Originally Posted by Arkady
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.
The concept that if we knew what characteristics would make a successful controller we would fail applicants rather than students is interesting - I hadn't thought of it in this way before. But in this imperfect world we must rely on those that do the selection to do the best that they can and then do whatever we can to help those selected to succeed. You are right that it is a combination of factors and circumstances that will determine the outcome of training - and that includes many things including the attitude of trainers at the College and units (I'm not dismissing the multitude of other factors including the attitude of the student but I think where we appear to differ is on the trainers' side). I still believe that it is important that we work toward validation (i.e. success) with failure as an unusual, but sometimes necessary, outcome. It seems from your post (and from discussions with some others involved with training it is not an isolated view) that failure is the norm and only a trainee with something special - rather than simply being competent - will be successful.
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.
Once again, you seem to be looking for ways to fail trainees - just debating the point at which that failure takes place! Training should not be that 'done at the college' and 'that done at the unit', it should be a continuum from day 1 at the College through to success at the unit, with each stage of training building on what has gone before. This is why I earlier asked whether you cared what the College courses' training objectives are - if you do not know this how can you hope to prepare a trainee to validate?
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.
That 'certain something' that I refer to is the ability to do the job - not to reach a particular level at a nominal 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.
You final point is quite valid - but that is what training is about, changing behaviours. Whilst some trainees will not change their behaviour, many patently are able to do so because they successfully work as controllers....although a good number do so outside NATS after being 'failed'.
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.
Whilst I am no great lover of the present training regime of mlestones, a student who 'has continually shown all the signs of NOT reaching the level of knowledge and ability required' should not have progressed beyond the milestone with which they are having trouble until they have reached the required standard (or, if they are unable to do so, have had their training ended). Consequently, I believe that my point remains valid and your unit's experience with trainees may be a reflection of the training capabilities on the unit. Nonetheless, a trainee who is prepared to debate a point, despite the fact that they may be wrong, is showing a degree of learning and the response should be correction (i.e. training, a.k.a. behaviour change), not failure.
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.
That does rather depend on why the course is harder to get through. But your comment apears to be based on numbers alone instead of any consideration of whether the trainees are better equipped to deal with unit training (and the people and attitudes that they will meet). Sadly, I have a suspicion that turning trainees with less time to comprehend the complex system into which they are being thrown is unlikely to prepare them for unit training.
But at least Arkady will be able to say "Told you so".