High College Failure Rate?

[RO13ERTS]

Hi all,

I've just had a traumatic time reading a thread which indicated the college failure rates for NATS were sky high. I'm starting in September, and was looking for your opinions on why they are so high and if they are really at that level?

[Inca_Gold01]

One of the things that the college is best at is milling rumours. The 'High Faliure rate' was all over the place while i was there and still is.

My experience of the college is that you tended to lose around a third of a course per course. I started with over 35 people at the induction and now there is 15-16 of us with licences. Some people quit, some were chopped and most got some form of re course. The main thing is that it is not for everyone, not one of the 35+ i started with was un motivated or un able but at the end of the day couldn't pass the assessments.

Just keep your head down and do the work and you'll be fine. People who make too much noise generally attract the wrong type of attention to themselves and come a cropper.

[Scarf]

Completely agree with Inca there,

It's not for everyone... but if you have the desire to do it, and put the work that's necessary in, you'll get the rewards you deserve at the end of it. It is tricky and difficult at times, but everyone there is behind you to make sure you get through it with a smile on your face.

Scarf

[Standard Noise]

I was down at Hurn last week and was told by a member of College staff that of the last course to have summatives, out of 33, 26 failed. Of the remaining 7, 5 had already been re-coursed.

So what? So there can be high failure rates on some courses but that doesn't affect anyone who's about to start just the same as if the last course through had a 100% pass rate. It has absolutely no bearing on anything. Get your head down and work hard, nothing else affects your chances as much as your own endeavour.

[RO13ERTS]

That's the plan!!!!

[intherealworld]

I think you'll find once upon a time the failure rate was quite bad, 1/3 of people or so not making it. Now it's terrible. Of one of the most recent 'large' courses that are passing through the college, out of over 50 people only 16 people remain, their fate yet to be decided! One course had only 9 people passing last week and getting a posting and of those some had been recoursed multiple times!

The course is too short now and there are not enough good instructors to go around. It'd be interesting to know how much each trainee on £10k 'costs' compared to students on the old salary. I wouldn't be surprised if it was now more! You can't pile em high and sell em cheap.

[flower]

That is a worryingly high failure rate, too much cost cutting by bean counters no doubt with the college staff taking all the flack.
We started as a course of 60 and 44 of us graduated after 3 ratings with most failures at the procedural rating, as they no longer do that you would think the pass rate would be higher. Although the pay may account for some of it, not attracting some potentially excellent candidates, I would find it hard to believe that the selection process is letting the system down so badly.
Reducing the length of courses is to the long term detriment of NATS and we risk losing people who just needed a little longer at the college ?

[intherealworld]

Scarf; Some of the instructors are very good, but be careful about assuming all are when you have nothing else to compare it to. Some haven't been valid on radar for over 20 years and some are contracted back in because no one else wants to do it! Those who hold validations are excellent instructors. But there's a few who have a nice little earner going on, who by all accounts were a bit ropey when valid!

The problem with the 10k is it's an extra pressure you don't need. Plus I've heard some people need a part time to job to live, that cannot help you to focus on the course. Plus how do you afford to let your hair down and wind down at the weekend?

[Scarf]

Eek, my apologies, other post disappeared.. trying to claw it back again!

You are right, I can't really compare it to "the good ol days" and how it used to be, so obviously have an inaccurate view on the whole thing! I haven't heard of anyone having another job to supplement their expenses, but i know where your coming from. It is tight, and i don't know how other people coming from other jobs are managing. Fortunately I came straight from college and into it, so for me it's actually the highest paid job i've had, used to living off a couple of tins of baked beans a week!

[intherealworld]

unfortunately very suitable candidates aren't able to give up well paid secure jobs to embark on a very risky course as they have commitments, hence the 10k appeals to a very small pool of candidates.

i hear people now are frequently failing oral boards and written examinations (despite the 70% rule for each q being changed) This was generally unheard of even up to the last non-10k course! These sentiments are being echoed from many different areas of the company so it's about time management listened.

Here's something; how about a new GM at Hurn, that concentrates on training our Atcos before those of other countries!

[cdb]

As a general rule, about 1/4 of people are making it through from entry to validation.

10k pay cut or not, I think this must be costing Uncle Barron a few bob, but the management don't seem to be bothered by the chop rate.

[Standard Noise]

How about a new GM at Hurn, that concentrates on training our Atcos before those of other countires

Or maybe it just that senior management elsewhere in NATS is telling the GM Hurn that he needs to bring in business to help fund the training of our own ATCOs. A change in leadership at Hurn will not necessarily bring a change in mindset up top in the company. Also, let's not forget that Hurn has been under threat for a good while, with it's future only being sorted out recently. Rocking the boat at the College would not do anyone any good.

I also heard that there is a course of 63 students about to start. Why so many? Surely senoior management would be better off cutting this by a third and paying them 15k each (or 10k plus 5k accom expenses) and concentrate on quality. Still that's another matter.

[RO13ERTS]

To be fair, I'm giving up a 33K a year job to do this, BUT I have no mortgage or commitments. It's a nothing ventured situation. I have some money put aside, so hopefully I'll have slightly less to deal with in that sense (plus no uni debts!). Those course numbers seem huge, surely if efforts were focused on fewer, they would learn more?

[flower]

When I went through the course sizes were large 60 on each course, the success rate was pretty good losing at most a quarter of the course by the end and practically all validating.
It isn't down to the size of the course there are other factors.

[RO13ERTS]

Sorry if I come across as cheeky, can I ask what?

Cheers

[flower]

If I knew I could make a fortune ;)

[FlightDeckDave]

Well someone must know what's causing the failure rate, it can't be motivation as the process to get on the course takes a bit of work in the first place. I'm sure the college wants everyone to pass so is it a case of someone's capacity to deal with the actual flow of air traffic and the way someone deals with that, so even with extra tution and hard work that person simply won't make it? Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a highly large failure rate and it is making me consider if I want to go through the process of applying only to get chopped if I was on the course. My motivation is there, but that alone won't get my through the course!

[DAL208]

I was on one of the first '10k' courses, also with a large intake of over 50.

Like yourself, before i joined, i was scared about the high failure rate rumoured. To be honest, i think this fear helped me pass the college, and pass it without failing a single exam/assessment. In first month, we had four people resign-dont think it was because it was too hard for them, just that they felt it just wasnt for them. The largest chunk off our course not to pass (trying to avoid word 'fail') was on our basic course. It wasnt the theory side, we all did well at that, it was the practical. out of 52 of us, only 23 passed basic. of those that did not pass, 1/2 got recourses (and for the record all then went on to pass basic and seem to be doing fine on their rating courses). When i was on my rating course (discipline) the course was split 50/50 with people on my course and people from previous courses having been recoursed. After a month, there were only two of us from my original course (out of five) still on my rating course, all those bar one that didnt pass were recoursed and have now passed. On my rating course all those that were recoursed onto my course (well done if you can get your head round this) passed, and, quite frankly without TOO much hassle.
The point i am making is that, quite frankly it is unusual for a student (it seems) to pass the college courses first time. Many get recoursed at some point, and those that do tend to do well-perhaps it shook them up and gave them a kick in the back side, perhaps it just gave them that little more time to get good at the job-more practise at r/t and better understanding of rules.
The failure rate tends not to include those who get recoursed, so although the pass rate for people passing first time is awful, i would say the majority of the course do pass eventually, whatever their discipline.
As to the reason why...i would love to bemoan the 10k, but, quite frankly for someone with no debt, no wife and no real commitments, i was fine with it-wasnt easy and certainly added extra pressure but is, at the end of the day livable.
The courses are just too short (intensive) and the high intake is too much for the instructors to make sure they spend enough time with students, especially on the basic course.
When i was on my rating course, there were only 8 of us, the instructors were able to see trends in our controlling that were good and bad, and spent enough time with us to be able too see it early and encourage what was good, and quash what was bad.
For the college, just keep head down, get head in books for theory and make sure that you are 100% for sim runs (not hungover etc). Listen to what instructors tell you, and make positive effort to heed advice-if get criticised, dont just think the instructors are plain wrong, just do it.
Find a group of you (dsay 4-5) to every week get together and practise oral board questions (literally just open MATS and ask a random question to each other, particularly scenario based). We did this and all my rating course passed their oral boards, we were so used to asking each other random questions that we werent phased by questions such as 'what are the rules regarding light shows, pyrothecnics and fire works in the vicinity of an aerodrome'
Hope helps.

[Inca_Gold01]

Just to say, recourses are becoming more and more common. My time there a good 1/2 of my basic course made it through with no faliures at all and those who failed were advised to find other gainful employment. The recourse thing seemed to pick up as i was leaving, more and more people passing training reviews, which was almost unheard of before!

