Consensus Study Report
Transportation Research Board Special Report 357
Subscriber Categories: Aviation, passenger transportation, safety and human factors
Cover credit: AP Images/Michael Dwyer.
Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.org or nationalacademies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu).
The manufacturer’s authorized representative in the European Union for product safety is Authorised Rep Compliance Ltd., Ground Floor, 71 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin D02 P593 Ireland; www.arccompliance.com.
Copyright 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
This publication was reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Academy of Medicine.
This study was sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-99224-4
Digital Object Identifier: http://doi.org/10.17226/29112
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. Tsu-Jae Liu is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major program divisions of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to mobilize expertise, experience, and knowledge to anticipate and solve complex transportation-related challenges. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,500 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state departments of transportation, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON FAA PLANNING FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITY STAFFING
WILLIAM J. STRICKLAND (Chair), Human Resources Research Organization (retired)
HAMSA BALAKRISHNAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MATHIAS BASNER, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine
JAMES CARR, NAV CANADA1
JASON CUDE, Delta Air Lines
GINGER EVANS, Tower Consulting
KAREN M. FEIGH, Georgia Institute of Technology Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering
TIMOTHY JOHNSON, Hampton University School of Engineering, Architecture and Aviation
VALERIE M. MANNING, VMG Aero
NORMAN T. O’MEARA, Logistics Management Institute
PHILIP J. SMITH, The Ohio State University
KAY STANNEY (NAE), Design Interactive, Inc.
JOHN S. STRONG, College of William & Mary
Study Staff
EMANUEL ROBINSON, Director, Board on Human-Systems Integration, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Scholar, Consensus and Advisory Studies, Transportation Research Board
THOMAS R. MENZIES, Director, Consensus and Advisory Studies, Transportation Research Board
RYAN MURPHY, Senior Program Officer, Air Force Studies Board
MYAH STROMAN, Senior Program Assistant, Consensus and Advisory Studies, Transportation Research Board
TIMOTHY MARFLAK, Program Coordinator, Consensus and Advisory Studies, Transportation Research Board
MELISSA WELCH-ROSS, Senior Program Officer, Consensus and Advisory Studies, Transportation Research Board
Consultant
SARAH JO PETERSON, 23 Urban Strategies, LLC
___________________
1 Served until January 21, 2025.
This page intentionally left blank.
Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by CRAIG PHILIP (NAE), Vanderbilt University, and ERIC LARSON (NAM), University of Washington. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
Acknowledgments
The committee’s report would not have been possible without the support and generous assistance of many individuals. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) officials and presenters during meetings and site visits were gracious with their time during and after the committee’s open meetings. The committee is especially grateful for timely responses to numerous follow-up questions. In particular, the committee would like to thank the many FAA staff who assisted the committee from the Air Traffic Organization, Office of Finance and Management, Office of Human Resource Management, FAA Academy and Michael Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, and William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City. The committee also thanks the staff of the Potomac Consolidated TRACON (PCT), Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZDC), Dulles Airport Control Tower (IAD), Atlanta TRACON (A80), Atlanta Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZTL), DeKalb-Peachtree Control Tower (PDK), and Atlanta Airport Control Tower (ATL) for welcoming the committee to their facilities and providing valuable first-hand insight. The committee also greatly appreciates the assistance provided by Dean Iacopelli, Eugene Freedman, and many others from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association; Jeff Shepley and Prakash Subramanian from MITRE; and the members of FAA’s expert panel on Air Traffic Controller Fatigue: Mark Rosekind, Erin Flynn-Evans, and Charles Czeisler. The committee also thanks other staff members at the National Academies (in addition to those listed on the title page) for their assistance on this project, in particular Monica Starnes and Brad Chaney.
This page intentionally left blank.
