Question about Ageism

[slip and turn]

Independent research commissioned by NATS has shown that the skills required to be an effective controller decline with age. NATS makes a substantial investment in training costs and research has shown that it takes around 10 years to reach full experience as a controller. Accordingly, in order to maximise our training and validation success, only candidates under the age of 36 will be considered.

What unique age-related skills make ATCOs any different to pilots ?

[BDiONU]

What unique age-related skills make ATCOs any different to pilots ?
Its pretty simple to pole a plane around the skies but vastly more difficult to control many aircraft flying around the skies. An ATCO needs to be sharp, on the ball and have fantastic mental agility to do their job but any old duffer can fly a plane :}

BD

[GT3]

I suspect the maximum age may be a partly business driven idea. NATS invest a large sum of money into training an ATCO and quite rightly want a return on this. However the aptitude to "learn" ATC is something that I would say needs a younger mind. You do have to adapt your thinking and someone who has spent say 30 years in another industry might not be able to fit this bill.

[airac]

What a load of old Ballcocks :=

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

GT3 talks sense, airac talks..... well.....

[ILS 119.5]

Well I've done both and my pennies worth is this. At the start of the ATCO training its 90% ability and 10% experience after 10 years its 90% experience and 10% ability. ATCO and ATPL are both intense and difficult for many people. Some are natural at it and some are not. I now fly one of the most sophisticated aircraft (Boeing of course) in the skies and must say yes it is easy and a lot easier than working a busy radar sector in the UK. However we still have to fly the damn thing if something goes wrong and we also have a hard time in the simulators so it is not all easy. Finally spare a thought for the pilots flying SH36's or FK27's about in IMC, or even in busy class g airspace having to keep a good lookout, now thats flying.

[airac]

H D
ILS 119.5 makes a very good point
What I object to is sweeping generalisations that anybody over the age of , say 50, is incapabable of learning new skills. (Typing apart)
The question ,is NATS ageist ,most definitely mainly because of their myopic view which is most evident in GT3's statement
to "learn" ATC is something that I would say needs a younger mind.
Apologies in advance if, GT3 does not work for NATS:)

[niknak]

Experience is something that can be learnt but not taught and that applies to ATCOs and Pilots alike.

Some of the best ATCOs/ATCAs and Pilots I've worked and still work with are both young and old, but the ones who can be depended upon when it really matters are those with the greater experience.

All employers look at age when it comes to various types of training and although they'd never admit it and it is illegal, if two people of precisely the same calibre were contesting for one training place and there was an age difference of 10 years, they wouldn't invest large sums in the older one.

ATCOs & Pilots trades are specialist skills and cost employers a lot of money so they've got to take the long term view but stay within the law.
I wonder, if what has been quoted about NATS is true, if it is a legal policy?

[zkdli]

Ahh another thread started by Slip and Turn:)
Be careful chaps he is starting to act a little like 411A:)
(regulars to Rumours and News should know what this entails!!!)

[Roffa]

zkdli,

You haven't seen this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=288199) as well have you?

:ugh: ;)

p.s. just for info, the quote...

Independent research commissioned by NATS has shown that the skills required to be an effective controller decline with age. NATS makes a substantial investment in training costs and research has shown that it takes around 10 years to reach full experience as a controller. Accordingly, in order to maximise our training and validation success, only candidates under the age of 36 will be considered.

... is from the NATS careers (http://natscareers.co.uk/) website

[slip and turn]

You haven't seen this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=288199) as well have you?
:ugh:I thought 411A was the headbanger in these parts ... or does it come to us all in the end? (an age thing perhaps?)

PS Anyway I don't recall starting any previous thread ... but then my powers of recollection are not what they were either ... :uhoh:

[2 sheds]

"Independent research commissioned by NATS has shown that the skills required to be an effective controller decline with age. NATS makes a substantial investment in training costs and research has shown that it takes around 10 years to reach full experience as a controller. Accordingly, in order to maximise our training and validation success, only candidates under the age of 36 will be considered".

So...
- skills decline with age
- even assume that it takes 10 years to reach "full experience" (what is the definition or relevance of this? - if you have a unit endorsement after one year or two years, you are legit and productive)
- NATS retirement age - 60?

Where is the logic that gives an answer of 36?

Sounds as if they have started with the answer and worked their way back to the justification.

[Jets R4 Kids]

I have a horrible feeling I could end up defending Nats....
I don't have facts and figures (maybe somebody could help out here ?) but the number of people who have validated at Swanwick over the age of (say) 40 is very small.
That includes experienced guys who have been valid elsewhere.
This ties in with the 80-90% experience/10-20% ability idea - the problem being that moving to another unit (especially if it's area to approach, or vice versa) removes some of that 80-90%. To replace that, you have to expand the ability figure, and here you run into the unfortunate fact that - at some stage (different for different people) - your reflexes slow down.
As an aside, how many people at Swanwick will reach retirement age still Tac valid, do you think ?
So, if you're recruiting, IMHO you're asking a lot of someone who's 36 the day they start at the college.
And if you're the Nats accountant.....?

[Ppdude]

Any 36+'s going to take 10k on as a salary?

Me dont think so.

[Lon More]

It is a young persons game. When we introduced our new ODS several years ago I had considerable difficulty adapting to it; this despite the fact that I'd helped develop it and had written part of the training program.

However after more than 30 years in the job my bag of tricks was pretty large and compensated for any loss of faculties

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

I can only talk from my own experience and that is that where things are on the rails and ATC is more of a processing job the older guys can come in from other places and get validated no problem. Here in the wild wild west (or East as in the Middle East I guess) though it has been proven over and over again that guys 45+ coming from Australia, the United States and Europe just can't get their head around the unpredictable and unique way ATC is done here, when they have done it in a more sanitised environment for 20 years or more.

In saying that guys that arrive here 40 or younger grow older with the traffic and as Lon More said there experience and the related bag of tricks gets them out of any sticky situations their slower reactions may get them into. It has just been proven here that 45+ and it is too hard to learn a whole new bag of tricks.

[slip and turn]

It has just been proven here that 45+ and it is too hard to learn a whole new bag of tricks.What bag is that again, and what tricks exactly?

[zkdli]

I am not sure what point is being made here. NATS is well aware ofthe age discrimination legilsation. They commisioned independent studies of age/experience versus incidents and found that there is a correlation between those three factors. They also found that fewer older people who have no aviation experience managed to validate in NATS units and that the combination of an older inexperienced controller could be shown to be more likely to have a serious incident. This data was then examined by a further independent consultant, before the age limit was decided.
Before someone rolls out the one person who can be said to have made the grade at 45+ years (if there is one), please remember this - in NATS that person will be required to start work in the busiest units in the country at an age that the majority of controllers will have reached after 15 or so years experience in the same environment. Those controllers will have that experience to fall back on when times get tough. The ab-inito at the same age will not. The ab-initio will have to use his/her reactions to come up with the right answer.:)
I am not sure if I would like to be in that position, I believe that I would not like to put anyone else in that position either.:ouch:

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Slip and Turn that bag of tricks would be how to handle having to provide 20 NM in trail spacing every night during the peak period of traffic to Dubai Approach, while not talking to your traffic and having no influence on their actions until 120 NM to run to Dubai because Iran won't give you the aircraft, and then getting the aircraft to find out the Yak driver doesn't understand what IAS is and doesn't know what you mean by the term maximum and then when you give up and slow him he takes the speed as a heading and turns into your other traffic, and then when you hold him in exasperation he makes a right hand hold rather than the published left pattern which takes him into the teeth of all the departures. That kind of regular occurance takes a whole new bag of tricks over what you need in the 'civilized' world.

Welcome to my world. :ok:

[ImnotanERIC]

From what I have observed over the past few years, The older controller becomes more uncomfortable on radar quicker than a younger controller when it starts to get very very busy. Whether this is a slow down of the mind in the older guys or a realisation of the task they are undertaking that can only come with age I do not know. But it is noticeable.

[DTY/LKS]

I agree with IamnotanERIC

I know older ATCOs that are "scared" of doing the busy radar seesions, they feel uncomfortable and shy away from doing those sessions.

Someone at LACC about 2 years ago that was doing ATCO interviews at the time borrowed the computer that you did your selection tests on and ran those tests on valid ATCOs. The reaction times & thinking speeds of the younger ATCOs was considerably quicker than the older guys. The ATCOs in their early 20s performed best in these tests, while the ATCOs 45+ performed the worst, obviously with a few exceptions to the rule.

[heathrow, easy life]

Difficult to tar everyone with the same brush, an experienced controller has just left our unit and gone to Heathrow Tower. I certainly know he is 50+ and by all reports is doing OK. He last worked the tower 14 years ago before the APC split from TWR and we went to TC. Having said that a lot has changed at Heathrow Tower, new taxiways, new tower, EFPS. It may be that his experience from that 14 years ago has helped.
I feel a lot of this ageism is also to do with your frame of mind and confidence in your own ability, it is not only the older ones that feel uneasy about working busy sessions, it is more of a case of practise. I am sure we have all felt rusty after a period of leave albeit only 2 - 3 weeks. It is very noticeable that a number of controllers not in continuous practise, eg Ops staff, GS etc are uncomfortable in busy sessions and appear not as competant or confident as they used to be , not all but certainly some. Just ask them.

[slip and turn]

Someone at LACC about 2 years ago...Ah, that'll have been the independent researcher I suppose ...

[GT3]

Slip and turn, I am guessing you don't like NATS much?

I think the thing in the age debate is learning a new skills set later in life. I validated when I was 21, now 7 years later I would not like to have to take on a new busy validation as I feel that my ability to learn has diminished. I would hate to have to learn at a later stage in life. Drawing on experience does help you greatly in ATC and taking 10 years to become "fully" qualified with all the skills required to make a good ATCO is not unreasonable in my opinion.

[slip and turn]

GT3 how do you make that somewhat rash and wild presumption?

I introduced this thread after I found myself up to my ears in aligators (4 ATCOs :\) in another thread. After some of their bites failed to deter, they all seemed more than eager to wave each others' credentials and experience to back up their possibly black and white view of the problem and significant reluctance to have the drains up.

In short I thought I detected a heavily politically-motivated defence by the more experienced of them. If it wasn't political, then maybe it sounded a bit like "Don't you dare rock confidence in how I say it is because if I allowed myself to doubt any aspect of it I can't do my job and others might get unreasonably concerned by my lack of certainty."

So, being somewhat taken aback by the quasi lymphocyte behaviour of those ATCOs rushing to the site of a wound, and knowing that NATS was eventually privatised after some considerably lengthy political to & fro, and that Swanwick implementation was beset with horrendous computer problems and delays which had also become horribly political last time I took an interest in the front page news of Computer Week, coupled with some of what I picked up in other threads about the surprisingly arcane-sounding manual ATC systems still in use in London in 2007, coupled with the ripping yawns in movies like "Pushing Tin" and "Ground Control" I went to the NATS website to get a feel for what kind of organisation it might really have become today.

I noticed NATS are recruiting and as recruitment activity is often a good barometer of what is going on in a company I followed my nose.

Very quickly I stumbled upon the paragraph I reproduced in the first post.

I was quite surprised because my first thought was that surely it is blatantly illegal to discriminate so widely. Then I thought oh perhaps as a pseudo government department, no doubt still staffed in some quarters by considerable numbers of ex Civil Servants with good Civil Service contacts and seriously valuable pensions to protect, they must have lobbied successfully for a special dispensation in the Age Discrimination Law. I haven't yet been to the HMSO / OPSI site to check, and no-one else has mentioned it, but am headed there now: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20061031.htm is where I am starting for a little light reading!

All that doesn't mean I dislike NATS. ATC have certainly helped me out of a bind a few times What's the point of disliking a service you rely on? Better to get to know it better don't you think?

But I haven't yet changed my mind about whether NATS has dropped a legal clanger on this one.

[airac]

GT3 you state that "I feel that my ability to learn has diminished.”

My question to you would be how do you know? I think what you may be confusing is not your "ability" but your "will". As you progress in your chosen profession will you turn down promotion because your ability to learn has diminished? I would doubt it very much, and would also venture that you would take offence if a younger colleague had the temerity to suggest it.

Many people get caught in the comfort trap as they get older and as such perhaps a tad complacent. As some one who, not only changed units but also took a new rating recently, when considerably over 45 yrs of age, I can actually say that the learning process was enjoyable. Yes, there were moments when a little self doubt raised its ugly head but on the whole I not only found it challenging but satisfying to know that the old brain box was still more than capable of functioning and compared more than favourably with some of my more youthful colleagues.
As heathrow easy life puts it
Ageism is also to do with your frame of mind and confidence in your own ability, a point of view I am sure you will aspire to as your youth wanes
:D

[Defruiter]

Slip and Turn:

When the Age Discrimination laws came into force, NATS removed the upper age limit. Around a month or so later, the limit of 36 was put on - Apparently due to the safety nature of the job, it was necessary for this limit to be put on (or something like that) - I believe thats how they managed to get around the law.

I could be wrong though

[slip and turn]

...put on (or something like that) ...perhaps you meant try on? :hmm:

[JonG]

I would just like to state that at my second stage interviews one of the applicants there was 46. I don't know whether he got through but was very surprised to see him there.

[slip and turn]

Much as I imagined might be the case JonG - a website eligibility requirement that functions a bit like a "No Through Road" sign where through traffic is deemed a nuiscance by the locals perhaps :E

[Quokka]

If I may play the Devil's Advocate on this one... and go to the other end of the scale...

During an EEO course that I was attending a couple of years ago there was a session on age discrimination legislation during which we had a discussion of age issues that may, or may not, impact on Air Traffic Control.

When a question in regard to maturity in young males training in Air Traffic Control was raised, the session co-ordinator offered the following statement in contributing to the discussion...

"Research into car accidents found that males under the age of 28 cannot associate harm with their actions".

To which we asked the question... does that mean that we should ban males under the age of 28 from training in Air Traffic Control?

[Roffa]

slip and turn wrote...

In short I thought I detected a heavily politically-motivated defence by the more experienced of them. If it wasn't political, then maybe it sounded a bit like "Don't you dare rock confidence in how I say it is because if I allowed myself to doubt any aspect of it I can't do my job and others might get unreasonably concerned by my lack of certainty."

Errr no, I don't think so. In the thread I took part in with you previously it seemed that you felt the view out of your Canary Wharf area window imparted you with a greater knowledge of how air traffic in the vicinity of your window was or should be managed rather than accept the views of people that actually control the traffic in the vicinity of your window and then towards the end of it all you post this pearl of wisdom as if it was some remarkable breakthrough in air safety...

Can we please return to the main issue in this thread and either leave it at that, or develop it with info about more airspace hotspots without losing the crux of the matter. That was surely: to inform all those commercial pilots and airspace planners that might not already have it foremost in their minds that airspace hotspots do exist in places where it perhaps hasn't been much highlighted before ...

From this thread so far, in Summary for LHR and LCY pilots
1-Vertical separation is the only thing that is enforced between LCY and LHR tracks.
2-There was none in this case.
3-LHR 27 approach traffic be extremely careful not to sink and bust 4000 in vicinity of LCY
4-LHR 28 departure traffic be extremely careful not to climb above 3000 same vicinity.

"forewarned is forearmed"

I suspect that this is all too much of a political hot potato for any others to be highlighted ... but we live in hope ...

It takes a fair amount to get me to the point of frustrated exasperation but you succeeded admirably. So lets just say as far as I'm concerned you can continue with your very strange ideas and posts on PPRuNe and I'll continue working with real people that can make a real difference to the real issues and leave it at that.

[slip and turn]

Roffa perhaps we should just agree to differ. I never once said or implied that I knew more about ATC in my part of London or anywhere else than you guys, and you never once budged from the company line which basically sought to play down the bust(s?).

So you aren't impressed with my contributions which you call strange. You and three of your pals sought to kill dead all concern about safety breaches in the other thread. I thought that was strange.

THIS thread is about another strange idea promulgated in NATS.

[normally right blank]

Slip and turn - You're a phoney and a fisher. Your vast experience obviously come from Flight Simulator X or the like. You're rude, bullying and won't accept experts crystal clear explanations to events in the sky, you apparantly see only from a very restricted "window". Step outside, please, and ... I'll get Beagle.:mad:
But for the rest of us. Some valid inputs on "age". Also spare a thought for the controllers working "single" Approach and Tower. (And no back up to call).

[DTY/LKS]

Here here normally right blank. Well said.

Age is a weird thing in ATC. There will be trends & there will also be exceptions. Some of the guys I work with in their fifties are as good a radar controller as I have ever seen. Others not so. On the otherhand the youngsters in their twenties, some are excellent controllers, others not so good. Very difficult to tie in age & ability precisely.

As for the no male ATCOs under 28, I am in my mid twenties, been valid for over 3 years at LACC & I am also an OJTI. So if what Quokka said about the EEO course came into play then I would not be able to have a licence for another few years!

[Roffa]

nrb, I just deleted what I was about to post because you said it so much better.

sandt, I guess that means we will just agree to differ permanently.

[slip and turn]

Why the stream of personal insults? ... from Denmark too (or maybe Jantelov is alive and well in ATC?)

Some of you guys crack me up almost as much as the ATC in FSX!

I begin to understand the lion's den tag on the "ATC and other issues forum", but I can't help thinking of dear old Clarence in Daktari now :}.

[Roffa]

I'm sure even cuddly old Clarence would bite if provoked enough.

Most ATC'ers are fairly strong personalities that don't suffer fools gladly, guess that side of the personality just rubs off a bit in here sometimes.

Obviously feel free to stay and keep playing but if you continue to post in a similar vein as you have in the past don't be surprised if you're taken less than seriously.

[slip and turn]

Thanks Roffa - I don't have a problem with that if you ATC folks don't.

So what about this age thing? Surely NATS Careers have overstepped the mark? There are surely far more variables in human physiology than age that affect ability to be an Air Traffic Controller?

For example, in the UK, it is quite likely that until aged about 30, a large slice of the population will be binge drinkers who have drunk so regularly and for so many years that some will have developed advanced liver disease. Thats both men and women.

I have worked with people, even senior people, who are in that bracket yet talk freely of going out to "get smashed" as if it is the most natural thing in the world.

Their brains are going to be pickled far quicker than the rest of us yet our culture in the UK supports them as long as they stop drinking 8 or 10 hours or 12 hours before they operate machinery! (as if that is somehow ok!). Does it say anywhere in the NATS eligibility requirement "regular social drinkers need not apply" or would that be unfairly discriminatory?

Smokers too - in aviation we are taught that regular smokers are already at 5000 feet before they get up and leave their beachside apartments to go to work! And that is without considering how else their bodies are affected. Does NATS disbar smokers or is there a quarantined corner somewhere full of spent fag-ends?

On another track, basic science and mathematics was neglected in our schools and colleges in the UK for two decades until perhaps recently. Consequently many untrained brains in serious jobs are simply not equipped with the tools to answer quite complex but actually quite elementary problems using their sub-conscious for recalling the answer without calculating it.

I mentioned pensions earlier. That is a huge cost for any company. Better to take on younger candidates who will pay in for years than to take on people who will stay but retire and take large amounts out in just 10 or 15 years. You guys in the UK have an interesting hybrid pension arrangement right now that costs someone an absolute fortune. It is still part of the CAA Pension Scheme I believe?

[normally right blank]

[QUOTE][Why the stream of personal insults? ... from Denmark too (or maybe Jantelov is alive and well in ATC?)
/QUOTE]
No, but some of Hans Christian Andersen's fairytales spring to mind here.

[slip and turn]

HCA and the fairies? How do you mean n_r_b? Fact stranger than fiction or what?

[dawgweed]

From the FAA:
To qualify for entry-level air traffic control specialist positions, applicants from the general public must achieve a qualifying score on the current FAA authorized pre-employment tests and measures. They must also meet the following requirements:

Three years of progressively responsible work experience and/or
A full four-year course of study leading to a bachelor’s degree, or an equivalent combination of work experience and college credits
Certain kinds of aviation experience may be qualifying
Applicants must be U.S. citizens
Be able to speak English clearly enough to be understood over radios, intercoms, and similar communications equipment
The maximum entry age is 30

To get around the age laws, they use another law referred to as "the greater good"

[slip and turn]

The greater good? Since when has the US way of doing things consistently taught us useful lessons on that?

Nope, NATS is flouting recent UK law in my opinion, and I don't like seeing any organisation apparently putting itself above the law like that. As with all conscious rule excursions, it entitles the questionner to ask "and what else are they doing/not doing in pursuit of the money god"?

On a related thread I see there is a current Employment Tribunal case against the CAA being quite enthusiastically sponsored in the Rotorheads forum in respect of complaints about enforced restrictions for pilot oldies :) ... http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=261681

[DTY/LKS]

I am bored of listening to slip & turn.

What have you got against NATS? Go and find out what your own company is doing wrong & leave our company alone!

[slip and turn]

Oh so it's your company now, is it?

Well as a UK tax payer I have a feeling it's still more my company than yours and I am finding out !

[PPRuNe Radar]

A UK tax payer who is also a staff member at NATS 'owns' more of the company than you do.

They have 'ownership' via the UK Government stake holding (as does any UK tax payer), but they also have a personal share holding in the company on top. So their number of 'shares' or held interests is greater.

End of.

[slip and turn]

Mr PPRuNe Radar, Sir, I did anticipate someone might try a "mines bigger than yours" approach based on the employee shares, but not you :\

I give way however to my honorable friend from Gallia Narbonensis with his particularly astute take on the more important of these matters.

[heathrow, easy life]

Slip and Turn
Quote "Nope, NATS is flouting recent UK law in my opinion, and I don't like seeing any organisation apparently putting itself above the law like that."

All the military services have age limits depending on the career so in your words there is another organisation that is flouting the law.

There must be a good reason or a special case has been made, maybe you could make this your goal in life to find out and let us all know.

For a non ATC or Pilot type person you appear to have a lot of spare time.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

As I said earlier there does need to be age limits on ATC as experience has proven again and again, at least for initial training off the street, it is a young mans game. Once you are in, you age with the job and your experience makes up for the slowing reaction times. But to go into training without the experience yet already with the dulled senses is a recipe for disaster. NATS has quite rightly decided that for you to manage to get through training and still be able to give a good return of service for the huge cost of training, they need to put an age cutoff on recruitment. Slip and Turn argue all you want, but when it comes to ATC you don't know your arse from your elbow, so pop over to the paranoid, conspiracy theorist poop stirrers forum where you will feel more comfortable.:ok:

[slip and turn]

ANSA, I might not know any more about ATC than you have stored in your little finger, but I have no doubt I could give you a run for your money in any structured competitive "learn how to, and then be tested" situation, and I am probably a darn sight nearer age 99 than you are matey!

Unless you are trying to tell us you are having to run your ATS units under pseudo military command like they were the only Patriot battery in a desert full of Scuds, then neither you or anyone else yet in this thread has come up with a cogent theory about what significant differences could possibly justify a defence to the accusation that NATS has deliberately sought to circumvent the Age Discrimination Law in the UK.

[zkdli]

Ok Slip and Turn. I will bite!
If you have a case and want to be an ATCO and you are over the age of 36 with no previous aviation experience, why not apply? If you get turned down, you can then take NATS to court and be the test case to decide if the NATS and worldwide research that resulted in the age limit is enforcable.:)

[BDiONU]

If you have a case and want to be an ATCO and you are over the age of 36 with no previous aviation experience, why not apply? If you get turned down, you can then take NATS to court and be the test case to decide if the NATS and worldwide research that resulted in the age limit is enforcable.:)
I suppose that translated into plain, simple everyday English one could say to slip and turn "Why don't you sh1t or get off the pot?"

BD

[slip and turn]

If you ... want to be an ATCO and you are over the age of 36 ... why not apply? So are you saying this eligibility requirement was indeed just one of those "No Through Road" signs mentioned earlier which is just meant to deter candidates which NATS has taken a dislike to? Or are you now saying well perhaps if an older person had transferrable skills and showed a general aptitude then they might be as good as any other? Or has the independent research now become such a worldwide revelation that it will be breaking news on BBC News24 shortly?

Make your minds up gentlemen, and do please try not to descend into the vernacular!

[ImnotanERIC]

come on people, dont feed the troll

[zkdli]

Slip and turn, If you fit the criteria why don't you find out for yourself rather than talking about it?

[250 kts]

Facts are:
Will a 50 year old ab initio validate?- no
Will a 45 year old ab initio validate?- no
Will a 40 year old ab initio validate?- highly unlikely edging towards no unless anyone knows of one in which case correct me.
Will a 35 year old ab initio validate?- just maybe and more don't than do
It costs £500k ish to train an ATCO-as a private company NATS SHOULD have the right not to waste it's and according to s&t tax payers money either.

[slip and turn]

Interesting facts N0250 but they surely are not much more than a straw poll of a mixed bag?

I do not disgree with a phased selection process based on ability, but since NATS does have a phased selection process, then to suggest that every candidate over 45 who starts will waste £500K in training costs alone is surely nonsense, isn't it?

We hear about ATCOs who become pilots. Have any pilots become ATCOs?

We hear about investment bankers who burn out before age 30 and I am sure some have become pilots.

I am sure there are some in ATC who burn out early too.

But you make it sound like there is some essential "Force" which weakens with age. I'm sure Obe-Wan Kanobi would have something to say on the subject!

One or two posters to this thread talked of how difficult they imagined it might be to study hard now they were some years past where they last studied hard. Yes I know some people find it that way.

However, I know there are significant numbers who study new subjects more frequently and the idea of more study doesn't phase them. So it can't be the assimilation of theory that disbars older people.

Some of you are adamant that the job itself is a young man's game and you must forgive the reader perhaps assuming that being an ATCO could in some way be physically very demanding like an F1 racing driver or an F14 pilot perhaps? Or maybe you are claiming that of course it is far more subtle than that, and relates to reaction speeds or maximum scope of field perhaps in one's mind's eye of a hypothetical 3D visualisation? Who knows because you haven't really said as much, have you?

If your arguments had been put carefully in such ways then I might have learned something and could even now still be persuaded, but I just don't think there is very much more to it than you might say about older people generally in any office (if you dared). The only difference is that in the pervading culture of ATC which probably hasn't changed greatly for decades (and I don't criticise that per se), you do dare to say things which are very subjective and may sometimes be so old-fashioned as to be no longer supportable in law.

Am I off the mark again?

[leuven]

Slip and turn
I don't know what you've done to upset our readers but hey , what ever!

One of the simple facts of life is the young always know best , I did all those years ago, and probably so did you ( assumption that you are older than 40) .Accept the fact that "they" do now , it won't hurt, I promise .

Over the years NATS have tried various criteria when selecting candidates .They are now even noting those who carry out the interviews so they can ascertain how successful their selections were . If your selections fail , then don't expect any more interviewing jobs.
Will this improve the sucess rate? I doubt it.
Should the age embargo continue ,well it's the only thing that hasn't changed over the years and the pass rate is still only around 50% .
One more thing
250kts , I hope your controlling is better than your reasoning :rolleyes: and PLEASE get posted to my unit when you're over 45 :E
I can wait :zzz:

[normally right blank]

Accept the fact that "they" do now , it won't hurt, I promise Well, that's the problem. s. a. t. will not accept anything from "the village idiots" of aviation: A.T.C. (ref. Monty Python:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E)

[slip and turn]

Ah yes n_r_b, I'd forgotten about that one :) - so then, we are reminded never to make the mistake of taking an A.T.C at face value: when appearing in public, they might not only be providing an Air Traffic Service but also a much needed Psycho Social Service :8 ...

Even the problems of deep-seated age-related peer bias, and unintelligible investment bankers are explored in that very comprehensive youtube summary of our discussions so far ...

Ooh ah, thank-you-very-much, vicar:ok:

[250 kts]

leuven,
I didn't attempt to reason my statement. I stuck firmly to ab initio people based on my long experience in the job. Having been in the job over 30 years I have already passed the 45 mark and know how the stresses of the job have started to take their toll. I don't know of a single experienced controller over the age of 35 who hasn't struggled to get to validation standard at Swanwick. The fact is that there are no sectors to "hide" on any more. Yes controllers do slow down after about 40 and as has already been said before then is when experience kicks in. We are talking here about,potentially, people with no experience and already past that "slow down stage".
However I am speaking from an Area viewpoint and there may well be postings at airfields where an older recruit may be able to validate in which case I'm sure it won't be long before someone challenges NATS in the courts.

[slip and turn]

... still controlling at 75 yrs old and the UK chap had cut down his drinking to accommodate his 39 yr old girlfriend. Ah yes, I think I might know who you mean, God rest his soul if it is the same legend in his own lifetime I am thinking of ...

[Gonzo]

Oh my good God! :ugh:

I go away for three weeks and come back to this preposterous thread.

Slip and Turn....nobody is saying that once you hit an arbitrary age you will never make an ATCO. It's all about probability....surely you must understand that?

My opinion.......As far as I understand, it is not illegal to state an age limit as NATS has done. It is, however, illegal if such an age limit is deemed to be 'discriminatory'. You can bet your life that NATS Legal had enough evidence to defend a court case claiming such, when the limit was re-introduced following a period of unrestricted recruitment.

[slip and turn]

Oh, probabilities makes discrimination based on arbitrary cutoffs ok now does it?

[Gonzo]

The point is that an age-limit is sensible in this case, as extensive research shows that the older the applicant, the less likely he/she will be to pass the training.

What do you mean by ok?

Ethical? Reasonable? Legal?

Why do the military organisations have an upper age limit to their flight crew/ATC/FC jobs? Regardless of differing legal standpoints, do you think that is ok?

[Roffa]

Gonzo, don't get sucked in!

[Gonzo]

You no fun! :}

[1985]

He just looks old!:E

[Gonzo]

It's distinguished, 1985, not old!!!

Vercingetorix, I am that old/young, yes. I actually have far more posts to my name. I remember being a member when it was just Rumours and News and Jet Blast and it was an email daily digest!

Now come on, where are all my detractors? P7? Jer?:}

[Jerricho]

Can't talk.......eating pies.

[CAP493]

Independent research commissioned by NATS has shown that the skills required to be an effective controller decline with age.
Wow! Did somebody actually get paid to come up with this statement of the obvious...? We'll all be told soon that 'independant research' has shown that breathing can be useful in prolonging one's life...


In actual fact, there is an optimum age range where experience and relative youth combine to enable high performance. It's generally thought to be after about 5 years post 'validation' which is probably in the mid-to-late twenties, and continues until the early forties. Thereafter, increasingly, experience has to compensate for declining cognitive ability but this reduces with time and eventually it can no longer compensate and so performance declines. Obviously, the complexity and workload of the ATC task involved plays an important part in the timing of this effect and different individuals are affected differently.


Given the ATC units that NATS operates and the unique multi-tasking skills required of air traffic controllers (as opposed to pilots), it therefore makes sense to recruit for training, only those candidates who will have a better than average chance of success at training and of working efficiently and safely for a reasonable period of time thereafter.


And before any PC person raises it, this isn't ageism - it's good old-fashioned common sense. :hmm:

[slip and turn]

...And before any PC person raises it, this isn't ageism - it's good old-fashioned common sense Well in a world where age discrimination is tolerated, and accountants are permitted to exercise their "common sense" ad nauseam, you might be right. However, this is 2007, and the world changed last year with good reason. Wakey-wakey!

[Gonzo]

Oh, I thought you'd gone, S and T!

Please do enlighten us all here as to your arguments why there should be no age limit.

I've tried to go back through your previous posts here, but I'm finding it difficult to ascertain a coherence to them all.

[slip and turn]

It is very easy to explain Gonzo.

I speak from a viewpoint in the UK. I think many of you are familiar with our laws. There are of course growing similarities with laws in other countries.

To be an Air Traffic Controller requires a contract of employment with a service provider like NATS.

NATS is subject to UK employment law.

You may have noticed that over the past generation the UK has voted to implement equality laws. As of October last year, we now have a full set which outlaws ageism in the workplace and imposes severe penalties on employers who think they know better.

Some of you might hope that the age discrimination laws continue to be as ineffective as anti-hunting law. Enjoy the false dawn while it lasts ...

I don't believe we have seen any real test of the new laws yet. Significant numbers within the Rotorcraft forum are sponsoring one action which will no doubt be a good test.

The rest will be history and "common sense" or not, employers like NATS will have to properly demonstrate that they are offering equal opportunity to all, and not applying some kind of Nazi-like super-race filter before they even accept applications.

You did ask, Gonzo....

[Gonzo]

You've suitably explained your own opinion on the legalities.

Thank you.

I would counter by highlighting that the laws introduced on the 1st of October, those to which I assume you refer, allow employers to continue to stipulate age limitations for the purposes of recruitment if the organisation can 'objectively show' that such a limit constitutes a sound business reason.

I don't believe anyone here 'hopes the age discrimination continue to be....ineffective', and remarking as such is rather low.

I work with an old codger and he's not bad. He validated at Heathrow when he was nearly 40, although he came from the RAF and had considerable relevant experience.

So do you dispute the evidence then? That, the likelihood of passing training decreases as age increases?

[slip and turn]

On your two main points, Gonzo, I am firstly not sure where you obtained your paraphrasing "allow employers to continue to stipulate age limitations for the purposes of recruitment if the organisation can 'objectively show' that such a limit constitutes a sound business reason". (I don't think such phraseology exists in the legislation ... sounds a bit like accountant speak again?)

and secondly, I don't understand the relevance of the rather simplistic observation that "the likelihood of passing training decreases as age increases". That's a bit like saying that your eyesight and hearing goes as you get older, it gets harder to fight the flab, and impotence might also overtake you before you discover an increased PSA count! There are remedies for all of those conditions, and none of them required a law to be enacted! Indeed I am continually reminded that loss of eyesight, hearing, enhanced cuddliness and a certain mellowing of the urges of youth often all conspire to defy gravity and actually improve one's chances of Carrying On as I am sure you Gonzo would most definitely agree :)

Such observations may be of passing interest, but in all seriousness, the application of the recent law is to provide protection and remedy to individuals who are being discriminated against unilaterally on the basis of age.

[Gonzo]

I 'obtained' my 'phraseology' from my head. I'm not going to painstakingly search through legislation to find the subject passages to cut and paste here, but you must agree that such legislation does exist. I'm sure the phrase 'objectively show', or perhaps it was 'objectively demonstrate' does exist within that legislation.

Do you deny that there exists such a 'get out clause'?

Yes, saying 'the likelihood of passing training decreases as age increases' is exactly like saying 'your eyesight and hearing goes as you get older, it gets harder to fight the flab'..in that they are both fact. Or are you arguing this as well?

Please bear with me, I'm trying ever so hard to detect a point in your last post.

Or is your point in this case, that NATS should design a three-year training course for over 30s, alongside the 6-12 month course they provide to under 30s, and allow the over 30s up to 1000 hours of training at Heathrow, rather than 375 for the under 30s?

[slip and turn]

Well that's the point you see, you are an ATCO I take it, but you suggest that you must painstakingly search for something to obtain an answer and conclude that it isn't worth it and will carry on regardless! A painstaking search actually isn't necessary. The technology is here to help you.

I published the link a few pages earlier ... http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20061031.htm ... you can then search for your half remembered words or bits of phrases in a jiffy old chap!

I knew that because I am happy with new technology and search tools...didn't you? Is that an age thing too?

I'll save you some of the trouble ... the words objective and demonstrate do not appear in it. The word show appears once. There are in addition three instances of derivatives of the word show.

As for the content of my last post, I wasn't under the impression that I needed to make a further point?

As for the content of yours, why would NATS need to make special provision for anyone on the basis of age? Is NATS incapable of distinguishing no-hopers from a mixed bag before it offers training positions?

Forgive me, but I think the evidence shows that no great deal of careful thought or research has been put into the problem. The disclosure that NATS dropped the age requirement and then reapplied it again since October is an indication in itself of management inadequacy and lack of preparedness, I'd say.

[Gonzo]

You seem to be very keen on spending time while 'eating hot dinners' and looking up at the interface between LHR and LCY traffic on reading various materials, and yet you seem unable to spend five seconds to click on 'see public profile' underneath my user name. if you had done you would see that I am indeed an ATCO. In fact, many frequent posters here know exactly who I am; I make no effort to hide behind anonymity. You can even see a few photos of me in JetBlast.

Then I am mistaken regarding the legislation's wording, I must be recalling legal opinion on the matter, rather than the wording itself.

Again, I'm struggling to see your point here....."I knew that because I am happy with new technology and search tools...didn't you? Is that an age thing too?"

You do seem awfully keen to judge others. What do you mean by 'age thing'? I'm 28 (as it says over there <--- under my username). Is that young or old in this context?

NATS would need to make special provision for older (over 30) applicants (if there were no age limitations), because the vast majority would not be able to complete it. I am quite familiar with the content, and it is incredibly intense.

Before I make any judgements, please do elaborate on your experience with, and knowledge of, NATS' training course, selection processes and similar courses and processes of other equivalent organisations.

Am I correct in thinking that you believe I and my colleague are ageist? Quite ridiculous.

[slip and turn]

I don't think you could be anonymous if you tried now, Gonzo!

I had not realised that a 28 year old and his colleague might be the only ageists managing the show - a truly gargantuan, superhuman and no doubt doubly intense task. Surely there are more of you? (I'll skip the photos!) :}

My qualifications? Well as I've said elsewhere, significant hot dinners, numerous incredibly intense experiences (all enjoyed and easily survived), plus newly acquired knowledge of NATS age discriminatory cutoff at 36. Do I need more for this particular thread?

[PPRuNe Radar]

If NATS can provide objective justification which satisfies the legislators then they are quite at liberty to take an age based approach to recruitment.

Presumably NATS have either obtained sanction from the legislator, or are comfortable that they can provide a justification which will stand up to legal scrutiny.

The NATS lawyers are well up to speed on age laws, witnessed by the haste with which they changed the redundancy scheme to meet the legislation. On that basis I suspect that they have also examined the entry age qualification with similar diligence.

[slip and turn]

Hello again Mr PPRuNe Radar.

I fear that if NATS really did feel that there was a specific reason why their recruitment MO should be exempt, then indeed the time to air it with the legislators would have been in the consultation period prior to the presentation of the final bill. Success in that regard might have been signified by a specific exemption (sanction as you put it) in the law. Apparently some or none of that happened. It is now the judiciary who need to be satisfied, not the legislators.

The law as enacted is not particularly complex and actually contains specific reference to redundancy, so it wouldn't have taken a lawyer to spot that redundancy schemes needed to be reviewed, just a keen management eye. It might however have taken a diligent lawyer to spot the full effect of changes approaching on the horizon and to have offered an pre-emptive plan for accommodating the new law ...

May I ask what was the noticeable net effect on the redundancy arrangements?

[Roffa]

Go and ask NATS (http://www.nats.co.uk/form/12/contact_us.html) themselves, I'm sure they'll enjoy pointless discussions with you as much as we do here.

Gonzo, I did warn you!

[slip and turn]

Pointless? Do you mean as in "I'm alright, Jack" ?

You don't have to contribute if you don't want to ...

[Roffa]

Pointless? Do you mean as in "I'm alright, Jack" ?

4 results for: pointless

(Browse Nearby Entries)

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
point·less [point-lis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective
1. without a point: a pointless pen.
2. blunt, as an instrument.
3. without force, meaning, or relevance: a pointless remark.
4. without a point scored, as in a game: a pointless inning.
[Origin: 1300–50; ME point les. See point, -less]

—Related forms
point·less·ly, adverb
point·less·ness, noun

—Synonyms 3. meaningless, unproductive, futile, ineffectual.

You don't have to contribute if you don't want to ...

I'll do my best not to, hopefully the others will see sense as well.

[ILS 119.5]

I have watched this thread with interest after being a former cadet. Ageism is not a question Age is. I managed to pass the cadetship 30 yaers ago at a humble 25 years of age, and was not difficult for me then, I managed to become a professional pilot 10 years later and not difficult. I do believe there is a problem and that the Aviation Industry as pilots or controllers is a job for younger people especially in the learning stages. The only people to that are good at obtaining civil licences at 35 plus are the ex mil.

[slip and turn]

Ageism is not a question Age is. Surely it amounts to the same thing? Wheelchair-bound medical students probably don't make the best hospital surgeons either, in the scale of things. But that doesn't excuse discrimination based simply upon disability.

Women generally have more difficulty with map reading and telling left from right, but they don't get excluded from jobs where these things are important.

Asian accountants are often the most accommodating and hard-working, but that doesn't exclude the rest at application stage.

A number of contributors to this forum have indicated that they remember a steep learning curve when they started. There is almost the implication that there have been no further steep learning curves, apart from maybe the Heathrow experience, and the challenges of any additional ratings sought, just on the job experience, and opinions that older people attempting the steep learning curve found it difficult.

I see nothing unique in what I have read so far. The population generally does find it hard to learn new stuff as it gets older. The population generally doesn't challenge itself to new studies and experiences when it reaches middle age (whatever that is!). For an employer, surely the trick is to filter applicants based on ability and aptitude, not on preconceived statistical ideas about likely success rates in control experiments. Age discrimination is no longer tolerated in other industries and there is no reason thus far presented that shows that it should be any different for ATCOs.

So what we are seeing does indeed raise a question about ageism.

From what I've seen here, I believe a new mindset is required to deal with it properly.

[Gonzo]

Roffa old chum, you did, but what can I say? A quotation from Oscar Wilde regarding wrestling with pigs in mud comes to mind! :}

And it's entertaining lots of others who read this

My point, S and T, which you appeared to miss, is that I've never tried to be anonymous.

I'm sure you understand, S and T, that HM Government will not hold up legislation just because one organisation might want more time to examine their own position (just postulating here, I have no knowledge if this was the case with NATS). How long was the consultation period? I'm sure that NATS' legal department have plenty of other matters to occupy their time.

Or perhaps on the 1st Oct NATS decided to take advantage of the 'opportunity' and abolish the age limit to see if their evidence and research was still relevant. After several months, the results of that move made themselves clear, and an age limit was re-applied?

You failed to answer my question about the military earlier in the thread. What do you think of their age limits? What if at the age of 45 I decide I want to go and fly Typhoons, but the RAF turn me away because of my age?

It seems that you have little knowledge of NATS' or similar selection process. Such a process can not identify good ATCOs. It can, however, identify people who have some skills that good ATCOs have. A selection process can not test how a candidate would cope with myriad new pieces of information to assimilate every day, the constant and increasing pressure of that, and having to relate that intense theory learning with practical training.

Anyway, I'm sure if you feel as strongly about it as you appear to, you've already gone to numerous media outlets describing our 'ageism', and perhaps are looking to start some sort of legal action against NATS.

[slip and turn]

Gonzo, the military are different. The laws are different for them. I always understood that military folk sign up as cannon fodder or to shoot at other cannon fodder because it's an exciting trade and it's for Queen and Country. Wise men, whilst still appreciating the Queen and Country bit, are generally older and don't so easily sign away their young lives for the thrill or take dumb ideas as gospel truth. The military doesn't want peeps like that out front because they can interrupt the shooting in troubling ways. I did ask once before, Gonzo, if being an ATCO was a military-like thing. No-one said it was.

What's that about "help" ? This thread isn't a plea for help - I started it as a potential debate about ageism after spotting ageism at work on a NATS website. Problem is, some of the thread participants now and then have le Gaulois to slip into personal insult mode! I can't see that as being useful trait in an ATCO either.

Reading through this lot, some might simply conclude that one man's pedantry is another's poison. They might not be too wide of the mark.

Slipnturnix (Outer Mongolia it seems)

[BDiONU]

Gonzo, the military are different. The laws are different for them. I always understood that military folk sign up as cannon fodder or to shoot at other cannon fodder because it's an exciting trade and it's for Queen and Country.
ROFL!! Your understanding is somewhat askew, I served for 25 years in the RAF as an ATCO and the very last thing on my mind was to shoot at other 'cannon fodder'. Anyway I think you've finally confirmed for me that you're an internet troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll)
"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/DoNotFeedTroll.svg/150px-

Bye bye!
BD

[slip and turn]

So now I'm confused, being an ATCO is like being in the military (?) or being an ATCO is not like being in the military but you can nevertheless be one in the military? I think I well understand the latter but that wasn't a straight answer to my question was it?

Like many Romans and Gauls I have a big nose actually, but is that a small p I see now in Vercingetorix ? :ooh: ... Might I suggest pills all round with your initial on them?

[CAP493]

However, this is 2007, and the world changed last year with good reason. Wakey-wakey!
I'm afraid that common sense seems to have escaped you S & T. The logic of your argument is that there should not be any maximum (or for that matter, any minimum...) age limit stipulated. Presumably then, if one takes your interpretation to its extreme, HMG is also transgressing the European (and now UK) age discrimination laws by stipulating a minimum age for holding a driving licence, purchasing alcohol and voting?

Both the EU Directive on Age Discrimination and the UK legislation that has subsumed the Directive provide for 'objective' non-compliance. The ultimate test of whether any non-compliance is 'objective' would be a decision in a Court of Law or Industrial Tribunal - not someone's subjective opinion or personal interpretation.

NATS may be unwise to actually stipulate any age limits (so might the CAA in stipulating a minimum age at which a person can actually hold an ATC licence).

But ultimately, you'd have to take your argument to Court.

And I speak not as a youngster nor as a frustrated 'would-be', but as someone who's been there, done that, read the book and watched the DVD - and who is now content to be past their 'sell-by-date'... :8

[slip and turn]

I understand your point 493 (and yours V!), but in the world of wonderful opportunity in which we live, 'common sense' is but one cornerstone and one man's common sense is another's deprivation. 'Freedom' (to drive more unless until we drop, for example) is perhaps a more important one. Anti-discrimination law is another which supports our notions of rights of freedom.

As I said once before, the word objective does not appear in the regulations, but I would not be surprised if it appears in unsolicited legal commentary by those touting for employment law defence cases. So whilst I can venture to understand what you might mean by objective non-compliance, I would very much still like to see how and where in the law exactly your hat could be hung on that.

Since it's the weekend, I'll Google for it and see if I can answer my own question...

Edit: Oh dear no help from Google with mere words alone ... objective non-compliance is almost in the realm of Googlewhacks or worse!

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Pleeaaassse, put us all out of our misery and get NATS to change the rules. Then allow everyone to apply (yes even the 55 year old half blind, stone deaf man with the bladder control problem), weed out the ones you don't want, test the ones you think are likely candidates (and include a few token oldies to keep plonkers like S & T quiet). As we in the job know the oldies will fail the testing and we will end up in the same place as we are now but without the whining, moaning, pathetic yelping of this pedantic loser who has nothing better to do with his time than get involved in an industry that he doesn't have a clue about.
Slip and Turn... ignore all posts.... 'click'...on.:ok:

[divingduck]

Gee ANSA, I resemble that last description!:{

S&T, give it up, if they don't want you they don't want you...:ugh:

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

The original post was,
Independent research commissioned by NATS has shown that the skills required to be an effective controller decline with age. NATS makes a substantial investment in training costs and research has shown that it takes around 10 years to reach full experience as a controller. Accordingly, in order to maximise our training and validation success, only candidates under the age of 36 will be considered.
What unique age-related skills make ATCOs any different to pilots ?
This has been answered by many varied ATCO's, and yet this guy keeps on and on for 6 pages and 3 weeks, not listening or responding to post he doesn't like, and pedantically picking out small pieces of other posts he thinks he can make an argument out of. Although guys on this thread may not be familiar with a Dick Smith from Australia, if it wasn't for the name and details, I would be sure that this is Dick Smith using another name. He uses the same methods. Ignore what you don't like and can't argue against, and pick at anything you think will wind people up.


The answer in brief offered by the people on this forum, who are experts in their chosen field, is that the skills needed to be an effective and safe Air Traffic Controller deteriorate with age, and the only reason the more mature controllers amongst us keep up is through the experience gained from years of doing the job. The reason ATCO's are different from pilots is we are not just worrying about the wellbeing of one aircraft but we are juggling the safety and needs of 15/20/25 aircraft at one time. We are multitasking a lot more than a pair of pilots will ever do in a cockpit, ie. giving instructions to an aircraft and hearing a readback in one ear, while listening to coordination from another ATC unit in another ear, while placing strips in the board with our free hand and looking at our radar screen to anticipate the next turn we will give to an aircraft when we get a moment and assessing how the sequence is progressing generally. This sort of multitasking is something that you need to learn when relatively young.


I have in my time as a controller both in Australia and the Middle East, seen many controllers try and cross train to busier sectors and time and time again they have at best struggled and at worst failed. These are guys who are already trained air traffic controllers and even they have trouble learning new tricks and stepping up, so I would hate to think how a 40 year old with no ATCO experience would manage.


The cost of training ATCO's is too high to risk a social experiment such as training 40 and 50 year olds, whereas pilots pay for their own initial training and once they have the required hours, airlines pick them up, which means much less risk on the part of the airline. The cost quoted to me 12 years ago for the training of an ATCO in Australia was $300,000 (about $250,000 USD) and then we lost about half the trainees during training. If it has been shown through testing that people in their 20's and early 30's have a better chance of success in training than a person in the late 30's or 40's why should a company be forced to burn money by disregarding this knowledge. A company should be free to select those people they feel are most likely to suceed in any given field, otherwise why bother with a selection process at all????


Anyway my head is getting sore from the constant beating of it against this big ignorant wall. Cheers :ugh::ugh:

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

even the 55 year old half blind, stone deaf man with the bladder control problem

DD, I didn't know you had a bladder control problem, or were you just referring to the half blind, stone deaf part? :p

[slip and turn]

Morning All!

I wondered if this week we might bring the discussion back to a more mature level.

Some of you may be interested to know that during the making of the current law in the UK, it seems that a 2003 consultation paper example posed the case of the training of an air traffic controller.

Basically I think the UK Government posed the specific question we are discussing three whole years before enactment. It appears that having done so, and having no doubt fielded a myriad of responses on the subject of training ATCOs, the final bill made no exemption for ATCO training schemes.

Anyone know any better?

The wording of the actual government consultation paper said this:13. The sort of specific aims we think we might set out in legislation could be:
a. health, welfare, and safety – for example, the protection of younger workers;
b. facilitation of employment planning – for example, where a business has a number of people approaching retirement age at the same time;
c. the particular training requirements of the post in question – for example, air traffic controllers, who have to have high levels of health and fitness and concentration, and who have to undergo extensive theoretical and practical training at the College of Air Traffic Control, followed by further on the job training;
d. encouraging and rewarding loyalty;
e. the need for a reasonable period of employment before retirement – for example, an employer who has exceptionally justified a retirement age of 65 might decline to employ someone only a few months short of 65 if the need for, and the cost and length of, training meant that the applicant would not be sufficiently productive in that time.

Remember this question wasn't to reflect the intention of the UK legislators, it was to solicit an open-minded consultation. It looks to me as if the CAA, or other Air Traffic Services fraternity, lobbied for the question, and then NATS didn't follow through!

[BDiONU]

I wondered if this week we might bring the discussion back to a more mature level.
My goodness, that'll be a first for you. NATS do not make government policy, they're a private company, the CAA are the governments consultants.

BD

[throw a dyce]

Morning slip and turn,
As a 46 year old who has worked in different units,and had to retrain at my previous unit at 40,my opinion is in your 40's it does get more difficult to retrain.I wouldn't like to starting out at the college at this age,and then have to validate on crazy sectors,or airports.In fact at this age I'm more inclined to be looking for the door out rather than in.Health is another aspect,and the stress of this job is a ticking timebomb.In your 40's than when bits start going wrong and the alarm goes off medically.
I think you could argue until the cows come home on this,and probably will.Just going round in circles:uhoh:
ps I'll just shuffle off to work with my zimmer now.:p

[slip and turn]

Cut it out BD.

If you wish to continue to contribute to discussion of a matter which might either influence NATS future age discrimination policy or the UK Government's future policy, then think a little longer please before clicking Submit Reply, otherwise ..-. ---

Thanks TAD, I follow, but not yet.

[BDiONU]

Cut it out BD.
If you wish to continue to contribute to discussion of a matter which might either influence NATS future age discrimination policy or the UK Government's future policy, then think a little longer please before clicking Submit Reply, otherwise ..-. ---
No its time for you to cut it out. As numerous other posters have commented your posts are not advancing any cause. In that respect you are undoubtedly trolling because you're not influencing anyone with your curious views. Charming morse message.

BD

[Norman2]

The problem with Ageist rules is that they assume everyone fits the statistical average.
Some exceptional people will be able to learn complex new skills in their 30's and 40's quite easily.
Even if ability declines with age, those who start with a very high ability will still be above average later.
In fact studies show that the very brightest actually lose a smaller proportion of intelligence than the average.
As for career lengths, does everyone who starts young stay the full 40 year course? I doubt it very much.
If this is a concern, why not financially bond ALL the applicants and then write down the training costs over 20 years?
I don't intend to apply for a job that pays much less than I get now (in IT) but I do object to this assumption that intelligence and learning ability must decline to an unacceptable point. It depends where you start from!

[Gonzo]

How do you think a discussion on PPRuNe will contribute to a rethink on either NATS' part of that of the Govt.?


I wondered if this week we might bring the discussion back to a more mature level.

Discussion in my experience tends to consist of two or more parties putting forward their own points, and perhaps arguing their merits. I am struggling to see the point of many of your posts, you even admit you are making no point in one of them. Also, that remark clearly shows you have no knowledge of ATC or ATCOs (or the Mil of any colour, come to that). It's called banter between colleagues.

Some of you may be interested to know that during the making of the current law in the UK, it seems that a 2003 consultation paper example posed the case of the training of an air traffic controller.

Basically I think the UK Government posed the specific question we are discussing three whole years before enactment. It appears that having done so, and having no doubt fielded a myriad of responses on the subject of training ATCOs, the final bill made no exemption for ATCO training schemes.

Anyone know any better?

The wording of the actual government consultation paper said this:.........

Again I ask........

So?

I will summarise:
Fact: People lose mental agility (or however you wish the phrase the skills/abilities we have talked about) as age increases (all at different rates, of course)
Fact: ATC requires immense mental agility, especially during training and the first few years.
Fact: NATS (and I imagine many other similar organisations, both civil and mil) has evidence/research to show that once over a certain age, and with no experience, it is a high likelihood that one would not complete the training.
Fact: It is legal in the UK to continue to have age-limited recruitment policies, if they can be justified.

[slip and turn]

Thanks for advancing things a little Gonzo. I do appreciate banter between colleagues but being called a troll, a pedant, a pig-head, ignorant, a fisher and all manner of other insulting words isn't banter.

The other day, following someone else's line of argument, I Googled for objective non-compliance in vain. I was searching for the wrong phrase. It would have been more fruitful to look for objective justification because a few commentators have used it when discussing the EC directive which deals with protections against Age Discrimination.

What I find interesting, is that the EC Directives are the minimum protections under EC law, but that UK law seems to have gone further and eroded the concept of objective justification that commentators say exists in the directive. That's not a mistake.

It results I think in a UK law which is more onerous on employers than the directive required, and which provides less broad exemptions.

[divingduck]

Why are you just picking on NATS?

Eurocontrol and many other European organisations have age limits on them as well.

I'd like to join Eurocontrol....but I'm just too far past the cut off date. I have learned to live with this sad state of affairs. It is of course their bat and ball and they get to decide the rules.

ps and I AM a controller of many years.

[Roffa]

I thought BD hit the nail on the head, though the relevant post seems to have disappeared.

[throw a dyce]

When I was 27 some years ago I was told by BA that I was 6 months too old for their pilot training scheme.I was a valid TWR,RAD ATCO and OJTI.It cost them a lot of bucks flogging around at 160 kts following helicopters.In the same year NATS put out an early retirement trawl.:D I was told I was too young when I applied:=:: I then took a fam flight with SAS and I was just the right age for SAS flight academy.:ok:
OK you can't do that now because of the law.However Nats don't like you over 40,even if you have tons of experience within Nats.This is the case if you want to move unit especially to a busier one.It isn't going to change,because they will find a way of NOT hiring the over 36 people for cadets.I know it's not a popular decision with Slip and Turn.HongKong in 95-98 took very experienced ATCO's and hardly anyone failed to validate.It worked very well for them.But in your 40's to 50's experience is a huge part of ATC.Starting from scratch is a whole different ball game.:hmm:

[Roffa]

When I was 27 some years ago I was told by BA that I was 6 months too old for their pilot training scheme.

Hey, me too. The rejection letter was very polite though. Shame s and t wasn't around then to crusade for our rights.

[throw a dyce]

Indeed :ok:.I even got the Canadians in HKATC to carry on the crusade,if I would delay Air Canada and Canadian in return.Many beers consumed as a result of our success.:D;)

[BDiONU]

I thought BD hit the nail on the head, though the relevant post seems to have disappeared.
I deleted it Roffa, even though Sh1t and Turn started the rude language it wasn't appropriate for me to respond in similar vein.

Cheers
BD

[slip and turn]

Been stirring again overnight, have we BD? :rolleyes: I don't use bad language, I prefer less vernacular and more sanitary devices, but you still can't stop yourself messing I see. Reminds me of the unfortunately unforgettable ditty I was given 20 years ago for remembering the morse for Foxtrot :O

Now then, responses to questions, because I know how you ATC folks like to keep your beans in a row with mandatory reports and all readbacks correct :ok::

Gonzo first:
How do I think a discussion on PPRuNe might influence NATS and/or Government? Easy. PPRuNe influences aviation thinkers worldwide. There is more written here in one week (not this thread so far unfortunately) that can be learned from about how things need to be, or how they could be improved than can be gained from any pre-bill consultation paper...and it works both ways, of course, so don't poo-poo it.

So? So, why wasn't the ATCO mini-case study (borrowed from earlier development of the EC directive?) furthered in the UK by developing some of the concepts about cost of training, time before reaching useful effectiveness, loss of brain function or any other such lines of thought into an all encompassing objective justification clause in the UK law?

What you have stated as facts, Gonzo, at best are really only emphasised lines of thought until you submit the evidence. In fact the last one is suspect, and the others are surely relativisms? OK so brain cells generally don't regenerate after being worn out/sozzled/bombarded by cosmics, but my brain, for example, was way better than average to start with and still performs well above the norm. But in pursuit of a cheap and mobile workforce, are we perhaps now to justify discrimination against us based on comparing ourselves to our former selves? Sounds like something out of Monty Python:
So why do you want to join the Traffic Control Service?
Well I ...
But you're older than you were when you were younger? Which means you've lost some braincells, I take it?
Well yes, but ...
I'm sorry, but we can't have chaps who are older than they were when they were younger running a Traffic Control Service, can we? Now run along, there's a good chap ...

DD ... Why am I picking on NATS? Well I explained how I came to find the original offending paragraph on the NATS website. It struck me that it was a very 'in your face' breach of what I understood was UK law, by a pseudo governement organisation too. It also immediately struck me that 'up-front' it was far more discriminatory than any CAA restriction on commercial pilots (an obvious comparison to make).

I am aware that other countries may still have age restrictions like this, but they have different laws too. I don't know what laws apply to Eurocontrol recruitment. Even though the UK law encompasses an EC directive, it is not simply a slavish facsimile of the directive. It is more onerous than that (for an employer).

As for whose bat and whose ball it is, I disagree. AFAIK, NATS is in a highly favoured almost monopolistic position in the UK. It is still about 50% publicly-owned but I detect that its management and staff would have others believe that it is private and operating in a purely commercial market driven way, whilst they enjoy the dual comforts of a publicly subsidised operation and the accoutrements of a share in the 'business'. Last time we in the 'real' private world had jobs like that was fifteen years ago at least. I don't disagree with privatisation per se, but we know that private/public partnerships are tainted ugly beasts at best, and it is galling that such prominent organisations should be given further subsidy at public expense by being allowed to ride roughshod over UK employment laws.

That's why I think NATS is an obvious candidate for public scrutiny.

Finally, TAD: "But in your 40's to 50's experience is a huge part of ATC. Starting from scratch is a whole different ball game". Again I hear you TAD, but it is all relative again. Some have said that the ability to constantly assimilate new information/new technology is a must have skill. How does that fit with the suggestion that starting from scratch is very difficult? Surely if ATS technology is constantly evolving it means that you existing ATCOs have had to dump old learning and learn to do some things very differently? Sometimes old habits die hard? I think some of you have implied that yes there is an element of that ... Sometimes a clean sheet is a bonus perhaps?

Another major characteristic of the job seems to be confirmed as Stress. I would guess that 'burn-out' is not uncommon amongst ATCOs? I can imagine that you longer serving ATCOs might all know of examples of peers who have eventually 'lost it'. But was that a function of their age, or a function purely of the number of years they had been under stress in the same job?

All this discussion risks elevating the role of ATCO to some unearned special exempt status within UK Age Discrimination law. I think someone earlier said "Is there heavy lifting involved" ... would you apply old age restrictions if there was? Can 55y old women lift as much as 55y old men ? All of us older citizens remember the days where if we saw a woman in the office trying to move a typewriter or some other heavier item, we were expected to leap in and take over, much like giving up a seat on a train. But these things have changed enormously now such that some beneficiaries are offended by old-fashioned 'politeness' (Roffa's word...)

In the old world, it was also polite to build businesses that supported loyal employees through their working lives and beyond, into retirement, recognising that contributions change and seniority could be quantified. That's largely dropped now, so we of all ages are expected to be completely mobile and prone to hiring and firing like workers from 70 years ago, to stand in line with hoards of feckless youngsters, and never to retire ...

That being so, would not the new politeness be to drop ageist eligibility requirements, and to take the time to investigate each candidate's suitability without being shackled to old sterotypical ideas that themselves seem well past any sell by date?

[Gonzo]

What you have stated as facts, Gonzo, at best are really only emphasised lines of thought until you submit the evidence. In fact the last one is suspect, and the others are surely relativisms?Er, no. All the first three are facts. Blindingly obvious facts, I'm afraid; and backed up by many here who are my colleagues, from around the world.

As to the fourth being 'suspect'.....

From the ACAS document Age and the Workplace: Putting the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 into practice (http://www.pprune.org/forums/Putting%20the%20Employment%20Equality%20%28Age%29)

Page 7:
Lawful discrimination
There are limited circumstances when it is lawful to treat people
differently because of their age.
It is not unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of age if:
• there is an objective justification for treating people differently –
for example, it might be necessary to fix a maximum age for the
recruitment or promotion of employees (this maximum age might
reflect the training requirements of the post or the need for a
reasonable period of employment before retirement)Page 30/31:
Objective justifications,
exceptions, exemptions and
genuine occupational requirements

Treating people differently because of their age will only be justifiable
in the following exceptional circumstances.

Objective justification

You may treat people differently on the grounds of their age if you have
an objective justification.

An objective justification allows employers to set requirements that are
directly age discriminatory. Remember that different treatment on
grounds of age will only be possible exceptionally for good reasons
(see below).
You will need to provide real evidence to support any claim of
objective justification. Assertion alone will not be sufficient and each
case must be considered on its individual merits.
Both direct and indirect discrimination will be justified if it is:
• a proportionate means (of)
• achieving a legitimate aim.

What is proportionate?
This means:
• what you are doing must actually contribute to a legitimate aim, eg
if your aim is to encourage loyalty then you ought to have evidence
that the provision or criterion you introduce is actually doing so
• the discriminatory effect should be significantly outweighed by the
importance and benefits of the legitimate aim
• you should have no reasonable alternative to the action you are
taking. If the legitimate aim can be achieved by less or nondiscriminatory
means then these must take precedence.

What is a legitimate aim?
A legitimate aim might include:
• economic factors such as business needs and efficiency
• the health, welfare and safety of the individual
(including protection of young people or older workers)
• the particular training requirements of the job.

A legitimate aim must correspond with a real need of the employer –
economic efficiency may be a real aim but saving money because
discrimination is cheaper than non-discrimination is not legitimate.
The legitimate aim cannot be related to age discrimination itself.
The test of objective justification is not an easy one and it will be
necessary to provide evidence if challenged; assertions alone will not
be enough.

You can bet your bottom dollar that NATS HR/Recruitment know that which I have highlighted in red, and have the evidence to back it up. I know, and regularly talk to the people in NATS who deal with all this.

Thanks for keeping me entertained S&T, but that's the last of my posts on the subject.

[slip and turn]

Thanks very much Gonzo

I had not seen that ACAS document and will take a longer look at it when I get a moment. Fascinating how so much is ventured in official circles about the law without actually using the (many fewer) words within the law itself!

It is of course very new law and untested, but by the very existence of such a lengthy ACAS document, it looks like there are moves afoot by whoever pulls ACAS strings to fly kites to see if the potential ACAS caseload can be ameliorated somewhat by suggesting interpretions more like the original EC Directive in order to deflect the masses!

On the other hand, the seemingly loose way ACAS have suggested what might be legitimate aims (none are defined in the regulations themselves AFAIK except by the simplistic circular argument that anything in breach of the regulations is not legitimate...doh!) suggests they might inadvertently have commissioned someone (an employment lawyer naturally) to write this document, and this person saw a wonderful chance to fertilise a whole new area of law, one to farm and milk daily in arguing both sides against the middle :rolleyes:


In the meantime, where might we find some of the evidence that NATS might rely upon, I wonder? If it is so obvious, then surely it should be discoverable in the public domain, especially if it was gathered at the UK taxpayer's expense?

Verci thanks for your input. Being a typical guinea pig child in the days when arguments about 11 plus and grammar schools versus comprehensives were drawing to a conclusion, I was routinely tested early and regularly thereafter so I know where I sit. I am lucky but not unusual in that I have never failed in anything I have studied (including playing the violin as it happens!), and I have studied widely, and been tested fairly regularly all my life. I like study. I enjoy being tested. Both mental and physical. That's not so unusual either.

Excessively physical work and polluted working conditions, poverty, smoking, diet and limited medical support used to shorten lives by obvious and rapid deterioration that could not be avoided and correlated much more with age. In 2007 lives are more often shortened by good-time excess, laziness and complacency, lack of physical work. Discriminate on those scores by all means. Age correlation of the effects of those things is now much more varied. There are many ways to 'slice and dice' statistics in order to support a pre-determined conclusion.

For those that have studied probability, statistics, mathematics or the like, any application of 80:20 will always bring out a wry smile.

As a proof of anything important, we know it really won't do.

[Gonzo]

D'oh, breaking my own word here. Definitely the last post!

Even before PPP, NATS did not have funds input from the 'UK taxpayer'. In fact, I seem to remember we contributed to the Govt.'s coffers.

Who said the research was public domain? I'm sure there is a great deal of information out there regarding loss of brain capacity/skills etc through ageing, but as a commercial enterprise, I'd imagine NATS' evidence to be 'Commercial in confidence'.

[divingduck]

Gawd:ugh: ANSA is right about this guy sounding like Dick Smith!:mad:

Hands up all the controllers on this thread that give a toss about this guy and his subject. I'll start....

Not me!:rolleyes:

I shall now ignore this thread.

[slip and turn]

Was the violin too much for you Vercingetorix?

Having for years told yourselves that you are special and have undergone 'expensive' intense training, and watched less special people drop out, you lot just can't stand the thought that you might be mere mortals, can you?

Look at the thread about how long it took to validate. Heathrow Director says it's still occasionally possible for someone fresh out of college to validate at Heathrow in a few months. That's not evidence of anything special is it? It reminds me of the vagaries of how long it takes various people to validate as effective blue-chip company representatives, nothing more.

Maybe you should get out a bit, or maybe you can't stand the sand in your sandwiches when you do, eh? .... but do get rid of that ridiculous age restriction :ugh:

[Gonzo]

Damn, really the last post, honest......

S and T, I'm not sure when HD validated at Heathrow, but I think it was the 70s. He's not been working in the tower since the early 90s.

Normal validation time for someone straight from the college has been hovering around the year mark for the past ten years....in the past few years a time of 18 months is not unusual.....

[slip and turn]

Gonzo, yes HD made his own 'in-the-days-of-black-and-white-televison' case clear :p, but reading between the lines he seemed to be suggesting that others (no doubt number 1 trainees!) have more recently got validated pretty fast...

Verci, no I actually only got through Grade V and got to 'play' just once in a joint schools orchestra in Harlow before I took up double-bass instead, which in turn I ditched because I was bored with the bow and having to lug the bloody thing on to the bus for homework!

... oh and actually I wasn't very good ...

[Roffa]

s and t, HD, top chap that he is, has been retired for a good number of years now and prior to retirement hadn't worked at the tower since '93 (the date the unit function split) so it's unlikely he'd have any up to date knowledge on how quickly or not trainees go through the system at LHR tower.

Gonzo however does, if you choose to ignore what he tells you in favour of HD then you're simply shooting your already not very convincing argument in both feet rather than just the one.

[airac]

Vercingetorix

Most ATCOs would be in the region of the 125 IQ or better.

So can we expect a team from NATS next time Anne Robinson challenges the Nation? Perhaps you could take on the pilots and solve the problem originally posed by S & T:D

All interested take one step forward :p

[Roffa]

Hopefully they'd do better than the team of atcos that appeared on Busman's Holiday many moons ago :)

[normally right blank]

Don't get too obsessed by IQ. I've seen some very clever students fail. (- and going on to highly successful careers in other fields). You must have some degree of "flair" for the job. Like a good carpenter, for example.

[slip and turn]

Funny you should say that, n_r_b ... I've been designing and building very fine wall cabinets this evening! I must say I do build them better now than I ever did before I was 36!

[normally right blank]

6 O levels, 1 A level, liked beer, rugby, two seater soft top cars.

Some very good female controllers fit this description too ;)

[slip and turn]

Is your wife a goer then ? ..... eh? ... eh? ... know what I mean?

Wha's all this Bahrain is dangerous stuff that I've been reading? Are you lot in the sandpit the real deal, or ... ?