Spitoon
You say that “...you need a certain something to be a controller. What that 'something' is no-one seems to have managed to pin down otherwise we'd have a 100% record on selection and training.” I’d argue that it is a combination of factors and circumstances but either way we are agreed that we are unable to select recruits who will definitely validate, thus some must be failed at some point. Let’s face it, if we had a perfect selection process we would simply be “failing” applicants rather than Students.
In the real world the first opportunity to see if an applicant has got your “certain something” is the college. If we could identify at that point who would definitely validate, any failures at the units could be seen as reflecting on the unit training rather than the individual Student. However we still can’t pinpoint the “certain something” at this stage so some Students who can cope at the College are going to progress to live units and fail there. Fact of life.
Within NATS, Area training is cumulative, it gets more demanding the further you progress. At some point, those without the “certain something” will find they can no longer cope. That is not the end (at least not at LACC) as the Student will then be given further time in which to reach the desired level of achievement. This is crunch time. Whatever the circumstances the Student has to face the need to change something about the way they are approaching the task. Perhaps they are not methodical enough – they need to be more disciplined, maybe they are too cautious – they need to have faith in their decisions (and trust their mentors to catch their errors) or maybe they need to grasp the bigger picture to work better in the team. They will be given plenty of help to identify the problem and how to solve it. The one thing they cannot do is change nothing. Unfortunately for some, this will be the first time in their lives that they have ever had to question their own ability and methods. I stand by what I said in my previous post, Student ATCOs are, by definition, the sort of people who will have rarely, if ever, struggled at something. The first time it happens can make or break and success will have to come from within. They have to find a “certain something”.
You are concerned that “…. you do not recognise that someone prepared to argue a professional point is showing all the signs of reaching a level of knowledge and confidence where the training is paying off.” The context of my comment was a Student who has continually shown all the signs of NOT reaching the level of knowledge and ability required. In fact, your comment is a perfect example of this sort of thing. You have made a perfectly good and valid general point but utterly failed to recognise that within the context of the specific situation your argument is irrelevant.
"I can't help finding Arkady's kind of arrogance rather disappointing. Whilst NATS still seems to have problems selecting and training ATCOs ( it has for the last 30 years since I started in this business), I thought the 'we have to fail people to show how good we are' attitude was long gone. "
We have to fail people because they have not shown the ability to perform the task to the required standard within the time allowed. No LACC Student is failed lightly, many run up 400+ hours before the axe falls, but those that fail an SVC or after only 100 hours live? Should they really have been there in the first place? Live unit training is not really relevant to this thread and I’ll not be drawn on it any here any further. Start a new thread if you wish to debate it further.
I reserve judgement on the new courses at the College until we see the Students themselves but if it is more difficult to get through that can only be to the benefit of those that pass and the units to which they are posted.