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!
