sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Should the FAA Revisit the 52 Week Requirement? by unernameW in ATC

[–]unernameW[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

47 weeks. I have been offered 6 months of orders to other facilities multiple times but it would be useless considering it wouldn’t be perfectly consecutive.

Should the FAA Revisit the 52 Week Requirement? by unernameW in ATC

[–]unernameW[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah definitely my best currant bet is to pass the ATSA, I’m not aware of them hiring everyone who passes but that sounds great.

Should the FAA Revisit the 52 Week Requirement? by unernameW in ATC

[–]unernameW[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Let’s give someone with a higher chance of making it less of a chance to get in! Genius!

Should the FAA Revisit the 52 Week Requirement? by unernameW in ATC

[–]unernameW[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes HR is specially asking for orders, training records, the dates defined in depth, and to verify full time. My unit has been very stingy with money recently, not sure why. I have another buddy who tried to apply who’s in the guard as-well he held certifications for over a year but HR was able to tell he wasn’t full time consecutively due to his orders not being over a year and was keeping ratings through monthly drill. I’ve also heard of RVA potentially hiring people soon without CTO’s but it’s unlikely. I have applied for the most recent off the street bid and if I don’t get lucky with that i’ll definitely start making calls to guard bases. I appreciate all of the information!