UND, known for its strong aviation program, now adding the FAA’s Enhanced Air Traffic Training program, allows students to skip basic FAA Academy courses and start their air traffic control careers faster. With 100 students already enrolled and more expected, UND will help the FAA meet its goal of hiring 2,000 controllers in 2025. More schools across the U.S., especially in regions like Southern California with its loads of air traffic and ATC instructors, should implement similar programs. Great news!
Late to the party… but still welcome.
Hope they can get extra money by posting videos of their rainee controllers trying to work their UND student pilots. I’d subscribe to that!
The FAA’s air traffic controller workforce challenges are a recurring issue that cannot be solved with temporary or decentralized fixes. By regionalizing training, expanding partnerships, and improving recruitment and retention strategies, the FAA can build a sustainable pipeline of qualified air traffic controllers. Training programs modeled after UND, implemented within all 22 ARTCCs nationwide, are a critical step in this process. This approach would address workforce shortages, ensure regional needs are met, and maintain the safety and efficiency of the U.S. air traffic system for years to come.
Hmm! It’s perplexing to see such a stark difference in time and cost between the FAA Academy pathway and the university-level AT-CTI programs, particularly given that both routes ultimately lead to the same starting point: on-the-job training (OJT).
The FAA Academy route is far more efficient. In less than a year, trainees are prepared for OJT at minimal personal cost, with the FAA covering all training expenses (estimated at $500,000–$1 million per trainee). This not only reduces financial barriers for candidates but also allows the FAA to address staffing needs quickly—something critical given the ongoing controller shortage. Trainees entering OJT through this path are on equal footing with those from AT-CTI programs, making the shorter timeline even more appealing.
On the other hand, the university-level AT-CTI programs like those at UND or Embry-Riddle require a four-year commitment and can cost upwards of $150,000 to $200,000. While these programs offer a broader aviation education, much of it goes beyond what’s necessary for immediate controller certification.
The result? Although graduates do not go through specialized FAA Academy training (12 weeks)they still face the same challenges during OJT, including a 30–40% washout rate. For most, the extra years and financial burden don’t translate into faster progression or better outcomes in the ranks.
This raises a fundamental question: Is the AT-CTI model worth the time and cost for the individual or the FAA? From a workforce efficiency perspective, the FAA Academy pathway seems vastly superior. If the goal is to bolster the air traffic control workforce quickly and effectively, investing more in expanding and streamlining the FAA Academy process might make more sense. The university programs, while valuable for broader aviation knowledge, seem misaligned with the urgency and practicality of addressing the current staffing crisis.
It’s worth re-evaluating whether both pathways are equally necessary—or if the FAA should prioritize one over the other.
I haven’t seen the ATSAT in years. But if is similar and the intention is the same as years ago, the kids would do well to pass that before investing their own money in a school. The ATSAT did not require prior ATC knowledge, but was intended to measure reaction to busy situations, two or more situations requiring thought at about the same time.
It will be years before any of the kids in this program contribute anything to the NAS. The staffing shortage is now. Graduates of this program aren’t even eligible to be hired into busier terminal facilities - why not?
