Air Traffic Control: FAA Enhanced the Controller-in-Charge	 
Program, but More Comprehensive Evaluation is Needed (31-OCT-01, 
GAO-02-55).							 
								 
Each day, over 25,000 flights and their nearly two million	 
passengers--as well as innumerable cargo, military, and general  
aviation flights--depend on the 15,000 air traffic controllers	 
working in the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Air	 
Traffic Control (ATC) system to safely reach their destinations. 
Because the ATC system requires thousands of controllers, each of
whom typically manages just a section of airspace or one aspect  
of an aircraft's takeoff or landing, FAA depends on supervisors  
to monitor air traffic operations and controllers' workload and  
performance to ensure that the system is operating safely. In	 
negotiating its 1998 collective bargaining agreement with its	 
controllers' union, FAA agreed to a national plan that would	 
reduce by attrition the number of supervisors that oversee air	 
traffic controllers. To do so without compromising safety, FAA	 
will increasingly have its controllers performing supervisory	 
duties as Controllers-in-Charge (CIC) when supervisors are not	 
present. FAA is implementing its national plan to reduce the	 
number of supervisors for air traffic control through its	 
regional offices, which are doing so by considering the 	 
supervisory staffing needs of each of their facilities or by	 
applying a 10-to-1 ratio across the board. Nationwide, FAA has	 
selected 8,268 controllers to serve as CICs, which is about 55	 
percent of its air traffic controller workforce. GAO found that  
the materials for FAA's CIC training program were through and	 
comprehenshive, but FAA has little assurance that the training	 
was effectively presented nationwide and achieved its objectives.
Although FAA conducted some assessment of training at a limited  
number of facilities, the agency has not obtained student	 
evaluations from most of those who completed the course or	 
conducted an overall evaluation of whether the training was	 
effective.  FAA has not consistently implemented its quality	 
assurance procedures for the CIC expansion. Five of the 12	 
facilities GAO visited did not have quality assurance measures in
place for the CIC expansion, and the remaining seven facilities  
relied on their existing quality assurance programs to monitor	 
the impact of the CIC expansion. FAA's reduction of supervisors  
will save the agency $141.5 million, or about $23.1 million less 
than it estimated. The difference between FAA's estimate and	 
GAO's is the result of two factors. The first of these is that	 
FAA's estimate did not factor in the 10-percent premium FAA pays 
controllers for serving as CICs, which GAO estimates will cost	 
$41.5 million over the five-year life of the agreement. The	 
second factor is that supervisory attrition has, so far, been	 
happening faster than FAA estimated, increasing its net savings  
by about $18.4 million. To fully assess productivity gains from  
both the CIC expansion and other increases in controllers'	 
duties, FAA believes it needs more data than it currently has,	 
but it has not yet implemented systems that capture all of the	 
productivity data it needs to do so. FAA expects to have such a  
system in place in fiscal year 2002.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-55						        
    ACCNO:   A02407						        
  TITLE:     Air Traffic Control: FAA Enhanced the		      
Controller-in-Charge Program, but More Comprehensive Evaluation  
is Needed							 
     DATE:   10/31/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Air traffic control systems			 
	     Air traffic controllers				 
	     Quality assurance					 
	     Transportation safety				 
	     Reductions in force				 
	     Safety regulation					 
	     Human resources training				 
	     FAA Air Traffic Control System			 
	     FAA Controller-in-Charge Program			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-55
     
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

October 2001 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

FAA Enhanced the Controller- in- Charge Program, but More Comprehensive
Evaluation Is Needed

GAO- 02- 55

Page i GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 4 FAA?s Facilities Have Certified Over Half of
All Controllers As CICs

Because of Shift Coverage Rules, Supervisory Staffing, and Local Operational
Needs 11 Overall Effectiveness of FAA?s CIC Training Program Is Uncertain 16
Implementation of Quality Assurance Measures for the CIC

Expansion Was Inconsistent 20 Facilities We Visited That Were Monitoring the
Impact of the CIC

Expansion Relied on Their Existing Quality Assurance Programs 23 Cost
Savings From Supervisory Reductions Will Be Lower Than

FAA Estimated While Productivity Gains Have Not Been Measured 26 Conclusions
31 Recommendations for Executive Action 32 Agency Comments and Our
Evaluation 32 Scope and Methodology 35

Appendix I Article 18 of the Agreement Between the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association and the Federal Aviation Administration 39

Appendix II Table of Select Supervisor and CIC Duties 41

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 42

Tables

Table 1: Controllers Selected to Be CICs by Type and Size of Facility 14
Table 2: Effect on FAA?s Projected Savings From Supervisory

Reductions by Including Actual and Estimated CIC Premium Costs Plus Actual
and Estimated Attrition Savings 29 Contents

Page ii GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control Figures

Figure 1: Air Traffic Control System 6 Figure 2: Air Traffic Controllers in
a Tower 7 Figure 3: Air Traffic Controllers in a TRACON 8

Abbreviations

CIC Controller- in- Charge FAA Federal Aviation Administration FMA Federal
Managers Association NATCA National Air Traffic Controllers Association OIG
Office of the Inspector General

Page 1 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

October 31, 2001 The Honorable Don Young Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and

Infrastructure House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman: Each day, over 25,000 flights and their nearly 2 million
passengers- as well as innumerable cargo, military, and general aviation
flights- depend on the 15,000 air traffic controllers working in the Federal
Aviation Administration?s (FAA) Air Traffic Control (ATC) system to safely
reach their destinations. Working in airport towers and radar facilities,
these controllers monitor and direct aircraft on the ground, during landings
and takeoffs, and en route between airports. In doing so, the controllers
ensure that the aircraft maintain a safe distance between one another and
that each aircraft is on proper course to its destination. Because the ATC
system requires thousands of controllers, each of whom typically manages
just a section of airspace or one aspect of an aircraft?s takeoff or
landing, FAA depends on supervisors to monitor air traffic operations and
controllers? workload and performance to ensure that the system is operating
safely.

In negotiating its 1998 collective bargaining agreement with its
controllers? union (the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, or
NATCA), FAA agreed to a national plan that would reduce by attrition the
number of supervisors that oversee air traffic controllers (that is, not
replacing those who leave), ultimately bringing the controller- to-
supervisor ratio from 7- to1 to 10- to- 1. To do so without compromising
safety, FAA will increasingly have its controllers performing supervisory
duties as Controllers- in- Charge (CIC) when supervisors are not present.
While some FAA facilities have been using CICs for over 40 years, FAA
recently expanded the duties and responsibilities of CICs and made them
accountable for the performance and safe operation of the facility while
they are in charge. Because of concerns about FAA?s plans to make greater
use of CICs, you asked us to review FAA?s implementation of the expanded CIC
program. Specifically, as discussed with your office, this report answers
four questions: (1) how is FAA implementing the national plan for
supervisory reductions and what is the resulting number of CICs it has
selected to provide watch supervision?; (2) how adequate is the training FAA
provided controllers for their new duties and responsibilities?; (3) how
adequate are FAA?s

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

quality assurance procedures for measuring any safety- related effects of
the CIC expansion?; and (4) what is the status of FAA?s progress toward
meeting its estimates of savings and productivity gains from the CIC
expansion?

To conduct this work, we obtained and analyzed nationwide data from FAA?s
Air Traffic Services Division on the implementation of the expanded CIC
program. We also visited 12 air traffic control facilities and 6 of FAA?s 9
regional offices to review their implementation of the CIC selection
process, training, and quality assurance measures. We selected regional
offices to ensure geographic diversity and, within those regions, we chose
facilities that handle different levels of traffic (in terms of volume and
complexity) and that represented a cross- section of the types of air
traffic control facilities FAA operates. We assembled an independent panel
of four experts in air traffic control training to assess the adequacy of
the CIC training program in addition to reviewing all available student
evaluations of the CIC training. Our detailed scope and methodology,
including a list of the FAA facilities we visited, are presented at the
conclusion of this report.

FAA is implementing its national plan to reduce the number of supervisors
for air traffic control through its regional offices, which are doing so by
considering the supervisory staffing needs of each of their facilities or by
applying the 10- to- 1 ratio across the board. Nationwide, FAA has selected
8,268 controllers to serve as CICs, which is about 55 percent of its air
traffic controller workforce. Although this is slightly fewer CICs than FAA
had prior to the 1998 agreement, FAA expects to certify about 10, 000
controllers as CICs by the end of 2003. At individual facilities, the
numbers of controllers selected varied by the size and type of facility.
Over half of FAA?s 316 facilities, including 6 of the 12 we visited,
selected all or nearly all of their controllers to be CICs. Most of these
were small facilities with 30 or fewer controllers. Towers, particularly
those with lower volume and complexity of air traffic, selected the highest
percentage of their controllers as CICs (about 82 percent) whereas the
terminal radar approach control facilities (TRACONs) and en route centers
selected smaller percentages of their controller workforce (59 and 27
percent, respectively). According to managers of the facilities we visited,
they needed the number of CICs they selected in order to have watch
supervision in place at all times; as a result, being certified as a CIC was
often a requirement. Also, facilities cited their current and projected
supervisory staffing and facility- specific operational requirements as
reasons for their selections. Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

In the view of our expert panel, the materials for FAA?s CIC training
program were thorough and comprehensive, but FAA has little assurance that
the training was effectively presented nationwide and achieved its
objectives. While FAA conducted some assessment of training at a limited
number of facilities, the agency has not obtained student evaluations from
most of those who completed the course or conducted an overall evaluation of
whether the training was effective. Moreover, the effectiveness of the
training may diminish for those controllers who spend little time as CICs
and thereby might have difficulty maintaining the skills needed to perform
CIC duties. Refresher training might be necessary to retain or improve CIC
skills. As a result, we are making recommendations that FAA more
comprehensively evaluate the CIC training program and provide periodic
refresher training as needed for CICs at all of its facilities.

