A I-
A very hard comparison to make, because although similar, there are some striking differences between NATS and Eurocontrol. Here goes anyway...
Overall, NATS will have the slightly better validation rate, due to Airports controllers all validating SOMEWHERE. Eurocontrol only trains Area Controllers for Maastricht, so fail there, and you are history. However, at the moment, Eurocontrol has the higher success when compared to NATS Area Controller training/validation.
Aha! You all cry. But wait, there is more. Eurocontrol only trains about half the number of Area ATCOs per year that NATS do. What isn't shown is how many applicants are rejected to get this success rate. If Eurocontrol are rejecting a higher proportion odf applicants to fill this smaller requirement, it is still possible that NATS Area Training gets better results. These figures are unknown. NATS is also re-building it's entire Area Radar Course, from the ground up, so expect even better results in the future.
Comparing current ATC teaching to the old Cadetship is a bit unrealistic too. While the Cadetship did give a much broader ATC knowledge, a lot of it merely occluded the stuff that baby ATCOs needed to know. More modern methods, whilst leaving some of the peripheral knowledge to be aquired later if needed, do give much more focused training in the area of expertise that the trainee will face for their first validation. Different yes, but strangely the route that Eurocontrol has followed, and the rest of Europe is also adopting.
The product is definitely different now, but the job has changed beyond all recognition too. The new breed of ATCO is better equipped for the modern job than his/her predecessor, but may miss out on some background knowledge which would make their ability appear more 'rounded'.
What I miss is a decent level of mental arithmetic. Can't blame NATS for that though.
