36 year old limit for ATC/NATS trainee - what law?

[Andy Rylance]

I see that NATS continue their policy of discrimination against anyone older than 36 years old applying to be an ATC trainee. In a nutshell, you cannot.

Does anyone know what legislation rules that this is perfectly acceptable in these days of equal opportunities? They must have some legal outage or way around the basic rights to apply for any job regardless of age.

[Gonzo]

Uh-oh.

There was a big thread a while ago on this topic.

(Hi there Slip and Turn!:ok:)

Essentially, there are caveats to the relatively new age discrimination legislation where, if you can prove that having an age limit is sensible, then that is not illegal.

Ok, I've just done a quick search (search is your friend, after all.....)

Here it is....Question about Ageism... (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=288583)

[Andy Rylance]

Thanks for the thread link - I was interested in the actual legal basis for refusing applications.

It was/is a bugger for me. At 31 I wanted to apply and 30 was the limit for age. Now in my ancient old age of not quite being 40 again I am rejected. Having shadowed some ATCO's it seemed a great progression from a previous job that was radio control work as well (not cabs(!) but armed police incidents etc )

Thanks Gonzo for being so kind on the search... I did try honest guv to find it as virtually everything has been discussed here somewhere. We even got a mention in Esquire magazine recently "Pprune contributors say that..." honoured!

[Gonzo]

I did try honest guv to find it

Don't worry, I had an advantage, I remembered the username of the main protagonist. :E

Sorry to hear the timing hasn't been great for you.

[chevvron]

If you can demonstrate 'prior experience' of some sort, the age rule might be waived (had to word that carefully 'cos it's up to HR and we all know how good they are at deciding if you qualify).
eg If you're an ex professional pilot over 36, that SHOULD be sufficient grounds.

[atcomarkingtime]

No way would I at my ripe age of 35 want to go through the entire college course again....I think NATS are right here (for a change) in keeping the age limit....its hard work....glad I went through at 19!!!
It costs NATS alot of money to train people...I'm sure many people over 35 wouldn't make it through!!! Sorry to be blunt!!

[Odi]

AMT - be careful who you're calling old.....

I went through the college aged 33 and the bit I found hardest was having to learn the written tests parrot fashion as I was so out of practice at having to learn reams and reams of information. Those who were mere youngsters and fresh out of uni found the writtens a doddle as they were practiced at it.

On the other hand I passed and a lot of those who were experts at the written failed...

At the time I applied the upper limit was under 27 but you could apply for exemption if you could demonstrate "prior experience". Contact HR and you never know, they may waive the requirements.

[atcomarkingtime]

ODI....my comment was written to wind you old geezers up...you know it was!!!
No...I admire any old timer like ODI making a big career change in their mid-30's....just saying that the job itself is great and well worth the effort...but the work at the college revising things parrott fashion is really hard....
I'm glad someone like ODI did make the decision to join....he's one of the old band who can be wound up with great pleasure!!!:ok:

[Senior Pilot]

Age Discrimination: fighting the CAA (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=261681) over on Rotorheads: may be worth a read for you chaps?

Ian Evans, a fellow PPRuNer, has taken the CAA to court over the 60 year old limit for commercial pilots, and raised some funds via Rotorheads. The case starts on Monday 3rd March in the London Law Courts. Any assistance would be well worthwhile, even if just as a spectator showing support from the public gallery :ok:

[Data Dad]

Senior Pilot

I agree wholeheartedly with the campaign to scrap the age 60 rule however, this "age 36" rule being discussed here is different in that it is not a CAA imposed "law" but a company (NATS) imposed limit on its own trainees (employees).

Andy Rylance

as others have suggested, try NATS HR for an exemption - you have nothing to lose in doing so

DD

[slip and turn]

Hello Gonzo :ok:

I just had to smile when I checked "Protagonist" on Wikipedia :p

[Gonzo]

Hello s and t, guilty conscience? :)

I was actually referring to me! :ok:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Andy.. Two points. First, with very great respect your past experience as a police radio operator will be of almost nil benefit to you as an ATCO, except you would know how to push a switch and talk - and talking on the radio is but one part of the job; there is far, far more involved. Air Traffic Control is a very complex job requiring years of training and to compare with with police radio work is, frankly, ludicrous.

Second point - about age. The older one gets the more difficult it is to do the ATC job, unless you have grown up with it. Someone who has had experience may - just MAY - be able to validate at another unit when they are in their late 30s/early 40s.... but to start ATC from scratch at that age is chancing one's arm. NATS, very sensibly IMHO, must take this into account. The chances of a 40-year old starting ATC from scratch and successfully validating must be much lower than for a 20-year old.

[slip and turn]

Guilty conscience, Gonzo? .... Moi? :hmm:

Not me this time, old sport - didn't touch the keys - new thread, new agonist :}

Maybe Andy's just another protagonist in the same story? Or if you have it your way, he's another antagonist ... there's more than one of both about.

I note that false protagonists can expect dramatic devices :ooh:

Quite right too, if you ask me :p

[savechip55]

Well last year when I was going through the process of leaving the RAF after 6 years as an Area Controller and 11 years as an Air Traffic assistant (i am 34), I contacted NATS to find out where I stood. Now I am not blowing my trumpet but I was a Standards and Training controller in my previous life so I have a fair understanding of ATC and what it takes to be an ATCO.

The reply did and still does baffle me a tad, I was told I could, if i liked, apply like anyone else and, if successful, take the full course at Bournemouth whilst on a princely sum of just over £10000!! With the normal commitments of a 34 yr old, this just was not an option.