FAA has not consistently implemented its quality assurance procedures for
the CIC expansion. FAA developed a CIC "success metric," which is a series
of questions each facility is supposed to use as part of their overall
facility quality assurance program to evaluate whether the facility was
operating satisfactorily after expanding the duties of CICs. However, we
found that 5 of the 12 facilities we visited did not have quality assurance
measures in place for the CIC expansion because, for example, they were
unaware of the requirement to have the measures or said they had not been
instructed to use them. The remaining seven facilities relied on their
existing quality assurance programs to monitor the impact of the CIC
expansion. At 15 of its facilities, FAA also found facilities had
inconsistently implemented their CIC quality assurance measures.
Nonetheless, FAA reports that, to date, no CICs have been found to have
caused or contributed to operational errors. FAA also noted that supervisors
are rarely the cause of or a contributing factor to these errors. FAA does
biennial evaluations of its facilities? operations and these now include a
focus on their implementation of the CIC expansion so that FAA will identify
those that do not have CIC quality assurance. However, because these
evaluations will not have been done at all of FAA?s facilities until fiscal
year 2003, FAA will not know until then whether all of its facilities are
adequately monitoring the effects of the CIC expansion. As a result, we are
making a recommendation that FAA better enforce its requirement that its
facilities are measuring the effects of the CIC expansion through their
quality assurance programs.

FAA?s reduction of supervisors will save the agency $141.5 million, or about
$23.1 million less than it estimated. In September 2000, FAA estimated that
the reduction in supervisors to a 10- to- 1 ratio of controllers to
supervisors would produce savings of $164.6 million. The difference

Page 4 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

between FAA?s estimate and ours is the result of two factors- one that
reduces its savings and one that increases them. The first of these is that
FAA?s estimate did not factor in the 10- percent premium FAA pays
controllers for serving as CICs, which we estimate will cost $41.5 million
over the 5- year life of the agreement (reducing its net savings). The
second factor is that supervisory attrition has, so far, been happening
faster than FAA estimated, increasing its net savings by about $18.4
million. Because FAA has said that it will reduce supervisors only through
attrition, it will be fiscal year 2004 before it knows conclusively what its
net costs or savings from supervisory reductions will be. FAA has not
measured productivity gains from the CIC expansion. To fully assess
productivity gains from both the CIC expansion and other increases in
controllers? duties, FAA believes it needs more data than it currently has,
but it has not yet implemented systems that capture all of the productivity
data it needs to do so. FAA expects to have such a system in place that
would allow it to begin collecting productivity data in fiscal year 2002. As
a result, we are making a recommendation that FAA assess the productivity of
its controllers in future status reports on the 1998 agreement.

In commenting on a draft of this report, FAA agreed with our findings and
conclusions and stated that it has begun taking steps to address our
recommendations. For example, FAA has begun developing refresher training
for CICs. The Federal Managers Association, a professional association
representing some FAA managers and supervisors, disagreed with our findings
because it questions the accuracy of the information FAA provided us.
However, we see no reason to question the accuracy of the information FAA
provided and note that we used additional means, such as consulting an
expert panel and obtaining documentation of facilities? practices, to
develop our findings. The air traffic controllers? union agreed with our
findings and conclusions and considers our recommendations necessary steps
for improving the CIC program.

FAA?s mission is to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air
traffic in the United States. To accomplish this, FAA provides uninterrupted
air traffic control services throughout the year. A key component of these
services is FAA?s air traffic controller workforce, which includes its air
traffic controllers and their supervisors. Controllers manage and direct air
traffic throughout the country at three primary types of facilities to
provide complete airport- to- airport air traffic management: Background

Page 5 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

 Airport towers- controllers at these facilities direct the flow of
aircraft before landing, on the ground, and after takeoff within 5 nautical
miles of the airport and up to 3,000 feet above the airport.  TRACONs-
controllers here provide radar separation to arriving and

departing flights. They direct aircraft within the airspace that extends
from the point where the tower control ends to about 50 nautical miles from
the airport. Some TRACONs are located outside of the airport. However, most
are not only collocated with the airport tower, but the controllers there
work at both the tower and the TRACON.  Air Route Traffic Control Centers
(called en route centers)- controllers at

these facilities manage aircraft in routes outside or above TRACON airspace
and over parts of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Typically, an en route
center has responsibility for more than 100,000 square miles of airspace.

Page 6 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

Figure 1: Air Traffic Control System

At each facility, controllers manage and direct one area or aspect of air
traffic. For example, in a tower, one controller is responsible for
directing the ground movement of aircraft until they reach the runways,
while others are responsible for air traffic control service to departing
aircraft or sequencing aircraft on their final approaches into the airport.
Control of an aircraft passes from one controller to another as the plane
moves to its destination. For example, the controller directing ground
movement of

Page 7 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

aircraft hands off responsibility for them to the controller directing
departures from the airport. As departing aircraft near the end of the
tower?s airspace, controllers transfer control of the plane to a controller
at a TRACON who, in turn, transfers the aircraft to an en route center as it
leaves the TRACON?s airspace.

Figure 2: Air Traffic Controllers in a Tower

Source: FAA.

Page 8 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

Figure 3: Air Traffic Controllers in a TRACON

Source: FAA.

FAA?s standards for its facilities require that they maintain ?watch
supervision? over air traffic operations at all times. To do this, FAA
employs supervisors who have a range of operational, managerial, and
administrative responsibilities. Supervisors provide oversight of the
control area and ensure operational awareness among the controllers
directing air traffic in different areas or positions within the facility.
They monitor and manage the flow of air traffic, distribute workload among
controllers, and adjust and monitor the equipment (such as radar) on which
the controllers depend. Supervisors are also responsible for other duties
such as evaluating performance, considering promotions, granting awards,
taking disciplinary actions, and coordinating testing for drugs or alcohol.
Historically, FAA has also had CICs provide watch supervision when
supervisors were not available, but the role of the CIC was limited to
overseeing the operations in the control area.

In July 1998, in negotiating with its air traffic controllers? union, NATCA,
FAA agreed to a national plan to reduce the number of supervisors and

Page 9 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

increasingly use CICs to provide watch supervision. 1 Specifically, FAA
agreed to (1) reduce through attrition about 560 supervisory positions,
moving from a controller- to- supervisor ratio of 7- to- 1 toward 10- to- 1,
(2) pay controllers a 10- percent premium for the time each spends as a CIC,
and (3) increase the supervisory duties that CICs would perform. In agreeing
to these terms, FAA said a 10- to- 1 ratio would be consistent with the
National Performance Review goal of reducing employee- to- supervisor
ratios. 2 After the agreement took effect, FAA estimated that supervisory
attrition would partially offset the costs of certain personnel reforms in
the 1998 agreement as well as subsequent pay increases for supervisors and
air traffic managers. 3 The 10- percent CIC premium took effect in 1998 and
the added responsibilities for CICs took effect January 1, 2001. At that
time, FAA began to allow for supervisory attrition at facilities that had
completed the training and other steps it required in preparation for the
CIC expansion.

After FAA completed the 1998 agreement with the air traffic controllers,
members of the Congress, the Federal Managers Association (FMA), and others
raised concerns about the potential safety implications of reducing the
number of air traffic control supervisors. In response to these concerns,
the Department of Transportation?s Office of Inspector General (OIG)
reported that the agreement to reduce the number of supervisors will not
have an adverse impact on the safety of air traffic operations as long as
FAA enhances the program by (1) identifying the duties CICs will assume from
supervisors, (2) ensuring that FAA management retains the right to select
CICs, (3) developing and providing CIC training courses,

1 FAA agreed to the 10- percent premium in article 18 of its 1998 collective
bargaining agreement; it spelled out other provisions of the CIC expansion,
such as the move to a 10- to- 1 controller- to- supervisor ratio, in related
implementing agreements (including a ?Principal Memorandum of Agreement?
that addresses controller staffing, hiring, and compensation issues) and
revisions to its watch supervision requirements and the controllers?
performance standards. Article 18 of FAA?s 1998 agreement with NATCA appears
as appendix I of this report.

2 The National Performance Review, issued in September 1993, identified
methods to make government work better and cost less. The review identified
the federal government?s average of one supervisor to every seven employees
as a concern and directed executive agencies to double the managerial span
of control.

3 Specifically, FAA agreed to base controller pay on the complexity of the
operations they manage and the volume of air traffic they control,
increasing its costs by an additional $825 million over the 5- year life of
the agreement. FAA estimated that pay increases for its air traffic managers
and supervisors would cost an additional $260 million.

Page 10 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

and (4) developing quality assurance procedures to measure the impact of
supervisory reductions. 4

FAA identified the additional supervisory functions that CICs will perform
as well as those, such as performance evaluations, which remain with
supervisors. As shown in appendix II, CICs must now perform three additional
duties that they could not perform before the expansion: preparing initial
reports on operational errors and deviations, monitoring the movement of
presidential aircraft, and making on- the- spot corrections of controllers?
performance while overseeing facility operations. However, FAA officials
emphasize that, more so than the number of additional duties, the most
important difference between the pre- and post- expansion CIC program is the
increased accountability FAA now places on controllers for their performance
of CIC duties. Prior to the 1998 agreement, CIC duties were not a critical
job element in the performance standards that FAA uses to evaluate
individual controllers? performance and, according to FAA, it had limited
ability to hold controllers accountable for their performance as CICs. As
part of the CIC expansion (and in consultation with NATCA), FAA has made
those duties a critical job element for the controllers. In doing so, FAA
officials believe they have set an expectation that controllers are now
accountable for their performance as CICs in the same manner that they are
held accountable for controlling air traffic.

FAA took a number of actions to address the report?s other concerns and to
implement the expanded CIC program. Specifically, it (1) determined that
each of its ATC facilities would be responsible for selecting controllers to
serve as CICs and spelled out a CIC selection process for them to use, (2)
developed training for CICs to meet their new responsibilities, and (3)
developed safety and efficiency quality assurance metrics for evaluating the
CIC program. FAA also determined that it would not allow attrition to begin
until each facility had completed all of the steps necessary to prepare its
controllers and certified that it had a sufficient number of controllers to
serve as CICs and the expansion of CIC duties was working satisfactorily.

4 Staffing: Reductions in the Number of Supervisors Will Require
Enhancements to FAA?s Controller- in- Charge Program, Office of Inspector
General, U. S. Department of Transportation, Report number AV- 1999- 020,
November 16, 1998.

Page 11 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

FAA?s regional offices are responsible for carrying out the agency?s efforts
to meet its national goal of a 10- to- 1 ratio of controllers to
supervisors. The regional offices did so either by determining appropriate
ratios or staffing levels for each of their facilities or by applying the
10- to- 1 ratio across the board to all of their facilities. Nationwide,
FAA?s facilities selected over 8,250 air traffic controllers to be CICs.
Although this represents over 55 percent of FAA?s controllers, it is
slightly less than the number of CICs FAA had prior to the 1998 agreement.
The percentage of controllers selected varied considerably among different
types and sizes of facilities. Over half of FAA?s facilities- primarily
small and mid- size towers- selected all or nearly all of their controllers.
However, larger facilities, such as the busiest airports and FAA?s en route
centers, typically selected fewer controllers to be CICs. At the 12
facilities we visited, their need for CICs- and, as a result, the number of
controllers they selected- was governed by a combination of FAA?s
requirement to have watch supervision on all shifts, their level of
supervisory staffing, and their operational requirements.

FAA tasked each of its regional offices with planning for and managing the
attrition of supervisors on a facility- by- facility basis so that it could
reach its national goal of a 10- to- 1 ratio of controllers to supervisors.
FAA?s expectation was that each region would (1) work towards achieving a
10- to- 1 ratio, but that individual facilities within the region could have
different ratios- either higher or lower- until the region reached 10- to-
1; (2) consider the staffing and operational requirements of each facility
to determine an appropriate controller- to- supervisor ratio at each
facility; and (3) reach the 10- to- 1 ratio only through normal attrition,
such as retirements, resignations, and voluntary transfers.

One of the 6 regions we visited has chosen to uniformly apply the 10- to- 1
controller to supervisor ratio to each of their facilities. The remaining
five regions we visited are adjusting supervisory levels on a facility- by-
facility basis. They plan to keep supervisory staffing at or close to
current levels at the larger facilities such as en route centers, TRACONs,
and terminals with high- density traffic (such as O?Hare in Chicago), and
will reduce the number of supervisors at smaller facilities that have less
traffic. As a result, controller- to- supervisor ratios at facilities in
these regions will vary. For example, in one region there will eventually be
no supervisors at some of its smaller facilities, such as the North Las
Vegas air traffic control tower. FAA plans for North Las Vegas to have no
supervisor and, instead, operate with 1 manager and 15 controllers.
Similarly, the Billings FAA?s Facilities Have

Certified Over Half of All Controllers As CICs Because of Shift Coverage
Rules, Supervisory Staffing, and Local Operational Needs

FAA?s Regional Offices Are Implementing Supervisory Reductions

Page 12 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

terminal- once the attrition of the 3 supervisors currently assigned there
has occurred- will have 1 manager, no supervisors, and 18 controllers. At
this facility, CICs will perform all of the watch supervision duties and the
facility manager will perform all of the other duties that CICs may not
(such as performance evaluations of the controllers).

By the end of March 2001, managers at FAA?s facilities decided to select and
certify most of FAA?s air traffic controllers as CICs. A total of 8,268
controllers- over 55 percent of the 15,000 controllers at FAA facilities 5 -
have been certified as CICs. The number of controllers selected as CICs
under the expanded program, although large, is smaller than the number of
CICs FAA had under its previous program. In September 2000, prior to the
selection of controllers for the expanded program, FAA had over 10,600 CICs
at its facilities. According to FAA program officials, in assessing their
needs for CICs under the expanded program, some facilities determined that
they did not currently need as many CICs as in the past. Therefore, some
controllers who were CICs under the previous program have been decertified
and are not CICs under the expanded program. However, the number of CICs in
the expanded program is expected to grow as the number of supervisors is
reduced. According to projections submitted by FAA facility managers, a
total of 10,200 controllers will be certified as CICs when the program is
fully implemented in 2003.

5 To be eligible to be a CIC, a controller must have been certified for 6
months in the area or facility CIC duties are to be performed. The other
controllers in the FAA workforce who are part of the NATCA bargaining unit
are certified professional controllers- in- training and developmental
controllers. The percentage of CICs to controllers is based on the total
number of controllers at a facility. FAA?s Facilities Selected

Most Controllers to Be CICs, but Fewer Than Were Used in the Past

Page 13 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

The percentage of controllers selected to be CICs varied depending on
facility size. Many of FAA?s facilities selected all of their controllers to
be CICs. Of the 316 traffic control facilities, 165- over 50 percent-
selected or planned to select all or nearly all of the controllers to be
CICs. 6 Most of those selecting all of their controllers to be CICs were
relatively small- with 30 or fewer controllers- whereas none of the larger
facilities (those with 100 or more controllers) selected all controllers to
be CICs. On the basis of facility type, the largest number of controllers
selected to be CICs- and the highest percentage of the controller staff-
were at towers. This was particularly so at those towers at FAA levels 5
through 10, 7 where 82 percent of all controllers at these facilities were
selected to be CICs. At the TRACONs, about 59 percent of the controllers
were made CICs, although some TRACONs that have relatively low traffic and
fewer controllers selected all controllers. The en route centers, almost all
of which have large staffs, selected significantly lower proportions of
their controllers to be CICs. Table 1 shows the numbers of controllers and
CICs at each type of facility.

6 Controllers in training or not certified as full performance controllers
are not eligible to be CICs. There were 165 facilities that selected or
planned to select between 95 and 100 percent of all controllers assigned to
those facilities. The percentage calculation includes those controllers not
eligible to be CICs.

7 FAA activity levels of the towers (and other air traffic facilities)
indicate the volume and complexity of air traffic at that location. Facility
size is also reflected in the numbers of controllers assigned to that
facility. For example, O?Hare is a level 12 facility with about 65
controllers, and North Las Vegas is a level 7 with about 12 controllers.
Number of Controllers

Selected to Be CICs Varied Depending on the Size and Type of Air Traffic
Control Facility

Page 14 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

Table 1: Controllers Selected to Be CICs by Type and Size of Facility
Facility Type/ Size a Number of

Facilities Number of

CICs, as of March 2001

Percent of Controllers as CICs, as of March

2001 Projected

CICs, January 2003

En route Centers 23 1, 782 27 2,612 TRACONs b 28 981 59 1,200 Towers c
(Level 11- 12) 20 981 75 1,062 Towers (Level 9- 10) 42 1,436 82 1,654 Towers
(Level 5- 8) 203 3,088 82 3,672 National total 316 8,268 55 10,200 a Levels
of the towers indicate the amount and complexity of air traffic at that
location.

b TRACONs include combined control facilities that have consolidated the
operations of more than one TRACON. c Towers include towers with radar,
towers without radar, and combined tower/ TRACON facilities.

Source: GAO?s analysis of FAA?s Quarterly Reports.

At the 12 facilities we visited, the number of controllers selected to be
CICs is the result of a combination of factors. These included FAA?s watch
supervision requirements, current and projected facility supervisory
staffing, and each facility?s operational requirements.

The managers of the facilities we visited that selected all controllers
pointed out that their need for CICs is based on watch coverage
requirements, not on concerns that controllers are entitled to share in the
CIC duties and the accompanying 10- percent pay premium. In fact, the
managers stressed that becoming a CIC was now a requirement at their
facility, and that if a controller did not become CIC certified, he or she
could no longer work at the facility. The managers said that they would have
tremendous difficulty trying to schedule staff if they had to consider whom
was or was not a CIC to ensure proper watch supervision and adequate backup
to accommodate breaks, vacations, and unplanned absences.

Similarly, managers of facilities that did not need all of their controllers
to be CICs also said that coverage requirements dictated their needs. At the
Watch Supervision

Requirements, Supervisory Staffing, and Facility Operational Needs Accounted
for CIC Selections at 12 FAA Facilities

Watch Supervision Requirements

Page 15 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

Los Angeles en route center, for example, managers said that controllers and
CICs are certified to work in only one of the six air traffic control areas
at the facility and are not interchangeable among areas on a day- today
basis without undergoing months of recertification training. Consequently,
the number of CICs selected- 69 of the total controller workforce of 294- is
necessary to ensure coverage. Lower numbers of CICs would result in
scheduling difficulties and a lack of sufficient CICs to be available when
needed, according to the center?s manager.

FAA headquarters directed each region to determine how it wanted to allocate
supervisors at its facilities to achieve the 10- to- 1 controller-
tosupervisor ratio regionwide. Consequently, some facilities are to have
proportionally more supervisors than others and have less need for CICs.
Managers at the en route centers and TRACONs that had a higher allocation of
supervisors selected proportionally fewer controllers to be CICs. For
example, the TRACON in Elgin, Illinois, is being allocated a 7. 8- to- 1
controller- to- supervisor ratio, and the management of this facility
selected 30 percent of its controllers to be CICs. The en route center in
Atlanta, however, is being allocated only enough supervisors for a 9- to- 1
controller- to- supervisor ratio, and its management determined it will need
to select 161 of its 399 controllers (40 percent) to provide adequate CIC
coverage based on its projected supervisory staffing for 2003.

Most FAA facilities operate 24 hours per day, and controllers work various
shifts, including weekends and overnight (termed midnight shifts). According
to the managers at some facilities we visited, local labor agreements
require that controllers rotate through various shifts, many of which are
not overseen by supervisors. Although some of these shifts, such as the
midnight shift, do not need many controllers, all must be certified as CICs
to ensure continual watch supervision. At Dulles airport, for example, all
82 controllers must at times work a 3- person midnight shift to staff both
the tower and TRACON at the facility. No supervisors are scheduled for this
shift, and because of FAA?s watch supervision requirements, the three
controllers on the shift must be CICs in order to monitor both the tower and
TRACON and provide required breaks. Managers at the Dulles facility said
that they need all 82 controllers to be CICs to satisfy both shift coverage
and watch supervision requirements. For the same reasons, 30 or fewer
controllers staffed 4 of the towers we visited, and managers there needed to
certify all controllers as CICs. Supervisors at these facilities are
scheduled to work when air traffic was heaviest, but controllers had to
supervise the facilities' operations (as CICs) at all other times. For
example, the North Las Vegas and Billings towers currently have one and
three supervisors, respectively, and are Current and Projected Facility

Supervisory Staffing Facility Operational Requirements

Page 16 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

projected to have no supervisors by October 2003. As a result, all of their
controllers have been trained and certified as CICs.

The materials for FAA?s CIC training program were comprehensive and
complete, according to a review for us by a panel of training experts and
our interviews with training participants, but little assurance exists that
the training was adequately delivered and achieved its objectives. Although
supervisors certified that most controllers who took the training were
qualified to be CICs and FAA conducted assessments of training at 15
facilities, FAA has not obtained student evaluations from most of those who
completed the course or conducted an overall evaluation of the training?s
effectiveness. Moreover, the effectiveness of the training may diminish for
some controllers who spend little time as CICs and thereby might have
difficulty maintaining, much less improving, the skills needed to perform
CIC duties. Refresher training might be necessary.

FAA officials involved with designing the training and a panel of experts
that reviewed the training materials for us agreed that the material was
comprehensive. Development of the training material began shortly after the
1998 agreement was signed. FAA established a CIC Workgroup, consisting of
FAA management, supervisors, and controllers, to make recommendations to the
CIC Executive Steering Committee on the roles and responsibilities,
guidelines for selection, quality assurance measures, and training for the
CIC program. As part of this effort, FAA asked several members of the group
to develop a CIC training program. Team members worked with FAA?s training
academy in Oklahoma City to develop a course based on the task and skill
requirements contained in supervisor training courses and in CIC training
courses developed by various regions and facilities. Ultimately, the team
developed a minimum 2ï¿½- day training course that included a 3 to 5- hour
computer- based instruction program and 2 days of classroom training. The
training was to end with a minimum of 2 hours of on- the- job training
overseen by a supervisor.

The training materials covered a broad range of subjects and supervisory
duties. The computer- based training provided an introduction to CIC duties,
and the classroom training materials contained 17 different modules that
addressed both national and local CIC requirements and skills. On the
national level, the training materials covered areas such as watch
supervision requirements, human relations and communications, operations
management, and the handling of unusual situations. The locallevel training
materials emphasized specific guidance needed for the local Overall
Effectiveness

of FAA?s CIC Training Program Is Uncertain

Training Material Is Comprehensive

Page 17 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

facility. It included information on the local work environment, operational
staffing, leave administration, and labor management relations. FAA's CIC
training team recommended that supervisors deliver all aspects of the
training, both national and local, and FAA required that the CIC on- the-
job training be given by supervisors.

The FAA officials noted that, as it requires of all of its training courses,
the CIC training program was validated in March 2000. Validation is a
process through which instructional materials and associated documentation
are examined and approved for delivery to the target population. The CIC
training program?s validation included a pilot test of the national
component of the classroom training with controllers and a critique by
subject experts, and in May 2000 the course was approved by FAA?s Training
Manager. FAA officials added that this training is more comprehensive than
that given to new supervisors and that current supervisors have asked to
take the training.

Controllers and supervisors who participated in the training at the 12
facilities we visited believed that the CIC training was useful. They said
that the CIC training was a good overview of watch supervision and was
better than that given to new supervisors. However, some supervisors did
express concerns about how effectively the training prepared controllers to
conduct watch supervision. For example, supervisors at one tower said that
the training was the ?bare minimum,? and at another facility a supervisor
told us that a 3- day course is not enough to provide a controller the
necessary skills to handle the tasks associated with watch supervision.

An independent panel of training experts we assembled concurred with FAA?s
assessment of the training materials, but had other concerns about the
training?s delivery. The panel- consisting of individuals involved in the
development and delivery of air traffic control courses at one U. S. college
and two universities- stated that the design of the CIC training materials
was among the best of FAA training programs they had seen. They pointed out
that the course materials fully matched the tasks and skills FAA requires
for a CIC and that the materials covered areas, such as human relations,
that are very important. The panel members stated that the CIC position
requires providing advice and counseling and may require significant
sensitivity.

Although the training materials are thorough, concerns exist about the
effectiveness of the CIC training. Our expert panel questioned whether the
training could be adequately given in the time and method provided by FAA.
All members stated that the 2 days of classroom training appeared to FAA Has
Not Assessed

Overall Effectiveness of Training

Page 18 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

be too short to allow for an in- depth presentation of the information
contained in the training program?s 17 modules. For example, the panel
stated that the instructors should spend considerable time instructing CICs
on how to provide on- the- spot corrections and on handling the workload and
staffing demands at a facility. They said that these are important safety-
related skills and duties that are not the responsibility of all
controllers, only those who are supervisors or CICs. They pointed out that
they did not have the opportunity to observe how the training was delivered
at any facility, but given the amount of information covered in the training
program, they were concerned that some areas would not be adequately
addressed. Furthermore, the panel members said that using local supervisors
to provide all the training might not be optimal. FAA often employs teams
trained to provide instruction on key matters nationwide. They said these
teams are thoroughly familiar with the training material, provide realistic
examples, and provide a consistent level of training throughout the country.
In the panel?s view, using local supervisors to conduct all of the training-
instead of these teams- raises questions about its consistency and quality.

Concerns about the overall effectiveness of training can be addressed if
assessments are used to examine whether deficiencies exist. One potential
source of assessment information for an early nationwide view of the
training program is student end- of- course evaluations. FAA?s Air Traffic
Services Training Orders requires that such evaluations be made available to
students. However, nearly 60 percent of those who completed the CIC training
program did not turn in a written evaluation. We asked FAA to provide us the
student evaluations from all 316 facilities; however, its facilities were
only able to provide evaluations from 3,396 students, or about 41 percent of
all the students who took the training. FAA officials told us that the
evaluation forms were available to students, as FAA?s training order
required, but that FAA cannot force students to complete the forms. They
told us that students frequently returned blank forms and were more likely
to provide feedback orally to the instructors after the class. Moreover,
while the majority of the evaluations we did obtain showed a favorable
response to the training, the evaluation forms were not standardized
nationwide and consequently do not provide a consistent basis for evaluating
the training. For example, about 2,200 forms used a format that rated the
training on a scale of 1 (the highest evaluation) to 6 (the lowest
evaluation) in 9 categories. However, about 1,200 forms used other rating
scales and other categories that are not comparable.

Furthermore, FAA has not conducted an overall evaluation of the training
program. FAA?s Air Traffic Services Training Order describes evaluation as

Page 19 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

one of the phases of its systematic training development process. Such
assessment is designed to chart the overall effectiveness and efficiency of
the instruction. Decisions to continue or revise the instruction are to be
based on the results of this evaluation. However, no such evaluation of the
CIC training has been done. According to FAA training officials, they
usually conduct such evaluations only if there is some indication of
problems that would be visible in performance reviews, for example. Also,
FAA officials said that they completed a special assessment at 15 facilities
that included training and found that managers, supervisors, and controllers
had positive comments about the course and study materials. 8

Nevertheless, although they are not aware of any problems with the CIC
training, FAA officials told us that they would develop a plan for an
overall evaluation of the CIC training. They said that because of the
importance of and concerns about the expanded CIC program, they will survey
facility managers, CICs, and controllers who are not CICs but who receive
direction from them, to determine if the training has been effective. They
expect to obtain the results of this survey early in 2002.

Regardless of the effectiveness of the CIC training, some controllers who
have received the training and have been certified are getting little
experience actually performing CIC duties. Among the 12 facilities we
visited, we identified several instances where controllers spent only brief
periods of time as CIC. For example, at the time of our visit, some
controllers in the Boston TRACON had spent less than 5 hours per month as
CICs. In one area at the New York en route center about half the controllers
spent 4 hours per month or less performing CIC duties. By comparison, FAA
requires supervisors to spend at least 8 hours per month controlling air
traffic in order to maintain proficiency in the hands- on aspects of air
traffic management.

No such minimum time requirement exists for controllers serving as CICs.
According to FAA officials, a minimum number of hours for controllers to
spend as CIC each month is not practical because in some cases only a small
number of hours are available for CICs. Furthermore, the officials believe
that using CIC skills during busier or more difficult periods is most

8 In providing oral comments on a draft of this report, FAA officials
indicated they plan to revise the Air Traffic Services Training Order to
clarify that the requirement for such an evaluation applies only on an as
needed basis (e. g., if there is an indication of a problem). Nationwide
Refresher

Training May Be Needed

Page 20 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

critical, and many of the hours available to CICs are during the midnight
shift, which generally do not provide the same conditions. Consequently,
controllers meeting minimum hour requirements primarily on midnight shifts
would not necessarily be developing and using all needed CIC skills. Our
expert training panel also stated that requiring CICs to perform these
duties a minimum number of hours each month is not realistic. The panel said
that the quality of the time performing CIC duties, and a mechanism to
provide additional training to ensure skills are retained, is more
important.

Refresher training might be a more effective means of reinforcing and
increasing knowledge and skills of CICs. Managers and controllers at some of
the facilities we visited stated that they believed refresher training
should be developed and provided. They said that this would be one mechanism
to ensure that CICs retain their skills and knowledge base and receive new
information that supervisors receive on a routine basis. At least one
facility plans to institute refresher training on its own. FAA officials at
the O?Hare tower said that they plan to develop and start a refresher
training program lasting 4 to 8 hours in September 2001. Our expert panel
believes that refresher training should be provided and made mandatory for
all CICs.

In discussing this with FAA headquarters officials, they said that although
no nationwide refresher training for CICs is in place, they are aware that
there is a need to have such training to ensure that CICs remain fully
capable of handling all the supervisory duties they have been assigned. They
stated that refresher training should be provided and they are beginning the
process to develop such training. However, they could not yet provide a
timetable for when they expected that this training would be developed and
required for all CICs.

Five of the 12 facilities we visited did not have quality assurance measures
in place for the CIC expansion even though, according to FAA, such measures
should be used. Quality assurance measures are an important part of
facilities? efforts to improve the safety of the air traffic system and,
specifically, the means by which FAA committed itself to monitoring the
effect of the expansion of CIC duties to ensure that it does not negatively
affect safety. An FAA assessment of certain facilities? implementation of
the CIC expansion recently found similar results, noting that implementation
of measures such as quality assurance was inconsistent. Separate, biennial
evaluations that FAA performs at each facility are a thorough review of all
areas of facilities? performance and these now Implementation of

Quality Assurance Measures for the CIC Expansion Was Inconsistent

Page 21 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

include a special emphasis on the facilities? implementation of the effect
of the CIC expansion. However, it will be fiscal year 2003 before FAA
completes this effort at all of its facilities. In the interim, FAA does not
require facilities to collect data or report on their use of CIC quality
assurance measures. As a result, it will be fiscal year 2003 before FAA
knows whether its facilities are adequately monitoring the effects of the
CIC expansion.

In November 1998, the Department of Transportation?s Inspector General
recommended that FAA develop quality assurance procedures to monitor the
effect of reductions in supervisors and the resulting expansion of CIC
duties. FAA agreed and developed the CIC ?success metric? as an empirical
measuring system for facilities to use to evaluate the impact of the
expansion of duties and supervisory reductions. The success metric consists
of a series of questions about the effect of the CIC expansion as well as
changes facilities have made to adjust to the expansion in six aspects of
each facility?s operations: safety, efficiency, control room distractions,
resource utilization, training, and communications. For example, under the
heading of safety, the metric asks about the effect the CIC expansion has
had on a facility?s efforts to reduce operational errors and deviations.
Under the training heading, the success metric asks about the effect the
expansion has had on the facility?s delivery of the periodic refresher
training that it requires its controllers to receive in various operational
aspects of their duties.

FAA expects its facilities to use this metric in conjunction with other
quality assurance tools, such as reviewing tapes of conversations between
controllers and pilots or investigating operational errors to determine
their cause( s) and how they might be prevented. 9 Facilities were free to
choose how they would jointly use the success metric and other measures as
long

9 For all aspects of their operations, not just the use of CICs, FAA
requires that each of its facilities use a quality assurance program to
identify deficiencies (and ways to correct them) and recognize successes.
FAA characterizes quality assurance as a dynamic process through which it
continually- and proactively- improves the air traffic system. At a minimum,
facilities? quality assurance programs must focus on four specific areas of
their operations: (1) operational error and operational deviation
prevention, (2) teamwork, (3) communications, and (4) customer service/
feedback. In some cases, quality assurance programs are ongoing activities
by which the facilities stay abreast of operational and performance issues,
such as communicating with pilots. In other cases, quality assurance
activities take place only when something happens that requires the
facility?s immediate, focused attention, such as a runway incursion or a
pilot inquiry. FAA Developed Quality

Assurance Measures for the CIC Expansion

Page 22 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

as they could, at any time, specifically address the impact of the expansion
of CIC duties in terms of the information the success metric covers.
However, FAA does not require that its facilities collect and report the
quality assurance information covered in the CIC success metric to a central
location.

Officials at 5 of the 12 facilities we visited told us that monitoring the
impact of the expansion of CIC duties was not something that their ongoing
quality assurance program addresses. For example, one tower/ TRACON facility
told us that its quality assurance office has little involvement with the
CIC expansion, was not tracking the effect of the expansion, and that no one
had instructed it to do so. Another tower/ TRACON facility also said it had
no quality assurance process in place to monitor changes as it implements
the CIC expansion and that no part of its ongoing quality assurance program
specifically or solely focuses on the use or performance of CICs. This
facility?s quality assurance manager told us its quality assurance program
would address the use of CICs only on those occasions when a specific
incident occurs, such as an operational error. At one of the en route
centers we visited, an official questioned the usefulness of FAA?s CIC
quality assurance measures for monitoring the use of CICs in the en route
center environment because they do not reflect the kinds of things
supervisors need to consider in their daily duties, such as ensuring that
the right sectors of airspace are open.

In the first set of special assessments that focus solely on facilities?
implementation of the CIC expansion, which FAA recently completed at 15
facilities, it found similar deficiencies in certain facilities? quality
assurance measures, noting that implementation and use of items like the
success metric were inconsistent. 10 FAA conducts these special assessments
upon request when a specific program or area of facilities? operations is of
interest or concern to an FAA program office. In this instance, these CIC
special facility assessments addressed areas such as controller and
supervisory staffing and attrition, the facility?s selection process and
training for CICs, the use and performance of CICs, any ongoing facility
assessment and tracking of the CIC expansion, and each

10 In order to conserve resources, FAA selected facilities for the first of
these assessments that are all collocated with or within commuting distance
of its four regional evaluation offices. These offices are in Virginia
(Washington/ Dulles Airport); Fort Worth, Texas; Seattle, Washington; and
Atlanta, Georgia. Some Facilities Did Not

Have Quality Assurance Measures for the CIC Expansion

FAA Special Facility Assessments Also Found Inconsistent Implementation of
CIC Quality Assurance

Page 23 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

facility?s certification that it had reviewed the CIC success metric and was
prepared to proceed with the CIC expansion. FAA expects to soon finalize a
report summarizing its results (1) from revisiting 10 of the first 15
facilities it assessed to ensure that they have addressed any deficiencies
the assessment teams identified and (2) 12 additional of these assessments
it conducted at a second set of facilities. 11

Officials at the remaining seven facilities we visited told us that they are
relying on their ongoing quality assurance programs to monitor the effect of
increased use of CICs as they proceed with the expansion of CIC duties. They
stated that, while they are not using the CIC success metric as a stand-
alone tool, their ongoing quality assurance programs contain comparable
quality assurance measures. For example, through operational error and
operational deviation prevention efforts, these facilities? quality
assurance programs include activities such as incorporating scenarios from
recent operational errors into the facility?s training program. Quality
assurance programs can also include efforts focused on improving
controllers? technical performance through methods such as computer audio
and video recreations of air traffic control situations they have faced in
the past.

FAA headquarters officials told us that to date, since the expansion of CIC
duties took effect in January 2001, there have not been any operational
errors, deviations, or other incidents in which the final investigation
found a controller acting as CIC caused or was a contributing factor to an
error. They also noted that it is relatively rare that supervisors are found
to have caused or contributed to errors. Investigations of operational
errors (or other incidents) are quality assurance activities that happen
only when FAA?s facilities believe that an incident requiring further
investigation might have occurred, such as an operational error. Individual
facilities? quality assurance staff are usually responsible for such
investigations; occasionally, in instances such as those that may be
particularly controversial or sensitive, quality assurance staff from FAA?s
headquarters will also take part in the investigation.

11 FAA originally planned to revisit all of the first 15 facilities it
assessed and perform 15 additional assessments. However, because of the
terrorist hijackings on September 11, 2001, FAA recalled all of its
assessment teams and temporarily suspended activities such as these
assessments. FAA subsequently decided that it had completed enough of the
new and follow- up assessments to prepare its final report. Facilities We
Visited

That Were Monitoring the Impact of the CIC Expansion Relied on Their
Existing Quality Assurance Programs

FAA Uses Other Quality Assurance Activities to Identify the Effect of Using
CICs in Instances When Errors or Other Incidents Occur

Page 24 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

According to FAA officials, in any such investigation they pay particular
attention to the role of the person providing supervision at the time of any
incident- operational supervisor or CIC- and require that facilities
determine in their investigations the identity, location, and actions of the
person in charge, specifying whether it was a supervisor or CIC. In addition
to citing the factor( s) that caused an error, these investigative reports
will identify, when the situation warrants, other factors that contributed
to the error, such as actions by a supervisor. When FAA concludes that a
supervisor was a contributing factor to an error, the same range of
corrective actions it prescribes when a controller is responsible for an
error also applies to a supervisor (e. g., temporary decertification from
control duties and remedial and/ or skill enhancement training).

FAA has said it will immediately stop reductions of supervisors at any
facility where they find indications that the expanded use of CICs might be
having an adverse effect on safety. According to FAA, quality assurance
measures for the CIC expansion are important because FAA has said that it
will use data from the quality assurance process to make decisions about
continuing or modifying the CIC expansion.

Supervisors and managers at all of the facilities we visited expressed
concerns that the expansion of CICs will have an adverse effect. For
example, while FAA expects its supervisors to correct controllers?
performance immediately (as needed), supervisors or managers with whom we
met believe that CICs will not do so to the same degree as supervisors
because it would involve correcting the performance of their peers. CICs,
according to the supervisors and managers, will not make such corrections
because their peers could soon be serving as CICs, or relatively junior
controllers serving as CICs may lack credibility in the eyes of senior
controllers. Supervisors and managers also expressed concern about CICs?
human resource management- approving unexpected requests for annual leave or
overtime- and the effect this could have on the supervisors? ability to
appropriately supervise the shift when they return to supervise the
controllers.

For the most part, the CICs with whom we met believe the increased use of
CICs will not have the kinds of adverse effects the supervisors and managers
suggested. While one CIC did say he might be hesitant to correct the
performance of his peers, he added that the working relationships in that
facility among controllers were very positive, making it unlikely that he
would get significant resistance if he had to correct another controller's
performance. Other CICs stated that they believe Potential Safety Concerns

About Supervisory Reductions Highlight Importance of Quality Assurance
Programs

Page 25 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

CICs would correct the performance of their peers as much as supervisors do,
with one adding that he regularly sees controllers correct one another. CICs
at another facility expressed confidence in their ability to handle requests
for annual leave because they are well- versed in the facility's operational
requirements (e. g., the minimum number of controllers it needs at any given
time).

Whether they were discussing potential adverse safety effects from the
increased use of CICs or situations where CICs would likely perform well in
their role, the supervisors, managers, and CICs cited a very limited number
of instances that had actually occurred. Because we visited just 12
facilities, we cannot conclude how widespread or isolated these instances
might be. Consequently, quality assurance measures might be the only way for
FAA to systematically identify any safety- related effects- positive or
negative- that result from the increased use of CICs.

Beginning April 1, 2001, each full- facility evaluation has included an item
especially focusing on the method by which each facility monitors changes as
it implements the expanded CIC program. These evaluations basically amount
to an on- site, comprehensive assessment of the facility?s overall
performance. They focus on (1) operational areas of the facility?s
performance, such as communications between controllers and pilots and
operational error prevention and (2) operational support areas, such as
onthe- job training and monthly performance skill checks for controllers.
Typically, facilities receive a full evaluation one year and a follow- up
evaluation in the subsequent year that focuses on items that were identified
as problems during the previous year?s full- facility evaluation.

At the request of program officials in FAA, the evaluation teams
occasionally add ?special emphasis items? through which they assess
facilities? operations in areas of particular interest. FAA air traffic
officials recently added a special emphasis item that focuses on the impact
of the CIC expansion to be part of each facility?s full or follow- up
evaluation. Specifically, FAA expects each facility to implement a method
(including any quality assurance tool) of monitoring changes as it
implements the CIC expansion. FAA?s evaluation teams have been asked to
determine the methods the facilities use or, for those that have no method,
their reasons for failing to establish one.

FAA has expanded the biennial full- facility evaluations? emphasis on
quality assurance by broadening the scope of the evaluations to address more
aspects of the facilities? implementation of the CIC expansion. Completion
of Biennial

Facility Evaluations Emphasizing CIC Quality Assurance Is Expected in Fiscal
Year 2003

Page 26 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

Specifically, each facility?s full evaluation will now include a revised
special emphasis item covering all of the areas addressed in FAA?s recently
completed special facility assessments (in addition to the existing special
emphasis on CIC quality assurance). 12 Because FAA has just begun using this
expanded special emphasis item, it expects that it will be fiscal year 2003
before it completes this effort at all of its facilities.

FAA?s cost savings from reducing supervisors and increasing its use of CICs
will be $141.5 million- about $23.1 million less than it estimated. This
change represents the net effect of two factors: (1) reducing FAA?s
estimated savings by the 10- percent premium it pays controllers for being
CICs, which will be about $41.5 million through 2003 and (2) increasing its
estimated savings by $18. 4 million based on actual attrition to date, which
has been happening faster than FAA first estimated. Despite the premise that
expanding controllers? duties will make its workforce more productive, FAA
has not measured their productivity to see if this premise has held true.
FAA believes it needs more data than it currently collects to
comprehensively measure controller productivity. FAA recently began
deploying a system that will allow it to capture the additional data it
believes it needs to evaluate the time controllers spend as CICs and
performing non- air traffic control duties.

Currently, FAA can expect about $23.1 million less in savings than it first
estimated after taking into account two factors- one which reduces its net
savings and one which increases them (partially offsetting the reduction):
(1) FAA?s initial estimate did not take into account the 10- percent premium
controllers earn for serving as CICs (which it began paying upon signing the
agreement) and (2) supervisory attrition to date has been happening somewhat
faster than FAA first estimated. While the CIC premium reduces FAA?s
estimated savings, using more current attrition data offsets some of the CIC
premium costs because FAA is currently saving more from attrition than it
estimated.

12 As discussed earlier in this report, the 15 facility evaluations
addressed areas such as controller and supervisory staffing and each
facility?s certification that it had reviewed the CIC success metric and was
prepared to proceed with the CIC expansion; the existing special emphasis
item originally covered only the methods the facilities use for monitoring
changes as they implement the CIC expansion. Cost Savings From

Supervisory Reductions Will Be Lower Than FAA Estimated, While Productivity
Gains Have Not Been Measured

Cost Savings Will Be Less Than FAA Estimated

Page 27 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

When FAA signed the 1998 collective bargaining agreement, it expected that
some of the changes to which it had agreed, such as the expansion of CIC
duties, would produce cost savings and productivity gains, but it had not
estimated what those savings or gains would be. Subsequently, in September
2000, FAA estimated that the reduction in supervisors to a 10- to- 1 ratio
of controllers to supervisors would, over the 5- year life of the agreement,
produce cost savings of about $165 million to offset some of the increased
costs FAA will incur from various provisions of the agreement. At the same
time, FAA stated that it expected to increase the productive use of
controllers? on- duty time and, through the CIC expansion, improve
controllers? decisionmaking abilities. 13

Even though FAA had been using CICs for many years, it only began paying the
controllers the 10- percent premium for this duty as a result of the 1998
agreement. Previously, FAA did not have historical payroll or time and
attendance data on the number of hours its controllers served as CICs and
FAA did not reduce its savings by an estimate of these costs. We estimate
that the CIC premium will amount to over $41.5 million over the life of the
1998 agreement (through fiscal year 2003). Later this year, FAA plans to
update its status report on the 1998 agreement and, because cost data should
be available, it plans to include estimates of the CIC premium costs and
show how these payments have reduced the amount it will save through
supervisory attrition.

In contrast to how the CIC premium reduces its net savings, FAA currently
expects that it will save $18.4 million more from supervisory reductions
because attrition has occurred faster than it first expected. For example,
FAA estimated it would lose by attrition about 100 supervisors each fiscal
year. As of May 30, 2001, FAA had already lost by attrition 139 supervisors
in fiscal year 2001. Table 2 shows (1) the amount FAA originally estimated
it would save each year as a result of supervisory attrition, (2) FAA?s most
current data on savings based on actual supervisory attrition, (3) the
actual or estimated CIC premium costs for each year, and (4) the resulting

13 FAA, in conjunction with NATCA, established a team to identify the cost
savings and productivity gains that would be associated with various
provisions of the 1998 collective bargaining agreement. That team issued its
first report- on the effects in fiscal year 1999- in September 2000. Because
many provisions in the agreement required the development of implementation
plans or would take effect over time, the team recommended that FAA annually
issue status reports on the effect of the various provisions. FAA is doing
so and, after experiencing some delays, now expects to issue its report on
fiscal year 2000 in late 2001.

Page 28 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

effect on its estimated savings from including both the current attrition
data and the CIC premium costs.

Page 29 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

Table 2: Effect on FAA?s Projected Savings From Supervisory Reductions by
Including Actual and Estimated CIC Premium Costs Plus Actual and Estimated
Attrition Savings

Fiscal Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

FAA savings estimate $5,200,000 $16,200,000 $30,400,000 $47,200,000
$65,600,000 $164,600,000

Change to savings based on actual supervisory attrition (fiscal years 1999-
2001) and revised 2002 and 2003 estimates

$0 a ($ 1,800,000) $500,000 b $5,500,000 (est.) $14,200,000 (est.)
$18,400,000

Change to savings by subtracting CIC premium costs

($ 5,912,067) ($ 6,704,849) ($ 8,134,472) c ($ 9,549,870) c ($ 11,211,548) c
($ 41,512,806)

Net savings $141,487,194

Change in FAA net savings ($ 23,112,806)

a FAA issued its first report on the cost implications of the 1998 agreement
in 2000 and, as a result, was able to use actual rather than estimated
attrition data. b As of May 30, 2001.

c We estimated the total CIC premium costs for 2001 using the amount FAA had
paid to date as of the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2001 (June
30, 2001). We estimated CIC premium costs for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 by
using the average percentage by which these costs had increased each year
(FYs 1999 to 2000 and 2000 to 2001).

Source: GAO?s analysis of FAA?s data.

The $164.6 million savings FAA expected from the CIC expansion derive
entirely from supervisory attrition and the salary and benefits costs FAA
will no longer pay when supervisors leave by retirement (or other means) and
are not replaced. Because FAA made this estimate as part of its plan to move
toward a controller- to- supervisor ratio of 10- to- 1, the basis for the
estimate was an assumption that FAA would, by the end of fiscal year 2003,
reach its goal of a 10- to- 1 ratio. However, according to one official, FAA
also has said it would reach that goal only through attrition and, as a
result, never guaranteed that it would be at a 10- to- 1 ratio at any
specific future point in time. As a result, the information we present in
table 2 represents a snapshot of where FAA currently stands with respect to
its net savings from supervisory attrition. The savings FAA ultimately
achieves from the supervisory reductions may differ from its estimate and
might be largely out of the agency?s control because the savings depend on
attrition, which will be determined by the decisions of hundreds of
individual supervisors between now and the end of fiscal year 2003.

Page 30 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

FAA has not measured the productivity of its controller workforce to see if
expanding the duties for which they are responsible has, as it expected,
made them more productive. In its first report on the 1998 agreement, FAA
did not quantify any possible productivity gains it might get from expanding
the duties of CICs, although it did state that the expansion should produce
efficiency gains by improving controllers? decisionmaking abilities. FAA
officials cautioned that the CIC expansion is not the primary vehicle (among
the articles of the 1998 agreement) through which they expect to make more
productive use of controllers? on- duty time. Specifically, as permitted
under the 1998 agreement, FAA agreed to expand the duties of controllers to
include performing technical functions pertaining to the operations of the
facilities when the controllers are not directing air traffic. These are
duties for which the facilities? staff specialists are currently
responsible, but because FAA is also reducing the number of staff
specialists through attrition, FAA expects that having controllers perform
some of these duties will increase the productive use of controllers? time.
14

FAA officials also expect that the CIC expansion will also make its
controllers more productive because it expects that those controllers
supervised by a CIC will, in most cases, be absorbing the operational
workload (that is, air traffic control duties) of the CIC. According to FAA
officials, there may be ways to measure controllers? productivity to
determine whether other controllers (as the use of CICs increases) are
absorbing the operational workload of CICs. For example, if the expansion is
working as FAA expects, the amount of time each controller spends on any
given position- which FAA?s systems are capable of capturing- should begin
increasing as the use of CICs increases. However, FAA has not done an
analysis of the average time on position per controller nor is it including
this analysis in its next status report on the 1998 agreement. According to
an FAA official, the earliest it would consider doing so would be in fiscal
year 2002, when it also should be able to systematically measure the use of
controllers? time on the technical (non- air traffic control) duties.

14 For example, controllers will begin performing some of the technical
functions of facilities? staff support specialists, which include duties
such as training, quality assurance, and military and international
operations. FAA Has Not Measured

Productivity Gains From the Expansion of Controllers? Duties

One Element of CIC Productivity Data Is Currently Available

Page 31 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

FAA officials believe that FAA needs more data than its systems currently
capture to fully measure the productivity gains it might obtain as a result
of changes to its controllers? duties in the 1998 agreement (including the
CIC expansion). 15 Specifically, according to FAA, its ability to measure
productivity changes resulting from an increase of the duties for its
controllers other than those associated with CICs hinges on (1) its ability
to measure the time controllers are spending on non- air traffic control
duties and (2) establishing a baseline from which to measure changes in how
controllers spend their time. FAA expects that by the end of 2001, it will
have a reengineered system for its administrative processes in all of its
facilities. This new system should allow it to collect data on the amount of
time controllers spend on technical functions (such as quality assurance) as
well as the amount of time each spends controlling air traffic. As a result,
in fiscal year 2002 FAA should be in a position to start collecting the
baseline data necessary to measure changes in controller productivity.
Beginning in fiscal year 2003, FAA expects to be able to collect a second
year?s worth of data that would then allow it to measure changes in the use
of controllers? time. As a result, it will be fiscal year 2003 before FAA
can report whether, or to what extent, controllers are more productive
because it does not currently have baseline data from which to measure
changes in controllers? productivity.

FAA?s decision to reduce supervisors and make increasing use of CICs carries
both potential rewards and risks. To mitigate those risks, FAA took several
specific steps to address the Inspector General?s concerns and ensure that
it could carry out the CIC expansion without compromising safety. While FAA
reports that, to date, it has not experienced safety problems from the
expansion, our work suggests FAA can still improve its implementation of the
actions it has taken. The CIC training, for example, was comprehensive and
well- received, but an evaluation of the training program would afford FAA
the opportunity to ensure it effectively gave controllers the knowledge and
competencies they need to be CICs.

15 FAA is trying to increase the productive use of the time controllers are
not spending on operational duties (that is, air traffic) during any given
shift. Specifically, FAA?s facilities schedule controllers so that they have
an adequate number to deal with the busiest, most complex levels of air
traffic they expect during the shift. Because the level of air traffic can
vary considerably over the course of an 8- hour shift (requiring fewer to
control traffic at certain times), on a less- busy day with no inclement
weather, a controller might spend 4 to 5 of those 8 hours controlling
traffic. After factoring out time for meals and other contractually mandated
breaks, these portions of controllers? shifts when traffic is lighter are
where FAA expects to more productively use the controllers? time. FAA?s
Systems Will Enable It

To Do Comprehensive Productivity Analysis in Fiscal Year 2002

Conclusions

Page 32 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

Similarly, although it is reasonable for FAA to rely on each facility to
carry out quality assurance for the expansion, both we and FAA found that
implementation of the quality assurance measures fell short of FAA?s
expectations. While the cost savings from the expansion add support to FAA?s
decision to rely on its controllers to shoulder more of the workload,
demonstrating the productivity benefits would make the case for the CIC
expansion even more convincing. Because the CIC expansion has only recently
occurred, FAA has opportunities now to make proactive, midcourse corrections
to its CIC training program, quality assurance measures, and cost- benefit
analyses of the expansion.

To better ensure that controllers develop and maintain proficiency in CIC
duties and that the reductions in supervisors do not adversely affect
safety, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the Federal Aviation
Administrator to

 evaluate the effectiveness of the CIC training program to verify that it
develops the knowledge and skills controllers need to perform watch
supervision duties,  provide periodic refresher training as needed in CIC
duties for controllers,  better communicate and enforce its requirement
that all of its facilities

have in place CIC quality assurance procedures to measure the effects of
supervisory reductions and the increased use of CICs, and  assess the
productivity of its controller workforce in each of its upcoming

annual status reports on the 1998 agreement. We provided FAA with a draft of
this report for its review, and FAA officials provided oral comments on it.
We also met with officials of FMA and NATCA to discuss our findings and
obtain their comments.

FAA agreed with our findings and recommendations and is taking steps to
address them. For example, FAA has begun developing refresher training and
will soon require that all of its controllers certified as CICs receive this
training annually. FAA also provided technical clarifications to our report,
which we have incorporated as appropriate.

The FMA officials with whom we met disagreed with our findings, questioned
the accuracy of the information FAA provided us, and stated that they
believe our findings would be different if we had selected a different set
of facilities. Specifically, on selection of controllers to be CICs, FMA
disputed that selection was a requirement for the controllers
Recommendations for

Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Page 33 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

because of factors such as a facility?s operational requirements or staffing
levels. According to the FMA officials, selection to be a CIC has become an
entitlement for the controllers- so much so that in some cases supervisors
were pressured to certify some controllers as CICs even if they had doubts
about the ability of some controllers to be a CIC.

Our objective regarding CIC selections was to report the number of
controllers that FAA's facilities had selected (and plan to select in the
future) and explain their reasons for choosing the number of controllers
that they did. We did so and noted that overall, FAA now has fewer CICs than
it did before it began the selection process for the expanded CIC program.
We are not in a position to affirm or refute FMA's statement about pressure
to certify larger numbers of controllers as CICs, but we do note that none
of the managers at the 12 facilities we visited indicated that they had been
subject to pressure to certify more controllers than they felt necessary.

On training, the FMA officials stated that the delivery of the CIC training
was poor in certain facilities. They also said that supervisors and managers
were put under pressure to quickly complete the required endof- course
certifications for the controllers (at the conclusion of the on- thejob
training component of the CIC training).

Our expert panel and some of the supervisors with whom we met while visiting
12 FAA facilities shared concerns about the delivery of the CIC training
program. For example, both the experts and some of the supervisors believed
the time allotted for the training may have been too short. This and other
reasons led us to recommend that FAA evaluate the effectiveness of the CIC
training program- an effort that could, among other things, determine
whether the concerns about the delivery of the training are pervasive enough
to require changes to the program.

On CIC quality assurance measures, the FMA officials doubted the accuracy of
the information FAA provided us regarding the lack of CICs found
contributory to operational errors to date. The FMA officials said that they
believe CICs have been involved in errors. They also stated that the tone of
the report implies that supervisors are often a contributing factor to
errors.

Our objective regarding CIC quality assurance was to determine whether FAA
has adequate quality assurance procedures in place to measure whether the
CIC expansion is having any safety- related effects. Part of this
determination took place at the 12 facilities we visited and part involved
FAA headquarters and its procedures for identifying when a CIC

Page 34 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

is involved in certain events, such as errors, that are part of the focus of
FAA's quality assurance efforts. We assured ourselves that FAA has
procedures in place to identify when the supervisor on duty at the time of
an operational error is a CIC and reviewed the data FAA had collected to
date since it instituted these procedures. Because a review of the quality
of each operational error investigation (e. g., to determine if CICs were
always appropriately identified) was outside the scope of our review, we are
not in a position to affirm or refute FMA's statement about CICs'
involvement in errors. Regarding FMA's concern about the tone of our draft
report, we have added language clarifying that supervisors are rarely found
to be a contributing factor in operational errors.

Regarding the savings and productivity gains from the CIC expansion, the FMA
officials expressed doubts about the accuracy of the data FAA provided us.
They stated that because, in certain instances with which they are familiar,
highly- paid controllers can earn more than the supervisors when they serve
as CIC (earning the 10 percent CIC premium), they are not convinced there
will be significant cost savings from the expansion.

FMA is correct to note that there can be certain individual cases in which,
for example, a relatively senior controller serving as CIC will- with the
benefit of the CIC premium- earn more than the supervisor. FAA is also aware
that this can happen. However, we note that the net savings associated with
the expansion that FAA provided us are in the aggregate, reflecting salaries
of controllers and supervisors across the country. On balance, FAA's data
appear to indicate that there are more cases in which a CIC temporarily
serving in place of a supervisor saves money than there are cases in which
it costs more.

With regard to the recommendations we are making, the FMA officials stated
that we should also recommend that FAA halt the CIC expansion until it has
ensured that every facility has CIC quality assurance measures in place. We
agree that our findings as well as those from FAA's own facility evaluations
raise concerns about facilities' efforts to monitor the effect of the CIC
expansion. However, neither we nor FAA in its effort visited a sufficient
number of facilities to suggest that our findings are representative of all
of FAA's facilities and would warrant halting the CIC expansion. Doing so-
that is, in a way that we could project our findings to the universe of FAA
facilities- would require visiting over 170 facilities. As a result (and
because FAA is itself in the process of visiting each of its facilities as
part of the ongoing facility evaluations), we have retained our
recommendation that FAA better communicate and enforce the requirement for
facilities to have CIC quality assurance measures in place.

Page 35 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

The NATCA official with whom we met agreed with our findings and conclusions
and stated that our recommendations are all steps FAA should be taking. This
official also stated that better implementation of quality assurance
measures and productivity analysis of the controller workforce would help
both FAA and NATCA because it would do more to give both parties credit for
the benefits he believes they are seeing from the CIC expansion. He added
that these are important steps that NATCA would support FAA taking to
improve the expanded CIC program.

On the selection of controllers to be CICs, the NATCA official agreed with
the FAA officials' characterization that selection was a requirement for the
controllers because of the factors the FAA managers explained to us. He
added that NATCA does not consider selection to be an entitlement for the
controllers and that it has emphasized this to its membership. NATCA has
also emphasized to its membership that CIC duties may be a condition of
employment for the controllers if the needs of the facility in which they
work dictate that all must be certified as CICs.

Regarding the CIC quality assurance measures, the NATCA official expressed
concern that our draft report did not balance the safety concerns that
supervisors and managers have about increased use of CICs with the
perspectives of the CICs themselves. For example, he suggested some CICs
might be more likely than supervisors to make on the spot corrections of
other controllers' performance. We have added information to our report on
the CICs' perspectives about the potential safety- related effects of the
CIC expansion.

To review FAA?s preparation for and early implementation of the expansion of
CIC duties, we met with officials from FAA, NATCA, and FMA who were
responsible for or participated in the development of CIC selection
procedures, training, and quality assurance systems. We reviewed FAA?s
responses to the OIG?s recommendations on the CIC expansion and consulted
with various aviation safety stakeholder organizations, such as the Air
Transport Association and the Airline Pilots Association, to discuss the CIC
expansion and gain a better understanding of the issues associated with it.
In addition, we reviewed relevant background material from FAA, the OIG, and
research and consulting firms that had done analyses for FAA on supervisory
staffing levels and their effect on safety.

Because FAA allows its facilities to tailor their CIC selection processes,
training, and quality assurance activities to local circumstances and
conditions, we selected 12 FAA facilities to visit and review these issues
in Scope and

Methodology

Page 36 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

depth. We selected them so that we had a cross- section of facilities that
varied by type, location, size, operating conditions, and numbers
(percentages) of controllers selected to be CICs. In total, we visited two
stand- alone TRACONs, three towers, three en route centers, and four
facilities that combined TRACONs and towers. Specifically, we visited:

TRACONS: Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois Towers: Chicago, Illinois
(O?Hare); Portland, Oregon; North

Las Vegas, Nevada En Route Centers: New York (Long Island); Atlanta,
Georgia; Los

Angeles, California TRACON/ Towers: Providence, Rhode Island; Washington, D.
C.

(Dulles); Knoxville, Tennessee; Billings, Montana At each facility, we met
with the air traffic manager and other officials responsible for
implementation and oversight of the CIC expansion?s training and quality
assurance efforts. We reviewed each facility?s general watch supervision
procedures and any available documentation from the CIC selection processes,
training, and certification records. In addition, at each facility, we
discussed the CIC expansion and the objectives of our review with
operational supervisors as well as a local NATCA representative. At all but
one facility we also met with individual CICs 16 and officials from the six
FAA regional offices with oversight responsibility for them. FAA?s nine
regional offices play significant roles in staffing to FAA?s facilities and
determining the timing and pace at which they will allow attrition to occur
among the ranks of operations supervisors (as FAA works on a region- by-
region basis to reach a controller- to- supervisor ratio of 10- to- 1).

In addition, to assess the CIC training program developed by FAA, we
obtained copies of the training materials and obtained the services of four
outside experts to review the materials: Dr. Marvin Smith of the EmbryRiddle
Aeronautical Institute, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Mr. Paul Arnholt of the
Aviation Sciences Center, Community College of Beaver County,

16 To ensure objectivity and candor, we asked to meet with CICs without
their supervisors, FAA management, or NATCA officials present. At one
facility, the NATCA representative would not allow the CICs to meet with us
without him being present. We declined to meet with the CICs under these
circumstances.

Page 37 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania; and Dr. Bruce Smith and Mr. Gary Bartelson,
University of North Dakota School of Aerospace Sciences, Grand Forks, North
Dakota. These experts all train students to become air traffic controllers;
they reviewed the scope of the training program as well as the quality of
the information contained in each of the various training modules. The
experts did not observe the training and therefore offered no opinions on
the overall effectiveness of the training in developing controllers to be
effective CICs. Furthermore, we requested from FAA the student evaluations
of all controllers who had taken the CIC program in an attempt to assess the
results of the evaluations as a measure of the effectiveness of the
training. However, FAA was unable to provide sufficient and consistent
student evaluations for us to make any such assessment.

Throughout our review we met with and discussed issues associated with the
CIC expansion with FAA Air Traffic Services headquarters officials
responsible for (1) overall implementation of the expansion; (2)
development, testing, validation, and delivery of the CIC training; and (3)
quality assurance, program evaluation, and investigation of operational
errors, deviations, and other incidents. In addition, we met with FAA
officials responsible for developing and periodically updating the estimates
of supervisory attrition and the cost- offsets associated with that
attrition and reviewed the data and key assumptions underlying their
analyses.

We performed our work from November 2000 through August 2001 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days after
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, other
appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and
the Federal Aviation Administrator. We will also make copies available to
others upon request.

Page 38 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

Please call me at (202) 512- 2834 if you or your staff have any questions
about the information in this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours, Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph. D. Director, Physical
Infrastructure Issues

Appendix I: Article 18 of the Agreement Between the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association and the Federal Aviation Administration

Page 39 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control Section 1. The CIC is intended to
provide watch supervision for the

continuous operation of a facility or area where a supervisor is not
available. Assignments of employees to CIC duties are used when necessary to
supplement the supervisory staff.

Section 2. When assigned CIC duties, an employee shall be given sufficient
authority to fulfill the responsibilities of the assignment. General
guidance and goals for the shift shall be conveyed in facility directives
and/ or during the shift/ area position briefing.

Section 3. CIC premium pay shall be paid at the rate of ten (10) percent of
the applicable hourly rate of basic pay times the number of hours and
portions of hours during which the employee is assigned CIC duties. This
premium pay is paid in addition to any other premium pay granted for
overtime, night, or Sunday work and in addition to hazard pay differential.

Section 4. Prior to being designated as a CIC, an employee shall have been
facility/ area rated/ certified for at least six (6) months and shall be
operationally current. A Union representative shall be a member of the panel
designated by the Employer to recommend CIC candidates. The panel shall
forward its recommendations to the Employer or his/ her designee for
selection. The Employer retains the right to select Controllers- in- Charge.

Section 5. Employees who are not selected to be a CIC, upon request, shall
be advised of the reasons for non- selection. When applicable, specific
areas the employee needs to improve to be considered for the CIC position
shall be identified.

Section 6. At facilities where CIC duties are performed, bargaining unit
employees shall complete the national CIC training course prior to
assignment of such duties.

Section 7. Each facility shall maintain a roster of bargaining unit
employees qualified to perform CIC duties. When CIC duties are to be
performed, assignments shall be made on an equitable basis. Appendix I:
Article 18 of the Agreement

Between the National Air Traffic Controllers Association and the Federal
Aviation Administration

Controller- in- Charge (CIC)

Appendix I: Article 18 of the Agreement Between the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association and the Federal Aviation Administration

Page 40 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control Section 8. When other qualified
bargaining unit employees are available,

Union representatives shall not be required to perform CIC duties.

Appendix II: Table of Select Supervisor and CIC Duties

Page 41 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

Watch- supervision duties that supervisors perform Preexpansion CIC duty? a
Postexpansion CIC

duty?

Determine whether shift is properly staffed, provide guidance and goals for
the shift, including special projects, and control the break schedule Yes
Yes Communicate with internal and external personnel, including other
facilities, service users, and airlines Yes Yes Combine or de- combine air
traffic control positions Yes Yes Assign positions and CIC duties Yes Yes
Change take- off and landing configurations Yes Yes Configure and monitor
equipment, report equipment status Yes Yes Assign, monitor, organize,
supervise, and administer on- the- job training Yes Yes Call a controller in
for overtime Yes Yes Approve annual/ sick leave/ holiday leave Yes Yes
Implement emergency procedures and compile information and complete
documentation Yes Yes Oversee training needs including supplemental and
refresher training Yes Yes Make initial judgments regarding possible
operational errors and investigate errors (pull tapes, talk with controllers
and pilots) Yes Yes Prepare required initial reports of operational errors
and deviations Yes Yes Monitor movement of presidential aircraft No Yes Make
on- the- spot corrections while overseeing operations No Yes Provide
performance ratings and over- the- shoulder evaluations No No Review
recorded conversations between controllers and pilots No No Take formal
disciplinary action to ensure employees comply with agency regulations No No
Resolve complaints Yes Yes Resolve grievances No No Certify controller
trainees No No Act as Drug & Alcohol Site Coordinator No No

a According to FAA officials, these duties did not apply to the same extent
at all FAA facilities but depend instead on a facility?s particular
practice. Generally, CICs did not perform these duties at en route centers
or larger TRACONS and towers. In most cases, it would only be in unusual
situations when there was no supervisor in the building and a CIC was
required to perform all these duties.

Sources: OIG Audit Report, ?Staffing: Reductions in the Number of
Supervisors Will Require Enhancements to FAA?s Controller- in- Charge
Program? (# AV- 1999- 020); Supervisor?s Desk Guide

(from Operational Supervisor?s Course); FAA Order 7210.3 (Facility
Operation/ Administration); FAA Order 7210.56 (Ch. 4 - Air Traffic Incidents
and Ch. 5 - Air Traffic Operational Errors and Deviations, Investigations,
and Reporting); Terminal CIC Self- Study Course, August 1996 (55024).

Appendix II: Table of Select Supervisor and CIC Duties

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 42 GAO- 02- 55 Air Traffic Control

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph. D., (202) 512- 2834 John R. Schulze, (202) 512-
2834

In addition to those named above, William R. Chatlos, Alexander G. Lawrence
Jr., Bill MacBlane, Daniel Semick, and Frank M. Taliaferro made key
contributions to this report. Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

(390002)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with ?info? in the body to:

Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

Contact one:

 Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm  E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov  1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering
Information

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***