ATSA Licensing [Archive]

niknak

11th Sep 2003, 22:01

DC10 - Absolutely no question of ego's, at least not on my behalf anyway.
But the major stumbling block will be that atsa's DO work under the direction, no matter how far delegated, of the senior atco on duty.

I know that London FIS is done by atsa's, but correct me if I am wrong, aren't they licenced and validated FISOs working entirely under the auspices of the FISO licence?
As for the flight plan supervisor at LATCC - I've no idea what they do other than fail to provide us with an efficiant service, regularly when we ring for joining clearances we find that flight plans have not been properly processed by the flight plans staff and the sector doesnt have them. :mad:

I'm pretty sure that NATS and most other employers will sing the praises of ATSAs until the cows come home, but would never go down the road of licensing them because the extra costs and the flexibility they would lose as an employer.

Please understand that I'm not having a pop at atsas per se, god knows I was one for long enough and know exactly what sort of **** they have to tolerate sometimes, but the ultimate stopping stone is with the senior duty atco and will be so until we're all replaced by computers.

DC10RealMan

12th Sep 2003, 00:25

Nicnak,

I still refer you to the original posting. I shall excude the FISOs for arguements sake as they are licensed posts with LCEs and OJTIs responsibilities. The question still remains, for example about our colleagues on the Flight Plan section, you complain about the errors that are made in dealing with joining clearances from your unit because of inputting into the Host Computer system I presume. These people have to input flight plans for the whole of the FIR not just your unit and therefore I am sure that they do it out of ignorance of your requirements and therefore a system of annual competency checks are a good idea. The Flight Plan supervisor at Swanwick is an ATSA4 who is the Flight Plan specialist do whom all of us refer to in flight planing matters, including Local Area Supervisors and the Watch Manager and yet apparently has no responsibility for their departments standard of work. The ATSA2s who work on the sectors at Swanwick are the personnel who deal with HCS matters to which most ATCOs have no interest or knowledge. To say that these personnel with their specialist knowledge have no responsibility for it and that it is the ATCOs responsibility is an outmoded concept and does a grave disservice to our ATCO colleagues who have enough to do with thir own duties and would be challenged in the courts if there were to be an accident. I also think that NATS would back a system where these anomalies could be addressed in the interests of air safety irrespective of the costs. Finally, Nicnak excepted, I still think objections that made be raised are a matter of personal ego for quite a number of people.

Connex

12th Sep 2003, 01:14

Avman –

Thanks for the info – how is the proposal being received by the staff at Eurocontrol? Any dissenters?

055166K –

Like you, I would like to see the end of the “ex-military/old Civil Service” terms of reference – they tend to aggravate the (openly unacknowledged) “us and them” attitude that prevails between ATCOs and just about everybody else.

DC10RealMan –

Good post – this issue is not just about who should or should not be licensed. The benefit it could bring to the ATC service as a whole should be kept foremost in mind. I myself am in favour of a licensing system for all ATC ATSAs, if only to ensure that efficient standards of service are maintained (by annual LCEs, as per the ATCO requirements). Personally, I do not think that holding a licence will in any way protect us with regard to job security – once you’re surplus - you’re surplus – licence or no licence!

Niknak –

With regard to senior ATCOs being “delegated” – yes, I agree, somebody has to be responsible overall for a group of staff working together to provide a service. If I am expected to be “directed” by an ATCO, or whoever, I personally would feel much better about it if I thought that the person so “delegated” had some genuine understanding of my job and the tasks I undertake. This is often not the case, at least, not at the Aerodrome I work at!

Therefore, I cannot agree with your statement that ATSAs have “no technical responsibility”. In the same way that I cannot do your ATCO tasks, if you can’t do the job I am doing within the ATC environment, then I am responsible for it – technically, physically, professionally – any way you care to call it. We don’t have to be talking into a microphone in order to be classed as “technical” – we just do different tasks within the same overall function – providing an ATC service.

As we are providing part of that same service as yourself, and some of us, (at least), can see the benefit of maintaining the standard of service, then what is the case for ATSAs not being licensed ? Licensing, as practised by NATS/CAA, would involve the regular re-assessment of those individuals so licensed, thus maintaining (and possibly improving) the overall standard. What’s the problem with that? After all, isn't that why ATCOs do it?

I would really like to see some support for the ATSA licensing issue from ATCOs in particular. I do not see any problem with it – I feel it can only benefit the service we provide, although I do agree with you that NATS will probably reject it on financial grounds alone. Does it really boil down to the fact that ATCOs want to keep themselves separate and aloof from us mere ATSAs, and do not want anybody invading their turf ? (a bit like the Fam Flight Schemes, eh?!!).

I sincerely hope not .

PS – any LATCC Flt Plan Supervisors out there care to comment on their failure to provide an efficient service to our ATCO colleagues??

DC10RealMan

12th Sep 2003, 01:37

Connex,

I would agree wholeheartly with your post with one exception and as I said earlier in these litigious times NATS needs to protect itself in the event of legal action by a third party. By clarifing duties and responsibilities of its staff and maintaining a certain standard it could be proved to be providing a "duty of care" to its customers and staff. There has also been a precedent where at West Drayton the Senior Sector Assistant prior to its transfer to Swanwick was subject to an LCE and had a Certificate of Competency. This system could be adapted and amended for local use at minimum cost and I do not believe that NATS is that " cheap", but I am prepared to be disapointed.

chiglet

12th Sep 2003, 01:56

Many [many..many] moons ago, I had the "Best Job in the World" I was a "Runway Controller" at Manch. I cleared vehicles [tc] to cross the runway vehicles to "wander" around the airfield..for Petes sake, I even cleared the Airport boss [Gordon Sweetapple] to use the Faireys and Southern taxiways for "Go Cart Testing":ok:
Then it was "discovered":{ that I was working on the Air ATCOs license:confused: So the post was "chopped":mad:
Earlier, an ATCA11 "Runway Controller" [B]had to have a "medical":confused:
Why? If you were on the ATCOs licence:confused: :confused:
we aim to please. it keeps the cleaners happy

niknak

12th Sep 2003, 02:15

DC10 - fair points, particularly about competency checks. :ok:
SRG have a reasonably efficiant and pro active audit system , so there's no reason why they couldn't employ a x - section of experienced atsas to undertake this, but don't forget what happens to atco's who don't make it - you could end up working for Serco:p .

Connex - God help any atco who wants to keep themselves seperate and alloof from the atsas, if thats the impression I gave it wasn't what I meant, (I'd never be brave enough to take that stance with any of ours:ouch: ).

Muppit

12th Sep 2003, 02:55

At Airports that have switchable taxiway lighting, which is operated by ATSA's, there is no form of competency checking and they work under the delegated authority of the Ground Controller. Whose competency is checked.

Why then was a trainee Lighting Operator blamed at LHR for routing an aircraft somewhere he shouldn't have, causing a ground 'incident'...?

LCE's get paid extra for being LCE's. Is NATS really going to pay ATSA's extra to be ATSA LCE's...?

............?

:confused:

Flight Data

12th Sep 2003, 03:04

From an IFPS perspective it seems a question of when , not if, the staff get licensing, and certainly at Brussels the idea has been pushed by the ops staff as well as management, probably more so by the former. The staff view it as a way of increasing quality of service as currently, when validated, an IFPO has no further competency checks ufn, so the plan is to bring in proficiency checks along with licensing. It would certainly force proficiency checking to continue, rather than the current setup where new procedures are introduced, but rapidly fade into obscurity in a matter of months or even weeks; a legal requirement would force a more continuously regulated approach in IFPS, which can't be a bad thing. It may be interesting to note that the IFPOs are made up of ex assistants, controllers (civil and military), dispatchers and ops managers, so there is certainly the experience already in place to deal with such a change.

However, the whole thing is taking some time to bring about as it seems that the licenses need the approval of ICAO to hold any weight, and such things take time. It could, as Avman says, come in as early as next year, although I have some reservations, as there was recently a management reshuffle that has created some 'interesing' results.

Connex

12th Sep 2003, 04:11

Muppit

Re the trainee LPO’s incident – I am informed by friends at LHR that there have been a few incidents of this sort going back to 1993 – not sure which incident you refer to, but I do not doubt that it was genuine. And re the LCE payments for ATSAs – again, I am reliably informed that LHR ATSA2s do not receive, and have never received, any form of supplementary payments for on-site training of new ATSAs, and until recently, never received any officially recognised training to allow them to undertake the task in the first place. Compare this with the ATCO arrangement – LCEs are paid a supplement for their task (as are OJTIs). So why not the ATSAs? Maybe its down to the bargaining power of the ATCO grades and their Union? Or maybe its just the same old story - one rule for them, and one for us!

With regard to the licensing issue, it would certainly help our situation if the ATCO grades were to actually voice any support they might have for us at local and Union level. If they object, perhaps they would like to tell us why?

Any comments from the ATCO boys and girls at the NATS Aerodromes?

Flight Data

Pleased to see that IFPS seems to acknowledge (at least) that a licensing system may be beneficial. I hope that the “interesting” reshuffle has not resulted in a difference of opinion with the “shopfloor workforce” on the licensing issue.

I'm not joking sir

12th Sep 2003, 05:40

Fantastic. I get tasked with collecting views on the idea of ATSA licensing and this thread appears! Makes it a bit easier. My personal view is that licensing us is a good idea - especially from the competency angle.

Muppit,

I'm not sure which incident at LL you're referring to (the one in the CAA MOR digest a few months back?) but isn't it the case that whilst LPOs aren't licensed, under the "duty of care" understanding, they can actually be deemed responsible and therefore ultimately sued for an incident?
Plus, at LL I believe the LPOs have a lot more input into how a/c are routed than at KK - far more "follow the greens" at LL, whereas you guys set the routes here. Maybe that's why LPOs seem to kop the blame more at LL? Then again it's a funny old unit...

The payment of an ATSA OJTI allowance is always a thorny topic and one that I expect to rear it's head in the not too distant future! I think it'll be hard to get though but fingers crossed. Maybe we might even get some proper OJTI training too.

Some interesting debates ahead.

Connex

12th Sep 2003, 17:56

I’m not joking sir –

The payment of anything to ATSAs has always been a contentious issue, as has the provision of career development combined with properly organised, professional training programmes. The licensing issue will again bring this to the fore, because it will be inevitable that ATSAs who are required to become ATSA OJTIs/LCEs or whatever the job title is called, will expect to be paid something if they are going to take on additional tasks above their normal remit.

This will be regarded as especially relevant if this new task has any form of accountable safety implications attached. So, even if the licensing issue is accepted and introduced, and, as the OJTI/LCE positions would (presumably) be voluntary – who’s going to volunteer to do the job if there is no additional payment for doing so, as per our ATCO colleagues?

If licensing is introduced, it follows that part of the package must be NATS’ acceptance of the requirement to pay those ATSAs involved in OJTI/LCE tasks – anything less is only going to inflame the “us and them” syndrome, and turn ATSA opinion away from what is fundamentally a very positive step forward with regard to safety and standards of service.

DC10RealMan

12th Sep 2003, 22:52

I can only refer to the ATSA4s who do the FIR at Swanwick. The OJTIs and LCEs on this position sat exactly the SRG mandated examination that the ATCO OJTIs/LCEs sat at Bournemouth, unfortunately without any financial reward whatsoever. This was done because they were keen, enthusiastic, and were not to interested in monetary reward. One would like to think that under the new management regime that would be acknowledged and put right by paying an allowance to all ATSA OJTIs and LCEs, but as before I am prepared to be disapointed!.

Connex

13th Sep 2003, 06:30

I'm not joking sir -

Out of interest - are you canvassing ATCO opinions at your place of work on this issue, as well as from ATSAs? There has not been much of a response (either way) posted from ATCOs, so far as this thread is concerned, but I still think that ATCO support would be most helpful in progressing the concept forward. It stands to reason that the more support there is from those that provide the ATC service, the stronger the case for it to be considered.

chiglet

13th Sep 2003, 07:08

Connex..et al
I joined the "Firm" in 1969..straight from the RAF. I have honestly [really] lost count of the number of people that I have trained, both ATCA/ATSAs and ATC cadet/ab initio/promotion prospects etc. A lot of my "pupils" are now a senior grade to me....Big Deal...
Got nowt for it, didn't expect to, part of the job then:ok:
Now, [just] perhaps another matter:confused:
at the end of the day, when the poor so 'n so's have left the "Training Section", it's us at the "sharp end" that has to sort the Beggars out:uhoh: :{
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

Connex

13th Sep 2003, 08:39

Chiglet –

Just a thought - have you never felt that your efforts should have been rewarded in any small way at all - not financially, but on a “professional” level? I had not been in the job for more than a year before the non-parity of the ATCOs/ATSAs became glaringly apparent, and not just in financial terms. I simply feel that, now, as participants in the same service, the very least we should be accorded is the acknowledgement that the part we play is important too. If, as we are allegedly told, the ATCOs , NATS Management and others do regard us as “professional”, and part of the team, then why are we subject to the constant put-downs, the lack of support at ALL levels, and the perpetual exclusion from virtually anything which could be regarded as a “Company perk”? So much for parity! And now what have we got – very little in the way of support from our colleagues - just one ATCO stating that he can’t see why ATSAs should be licensed at all as we have “no technical responsibility” (at least he had the ba**s to write in and say his piece – the rest of them are notable by their absence!)

ATSAs should not be going down the licensing avenue if all they are looking for is some form of “professional I.D.” Holding a licence is not a status symbol – (what was it Niknak said? – oh,yes – “if you want a licence, become an ATCO”) – it should be regarded as proof that the holder is a capable, responsible and PROFESSIONAL person who will deliver the goods every time he/she comes to work and becomes part of the TEAM providing the service. And, yes, they are accountable for their input, and will be tested regularly/annually to ensure that they are up to the task. Just in case it has slipped anybody’s mind out there – ATSAs are part of the team!!

One part of the idea of licensing, as stated by the PCS Union Rep in his letter, is to “enhance the safety chain” – that, combined with the element of maintaining (and possibly improving) standards, should be valid enough reason for the introduction of licensing for the “professional” non-ATCO grades within ATC.

PS – I don’t think the poor so-and-so’s will be too happy to know that we “sharp-enders” are watching them – after all, they’ve got licences!!
:ok:

I'm not joking sir

14th Sep 2003, 04:41

Connex,

I've asked a few ATCOs to comment but so far none of them have been forthcoming...

Connex

14th Sep 2003, 05:37

I'm not joking sir -

Are we at all surprised??

niknak

14th Sep 2003, 21:44

Connex - now you've got me confused.

What exactly do you want the licence for? Recognition of certain responsibilities such as being an atsa OJTI and/or LCE? or just because you are an atsa?

I have no quibbles with atsa's being paid extra grades for such extra responsibilities, but I can't see that having a licence can be justified on these grounds alone. Although your duties almost ineviatbly involves some independant decision making, as as I've said before, the buck stops for overall responsibility with the senior atco on duty, not you.

You obviously feel hard done by, as your last post clearly demonstrates. I don't know what "company perks" you don't get that the atco's do, I assume that UKATTs is one of them, but these "extras" could well be similar to those that some people do or don't get in any other industry.
You mentioned parity with atco pay grades for atsa's, which is ridiculous, the day to day and legal responsibilities of a validated atco far outweigh those of an atsa under any circumstances.

Perhaps the content of your last post sums up the reason why you're not getting much support from atco's - to be blunt, it's on the verge of a petulant outburst from someone with a huge chip on their shoulder.

Connex

15th Sep 2003, 07:42

Niknak –

I shall reply to your points in turn –

Firstly, (and most importantly), let me state categorically that I personally do not want to be issued with any licence just because I am an ATSA, or an ATSA LCE/OJTI. I support the concept entirely from a safety and standards perspective only. The issue of a licence should be the tangible evidence that the holder is genuinely capable of doing a particular task/function, in a safe, conscientious and efficient manner, and by use of the annual Local Competency Examination , he/she will, and can, be expected to do so each time they turn up for work.

As for “extra grades for extra responsibilities”, I have (as have many of my counterparts) been training new staff, and taking part in validation Boards since 1993, and have never received one single penny for any of it – unlike my ATCO counterparts. Nor have I received any formally-recognised training for it – it has never been offered. A licence should not be issued just because I/we undertake this function – as I have already said, the licensing issue is all about SAFETY and the constant provision of it, in whatever part of the operation one works in. The payment for such tasks is an entirely separate matter, but will be an important one when it comes to finding personnel to take on the additional OJTI/LCE tasks if licensing is implemented.

With regard to “buck stopping” – I should think that most ATSAs can recall incidents where senior ATCOs have made ATSA-related decisions, only to see it blow up in their faces. It is very rare for an ATCO to ask the advice of an ATSA about anything operational – it is just assumed that, as an ATCO, they must know as much (if not more) than the ATSA. Do senior ATCOs know better? On ATCO related topics, a definite “yes” – ATSA issues? – not a chance! If you once were, as you say, an ATSA , then you will know this to be true. I have no problem with ATCOs making operational decisions – but if they directly involve, or have an effect on the operation of the ATSA function, then it would be prudent (and polite) to first ask for an opinion from those best placed to give it – the ATSAs themselves.

As for your comments about “Company perks” – at my place of employment, excluding UKATTS, the ATCO grades DO receive additional benefits which are denied to the ATSA grades. This has been, and continues to be, a considerable irritation to those so excluded – after all, are we not all batting for the same side?

“Parity with ATCO pay grades” – pay scales were not specifically mentioned – please read it again, for I fear that you have misunderstood. The implication was that we, as ATSAs, are not on a “par” when it comes to anything that the ATCOs are privy to, and I then highlighted the Company perks, plus put-downs (in the professional sense) and lack of support as examples. These are, admittedly, separate issues from the licensing, but would also play their part if/when it came around to finding staff to fulfil the additional tasks which licensing would create. However, there is no reason whatsoever why we ATSAs should not be afforded the same level of professional acceptance and courtesy by others employed within NATS ATC, and we should also be allowed to share in the rewards (perks), whatever they may be.

With regard to lack of visible support from ATCOs for the ATSA licensing issue - you might like to consider the possibility that your colleagues don’t actually want to be seen to be taking sides with the “opposition” – nor do they want to fall out with us, because we all still have to work together, don’t we? And this website is not as “anonymous” as you would like to think. If, unlike yourself, they do not wish to air their views in public, perhaps they might take the trouble to engage in a little sensible debate with their ATSA counterparts at their own Station/Centre?

Finally, with regard to “hard done by, petulant outburst, chip on shoulder” - when debating an issue with anyone, never resort to making direct derogatory personal comments about the opponent – you do not know them personally, and it only indicates to all and sundry that the perpetrator of said comments has nothing constructive left to say. (happens far too often on Pprune, as it is).

Ayr_Man

16th Sep 2003, 00:34

Well said Connex!

I think licensing of Atsa's is an excellent idea.

A year or so ago a couple of NAS input "errors" crashed the entire FDPS system throughout the UK on at least two occasions, costing the airlines millions.
If the ATSA'S were licensed and given competency checks these errors probably would not have occurred, although I can sympathise with the Atsa's concerned as NAS is "creaking at the seams".
The Atsa's go to enormous lengths to ensure data input is correct, give them your support folks -- they have supported us long enough!

Bigears

16th Sep 2003, 06:48

Ayr_Man,
If more proper testing of NAS patches took place, then unforseen consequences of inputs wouldn't happen.
Not many years ago, NAS was 'foolproof' as regards an input crashing it.
BTW, rumour had it that one crash was caused by an ATCO doing an input! True or not, I don't know.
Your recognition of the ATSA work is appreciated, although personally I'm still undecided about licensing.

A thought worth thinking about- If I pass a clearance to an airfield incorrectly and an incident results, who gets hung drawn and quartered- me or the ATCO whose licence I'm working under?

Also, I believe that ATSA LCE's at Swanwick get extra money- true or false. Might be wrong as it came from a pub conversation!

Gonzo

16th Sep 2003, 08:44

As an ATCO, I would welcome ATSA licensing, if only from the point of view of reassurance that the colleague sitting next to me went through a similar examination to me in the past year.

I may be being naive here, but would it not also encourage in some a bit more pride and professionalism? Ok, maybe that's not how I meant to say it, as many of our ATSAs take the utmost pride in their work as it stands..... I guess I'm trying to say that it would be an official recognition from the company, and us as controllers, that that professionalism and pride is valued.

After all we are on the same team, and, certainly at my unit, the input from ATSAs can have serious ramifications if a mistake is made.

DC10RealMan

16th Sep 2003, 13:52

Can I make a suggestion!. It seems that everyone is a agreed that bi-annual or annual checking of ATSAs is a good idea. I think that for some of us the word "licence" is a problem. Can I suggest that we call it "Certificates of Competency", the administration remains the same, but then there is no confusion with ATCO licences.

zed3

16th Sep 2003, 14:04

DC10.....Just for info the Controllers at Maastricht (Eurocontrol) have a Certificate of Competency and not a licence!

niknak

16th Sep 2003, 19:17

Connex

You make very convincing arguments for atsa's/atca's to be well paid for the work that they do, but using the premise presented, you'd never convince NATS management or SRG that the post warrants an individual licence.
When it comes to support from atco's, they have no reason not to be forthcoming on this forum, I know that NATS frown upon being critisised in public - as does any employer, but as long as its constructive and valid they have nothing to fear.
On several occassions, you've used the phrase "team work", agreed, we are a team - each member of which has a duty of care to do their job to the best of their ability, but a team must have someone who is ultimately responsible, and like or not, that's not going to be the duty atsa (s).

Re reading my post, I accept that the final paragraph was unnecessary, and for that you have my apologies.

Finally, I fully support DC10's suggestion about certificates of competence, to be renewed annually and standards monitered on a regular basis, with the option for it to be suspended if standards are not maintained.

Personally I think that both NATS, non NATS employers and SRG will buy the C of C idea, and will give the atsa post the recognition it deserves.

Connex

16th Sep 2003, 19:20

DC10RealMan –

Although you have no doubt seen the original letter, for the benefit of who haven't, the term “professional licence” is taken directly from the Union letter which originally prompted this thread. I would not expect many ATSAs to object to the proposed licence being called a Certificate of Competency, ATSA Licence or anything else you want to call it, although the Union, for whatever reason, might prefer the term “licence” to be used. I just hope that all grades within ATC give a fair and unbiased hearing to the possibility of ATSA Licensing. Lets just all look rationally at the potential benefits/pitfalls (?) before making any decisions.

Any ATSAs out there who genuinely foresee problems with ATSA licensing?

And thanks to those ATCOs/ATSAs who have posted their views, or have been professional enough to discuss this issue with me at my Station without recourse to verbal slanging matches.
:ok:

Niknak included!!:ok:

1261

16th Sep 2003, 19:45

Given that the ATSA task encompasses such a wide range of responsibilites, what exactly would you like to see being examined as part of the annual check/licence/COC?

Would it include some form of medical (I know that if it did at least a third of our team would lose their jobs :) )?

I've never understood why people in ATC (particularly NATS) have such a hangup about getting paid for training. Surely once you get to a certain level of experience/seniority you are expected to contribute to training the next generation - in my last job that's certainly the way it was: "this bloke's on your watch, get used to it!". We cannot claim to be professionals with one hand and then insist on piece work money with the other.

Connex

17th Sep 2003, 03:40

1261 –

I would expect the annual check to be akin to taking an ATSA Validation Board test – ie: practical and oral tests covering all aspects of the ATSA function specific to the location at which the test is being held, and for which the licence/COC will be issued. Practical examinations to be carried out by delegated ATSAs, and possibly an ATCO with knowledge of ATSA issues to sit in on the oral Board . The whole process should be overseen by SRG, to ensure that standards are being maintained.

As for a medical examination - bit of a grey area - I am not certain whether this would be as much of a requirement as it is for ATCOs – depends upon the particular ATSA function, I suppose. There could be good grounds for needing one if the ATSA is engaged in “live” situations, such as Lighting Panel or supporting ATCOs in VCRs or En-Route for instance, whereas ATSAs working permanently in ATC office environments, (for want of a better expression) may not be deemed to require the same level of medical check. I myself do not object to medical examinations being part of the licence requirement.

With regard to the payment for training, or for being paid as an OJTI/LCE for that matter, I think NATS has made a rod for its own back -you cannot set a precedent by rewarding one group of individuals for doing a job, and then steadfastly refuse to reward another group for doing what is essentially the same task. This is the situation as it stands – generally, ATCOs get paid for training; ATSAs don’t.

Unfortunately, the days of being “professional” when it comes to NOT being paid for something have long gone. Although I am a volunteer ATSA mentor myself, I personally don’t see many volunteers in ATC offering to undertake additional (unpaid) duties. Also, I am not so financially comfortable as to be able to accept “professional pride” in lieu of hard cash!

1261 – although I personally support your idea of “professionalism” within ATC, IMHO professionalism in this day and age only comes at a price. Nothing is more certain to cause dissent amongst a Company workforce than the issue of pay. Although you may get a few “volunteers” along the way, today’s workforce does not accept the principle of “something for nothing” – you do something, you get paid for it – and especially if somebody else is already 'doing' and 'getting' just that. Sorry, but there are no friends where money is concerned!

