Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America desperately needs more air traffic controllers

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 660 posts

Re: America desperately needs more air traffic controllers

#51

Post by nkurz »

dgfitz wrote: post #18
wry_discontent wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a date when that policy was instituted? I've known a lot of air traffic controllers, and most of them wore glasses.

First result in google for "air traffic controller training" https://www.faa.gov/air-traffic-controller-qualifications Edit: I didn't take a stance on this topic, if you think I did, you are incorrect. I was simply linking the website that outlines the requirements instead of postulating as to what they were.

You didn't say exactly what you believe, but I think you are mistaken if you are claiming that the FAA requires _uncorrected_ 20:20 vision as a qualification.

"With FAA order 3930.3B ATC vision standards were made similar to airman standards. With or without correction air traffic controllers must demonstrate 20/20 distant vision in each eye separately, 20/40 in each eye at 16 inches near vision, and 20/40 in each eye at 32 inches intermediate vision if they are 50 years of age or older. Glasses or contact lenses are permitted."

https://aviationmedicine.com/article/vision-and-faa-standard...

Re: America desperately needs more air traffic controllers

#52

Post by ang_cire »

ryandrake wrote: post #19
eterm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't ban. Tax. Never ban. Tax low capacity flights more. That both reduces the number of flights and raises money which can be put toward paying ATCs more and increasing the headcount. You then have a lever available to dial up and down to further reduce flights / raise money. Banning is expensive and increases legislative and judicial burden. Taxing is a much more efficient way to stop people doing things. You have…

Careless and hamfisted taxing/banning of "private jets" can have the unintended effect of also killing light piston general aviation, flight instruction, and the whole pipeline of training the next generation of airline pilots. Flight training is almost always low capacity (one-on-one) so uncarefuly-crafted legislation could catch it in the blast radius. Piloting is already one of the more expensive careers to train…

You can make taxes specific, as in literally saying "a tax on non-commercially operated non-propeller driven aircraft with greater than 8 passenger seats".

The prop exemption alone would clear most gen-av, but this kind of ruleset would also be very easy for the richies to bypass/game.

Re: America desperately needs more air traffic controllers

#53

Post by [deleted] »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #39
runako wrote: post #4

Seems like a colossal error to have asked them all to quit. I wonder -- if half of the air traffic controllers took the offer to leave their jobs, do we have a Plan B? The deadline they have been given to decide is Thursday; I have not seen any communication as to whether ATC (and TSA, etc.) will be operational Friday.

I thought the buyout offer went along with the cancellation of remote work. Like, if you are thinking about quitting because you don’t want to come in, here have an extra incentive to do that and take some time to find another job. ATC already couldn’t work remotely. The only people who would take a deal like this would be people who were thinking about quitting or retiring anyway. I suspect ATC will not be substanti…

[deleted]

Re: America desperately needs more air traffic controllers

#54

Post by csa »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #39
runako wrote: post #4

Seems like a colossal error to have asked them all to quit. I wonder -- if half of the air traffic controllers took the offer to leave their jobs, do we have a Plan B? The deadline they have been given to decide is Thursday; I have not seen any communication as to whether ATC (and TSA, etc.) will be operational Friday.

I thought the buyout offer went along with the cancellation of remote work. Like, if you are thinking about quitting because you don’t want to come in, here have an extra incentive to do that and take some time to find another job. ATC already couldn’t work remotely. The only people who would take a deal like this would be people who were thinking about quitting or retiring anyway. I suspect ATC will not be substanti…

> I thought the buyout offer went along with the cancellation of remote work.

Your sentiment is a result of their incredibly vague first attempt at messaging.

The offer was (or ended up being) a full buyout offer. The “offer” is probably genuine, but it’s not a clean offer, as many edge cases are unclear (e.g., can they terminate you if they accept the offer… currently there is nothing stopping them from doing that, how can someone of retirement age accept the offer and then retire, etc.).

Iirc, ATCs can accept the buy out if they so chose. I’m guessing most won’t, as the ATC deal is good to stick with until you retire.

Edit: Per the article, the status of the offer is unclear. It wasn’t cleared with the union before the letter was released, and it hasn’t been officially rescinded either (despite comments that it has from DoT).

Re: America desperately needs more air traffic controllers

#55

Post by duxup »

mooreds wrote: post #30
harimau777 wrote: post #22

How much do they get paid?

From https://www.faa.gov/jobs/career_fields/aviation_careers : > The approximate median annual wage for air traffic control specialists is $127,805. The salaries for entry-level air traffic control specialists increase as they complete each new training phase.

Seems like reasonable pay for what is a very important job. Wouldn't object to paying much much more.

Re: America desperately needs more air traffic controllers

#56

Post by ethbr1 »

butterlettuce wrote: post #16

Fellas, I got a question. Is it really safe to fly these days if this is now a national discussion?

As with all things in current news: yes.

The reason this (and Boeing before it) are in the news is because the US air system is incredibly safe.

For perspective, there are ~27,000 US passenger flights per day. [0]

I think the last commercial US passenger carrier midair collision was in 1990? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mid-air_collisions

[0] https://www.airlines.org/impact/

Re: America desperately needs more air traffic controllers

#57

Post by patmorgan23 »

psunavy03 wrote: post #27
hansvm wrote: post #11

This should be easy enough to solve. Cut the hours back to something sane, and as much as possible time the airport closures in ways that affect the ruling class. You get bonus points if their jets are also delayed during normal taxiing and clearance requests -- explain that it's for their safety, since they're more important than everyone else and can't slot in to the same sorts of back-to-back landings that the com…

This is childish.

No, it's making the people who have influence feel the pain of the problem so that maybe they'll fix it.

Re: America desperately needs more air traffic controllers

#58

Post by ang_cire »

psunavy03 wrote: post #31
ryandrake wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Careless and hamfisted taxing/banning of "private jets" can have the unintended effect of also killing light piston general aviation, flight instruction, and the whole pipeline of training the next generation of airline pilots. Flight training is almost always low capacity (one-on-one) so uncarefuly-crafted legislation could catch it in the blast radius. Piloting is already one of the more expensive careers to train…

Newsflash: "planes are rich people's toys" has been killing general aviation already for a generation if not two.

The rising costs have made that much more true, though. My step-dad had a gorgeous 1940s Luscombe that he paid ~35k for in the 90s. He lived in an airpark where he paid 280k for a nice 3br house with a hangar.

Good luck trying to replicate that now.

Re: America desperately needs more air traffic controllers

#59

Post by sho_hn »

psunavy03 wrote: post #24
butterlettuce wrote: post #16

Fellas, I got a question. Is it really safe to fly these days if this is now a national discussion?

It has always been and will continue to be more safe than driving to the airport. The fact that something extraordinarily safe is potentially less safe is a topic for discussion, but not at the expense of realizing the relative risks of everything else. Prior to the midair at DCA, there had not been a fatal (edit) airliner crash in this country since 2009, and there had not been a midair collision involving an airlin…

There are fatal plane crashes in the US every year - in General Aviation (which often may not talk to ATC at all). Important to make the distinction :-)

Re: America desperately needs more air traffic controllers

#60

Post by jgwil2 »

kaikai wrote: post #49
psunavy03 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has always been and will continue to be more safe than driving to the airport. The fact that something extraordinarily safe is potentially less safe is a topic for discussion, but not at the expense of realizing the relative risks of everything else. Prior to the midair at DCA, there had not been a fatal (edit) airliner crash in this country since 2009, and there had not been a midair collision involving an airlin…

Where are your dates from? According to the Wikipedia page, there have been multiple fatal plane crashes in the US since 2009, including a midair collision in 2019 (although not an airliner). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_...

The parent commenter misspoke; they meant there was not a fatal accident involving a commercial airliner from 2009 to 2025. Commercial aviation is much more highly regulated, and much safer, than general aviation.
Post reply on HN