Talk:Air traffic controller

NPOV problems

This article is interesting, but has some creeping NPOV problems which need fixing Darkov 17:31 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, it definately has a pro-controller POV. On the other hand, whether that's justified is hard for anyone not a controller to estimate, and I can't imagine a controller not having the same POV :). I'd have to say that if controllers had the same error rate as my own profession, computer science, it would be horrendous. -- Pakaran 20:39, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd simply suggest smoothing out some 'always'es and 'never's, even if it's just adding 'almost' beforehand. But I know too little about the profession to know how much to adjust where... Radagast 04:19, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

This article seems to have been sitting for ages with little in the way of changes. It would appear to have been written by an ATC and have a very significant bias. I am always very wary of claims such as:

At any one moment only one person can 'have the picture' in a given situation: a concept which is incomprehensible outside air traffic control.

I doubt that aviation psychologists would agree with that assertion. I also doubt that only one person could ever 'have the picture' or else ATCs could never hand over their load to someone else. One solution would be to delete the article completely and wait for someone else to enter something which was hopefully less partisan. A less radical approach would be to remove all of the absolute statements and see what people do about that. The article on air traffic control is much more balanced but is very much written from a regular public transport perspective. --CloudSurfer 07:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article still appears to have some NPOV problems. For months this article has had a has a "very defensive, pro-air traffic control tone and doesn't really read like an encyclopedia article". -- FirstPrinciples 05:46, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have some personal knowledge of this topic -- fairly close acquaintance with an ATC and I've been given a behind-the-scenes tour of his center. (If you ever get that chance, jump on it!) Anyway, the guy who wrote this original must have been an ATC with some "issues", because half of it is pretty much saying "you can't computerize us", which is more or less a union position but the controllers are generally much more comfortable with technology and have their own frustrations at FAA shortfalls in this area. I hope that my edits remove 80% of the NPOV and the reorganization of the content and addition of some new issues help to broaden the article and make it worthwhile.

I did keep wondering why this profession needs a page of its own, when few others do. I tried to make it complement air traffic control as much as I could. I think it needs a couple of once-overs by someone else at this point; I'm pretty worn out by this effort! Frankly, I wish I'd just written a new article instead of trying to salvage the old -- it was like getting the tiger by the tail. --Dhartung | Talk 01:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you think the article should be merged with Air Traffic Control? It might be for the best. -- FirstPrinciples 01:47, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. The article is now 10000% better :) -- FirstPrinciples 04:06, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos! I did consider that but I didn't want to contemplate merging until I saw what I could salvage. I did try to differentiate some professional issues that aren't necessarily intrinsic to the other article. If someone wants to tackle the merge, they have my blessing ... --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's looking fairly good now; I've removed the attention and NPOV notices. I don't think merging with the ATC article is desirable; this article can focus on the aspects of the controller's job. -R. S. Shaw 22:04, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Major rewrite

Hello all. I did a major rewrite of this page a couple of days ago. I thought there were some misconceptions and inaccuracies and to clear those up, I wound up with something that almost is an "air traffic control" article instead of "air traffic controllER."

However, the inaccuracy of statements that tools are little changed since the 1940s and that strips are passed from one controller to the next fairly screamed for revision. I know it needs some links, and when I get a chance to do some surfing, I'll try to insert some.

I was a controller for 30 years (1968-98) and I tried very hard to maintain NPOV. I am open to any and all suggestions including STFU if you think that's needed. Also, I will be happy to answer any questions.

Something to consider is that there is a world of difference between tower controllers and their operations and center controllers and their operations. It's hard to do an article on the subject without at least noting, if not delineating, those differences.

LRod 216.76.216.7 23:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We certainly welcome your input, but did you realize there already is an air traffic control article? Most of what you added belongs there. If you see above I wasn't motivated to tackle merging the two. Wikipedia tends more toward defining terms like air traffic control and farming than air traffic controller and farmer, so ultimately this probably should be one single article that has only partial focus on the professional ATC, if only because that is such a leading temptation to the kinds of POV problems that this article had to begin with. --Dhartung | Talk 00:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that, after I had already done the writing. That was the genesis of my 'I wound up with something that almost is an "air traffic control" article instead of "air traffic controllER." ' comment.

I concur that whatever part of what I wrote that people think is valuable should be merged with whatever part of the "control" article people think is worth retaining. A "controller" article then should probably just be something to the effect of "one who performs ATC" with a redirect to the "control" article.

After 59 years I know that my writing is technically competent, but since it's very hard to self evaluate POV, could you tell me if it seemed so to you or did it come across reasonably neutral?

Thanks.

LRod 216.76.216.7 03:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Planned Outline

As I’m reworking the article I made a small outline of how I want this article look, please let me know your thoughts, disagreements etc. Please note that the names are just to outline the content not how I want to call them in the article nessecairy.

Air Traffic Controller

Lead

History

Origins

…

Introduction of Radar and Radio Communication

…

Further Developments until today

…

(Here I’d want to reuse parts of the Computerization and the future section )

Roles (and Responsibilities)

Here I want to put a larger part of the already existing text to Area or en route / Aerodrome or tower / civilian or military (with corresponding sections)

Working Conditions

The already existing work patterns and stress sections (with corresponding sections)

Major Rework

I just finished the massive rework removing all issues. I'd be very happy about any feedback and where I can improve it further. Squawk7700 (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Squawk7700 Overall, it looks a lot better. I checked four citations just now since WP:OR was an issue before, and despite my general ignorance on the subject was able to verify most of the statements. I did not see "as well as air traffic around small airports" in the cited source though. Also, I didn't see any problematic copying or paraphrasing from the cited sources that I checked out.

If you want more detailed criticism you might consider doing a Good article nomination after checking out the Good article criteria. A forewarning though, it often takes weeks or months before another editor picks up a review. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your feedback, I just looked over the GA criteria again and will go ahead and nominate it now, let’s see where it goes :) Squawk7700 (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rjjiii Would you do the GAN under Transport or Miscellaneous? Squawk7700 (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)