1261

17th Sep 2003, 03:58

Fair points indeed, Connex; I'd much rather there was a one-off compensation payment and then no such training payments for ATCOs either. However, as you rightly say, it'll never happen in NATS.

niknak

17th Sep 2003, 06:39

1261
You are way out of touch regarding OJTI duties, it's an onorous responsibility being a mentor to any student atco, if they "f*ck up" it's your licence at risk.
The vast majority of employers (even Serco!) recognise this by rewarding atco's willing to train others, a minority don't - mine included.
I happen to enjoy the challenge of being responsible for someone's training and progress, and take a great deal of satisfaction in seeing them through the validation, but if they don't make it, or screw up shortly afterwards, questions are asked not only of the LCEs but the OJTI as well.

In any industry, increased responsibility is rewarded with increased renumeration, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

1261

17th Sep 2003, 14:52

Niknak, out of interest, did your employer used to sponsor a local league club (forget it if I'm barking up the wrong tree)?

I'd dispute your assertion that "any industry" pays more for training - they certainly didn't in my previous job. And believe me, the trainee f*ucking up on the bridge of a tanker carrying 40,000t of Jet A-1 can ruin your entire day!

Spitoon

18th Sep 2003, 04:34

To get back to the main issue - the reason for a licence is first to denote a certain minimum level of knowledge or competence and second to give the issuing authority something to take away if that minimum knowledge or competence is not maintained.

Given that ATSAs don't just walk in off the street but are employed by a small number of easily identifiable companies surely it's possible to achieve all of the safety measures within each individual ATC unit. It's been possible for years - although it's been done better by some units than others. OJTI responsibilities and all other special tasks can be done locally.

Let's get real. There's no need for a licence for ATSA - there are lots of other ways to ensure they are competent. In spite of claims to the contrary, the only reason anyone would want an ATSA licence is either for some form of status or to justify more money.

The same is true of controllers too. The only reason that they have licenses is because it's an international regulation. It would be interesting to guess whether if the regulation wasn't there, would controllers have licenses or just bits of paper authorising them to do the job - there really isn't a lot of difference if all you want to do is the job.

And btw, like it or not, even though controllers may not be able to do ATSA jobs as quickly, the job is supporting the controller and so they could do it if they needed to - or at least they certainly should be able to!

Connex

19th Sep 2003, 02:09

Spitoon –

Taken within the context of this thread, your first paragraph is a strong argument in favour of ATSA licensing. However, you then go on to say that ATC ATSAs (and ATCOs) do not really “need” licences. This would carry more weight if there were another alternative REGULATED method by which standards could be maintained. As far as I am aware, there isn’t, so licensing plus annual LCEs it will remain until another "non-licensed" method of maintaining standards ACROSS ALL GRADES is devised and implemented.

The important point is that licensing must, and does, fulfil its prime purpose, which is to be the “machinery” by which competency and safety standards are regularly checked and maintained. If improvement of these standards result as a by-product of such assessments, then so much the better. This is the crux of the debate/proposal concerning ATSA licensing – the issues over pay awards, who will be LCE/OJTIs etc are all side issues which can be addressed separately. If it can be reasoned that annual competency checks for ATSAs could be genuinely beneficial to the overall provision and standard of the ATC service, then that makes a good case for considering implementation of licensing for ATSAs.

I would be inclined to agree with your statement that ATCOs “certainly should be able to” do ATSA tasks – but by experience from what I have seen at my own Station, most ATCOs (with a few notable exceptions) have no more than a basic knowledge or passing interest in our tasks, let alone the detailed knowledge (and therefore the competency?) to be able to do them correctly.

I would be very interested to hear your ideas on how ATCO/ATSA competency can be checked (regulated?) at local (Unit) level; or how exactly it has “been done better by some Units” if it is not by annual LCE checks.

Connex

21st Sep 2003, 21:18

Whilst awaiting Spitoon's response to my last post, perhaps some kind soul out there can inform us all as to how ATSA competency is checked/maintained (without the use of LCEs) at their particular work location.

Spitoon

22nd Sep 2003, 04:20

Do I detect a slight edge to your last post Connie? It comes to something when you can't even go away for a few days without being missed on pprune!

To answer your questions, competence can only be managed by a unit. Continuous monitoring and annual checks will show up anyone who is having difficulties for whatever reason. Of course, work colleagues will usually pick up the signs even earlier. The unit management have a responsibility to ensure that people doing jobs are competent to do so - for many, many, reasons aside from licensing. So, if a unit manager becomes aware of someone who is not competent they should do something about it - the problem is what they should do. There are often few options, controllers and assistants are employed to do those jobs and there sometimes no other jobs on the unit that require this skillset (and we already know they're not up to scratch anyway).

You are looking for a licence for the wrong reasons. The CAA may issue licences and so the CAA can take them away - but this should be a last resort or the last stage of preventing someone who is not competent from endangering others. The first step should be at local management level - what you seem to want is for the CAA to be the bogeyman that takes away the licence while unit management wring their hands and say it's not their fault. You don't need a licence because, in simple words, if someone can't do their job they should be sacked. It sounds harsh but taking away a licence they need to do a job has the same effect in practice.

One would hope that lots of avenues are tried before someone in this position loses their job but the bottom line - and I think we agree on this - is that someone who is not competent must not continue to work in ATC.

As you say, payment for extras like training are secondary to ensuring competence and can be dealt with separately - and don't need a licence either.

I said that some units are better than others - and that applies to competence and usually all other things. A good manager (be that a Unit General Manager or Watch Supervisor) will be aware of how their patch is running. They'll spot problems as soon as they arise or, even better, will have an open door for someone who's got problems to go and talk and, hopefully, sort it out long before it becomes serious or can affect other. A unit or watch with a good manager will have some system that ensures competence that does not require a licence. A cr@p manager will actively deter such openess and when someone has a problem the first thing that will officially be recorded is an incident that gets reported to the CAA. Then the 'difficult' decisions are taken by the CAA.

OK, these are two extremes but I hope you get my point.

Finally, your point that controllers do not understand the ATSA's job is probably valid in many cases - hence my claim that they should be able to do the ATSA's job if necessary. But this again is a unit thing - a controller who may be called upon to do work normally done by an ATSA should be trained and considered competent to do it before being signed off as competent to work in any particular position.

I'm not joking sir

23rd Sep 2003, 02:19

Connex,

A few posts ago you asked if any of us can foresee problems with licensing. So far in the course of looking into this issue, I've come up with:

Possible demarcation both ATSA/ATSA and/or ATSA/ATCO
Handling of loss of license
Application of SCRATCOH?
Possible two tiers within the grade between licensed and unlicensed ATSAs - how will it be decided which tasks are licensed?

These are on top of the issues already mentioned in this thread such as the cost of running such a scheme, medical requirements, training, LCEs and the biggest one of all - ATCO opposition, (in spite of some encouraging comments on previous posts).

I'm still in favour.

Connex

23rd Sep 2003, 16:24

I’m not joking sir –

We have had a few talks amongst ourselves at work about this, and have come to similar conclusions with regards to potential problems. It will be interesting to see if the Union can formulate a “plan of action” to continue this proposal, or whether it will just die a death because the “opposition factors” are deemed insurmountable.

Spitoon –

I am afraid I cannot agree with “competence can only be managed by a unit” when it comes to the unit actually carrying out the annual competency check, because this introduces a “personal element” into the equation. If you yourself, for example, were assessed as being “not up to scratch” by somebody you worked with in your own Unit, I do not think that you would just blindly accept what your assessor was saying, however good your normal working relationship with that person. With human nature being the way it is, at the very least, you would be asking yourself “what the **&£$** does he/she know about it anyway?” There would be an “element” of objection – even more so if your job was on the line because of it, and most definitely if your assessor was younger, or had less ATC experience than you!

There is no problem with the local unit implementing a “continuous monitoring” policy to maintain the required level of competence – it is to be applauded, but the actual annual assessment itself must be conducted by an independent person in order to keep the “personal element” restricted to a minimum, and to be seen to be independent of any influence from within the Unit itself. I am sure I do not need to tell you of NATS’ overwhelming desire for keeping “bums on seats” in order to keep the customers happy, but the need to maintain and hopefully improve safety/standards should always be the aim of the annual check, irrespective of whether or not it costs individuals their jobs. As you said yourself, “in simple words, if someone can’t do their job they should be sacked”. LCEs will possibly find difficulty in having to personally address the problem of an individual’s sub-standard performance, and may even run into opposition from other quarters if the individual has a strong character, or if the Unit has staff shortages or a serious morale problem. This could possibly lead to the LCE not taking the necessary action, because of the potential backlash. Use of an independent assessor negates this problem – or at least it should.

I totally agree with the idea of Unit support for those finding difficulty with maintaining an acceptable standard – trouble is, are we ever given the resources to provide this support? At my Unit, we don’t even have sufficient resources to train people efficiently in the first place, let alone offer any form of further support once they have validated. In the last few years, training staff at all grades has gone from a sometimes time-consuming but conscientious effort from all involved to a simple “production line” mentality – minimum time (which equals minimum expenditure), minimum amount of knowledge imparted (just enough to satisfy the Board), and then its “well done, you’ve passed” and its out into the big wide ATC world. The benefits (!) of this style of training/management really come to light when the s**t hits the fan first time around, and this is especially noticeable within the ATSA function. The initial training, and therefore the achieved standard, is nowhere near as comprehensive or as thorough as it used to be. This is definitely not the fault of the trainees/mentors – this is purely down to the management policies of the Company over the last 10 years or so. And speaking of managers who can spot problems and deal with them effectively – if you know some, then send them to our Unit!

This is why I support the idea of ATSA licensing – our part in the provision of an ATC service is, in its own way, as important as any other, and it is provided by personnel who are as professional in their approach to their task as anyone else. We are not going to receive additional support in any shape or form from our own Management – they are too busy empire-building for themselves. Therefore the onus of responsibility to maintain our own professional standards lies with the ATSAs themselves, and the Union that supports us. Based on the concept of safety/standards, (you can forget the job security aspect) the Union has outlined a case for ATSA licensing, and for once, I tend to agree with them.

PS – I don’t think there was any “slight edge” in my last post – when taking part in a sensible (and constructive) debate, I have always found “to the point” to be a better tactic!
:ok:

Spitoon

28th Sep 2003, 17:06

Connex, in your last post you have documented very clearly why some units are not as good as others at dealing internally with competence.

I don't disagree that having someone from the CAA visiting the unit largely removes the personal element from any unpleasant discussions but they only visit occasionally. The rest of the time it's up to the unit managers and staff. This requires a professional attitude from both managers and staff - the age and experience of the examiner are irrelevant. No-one gets respect for being in a particular post, they earn it by doing their job fairly and well.

You suggest that someone who disagrees with what a local examiner says ends up thinking “what the **&£$** does he/she know about it anyway?”. The same is more true of a CAA examiner – believe me, I speak from experience!

You seem to make a distinction between monitoring continuing competence and an annual competence check. At units in the Local Competence Scheme, the annual check is done by someone from the unit - I think it's quite rare these days for a CAA examiner to do it at anything other than a very small unit.

If we are going down the route of local competence checking – and from what I can see of the new controller’s licence, this is going to become the norm – what becomes more important is that the unit management are competent to do their jobs. It would be nice to think that the CAA would check them out once in a while – but, of course, there’s a flaw in all of this. Unit managers don’t need a licence so what can the CAA do if someone isn’t up to the job!

I guess all this isn’t really relevant to your original question, but having given it some thought I needed to get it off my chest! I stand by my point that good unit management makes local competence checking a reality, poor unit management makes it a personality-ridden fudge that brushes ‘problems’ under the carpet.

I once worked at a unit where the boss truly managed the unit, set standards to be followed by LCEs and everyone else. Not everything was wonderful but you knew where you stood. Unfortunately, after being in the business for many years and having worked at a variety of units, I’ve only seen it once.

Connex

29th Sep 2003, 06:31

Spitoon –

Point taken about who does the checks at Stations within the Local Competency Scheme – at our Unit the LCS is done in-house by appointed LCEs, and not by CAA Examiners. My personal view is that this is not good practice, and I would refer back to my previous post for the reasons why. Having these in-house LCEs doing the continuous monitoring combined with the Annual Check is, IMHO, a basic mistake – they are open to influence at all levels within the Unit. In order to be able to make an impartial judgement on an individual’s competence, the assessors must themselves be fully conversant (competent?) with the working practices they are checking, and most importantly, they must be completely removed from any regular connections with the individuals/Unit they are assigned to check out. Not easy to achieve in practice, but essential nevertheless if a rational, unbiased and honest assessment is to be made.

I do not wish to go too far off track from the original thread, but like yourself, there is one point I would also like to get off my chest, too. I totally agree with your point about the link between good Unit management and maintaining standards of Unit competency. Trouble is, we do not have that many good Unit managers! I can’t think of any NATS Unit, be it Station or Centre, where the generally-aired view is that Management (at any level) is doing a good job – at least, that is the conclusion I come to after listening to the continual complaints, whinging and arguments between Management and Staff which filter down the NATS grapevine. At my own place of work, I don’t see much in the way of a “vote of confidence” expressed for our own Management by my colleagues – (and this is right from the Top Man down to the Watch Managers) – we are, to use your own words, subject to a “personality-ridden fudge that brushes problems under the carpet”. Couldn’t have put it better myself!

Some of the previous posts have touched on points which could make good topics for discussion in themselves – local management, for instance. As for the ATSA licensing, I shall still throw my hat in the ring with the Union, purely because I want to see ATSA standards/safety maintained and improved upon, and I see licensing as the means to achieve this. Licensing will actually throw the ball back into the individual’s court – if, by your own efforts, you don’t keep up your work standards, then you may find yourself in the proverbial “s**t”. If we want to be regarded as “professional”, then we must conduct ourselves professionally, and be able to demonstrate our “professionalism” when the Annual Check comes around.

Last thought for general consumption – with “modernisation” gearing itself up to replace many ATSAs, I also happen to think that the ATSA grades should be locally “self-managing” to a point, with our own internal (self-appointed?) “management” structure staffed by ATSAs for ATSAs, but with a direct link to Senior Management – rather than via an ATCO “spokesperson”. This should also be separate from the PCS Union and Union-related issues. When it comes to making your voice heard at Management level - how many ATSA staff members have any real confidence in what are essentially ATCO managers speaking on your behalf? When was the last time Management asked YOU for your opinion about something? I cannot remember the last time I spoke to an (ATCO) Manager who really and truly understood the ATSA function, its Working Practices, the day-to-day problems of staffing, shortfalls, crappy equipment, lack of support, etc etc. Lets be honest, they don’t really know, and as long as the ATSA bums-on-seats count is correct each day, they don’t really care! I would much rather place my support/trust to someone who knows the job inside-out, and let them do the talking to Senior Management, rather than give it to yet another “Yes-Man” in the guise of a Watch Manager. From my personal standpoint, its probably too late in the day for all this – but for those ATSAs who will be working on into the (distant) future - something to consider, perhaps?