All's fair in ATC training?

[wlatc]

(This is a post appearing at http://atcea.com in search of a wider audience for comments)

In running trainees through sim problems, care is taken to insure standardization. Problems are scripted in detail and little variation is allowed. This is to insure that each student receives, to the extent possible, the exact same problem as every other student. We do this in the interest of fairness.

My question: is it really fair?

No two people learn in exactly the same way. Some of us are visual, others auditory. Some are logical, some artistic. There are "linear" and "circular" thinkers and some folks learn more quickly than others. If we teach everyone the same way, does this insure fairness or does it insure that some will have an advantage? Will quick learners do better than slow? Will good typists have an advantage over the "hunt-and-peck" crowd? Who is favored by a "by-the-numbers" approach?

If our goal is to train everyone the same, the regimented approach is fine. If our goal is to give every student an equal opportunity to succeed, a strict adherence to standardized instruction will fail us.

[caniplaywithmadness]

Each student having the same problem is not unfair, what you need to look at is how each student DEALS with the problem.

The primary aim of any ATC is SAFETY, that comes above everything else. If what a student is doing is not unsafe, but perhaps inexpeditious or not how the instructor would deal with the problem, is it fair to mark them down on an assessment?

I don't think so, there are as many ways to do ATC as there are controllers, each one develops their own personal style of controlling.

What students need to appreciate are the belt and braces basics, the procedures, standard RT etc..

Once they are at a unit and valid then they will develop in their own way.

Every student should have an equal chance to succeed, as you said, we all learn in different ways, but at the end of the day, if the student can't do the basics or are in any way UNSAFE then they will never make the grade and succeed as a controller.

ATC teaching institutions should concentrate on teaching the basics, the rules and the fact that above everything SAFETY coes first.

Teach the studets these basic skills and the theory required to pass the exams, kick them out into the real world and let them get on with it....

[FWA NATCA]

wlatc,

The purpose of Radar Simulators, and the standardization with the problems, is to evaluate each trainees abilities, discover weaknesses, and then work on correcting identified weaknesses or problems prior to working "LIVE TRAFFIC".

We have trainees that may run a particular simiulator problem 2, 3, maybe more times, until they figure out that what we are trying to teach them.

Some facilities simulators are Pass/Fail, after running several practice problems the trainee must then pass an examination problem (simulation), usually an examination problem is run after each phase (arrivals, departures, satelites, over flights, etc). This is used to identify individuals who do not exhibit the abilities to work radar.

Mike
NATCA FWA

[av8boy]

...until they figure out that what we are trying to teach them.
Mike,

I’m ashamed to say that I’ve never before heard it expressed this way, but I think you are exactly on point.

A few decades ago I was clearly a trainee in that position. I was lucky. I was given more opportunity (training/patience) than I probably deserved, and it made the difference. There were other factors beyond any innate inability to get my brain around ATC… trainers who had no business trying to teach anybody anything, an atmosphere where humiliating and causing pain to the trainee was the accepted practice, and a bit of anger and resentment which flared in me and tended to blind me to the task at hand (a little catharsis today I guess…). But, there I was. What I find so interesting about this discussion is your observation about them (now that I’m an old-timer) trying to figure out what we’re trying to teach.

My question: is it them or is it us? I was just chatting last night with some firefighters about how ATC and firefighting still share this OJT approach, and the danger (mostly physical in firefighting (ie death) but more mental/emotional in ATC) this poses to the trainee. I mean, the question of success turns, in large part, on the luck of the draw. Is the trainee paired with someone who can teach? Is the trainer able to remain comfortable, calm, and instructive when the pressure is on? The nature of these jobs means that trainees are stuck with the instructional talent which exists at a given facility, and honestly, there is quite some variety among facilities.

I guess what I’m getting at is that this isn’t like learning to fly, where you (in most cases anyway) have some choice in instructors and facilities. As a controller, you take what you are given, and I can say with certainty that I have seen developmentals wash out because their trainers simply could not train. Those folks are done. Gone. They can’t pack up and go somewhere else. Sadly, these trainees left ATC having never gotten their brains around what it was “we” were trying to teach them, and it was through no fault of their own. I’d hasten to add, however, that an inability to train doesn't mean the trainer is a bad controller, etc. Training is just something that fell into his or her lap out of necessity.

I expect that this post was pointed more toward training within a given facility, and I guess I’ve gone a bit off-subject. It’s just that that line hit me right in the middle of the forehead. Yup. Trainees fail sometimes because they don’t understand what we want, but if that’s our fault as trainers, we’re letting some valuable talent get away from us for no good reason. As it turned out, I eventually became the third-best air traffic controller in the world :D :ok: (and the two that are better than me are just about to identify themselves on this thread!), so I KNOW that slow starters can sometimes do well if the facility can afford to put in the time.

Sometimes it’s them. Sometimes it’s us. When it’s us, that’s damned sad…

Dave

[FWA NATCA]

Dave,

We all know that some individuals should never be appointed as ATC instructors, and others may be good instructors in the tower, but not in the Tracon, or vice versa. All of us who are instructors have encountered trainees who are just awesome, others who struggle, a few real difficult ones, and the few that how did they ever get hired.

Instructing someone on live traffic is like walking the rope between buildings.

Mike

[Llamapoo]

As alluded to by everyone else, a sim exercise is intended to exercise and consolidate what has already been learned. As such, hopefully the different learning styles won't affect performance on the sim.

Training theory places some importance on putting in place conditions where learning and development can occur. Simulation is one such place.

There is also a lot of evidence that we problem solve and decision make on the basis of 'templates' we have built over time - templates for different air traffic situations and corresponding template solutions. This helps us to deal with the traffic quickly and effectively (as opposed to solving each situation based on first principles, as if we've never seen it before). If left to live training, we may never see all these situations, so some students will get more 'complete' training than others. A properly constructed simulation programme will expose the student to as many different archetypical air traffic scenarios as possible, helping them to begin their accumulation of 'templates'. If anything, this means that simulations result in fairer treatment of students. :ok:

And of course, assessment is totally consistent between different instructors...;)

[turn right heading]

Are the hours that trainees receive at the college enough?

When you take away instructor "how about doing it this way" and they f*** up (when they've seen the exercise god knows how many times) which means you lose the plot elsewhere instead of being left to your own devices, the poor bas**** in the other seat also being told the same thing who then infringes in your airspace (or you in theirs), therefore cocking up the whole run - you've got to take away a few hours.

I know that many situations need to be demonstated to students, but the amount of valid controllers that visit the college that say " well, that wouldn't happen in real life" or "you wouldn't get traffic like that" etc etc must be a lot.

A good example (and we all know that A.340's are crap), but I observed an A.340 out of frankfurt JUST clawing through FL180 50 miles west of LHR!!! Just to prove the point that A.340's are slow climbers!!!

And how many ex students would say that its not really the ATC thats hard, its knowing what each instructor likes and dislikes that gets you through.

[karrank]

The point here is standardisation. I did my training some time ago in a different country, but I'm sure some issues are the same. To achieve a standard training delivery you need the following:

Standard procedures - On my course we had instructors from enroute, approach & towers. We had ambitious, keen, young guys who had just made full-performance level and crusty old pr1cks who had not moved from behind a desk for decades. These people used to argue endlessly among themselves over basic procedures, and carp at trainees for doing exactly what their last instructor had TOLD them to do. Once we had a list of new expectations read out to us in the corridor while waiting to enter the simulator for an exam...

Standard approach - Some instructors would scent blood in the water. If a trainee seemed a bit uncertain they could be hounded by hypotheticals and "what have you got between those two" in the hope of pushing them over the edge. Somebody who seemed to be cruising could have his trainer sit back making yummy noises. Some just hated women and tried their best to unsettle them. During one exam that must have been boring for him (wasn't for me) my instructor placed his leg on the console next to me and let go a fart that sounded like a tearing phone book. "Don't worry boys, it'll smell of crushed rose petals..."

Standard environment - Some blip-drivers are retired or aspiring pilots or controllers, some have buggar all experience. Some are keen and want to provide the most real environment they can for the trainees, others are watching the clock or deriving amusment from confounding them. During another exam one of my blippies had left a line open. After determining it wasn't me I had my mouth open to tell them when I hear, "Ready? 1, 2, 3, go!". Immediately an aircraft calls while two more hot-lines open and the blippies all start talking over each other until I sort it out. And it kept happening. And it didn't happen to the guy sitting next to me.

[FWA NATCA]

Turn Right,

The purpose of sims is not so much as real world but teaching procedures one step at a time. It is impossible to insert real world because the Simulators can mimic wind, icing turbelence, or lousy climb rates.

At FWA we have our simulations broken down into stages.
1. Departures (with a few overflights)
2. Arrivals (with a few overflights and departures)
3. Satelite Arrivals (with a few ops at primary airport)
4. Satelite Departures (with a few mixed operations)
5. Military formations, flight break ups, etc.
6. VFR aircraft with some IFR's
7. Everything mixed together

We don't have the simulator as pass/fail (though after some of our more recent trainees I wish we did). We will run some of the problems multiple times until the trainee learns the right way.

We have subsequent Stages of simulations with additional complexity but regretfully not all supes require trainees to run them.

Mike

[turn right heading]

Mike, I like the sound of this
We have trainees that may run a particular simiulator problem 2, 3, maybe more times, until they figure out that what we are trying to teach them.

Unfortunately, once you've done a run thats it, unless there happens to be an instructor free run going (v rare). So if you happen to miss the training point then you've missed the point.

What doesn't help are instructors who like to add their own problems to the runs - i.e. telling input to make wrong calls or switching off of transponders.

Karrank - Nearly everything you said sounds so familiar

[Scott Voigt]

Turn Right Heading;

Over here it is more the norm that if someone is having problems we give them a bit more individual attention. Maybe not so much while going through the classroom part (but they try) but after we get them on the floor for OJT. If someone is having some issues with a concept we send them back to the sim with some folks from the floor and the training dept. and go over it with them quite a few times. We expend quite a bit of energy to get folks through. Sometimes probably more than we should on some.

regards

Scott

[turn right heading]

Scott

Like the ideas there but we just don't have the valid controllers available to provide a more "personal" service:) which is a shame really.

I think that a lot of students have the idea that its a lot easier to bin people than give them another chance - maybe I'm wrong, but its the impression I get from them.

Also, there's a lot of emphasis on written exams. don't get me wrong, I believe fully in knowing the rules but do the word for word exams really test the knowledge of students? I don't think so, I remember learning the stuff required and forgetting it the next day, my mum compared it to being an actor - you learn the script for the play then forget it for the next one!! As it happened I had previous experiance in ATC but this in its self was a hindrance as I thought I knew it - I did, but not word for word. How many people have failed (especially ex Air Force/ATSA's) because they missed out a word here and there, but had the right answer? All at the expense of how long it takes to mark papers that have been written in your own words.

Anyway, time, I think, to get out of this one too.

TRH

[FWA NATCA]

Turn Right,

Our goal is to teach what each trainee needs to know so that they can train out on the floor and hopefully certify. Like Scott says when we encounter a trainee that has problems we try to identify the problem then send them back to the training department to receive more classroom training, or run more simulations.

The purpose of the controllers who help run the problems is not to teach technique, but guide the trainee by showing them different ways to handle particular situations that they are struggling with, then let the trainee develop their own technique.

Mike

[Barnaby the Bear]

How many people have failed (especially ex Air Force/ATSA's) because they missed out a word here and there, but had the right answer? All at the expense of how long it takes to mark papers that have been written in your own words.

Spot on!
I was an ex-ATSA, binned during Radar skills, I failed a written exam. I passed my verbals no problem, thus proving I understood the theory. But like your mum says, I would make a bad actor.
I was told I would never make it as a controller as I couldn't 'Reproduce information accurately'
Fortunately I found a unit that was prepared to take me on as a trainee ATCO.
I have been valid for a number of years.
I believe Radar skills is no longer assessed.......great! :hmm:

Still had i not been accepted to the college at all, I would have to have funded the training I did get. So musn't grumble as they say......................plus I have just read the Student pay thread. :ouch:

[turn right heading]

BTB

Radar skills is still assessed but i believe RS will go with the new structure, Area RS is still trained by Aerodrome though:\

I know of a guy that failed Area 1 verbals because he knew everything as it was written in the book but he had no ideas of his own - I WONDER WHY? Failed and out of the company. ( His first out was from Radar skills taught by AD instructors!!)

Currently, the amount of word for word needed to learn is about 50 pages of A4. And most of it is forgotten the day after the exam. In ACS2 there are two written progress tests, again word for word, but there is no actual written exam, but there is a verbal. surely the answer here would be to have a mock verbal instead therefore letting the trainee know what to expect and also to start to learn MATS etc in a verbal/practical way.

I guess you could rant on forever about training etc. no-one will be satisfied, and who knows it may change with the new structure.
:ok: