Talk:Air traffic controller/Archive 1

Archive 1

Brain fade

I made a small but fairly significant edit to this page. I deleted the bit that said that "brain fade" is almost never a reason for a break, because it's absolute garbage.

For those that would dispute this, I'd point to significant amounts of literature and studies that have been done to show the opposite. http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/ANSandA/fatigue/section6.htm (specifically 6.1.5, Time On Position) is a good example.

Nearly every major ATC provider in the industrialized world has a two-hour guideline for maximum time on position between breaks, and for this reason I feel fairly safe and justified in making this edit.

Discussion to follow, I'm sure.  :)

Paul ZSE

Paul, I think you did fine -- adding supported statements should not be controversial. The article has been through two "major rewrites" -- see above -- but still has a few severe blots here and there. --Dhartung | Talk 00:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Re-write

It was a shame to have to re-write this one, as it was an interesting narrative that appears to have been written by a fellow controller. However it was lacking concision, badly POV and US-centric. I've completely re-written it.

I haven't removed the introduction on Air Traffic Control. My head tells me that this doesn't belong here, but I'm loathe to remove it completely. If this offends other wikipedians' sensibilities, feel free to replace it with a link to the Air Traffic Control article. BaseTurnComplete 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

R.S.Shaw has included a lot of text about the 1981 US Air Traffic Controllers' strike, and other stuff specific to labour relations inside US Air Traffic Control. This is definitely not the place for this stuff, indeed there is already a wkipedia page about the 1981 strike (that redirects to the PATCO page). Deleted, and the other text on becoming an Air Traffic Controller is now more clearly associated with the US. BaseTurnComplete 21:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC).

5 years OJT ???

I see that someone has changed the length of the OJT phase from 6 to 12 months to 2 to 5 years.

The busiest sectors of UK ATC take a maximum of 1 year's OJT, and that's in some of the busiest and most complex airspace in the world. I can't for a second believe that OJT elsewhere takes significantly longer than that, unless the training is very inefficient. I've changed this back.BaseTurnComplete 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OJT in a TRACON or Center in the U.S. will definately take 2-5 years. For the first year all you do is chase strips and play assistant controller. Its a good 18 months before you're ready to work a scope even somewhat independently... with most controllers reaching FPL around the 3 year mark. I've made some additions that allow for both avenues of thought. --69.143.69.249 06:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I rv'd as it looked like vandalism. It might be worth just having a single general comment though. Also it seems that in the U.S. you classify some training (e.g. strip-bashing) as OJT that we don't over here - here OJT only formally starts when you first sit at the radar. That pushes our OJT in busy units closer to the 18 month mark, but still not 2 - 5 years! BaseTurnComplete 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember also that your entire country is roughly the same size as a medium sized state over here. You guys likely don't see the volume that a hub like New York or Aurora or LA sees... in an ARTCC, controllers don't jump right on a scope, they spend a lot of time learning center procedures and the nuances of a sector before theyre allowed to control. The facility training program for Center controllers is pretty rigorous... not to denigrate the ATC you folks do in the UK, but you just can't compare the traffic counts. --69.143.69.249 23:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

London's comparable in traffic and complexity to the busiest US centers, remembering that lots of busy airports in a smallish area that you correctly point out massively increases the complexity of the traffic. However it's still only 18-or-so months for unit training in London. I think it's just a case of different training systems.86.132.198.177 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Swedish training

Would it be of any worth if I put in a few words about the Swedish training? I'm from Sweden, and sent in my application for ATC education a few days ago. Obviously I don't know all too much, but I could certainly provide a couple of sentences. Jack Daw 13:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

American

Did anyone notice that this is exclusively about controllers in the US? For instance, air traffic controllers in the rest of the world are not accredited by the FAA, and go to schools in their home country, and for all I know do completely different stuff on the job. 203.206.103.241 03:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL If they do something other than air traffic control on their job, they're hardly "air traffic controllers", are they?  ;)

But you do make a good point- the article is very much United-States-centric.

FWIW, through, I'm a controller, I've traveled internationally and met other controllers from other nations, and for the most part found that they are a great deal like the controllers in the States.

The problem with this article and the one on air traffic control is that the two are so closely blended that it's hard to describe one without the other. Maybe someday, someone will get motivated enough to do something about it; until then, this is what we've got. --Enumclaw 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that many articles on Wikipedia are slightly United-States-centric, but that will tend to happen with Americans making up most of the contributors. CleanAir 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone had inserted a reference to the "Kansas City Pitch" newspaper article that discussed the issues with the FAA's contract and NATCA. Someone else deleted it, saying that the Pitch is "not a legitimate news source".

The Pitch is read by over 250,000 people each month. It is part of the Village Voice Media Incorporated family of newspapers, the biggest conglomerate and publisher of metro area weekly newspapers in the United States. To claim that a major metro area's newsweekly is "not a legitimate news source" is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Therefore, I reinserted the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enumclaw (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Civilian ATC

I think it is necessary to have a picture depicting a civilian ATC on the job. As of know there are only military ones. FEVB (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Stable Schedule

"...the benefits of the job include a stable structured shift pattern..." For what it's worth: during the course of a 5 day week I will usually work 3 different time slots. On a good week I'll work 2 days starting at 1500, 2 days starting at 0700 then finish up with a mid-shift. That means I have 2 quick turns (shifts with the minimum allowed 8 hour rest period). Last month a coworker was on leave and I was covering his mids. My weekly schedule then was 15-15-7-M-M. That meant I had 3 consecutive shifts with the minimum allowed 8 hours between them. I realize that because I work at a relatively small facility that is open 24hrs, my schedule is probably more erratic then many others. However in the 5 years or so that I've been fortunate enough to be a controller I don't recall many people mentioning the great the work hours or how nice it is to work holidays and weekends when talking about the benefits of the job. Sykocus 16:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. That sort of shift pattern would be illegal for a controller in the UK. 7-7-14-14-22-22-Rest-Off-Off-Off is the norm at 24 hour units here.BaseTurnComplete 21:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One should not compare UK training to USA training timeframes. In the USA there are many variables to the time it takes to being fully qualified. The varibles to consider are: Is the the facility an up/down facility (training in the tower and radar), How many positions/sectors are there to train on. How much time is a lotted for a trainee used to maintain currency on positions/sectors they are qualified on. For example in the USA a top ten (busiest) world rated airport there are 20 total positions to train and certify on. If they averaged 2 months per position to qualify then it would take 40 months to be a fully qualified controller. The other factor in in USA air traffic is the "Hub and Spoke " system. This creates traffic saturation periods that are not normally experienced in other parts of the world. This is the same reason why you can't compare system delays the same either. In future postings one should identify the system they are refering too and not generalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.242.58.134 (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cultural References

This is probably a bit nitpicky and not that important when considering the article as a whole, but I don't believe the description of the movie Ground Control is accurate. The article states that Kiefer Sutherland's character (Jack Harris) "caused the crash of an airliner due to an operational mistake". Now I am not a controller myself, but having recently watched this movie, I can say that I don't believe he caused the crash. Transair 290 reported flames on engine #2. Harris immediately went into action to clear traffic and gave him emergency clearance to land. He also got them to report the number of souls on board. The only "mistake" I could see is that he advised Transair 290 to ignore TCAS and continue it's descent. Again, I am not a controller, but it is my understanding that a TCAS Resolution Advisory has a higher priority than ATC. Was it because they were following emergency procedures or was this truly an operational error? If it was, then the error was the pilot's, right? The pilot ultimately makes the decision of who's orders to follow.--Sbarne3 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Job ad

Kind of reads like a job ad, is there a template for that? Also, a loooot of weaseling. Rajakhr (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I ran across the Control Tower Operator page on a random search; it's a stub and an orphan, and links out to a number of red links. I considered simply proposing deletion of Control Tower Operator, but I'm no expert on the subject, and I see it does include a few details about the certification process (albeit without references) that might be worth incorporating here... so I thought I'd toss out a merge proposal, and see what people think. --DGaw (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts, anyone? If not, shall I just tag the CTO article for removal? --DGaw (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on the level of response, it appears eliminating the Control Tower Article is uncontroversial, so I'm going to go ahead and redirect it here. --DGaw (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

CTO is sort of a subset of ATC, so no big deal merging. But it looks like you just did a redirect instead of merger. How about copying the prior content over here? 74.61.10.229 (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of Spain's section

The Spain section of the article exhibits poor English, and looks as if written by a Spanish ATC himself/herself (e.g. blaming the government and ATA for the problems in the system). Especially given that there is an ongoing labor conflict between controllers and their employer, it would be advisable that the article is revised in more neutral terms, and if posible including both points of view in the dispute. MarkamBey (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at current Spanish events, you will know that section reflect only controllers POV. An example: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/economia/Defensa/asume/control/trafico/aereo/Espana/frenar/caos/elpepueco/20101203elpepueco_12/Tes --Comae 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comae (talk • contribs)

another unsigned comment, please provide us with an understandable link, rephrase, mostly erase the whole section as it doesnt meet wikipedia standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.191.129 (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with Spanish air controllers is that using their position to put pressure on different Governments over the years and taking passengers as hostages they have come to make an average salary of 350000 euros a year (about 500000 dollars year) some of them making more than 900.000 euros a year, a situation that the government finds unacceptable and is trying to control. You can find information about it all over the web now as a result of the recent strike. Here you have just an example:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6991798.ece

In this article you can see the reality behind the air traffic control issues in Spain, with salary comparisons with other countries like the UK and France. In short, some of these guys make more than 1.2 million a year¡ and the money comes from a public company with losses, that is, the money comes from hard working Spanish citizens who pay their taxes and who make an average salary of about 18.000 euros a year or about 24ooo dollars, according to the figures given in this article. Simply outrageous. Boob

188.87.218.203 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Average salary of Spanish ATCO's do not reach 350.000€ I see my salary every month, I talk with comrades and we are far away this figures and you can read it on Official State Bulletin. 90.000€ its more realistic.

Our salary comes from taxes only paid by people that use air transport (tower, approach and en route taxes, published on AIP Spain).

With previous president there were no economic problems in AENA and surplus was used to buy pictures & sculptures as you can admire at several airports because AENA should not have benefits but invest them on airports. What has changed? Spend thousands millions on airports with less than 50.000 passengers per year and new terminal areas of Madrid, Barcelona and Malaga. (AENA economics reports www.aena.es)

ATCO salary is just a lie, a bluff to cover other business as building airports or sell the profitable ones at low price. A lie as spanish ATC strikes, not a single one on last 20 years.

On December 3rd 2010 controllers simply exploded due to another Royal Decree (3 this year) increasing working hours per year... that afternoon many ATCO's refused to work due to non suited psychophysical conditions. AENA preferred a closed spanish airspace instead of delays. It's more spectacular. Now spanish ATCO's are "militarised" this basically meant that if the controllers refused to return to work, they could be sent to prison under military law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/06/spain-airport-strike-state-alarm?mobile-redirect=false http://wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/pers-d06.shtml

Safety is compromised due to working conditions. http://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria/aterriza-como-puedas/192532-ifatca-spain-has-created-serious-concerns-air-traffic-safety.html 188.87.218.203 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed most offending sentences from the section. Unfortunately, the section is now lacking in proper detail and explanation. Someone more knowledgeable about the situation will have to expand the section with proper references and sources. 66.242.231.108 (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have removed last sentence of de section due to its falseness: 188.87.218.203 (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What about all those capable of contolling spanish airspace but are assigned a burocratic role in Aena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.52.115 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Removed inflammatory section in "Stress"

I am new to this, but the following edit was mine: 11:09, 4 August 2011 50.92.221.220 (talk) (19,330 bytes) (Took out info added Jan 2011 which quotes questionable research from the early 1980's. Removed contradictory mention of regular schedules.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

There was a section added on 19 January 2011 by Psychomagician which quoted two papers from the very early 1980's both published in Washington, DC by Federal Aviation Administration Office of Aviation Medicine. The third reference appears to be one of these papers republished with the word "surprising" added to the title. I note that these papers come out exactly around the time of the American air traffic controller's strike which was famously ended by Reagan. I feel confident there is more current and much more independent research into the matter within the last 30 years and that this section was not added in good faith. I also will note that this paragraph was seemingly added to directly conflict with the information that proceeded it. I could not let it stand!

I also took out the last sentence regarding work schedules which directly conflicted information in paragraphs above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.221.220 (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air traffic controller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001192916/http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ahr/jobs_careers/occupations/atc/hr_policies/emp_120/ to http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ahr/jobs_careers/occupations/atc/hr_policies/emp_120/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The last part of this, should that not be "....appointment after reaching 31 years of duty...."? (FDA) are either banned or would require an air traffic controller to apply for a Special Consideration Medical Certificate and undergo stringent and continuous monitoring of the underlying medical condition. Almost universally, trainee controllers begin work in their twenties and retire in their fifties. This is due to an FAA requirement that trainees begin their training at the Academy no later than their 31st birthday, and face mandatory retirement at age 56.[5] However, retired military air traffic controllers may qualify for .appointment after reaching 31 years of age — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Wijnsma (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 202 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EdereOmnes (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by EdereOmnes (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Training and Qualifications

… Squawk7700 (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Air traffic controller OR air traffic control specialist

The very first sentence contradicts the title of the page, which one is correct now? Squawk7700 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I changed it now to Air Traffic Controller, if anybody disagrees I’d be happy to find a consensus Squawk7700 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Squawk7700, Yes, this is how WP:OTHERNAMES advises handling it. Some articles on topics that have multiple common names will offer those other terms, but still use the main term for the title and first bold link. For example, the featured article gas metal arc welding offers all three common terms and their commonly-used abbreviations, but begins with "Gas metal arc welding". Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Bot edit

as I‘m still newer to wikipedia I‘m asking here first. I think the combitation of the multiple issues banner with the under construction made by the Cewbot doesn‘t make any sense as its a) not an issue and b) could be easily overlooked this way. Is it ok if I revert it? Squawk7700 (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Moved content on research

I made real efforts to find a source for these claims but I wasn't able to find one, anywhere. Consequently I moved it here, if anyone can provide the source I'd be thankful.

"Through numerous studies throughout the decades, it has been demonstrated that traffic controllers usually have a superior visual memory, and in addition, studies have shown that air traffic controllers generally have a degree of situational awareness that is significantly better than the population average. In 'games' involving short-term memory, peer-induced stresses, and real-time risk analysis, air traffic control specialists scored better than the control group in every experiment ." Squawk7700 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Removal 2014 Changes In The US

I’d like to remove the section mentioned in the title because a) president Trump revoked all mentioned protocols b) as only changes in the US are mentioned it seems a bit random c) the matter is being discussed and changed on a daly bases at the moment so it can’t always represent the current situation. Once the dust has settled I’d be open to add it back in with better context. Is this ok? Squawk7700 (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I moved it to here for now, if anyone has any objections, I’d be happy to move it back if there’s a consensus.

==2014 changes in the United States==

In 2014, it was reported that in the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration had stopped giving preferential treatment to air-traffic controller applicants who had passed classes from the 36 FAA-approved college aviation programs across the United States, with some speculating it was due to too many white males being hired over minorities. The FAA says it "is blind on the issue of diversity". At the same time, the FAA also stopped giving preference to applicants who were military veterans with aviation experience. In addition, a group of external experts appointed by the Federal Aviation Administration emphasized the need for immediate action on Wednesday, November 15, 2023, to address safety concerns in the nation's aviation system. The two primary issues they highlighted were inadequate staffing levels among air traffic controllers and the existence of outdated technology. Squawk7700 (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Squawk7700 This topic is covered at Federal Aviation Administration#Changes to air traffic controller application process and seems more relevant there. Is any of the content removed from this article not yet present in the FAA article? If so, I'd advise merging over with the edit summary described at WP:COPYWITHIN. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for replying so late, thanks for the Idea, after reading through I came to the conclusion that the information here is already covered in the FAA article. Squawk7700 (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

References

New article

I'm posting this here in case others here might be interested in editing this.

Brigida v. FAA

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

First sorry @A Plumbing I Will Go for replying so late, I have to have overlooked your message. I think you made a very interesting article there. But I think it would be a better fit for Federal Aviation Administration#Changes to air traffic controller application process than air traffic controller, what do you think? Squawk7700 (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. It's not a problem that you were "late." Wikipedia is ongoing, so any time is a good time.

I like the idea of it being its own article, and I expect it to keep getting more and more media attention. However, if there is consensus for a merge, then I will understand.

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I actually wasn't even thinking about merging it just about where to mention or link it :) Squawk7700 (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Major Rework

I just finished the massive rework removing all issues. I'd be very happy about any feedback and where I can improve it further. Squawk7700 (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Squawk7700 Overall, it looks a lot better. I checked four citations just now since WP:OR was an issue before, and despite my general ignorance on the subject was able to verify most of the statements. I did not see "as well as air traffic around small airports" in the cited source though. Also, I didn't see any problematic copying or paraphrasing from the cited sources that I checked out.

If you want more detailed criticism you might consider doing a Good article nomination after checking out the Good article criteria. A forewarning though, it often takes weeks or months before another editor picks up a review. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your feedback, I just looked over the GA criteria again and will go ahead and nominate it now, let’s see where it goes :) Squawk7700 (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rjjiii Would you do the GAN under Transport or Miscellaneous? Squawk7700 (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Squawk7700: Transport is more likely to get a reviewer familiar with the subject matter. While you wait, you might want to double-check the citations for WP:INTEGRITY as that will be one of the first things a reviewer will check before doing a full review. Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Air traffic controller/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Squawk7700 (talk · contribs) 06:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 22:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Spot check

I'm going to start with a spot check of sources. I'll be looking in detail at [4, 18, 32, 39, 41, 55, 57] from Special:Permalink/1276504655 RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Ref 4

• Air traffic controlling dates to the early 1920s in the United Kingdom (UK).[4][5]
  • Verified. As a nit, [5] has everything needed to verify this statement. [4] says "This media is not currently available online", but it's not needed anyway, so I'd recommend dropping it.

Ref 18

• Another approach to modernization is the construction of fully digital remote and virtual towers that can be accessed from anywhere in the world allowing for controllers to work remotely. Developments are already advanced, with the first remote-controlled tower having opened in Sweden in 2015.[18][19]
  • Partially verified. Some of this statement is not supported by the sources. For example, neither source says "can be accessed from anywhere in the world". It's also not clear what "work remotely" means and how it applies here. In common parlance, working remotely usually means working from home. I suspect that's not the case here. I'm assuming the controllers still need to be physically located at an ATC facility where they have access to backup, supervision, communication networks, emergency power, etc. I also don't see where either source talks about 2015. One has a date of 2014 and says "expected to begin in autumn this year". The other says Scandinavian Mountains Airport in Dalarna, Sweden, was the world’s first new airport (2019) to be built without a traditional tower.

Ref 32

• In general air traffic controllers are individuals with advanced situational and spatial awareness, strong organizational and multitasking abilities, and are able to adapt well to rapidly changing conditions. They posses assertive and swift decision-making skills and the ability to maintain their composure under pressure as well as an excellent short-term memory.[32][33]
  • Basically verified as far as the source saying what the article says, but I'm unconvinced that either of these are WP:RS.

• In addition effective hearing and communication skills are also required, as controllers must clearly understand and transmit information under high-stress conditions. These rigorous standards are essential to ensure that air traffic controllers can perform their duties safely and effectively.[32]
  • The source doesn't say anything about hearing. And, as noted above, probably not a WP:RS.

Ref 39

• In many countries, the structure of controllers' shift patterns is regulated to allow for adequate time off. In the UK, the most common pattern is two mornings, two late afternoons, and two evenings/nights followed by a four-day break.[37][38][39]
  • NATS is an private company supplying ATC services. I would not call either of the NATS sources WP:RS. Simple Flying appears to have the editorial oversight requires to be a WP:RS, the cited source doesn't support most of this statement.

Ref 41

• Many countries regulate work hours to ensure that controllers are able to remain focused and effective. Research has shown that after prolonged periods of continuous work for more than two hours without a break, performance can deteriorate rapidly, even at low traffic levels.[40][41][42]
  • I assume this is based on the statement on p 270 of [41] Murrel (1971) suggests that a high level of performance cannot be maintained for more than two consecutive hours, and that a fixed ten-minute break per hour actually increases productivity. It's a leap to go from one study suggesting to "research has shown".

Ref 55

• In the United States trainee controllers begin work in their twenties and retire in their fifties almost universally. This is due to an FAA requirement that trainees begin their training at the Academy no later than their 31st birthday, and face mandatory retirement at age 56.[55][56] Disciples of Flight is a blog and thus not a WP:RS. The 5 USC 8335 source is more nuanced than just "mandatory retirement at age 56", containing an option to extend to age 61, plus some other section 8336(e) exemption that I haven't tracked down the details of.

Ref 57

• However, retired military air traffic controllers may qualify for appointment after reaching 31 years of age.[57][58] I don't see anything in either of these sources which talks about being 31 years old.

I'm finding significant problems with the sourcing. Some sources are not reliable. In other cases, the article states fact that are not supported by the sources. Based on that, I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this nomination per WP:QF. RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.