I know there are plenty of differences with Mil and Civ controlling, however, I am fairly confident that with some hard work on my part I would have made it. What wrangles most is that at no stage did I get any contact from any 'real' NATS people, just the faceless HR bunch!

Anyway, old subject I know, but it still stings all the same.

[chevvron]

Just reinforces the view I expressed at No 5 above.
By the way, if you use e-mail to HR, do NOT use the general enquiry address; I did this on another subject and didn't get a reply; when I asked about it I was told 'oh we rarely look at that mailbox as we're changing ths system'!!!

[JonG]

savechip can I ask what you were expecting from them? A higher salary during training?

[thorisgod]

Most of the 36 new trainees joing the IAA next week are in their 30's.

I believe one of them is 44.

If you can believe a single word they say they will be recruiting another 36 next year or so.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

savechip .. don't feel too hard done by at the offer of a lower salary than you were earning. In the late 60s I was working overseas earning £2400 per year, tax-free excellent free accommodation, etc. I came back to the UK as an expereinced controller with a UK licence and went to work at a non-State airfield where I got about £1700. A year later I went to Heathrow and started on £1800! C'est la vie, as they say.

[anotherthing]

Savechip55

I was ex mil, extensive flying and latterly as an ATCO... ATCO Examiner and also Head of Training dept at one Unit. Both Terminal and Area.

I had to go through the whole rigmarole of training from the beginning and I can tell you this...

The aerodrome side is fairly easy (although different from Mil, if you have worked at a busy military airfield with a healthy mix of jets, turbo and helos working to crossing - active - runways as I had then it is a simple transition).

However, area is wholly different, especially if you go down the En-Route way instead of the TMA way.

As a member of the military, you of all people should be a realist. You have obviously got to your break point and had a look around. You had the choice of leaving and taking a big drop in salary to train.

What NATS offers is in black and white, whether you agree with it or not. You can always pay yourself through (no salary). This will give you a shorter course after you have undergone an APC assessment.

This is not available for area though.

About 6 years ago, NATS did try to 'fast track' 2 ex RAF Area controllers - NATS got their fingers burnt very badly and have wisely stepped back from doing it.

Yes it is a big pay drop - especially now, but there are still ex - mil people willing to take it, so maybe you need to be a bit less "I have done this, therefore I am a special case" and just accept that that is the way of things.

As for the HR dept – they are historically pretty poor as far as ATCO recruitment is concerned.
To tell the truth - I would go as far to say that we should have an ATCO on detachment to HR, either a 2 year full time secondment or at the very least a 2 year split post 50% HR, 50% controlling.

Maybe that way we will get a bit more realism brought into recruitment.

At the moment, people are getting through the paper sift when they cannot even spell their exam subjects correctly or - even worse, they fall outside laid down criteria (on the application form you have to answer questions regarding physical attributes etc... people who fall outside NATS laid down requirements are getting to assessment and interview stage - not fair on them, or on the interviewers).

It is a big drop and it is a risk to leave the military to join NATS, but the benefits are worth it (no secondary duties – good salary etc etc).

One tip for you – if you do eventually decide to join, try not to trumpet what you used to be – as you know from your own experiences, no one likes a trainee who thinks they know best.

[Wee Jock McPlop]

Savechip,

I agree with all of what 'anotherthing' has said in his reply to you.

I made the transition across from mil to civil in 2003, on the airports side, at the grand old age of 38. Many of the ex-mil guys/girls who did the course at the same time were of a similar age. As I recollect, the vast majority of the folks that went through all passed and the vast majority validated at their respective units - mainly Aberdeen. So the age argument made by HR and others against ex-mil ATCOs, on the airports side, is frankly a load of bull. That cannot be said of the area side and I cannot argue against those on the dark side who say that ex-mil people have really struggled - they have. But in not continuing to recruit ex-mil folks on the airports side, NATS is only harming itself.

On the subject of money. We all had to self-fund to a greater or lesser degree and were all prepared to make that financial commitment to our future career. Yes it is expensive and yes it is a big ask of someone who is used to a far larger pay packet and may have significant family/financial commitments. However, you don't get something for nothing in the outside world and NATS is no exception in this.

In short, I would keep banging on the door, because sooner or later NATS will/might wake up to the fact that they are short of numbers on the airports side. Gonzo might be able to shine more light on where those shortages are most acute?:E However, if you do get picked-up by NATS, be prepared to tighten your belt, because it ain't cheap - but it is worth it.

WJMcP

P.S. Top tip to all ex-mil ATCOs. If you get accepted by NATS, shut the f... up about what you did before, face the front and get on with it:ok: You will impress no-one with the big I was....

[savechip55]

Well, obviously my message did not come across as it was meant! :)

Firstly, I did not and do not expect any special treatment, I realise you get nowt for nowt and am happy to graft like anyone else.

Secondly, of course I did not expect NATS to pay me more for the training period, I was merely pointing out that as a normal man of 34 yrs old I have family etc commitments so it was just not viable.

Thirdly, the only reason I mentioned my past history was to give some background not to 'bang on' about my past!! Sheesh, do you really think that after all that time in the mil that I have not learned lesson number 1!! :ugh:

Lastly, and really as an aside, I am well aware of the previous candidates who where given short courses from Area and I also know that it was a one off (for now). This all happened last Feb, I left the RAF in Aug 07 found alternative employment which is going well ty :ok:


I just thought I would share....maybe not such a good idea in hindsight!! :eek: