@CJayne - Someone had to do it...if not for his sake then for others who may agree with him!
OMG ATCKnob you r such a brown-nose!
You are seriously showing your school-kid attitude again. I bet you were the 'class-clown' at the back of the class laughing at people getting good grades and acting as if everything in life comes easy to you - because you have probably had EVERYTHING given to you on a platter! 'ATCKnob' has been used before by other pathetic individuals trying to 'get one back' after showing the same kind of childishness. Where's the originality...? PS Text speak, the word brown-nose and the not-so-funny play on words with my screen name says it all!
Listen to what I am Saying!
I agree TOTALLY that it would be a better test if they gave you no prep material at all. That would be completely fair and a much better process to find those with the right aptitude!
money or no money it is a great career with an awesome responsiblity to have and yes very important to get the right people for the job.
However, in this case... what I am saying is that in the tests i sat today, someone who only read the material given once could have passed the motivation paper- which is why i felt it was a waste..
why tell people you are going to be assessed on basic checking when in fact you are going to get long division and multiplication?
why tell people you are going to do personality q's when you're not?
This process as a result could in fact penalise those who have put a great deal of effort and are Highly motivated to be an ATCO, yet miss out due to being thrown off by an unexpected turn of events...
What then is the problem with them giving out 'easy' prep material? You would shocked at how many people don't find it that easy. There is no way you could have prepared for basic checking anyways, so I don't see how that would cause anyone to be "thrown off"! They tell you just before the tests which test you are doing so how could you be "thrown off" anyways? If anything it sounds like you did FEWER tests than I did when I did stage one!
Its just trickery - which is fair if that is the purpose intended (which i doubt)... or incompetence by distrubuting out of date information on HR's part..
either way it is disgraceful..
You say it's trickery and it would be fair if that was the purpose intended. But you then say you doubt that that was their purpose. Surely trickery implies deception and intent? So if you don't think that was their purpose, then how could it be trickery? Can you see why some of us feel the way we do about your posts? They are paradoxical!
I would suggest you go back to temping or whatever it is that you are doing at the moment. Oh, and by the look on your other posts you are also looking to lie about gaps in employment. Just a word of advice, NATS HR read these forums. If you have any problem with their methodology or process I would suggest a simple (and polite!) feedback email would probably suffice whereby you would probably receive another email from them apologising thereby causing you to realise that NATS is only made up of people, who are actually HUMAN, who ACTUALLY make mistakes - like you!