Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 07:32:30 +0000 (UTC), emboldened by anonymity,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

True. I took the ATC exam once and thought this terribly unfair. Until
I
met the applicants and thought that they didn;t give them nearly
enough...

I can understand your feelings, but is the FAA a charity organization
or a performance based organization? Both you say? If the blanket
test score increases granted veterans and wounded US solders isn't
limited to tests for positions that do not affect flight safety, I see
charity as anathema for performance. There is no question that
charity-based hiring undermines performance, IMO.

Is it appropriate to lower personnel performance standards, that
affect all who fly from airline passengers to airmen, in the name of
charity? IMNSHO, charity is a noble human trait, but charity, and the
emotion upon which it is based, have no place in matters of life and
death that affect millions. As an airman, surely you can appreciate
this.

It would behove the government to find a more appropriate means of
compensating those who have formally served their country, that
wouldn't potentially lower flight safety. When emotion (or religion)
trump pragmatism, the results are often less than optimal.



Oh I didn't mind. Liek i said, the applicants I should have been given
50% extra just for geting their names right. Even then they didn't have
a snowball's chance in hell.

At least the higher score would have made them feel better. Well, at
least the few that could have spelled their names right and realised
that a 52 was abigger number than a 2

seriously, there were some dumb people there.


Bertie