3 FACILITY STAFFING AND SAFETY
FAA Responses to NASEM 2014 Report Recommendations
Overtime and Other Measures of Workforce Strain
4 COMPARISON OF MODELS FOR ESTIMATING STAFFING TARGETS AT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES
FAA/AFN Staffing Standards Model
Comparison Based on Science-Based Approaches and Other Characteristics
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
5 FACILITY STRENGTH ASSESSMENT, ATTRITION ESTIMATES, AND ANNUAL HIRING GOALS
Illustrative Example of A−B+C=D Calculations
Calculations for A: Setting of Facility Targets
Calculations for B: Controllers on Hand
Calculations for C: Future Attrition
Calculations for D: Establishment of Annual Staffing Gap
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Recruitment, Hiring, Initial Training, and Initial Placement
Training Success and Time to Certification
Transfers and Strength Management
FAA Responses to NASEM 2014 Report Recommendations
7 ANTICIPATING FUTURE DEMANDS ON FACILITY STAFFING
New Work Rules for Controllers
Complementing Sufficient ATC Staffing with Additional Safeguards
8 COST OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROLLER STAFFING PLANS
FAA Budgets, Line Items, and Revenue Sources
Cost of Alternative Future ATC Staffing Plans
A COMMITTEE MEMBER BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
B AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL STAFFING DATA FILE AND RESULTS OF ANALYSES
C FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND STAFFING LEVELS
This page intentionally left blank.
Boxes, Figures, and Tables
BOXES
1-1 Committee Statement of Task (SOT)
1-2 Additions to the Contract Following Passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024
3-1 Definitions of Runway Incursions
3-2 Fatigue Risk Management Systems
5-1 CPC Equivalent Workforce Construction – Numerical Example AUS – Austin Tower FY 2024
6-1 Steps from Hiring to Certification and Transfer
FIGURES
1-1 FAA’s overall modeling approach for developing the annual hiring goal and 10-year hiring plans
2-2 Types of ATC facilities and staff services
2-3 Training progression from AG to CPC at an example large tower with approach control
2-4 Historic and forecast traffic, total headcount, and CPC + CPC-ITs
2-5 Actual and modeled hires, FY 2013–2023
2-6 10-year hiring plans in annual controller workforce plans, selected FYs
2-7 Distribution of facilities, FY 2010 and FY 2024
2-8 Distribution of FTEs at facilities, FY 2010 and FY 2024
3-4 Regular hours worked per FTE, by category of time reported, FY 2010–2024
3-5 Regular hours and overtime hours per FTE, FY 2010–2024
3-6 Regular hours and overtime hours time on position per FTE, FY 2010–2024
4-1 AFN staffing standards target modeling process
4-2 The distribution of increased staffing for facilities benefiting from the 5-hour TOP method
4-3 CRWG method for determining facility-level CPC target
4-5 AFN facility staffing standards and total operations for the 313 ATC facilities, FY 2024
5-2 Past and forecast attrition by category
6-1 Flow diagram of process from recruitment to Academy graduation
B-1 Total traffic operations by facility type, FY 2010–2024
B-2 FTE controller employees by facility type, FY 2010–2024
B-3 Total operations and operations per FTE, FY 2010–2024
B-4 Regular hours worked including overtime per FTE, FY 2010–2024
B-5 Regular hours worked and overtime hours worked per FTE, FY 2010–2024
B-6 Overtime hours per FTE by facility type and Level
B-7 Scatterplot of percent trainee OJT TOP versus AFN fill rate, FY 2010–2024
B-8 Scatterplots and regressions of percent non-CPC OJT TOP by facility type and Level
B-9 AFN, CEW, and CRWG fill rates for all facilities, FY 2024
TABLES
2-1 Staffing of FTE Controllers by Facility Type, FY 2024
2-2 Facility CPC and CPC-IT FTE Staffing by AFN Staffing Standard, FY 2010, 2017, and 2024
2-3 Facility AFN Fill Rates Using CPC and CPC-IT FTEs, FY 2010, 2017, 2024
2-4 Distribution of Facilities Based on Meeting the AFN Targets, FY 2010 and 2024
2-5 Distribution of All FTES in Facilities, FY 2010 and 2024
2-6 AFN Model Staffing Levels at Facilities Serving FAA’s Core 30 Airports, FY 2024
3-1 Losses of Standard Separation Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Pandemic
