet with hiring, despite the questionnaire being withdrawn in 2018. I'm not sure of the specifics of how there may still be problems with hiring and the FAA.
https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471
Two things can be true at once:
A) Diversity hiring is unrelated to the crash
B) There is a real scandal with hiring and the FAA
What I have read so far about this situation is outrageous. My understanding is that in 2014, Obama appointed a head of the FAA who wanted to diversify the workforce.
They introduced a biographical questionnaire which had rather arbitrary criteria for passing. It appears to have been explicitly designed to fail people that do not know the magical answers. The failure rate was 90%.
This is not the only example, but perhaps the most egregious questions: you are asked what your best subject was in highschool. If you answered science, you get 15 points (a substantial amount). No points for any other subject. Next, you're asked your best subject in college. If you answer history, you get 15 points. No points for any other subject.
Here is an alleged recreation of the test: https://kaisoapbox.com/projects/faa_biographical_assessment/
There are supposedly voicemails in which they helped select candidates pass this biographical questionnaire by providing their preferred race/gendered candidates with the answers. I haven't been able to find a voice mail online, but Fox Business reported that these voicemails exist.
Per a 2016 Yahoo Finance article, an internal FAA report falsely cleared the employee of wrongdoing.
It's my understanding that there is currently a lawsuit making its way through the courts regarding this. It's also my understanding that some allege that the problems are not all resolved yet with hiring, despite the questionnaire being withdrawn in 2018. I'm not sure of the specifics of how there may still be problems with hiring and the FAA.
https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471
From the website
"The FAA has discontinued use of this Behavioural Assessment since 2018."
That was 7 years ago.
That was 7 years ago.
What allegedly happened at the FAA wasn’t just “let’s try to have a more diverse workforce.” It was “let’s collide with racial advocacy groups to make a test that would allow us to deny white applicants because they won’t have the secret pass words.”
Anybody who was involved in this obviously has severely compromised judgment. Who can trust anything else they did?
Anybody who was involved in this obviously has severely compromised judgment. Who can trust anything else they did?
From what I can tell from reading the exhibits in the court case, that's not what happened. This is a case of overfitting, rather than a conspiracy to create a process with "secret pass words".
They wanted to create a process that would not lead to disparate impacts, but would also give them competent controllers. So they took the biographical data that they had collected in the 80s and 90s and constructed a test such that the output of the test would give them the result that they wanted. This is clearly dumb, and they ended up with a model that was overfit to the old data and didn't generalize (or even make much logical sense). Likely there were a tiny number of black controllers when they gathered the biographical data, so those few data points, and their idiosyncrasies, had a large impact on the answer weights that they generated, making the model weird and pretty nonsensical.
It's not a conspiracy, it's just bad methodology in service of a dubious goal.
They wanted to create a process that would not lead to disparate impacts, but would also give them competent controllers. So they took the biographical data that they had collected in the 80s and 90s and constructed a test such that the output of the test would give them the result that they wanted. This is clearly dumb, and they ended up with a model that was overfit to the old data and didn't generalize (or even make much logical sense). Likely there were a tiny number of black controllers when they gathered the biographical data, so those few data points, and their idiosyncrasies, had a large impact on the answer weights that they generated, making the model weird and pretty nonsensical.
It's not a conspiracy, it's just bad methodology in service of a dubious goal.
This is not just "bad methodology in service of dubious goal". It's blatantly illegal, and not just by weak "disparate impact" standard. According to disparate impact standard, procedures that result in disparate outcomes between protected classes are illegal, even if causing these outcomes was not the intent of the policy. Here, the disparate impact was not just unintended side effect, it was the deliberate goal. They deliberately constructed the test to discriminate based on race. This is even ignoring the alleged cases of insiders leaking answer key to some applicants.
Both of those links come from that same person, tracewoodgrains, who links the documents on their google drive. Looking through the documents, it appears there was a case that happened in 2014, which was investigated in 2016. They found an FAA employee in a New York state office held a teleconference about how to apply to the open positions. People asked him questions and he answered them. The investigate was closed noting the following:
"OIG reviewed official government emails for the period January 2013 to July 2015 and did not identify any additional matters or information of specific interest to this investigation.
AEO-500’s ROI Case Number AHQ20150170 did not develop information that demonstrated HR employees gave improper advantages in processing the applications of ATCS candidates affiliated with the NBCFAE. A review of the ROI did not identify any issues that warranted additional review in this investigation.
The findings in this investigation did not warrant a referral to a federal prosecutor."
What exactly makes 'diverse' candidates more likely to answer 'science' and then 'history' on those questions? Are you saying there was a conspiracy to create hard to answer questions on the test and then give out the answers to diversity candidates?
Occam's razor says this was a bullshit 'behavioral' test that meant nothing but disqualified a lot of candidates, and someone who knew that gave others a way to bypass it to get their foot in the door in one instance.
"OIG reviewed official government emails for the period January 2013 to July 2015 and did not identify any additional matters or information of specific interest to this investigation.
AEO-500’s ROI Case Number AHQ20150170 did not develop information that demonstrated HR employees gave improper advantages in processing the applications of ATCS candidates affiliated with the NBCFAE. A review of the ROI did not identify any issues that warranted additional review in this investigation.
The findings in this investigation did not warrant a referral to a federal prosecutor."
What exactly makes 'diverse' candidates more likely to answer 'science' and then 'history' on those questions? Are you saying there was a conspiracy to create hard to answer questions on the test and then give out the answers to diversity candidates?
Occam's razor says this was a bullshit 'behavioral' test that meant nothing but disqualified a lot of candidates, and someone who knew that gave others a way to bypass it to get their foot in the door in one instance.
I know I shouldn't get my news from Reddit, but the consensus there is that the entire FAA crisis (and both recent crashes in the US), is Trump's fault. I don't know the details, but apparently he "gutted" the FAA last week, on the first day he took office, leaving the FAA unable to protect the flying public.
Reddit comments seem reasonable until they talk about something you're an expert on. Then you realize the "Reddit consensus" is worthless: uninformed at best, actively misleading at worst.
A corollary to this: people who don't have expertise in any field might never realize this, and will believe whatever Reddit (or HN, Twitter, etc) tells them that matches their previous-held beliefs.
I recommend people become technically proficient at at least one thing in their lives. It gives you an anchor to reality (you can easily recognize bullshit), and it will cure you of the illusion that most people know what they're talking about.
A corollary to this: people who don't have expertise in any field might never realize this, and will believe whatever Reddit (or HN, Twitter, etc) tells them that matches their previous-held beliefs.
I recommend people become technically proficient at at least one thing in their lives. It gives you an anchor to reality (you can easily recognize bullshit), and it will cure you of the illusion that most people know what they're talking about.
Even worse when you run into those folks who a surface level knowledge and sound knowledgeable but somehow come up with the worst possible conclusions.
Then the rest go around repeating it ad nauseam.
Then the rest go around repeating it ad nauseam.
relevant citation,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect?wprov...
This sounds like mixed messaging. The head of the FAA was forced to resign because he fined SpaceX for safety violations and President Musk did not like that. However, I've been hearing about ATC problems my entire life so around 40 years.
There's definitely a purposeful political effort to string together true facts -- Musk pushed out the incumbent FAA administrator, they didn't name an acting administrator until after the crash, there's a government-wide hiring freeze, Trump disbanded an aviation safety committee, the controllers like everyone else got the resignation "fork in the road" emails, the new transportation secretary is a guy who got semi-famous being on "The Real World" -- into a narrative that Trump caused the DCA crash.
The reality is that most of this either had no effect or not enough time to have an effect, but whether it has bite politically remains to be seen. My view on it is that it's an explicit attempt to use Trump's own tactics against him.
From what information is currently available, the actual investigation will likely blame pilot error on the part of the helicopter pilot, but also decades-old systemic problems with ATC understaffing, crowded and awkward airspace at DCA squeezed too much by increased traffic and no-fly zones, and years of "accepted practice" that normalized an unnecessarily dangerous situation, all of which are solidly bipartisan problems. (The Philadelphia crash I haven't read much about; I would guess it probably won't have as much in the way of broadly applicable takeaways for the aviation system, but it coming in such quick succession certainly helps build narratives.)
The reality is that most of this either had no effect or not enough time to have an effect, but whether it has bite politically remains to be seen. My view on it is that it's an explicit attempt to use Trump's own tactics against him.
From what information is currently available, the actual investigation will likely blame pilot error on the part of the helicopter pilot, but also decades-old systemic problems with ATC understaffing, crowded and awkward airspace at DCA squeezed too much by increased traffic and no-fly zones, and years of "accepted practice" that normalized an unnecessarily dangerous situation, all of which are solidly bipartisan problems. (The Philadelphia crash I haven't read much about; I would guess it probably won't have as much in the way of broadly applicable takeaways for the aviation system, but it coming in such quick succession certainly helps build narratives.)
I think it may be unfair to pin each of those factors individually on the crash, but I do believe that collectively when you have an administration reaking havoc and chaos across all federal agencies, things are gonna happen.
To say I'm not a fan of Trump and particularly of his wrecking-ball approach to his new administration would be a severe understatement.
Still I'd have to say the narrative I outlined above is more of an attempt to hang the crash around his neck than something that reflects the truth particularly well. Of course Trump for his part as always immediately tried to hang it around Biden's and Obama's necks (neatly skipping over his own prior administration) with no evidence, so turnabout is fair play. Now, whether the Muskification of the whole government will be the cause of problems going forward, that's another story.
I was writing something here about having great confidence in the NTSB to perform a thorough investigation and account for various factors if they're allowed to remain independent and operate without interference... and then I saw a post from the NTSB today that they'll no longer be sending out email to media and instead only posting updates to their Twitter account... so put a lot of emphasis on that "if."
Still I'd have to say the narrative I outlined above is more of an attempt to hang the crash around his neck than something that reflects the truth particularly well. Of course Trump for his part as always immediately tried to hang it around Biden's and Obama's necks (neatly skipping over his own prior administration) with no evidence, so turnabout is fair play. Now, whether the Muskification of the whole government will be the cause of problems going forward, that's another story.
I was writing something here about having great confidence in the NTSB to perform a thorough investigation and account for various factors if they're allowed to remain independent and operate without interference... and then I saw a post from the NTSB today that they'll no longer be sending out email to media and instead only posting updates to their Twitter account... so put a lot of emphasis on that "if."
How well do you function days after the head of your company is unexpectedly pushed out in a hostile take-over, you have zero direction given from above, and you are sent an email from the person behind the hostile takeover, that doesn't work at your company and doesn't fit in the management structure in any way saying you should quit? Would you say you would function better or worse than prior to that occurring?
No, that was only ten days beforehand and focused on people at a high level. There's no good reason to believe it had an effect on this crash.
This "quit or risk getting fired" email was sent to federal employees on January 28, the day before the crash: https://www.opm.gov/fork and that includes air traffic controllers and their supervisors [1]
If you don't think that could have had an impact on morale, and therefore attentiveness, I can only wonder if you've never witnessed large-scale layoffs first-hand. They're pretty common in tech. From what I've seen in our industry, first and second hand, almost nobody gets any real work done for several days after getting such an email. The ATCs don't have such luxury, but instead, they continue their life-and-death job with an elevated level of stress.
And we know that one of the ATCs was dismissed early that day. Was it because undue stress, caused by that email, was impacting their performance? If so, will their supervisor be brave enough to say so in public? We don't know. But this is a substantial reason to suspect that the administration's actions could have had a direct impact on the people in that control tower.
[1] https://federalnewsnetwork.com/tom-temin-commentary/2025/01/...
If you don't think that could have had an impact on morale, and therefore attentiveness, I can only wonder if you've never witnessed large-scale layoffs first-hand. They're pretty common in tech. From what I've seen in our industry, first and second hand, almost nobody gets any real work done for several days after getting such an email. The ATCs don't have such luxury, but instead, they continue their life-and-death job with an elevated level of stress.
And we know that one of the ATCs was dismissed early that day. Was it because undue stress, caused by that email, was impacting their performance? If so, will their supervisor be brave enough to say so in public? We don't know. But this is a substantial reason to suspect that the administration's actions could have had a direct impact on the people in that control tower.
[1] https://federalnewsnetwork.com/tom-temin-commentary/2025/01/...
reddit is all rage bait at this point and if the big subreddits aren't over 50% propaganda I'll eat my hat. The recent election shows how out of touch the front page is and you can conclude that the average poster is hopelessly out of touch or that the 'average poster' doesn't really exist or that the 'average poster' is there to make people feel complacent or make people feel indignant or make people feel superior.
You are supposed to be outraged. You are supposed to think that the 'dumb libs' have no legitimate points, that they only believe 'orange man bad' and therefore everything they say can be completely disregarded.
Stop reading, sit back, and figure out what you think without feeling like you have score points over some imaginary opponent.
You are supposed to be outraged. You are supposed to think that the 'dumb libs' have no legitimate points, that they only believe 'orange man bad' and therefore everything they say can be completely disregarded.
Stop reading, sit back, and figure out what you think without feeling like you have score points over some imaginary opponent.
The air traffic controller shortage long predates Trump; here [1] for example is a statement about it from 2015.
[1] https://www.natca.org/2015/12/09/natca-discusses-air-traffic...
[1] https://www.natca.org/2015/12/09/natca-discusses-air-traffic...
I'd argue that in our quest to maximize income inequality, we've made many necessary careers non-viable from a living standards perspective.
These non viable careers include pilots, atc, teaching, and a large portion of the skilled trades and more. While a non viable career path will still have some individuals in the field due to sunk cost, passion, or inertia - a shortage is inevitable.
Supply and demand should rationalize this - but if training is long, wage visibility is low, and sunk cost is high, and negotiation power is low - its entirely possible for a employers to collectively push the prevailing wage below the level which makes the job worth it to enough individuals.
These non viable careers include pilots, atc, teaching, and a large portion of the skilled trades and more. While a non viable career path will still have some individuals in the field due to sunk cost, passion, or inertia - a shortage is inevitable.
Supply and demand should rationalize this - but if training is long, wage visibility is low, and sunk cost is high, and negotiation power is low - its entirely possible for a employers to collectively push the prevailing wage below the level which makes the job worth it to enough individuals.
The so-called "DEI" hiring policies currently in effect, however, were instituted under Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/30/faa-dei-t...
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears...
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears...
"I know I shouldn't"
--> then don't
There wasn't enough time for Trump to affect his specific incident. But longer term it's certainly not a good idea to send traffic controllers a letter asking them to resign (the letter went to all federal employees) and to interfere with staff for purely political reasons this way.
I don't know about you, but weird emails about a mass voluntary resignation program would take my focus out of any work.
If suddenly I have to worry about my job security and the possibility of losing a bunch of colleagues and becoming overworked there's no way I'd be able to be all there.
If suddenly I have to worry about my job security and the possibility of losing a bunch of colleagues and becoming overworked there's no way I'd be able to be all there.
Any accident like this is an accident - none of the pilots or ATCs woke up and decided to kill dozens of people. (Including themselves in the pilots case)
That said, conditions in the ATC facility were likely a contributor, and the overall management and control environment of the FAA created those conditions. Frankly, the Elon stuff is insane, and who knows if the people who approve the overtime, etc exist anymore.
Trump deserves blame for the circus and harm created by his administration’s irresponsibility and recklessness. But he didn’t crash a plane.
That said, conditions in the ATC facility were likely a contributor, and the overall management and control environment of the FAA created those conditions. Frankly, the Elon stuff is insane, and who knows if the people who approve the overtime, etc exist anymore.
Trump deserves blame for the circus and harm created by his administration’s irresponsibility and recklessness. But he didn’t crash a plane.
Hire more controllers? Sure, maybe, but I can't help but think this was very avoidable using technology and training.