Mr. TORCHIA. We're allowed 2 20-minute coffee breaks and a half hour for lunch. That is if staffing permits. In the facilities I worked Mr. ERTEL. That's 40 plus 30. That's 1 hour and 10 minutes? Mr. ERTEL. So, you actually work 6 hours and 50 minutes? Mr. TORCHIA. Six hours and 50 minutes, yes. Some work less, but generally I'd say that would be a pretty good average overall. Mr. ERTEL. Now, you also indicated that traffic will increase an "alarming 19 percent" per year. By traffic, do you mean aircraft or do you mean by passengers, the number of people using Mr. TORCHIA. The article just said 19 percent. Now, that referred to traffic figures. Mr. ERTEL. If you're saying passengers, then that means one thing. That doesn't increase an air traffic controller's work at all, because whether you have 100 passengers or 10 doesn't make a bit of difference to you. Mr. TORCHIA. On checking on this, there were none that were below 17-percent increase in the traffic in the center. Los Angeles Center was I believe they were at that 17-percent level. Mr. ERTEL. Seventeen-percent increase in amount of operations controlled? Mr. TORCHIA. Increase in amount of operations. Mr. ERTEL. Then, I would question the 19-percent figure. Mr. BELSTERLING. Last year at Lindbergh they averaged right around 220 air carriers a day, and this year we're averaging right around between 240 and 250. That's just air carriers. That's not speaking of general aviation. Mr. ERTEL. Well, my computation, that would be about a 10percent increase. Mr. TORCHIA. That's correct. Mr. ERTEL. Well, that makes a difference in your statement, in the analysis of your statement. Mr. TORCHIA. I have a newspaper article at home. I'll take a look at it again. Mr. ERTEL. I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify that and send it in. I think we'd be happy to have it. It could put a difference in the interpretation of your testimony. Thank you very much. Mr. TORCHIA. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. You did make one point that surprised me, and that is that your people don't want to work overtime. I have been told by some controllers in the past, that they did like overtime and the chance of making extra money. But you seemed quite firm that controllers don't want to work overtime. Mr. TORCHIA. It's the idea that I wasn't going to mention this, but I think we're the lowest paid professionals for the responsibility we hold. Maybe they can't support their families with what they make. I don't think it makes the system any safer though for The CHAIRMAN. So you will stand by the statement that controllers do not like to work overtime? Mr. TORCHIA. I will speak first hand, from the center where I work, the third busiest in the world for radar terminal approach controls, that the supervisors were making an average of 19 calls a day to 19 people and would not get anybody to respond to overtime calls. In other words, my wife and several other controllers' wives became liars just trying to protect us from working overtime. That was the one facility I know first hand, the games that we all The CHAIRMAN. I'm informed that the average controller at Miramar is a GS-13 and earns approximately $30,000 a year. Am I wrong? Mr. TORCHIA. That's true. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen. [The statement follows:] STATEMENT OF DOMENIC V. TORCHIA, REGIONAL VICE-PRESIDENT, PROFESSIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ORGANIZATION On behalf of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), I would like to thank Chairman Cannon and Chairman Anderson and their committees for allowing us the opportunity to testify before you today. As most of you are aware, PATCO has been actively seeking a safer Air Traffic Control System for over 10 years now. Officers such as myself, have been before committees of this stature several times in the past. We are pleased to again be provided the opportunity to respond to the concern of our legislative officials. As a representative of PATCO, I will concern myself primarily with those recommendations that would assist the Air Traffic Controller in his/her profession to make the National Airspace System a safer one. I have selected today four topics which have been vocalized several times by PATCO and its representatives. I only hope that this committee will judiciously seek relief for the Air Traffic Controller which should assist in insuring the continued safety record of the Air Traffic Control System. The categories are Staffing, Working Hours for Controllers, Equipment and Air Traffic Control Procedures. (1) Staffing. This is an age old problem of the Air Traffic Controller. I can recall staffing shortages as far back as 1969, during that time, the morale of the Air Traffic Controller hit an all time low. During that period, the main concern of Air Traffic Controllers, as it is now, was air safety. Since that time, I have not seen staffing as low as it is this very day. In the state of California, we need desperately the employment of an additional 600 to 1,000 journeyman Air Traffic Controllers. I would venture to say there is not one single Air Traffic Control facility in the State of California that has the full recommended complement of Air Traffic Controllers as set by the FAA. In the two major en route facilities in the State of California, the Oakland Center in Fremont and the Los Angeles Center in Palmdale, staffing levels are critically low. Both facilities are now staffed at approximately 60 percent of the FAA's recommended journeyman levels. Overtime is abundant, relief breaks are scarce and both of those factors combine to make for long, fatiguing hours for the Air Traffic Controller. However, each year PATCO has to go before the Congress to testify and plead for more controllers, while the FAA has always appeared reluctant to requesting an adequate number of new controllers. If we do not receive more Air Traffic Controllers in this system, within the next two years, the system will then find itself hard pressed to function due to a shortage of Air Traffic Controllers. Traffic will increase an alarming 19 percent this year, while the number of journeyman Air Traffic Controllers will only increase less than 2 percent, meaning that those that have to work the positions in these ATC facilities, will find themselves burdened with work loads that would place the safety of the system in a dubious state. The FAA will hold in front of you the safety record of the system. However, I request you go beyond the facade and analyze why the system has remained so safe throughout the years. You will find this is due to the dedication of the Professional Air Traffic Controller and the pilot. You will also most likely find that little or no credit for the safety of this system can be attributed to the foresight of the Federal Aviation Administration. If the FAA continues to linger with regards to adequate staffing in ATC facilities, the results will be a tragic deterioration of the safety of the system. (2) Rest Periods (working hours).-It has been stated in previous testimony, before similar committees of this stature, controllers in the United States do not receive adequate rest periods. Our ATC system most likely handles in a single year, as many aircraft operations as the rest of the nations combined. But we find ourselves far behind other industrialized nations as far as recognizing the long hours that Air Traffic Controllers must work. We are one of the few countries that still mandates our controllers to work 40 hours a week. In some cases, controllers can be legally required to work up to 60 hours in a single week. The 40 hour week is much too long and lends itself to the fatigue of the Air Traffic Controller. PATCO requests this committee to look into the work week of the Air Traffic Controller with regards to that of other countries. I am sure you will find an alarming discrepancy. More so, we implore you to look into how much time is spent concentrating on aircraft crew rest and how little time is spent on controller crew rest. Keeping in mind all the time, that the flight crew is responsible for a single aircraft, the crew on the ground of Air Traffic Controllers is responsible for the entire system. (3) Equipment. This subject is quite complex and to do it justice in the short period of time allocated, would not be right. Therefore, I will briefly tell you that the installation of the new and sophisticated equipment available to the FAA at many major terminals has fallen far behind. An example is in California, there are approximately 5-6 major terminal areas that handle a great number of air carrier operations that are still without the essential tool of "brite radar." This is because of the FAA's reluctance to aggressively promote the installation of such equipment. Specifically, in Sacramento, California, the State Capitol, there are two towers that are ready to accept the "brite radar" displays. The monies have been appropriated, and the equipment has been purchased, however, this equipment is sitting in a warehouse or garage in that city at this very time. I have received word from reliable sources indicated that this equipment will not be installed until approximately two years past its original deadline. Which would put it six months to a year from this date. As I said previously, this is a very broad and deep subject. It involves radar, radios, support equipment, computer equipment, etc. To go into detail at this time, about the shortcomings of the installation of this equipment, would be virtually impossible. However, it would be a relatively easy thing to do to have this committee request that the FAA provide them a "game plan" for installation of modern and technical equipment at ATC facilities. I am sure that that information will assist this committee in understanding the plight of the Air Traffic Controller with regards to the installation of equipment available for them to use. (4) Procedures.-Again this is another broad subject, unfortunately rarely understood by those outside the ATC ranks. However, I would like this joint committee to consider two recommendations. First, that the FAA completely review the airspace system and recommend either TCA's or climb and decent corridors, with similar restrictions possessed by TCA's, at airports that have a large mixture of civil air carriers jets and light general aviation/air taxi aircraft. Secondly, that this committee urge the FAA to review the regulations that allow inexperienced pilots to make practice instrument approaches at airports that handle large volumes of air carrier traffic. There are many airports available within minutes flying time from major hubs that would accommodate large quantities of general aviation practice instrument approaches. This would allow general aviation a safer place to conduct their required instrument training. I want this committee to also realize this is not a restriction against general aviation from landing and departing at major hub airports. It would be a restriction that will not allow them to make practice instrument approaches with non-experienced pilots, underneath hoods, trying to learn how to fly in this complex system. It is PATCO's sincerest hopes that this committee will use whatever influence it has to assist us in rectifying the unsafe conditions created by the aforementioned topics. In summary, short staffing will lead to fatigue which may lead to an unsafe situation. There is a definite shortage of controllers in this system today. Also, the inconsistency of rest periods and long intervals that controllers must work on positions, also lend themselves to fatigue. Equipment-If the equipment is available, and a controller does not have it available for his use, then the consequences will be felt by all eventually. We have the technology, we have the resources, but we don't have the equipment. And finally, it is procedures, there has not been one major successful change in approximately 5 years. It is time for the FAA to start responding to the modern day system and view the use of terminal control area and climb and decent corridors. Again, on behalf of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, I would like to thank this joint committee for allowing us the opportunity to present our views. [The following information was subsequently received for the record:] PROFESSIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ORGANIZATION, Senator HOWARD W. CANNON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Oakland, Calif., November 6, 1978. DEAR SENATOR CANNON: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization to present our views before your most prestigious joint committee. I realize that there were many diverse views presented before your committee and it will probably take weeks for yourself and your aids to digest them and to respond to each of them accordingly. I am sure that you are aware that the odds of an aircraft accident occuring, particularly a mid-air collision, are astronomical. However, accidents such as the one that occurred in San Diego, make those odds of probability a grim reality to many people. We must continue to work to ensure that air safety is not dealt with by means of probability. The reason for my writing to you is to respond to the inquiry made by the committee as to the factuality of the figures I used in my testimony. Specifically, my statement regarding a 19% increase in traffic. I obtained the 19% figure from an article I had read. The article in question, was in several newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal. However, time did not permit me to dig those articles out as I really wasn't sure the exact date that they were published. I did run across an interesting figure that will help to substantiate my claim, at the same time, still not justifying a total overall increase of IFR traffic by 19%. The article I refer to is in the October 30, 1978 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology. In this very reliable periodical, on the aviation industry, it states "U.S. domestic and international scheduled traffic was up 20.4% in September over the year earlier period and increased 18.1% for the first nine (9) months of 1978 according to the Air Transport Association." This combined with several other figures that I was able to obtain, at this time still awaiting written verification, indicate that maybe 19% wasn't a high enough figure. However, I do not feel that anybody can deny the fact that the number of aircraft movements in the country has increased tremendously. That workload is felt by one group of individuals more than any other group in the industry. That is the Air Traffic Controller. We can banter figures about until "the cows come home," but when the bottom line is there and it is analyzed, the Air Traffic Controllers of this country desperately need relief in numbers. That is the primary reason I have made the statement in front of your committee that the number of controllers in this country is critically low. Therefore, I again ask you to apply whatever pressure you possible can to ensure that my brother and sister controllers in this country are not forced to work overtime and are not forced to work long hours without adequate relief breaks. For those circumstances lend themselves to the fatigue I described, which eventually will convert that "intangible ingredient" that I discussed at the hearing, into the probable cause of an aircraft accident. In conclusion, Senator Cannon, I would like to urge you to call on PATCO, if we can be of any assistance. I will also urge you to carefully consider the statements I made in my prepared testimony before your committee. I look to you, as the governing body that has the power to assist us, the Air Traffic Controllers, in ensuring that the skies in the United States remain as safe as possible. Thank you again for what you have done to assist in ensuring air safety. I feel confident that future controllers will reflect back to October 27, 1978 and realize that your committee was instrumental in obtaining them the relief that was needed to keep our nation's skies safe. I remain respectfully yours, DOMENIC V. TORCHIA, Regional Vice-President. Data for those employees who have failed to complete the initial phase of ATC training at the FAA Academy is maintained on a calendar year basis. Accordingly, the following data reflects the attrition rate, by yearly input, starting with the implementation of pass/fail procedures in January 1976. The CHAIRMAN. I want to reiterate that as far as I am concerned today's witnesses have just begun an ongoing investigation for the Congress. I believe we have discovered today that there is no singular, simple, or black-box fix to the problems of avoiding future midair collisions. Rather it requires changes to existing ATC procedures and navaid criteria; it requires accelerated development and implementation of sophisticated collision avoidance systems; it requires a new commitment to increased funding for safety-related navaids and airport construction; in short, midair collisions present a problem that requires a "systems approach," and we will need the cooperation of FAA, the users, and the Congress to implement these improvements as quickly as possible. I believe that Administrator Bond is acting in a way he sees best. for the air transportation system, and I was pleased to hear of the positive actions which FAA plans. However, I believe we must continue to insist on immediate and long-term steps that can be taken both at Lindbergh Field and throughout the system. I believe that Alfred Kahn, former Chairman of the CAB and the President's new head of the Council on Wage and Price Stability, has taught us all a valuable lesson about the bureaucracy. That is, one can cut the procedural spaghetti when it is working to the detriment of the public interest. Laws should be interpreted by the agencies to give them the ability to move swiftly to meet an obvious public need, rather than worrying about historical interpretations that tell a bureaucrat his hands are tied, while common sense is telling him something needs to be done now. I think the approach that the Board took was refreshing and correct. |