A key component of these services is FAA’s air traffic controller workforce, which includes its air traffic controllers and their supervisors. 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 increasingly use CICs to provide watch supervision. Nationwide, FAA’s facilities selected over 8,250 air traffic controllers to be CICs. A total of 8,268 controllers—over 55 percent of the 15,000 controllers at FAA facilities— have been certified as CICs. 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. Furthermore, FAA has not conducted an overall evaluation of the training program. Implementation of Quality Assurance Measures for the CIC Expansion Was Inconsistent

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. FAA believes it needs more data than it currently collects to comprehensively measure controller productivity. Cost Savings Will Be Less Than FAA Estimated

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. We estimate that the CIC premium will amount to over $41.5 million over the life of the 1998 agreement (through fiscal year 2003). For example, FAA estimated it would lose by attrition about 100 supervisors each fiscal year. Recommendations for Executive Action

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. Section 4. Section 5.
Why GAO Did This Study

Each day, nearly two million passengers on 25,000 flights depend on 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 who oversee air traffic controllers. To avoid compromising safety, FAA will increasingly have its controllers performing supervisory duties as Controllers-in-Charge (CIC) when supervisors are not present. Nationwide, FAA has selected 8,268 controllers to serve as CICs, which is about 55 percent of its air traffic controller workforce.

What GAO Found

GAO found that the materials for FAA's CIC training program were through and comprehensive, but FAA has little assurance that the training was effectively presented and achieved its objectives. Although FAA assessed training at a few facilities, the agency has not obtained evaluations from most of the students 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. The reduction of supervisors will save FAA $141.5 million, or about $23.1 million less than it estimated. FAA 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, but supervisory attrition has been happening faster than FAA estimated, increasing its net savings by about $18.4 million. To fully assess productivity gains from its initiatives, FAA believes it needs more data. FAA expects to have a system in place to capture productivity data by fiscal year 2002.