Understaffed US ATC accident waiting to happen: NYT

[spornrad]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/21/business/airline-safety-close-calls.html
“The staffing shortage is beyond unsustainable. It has now moved into a phase of JUST PLAIN DANGEROUS,” one controller wrote to the F.A.A. last year in a confidential safety report ..."

[IBMJunkman]

Paywall.

[BFSGrad]

Paywall.

Likely old news refreshed with recent ATC events. DoT IG audit from June provided a good overview of long-standing ATC staffing problems.

FAA Faces Controller Staffing Challenges (https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/39530)

[20driver]

The article is typical NYT. If you resister you can read 10 articles a month for free. Some good research that ignored a lot of obvious issues. Also very mathematically challenged, there is no discussion of numbers to provide context. This is typical for the NYT. That there is no mention of climate change or systematic racism makes the article a standout.
Having said that there seems to be an uptick in conflicts. If you read on here there seems to be more mention of last minute "resolutions". I'd like to see an analysis to see if this in fact the case.
Overall I think the FAA does a good job but the entire organization, like most of the US government, is over stretched. I flew my bug smasher for years around the NYC bravos and received great service and many shortcuts.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Some noteworthy items in the NYT article, or noteworthy by their omission or improper (imho) manipulation:

No mention of FAA reauthorization being hung-up in Congress with two key issues unresolved as our public legislative servants split D.C. for August "back home", namely, changing the 1500-hour rule, and the mandatory retirement age;

Several runway incursion and separation incidents that, according to the reporters, have not previously been disclosed publicly;

Relatedly, quoted remarks by pilots and ATCOs about concerns for safety and their individual perceptions of - and serious concerns about - degradation of margins of safety; and

Little to no reference to any substantive outputs or action steps resulting from the FAA's March "Safety Summit" - noting its occurrence and headline officials who participated doesn't substitute for substantive content.

Plus, this SLF/attorney takes issue with two other points. Yes, President Ronald Reagan fired the PATCO controllers on the grounds that the PATCO strike was unlawful, prohibited by federal law. But the early 1980s ended four decades ago. Surely the Congress and successive presidential administrations could have and should have done more to fund FAA properly. Sourcing current difficulties in staffing to firing the PATCO strikers, followed by progressions of subsequent cadres of ATCOs retiring, is illogical and not the root of the problem - Congressional funding is the root.

Related to this, isn't there an age limit for hiring new FAA controllers? I think I read somewhere that numerically significant cohorts of fully trained controllers leaving their careers in the U.S. Air Force would be capable of transitioning to civilian facilities quite quickly, were it not for blockage by an arbitrary age limit. What's worse, these USAF controllers are well-versed in AO - Airfield Operations (iirc) - further showing their readiness to move into FAA service quickly and to perform well.

(And maybe it is just semantics, but the fact that long-time accepted thinking describes accident causality as "the holes of Swiss cheese lining up" does not equate to the solid parts of said cheese constituting "layers" of the overall aviation safety ecosystem. Rather, each major component of said ecosystem is a block of cheese in itself. Oh well, if the NYT wants to reverse the logic, after all, it has only a general readership audience, not like....here.)

[Lonewolf_50]

Plus, this SLF/attorney takes issue with two other points.
Yes, President Ronald Reagan fired the PATCO controllers on the grounds that the PATCO strike was unlawful, prohibited by federal law. But the early 1980s ended four decades ago. Surely the Congress and successive presidential administrations could have and should have done more to fund FAA properly. Sourcing current difficulties in staffing to firing the PATCO strikers, followed by progressions of subsequent cadres of ATCOs retiring, is illogical and not the root of the problem - Congressional funding is the root.

Related to this, isn't there an age limit for hiring new FAA controllers? I think I read somewhere that numerically significant cohorts of fully trained controllers leaving their careers in the U.S. Air Force would be capable of transitioning to civilian facilities quite quickly, were it not for blockage by an arbitrary age limit. What's worse, these USAF controllers are well-versed in AO - Airfield Operations (iirc) - further showing their readiness to move into FAA service quickly and to perform well.

(And maybe it is just semantics, but the fact that long-time accepted thinking describes accident causality as "the holes of Swiss cheese lining up" does not equate to the solid parts of said cheese constituing "layers" of the overall aviation safety ecosystem. Rather, each major component of said ecosystem is a block of cheese in itself. Oh well, if the NYT wants to reverse the logic, after all, it has only a general readership audience, not like....here.) Good points. A friend of mine was a Navy AC (air controller) in the 70's who was working as an FAA controller in 1981, August (42 YEARS AGO...hello, NYT!) when the PATCO Strike / Union action thing went down.
He and I met six years later as Instructor pilots in the Navy. (He finished his college degree and ended up a Navy Pilot after he lost his ATC job).

If Congress has, in the last 40 years, underfunded ATC then shame on them all.

[BFSGrad]

DoT IG has initiated a new, related audit (7/6/23).

“…we are initiating this audit to assess FAA’s (1) processes for analyzing data and identifying risks associated with runway incursions, and (2) actions for preventing and mitigating runway incursions at primary commercial service airports.”

Audit Initiated of FAA’s Efforts to Prevent and Mitigate Runway Incursions at Commercial Airports (https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/39557)

[Tango and Cash]

Per the Google: Maximum age at time of application is 31 for the FAA. Mandatory retirement age (from actively working traffic) is 56. Training is 2-5 months in Oklahoma City, then 1-3 years OJT before being fully certified. https://www.faa.gov/be-atc#

That gives a max age candidate 25 years working traffic, minus training time, so more realistically 22 or 23. I somewhat understand the logic, if someone was 45 and was hired, minus training time, that might mean an eight year "career" working traffic. Not sure what all that training costs, but it can't be cheap. You could move on to management or training or another non-traffic job within the FAA, but you can't work traffic after 56. Like the mandatory retirement age for pilots, people smarter than I can debate whether that's the right age, but that's the current rule.

There is "with limited exceptions" behind that maximum hiring age so maybe someone separating from active duty at age 31.5 could get in? I would think the FAA would welcome veterans with appropriate experience with open arms, regardless of whether they're 30 or 35.

Blaming the PATCO strike that happened over 40 years ago is a bit disingenuous, that ship sailed a long time ago. The NYT can bring it up (column-inches to fill?), but Congress and the FAA have only themselves to blame for the current situation. It's not like the staffing issues in places like NYC and Florida aren't well-known and have been for years.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Tango and Cash
All those length of service and length of training (and OJT) timeframes make the usual amount of sense when looking at people other than service veterans transitioning over from high levels of AO responsibility in USAF, I would think.

Also, with respect to mandatory retirement age, the situation probably aligns pretty closely with the issues batted about with respect to the similar age level for pilots. That is, there are scientific studies (or what purport to be scientific studies) on both sides of the issue on the merits . . . and then there is the usually understated or subtle position of the labor unions which are internally conflicted. The unions want to support and advance the vitality of the industry in the near-term and longer-term future, yet they also understand themselves to hold responsibility for protecting the employment and careers of current membership.

Personally I think experience shows that 56 is not the edge of a cliff over which proficiency falls away. Is it industry consensus that the pointy end of the airplane must be relinquished at 65 but the tall end of the tower (or key position in the ARTCC or TRACON) nine years earlier, because of nine years' worth of greater levels of heavy-duty responsibility and stress?

[Tango and Cash]

Tango and Cash
All those length of service and length of training (and OJT) timeframes make the usual amount of sense when looking at people other than service veterans transitioning over from high levels of AO responsibility in USAF, I would think.

Also, with respect to mandatory retirement age, the situation probably aligns pretty closely with the issues batted about with respect to the similar age level for pilots. That is, there are scientific studies (or what purport to be scientific studies) on both sides of the issue on the merits . . . and then there is the usually understated or subtle position of the labor unions which are internally conflicted. The unions want to support and advance the vitality of the industry in the near-term and longer-term future, yet they also understand themselves to hold responsibility for protecting the employment and careers of current membership.

Personally I think experience shows that 56 is not the edge of a cliff over which proficiency falls away. Is it industry consensus that the pointy end of the airplane must be relinquished at 65 but the tall end of the tower (or key position in the ARTCC or TRACON) nine years earlier, because nine years' worth of greater levels of heavy-duty responsibility and stress?

Agree completely. The FAA maximum application age makes sense when the mandatory retirement age is considered, but directly applicable experience should override that maximum application age IMHO. Whether the mandatory retirement age is "right" and how/why 56 (or 65 for pilots) was chosen, I have no idea. There's probably a medical study or evidence supporting whichever side you/a union/the regulator/the politicians want to pick. Ageing and cognitive decline are highly variable so any number is going to be somewhat arbitrary.

As to whether the tower or the pointy end is more stressful (and how do you quantify that?), I'm going to say the stress of a typical ATC shift is much greater and more continuous than a commercial pilot, but the commercial pilot lifestyle is more stressful in a cumulative sense. ATC is juggling several/dozens of planes, usually in close proximity, during high-workload phases of flight (takeoffs and landings), all shift long, unless it's an unusually quiet night or sector. But they clock out and go home to their own house/bed/family. A pilot has flights with high-workload periods at the beginning and end with some quieter time during cruise. But they're doing multiple flights a day, changing airports/airplanes/gates, sleeping in hotels multiple nights, and probably repeating the process for several days before going home. Which is better/worse, more stressful, or demands an earlier retirement could be a considerable debate. As for me, I'll stick to a seat in the back of the plane, where it doesn't matter if I space off staring out the window or fall asleep during the flight!

[WillowRun 6-3]

A lot of inputs for further consideration of factors responsible for unsatisfactory (and not sustainable) levels of ATCO staffing, and of additional factors to take into account in any effort to improve the situation sooner rather than later. Thanks, Tango & Cash.

[tdracer]

As to whether the tower or the pointy end is more stressful (and how do you quantify that?), I'm going to say the stress of a typical ATC shift is much greater and more continuous than a commercial pilot, but the commercial pilot lifestyle is more stressful in a cumulative sense. ATC is juggling several/dozens of planes, usually in close proximity, during high-workload phases of flight (takeoffs and landings), all shift long, unless it's an unusually quiet night or sector. But they clock out and go home to their own house/bed/family. A pilot has flights with high-workload periods at the beginning and end with some quieter time during cruise. But they're doing multiple flights a day, changing airports/airplanes/gates, sleeping in hotels multiple nights, and probably repeating the process for several days before going home. Which is better/worse, more stressful, or demands an earlier retirement could be a considerable debate. As for me, I'll stick to a seat in the back of the plane, where it doesn't matter if I space off staring out the window or fall asleep during the flight!
Having known a retired Air Traffic Controller (who early retired due to 'burn-out'), think the relatively early retirement age is due to the mental stress, not physical health. While the travel aspect of being a pilot - along the weird hours - can certainly be stressful, I doubt it compares to the daily, nearly continuous stress that very nearly destroyed my friend. Further, pilots usually have another pilot watching to catch potential errors, ATC is often working essentially solo.

BTW, that the NYT saw fit to bring up the PATCO strike - when absolutely no one working ATC today was involved - rather gives away their agenda (and it's not improving air safety).

[finfly1]

I have to wonder if the ATC system may be suffering from a bit of the RAF syndrome...no white males need apply.
FIgures I saw show 56% of full staffing at the NY ARTCC, one of the busiest, with 7 of 30 supervisory positions filled.

[20driver]

There is a lawsuit working through the system and ATC training. To summarize my understanding - which may well be wrong:
It is a pretty complex system. To qualify for the hiring list. You had to take a Community College approved ATC trainee course, CTI, and then you got on the interview list for hiring.
Back in 2014 the system was changed and "Biographical Questionnaire " become part of the criterium. This was to address that "whiteness" of the hiring pool. Anyways the suit had gotten classified as a class action. https://www.ctiassociation.org/lawsuit-challenging-2014-hiring-changes-certified-as-a-class/

To be fair to the FAA it has being trying for years to revamp its organization and move/consolidate facilities. The controllers union had being very successful at getting local reps to stop that. You can google the latest involving Chuck Schumer.

I have seen consistent reports that the union is extremely obstructionist and seems to oppose any changes and the general efficiency could be a lot better.

Having said that , the NY area controllers were always very good to me when I was flying around the assorted Class B's in my bug smasher.

[747PIC]

We never fully recovered from the mass firings of the lawful PATCO strike of 1981.
When I can still fly in command of a part-91transport jet at 80, airline retirement age is about to increase to 67, it is crazy to retire ATC's most experienced personnel at 57!
(I too was fired by FAA as an airline pilot 20 years ago, because of the age 60 rule.)
One of the items thrown around in this "Safety Summit" is "communications failure."
47 years ago, as a young 747 pilot, I became involved in the crash investigation in Tenerife. It was basically determined that the most horrific accident in aviation history was caused by a "blocked radio transmission."
We brag about rocketing to Mars soon, but still have no freaking "Anti Blocking Radios!"

[WillowRun 6-3]

.... the lawful PATCO strike?? No, it was not, at least not according to the extensive and thorough opinion of the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: Patco v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 685 F.2d 547 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
Question: what authority are you offering for the assertion the strike in question was "lawful"?

[ATC Watcher]

The good part of the NYT article is showing the duty roster used in most large facilities 6 days on 1 day off 9 hours between shifts . It you start at 21 you are burned out at 55 . Doing night shifts on the position after 50 is slowly killing you . You can still fly at 80 but there not yet an autopilot for ATC work . More like doing a CAT III approaches all the time .
that was for theretirement age

Now taking military controllers , Tower , OK but centre, no : 2 different jobs , training an converting a military controller to civil en route takes same time as taking someone younger from the street. Retraining someone above 35 years old is a pain and takes lot more efforts . So many facilities gave up on this .

PATCO . Been there watching it live from the outside., was not pretty . Suggest to read the excellent book “ collision course “by Prof. Mc Cartin to understand it .Lawful/unlawful strike : the feeling at the time was that “ an unlawful strike is only the one that you do not win “ we were in the middle of civil liberties protest, anti Vietnam war , etc .. the FAA reacted in military style and ambiance before and after the strike was terrible and the effects of the PATCO strike poisoned the relations for decades and although everyone involved from both sides is long gone, the staffing levels never recovered since that period . Not a single year after .
Now wether this is due to congress ,or the FAA , or the various US presidents after Reagan i do not know .US Politics which are still to this day a mystery to me

[WillowRun 6-3]

Undoubtedly the way the shifts are scheduled is a recipe for burnout. Insofar as whether the level of stress (and I'm dropping the contention that the stress of airline aviators is comparable, having been corrected by prior posts)* is a completely valid basis for the age limit, it seems quite reasonable to allow for some portion of ATCO cohorts who endure better than the more average or typical career professional. And just to short-circuit the response that as legal counsel what I know is mostly only nice predictable 9-to-5s, in a prior livelihood my blue-collar (and union member) schedule had plenty of steady midnights as well as swing shifts. Some guys shrugged off the disruptions and stress a lot better than the rest.

As to ATCOs moving from the Armed Forces to FAA service, well, better Tower staffing would be a start, would it not? Also, some military people moving to the civil sector might demonstrate surprising capabilities to learn and become proficient in other ATC roles besides towers. The point is, trying to solve staffing shortages, so, allowing for the more exceptional individuals to prove themselves would be a prudent action, imho.

About PATCO, no one can rationally dispute that the staffing problems today have at least some roots back in that strike and its aftermath. But I think minimizing the indisputable illegality of the strike does not advance the assessment of how it relates to today. Sure, in 1980, the protest movement of the 1960s and early 1970s was still recent memory. But in that movement, including actions involving civil disobedience but also more generally, having the law enforced on you for protesting was part of the deal. I'm contending, Pres. Reagan was right on the federal law; the attorneys who advised PATCO probably go down in history of labor law as, shall we say, less than stellar; and yet those assessments don't mitigate the withering criticism which the Congress, successive White House administrations, and the FAA itself (as well as the Cabinet-level Department in which it is situated (Dep't of Transportation)) all richly deserve. It is no small irony that Ronald Reagan's ascension to the White House had some roots in his role as head of a Hollywood union, years earlier.

*In Arthur Hailey's novel, "Airport", the General Manager of Lincoln International Airport - Hailey's fictionalized version of Chicago O'Hare - is Mel Bakersfeld; Mel's brother, Keith, is an extremely stressed-out ATCO who is planning to take his own life. Contrasted with that character is Captain Vernon Demerest, engaged in a frolicking affair with a fine young flight attendant with plans for a romantic layover, in Italy. I should have known better than to draw the comparison about stress levels. Shucks, I'm SLF/ attorney, and mea culpa.

[chevvron]

The good part of the NYT article is showing the duty roster used in most large facilities 6 days on 1 day off 9 hours between shifts .
I don't know your complete roster but 6 on and 1 off seems excessive to me and certainly wouldn't be approved by the UK CAA; at my unit we used to work 6 on and 3 off and 10 hours between shifts. We had a combined tower and RAPCON operating 7am to 10pm weekdays and 8am to 8pm weekends and public holidays.

[10JQKA]

I think the 6 on 1 off ratio refers to the 1 extra shift every cycle that they call "mandatory" overtime ?
Their planned roster before tactical changes would be 5 on 2 off comprising 40hr cycles I think ?
I would assume that with the OT shift the basic FRMS planned schedule safeguards are infringed and that tactical fatigue mitigation then occurs whether it be real or simply a box-ticking exercise.

[B888]

Thank you “ ATC Watcher “ for the recommendation,

“Suggest to read the excellent book “ collision course “by Prof. Mc Cartin to understand it “

I’ve reached about the middle of the book and I can’t put it down.

[anson harris]

The age requirements seem very strange. Here in the UK you only need to be age 18+ to apply and retire at 60. I'll leave it to more qualified observers as to whether UK ATC is any better or worse than that in the USA.

[alfaman]

The age requirements seem very strange. Here in the UK you only need to be age 18+ to apply and retire at 60. I'll leave it to more qualified observers as to whether UK ATC is any better or worse than that in the USA.
Not sure where you're getting the "retire at 60" from?

[chevvron]

Not sure where you're getting the "retire at 60" from?
NATS Management want you to retire at 60 but NATS HR seem to have a different view.
I was asked by my boss to confirm I would be taking retirement at the 'normal' age of 60 (and if you went past this, you had restrictions put on you such as 'no supervisory duties' and I personally was told I would only be able to do APS, no ADI/ADV) but the HR people kept referring to me as taking 'early' retirement.

[10JQKA]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2023-09-20/senate-bill-targets-air-traffic-controller-hiring


" (https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2023-09-20/senate-bill-targets-air-traffic-controller-hiring)NATCA maintains that there are 1,200 fewer fully certified controllers than 10 years ago, and as a result, many work mandatory overtime. The association estimated that regular schedules for many controllers are 10 hours a day, six days a week."

[Lonewolf_50]

The age requirements seem very strange. It's a relic from two generations ago,
From where I sit, it needs to be increased to account for a variety of changes and mitigation that have been implemented in the past 40+ years.
IT's a blatant case of 'ageism' that really doesn't fit the world of 2023.

[WillowRun 6-3]

The counterpoint to objecting to existing age limitations - discussed at length on this (or another recent (related) thread) - is that the stresses of the profession result in such a level of "burn-out" that these limitations are necessary.

The arguments do seem to replicate those pertinent to age limitations known as mandatory retirement for pilots (also quite contentious).

[WillowRun 6-3]

With final legislative action for the very important bill to reauthorize the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) currently in limbo due to the gross dysfunction in Congress, and therefore any hope of starting to tackle the staffing problems of the NAS also uncertain at best, I hope it won't be "piling on" to add a comment about the book noted in prior posts.

I'm referring to "Collision Course - Ronald Reagan, the Air Traffic Controllers, and the Strike that Changed America" by Joseph A. McCartin (2011, Oxford Univ. Press). It opens with the story of the December 1960 midair collision between a (United) DC-8 and a (TWA) Super Constellation over New York City. I was eight years old - I recall quite clearly the Chicago newspaper and radio-television station coverage of the accident. Starting to read the book has therefore added a kind of data point for my own aspirations toward "aviation and law" or something to that effect. Anyway, although I have a lot more of this book to read, thanks for the recommendation of it!! - and though writing is appreciated subjectively, this SLF/attorney has found Collision Course superbly crafted and put together.

W-R Sixty-Three

[ATC Watcher]

Glad you like the book, when you get to the end, PM me if you want and I can fill you in with some info not on the book that might help you in your research. I was involved in organizing the initial international support and had ( still has) personal contacts with some of the players on both sides.
The mood at the time was somewhat similar to what is going on currently in the US Congress in fact , no-one really wants to compromise, it is all about winning or taking revenge. But you can't really work like this.

[Lonewolf_50]

This article asserts that a near miss at Bergstrom is due to flaws in the US air safety system.
No, the planes depicted were not involved. It was a business jet and an F-18 that had a near miss.

US Air Safety System's Flaws Revealed in Texas Near-Collision (bnn.network) (https://bnn.network/breaking-news/near-collision-of-planes-in-texas-exposes-flaws-in-us-air-safety-system/)

ATC pros: any comment?

[ATC Watcher]

Well , this particular incident is being discussed in the other thread ( Accidents ad close calls ) and as I said there , without the details and the R/T transcript , difficult to comment , But the article you refer is about systemic incidents ,
This sentence in it resumes well the situation :The systemic failures in the US air safety system have been spotlighted by this incident. While air traffic controllers play a pivotal role in preventing accidents, they are often overworked and under-resourced.
however when it says that :
​​​​​​​Moreover, the absence of advanced technology, such as collision warning systems, at airports exacerbates the risk.
If they mean ground collisions and runway incursions, the "advanced technology " systems do exists, and are already deployed in many large airports but not everywhere . Just a matter of money. But if they mean an airborne collision warnings, system ,in an airport airport environment I do not see its use. It would not have helped here with a F-18 blazing at 250 Kts above the runway to break with a Citation below taking off at 130 Kts . A simple radar picture would be sufficient to notice this problem .

[BFSGrad]

New FAA Administrator, Michael Whitaker, confirmed today 98-0.

[Equivocal]

​​​​​​​Moreover, the absence of advanced technology, such as collision warning systems, at airports exacerbates the risk.As ATC Watcher mentions, there are systems available to warn of many things. They are often considered to be ‘safety nets’ that ‘save the day’ when normal people and procedures have failed. But it’s not just money that limits their implementation - common sense and effectiveness should also be mentioned here.

Any safety warning system needs to warn when it is necessary and do nothing at other times. Configuring systems to do this is a huge undertaking. But any system that gives false alerts often, particularly in normal operations, will very quickly be ‘tuned out’ of the users’ consciousness. There are many examples of such systems being ignored in the minutes or seconds prior to an incident or accident. The installation of a warning system may sound like a great fix for a hazard, or a response to an incident for someone dealing with paperwork, but that system will only be of value if it truly works when needed and, of course, if the user is actually looking at it (or whatever) at the right moment or is competent to respond to the alert in an appropriate and timely manner.

[ATC Watcher]

But it’s not just money that limits their implementation - common sense and effectiveness should also be mentioned here.
, .
Absolutely.. Money alone will not solve the problem , but it was my understanding that for the FAA, implementation of SMR and runway incursions warning systems.at all large airports was purely due to budgetary constraints .
t. The installation of a warning system may sound like a great fix for a hazard, or a response to an incident for someone dealing with paperwork, but that system will only be of value if it truly works when needed
Yes, in Linate in 2001 at the time of the ground collision ( SAS-Citation) the SMR was bought, and was delivered to the airport, so the box was ticked for the administration but it was never installed by the technicians. .
if the user is actually looking at it (or whatever) at the right moment or is competent to respond to the alert in an appropriate and timely manner
Indeed, like in Vnukovo in 2014 ( DA50 colliding with a snowplow) where the ground radar system was installed since a year , but was never configured for the airport, , controllers were untrained for its use and its display was anyway installed at the supervisor desk not at the controllers workstations ..
Technology is great , but it is always down to humans to work it , or mess it up .

[Equivocal]

Yes, in Linate in 2001 at the time of the ground collision ( SAS-Citation) the SMR was bought, and was delivered to the airport, so the box was ticked for the administration but it was never installed by the technicians. Indeed, like in Vnukovo in 2014 ( DA50 colliding with a snowplow) where the ground radar system was installed since a year , but was never configured for the airport, , controllers were untrained for its use and its display was anyway installed at the supervisor desk not at the controllers workstations.
I don't disagree with your final sentiment - technology can be great, but it is always down to humans to work it, or mess it up.

But although many suggest a usable SMR as the one thing that would have prevented accidents such as those you cite, it still depends on the operator looking at it at the right time. Sadly, there are examples where serviceable equipment was available but for one of those human factors, it is ignored, sometimes in favour of confirmation bias, or deliberately disabled, often because the technology generates false alerts.

[WillowRun 6-3]

After the Safety Summit convened by FAA in April, a panel of independent experts was appointed to study the issues and report back to FAA.

Politico is reporting that the National Airspace System Safety Review Team has filed its report with FAA. The article contains a link to the report document.(which evidently isn't up on FAA's webpage yet).
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/15/congress-dysfunction-flying-riskier-00127312

[421dog]

The degradation in the competence of ATC since the move from allocation of “points on the exam” based on stuff like being an instrument rated pilot, or a veteran with relevant experience, to a focus on diversity, is critically evident.
My home drome is a training tower, and the number of idiotic decisions from controllers are manifold. I recently watched a biz jet forced to go around so that a flight school cirrus, not even at the FAF, could continue a practice ILS against the flow of traffic.
I personally was zipping along at 245 kt in a descent 12 miles from the airport a few days ago, and some 20 something told me to “keep my speed up” while I had been cleared for the visual.
I have a lot of friends who are/were FAA controllers, and to a person, they are ashamed of the way things are going.