You seem to be suggesting or inferring that a Republican Congressman in a senior position would happily lie or deliberately mislead in - in public - to support the points in Tucker Carlson's programs. What would you perceive to be the likelihood of that?
The point is that
a. The stories I originally posted were unambiguosuly accurate, and
b. The Diversity/biographical data criteria means that a large number or people who would previously have been perceived as being amongst the best candidates for training and likely to produce the best ATCs, have been rejected in favour of people previously perceived as far worse candidates an dfar less likely to produce the best ATCs.
Regards,
Renato
The correct phrase used by the Congressman was "one of these people who did not belong there".
As such people are plainly not useful, especially as they deprived someone useful a place, I used the term "useless".
But on reflection, I was not quite correct, I should have used the term "worse than useless"
Regards,
Renato
The likelihood a Republican, appearing on Fox, would have an agenda to criticise the previous Obama administration is reasonably high. The same as we see here in Australia when incumbent governments like to blame a previous government led by another party.
Yes, the aptitude test questions are not in dispute. But you cannot assume from that that there's no ambiguity. We only have one side of the story. Through the eyes of Fox.
Those questions in the entrance test are potentially irrelevant to the final outcome. The
process might be that out of 100 people tested 50 are not suitable. But of the 50 remaining, they are going to be just as good as the ex pilots or ex military once they have been fully trained. And the Fox story backs that up. Those not suitable are weeded out. And that would include ex pilots and ex military who are deemed not suitable.
As Dr Ron points out in his post, the effect of the Congressional intervention was that 50% of the applicants got through on the biographical data criteria. Thus they took the places of 50% of people who would previously have been perceived as far better candidates likely to make far better ARCs. Result, the standard has been lowered.
Yes such things as making a coffee, working the cash register, asking "Do you want fries with that?", contolling planes - all pretty much the same thing, right?
Regards,
Renato
Once you have done the training, it doesn't matter what your previous occupation was. If you have passed the tests, passed your training, it means you can do the job.
As was pointed out above, in Australia all you need to apply to be an air traffic controller is a year 12 certificate.
There are all sorts of reasons why people may wish to re-enter the workforce. There are all sorts of reasons why people might work at starbucks. In and of itself, working at starbucks doesn't make a person valueless and useless.
Lets see.
a. The lawyer/former ATC trainer says this all happened abruply after Jesse Jackson and National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees (NBCFAE) met with the FAA.
b. The Administrator at the time of the change was Michael Heurta, who is a Latino.
c, The President was Obama,
d. And the the following link, half way through the Fox Business clip, you can hear an NBCFAE person's message advising his people to check their emails to find out how to pass the entrance test.
So much for your "narrow sense" of Diversity.
Or do you think Fox Business News made up their evidence?
Regards,
Renato
Unqualified air traffic control candidates cheating to pass FAA exams?
Cheating is not good. But as the clip states, this would only have only been of benefit at the initial stages of the application. There was no evidence in the clip posted that this would not lead to an unsuitable person being weeded out at a later stage in the process.
Interesting that one of the interviewees states that ATC was simply a 'fall-back' for them. Who would you rather have as a controller? Someone with passion, or someone just treating the job as a 'fall-back'? I know which one I would want.
Fox news may not be making up evidence, but they are presenting information in a certain way to suit their story. The critical issue is the final outcome. While there is a risk that a diverse hiring policy may compromise safety, where is the evidence to support that that was an actual outcome?