3-2 Overtime (OT) Across Facilities by Complexity Level, FY 2010, 2017, and 2024
3-4 Facilities with Time Sheets of GTE 96 Hours Worked During the First Three Quarters of FY 2024
3-6 Optimal Versus Actual Shift Schedules at Columbus Tower
4-1 Summary Comparison of AFN and CRWG Staffing Models
4-2 Comparison of the CRWG and AFN Models’ Availability Factors
4-3 CRWG’s Breakdown of Annual Time on Other Duties per CPC
5-1 Illustrative Example for Single Facility of the A–B+C=D Modeling Process
5-2 Average Time to CPC Status by CPC Quintile in Facilities, FY 2010–2024
6-2 Status of Hires FY 2010–2024 from Academy Training or Facility Placement
6-3 Average Time to First CPC Certification Across Facility Levels
6-4 Share of Transfers Up and Down a Level, FY 2010, 2015, and 2024
6-6 FTEs in Facilities Above and Below the AFN Staffing Standard, FY 2024
8-1 FAA Budget Authority by Function, FY 2014–2024 ($ millions)
8-2 FAA Operations Budget Line Items, FY 2014–2024 ($ millions)
8-3 ATO Budget Line Items, FY 2014–2024 ($ millions)
8-4 General Fund and AATF Revenues for FAA Operations, FY 2014–2024 ($ millions)
8-5 CBO Projections for the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, FY 2024–2034
8-6 FAA Operations Staff by Category, FY 2014–2024
8-7 Comparison of AFN and CRWG Headcount and Budgetary Costs, FY 2024–2033
8-8 AATF Forecast Revenues and Outlays Versus Incremental CRWG Costs, FY 2024–2033 ($ millions)
B-9 Average Training Time (Years) to CPC by Level of Facility, FY 2010–2024
B-10 Overtime by CPCs and Non-CPCs by Facility Level, FY 2010–2024
C-1 En Route Facility Staffing Levels and Targets, as of 9/23/2023
C-2 Terminal Facility Staffing Levels and Targets, as of 9/23/2023
D-2 Total Versus Other Delays, January 2010–December 2024
D-3 FAA Total and Other Delays Category by Facility Type, January 2022–December 2024
D-4 FAA Delays by Secondary Cause, January 2022–December 2024
D-5 Concentration of Staffing Delays Versus Staffing Levels, 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Preface
The adequacy of staffing at the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) 313 air traffic control (ATC) facilities in the United States has been a matter of public concern and debate for many years. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) have advised FAA on models to estimate the adequacy of ATC facility staffing in three previous reports (NRC 1997, 2010, 2014). In late 2023, in advance of direction from Congress in May 2024, FAA asked for a fourth report to advise it regarding competing models it had developed to estimate the adequacy of facility staffing for safety, reasons for the current staffing levels at FAA’s 313 ATC facilities, and how thoroughly the agency had responded to the recommendations in the NASEM 2014 report. Several additional important details regarding the request are explained in Chapter 1.
In response to the FAA and congressional requests, the National Academies formed a committee of experts balanced in terms of expertise and perspective and free of conflicts of interest. The committee was chaired by William J. Strickland, Human Resources Research Organization (retired), and included members with expertise in ATC, commercial and general aviation, airport operations, modeling, planning and executing staffing plans for large organizations, pilot and technician training, industrial and organizational psychology, human factors, fatigue, aviation economics, and public policy.
The committee held three open meetings between June and November 2024 during which time it was briefed by officials of FAA, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, and authors of an FAA-commissioned
report released in 2024 on the prevalence of fatigue among air traffic controllers and options to reduce it (Rosekind et al. 2024). In response to a request from the committee, FAA also provided data on more than 33,000 air traffic controllers for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010–2024 period, which provided the basis for the many tables and figures included in the report. The data files FAA provided, and the charts and tables derived from them, appear in Appendix B.
Members of the committee also visited individual ATC facilities in Atlanta, Georgia, and the greater Washington, DC, area to be briefed on ATC operations in different types of facilities with differing staffing levels relative to FAA’s models. Members also visited the FAA Academy for training air traffic controllers in Oklahoma City to receive additional briefings on training for air traffic controllers and FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center for Advanced Aerospace near Atlantic City, New Jersey, to be briefed on forthcoming technologies to support air traffic controllers in their work.
The committee thanks member Norman O’Meara for his extensive work in assembling the large data files on air traffic controllers on the payroll since FY 2010 that were provided by FAA and for conducting the myriad data analyses that resulted in most of the tables and figures that appear in the report.
Emanuel Robinson managed the study and liaison with FAA. Thomas R. Menzies provided overall strategic guidance for the project. Stephen Godwin assisted the study committee in the development and preparation of most of this report with research and writing support from Ryan Murphy and Sarah Jo Petersen. Melissa Welch-Ross assisted with project management and Karen Febey managed the report review process. Timothy B. Marflak and Myah Stroman provided administrative and logistical support.
May 2025
REFERENCES
NRC (National Research Council). 1997. Air Traffic Control Facilities: Improving Methods to Determine Staffing Requirements. National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11391.
NRC. 2010. Air Traffic Control Staffing in the En Route Domain: A Review of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Task Load Model. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13022.
NRC. 2014. The Federal Aviation Administration’s Approach for Determining Future Air Traffic Control Staffing Needs. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18824.
Rosekind, M., E. Flynn-Evans, and C. Czeisler. 2024. “Assessing Fatigue Risk in FAA Air Traffic Operations: Report by Scientific Expert Panel on Air Traffic Controller Safety, Work Hours, and Health.” https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/media/Fatigue_Report.pdf.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Note: Some acronyms are defined in the definitions section regarding their interpretation in this report. See Appendix C for airport ATC facility codes cited in the report.
| AAM | Advanced Air Mobility |
| AATF | Airport and Airway Trust Fund |
| ADS-B | Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast |
| AFN | FAA’s Office of Finance and Management |
| AG | Academy Graduate |
| ARTCC | Air Route Traffic Control Center (or En Route Center or Center) |
| AT-CTI | Air Traffic College Training Initiative |
| AT-SAT | Air Traffic Selection and Training |
| ATC | Air Traffic Control or Air Traffic Controller (see definitions below) |
| ATCS | Air Traffic Control System |
| ATO | FAA’s Air Traffic Organization |
| ATS | Air Traffic Services |
| ATSA | Air Traffic Skills Assessment |
| BCA | Budget Control Act of 2011 |
| BLS | Bureau of Labor Statistics |
| CAGR | Compound Annual Growth Rate |
| CBA | Collective Bargaining Agreement |
| CBO | Congressional Budget Office |
| CCF | Combined Control Facility |
| CEDAR | Comprehensive Electronic Data Analysis and Reporting |
| CEW | CPC-Equivalent Workforce |
| COTS | Commercial Off-the-Shelf |
| CPC | Certified Professional Controller |
| CPC-IT | CPC-In Training |
| CRWG | Collaborative Resource Working Group |
| CTI | College Training Initiative |
| CWP | Controller Workforce Plan |
| DEV | Developmental Controller |
| E-CTI | Enhanced College Training Initiative |
| ERR | Employee Requested Reassignment |
| F&E | Facilities and Equipment |
| FAA | Federal Aviation Administration |
| FESSA | FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 |
| FRM | Fatigue Risk Management |
| FRMS | Fatigue Risk Management System |
| FTE | Full-Time Equivalent |
| FY | Fiscal Year |
| GA | General Aviation |
| GAO | Government Accountability Office |
| GP | General Public |
| GTE | Greater Than or Equal to |
| HR | Human Resources |
| ICAO | International Civil Aviation Organization |
| IFR | Instrument Flight Rules |
| KSA | Knowledge, Skill, and Abilities |
| KSAO | Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other Characteristics |
| MOR | Mandatory Occurrence Report |
| NAE | National Academy of Engineering |
| NAS | National Airspace System |
| NASEM | National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine |
| NATCA | National Air Traffic Controllers Association |
| NCEPT | National Centralized ERR Process Team |
| NMAC | Near Mid-Air Collision |
| NTI | National Training Initiative |
| NTSB | National Transportation Safety Board |
| OIG | Office of Inspector General |
| OJT | On-the-Job Training |
| OPAS | Operational Planning and Scheduling |
| OPR | On-Position Requirements |
| OTJ | On-the-Job |
| PE | Prior Experience |
| PQC | Position-Qualified Controller |
| R,E,D | Research, Engineering, and Development |
| RRD | Resignations, Removals, Deaths |
| SA | Safety Assurance |
| SMS | Safety Management System |
| SOT | Statement of Task |
| SUI | Service Unit Input |
| TOD | Time on Other Duties |
| TOP | Time on Position |
| TRACON | Terminal Radar Approach Control |
| TSS | Tower Simulator System |
| UAM | Urban Air Mobility |
| USDOT | U.S. Department of Transportation |
| VFR | Visual Flight Rules |
| VSRP | Voluntary Safety Reporting Program |
This page intentionally left blank.
Definitions
| 2-2-1 Shifts | A shift pattern over a 5-day workweek in which a controller works 2 days starting in the afternoon, typically followed by 2 days starting in the morning, followed by 1 day starting before midnight of the fourth day. Also referred to as the “rattler” because of the sleep deprivation and fatigue it causes. |
| ARTCC | An ATC facility that provides service to aircraft operating on IFR flight plans within controlled airspace and principally during the en route phase of flight (FAA 2024, 13). |
| ATC Workforce | As referred to in this report, the ATC workforce refers only to controllers, not managers or members of the technician workforce. When not referring to the workforce, ATC refers to air traffic control more generally. Controllers include new hires in their initial training at the FAA Academy, Developmental Controllers, CPC-ITs, and CPCs. As classified by the Office of Personnel Management, the ATCS workforce (category 2152) also includes supervisors and other ATC facility management positions. These positions in the ATCS workforce are neither estimated in the facility staffing models reviewed in this report nor included in the database of |
| controllers analyzed by the committee and reported in various tables and figures in the report. | |
| Availability Factor | A multiplier to the daily staffing requirement (modeled output) to (a) account for facility staff who are on a regular day off, leave, or otherwise not available to work on a given day and (b) hours for Other Duties that cannot be accomplished when a controller is not on position. |
| Available Time | Time that a controller is on a rest or meal break. Rest breaks have no established limits. They are meant to provide controllers time to recuperate from TOP, which requires sustained attention and can be stressful. |
| CBA | The collective bargaining agreement between FAA and NATCA initially agreed to in 2016 and extended to August 1, 2029. See https://www.natca.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/NATCA_MOU_Executed_121824.pdf. |
| CCF | “An ATC facility that provides approach control services for one or more airports, as well as En Route ATC (Center Control) for a large area of airspace. Some may provide tower services along with approach control and en route services” (FAA 2024, 13). |
| Center | See ARTCC. |
| Center Track | FAA Academy course of instruction for new hires randomly assigned to train for ATC services in Centers. |
| Circadian Misalignment | Disruption of the body’s natural 24-hour cycle, or circadian rhythm, which regulates physiological processes such as sleep. |
| Core 30 Airports | Thirty of the largest airports by traffic volume, for which standardized delay reports are available in FAA’s Operations Network (OPSNET). See https://aspm.faa.gov/aspmhelp/index/Core_30.html. |
| CPC-Equivalent Workforce | Calculation of PQCs in terms of their level of certification who can perform TOP duties as if the facility workforce was entirely made up of CPCs. See Chapter 5. |
| CPC-IT | A CPC fully qualified at a previous facility assigned to a new facility, who must recertify at the new facility or new area in same facility. |
| CRWG | FAA uses CRWGs for various purposes. This report refers to the CRWG that estimates facility staffing levels based on a collaboration between ATO and NATCA. |
| CWP | Annual FAA report on status of ATCS workforce and facilities and plans for future hiring. See https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/afn/offices/finance/offices/office-financial-labor-analysis/plans/controller-workforce. |
| En Route Center | See ARTCC. |
| ERR | CPC transfer requests, which are handled by NCEPT. |
| Facility Level | Facilities rated by FAA on a scale of 4 to 12 in terms of the volume and complexity of operations that the facilities serve. |
| Facility Staffing Model | A set of mathematical calculations used in developing the staffing standard. FAA’s traditional “model” is a family of models that begin with estimates of the on-position staffing that is required based on the traffic observed for each 15-minute period of the past year. PQCs are estimated using workload models, which differ between Centers, TRACONS, and Towers.) Projected traffic is modeled for each facility based on its history of air traffic operations. A shift coverage model is used to estimate the number of staff required to ensure coverage of all on-position requirements during each day while also accounting for shift length, breaks, meals, and limits of 2 hours on position. A daily staffing model estimates the number of staff required to be present at a facility on |
| the 90th percentile day based on previous experience. (See also AFN “Staffing Standards Target Model” below and Chapter 4.) | |
| Fatigue Risk Management System | Defined by ICAO as “a data-driven means of continuously monitoring and maintaining fatigue-related safety risks, based on scientific principles and knowledge as well as operational experience that aims to ensure relevant personnel are performing at adequate levels of alertness.” See https://skybrary.aero/articles/fatigue-risk-management-system-frms. |
| Fill Rate | The percentage of a facility staffing standard met by CPCs and CPC-ITs for the AFN staffing standard or CPCs for the CRWG staffing target. |
| Hiring Goal | The number that ATO decides it will hire each year based on modeled estimates, budget, ability of facilities to absorb and train new hires, and other considerations. It is not necessarily the same as the unconstrained hiring number that AFN’s models estimate for facilities to be adequately staffed unless ATO chooses that estimate for the hiring goal. |
| NATCA | “NATCA is a labor union and aviation safety organization in the United States that represents nearly 20,000 highly skilled air traffic controllers, engineers, and other aviation safety-related professionals. NATCA was certified in 1987 by the Federal Labor Relations Authority to be the exclusive bargaining representative for air traffic controllers employed by the Federal Aviation Administration.” See https://www.natca.org. |
| OIG | In this report all references are to the OIG of the U.S. Department of Transportation. |
| OJT-TOP | In this report the committee refers to OJT as time spent in training while on position, which is well measured. Other OJT includes simulator, classroom, and other training controllers receive at facilities that is supposed |
| to be accounted for as Other Duties. It is usually classified as the “other” category of Other Duties and is thus not specific about the activities recorded. | |
| OPAS | A tool for shift scheduling that FAA adapted based on proprietary shift scheduling software that is meant to be compliant with fatigue rules and policies and make efficient use of available facility staff. |
| Operations | (1) Any guidance that ATCSs provide to pilots in commercial, general aviation, and military aircraft. In any given period, there will be more operations than there are flights due to multiple interactions with individual flights. (2) A line item in the FAA budget that includes ATO, Aviation Safety, Commercial Space, and other FAA offices. ATO accounts for about three-quarters of the Operations line item. |
| OPSNET | FAA Operations Network, an online portal to FAA operations data and delay reports. See https://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/main.asp. |
| Other Duties | Primarily consists of training but also includes briefings, team meetings, special assignments, and other required activities when not on position or break. |
| Placement | Assignment of AGs into a facility or placement of Previous Experienced new hires who bypass the FAA Academy, directly into a facility to begin training toward certification. |
| Plan Execution | The processes that ATO uses to ensure that hiring and training goals are met and placements of AGs and requested transfers support facility staffing targets. At the time of this writing, ATO uses the Priority Placement Tool (PPT) to decide about where AGs and new hires with previous experience should be placed initially and whether to honor ERR (transfer) requests based on facility staffing. |
