Mil PKs- Are they a waste of time?

[Flobadob]

Why do we bother with PKs?

WKs make sense, but have we just got into a rut with these pointless exercises ingrained into the system over the years?

Discuss

[MATZ]

Just failed one then??? ;)

I have found them a useful way of ensuring that controllers have a thorough understanding of the various documents and policies that regulate our job. I would say it is the way they are structured and how the questioning is conducted is the make or break of a PK.


MATZ

[5milesbaby]

Could you please explain what a PK and WK is for us civvies!

[Flobadob]

MATZ- No I haven't failed one, never got less than 98% if you must know! You are just following the typical Mil line on that one.

5milesbaby- OK, for the civil guys here is a quick resume of a PK/WK for you.

WK or 'Working Knowledge' check is carried out on mil controllers by Local Examination Officers (LEO)before they can obtain a Tower/Dir/RA etc endorsements. This is a theory check which consists of 10 Qs about the task you are covering and 10 'core' questions from the JSP552, your version of MATs. These are usually related to the task you are carrying out and take about 30 mins. They are also carried out by the Air Traffic Control Examing Board (ATCEB/SRG to you guys) on their check ride visits every couple of years when they visit your unit.

A PK or 'Professional Knowledge' check is carried out by the Air Traffic Control Examing Board based at Shawbury. They usually dispatch one of their members to visit the unit and exam Sups, Local Examination officers to ensure they know all the theory. This test usually takes around 2 hours to complete properly and is also carried out on Instructors every 3 years. The LEO can then 'check out' other controllers using a practical and WK before going solo.

The PK is taken from the Mil air traffic bible the JSP 552 and lots of questions from FLIPs. You can get asked some really bizarre questions- for example 'what is the frequency of Timbuktu Approach' or 'If you plane is flying from the IOM to MAN what airspace would you fly through'. There are also a number of air pressure calculations to contend with, lovely.

The WK makes sense and gets the new boys to learn their new airfield procedures pretty quickly so I have no issue with that. But the PK it is a waste of time and is a contridiction in terms.

I don't think there are any other organisations that give you a licence to control (having passed the Joint Air Traffic Controllers Course) and then make you do the theory all over again?

I would like to know if the civvy controllers have such a thing? I know you civvy controllers value your licence bigtime and would probably get the hump if you were made you do part of your basic theory training again, I do! :{

[Number2]

I'd say an oral board for validation is significantly more difficult to study for than a PK. Much more scope and no guidance on potential questions. Try revising from MATS Part 1, ANO etc etc - a lot less fun - take it from me!

P.S.

Do you know how petty you sound when you say "Never got less than 98%". I always said my Father could have learnt the Mil docs and passed a PK. They don't happen every year so stop bleating and concentrate on that application for NATS!

[5milesbaby]

Flobadob thanks for that, makes it much clearer. As number 2 so delicately mentions we have an oral board for validation, any number of questions from both the sector valid Examiner and SRG. The examiner generally concentrates on situations not seen in the board but are crucial to know for the sector and also asks about certain situations from the board to gather the students thoughts of resolution. SRG stick to the Mats 1 (basic bible), ANO and occasionally the AIP.

After this every year we have a local competency check on each position we work, which involves a few questions normally concentrated on the changes that have occurred to the rules and procedures over the last year. We have Local Competency Officers and also Examiners and both of these are annually checked by others capable of doing so in just the same way the rest of us are. We believe that if there is a weakness in somebody then it'll be easily seen by the team and will be dealt with in-unit. I would say that the safety records for NATS show that we are doing good at working the competency scheme well.

Unfortunately the LCE or Canadian equivalent doesn't include a personality test so Number 2 still gets a chance :hmm:
I can assure you that not many civil controllers will agree with his/her outspoken comments and hope someone that knows him/her will give them a deserved slapdown soon.

[flower]

Are these the "Trappers" that we are pre warned about by our local Military ATC unit ?

[Number2]

Has everybody lost their sense of humour?!

Just trying to spice up the forum old boy! You're welcome to slap me down any time if that's your thing! At least I knew what a PK was and most civil controllers don't seem to care too much for the mil chaps!

[Flobadob]

5milesbaby- thanks for your explaination, nice to get sensible debate going rather than the usual Civ v Mil pointless banter that characters such as Number2 and Heathrow Director (God bless him in his old age) regularly throw in. So boring.

Talking about your licences. When I worked alongside German civil controllers at Dusseldorf back in 80's they were amazed at the way we were checked out with 2 hour oral PKs and WKs. As far as they were concerned they were awarded their controlling licence and it was accepted as a legal Federal licence to control. Therefore, they were never tested using such naff methods as PKs. I believe it still is that way? Maybe someone from DFS (not the furniture store before the pleb banter starts) could comment?


Flower - Oh yes for 'ATCEB' insert 'Trapper' or ' Cat Board' or 'Gits'. We give them loads of banter and actually they are not that bad.
:}

[flower]

The problem with anything in the military is gaining change ( yes i am ex mil but not RAF so can legitimately say that )
I know you Mil guys do a slightly different job from ourselves but a similar check out yearly rather than that long check out every few years I would have thought would be more appropriate, as you say you already hold your licence.
We however are getting weighted down more and more with various checks beyond our yearly LCE. We must have seen this video or done this bit of CBT etc .
Perhaps you could put forward to those in power that they look at the LCE system we have in place, who knows you may make progress.

[Airdrop Charlie]

Flobadob,

The clue is in the question. Professional knowledge is just that - a level of knowledge acquired to be able to think and perform as a professional. Same with doctors, lawyers etc. Someone has to have that knowledge in the system to allow the less experienced talk, ask questions and improve their own understanding. I think the balance is right now - it used to be that we'd all do PK's, my first was one year and 1 week after finishing Shawbury! Ultimately, as you have performed so well in your PK results, you should be proud of your achievement and secure in the knowledge that you have a thorough understanding of the ATC profession allowing you to act as Sup, LEO et al.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Come back Iris, all is forgiven... Ooops.... so boring; sorry.

[Flobadob]

Yippee! Got a bite from Heathrow Dir, wondered when he would appear, my week is complete!

Airdrop Charlie- While I agree things are better than the old days, I think you are missing the point I am trying to get across here.

If you have passed a course (JATCC) and obtained your endorsements at your unit and control well enough practically and have proved you can do the job, why do you need to prove yourself with a 2 hour oral theory test that for the majority contains totally pointless questions described earlier?

Doctors and lawyers do not have to carry out oral theory exams following 'Graduation' into the profession. As I said earlier, the WK is a good idea but the PK is really a lame duck from a bygone age.

I think the civvy controllers system described by 5milesbaby is the way forward, makes more sense and with NATS proven safety record is the way forward for us lot.

[rej]

I know I am going to get verbally slaughtered for this but

...... in days gone by when everyone had a PK every 3 years the standard of general ATC knowledge was much better than it is now. And before anyone shouts that the books are always available to look at and find the answers, in the dynamic environment that we find ourselves, it is not always practical to delve through the books to find an answer. In addition, without a deeper knowledge than you leave Shawbury with, you just might be hard pressed to even know where to start looking to find the answers.

Plus while I'm on my high-horse it is not really too much of a chore these days as you have the bl**dy questions and answers given to you to study from (okay except the open book ones). In the old days you had 318A, 318 and a whole pile of other books to study from and the rest was left to you. When it takes an experienced controller 15 mins to find an open-book answer from one of the 'core' books in a PK (as I have witnessed a few times) then it is kind of worrying how long it would have taken them had they not had the time to prep for the exam (that is assuming that their PK prep included opening books other than the question bank).

Having written and conducted several PKs, loads of WKs and been subjected to several PKs myself, I see them as professional development and agree with their inclusion as part of our PROFESSION.

I will now put on my flak jacket and wait for the incoming ......

[Number2]

Flobadob

I don't consider the banter pointless - I spent several years in a blue shirt working alongside my (comfortably attired) civil colleagues. Some respected what we did but others just mocked the amount of time we spent on console doing very little (a fair point at times). My girlfriend at LACC was shocked at how the mil guys were 'ignored' by a large majority of the NATS employees.

The biggest shock was at DAT & S. The students 'off the street' had obviously formed their own opinions of mil controllers and, believe me, it wasn't complimentary - I wonder how they'd formed those opinions.......

I didn't see a whole lot of difference in either code - apart from the fact that most mil instructors were more approachable! A huge exception to that was the ROVIs - what a wonderful idea! Somebody definitely deserved a pat on the back for that.

You see, I CAN be complimentary!

[Flobadob]

Number2,

Cheers buddy that makes me so happy to know. I really do enjoy the civ/mil banter, just pulling your and Heathrow Dirs leg. He should be back online soon,must be time for his medication in the OAP home by now.

Anyway back to the thread. Lets get the mil working in the same way as the civvies on the PK front. We have become ingrained into a rut over the years and we need to move on.

Do RAF pilots have to do a two hour oral theory exam with their Trappers every 3 years? Don't think so, but remember, it's a pilots Air Force.......but that's another thread for the Mil Aircrew forum ;)

[Pierre Argh]

ATCO PK... undoubtedly worthwhile, to do otherwise would precipitate an unacceptable decline in background knowledge/understanding... it's not just about getting, what was it, 98% of the boxes ticked!!!

[Sven Sixtoo]

FLOBADOB

RAF pilots only have a 2-hr theory exam every 3 yrs if they hold an 'A' Category (or CR(S) in the modern speak). For us mere mortals with a C cat it's every year, and it often lasts more than 2 hours.

That's in my little bit of the Service of course - others may be different.

Sven

[normally right blank]

Something called ESARR5 is on the horizon.

[Flobadob]

Thank God!

A step closer to the 'real world' for mil controllers licenses

As usual, the RAF has HAD to conform, something they don't like doing, which is a real shame because we have the best mil controllers in the world and they deserve to be treated well. I know that there is a lot of background work being done with trying to educate the RAF to Esarr5 standards. If Bliars Gov has done one thing right it has to be signing up.

[Pierre Argh]

we have the best mil controllers in the world

Flobadob... Fact. opinion or just blowing smoke up your ar**...

I'm not sure if you're advocating a dispensation from ESARR5 or not. Europe is full of organisations who employ good controllers, so why should the MOD (it's not just the RAF remember) be different?

It might be a bit tricky/expensive getting around the current lack of license issue in the MOD; and then there's the perception that as soon as you give them one you won't see them for dust (why's that I wonder?) I've heard they're working on a "Military Only" card... which is going to be interesting at the units that currently/are planning to handle significant amounts of civil traffic and LARS (Northolt, St Mawgan, Lossiemouth, Valley etc etc)