As an interviewer, I'm consistently disappointed by the most common answer to my first question: "What have you done to prepare for today?"
".....Errrr, well, I had another look through the documents for stage 1 and stage 2..........errrr, and then I had a look at NATS website for a bit.........."
Hmm ok, maybe I am not entirely writing my advice correctly. Not to sound too big for my boots and all that, and also not to sound like I did no preparation at all (because I did).... but the prep I mainly did was talk to air traffic people (both civvi (NATS and otherwise) and RAF), and read into things.
As a past interviewer myself for army entrance for various levels, I used to hate it when people came in with what they thought were the right facts and figures about things, and their ideas about whatever, when really they were completely wrong and ended up making a tit of themselves.
Yes, read into things, but not to the extent of being chock-a-block full of unneeded crap? Surely talking to people in the know (i.e. visits) is far more worthy than reading reels of text? If you can't make a visit, yes, reading is a good substitute, but surely there is a limit before it becomes all too much?
wtb
Or am I barking up the wrong tree.