FAA saves less than expected in effort to cut supervisors

A controversial air traffic controller-in-charge program touted by the Federal Aviation Administration as a major cost-cutting measure will not save the agency as much money as projected, according to a new General Accounting Office report. Controllers-in-charge (CICs) are given temporary authority to run air traffic control operations when supervisors are absent. In 1998, the FAA made a deal with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association to reduce the number of air traffic control supervisors through attrition and the use of more CICs. The expanded CIC program, which drew criticism from the Federal Managers Association and members of Congress who felt the program would reduce air traffic safety, now includes more than 55 percent of the FAA workforce, according to GAO. But, because of the 10 percent salary premium FAA pays CICs, the agency will net a savings of only $141.5 million from the expanded use of CICs, instead of the $165 million the agency estimated it would save, according to GAO's report, "Air Traffic Control: FAA Enhanced the Controller-in-Charge Program, But More Comprehensive Evaluation Is Needed" (GAO-02-55). GAO also found that the overall effectiveness of FAA's CIC training is questionable, and that the FAA does not have a way to determine if the CIC expansion program has resulted in any gains in productivity. "When FAA signed the collective bargaining agreement, it expected that some of the changes to which it had agreed…would produce cost savings and productivity gains, but it had not estimated what those savings or gains would be," the report said. GAO found the materials for FAA's CIC training program to be comprehensive, but the agency can't assure that the training materials are presented effectively, the report said. Also, the agency has no plan in place for remedial or refresher training in the event that controllers who rarely spend time as CICs aren't able to maintain their CIC skills, GAO said. In its investigation, GAO found that five out of 12 FAA facilities had no quality assurance program for the CIC program in place and that 15 facilities had used CIC quality assurance measures inconsistently. "FAA has not consistently implemented its quality assurance procedures for the CIC expansion," GAO concluded. To right the situation, FAA needs to evaluate the CIC training program and determine its effectiveness, as well as provide periodic refresher CIC training. The agency needs to determine what, if any, productivity gains the program has netted and should impress upon agencies the importance of having a CIC quality assurance program in place, GAO said. In response to GAO's findings, FAA has begun to develop a refresher training program that all CICs will take annually. Officials of the Federal Managers Association disagreed with several points in GAO's report, largely because they doubted the accuracy of information FAA provided to help GAO conduct its investigation. "The FMA officials...stated that they believe our findings would be different if we had selected a different set of facilities," the report said. NATCA officials found no fault with GAO's findings.