On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, the Reagan administration fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life. In the wake of the strike and mass firings, the FAA was faced with the difficult task of hiring and training enough controllers to replace those that had been fired. Under normal conditions, it took three years to train new controllers. Until replacements could be trained, the vacant positions were temporarily filled with a mix of non-participating controllers, supervisors, staff personnel, some non-rated personnel, military controllers, and controllers transferred temporarily from other facilities. PATCO was decertified by the Federal Labor Relations Authority on October 22, 1981. The decision was appealed but to no avail, and attempts to use the courts to reverse the firings proved fruitless.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...
Then a lot of new hiring afterwards.
> The relationship between age and job performance for Air Traffic Control Specialists (ATCSs) is an issue that has been revisited many times over the past few decades (Trites, 1961; Trites & Cobb, 1962; Cobb, 1968; VanDeventer & Baxter, 1984). Researchers have consistently found a negative relationship between controller age and performance across studies that have used different ATCS options (enroute, terminal), career stages (age at entry into training,current age on the job), and criterion measures (on-the-job ratings, academy performance) (Trites, 1961;Trites & Cobb, 1962; Cobb, 1968; VanDeventer & Baxter, 1984).
I don’t really see a problem with discrimination like this in this context as long as there is a well published scientific background of studies demonstrating why it makes sense, and there aren’t confounding variables (like a history of discrimination) that would skew the results. In this case it looks legitimate and well studied.
My only beef/complaint otherwise is that these papers should be front and center on the application page explaining why only 30 and unders are accepted.
In one of my jobs I was responsible for a tank of Acrolein which if it vented to atmosphere would kill 150,000 people in New a Orleans.
As a safety precaution.
Explosion was the desirable alternative because the products of combustion were far less harmful.
This is pretty true across all sorts of industries.
Like guess where a lot of product recalls come from. Or consider some of the reasons that structures fail.
This is the dumbest distinguishing point you could think of. Have you heard of hospitals?
https://undark.org/2020/06/24/mandatory-screening-older-phys...
The government can be sued for age discrimination in employment in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
Try to get a job in the NBA or any other sports team in your '40s and see what happens.
Of course, this is extremely unlikely, and he might have a hard time getting in front of the right people to prove himself.
Pro sports doesn't have age limitations that I'm aware of; it's all entirely performance-related. People who can't perform don't get new contracts, regardless of their age, and of course as people get older (and accumulate more sports injuries), they become less competitive.
I don't think they wait for you to get injured. Before signing you on, they surely require you to pass some physical examinations first. Old people are unlikely to pass those psychicals regardless of how good they are at basketball, since their bones and joints are relatively weaker and therefore more susceptible to injury. What's the point of hiring the world's greatest basketball player if he'll break a hip the first time he falls? If a player has an unusually high risk of being severely injured, then it doesn't make sense to sign them in the first place. Doing so would be tragic and exploitative.
Anyway, the oldest NBA player ever was 45, and there have only ever been 7 who played past 42. Michael Jordan retired at 40 years and 58 days, and that was notably old. A player at 50 who makes the cut is basically fantasy.
Regular 50-year-olds, sure. But if they find some genetic mutant who looks like he's 25 even though he's 60, and passes all the physical tests as well as a 25-year-old, age isn't going to be a factor.
Meanwhile, over in the aviation field, that same genetic mutant would be unable to become a pilot purely because of his age.
Sure. But that's the benefit of wearing the crown.
The government also gets to run IQ tests[1] on many prospective employees, which would be illegal in the private sector due to the 4/5ths rule.
---
"LeetCode" tests famous on HN are one example.
False.
> but can give work-related skill tests that are extremely similar IQ tests.
Legally, the conditions in which the private sector can give work-related skills tests that are extremely similar to IQ tests are when they fulfill the exact same requirements with regard to those tests that they would need to fill with regard to IQ tests to be able to legally give them; if they are functionally very similar, the circumstances in which they will satisfy those conditions will also be very similar.
The fact that the case establishing the rule on disparate impact discrimination involved (among other hiring practices) the use of IQ testing doesn’t mean that the disparate impact rule applies differently to IQ testing than to other “extremely similar” tests.
Except its not, see, e.g., the Supreme Court decision in Babb v. Wilkie (2020).
> Section 633 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 permits federal employees to sue over any adverse personnel action that is influenced by age, even if age was not the determinating factor.
> This isn’t something that we just take their word for it.
If you want to hit the books, knock yourself out. I am perfectly content to take the FAA's word for it, and think you'd be wasting your time.
Why can't they give an entrance test?
They want to train you up in the money zone and then give you the boot before you decline past a certain point and cause a disaster.
You can fly VFR without services and you really only have to worry about yourself. There's no equivalent as an ATC. You're often working multiple frequencies on your own. Even if you don't typically do it on your own, if your coworkers gets sick now you are. I've had friends manage two tower frequencies as well as ground due to staffing issues.
Not to mention the fact that when you become a controller it's much like the military where you get assigned a place and you go there. You get preferences of course, but there's only so many suburban airport controllers needed - somebody needs to be in JFK tower and somebody needs to be in the middle of nowhere Montana and they're not flying in for their shift the way pilots can.
I'm inclined to trust the FAA's data that it's just not feasible to dump training resources into someone who statistically is either not going to make it or is going to quit if they don't get their preferred assignment and find out they need to move their family to Utah.
I assure you the mental picture you need to keep in your head as a controller is far more taxing than single pilot operation when you are primarily concerned with your own separation. A controller can be managing a 1 to 2 dozen aircraft, dealing with pop up IFR, flight following, traffic advisories, handoffs, etc. There's a reason you get a mandatory break after 2 hours.
The under 30 crowd has a lot more of those types than the over 30 crowd.
https://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/faa-aviation...
> All ATC applicants must be 30 or younger on the closing date of the application period to qualify for the position, according to the FAA. This is because the agency has determined through extensive research that the older someone is, the harder is it for them to complete the rigorous training.
Having sat with a controller for an hour while they managed Midwest airspace (ARTCC ZAU) in my younger years [1], I am somewhat inclined to believe it.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230417013347/https://www.faasa...
EDIT: Pilots had mandated retirement at 60, which was bumped to 65 in 2007 due to pilot shortages, and there are discussions of pushing it to 67.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/senators-...