During the telephone conference with CTI institutions, an FAA official (Joseph Teixeira) explained the reasoning behind the decision to change the hiring plans. He stated that these changes were recommended in the Barrier Analysis report.

Ironically, the Barrier Analysis was so flawed that the author had to admit the study had significant limitations. How significant? It was so bad that the FAA rejected the paper in its entirety. The following is a direct quote from the Barrier Analysis report (page 155):

Study Limitations/Challenges

The barrier analysis was underway for several years and, due to a variety of circumstances, the final product was rendered unacceptable. It did not meet the needs of Federal Aviation Administration and/or the other stakeholders.

So the pressing question is this: if the FAA rejected the Outtz study why the would the same FAA use it as the basis for changing the hiring plans? The madness does not end there. Mr. Teixeira stated the decision to use the biographical questionnaire (BQ) was due to it being designed and well researched by CAMI. Here is Mr. Teixeira’s direct quote from the telecon:

 “The biographical questionnaire was designed through CAMI, and researched as well -- thoroughly researched through CAMI, and we've done some additional research with it as well, so it is proven to be a valid instrument for assessing experience, work habits, education, and so on, and dimensions that are related to the success on the job.”

The only problem with that statement is that the BQ was not well-researched at CAMI. The study in question is identified as DOT/FAA/AM-12/19. The working title is Development, Validation, and Fairness of a Biographical Data Questionnaire for the Air Traffic Control Specialist Occupation. In the abstract of the paper it recommended that the study be further developed as a potential ATCS selection procedure (emphasis added). This CAMI study also recommended three additional studies be conducted. It concluded with the following statement;

“Further investigations of CBAS in relation to these outcomes seem warranted as data become available and empirical studies are technically feasible under the relevant professional guidelines, standards, principles, and practices for the validation of employee selection procedures.”

The FAA HR department was so intent on getting the hiring plans changed they ignored crucial information in the reports that they relied so heavily upon. Specifically, the Barrier Analysis was labeled unacceptable due to incomplete data and the CAMI study was simply an initial study into the possible development of a bio-data questionnaire. Even the CAMI’s own research scientist recommended further investigations.

While the CAMI staff adheres to “relevant professional guidelines, standards, principles, and practices” it appears that the FAA HR department is not burdened by these requirements. Either the HR department did not read these two studies and was unaware of the findings contained within or they knew exactly what was in the reports and hoped no one would be wise to them. Either way, it shows a complete lack of integrity and professionalism. Sadly, this is the best we can expect out of the current FAA-OHR management.