[Permanent Echo]

DAL208

An excellent, if somewhat convoluted, post :ok:

the instructors were able to see trends in our controlling that were good and badArea ratings courses are now starting with around 40 students on each. Are instructors able to identify these trends when they may only sit with each student once or twice (or not at all) over a three month period?

The courses are just too short (intensive) and the high intake is too much for the instructors to make sure they spend enough time with students, especially on the basic course.But not exclusively the basic course, it would seem.

perhaps it just gave them that little more timePerhaps the courses should be planned to do this in the first place.

As Standard Noise mentions, past results have no bearing on your success as individuals. My advice to any new starters would be to work hard and give it your best shot. You may pass, you may not, but of those who fail, many get a second chance.

Its hard work, its pressurised, but mostly, its good fun.

Enjoy :}

[Arkady]

Our unit has been saying for years that more Students should be failed at the college rather than be allowed to progress to live units and waste valuable training time, so, for the moment, it would be hypocritical to criticise the College for making it tougher for Students to pass, however they may be doing it. If the validation rate at LACC improves significantly as these New Course Students are posted in, then the College will have been justified in their approach. If not..........
It seems logical that if the majority who are recoursed pass second time around then lengthening the original course will improve the pass rates but I don't think it is quite that simple.
People who become Student ATCOs are generally hardworking, intelligent and above all confident. Very few Student ATCOs will have ever struggled or failed anything in their lives, prior to commencing their ATC training, so when they do struggle or fail it is a totally new experience and a challenge that some cannot rise to. It has not been uncommon at LACC (and LATCC as was) to have to fail a very capable student because they have stopped learning. They cannot conceive that they are going to fail and begin to ignore (or in some cases argue against) the instruction and advice of their OJTIs. When they are chopped it comes as a bolt out of the blue despite the evidence accumulating against them. Any capable Student chopped at LACC will be recommended for another chance at another unit (but it is not our decision whether or not they get one) and these Students often shine at their new units. I think that the realization that they CAN fail will often change their approach to their training and make them more receptive to criticism. Similarly, repeating a course can allow a Student to reassess HOW they are learning without having to worry as much about WHAT they are learning.
The effectiveness of the new courses will not be known for a couple of years yet. I have serious misgivings about the lack of experience our new trainees have but this should only lengthen the amount of time it takes to get valid, rather than prevent validation itself.
For those at, or shortly to be starting at the College I have one crumb of comfort. The greater the challenge at the College the better prepared you will be for the challenge of live training. As has been said many times before, on this thread and others, keep your head down, work hard at the theory and be 100% ready for the practical, absorb everything you are told - discuss but don't argue the point - and above all don't become isolated or brood on problems. You will learn as much from your course mates as from any instructor just by talking things through.

[Scotsliveit]

I couldn't imagine being in CATC on a big course with alot of other big courses around. I found the place claustrophic and would equate it to like going back to secondary school as an adult.

I've had people ask me about my opinion concerning them going for NATS posts they've seen advertised and I'll always advise:

Don't sell property to go, I struggled and spent a fortune to get back on the ladder.

I'd advise youngsters to go to Uni if they can afford it or get a trade before giving their life to NATS.

Anyone leaving a good job, don't burn bridges, make sure you have enough experience under your belt in your profession to be marketable when you want back in. I was lucky here and started back the day I left NATS.

Be prepared to be a NATS pawn.

I could go on. I've no idea what these people are on about when they talk about great college days. On 203 we were one of the first on the new courses (then), I can imagine it being alot harder nowadays.

We had a course of 11 but were expected to pair up on the simulators. hilarious.

As an adult the lucky ones are the ones who go down with partners or children, and rent a house, as they can have their own personal space.

A final straw among many for me was when some nosy sod open the letter containing my P45 in the locker room. That's the sort of place it is.

I think candidates giving up things should be given a more balanced view about the place on forums like this before they give up security, property, shares savings etc.

good luck to you, work hard.:ok:

[Quincy M.E.]

Hi Scarf.
Thanks for the advice. Would you say practicals or oral boards are the hardest aspect of the course?

[REVOLUTION]

There have always been lots of people who don't make it through the college but remember lots of people DO make it through the college and validate. It's the old glass half full/empty thing.

You could argue that it is now easier to get through the college because there are fewer assessments and therefore fewer hurdles to get over with your one life line.

When I went through you had summatives at the end of Aerodrome 1, 2 lots of summatives in Aerodrome 2, Radar Skills, Area 1 and then Area 2. Also with every course there were written exams and oral boards where you could fail.

Now, unless i'm wrong you have just 3 courses to get through with a life line available for a re-course.

Couldn't be easier!

[anotherthing]

Revolution


Nice toungue in cheek post (I hope!)

I think the course structure has a lot to answer for - it's packing a lot in in a shorter time.

The process will never be perfect but I know that some college instructors who still hold validations at my unit are frustrated by the pass rates.

These instructors, who still live in the real world should be better at knowing who will be succesful at a unit, rather than instructors who have no tbeen valid for years.

The college should be a centre of excellence - and that applies to instructors as well as students.

There are some very good instructors who have not been valid for years, but they are in the minority.

The college should be staffed mainly by people who retain validations, and who should do a 3 or 5 year stint before being put back out full time in the real world.

[niknak]

The Instructors work to the sylibuss and standards required by the CAA, this is the same at Hurn as it is at ASTAC or BAe Cwmbran.

What differs is the attitude to hard work and comittment of the students, at the varying colleges.
At Hurn, there are NATS cadets who have undergone a selection process and have gained their place on that process.
At ASTAC and Cwmbran, the students have been forwarded by their employer or, exceptionally have self sponsered, and have undergone much the same selection tests to get on the courses.

Ultimately, where ever you are, you will get maximum support from the Instructors, but if your attitude smells like crap - you'll be treated like crap!
As an operational ATCO I've seen both sides and although I would give students as much leeway as possible, some of them have breathtaking arrogance and expectations.

I would venture to suggest that at Hurn, whilst the majority are commited to passing the courses, they haven't given up all and everything to attend a course that makes the difference between ultimate success, or failure and penury.

If you want to succeed, not just at the college but at subsequent unit standard, it's down to to positive attitude, ability and commitment.

[Permanent Echo]

Quincy

Hi Scarf.
Thanks for the advice. Would you say practicals or oral boards are the hardest aspect of the course?A very good question, although i think we both know the answer to that one ;)

Echo

[Scarf]

Cheers Echo and Quincy, I'm feeling the love there!

[Spitoon]

Whilst I don't know what is going on at the College these days other than hearsay, I can't help but make a few observations about Arkady's post:rolleyes:
Our unit has been saying for years that more Students should be failed at the college rather than be allowed to progress to live units and waste valuable training time, so, for the moment, it would be hypocritical to criticise the College for making it tougher for Students to pass, however they may be doing it.Well, there's a nice positive attitude and a welcome for new starters. I always thought we did training aiming for success rather than failure.
If the validation rate at LACC improves significantly as these New Course Students are posted in, then the College will have been justified in their approach. If not..........And so Arkady, you don't think the quality of your unit's training has anything to do with it. You don't think, either, that your OJTI's have/need skills in finding training techniques that suit the trainee's needs. once again, you seem to be almost planning for failure, for a lower pass rate - perhaps only so that you can say "I told you so".
People who become Student ATCOs are generally hardworking, intelligent and above all confident. Very few Student ATCOs will have ever struggled or failed anything in their lives, prior to commencing their ATC training, so when they do struggle or fail it is a totally new experience and a challenge that some cannot rise to.A stunning generalisation but if true, good for them. It's just a shame that you appear to feel that you need to break them in (rather like horses).
It has not been uncommon at LACC (and LATCC as was) to have to fail a very capable student because they have stopped learning. They cannot conceive that they are going to fail and begin to ignore (or in some cases argue against) the instruction and advice of their OJTIs. When they are chopped it comes as a bolt out of the blue despite the evidence accumulating against them.Maybe you do not recognise that someone prepared to argue a professional point is showing all the signs of reaching a level of knowledge and confidence where the training is paying off. Instead, you see it as something that needs to be knocked out of them! Again, perhaps this is more a reflection of your unit's trainers' skills.
Any capable Student chopped at LACC will be recommended for another chance at another unit (but it is not our decision whether or not they get one) and these Students often shine at their new units. I think that the realization that they CAN fail will often change their approach to their training and make them more receptive to criticism.Or, just maybe, it's a reflection on your unit.
The effectiveness of the new courses will not be known for a couple of years yet. I have serious misgivings about the lack of experience our new trainees have but this should only lengthen the amount of time it takes to get valid, rather than prevent validation itself.Doesn't that rather depend on what the training objectives for the college courses are. Or do you not care?
For those at, or shortly to be starting at the College I have one crumb of comfort. The greater the challenge at the College the better prepared you will be for the challenge of live training.That's nice.
I can't help finding Arkady's kind of arrogance rather disappointing. Whilst NATS still seems to have problems selecting and training ATCOs ( it has for the last 30 years since I started in this business), I thought the 'we have to fail people to show how good we are' attitude was long gone.

Before anyone at LACC starts telling me how hard it is to do the job there (and no, I've never worked LACC/LATCC), there's plenty of people who have managed to get validated so you don't change for work in a telephone box! And [B]every[B] unit has challenges - showing that you will be able to handle those challenges properly is all that should be needed for a trainee at any unit.

There is no question that you need a certain something to be a controller. What that 'something' is no-one seems to have managed to pin down otherwise we'd have a 100% record on selection and training. But, for heaven's sake, when somebody does get selected (whatever criteria might have been used to select them), let's try and help them get through.
Although how having 60 in a class for the formative training courses will help I really can't imagine!!!!

[smellysnelly2004]

Just a minor point,

Although there can be up to 64 on 'a course' it is effectively 2 courses - A and B groups. We are taught comlpetely separately on different timetables.
For instance, 211 is 42 TATC's - 22 A's and 20 B's.

[RO13ERTS]

That's good to hear, nobody has mentioned that yet. So the group sizes are effectively split, does that cause a split amongst trainees?

[smellysnelly2004]

Not sure what you mean but if you mean is there a divide then no. People share houses/B&B's from different groups. If someone makes a good revision aid then everone gets it if they want it. All 4 one and one 4 all!!!
We are physically split in that we never spend any time in the classroom together, nor on the sims as i understand it.

[RO13ERTS]

Thanks, just the answer I was looking for. Groups that are split often become competetive (Tower & Area maybe, reading some of the posts on here!). I was just interested more than a genuine concern!

[Scarf]

Even the Aerodrome/Area split doesn't really create much rivalry! There's a bit of banter that goes on (which discipline is the better), but you still go out and socialise with everyone from your course. You may not get to see other course members all day every day, but there isn't any rivalry involved, more just playful banter (i'd like to think so anyway hehe!)

And to answer the question on the simulator splits, your still kept in A and B groups (or at least we were). Everything is done in your "mini course", although outside work and during social hours it all blends back into one big course

[Quincy M.E.]

A very good question, although i think we both know the answer to that one
Well I have made enquiries and it turns out that we do.

[reportyourlevel]

Scarf, what are you on about? You know as well as I do that the Area/Airports (inlcuding tower and radar) rivalry is alive and well! And we both know which is better!

[Scotsliveit]

Don't worry Ro13erts there's a million cheatsheets and pass papers going around on your basic course et al.

All the answers are on them and often exams can be an exact replica of the pass paper photo copy you have. It's all very exiting as the instructors pretend they don't know.

Aye Right...

[Jenson Button]

It is still shocking to see such a gross waste of effort and money. The costs involved with recruiting and training a student are large enough in the present day as it is. Shirley (sic) someone has added up the pennies to find out the cost of "binning" those students through the college. Thousands,,,perhaps more ?

As someone who has been through the dungeons of Hurn and lived to tell the tale, I am appalled that this civil servant, spend as though money was no object mentality still exists. What a fantastic (Not) solution to saving money, by cutting students pay and making sure that the student has another (possibly bigger) problem to deal with. There are commercial solutions to the recruitment of high calibre staff, some of which might not necessarily come from within NATS itself ??

Jenson Button

PS - best wishes to those working hard down on the south coast.

[Arkady]

Spitoon
You say that “...you need a certain something to be a controller. What that 'something' is no-one seems to have managed to pin down otherwise we'd have a 100% record on selection and training.” I’d argue that it is a combination of factors and circumstances but either way we are agreed that we are unable to select recruits who will definitely validate, thus some must be failed at some point. Let’s face it, if we had a perfect selection process we would simply be “failing” applicants rather than Students.

In the real world the first opportunity to see if an applicant has got your “certain something” is the college. If we could identify at that point who would definitely validate, any failures at the units could be seen as reflecting on the unit training rather than the individual Student. However we still can’t pinpoint the “certain something” at this stage so some Students who can cope at the College are going to progress to live units and fail there. Fact of life.

Within NATS, Area training is cumulative, it gets more demanding the further you progress. At some point, those without the “certain something” will find they can no longer cope. That is not the end (at least not at LACC) as the Student will then be given further time in which to reach the desired level of achievement. This is crunch time. Whatever the circumstances the Student has to face the need to change something about the way they are approaching the task. Perhaps they are not methodical enough – they need to be more disciplined, maybe they are too cautious – they need to have faith in their decisions (and trust their mentors to catch their errors) or maybe they need to grasp the bigger picture to work better in the team. They will be given plenty of help to identify the problem and how to solve it. The one thing they cannot do is change nothing. Unfortunately for some, this will be the first time in their lives that they have ever had to question their own ability and methods. I stand by what I said in my previous post, Student ATCOs are, by definition, the sort of people who will have rarely, if ever, struggled at something. The first time it happens can make or break and success will have to come from within. They have to find a “certain something”.

You are concerned that “…. you do not recognise that someone prepared to argue a professional point is showing all the signs of reaching a level of knowledge and confidence where the training is paying off.” The context of my comment was a Student who has continually shown all the signs of NOT reaching the level of knowledge and ability required. In fact, your comment is a perfect example of this sort of thing. You have made a perfectly good and valid general point but utterly failed to recognise that within the context of the specific situation your argument is irrelevant.

"I can't help finding Arkady's kind of arrogance rather disappointing. Whilst NATS still seems to have problems selecting and training ATCOs ( it has for the last 30 years since I started in this business), I thought the 'we have to fail people to show how good we are' attitude was long gone. "

We have to fail people because they have not shown the ability to perform the task to the required standard within the time allowed. No LACC Student is failed lightly, many run up 400+ hours before the axe falls, but those that fail an SVC or after only 100 hours live? Should they really have been there in the first place? Live unit training is not really relevant to this thread and I’ll not be drawn on it any here any further. Start a new thread if you wish to debate it further.

I reserve judgement on the new courses at the College until we see the Students themselves but if it is more difficult to get through that can only be to the benefit of those that pass and the units to which they are posted.

[RO13ERTS]

Well, thanks for the advice all! I'll be giving it my best shot (which was never in question) and "certain something" prevailing, see some of you operationally.

Arkady,

You're right in my case, I have never failed at anything. I'd like to think it was down to me, but in reality it's down to a lot of the people who've helped me in whatever I've tried to do (I'll have a little credit though if it's on offer).

[richyinnewcastle]

you must have done something right it if your leaving a 33k a yr job and your only 21 mate! p.s. check your pm's roberts :ok:

[Ppdude]

"but those that fail an SVC or after only 100 hours live? Should they really have been there in the first place?"

I can name numerous names that fit this criteria who are now competent valid controllers at other units.

[flower]

I would have thought it would make more economic sense to extend the course make it more encompassing equipping students with a greater knowledge not only of procedures but of how the whole system works prior to sending them to units this should also mean any failures were down to not being suitable rather than the possibility they didn't have enough time to learn what they need to.
The old courses had a much greater pass rate, recourses were not the norm as more passed their exams. Not everything that was done in the past was bad i would say it was an improvement of todays courses but with bean counters in charge its all about de skilling not producing a rounded student ATCO.

[MancBoy]

I disagree.

On a recent SVC one student had three times as much "live" time as another guy yet when it came to the svc the guy with the least amount of time was equally as good as the guy with more time.

It all comes down to the quality of instruction and not just being sat there and being left to get on with it as I have witnessed.

Plus, I have offered pre-svc guys live time and they refused so what happens then?

Also, I must ask you, when you were working the wings and an early go came up did you take it or hang around for some live time?

[bazzala]

RO13ERTS - I too start training in September and am leaving a fairly well paid job. Reading the posts here on failure rates is worrying though, the recruitment process seems robust enough, but it sounds like even with the correct positive attitude, dedication, and ability there's still a big chance of failure.

The 10K is added pressure for some poeple (depends on personal circumstances) ie. if you have a wife, child and mortgage!! Ah well that's my little problem.

See you in September.

[MancBoy]

Bazzala, noting your age, how are you going to feel being told what to do by people a lot younger than yourself?

[Arkady]

Ppdude

"but those that fail an SVC or after only 100 hours live? Should they really have been there in the first place?"

I can name numerous names that fit this criteria who are now competent valid controllers at other units.