| PQC | A controller certified on at least one position. |
| Priority Placement Tool | At the time of this writing, an Excel spreadsheet that includes up-to-date numbers of CPCs, CPC-ITs, and DEVs for each facility, measures of training progression, projected attrition, and rank order of facilities for placement of AGs and transfers based on their staffing targets as estimated by the CRWG modeling approach for FY 2022. |
| Regular Hours | 80 hours per 2-week pay period including Regular Hours Worked and time not worked (leave). |
| Regular Hours Worked | Hours that FTEs report as either TOP, Available Time, or Other Duties exclusive of leave taken. In this report, hours worked on overtime on TOP, Available Time, or Other Duties are counted and reported separately. |
| SOT | The charge to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee, which specifies the items it is expected to address in its report. |
| Staffing Gap | The difference between what staffing models indicate individual facilities require versus those available at those facilities. In principle, there are two versions of the staffing gap but only the AFN approach is being used at the time of this writing. For the AFN approach, the individuals that facilities require include CPCs and CPC-ITs. For the CRWG approach it includes only CPCs. In the AFN approach, it is forward looking to account for expected future certification and training losses and other forms of attrition or workforce changes such as transfers. |
| Staffing Plan or Planning | The process that uses the facility staffing standard or target and projected changes, such as hires, attrition, transfers, and certification to the current workforce to generate a staffing gap in the future and calculates the number of hires needed to close the staffing gap. The workforce planning model (A−B+C=D) described in Chapters 1 and 5 is the mathematical implementation of the staffing planning process. |
| Staffing Standard | The AFN model-derived estimate of the PQCs that each facility should have. From FY 2008 through FY 2022 the FAA annual CWP referred to a staffing range (+/–10% of the midpoint of that range) as the staffing standard. The AFN approach measures staffing counting CPCs and CPC-ITs. |
| Staffing Standards Target Model | See Facility Staffing Model. |
| Staffing Target | Beginning with FY 2023, the CWP refers to a point estimate from AFN’s family of models as the staffing standard target. The CRWG model output is referred to as generating a staffing target using only CPCs. |
| Terminal | Terminals as used by FAA include Towers, TRACONs, and Tower and Approach Control facilities. |
| Terminal Track | FAA Academy course of instruction of new hires randomly assigned to train for ATC services in Terminals. |
| Time on Position | The core function of an air traffic controller—either on radar position or in a tower position. Generally limited to no more than 5 hours per 8-hour shift, but with exceptions for the midnight shift.1 |
| Tower | “An ATC tower that provides traffic advisories, spacing sequencing and separation services to visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft operating in the vicinity of the airport, using a combination of satellite, radar and visual observations” (FAA 2024, 13). |
| Tower and Approach Control | “An ATC facility divided into two separate functional areas, tower and approach and departure control, that provides services to IFR and VFR aircraft, including aircraft traffic advisories, spacing sequencing and separation services to aircraft operating in the vicinity of the |
___________________
1 This sentence was revised after release of the report to clarify FAA practice regarding time limits on position.
| airport, arriving or departing an airport, and transiting the terminal airspace using satellite, radar and/or non-radar separation” (FAA 2024, 13). | |
| TRACON | “An ATC facility that provides approach and departure services to IFR and VFR aircraft arriving or departing an airport and to aircraft transiting the terminal airspace using satellite, radar and/or non-radar separation” (FAA 2024, 13). |
REFERENCE
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). 2024. Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan, 2024–2033. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/afn/offices/finance/offices/office-financial-labor-analysis/plans/controller-workforce.
