Comment by notahacker | Hacker News Reader

Comment by notahacker | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think the intro explaining that this is not true and Trump was most likely misunderstanding his pilot's comments about onboard electronics is the key bit of that article...

Fits in with the first term in which Trump baffled airline executives by assuring them that he'd help solve the problem with the airports giving them the wrong equipment[1], also based on apparently failing to understand an anecdote from his private pilot

There is actually a very long term project to modernise US ATC (less on safety grounds and more on congestion minimization grounds) it's even one in which theoretically a satellite constellation operator could have some involvement as a data provider. But but it's something of an understatement to suggest that this is unlikely to be advanced by an administration lead by someone who thinks he understands aviation based on misunderstanding his pilot and someone whose first foray into improving the FAA was to arbitrarily fire hundreds of FAA staff and whose main goal for the FAA is to deregulate space launches...

[1]https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/re...

> someone whose first foray into improving the FAA was to arbitrarily fire hundreds of FAA staff

400 non-ATC, non-safety related probationary new hires, out of 45,000.

Sure, so 1% of the workforce of an organization generally considered to be understaffed, with the firing criteria being either that (i) their role was a position the FAA had recently decided needed filling or (ii) they had been successful enough with the agency to be promoted to a new role. Having fired them, the agency will now look into whether the radar, landing and navigational aid workers fired performed safety critical functions. Perhaps, like the arbitrarily fired nuclear safety operatives, they might be reinstated

Does this strike you as the approach of an administration that knows what its doing and cares deeply about safety?

Less than 1%. 45,000/400 = 0.89%. It was reported that they were not critical workers. Perhaps some will be rehired. A review of hiring procedures is underway.

It's recently been revealed that not only does the FAA require a "biography" of its ATC applicants, but have even been coaching black candidates how to use the keywords that will allow their applications to float to the top.

If the agency and the politicians overseeing it cared about safety, shouldn't they try to hire the best and the brightest, not the under-represented minorities that they have been struggling to hire in recent years? Meanwhile, White applicants who were fully qualified have been bypassed.

I personally don't care, and I suspect most thinking people don't care, what the ethnicity or gender are of the people in the towers. But we all care very deeply that they should be the very best of the best.

It's interesting that you have fewer concerns about the safety implications of firing regulators before taking the time to establish what they do or why they were hire/promoted, never mind their competence than you do about the safety implications of underrepresented groups receiving advice on job applications. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that arbitrary firings damage organizations (and indeed qualified white people's employment prospects) more than interviewing a few more black people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com