But would they have validated at that other unit if they had come straight from the College? We'll never know, but the time they spent at LACC will have had some extra training benefit. Scottish and Manch have refused to take SVC failures from us for some time now.

SVC failures are not common at present. Yahoo must have been at LACC before we began formal preSVC training and in that respect may have been unlucky, however the emphasis in the first cycle on any SVC is knowledge of the Sector and procedures - not their application. The quickest way to fall behind on an SVC is to not know the bookwork and that is all down to the individual. This may or may not have been the case on Yahoos SVC, only he or she knows, but shouldn't occur anymore.

I have some sympathy for Trainees that refuse live time out of the blue. I don't think it is a good idea to turn it down but, with no live R/T experiance prior to starting at LACC, I can see why some wouldn't be too keen to try without a bit of notice!

[bazzala]

MancBoy - don't see that as any problem whatsover, I have total respect for anyone with knowldege I can learn from. Besides my 3 yr old tells me what to do most of the time!

[RO13ERTS]

BAZZALA,

Congrats, I will look forward to seeing you there. I have no problem with failure if I am simply not of said mindset for the job, only if I myself cause the failure.

Couldn't help but notice you live in Chorley, is that Chorley as in Manchester?

[bazzala]

Chorley as in near Preston, Bolton. Chorley Fm etc...

[Co ordination unaffected]

Coming in your ears!

From what I hear, the college is seriously understaffed, with instructors and assistants being asked to work overtime in order to train new instructors etc. Sounds like they're so stretched they might not even be able to fulfil NATS own training requirements soon.

I do wonder how far the house of cards is from collapse?

Are the beancounters aware of the oucome of their 'improvements'

[Gonzo]

And I've just heard a story that two instructors have been 'loaned' out to Sweden because Sweden are short of their own instructors. Any truth in that?:confused:

[Spitoon]

You say that “...you need a certain something to be a controller. What that 'something' is no-one seems to have managed to pin down otherwise we'd have a 100% record on selection and training.” I’d argue that it is a combination of factors and circumstances but either way we are agreed that we are unable to select recruits who will definitely validate, thus some must be failed at some point. Let’s face it, if we had a perfect selection process we would simply be “failing” applicants rather than Students.The concept that if we knew what characteristics would make a successful controller we would fail applicants rather than students is interesting - I hadn't thought of it in this way before. But in this imperfect world we must rely on those that do the selection to do the best that they can and then do whatever we can to help those selected to succeed. You are right that it is a combination of factors and circumstances that will determine the outcome of training - and that includes many things including the attitude of trainers at the College and units (I'm not dismissing the multitude of other factors including the attitude of the student but I think where we appear to differ is on the trainers' side). I still believe that it is important that we work toward validation (i.e. success) with failure as an unusual, but sometimes necessary, outcome. It seems from your post (and from discussions with some others involved with training it is not an isolated view) that failure is the norm and only a trainee with something special - rather than simply being competent - will be successful.
In the real world the first opportunity to see if an applicant has got your “certain something” is the college. If we could identify at that point who would definitely validate, any failures at the units could be seen as reflecting on the unit training rather than the individual Student. However we still can’t pinpoint the “certain something” at this stage so some Students who can cope at the College are going to progress to live units and fail there. Fact of life. Once again, you seem to be looking for ways to fail trainees - just debating the point at which that failure takes place! Training should not be that 'done at the college' and 'that done at the unit', it should be a continuum from day 1 at the College through to success at the unit, with each stage of training building on what has gone before. This is why I earlier asked whether you cared what the College courses' training objectives are - if you do not know this how can you hope to prepare a trainee to validate?Within NATS, Area training is cumulative, it gets more demanding the further you progress. At some point, those without the “certain something” will find they can no longer cope. That is not the end (at least not at LACC) as the Student will then be given further time in which to reach the desired level of achievement. This is crunch time.That 'certain something' that I refer to is the ability to do the job - not to reach a particular level at a nominal time.
Whatever the circumstances the Student has to face the need to change something about the way they are approaching the task. Perhaps they are not methodical enough – they need to be more disciplined, maybe they are too cautious – they need to have faith in their decisions (and trust their mentors to catch their errors) or maybe they need to grasp the bigger picture to work better in the team. They will be given plenty of help to identify the problem and how to solve it. The one thing they cannot do is change nothing. You final point is quite valid - but that is what training is about, changing behaviours. Whilst some trainees will not change their behaviour, many patently are able to do so because they successfully work as controllers....although a good number do so outside NATS after being 'failed'.
You are concerned that “…. you do not recognise that someone prepared to argue a professional point is showing all the signs of reaching a level of knowledge and confidence where the training is paying off.” The context of my comment was a Student who has continually shown all the signs of NOT reaching the level of knowledge and ability required. In fact, your comment is a perfect example of this sort of thing. You have made a perfectly good and valid general point but utterly failed to recognise that within the context of the specific situation your argument is irrelevant. Whilst I am no great lover of the present training regime of mlestones, a student who 'has continually shown all the signs of NOT reaching the level of knowledge and ability required' should not have progressed beyond the milestone with which they are having trouble until they have reached the required standard (or, if they are unable to do so, have had their training ended). Consequently, I believe that my point remains valid and your unit's experience with trainees may be a reflection of the training capabilities on the unit. Nonetheless, a trainee who is prepared to debate a point, despite the fact that they may be wrong, is showing a degree of learning and the response should be correction (i.e. training, a.k.a. behaviour change), not failure.
I reserve judgement on the new courses at the College until we see the Students themselves but if it is more difficult to get through that can only be to the benefit of those that pass and the units to which they are posted.That does rather depend on why the course is harder to get through. But your comment apears to be based on numbers alone instead of any consideration of whether the trainees are better equipped to deal with unit training (and the people and attitudes that they will meet). Sadly, I have a suspicion that turning trainees with less time to comprehend the complex system into which they are being thrown is unlikely to prepare them for unit training.
But at least Arkady will be able to say "Told you so".

[AlanM]

"Operation Tittybar" perhaps......??!?!

[kraggy]

Anyone have a date for the September course by any chance?

[sector8dear]

Relying on those doing the selection is one thing, alas applicants first have to get through a "non NATS" aptitude day first.

Could it just be that the apparent failure rate is in part caused by suitable applicants being rejected by a defective aptitude test system. In other words perhaps we are unintentionally rejecting suitable aplicants due to flawed external assessments....

Why not just bring the applicants in and stick them in front of a simple radar vectoring exercise in the sim (e.g. 3 a/c)??? Bet you can tell immediately if the applicant has the "spatial awareness" required for the job....

Just a thought.....:hmm: :hmm:

[Not Long Now]

So another slight discrepancy betwwen units then.
Here at TC students are not allowed any pre TVC RT anymore as it is against unit policy on safety grounds.
Go figure...

[Spitoon]

Relying on those doing the selection is one thing, alas applicants first have to get through a "non NATS" aptitude day first.

Could it just be that the apparent failure rate is in part caused by suitable applicants being rejected by a defective aptitude test system. In other words perhaps we are unintentionally rejecting suitable aplicants due to flawed external assessments....The 'non NATS' day must be assessing criteria set by (or acceptable to) NATS. I think we should consider the selection process as a whole, irrespective of who manages particular parts of it. However, it is impossible to know for sure but it seems likely that many suitable applicants are being rejected during the selection process (at whatever stage they are assessed as not suitable). As pointed out by Arkady, if we knew where the flaws are in the selection system we would have a 100% success rate with trainees.Why not just bring the applicants in and stick them in front of a simple radar vectoring exercise in the sim (e.g. 3 a/c)??? Bet you can tell immediately if the applicant has the "spatial awareness" required for the job....Sadly I'm not convinced that this would be any better. It's not just spatial awareness that is needed for the job. If we could define all of the characteristics needed maybe we could select for them. Despite many attempts to document all of the skills needed to train and to do ATC we don't seem to be improving the success rate; either the skills definition is wrong or the training given is not really linked to teaching those skills or both (my money is on the latter).

So, at working level, we have to take what we are given - to rely on the selection process to provide the best that it can - and then do our best to get tose trainees up to a standard that will enable them to work on their own. I re-iterate my point that in training we should look at how to help trainees to succeed rather than look for ways to fail them.




P.S. - Apologies for that last bit to any current and future trainees for making them sound like a commodity!

[2 sheds]

Defruiter

You have already demonstrated your ability to a satisfactory standard in completing the rating (sic) course. That is a worthy achievement and do realise that you are well grounded now for OJT - the course is as realistic as possible and was very well designed - n'est-ce pas, Berni?

However, you do illustrate the concerns that many of us had in respect of the evident level of confidence and experience of trainees such as you. Unfortunately, the NATS beancounters cannot understand that concept.

[Dances with Boffins]

Gonzo - mostly correct

2 sheds - maybe they will if they read this thread..

[Gonzo]

DwB,

Thanks. Interesting that seemingly someone has decided that we are not short of instructors.

Of course, concentrating on training our own people instead of providing capacity to foreign ATS providers would be foolish. :ugh:

[Gonzo]

Not expecting a response from you, old bean, just thinking out loud....:}

[intherealworld]

Here's something; how about a new GM at Hurn, that concentrates on training our Atcos before those of other countries!



Maybe someone's listening??

"Suzie Rudzitis, General Manager Training and Simulation, will be taking up a new post as General Manager Global Training, effective from 11 June. Garry Jackson, currently Business Support Manager at West Drayton, will take on the role of General Manager, Training Centre Hurn from the same date."

[Not Long Now]

Oh you lucky lucky people...:ooh: :ooh:

[2 sheds]

These people should be obliged to stay in post for at least ten years and be accountable for the results of their actions.

[steve_atc]

Gonzo - two instructors have been sent for around 2 months to Sweden to look at the way their basic course is run and try and shorten it, apparently it lasts 23 months, so now NATS is trying to shorten other country's courses as well as our own!

And last week it was announced that the Basic, Aerodrome and Approach courses are 14 instructors short! Great manpower planning i must say!

[happ1ness]

When will management realise it is not a sausage machine they are running. They must bring into training more practicality and treat students with more respect. How much more can they try to take shortcuts in training? :ugh:

[Gonzo]

23 month basic course? Perhaps we should be sending our students to Sweden, rather than instructors!!! :ugh:

[120.4]

Back in the good old days, when courses had about 18 Cadets and the whole thing took nearly 3 years, both college and validation failure was a rarety. At validation, safety and reliability was essential but flair could be allowed to grow.

It seems to me that with customer demand outstripping system capacity, these days, unless you are really sharp during training, you just aren't good enough. Doesn't it follow that fewer and fewer will be capable of meeting the higher and higher standard for validation?

As far as the college is concerned, I am sure the failure rates must come down to course length and fullness. It seems to me rather like trying to teach brain surgery to those who haven't done basic medicine. A thorough grasp of basics, supported by experience gained along each step of the way must surely be a better way. It is, of course, much more expensive but choices have consequences.

.4

[intherealworld]

nice post 120.4, it's a shame those that in charge of these things don't listen to what everyone who matters is telling them.

the college courses currently tend to suit people who pick things up quickly, not a bad characteristic for an atco! but what if these people peak very shortly after leaving the college and have no further capacity to cope with the increasing traffic?

whereas perfectly capable students who maybe don't pick things up as quickly and just need a little time for things to sink in, but hidden away they have the ability to cope with ever increasing traffic levels once at a unit and have the basics sussed, are being chopped at the first hurdle when they have been in an air traffic environment for less than 6 months.

also why do we have a one course fits all? I've been in many lessons/lectures/courses that help me understand i'm a visual learner/activist, theorist etc but hey ho you all have to do the same lessons. In fact I think they even test this during recruitment. I appreciate courses have to have certain topics, content and be approved by SRG but why aren't people being streamed according to learning style?

[NO 7]

120.4 has - IMHO - got it spot on.
The bean counters have taken over the entire system and the philosophy of purchasing a Rolls Royce when a wee Smartcar can do the job has infiltrated the training culture.
A Smartcar CAN be fit for purpose but only if you can accept the restrictions it places on reliability, capacity, speed and flexibility. Its certainly the cheaper option.
OK - the Rolls is perhaps too expensive but surely there is sensible option between the two extremes that will satisfy the operational need and the bean counters.

[London Mil]

I know it may be viewed as comparing apples with oranges, but the RAF has had similiar issues in the past. Our basic cse (I suppose the nearest equivalent is aerodrome and approach radar) takes about 20 weeks or so, this was extended from 16 weeks. Failure rate is about 35% with some of those people being recoursed to give an overall pass rate of about 70-75%. Of those that successfully graduate, a very small percentage (about 1%) fail to validate at unit.

Lessons we have learnt:

We treat the whole course as a training environment and an extended aptitude test. Spending a couple of days at Cranwell (or the like) playing fancy 'games' (sorry 'aptitude tests') with computers just doesn't accurately reflect the latent skill sets required.

You can teach a monkey to control if you allocate enough time/money. One of our considerations is "How quickly can this individual learn?". Quite important when considering the training burden at units.

Instructors need to be properly motivated. You can have 100% bums on seats but if they don't give 100% effort you will have problems.

Students need to be properly motivated. Salary is not a driver in the military. That said, I cannot recall a poorly motivated student in all my time in the RAF.

Units form part of the training system. I know things are slightly different in the civil world but we do not graduate qualified controllers, we graduate people who we think will reach the required standard at an operational unit. If the training systems are not joined-up then there will be problems.

It is inexcusable to graduate someone and then make him/her sit in the wings for months before cutting their teeth. SATCOs are under remit to commence radar training at unit within 3 months of graduation. I have seen people struggle for their whole career because they spent the first 18 months of their controlling life on talkdown. Trying to recollect a little over 150hrs of total radar simulator time after 6 months or so is just asking too much. Consequently, the school/college needs to be able to cope with customer demand in a timely fashion.

Good luck to anyone at Hurn, I certainly would want to go through the machine!!:eek:

[120.4]

Thank you.

I think it may be worth my adding a little more background information to my previous post because I may have a biased view - I was one of those rare failures.

Having graduated, I was unable to validate radar at what was then a very quiet SE airport. I was, at the time, an immature and very underconfident 21 years of age and this got in the way of my ability to manage the job. My confidence was further degraded by destructive comments during my training.

I appealed my dismissal but was informed that I was in the wrong job and should find something else more suitable. Eight years later, having done some growing up and having grasped a greater understanding of how to achieve my goals, I validated Heathrow approach in 3 months and 5 days.

My point is that I think individuals need to be managed individually because we all have differing needs, (although I accept that this may be a difficult task in ATC). Clearly I had the ability but the 'one size fits all' system wasn't able to get it out of me. I believe the college course that I did was the right one but that is not the end of the training process - as I think London Mil is suggesting.

.4

[London Mil]

I would certainly agree that one size doesn't fit all. I would also offer that it is very easy for 'long-in-the-tooth' controllers to forget how difficult it is being a trainee.

[Cuddles]

I was on one of the courses to which this thread refers.

120.4 has it spot on.

The instructors at the college are doing their best (Well, most of them are anyway) but their hands are tied by the beancounters and from on high.

[Bern Oulli]

2sheds Sorry, just caught up with this thread having recently vacated a certain College and all its' machinations for what is probably the last time.

the course is as realistic as possible and was very well designed - n'est-ce pas, Berni?

Well, you may say this, I could not possibly comment!

All I will say is to those going through the machine right now, some of whom might just remember a certain contract instructor. Good luck guys 'n' gals - there is some real talent there IMHO.

Bern Oulli, aka Pedro

[AlanM]

Bern - why no more contract work fella?

[Lady Pterodactyl]

I have read through this thread and I'm afraid it has genuinely made me feel rather sad. Having started my career on 26 course and now with 35 years in the profession, I cannot help but agreeing with 120.4's post. We did have failures but not very many, and the vast majority of people who went through the early courses are still employed by NATS. This must be incredibly cost effective in the long term - but I'm afraid no-one seems to think long term any more. If there isn't a return in three years then it's not worth doing seems to be the attitude now.:sad:

On a personal note to all you new people at the college - do stick at it and do your best. As an instructor there is nothing worse than trying to work with people who don't want to learn or won't put their best effort in. Never be too arrogant to realise that you might have made a mistake - put it right in real time, then go and have a good technical argument over a cup of coffee or a pint later. That's part of the fun of being a controller - that's how we all learnt!:)

[radarman]

Lady P and 120.4,

Couldn't agree more. It just seems to me that the whole of NATS has become so infused with the 'management' culture that nobody can see the wood for the trees. In my younger days, the current failure rate would have been taken as a personal disgrace by instructors and training hierarchy alike. Now it seems to be perfectly acceptable, as long as the bean-counters' business targets are met. NATS is nowadays stuffed full of little people frantically trying to justify their existence by cutting petty little costs, and nobody (except PPRuNers) can see the adverse effects this has on the big picture.

As an afterthought, haven't the instructors at the college been able to raise their concerns to management about the appalling failure rate? Or are they also suffering the old 'head against a brick wall' syndrome that is alienating so many other operational staff?

[chevvron]

I've always said the problem is they select the wrong people in the first place:
Q: Have you got a degree? A: Yes.
Well you're in; doesn't matter if you know nothing about aircraft.
Q: Have you got a degree? A: No but I've held a FISO licence for XX years and worked at several busy airfields and I've only got 2 GCSE's but I love aircraft and will do anything to work with them.
Sorry mate you need 'A' levels at least goodbye.

[Gonzo]

Yes, I'm sure you're correct. :rolleyes:

[chevvron]

Radarman:College instructors don't seem to do this; could it be because they don't want to lose their band 5 salaries?
I must add that the example above which I gave for a rejection actually happened, it's not fictional. I flew from two of the airfields where that guy worked so I know how good he was.

Edited to say Band 5; AlanM is also Band 5 so he would know (wonder if his wife knows he is)

[AlanM]

chevvron - surely YOU are the band 1 salaried person, not the College!?

[radarman]

chevv, Gonzo,
Problem goes back years. I remember in '87 one of our guys took up an instructor's post at Hurn. He told us: Big question at college - failure rate too high, how can we get better candidates? Some bright spark suggested that instead of going for degrees they grab all the 'anoraks' on the roof of Queen's Building at Heathrow listening to ATC on scanners . As long as they had O Levels in maths and English they would be just the job. Did management listen? Do they ever listen to the people at the coal face? No, they listened instead to HR luvvies and various recruitment consultants. Result? = keen, dedicated aviation enthusiasts turned away, people with degrees in underwater basket-weaving welcomed with open arms = appalling failure rate.
So what can we do to get it through the numbskulls of the polcy makers and selectors?

[Gonzo]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all for recruiting those who have a high level of aviation knowledge. However, if that were a requirement, we'd have four courses a year of less than five students who had that level of knowledge and could pass the rest of the selection tests/interviews. Remember, it's no good being able to recall instantly how many individual tyres on a 744, or the thrust of an RB211-524H to the nearest pound, and yet be unable to manage time effectively, or work in a team, or make decisions under pressure etc etc. On my course (106, started in April 98) of 34 NATS students, there were two or three 'anoraks' if you will, another handful who had a good level of knowledge, and over 20 who didn't really know much about ATC or aviation at all. At last count, about 25 of them were employed by NATS as ATCOs, I think there are two non-NATS ATCOs, a few in NATS in other roles too. Not too shabby for the majority of non Total Aviation Persons to misquote Flight's Uncle Roger.

My comment above was aimed at Chevvron's remark that we only select those who have degrees regardless of their skills, or lack thereof. Simply not true.

I also have to take exception to the thought that the selectors are 'numbskulls'. Yes, we have objectives against which we score, but also we are ATCOs too, and at the end of the day throughout the process we, as 'selectors', are also going to have to work with and train those we are putting through. A lot of us feel passionately about this work, and put in a lot of effort to get the right result. In fact, it seems as if I'm going to be asked to give up working with recruitment later this year, and to be honest I'm dreading that day, and not a little cheesed off to put it mildly.

As an aside, on the day, if there is a disagreement between ATCO and HR, then ATCO wins.

[ramesescolossos]

I must say I find some of the above comments very snooty. I have a degree and have just got on the June course. My degree wasn't much better than basket weaving. I worked in baggage handling for a little while and an enthusiasm grew for air transport.
In no way am I an anorak. I know very little about planes, but I'm ready and willing to learn. I feel I am a good team worker, keep good time and have the skills and organisation necessary. I also feel a degree gave me these abilities and taught me team skills, how to work hard for something, and how to deal with success and failure. The assessors obviously feel that I am able to marry up these personal traits with an enthusiasm to learn more and increase my interest in aviation.
I feel I will do very well on the course, and I don't think my degree will hold me back.

[radarman]

rameses,

I was not trying to run down the efforts and commitment of those who have studied for, and gained degrees. Just commenting on the apparent fact that the higher the hurdles set by the selectors over the years, the higher the failure rate of those who do eventually make it to the college. When I first came into ATC there was almost nothing in the way of selection - certainly nothing like the flaming hoops that present day aspirants have to jump through - and yet failures, or even re-courses, were a very rare occurrence. So something has gone wrong over the years. And if it's not the quality of the students, then it's the structure and philosophy of the instructional institution, and the quality of the instructors. And that's another can of worms opened!

Anyway, from your comments it sounds as though you are mature and well-balanced, and I wish you the very best of luck in June.

[The Jellyman]

It doesn't help that the college is woefully short of instructors. The Airports side is something like 13 or 14 short! What does Management expect to happen to the standards there when the instructors are getting stretched further and further to cover an ever increasing workload?

The courses are shortend resulting in students having to do five or six runs a day, back to back. People wonder why there's such a high failure rate but the guys are simply burnt out. The instructors are then expected to do all the extraneous duties having spent the entire working day in the sims!

There's no slack in the system to allow for even the shortest bout of sickness either student or instructor. Medical recourses are common because runs can't be caught up or runs are cancelled because there is no slack in the instructor numbers.

Overstretched instructors training overstreteched students.

[chevvron]

I wasn't suggesting all anoraks, just maybe people with the intelligence to get themselves some sort of experience working in aviation prior to applying be it FISO, PPL or being an ATC cadet or even just cleaning aircraft.
Many years ago my intake was virtually 50/50 new entrants and ex assistants; we started with 23, by the end of the 4 week initial course we were down to 22, and after 3 years training in all aspects getting all civil ratings, we graduated with 16. As far as I recall, we 'lost' most of them during the aerodrome field training.
How many courses nowadays graduate that proportion of 'starters'? Often they combine 2 courses graduating at once so as to make it look as though there's a lot of successes.

[chevvron]

And the shortage of instructors mentioned by Jellyman - could it be caused by the fact that operational units are so short staffed they can't release anyone to become an instructor? Let's face it, instructors do a good job considering the material with which they have to work; it's not their fault they have to 'rush' training it's the fault of the managers who require them to do this.

[ramesescolossos]

From what I have read and been told, a key reason for the failure rate is that they are trying to train 18 months work into 9 months of time. The best way of learning, in my opinion, is to be taught something, and then be given time to go over it again with an instructor, so everything is fully understood. I believe in the current course, as soon as you have learnt one thing, there is something new to learn.
This means firstly its very easy to get behind, trying to perfect something you are unsure of comes at the cost of learning a new skill or element to the role. Secondly its very hard to take in everything you are learning as its moving so fast.
Again, going off what Ive read, the trainees used to come to the units with a lot more knowledge then they are currently. I think, from what I have seen at the assessment process, the unit training is seen as as much of a learning curve as the college. The trainers dont expect us to have the in depth knowledge at this stage, and yet Id imagine a proportion of the recruits think they have 'made it' when they get to the unit, so display an arrogance not matched by their prowess.
I think recruits from University, other jobs, anoraks and people directly from school would all struggle with such a system, its about proving you have what it takes through adversity, which is what I intend to do.

[smellysnelly2004]

Top post Rameses,

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's not easy but determination will definately get you a long way towards passing. Our course is a big mixture of backgrounds/ages and all groups have some who struggle and some who don't.
You do need some natural ability for the practical side of things but as I said before, determination will see you through the grinding 5 weeks of theory. Enjoy the 8 hours of AFTN:zzz:

[side-saddled]

Just as a side note to college discussions, what are people's opinions on the graduation ceremonies?

A useful and well deserved pat on the back or a waste of money given some of the people present may never reach validation standard.

[anotherthing]

Side saddled,

We don't get many perks from the company nowadays, t'would be a shame to see a NATS sponsored p**s up go as well. I thought that it was quite good to have it, although there is plenty of hard work ahead of graduates of the college, it is still an achievement to get through, even more so now.

Plus it is a good final social event for a group of people who hopefully bonded on the course, and who are now going to lots of different units.

[Vortex Issues]

But you'll also find that the Graduation gets hijacked by management so they can present awards to themselves :=. Still a good p**s up though, lots of free wine flowing and a good way to catch up with friends :D

[begbie]

The graduation might be well meaning, but i think, fairly pointless.. A bit too much pomp & ceremony at what is really only an intermediate point on the training scale. Quite a few from my grad ceremony failed to validate and several don't even work for NATS anymore..

[Gonzo]

I think it's valuable to be honest. It's really the only point in training where any sort of mass ceremony can be held.

[Roffa]

True, given the limited training our students get at the college these days saying a little prayer before going out to their units probably isn't a bad idea.

[lord of the zones]

I noticed from an earlier post that the college is short of 13-14 Instructors....

Can anyone with any insider knowledge tell me if the external controller recruitment extends to college instructors?

I know there is a separate thread on the external controller recruitment but I too are one of these people looking for an appropriate opportunity. Had an Application in for a year or so, ADI/APS/OJTI rated, decent amount of operational experience. Still it appears not to be registering with the recruiters

Regards
LOTZ

[Gonzo]

You might want to get in contact with the college direct. I seem to recall that many of the instructors came from non-NATS units when I went through.

[smellysnelly2004]

Gonzo,

Still seems to be the case now for a few of them

[letMfly]

I agree with Gonzo. When I went through the college a few years ago on a OJTI refresher course, I bumped into an instructor who I last saw in the Middle East - just before he got sacked from IAL(Serco) for being totally unable to control!
It would appear that NATS will take just about anybody with a UK licence as a college instructor.:ugh:

[lord of the zones]

Well,without blowing my own trumpet, I'm not a bad controller at all!!!
(Then again who would admit to being crap!!!!:}:}:})

Maybe I'm a little over qualified:)

Tried looking for some contact details for CATC via the Net but came up blank

Would someone be kind enough to supply some Names/Numbers??

PM might be best

Thanks in advance

LOTZ

[Spitoon]

It would appear that NATS will take just about anybody with a UK licence as a college instructor.And if they are able to get students through the course and out the other end with enough knowledge to be able to move on to unit training, so what?

[agent007]

Does anyone know anything further of instructor vacancies in the UK?
Are all the colleges short or is it just NATS?

[Data Dad]

And if they are able to get students through the course and out the other end with enough knowledge to be able to move on to unit training, so what?

Spitoon, I agree with you entirely but (playing devil's advocate here) this thread is all about the failure to achieve that!

Personally, I am sure this is not the fault of the instructors - the shortness of the course and the intensity of learning/lack of time to digest and consolidate the lessons, are where the finger has to point.

DD

[Bandbox4Training]

It would appear that NATS will take just about anybody with a UK licence as a college instructor.
And if they are able to get students through the course and out the other end with enough knowledge to be able to move on to unit training, so what?
That's just it though many shouldn't have been passed at the college in the first place.

[chevvron]

NATS Intranet shows 47 students graduating, but doesn't say how many intakes that is or how many started.

[Taffy1]

I was one of em graduating. 33 started my course in 2005, 24 got through college, 9 didn't, 4 validations so far including me, and counting. Another course that were graduating who started 2006, 32 started, 9 have got through college, 6 still there, 15 gone, 1 valid and counting.
Something is working down there in Hurn, and I'm gratefull for all the help we got there. Work hard, play hard and enjoy, im living proof it works!!

[Inca_Gold01]

now taffy, surely you would be an example of success if there hadn't been any hiccups along the way!

[alfaman]

Inca_Gold01: depends how you define "hiccup"!

To me, a "hiccup" equals further training needed to reach the required standard, before further training at unit.

So, Taffy1 is now competent, which therefore means he/she reached the required standard at college, continued through training at unit to competency level, & is now competent. So, he/she got what they needed to get the result.

A systemised training regime like CATC has to draw a line somewhere. The decision is where the line should be, & what should happen when someone falls short of it. Not everyone learns at the same rate, & that is not a function of intelligence, nor of an inability to work hard, & is may not even be an indicator of future performance. But company requirements dictate that course structures are tailored to meet the system, rather than any one individual, so the chances of meeting any specific learning style or preference is dictated by luck, not by judgement. I suggest that maybe what influences the fabled "high failure rate", rather than all the thousands of other reasons touted about.

I understand very few people ever exit the college with a completely "clean sheet", however, if they have the skills they need & the experience to apply themselves to unit training, then well done to all concerned. The issue is if people leave with less than is required & that's where attention should be focussed.

And :ok: well done, Taffy1, hope Friday was fun, & glad you feel the guys & girls at CATC contributed their bit.

[Dances with Boffins]

Try contacting Mr Jim Nelmes at Hurn - he is managing delivery of ATCO training at the moment...

NATS Hurn
Bournemouth International Airport
Christchurch
Dorset
BH23 6DF

[chevvron]

Really? What happened to Val Wilson then?

[FlightDeckDave]

Hi

I just came across this thread from last year and thought I'd bump it back up. Has anyone got any updated views or stats on the current situation with pass rates etc at the college?

FDD

[buzzerfish]

Why don't NATS just close EGHH college altogether and send their students to BAE in Wales, where the pass rate is close to 100%?:)

[agent007]

Buzzerfish, what exactly do you mean? Is it the fact that Hurns instructors are having are harder time of it? The numbers larger
therefore bound to have a higher failure rate. Or is one to one
tuition at Cwyran paying dividends? Or are the instructors at
Cwyran trying harder or what ?

[rodan]

agent007
Or is one to one
tuition at Cwyran paying dividends?

Whilst not wishing to associate myself with the provocative comments re. closing CATC, I think there is definitely something in your point here. Having passed through both establishments I absolutely agree that working with a small number of instructors, who each know much more about you and what you need to work on, is a big plus.

Obviously CATC has a far higher throughput of students, but why not divide the instructors and studes into small groups (say, 4 instructors to X studes) who work together regularly? The Instructors get a better grip on what the individual trainee needs and studes consequently get better feedback and more tailored instruction.

[buzzerfish]

I don't know why, only the results. Maybe if BAE failed more people their buisiness model would collapse, has something to do with it.

[loubylou]

It could also be that paying for the course means that you are likely to perhaps be a little older, be more focussed, less likely to be out on the razz as opposed to being paid to learn to get the ratings.
And I don't mean that folk at the college are not focussed, just that if you are paying to live AND forking out large sums of cash too, it must surely add an extra dimension and strengthen resolve to avoid the pub most of the time!
Just a thought
louby

[JonG]

Then again earning just £10,000 a year isn't exactly alot to live on and go out everynight on the "razz". Especially when alot of people have made a sacrifice to leave much higher paying jobs to move down to Bournemouth to pursue a career in ATC. It's not a decision most people make lightly.

[WhatMeanPullUp]

60 students on my course way back in 1991 at Bournemouth, end result? NATS got 15 controllers validated, the majority of the failures were university graduates, how does a degree in economics help you become a controller????:confused: This job is like Brain surgery, you can either do it, or you cannot. :ok:

[nppatt]

>>>> the majority of the failures were university graduates, how does a degree in economics help you become a controller????

In retrospect, how does a couple of A-Levels help you become a controller (which is, after all, the MINIMUM requirements that NATS sets for entry)? I am not an economics graduate, but people should be aware of how advanced the mathematics is in these types of degree - far more advanced that an A-level in mathematics. So by rights, if you think that a degree in economics doesn't help get you on the road to being a controller, then having a couple of A-Levels certainly shouldn't.

[AJ7]

My two cents worth... I dont think any public examination or degree in the vast majority of subjects is a reliable guide or quantifier for ability to do/train to do ATC. The skill set needed is very specific and i would suggest unique to the job. I know various people who have 1st class degrees from Oxbridge and the like who couldnt begin to do what we do, but then again I know people with minimal A-levels who might well be able to.

The criteria that NATS look for may or may not be right in any one person's opinion, but they seem to be doing ok at it. Ok maybe cubes might not have much to do with ATC but they display an ability to be spatially aware and process information quickly and accurately, which is an obvious advantage.

When all's said and done if you get through to the college its down to you. If you can do it, go and do it, and if its not for you then so be it. But either way you gotta work hard to find out :ok:

Thats more than enough of that...

[45 before POL]

The main aim of the qualifications is the basis that a person is capable of learning and willing to learn, as the studying is intense. As for practical aspects like said before you got it or you haven't.... and A'levels as the minimum requirement, unless they changed the wording it was studied to(not necessarily taken them). and i don't have a degree or a'levels...:E:E

[055166k]

I used to be a milkman, and I lack the superiority complex resulting from high academic achievement. I would say that if the selection process revolves around doing puzzles and playing with cube things then the outcome will probably be success for those who are good at puzzles and playing with cubes.
There is a real and absolute truth......nobody knows what makes a controller tick......and certainly not any of the current "experts".

[Vino Collapso]

NATS trawl for staff through a totally inept selection process then get surprised at the failure rate.

BAe Systems students are either self sponsored and therefore have a big financial drive to pass or are sponsored by aerodromes who have vetted candidates often through their experience and ability as an ATCA.

Try before you buy. Would you buy a car without a test drive? Would you sponsor someone on an expensive course without a practical check of their ability?

[NeoDude]

I'm currently on 215 Aerodrome. 18 started the course. 2 dropped out in the first few weeks. 1 failed VFR summatives, 1 failed Cross Runway summatives, 2 failed LVP summatives. We now have 12 on the course, 10 of which have just passed oral boards (The other 2 have a resit next week). So hopefully we should have 12 people finishing in 2 weeks time. We have been told that 6 are going to London and 6 are going on an approach course. I believe there are also 12 that have just started on 216 aerodrome.

[Odi]

055166k - I to used to be a milkman - for 5 years! I was also a lorry driver for a lot of years plus various other jobs including building labourer, roofer, market stall seller, odd jobs person etc etc.

There were only 2 of us on my course who didn't have a degree and we both got through first time whereas others who were educated up to Masters level failed.

Academic achievement is no guarantee of success; hard work and keeping your head down may not guarantee you a pass but will set you on the right course (pardon the pun!).

[Defruiter]

nppatt,

NATS no longer require A level qualifications. They removed that requirement about 12 months ago iirc.

[Ivor_Novello]

I would imagine the 6 going on approach will be going to Aberdeen or Glasgow? Or too early to say?

The rumour has it all 6 to Aberdeen !!

[nppatt]

>> NATS no longer require A level qualifications. They removed that requirement about 12 months ago iirc.

And quite right too. As has been mentioned many times before, it is not academic credentials which determines the quality of a candidate, but rather their aptitude for the job (what ever NATS considers that to be).

My earlier response was simply in reponse to WhatMeanPullUp's comment on the the majority of failures being university graduates. That may well have been the case, but I imagine that if you had 60 A-Level candidates on a course and 60 degree students on another course - the fail rate would likely be the same.

It doesn't matter what your background is.... success simply comes down to personal achievement and setting yourself high goals. Something I assume the NATS occupational personality questionnaires at stage 1 are supposed to look for?????

[aerotech07]

The rumour has it all 6 to Aberdeen !!

Say what?! :eek:

[simfly]

The rumour has it all 6 to Aberdeen !!

Well, there were a few recently I believe who were destined for there, but only 1 passed the approach course :ugh: :hmm: :E

[SilentHandover]

Rumours are wonderful things, we've been told we are getting two of the APS course that finishes Oct/Nov at FAB.

[AJ7]

The cheek of it...

Be interesting to see how the 6 to London are split... 5 to City? :}

[simfly]

and all the approach to Cardiff :ok:

[aerotech07]

Rumours are wonderful things, we've been told we are getting two of the APS course that finishes Oct/Nov at FAB.


I say again "Say what?!" I like to believe the system is more akin to a Harry Potter sorting hat?!

[AJ7]

Ahhh the college rumour mill. Victim of that a few times myself in my time there. I think everyone is gonna get posted to LXGB :ok:

[ZOOKER]

Along time ago, in a universe far, far, away, a course started at "the college".

Out of 31 'cadets' who started, all of who were either:-
a) Ex assistants, min 5 'O' Levels, (GCSEs).
b) Direct Entrants, (min 5 'O' Levels, plus 2 'A" Level passes in either Maths, Geography or a Science subject).
c) Graduates, (min 2, usually 3, A Level passes).

27 Graduated from the "United Kingdom College Of Air Traffic Control".
All validated, and 3 of these are now senior airline captains.

Let's get back to basics.

[AJ7]

And those basics would be??

Longer courses?
Less intake?
More instructors?

Economics and business finance rule the roost and thus v. unlikely :ugh:

[ZOOKER]

Most universities are raising their A Level entry requirements.
NATS, (recruiting for a course as hard, if not harder than most university degrees), has considerably lowered its entry requirements.
Allegedly, Validated controllers now cost half a million pounds a shot.
From a business point of view;-
I would want the very best in at the bottom, after all, as with any system.
Rubbish in=Rubbish out.

[Homo Simpson]

This company is run by ar*****es!!!!

Idiots in suits living in offices and surrounded by the most pathetic life form that is your YES MAN.

Second only to the management, actually just as bad are the union!

There is no excuse for the poor standard of trainee that the units are getting. Its not their faullt but something has to be done about it. You have to spend money to get the best and NATS dont do that.
Its about moving aircraft as safely and as efficently as we can. To do that we need the right equipment and staff.

Its not rocket science.

[LXGB]

Ahhh the college rumour mill. Victim of that a few times myself in my time there. I think everyone is gonna get posted to LXGB

Hey, that's not a bad posting! Cheap booze and fags, plenty of sunshine. Just remember to close the road before you clear them to land and you'll be fine :)


LXGB

[Quincy M.E.]

I will no doubt take on a second job to supplement

You might want to think twice about getting a job, the workoad can be quite high especially around oral board time and I think it is also important to have some rest time inbetween college days. I would not have wanted to go to work in the middle of summatives!

failure is not an option

i dont want to but a dampener on things but failure IS an option and a very real one. Before I got to college I thought that it would be fairly straight forward to get through and I took a big pay cut and borrowed money so that I could go. When we all got there we soon realised that the chop rate is a lot higher than HR tell you during recruitment. I got all the way to unit training and failed. Now I have massive debts and have used up a couple of years potential income. I had a great experience along the way and don't really regret applying (I would have regretted NOT applying a lot more) but you must think of all outcomes.

[AJ7]

I would definitely agree with Quincy:

Obviously everyone has their own situation and circumstance, but genuinely if you take on a second job whilst at the college you will put yourself at a disadvantage when it comes to studying/passing. The college is comprised of intense courses with no room for falling behind, and the failure rate can be quite high, and sometimes unfortunately unfair.

You really want to get in there and have the best possible chance of getting through, which means dedicating time to study outside of college, and also time to rest and relax. The course I was on had a whole mix of people with varying backgrounds and financial ties such as mortgages, families and the like - but no-one needed/had time to take a second job.

Apologies if this sounds like a rant or something, just so you have a clear idea of whats ahead of you :ok:

Best of luck

Adrian

p.s. I wouldn't have minded LXGB :) not saying its a bad place at all. Just that getting a posting there is usually a tad unlikely...

[tired-flyboy]

I agree with Quincy

Failure is an option - maybe not to you but circumstances can overcome your outlook.

What happens if you get ill, the fiance leaves (not saying it will happen!), you don't get trained - you only get trained in summer!!!!

you get a watch change, you get a unit change (not that you are by any means guaranteed that either)

etc etc etc

you get posted to Swanwick, tried the rents about here???

16k when you leave the college (IF you pass), won't get you that far.

REALITY IS A KILLER

[flower]

Unfortunately studying and being great at exams isn't the key to getting through ATC training you actually require aptitude and no amount of hard work can create that if it isn't already there.
Also you will have little time for family , fiancé's etc whilst studying so I would say to anyone if you don't have to bring family with you don't it isn't necessarily conducive to the way college studying is best carried out.
It was a long while since I went through but as Yahoo said some of the best studying was done in groups and is why communal living can be an asset. We worked hard and played hard.

One of the reason why other colleges may get a higher pass rate could be because Ex Military controllers are going through them so they have prior experience?

[Quincy M.E.]

if you don't have to bring family with you don't

I don't know about that. I left my fiancee back home and found that this only made things harder especially as I would travel home every weekend to see her. On the odd occasion when she visited me I found it to be a happier time and more relaxing to have her around.

Also it is not necessary to study in groups, even though the college kept banging on about how it was. I never studied in groups (nor did i live with other TATCs) other than the odd study session (whilst at college during the working day) before oral boards and you could also get the missus to test you.

Like you say, being great at exams is not the key :ok:

[Ivor_Novello]

group studying works for some, and doesn't for others.

my friend simfly studied together with his whole approach course in preparation for oral boards and passed brilliantly !

also, i'd suggest to watch for those who try to give you advice and then put you down, you useless idiot ! ;)

[simfly]

erm, I hope yer nae sayin i wiz puttin ya dooon ivor????!

But I agree, oral board study is much better in a group, don't think I could have it done it alone!

[AJ7]

hmm

aerodrome oral boards: college on a saturday afternoon followed by substantial alcohol on sat evening. solid plan in my opinion... what say you simfly? :E did that work on approach?

[simfly]

almost AJ7, on approach I went for the all day college session on the Sunday, the whole course again was in attendance, unlike our aerodrome where 1 was constantly missing- (hope he finds another job soon :D) and the many rounds after were cheap :E Just a shame my aerodrome license is useless now :{ Where is angular?

[sirinx]

Sorry to intrude, I am not sure if this is important enough to start a new thread ..:)
Any failed trainees here? Being one myself, unfortunately, (not NATS, but still) I would like to know why other people failed, or why they think they failed. Also, would you try it again, if allowed to?

[AJ7]

start a new thread anyway, if people dont deem it important enough then they wont reply :}

if i did fail then i think i would have to give it another shot if i was able, but luckily i havent had to go through that yet.

sim, 'angular' is in the dictionary somewhere after 'anglia', which happens to be a model of car and also a region of the UK. apparently also a region of radar provided at EGPD. know anything about this?? :suspect:

all day sunday... you heathen. it is a desolate place at weekends :mad: