FAA policy on controller errors questioned

A new Federal Aviation Administration policy governing operational errors by air traffic controllers has raised red flags with officials at the National Transportation Safety Board. Controllers previously operated under a standard that allows only three operational errors within a two and one-half year period. Once the maximum was reached, a controller could be reassigned to a less complex facility, be required to take remedial training or be de-certified. But FAA officials crafted a new policy in a January memorandum of understanding with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. Under the new arrangement, controllers who maintain less than 80 percent of the standards on how closely together planes are allowed to fly are simply assessed technical violations. There are no limits to the number of technical violations a controller can receive, no remedial training and, after a year, violations are removed from the controller's record. On Feb. 7, safety board officials sent FAA chief Jane Garvey a letter questioning the new policy, saying "this memorandum of understanding appears to compromise the FAA's quality assurance processes and may prevent the FAA from acting to address the causes of serious operational incidents." The memorandum of understanding implies that technical violations could be assigned without any consideration for the circumstances surrounding the incident, the board said. For example, quick pilot reaction could prevent two planes from colliding, but the 80 percent separation standard would be maintained and a controller would not be faulted. "If controller performance were [the cause], we would certainly expect the FAA to take appropriate remedial action," the board said. "However, this [memorandum of understanding] appears to preclude the FAA from doing so." The board also questioned the lack of limits on the number of technical violations a controller can receive without penalty. Officials from the Federal Managers Association's FAA Conference also said they disagreed with the new policy and said they should have been included in the discussions that led to its formulation. "I think the rule is there for a reason," said association spokesman Didier Trinh. "If you commit three operational errors, you're not doing something right." Trinh said removing error information from a controller's file after a year prevents managers and supervisors from having all the relevant information about a controller's ability to perform the job. "Only very recently did this problem of operational errors come up and controllers have been maintaining these standards for a long time," Trinh said. "Perhaps we need to look beyond that and take a look at the need for increased management oversight as a reason for some of the safety concerns that we are having in the workplace rather than reduce standards."