Originally Posted by
LookingForAJob
I'm afraid I think there's a lot more to it than simply stepping in and taking over when it gets busy or complex...however that is determined.
I understand exactly what you're saying. But I'm not sure that learning by rote to start with is such a bad thing. Everything else I'm 100% in agreement with. In the years since I went through the basic training I've seen a number of big changes (particularly with respect to NATS' trainees).
Back in my day, your description fitted my experience perfectly - sit in, often with a mentor who didn't like or didn't want to do training, do the best you could until you did something wrong when the mentor took over and then maybe gave it back to you, but rarely had any explanation of what happened, why or how to have handled it better. Alternatively you were left until you were out of your depth and the mentor had to rescue you which did little to build one's confidence. Unless you were a natural at the job it was an uphill struggle, made harder still sometimes if you had the temerity to say you weren't happy with the training. Of course, it wasn't all as bad as that but there were plenty of days when that was the only memory! There seemed to be a disconnect between the college, mainly theory and sim-based teaching, and the trainers in the real world. The way I sum this up now is to point out that it is very difficult to remember how little you knew on your first day out of the college. As you mention, one could quote passages from the book but had little understanding of what it meant when applied to the real world. Somewhere along the way those who go on to have successful careers learn how to apply the theory to the real world and a lot more besides. The unit training for a previously unqualified person needs to take them from that very green and keen college trainee and feed them everything that us old hands know in a way that makes sense and at a rate that can be assimilated effectively.
Then, I guess in the mid-80s, we got UTPs. Lots of training/learning objectives and, sometimes, even performance standards to be achieved. It was a lot of hassle to put together but, if the UTP truly covered all of the activities at the unit - including those that don't happen very often - it could form the basis of a good training programme with material being fed in at the right time. But not everyone put together a tailored UTP, and there was a fair bit of cutting and pasting going on where only the unit name changed! About the same time we got an OJTI rating/endorsement - initially, IIRC, given to those who asked and could show previous experience in OJT, and later issued following completion of a training course. So, I remember a few reluctant mentors who, willing or otherwise, got OJTI tickets because of their past experience and others who actively tried to get the ticket because they enjoyed the power/authority, even if not the training. And then, because it went on the licence, people wanted more money if they had the ticket. Sadly, little of this bore any relationship to whether anyone had the skills or ability to train effectively.
In the 90s, a decision was made in NATS to shorten the time that trainees spent at the college. The reasons for this seemed to vary depending who you spoke to but it was at the time NATS units became separate business units, and managers had to manage the money. The units had to pay the college for each trainee. So, before long, unit managers started trying to find ways to save some of that money by reducing the time trainees spent at the college. This, of course, meant that the trainees came out of the college even greener than before (but hopefully still keen). This was fine for the unit managers because, they said, it enables the unit to provide more bespoke training for their people. I presume that the UTPs for these units were suitably expanded to meet the needs of both the units and the trainees.
We've now got approved courses which must be followed at certified training organisations. This has increased the costs involved for everyone, and blocked a route into the industry which I followed, but - hopefully - has improved the quality of training and, ultimately, better prepared the people providing services for whatever they may be faced with when doing the job and thus provide a safer service. Because those last couple of points is what it's all for - right?
We've now also got EU regulations to cover all of these things - running to over 450 pages of law and guidance. Whatever one may think about the EU, I would point out that the UK took the lead in many of the concepts in the EU legislation and had implemented them in the UK rule framework long before EASA had any involvement with ATM. So the UK has a mature training system in place.
And the CAA carefully oversees industry operators, using safety arguments put forward by ATC units to justify what bespoke training is needed for their respective locations, challenged when appropriate if the CAA experts are not convinced by those safety arguments (a bit like what the FAA does with Boeing) and not approving something if it does not meet the necessary safety standards.
As I say, a lot has changed over 40 years or so. But it sounds like the training experience for some, at least, of today's trainees is much the same as it was all those years ago. It's a bit of a shame, isn't it?