OTS Bid Delay Explanation

Any chance they'd review the non-TOL'd people who still passed the recent ATSA to compensate? I just started checking into things again now that I heard about the possible new OTS. I passed in 2017, no TOL, but also heard somewhere they were already finished with their selections. I've been out of the loop for a while so pardon me.
Any chance they'd review the non-TOL'd people who still passed the recent ATSA to compensate? I just started checking into things again now that I heard about the possible new OTS. I passed in 2017, no TOL, but also heard somewhere they were already finished with their selections. I've been out of the loop for a while so pardon me.

There are always those people that get late TOLs due to people declining and not wanting the job anymore. But the reason those people got referred but didn't get hired was because their ATSA score was passing but in the lower band. I doubt they would start selecting from them now.
 
Good to know breaks on one day of our career was more important than assisting in validating a part of the hiring process for the people who will provide us leave, the ability to be released from our facilities and decent breaks long term.
...or it was an attempt to invalidate a flawed personality assessment that should have no basis on the hiring of air traffic controllers in the first place. You can complain about a number of things with regards to the lack staffing at your facility, the inception and the continued use of the BA should be at the forefront.
 
...or it was an attempt to invalidate a flawed personality assessment that should have no basis on the hiring of air traffic controllers in the first place. You can complain about a number of things with regards to the lack staffing at your facility, the inception and the continued use of the BA should be at the forefront.

But you didn’t say that. You said they responded wanted to get to their breaks rather than silently protest as if they all got the same memo. if that’s what you think they were doing, that wouldn’t have been successful and were very shortsighted in doing so. They were hoping to take our responses and use that to compare it to applicants to find the same kind of people, so those controllers were paired with trainees of their Christmas tree responses. Great plan as a way to stick it to the man. Rather than give honest feedback. You can assume negative intent of the agency all you want based on experiences but when you question people and they say they wanted breaks instead and that’s in fact how they acted, I’m sorry but that makes me question those brothers and sisters on what’s important to them and the attitude toward their coworkers when asked to contribute to something that we all agree has a huge impact on us all.
 
Good to know breaks on one day of our career was more important than assisting in validating a part of the hiring process for the people who will provide us leave, the ability to be released from our facilities and decent breaks long term.

You're saying that you would've taken that test seriously. Even though it had nothing to do with what you were doing at the time. IMO, yes break time would've been way more important then taking some study test.
 
But you didn’t say that. You said they responded wanted to get to their breaks rather than silently protest as if they all got the same memo. if that’s what you think they were doing, that wouldn’t have been successful and were very shortsighted in doing so. They were hoping to take our responses and use that to compare it to applicants to find the same kind of people, so those controllers were paired with trainees of their Christmas tree responses. Great plan as a way to stick it to the man. Rather than give honest feedback. You can assume negative intent of the agency all you want based on experiences but when you question people and they say they wanted breaks instead and that’s in fact how they acted, I’m sorry but that makes me question those brothers and sisters on what’s important to them and the attitude toward their coworkers when asked to contribute to something that we all agree has a huge impact on us all.
I'm going to assume you weren't in the agency during that time or weren't actively involved with what was going on in the hiring process.

Lets rewind four years for context....

The FAA continues to miss their hiring goals (which is the real reason for staffing crisis, continued yearly missed hiring goals, not christmas tree-ing the BA during it's validation), then they come out of the hiring freeze with the BA in 2014, which eliminates 95% of all candidates. They had so few applicants remaining, every candidate that scored 70 or above on the AT-SAT was given a TOL. Not only did the BA eliminate any tangible benefit to the CTI program, it also eliminated any benefit for experienced controllers. The FAA had no intention of offering prior experience bids, the BA was the magic cure all. People who had 3 years of work experience at TCBY got through the BA while actual controllers with 10 years of air traffic experience in the military did not. The failure of the BA led to multiple congressional hearings, the first of which dealt with the BA being invalidated and how experienced controllers from the military were being denied opportunities due to the BA.

As a result, they attempted to "validate" the BA by having current controllers take it. They didn't allow for any OT to be called in and your breaks were cut short as a result. Now, to get in the mindset of what was at stake... Everyone was aware of the failure of the BA and how it kept competent controllers out (many of which were friends from CTI/CTO/Military, etc) and we're asked to help validate an inherently flawed system that created a barrier to entry for competent controllers so the FAA could continue using it?! Now you want to take away my break to help you continue to fuck over our friends that haven't been hired yet?? No thanks. You know what also never became publicly available? The results of the "validation". The FAA was not trying to "validate" it on current controllers out of the goodness of their hearts, they were being pressured to do so due to the congressional hearings and simply saying it's now "validated" was simply them checking a box. If you have a few hours to spare, the congressional hearings where the FAA has to answer to the BA while they're asked painfully obvious questions that make them look completely incompetent is a fun watch.

Through additional congressional hearings, public pressure, and as more data came out over just how big of a failure the 2014 BA was, they reinstated prior experience hires in 2015. Then, in 2016, congress changed the law for the hiring of air traffic controllers to the two pool system, eliminating the BA for CTI/Military.

I wouldn't question anyone's motives for their silent protest against the BA, I would, however, question anyone who believes the BA has a positive effect on hiring.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to assume you weren't in the agency during that time or weren't actively involved with what was going on in the hiring process.

Lets rewind four years for context....

The FAA continues to miss their hiring goals (which is the real reason for staffing crisis, continued yearly missed hiring goals, not christmas tree-ing the BA during it's validation), then they come out of the hiring freeze with the BA in 2014, which eliminates 95% of all candidates. They had so few applicants remaining, every candidate that scored 70 or above on the AT-SAT was given a TOL. Not only did the BA eliminate any tangible benefit to the CTI program, it also eliminated any benefit for experienced controllers. The FAA had no intention of offering prior experience bids, the BA was the magic cure all. People who had 3 years of work experience at TCBY got through the BA while actual controllers with 10 years of air traffic experience in the military did not. The failure of the BA led to multiple congressional hearings, the first of which dealt with the BA being invalidated and how experienced controllers from the military were being denied opportunities due to the BA.

As a result, they attempted to "validate" the BA by having current controllers take it. They didn't allow for any OT to be called in and your breaks were cut short as a result. Now, to get in the mindset of what was at stake... Everyone was aware of the failure of the BA and how it kept competent controllers (many of which were friends from CTI/CTO/Military, etc) and we're asked to help validate a inherently flawed system that created a barrier to entry for competent controllers so the FAA could continue using it?! Now you want to take away my break to help you continue to fuck over our friends that haven't been hired yet?? No thanks. You know what also never became publicly available? The results of the "validation". The FAA was not trying to "validate" it on current controllers out of the goodness of their hearts, they were being pressured to do so due to the congressional hearings and simply saying it's now "validated" was simply them checking a box. If you have a few hours to spare, the congressional hearings where the FAA has to answer to the BA while they're asked painfully obvious questions that make them look completely incompetent is a fun watch.

Through additional congressional hearings, public pressure, and as more data came out over just how big of a failure the 2014 was, they reinstated prior experience hires in 2015. Then, in 2016, congress changed the law for the hiring of air traffic controllers to the two pool system, eliminating the BA for CTI/Military.

I wouldn't question anyone's motives for their silent protest against the BA, I would, however, question anyone who believes the BA has a positive effect on hiring.

Hey we agree ?
 
Does your status on USAJobs/Aviator say not hired? Until it says not hired they could always go back and pull more names.
I hadn't checked in a long while, thanks for the info. It was changed to not hired.

There are always those people that get late TOLs due to people declining and not wanting the job anymore. But the reason those people got referred but didn't get hired was because their ATSA score was passing but in the lower band. I doubt they would start selecting from them now.
That makes sense, good point.
 
But no one knows how it’s grsded. So doing bad on one section could theoretically sink you.
Theoretically yes but with that same logic its also possible that it wouldn't harm your chance of passing at all. I am just stating that I thought the test, as a whole, was not that hard.
 
Theoretically yes but with that same logic its also possible that it wouldn't harm your chance of passing at all. I am just stating that I thought the test, as a whole, was not that hard.

It’s true, the whole concept isn’t that bad. But if you get a TOL is depending on how you did relative to others. Someone could have thought it was easy and did well but others could have thought it was even easier and did better. No matter how easy it was it’s not really a matter of pass or fail, it’s doing better than the other passers
 
Back
Top Bottom