Malaga Twr this morning.

[Bearcat]

Jeez wept. I know there was training going on, but I could'nt wait to get out of the place such was the level of poor controlling.

[db16]

must be a one-off; they are usually quite good ...db16

[JBG]

Could you share it with us?

[niknak]

Even ATCOs have to learn, unlike Bearcat, who knew it all from day one and has never made an error in his/her entire career, so much so, that he/her deems it unecessary to publish their esteemed qualifications and experience on a public profile.:rolleyes:

If you have any criticism to make, be professional and constructive about it.

[expediteoff]

Jeez wept. I know it's busy, but I could'nt wait to get out of Heathrow today, such was the poor level of R/T standard by some of the pilots - (but then again I expect some of them may be new to the place)

[atcSA]

lol@expediteoff :}

[Bearcat]

I knew you'd all jump down my throat......like sweets in a candy store. Suprised though that beginner training can be done on a very busy saturday morning to the extent traffic was back logged on the ramp as everything was operating at snails pace......it was notamed though to be fair.

Anyway happy days ..thanks

[andrijander]

Errr....well you see the idea of training people in the night shift whilst all the qualified staff on the premises is watching a dvd or something did cross our minds but then again: if there's nothing to do what on earth will they learn? You know we need to push the guys and gals gradually till they can manage on their own and sometimes it is actually possible they need to sink a bit and swallow some water to improve their swimming...if you catch my drift.

Anyways the point of most of the replies being that you should have been more specific on what you want or think...just whining won't take you far here I is afraid.

Sorry if service sometimes is bad but we ain't machines (we're better!! lol )

A.

[Lon More]

Well said andrijander, but he was probably born in the left seat - and was told to Standby when requesting the impossible?

[Bearcat]

well said Lon More....you have me to a tee.! Everyday is a school day ...i just didnt know you guys put brand newies into the hot seat on day one.....we dont:ok:

[Lon More]

There are limits to what can be attained in a simulator, bearcat. Unfortunately the benefits obtained do not equate to the costs involved as far as ATC is concerned.

For example, most airline sims run 24 hours a day; the differences between a/c of the same type used by different operators are minimal.Highly cost efficient. In ATC, even at a large unit the time it's being used will rarely exceed 30%. Due to the large number of systems in use; not to mention the differences TWR/APP/ACC/UAC each requires a different model. Extremely cost inefficient Of course, every ATC unit could install a very realistic sim but who would pay for it? Would your employer cough up? He could always deduct the costs from your salary as you would be benefitting?

It's a fact of life. ATC students are always going to be thrown in at the deepend.Compare it with your good self, what was your first solo in ; PA24 or B74?

[Scooby Don't]

Forgive me Lon, but you may have meant PA28 rather than PA24... :ok:

Reminds me of those two weeks spent with BA at the end of my CATC course, when we got let loose in a 767-300 sim. Says the training captain, "remember, it's just a big Cherokee." I wanted to reply "sure, but I've only soloed in a C152..."

Anyway, back to Bearcat's original rant and following taking home of his ball, it is entirely possible that the instructing controller let things get out of hand, but it's equally possible that something was going on to prevent expedition (flow control, etc) which just wasn't communicated well enough from the tower. Without knowing what it was that annoyed Bearcat, it's hard to comment with any authority.
So, come on Bearcat, tell us what actually happened and we'll stick our collective teeth into it. :E

[Lon More]

you may have meant PA28 rather than PA24...

sorry, yes .... although such a born aviator would probably have bypassed the basic trainers :\

[Farrell]

www.micronav.co.uk

This is where our 3D sim came from......amazing bit of kit!

[Bearcat]

Lon More First solo was in a Rallye.....a great little machine and very forgiving with its auto extend/ retract leading edges function. For poor handlers like myself a life saver;)

[Loxley]

Lon More First solo was in a Rallye.....a great little machine and very forgiving with its auto extend/ retract leading edges function. For poor handlers like myself a life saver

OK, but in answer to the other requests as to what happened on the particular morning in Malaga that drove you to start a thread......?

[Yellow Snow]

Sorry all,
I'm with Bearcat on this one.

We have a huge training committment at LHR, admittedly our trainees get 100 hours in the sim first, but we never slow the traffic down in the real world for a trainee. We have 2/3 trainees per watch (although they are dropping like flies) so with spin shifts included, that means that at any time between 0630 - 2300 of the 5 operational LHR tower frequencies 3 or 4 could be operated by trainees.
If we slowed the traffic down so they could learn at an appropriate pace, the shambles that it is LL would fall to pieces in minutes.

If the traffic is above the trainees capability the OJTI should step in.

If they 'aren't' doinf this at Malaga then that's poor, plus it does the trainee no benefit to have a traffic scenario that falls apart around them, having them constantly playing catch up!

[Spitoon]

We have 2/3 trainees per watch (although they are dropping like flies)...Good to see that LHR people still have to focus on the attrition rate rather than success. But the stuff about not letting training affect the overall service is all correct.

[expediteoff]

Go on Bearcat tell us what happened...Go on..Go on.....

[Bearcat]

there's obviously little going on for this thread to be so active!! later on when the winds spice up I'm sure we'll see more fresher and interesting threads.

In relation to what happened....nothing....just was taken slighly aback at a busy airport on a saturday morning that what appeared to be a controller under tuition (you could hear on transmissions a 2nd controller in the backround barking orders). The whole place just ground to crawl......it's their patch....they notamed it......all I was asking why train in a v v busy time.

Anyway, lets move on .

Regards and Thanks

[Yellow Snow]

Spitoon, good to see you'll never miss a chance to knock LHR.

Good to see that LHR people still have to focus on the attrition rate rather than success

Maybe you could quote the reference that shows we have focused on attrition in the past?

For the record, since the move to the new tower, we haven't 'chopped' a single trainee, we have lost a handful in the last few months, one only on Friday, due to some leaving ATC all together or personal circumstances. My flippant remarks in brackets was a nod at the frustration felt by my colleagues who have put a huge amount of effort in with the said trainees!
But I guess you knew that before you posted with authority on the LHR culture.:rolleyes:

[Spitoon]

Hey Yellow, don't take it so personally. It's not just LHR but the NATS culture generally. You may feel frustrated with the trainees but I wonder how some of those trainees feel. Especially those who, after putting in significant effort themselves, choose to leave the business completely.

What I saw going through the system getting on for 30 years ago doesn't seem to have changed much over the years. There are still perfectly capable trainees unnecessarily falling by the wayside. Granted, things are not helped by the licensing and training plan requirements which are also focused in many ways on preventing those that do not fit an idealised profile from gaining the requisite qualifications rather than ensuring a licence is granted when one can demonstrate the appropriate competence.

But the simple fact that you include a flippant comment in your post gives a nod to what's in your mind! Just as my inevitable response clearly indicates what's going on in mine.

[Yellow Snow]

Sorry for the thread hijack...

Spitoon, I agree with some of those points and 8 years ago when I joined LL it was still a case of 'if your face doesn't fit.....'
Despite what some people in NATS still believe LL is a millions miles different for the better now.

There are still perfectly capable trainees unnecessarily falling by the wayside

Sorry not LL, if they're good enough we'll pull out all the stops to get them valid, if they don't make the grade through only objective means, then NATS give them a posting to another unit. That seems pretty fair to me.

When we have an OR of 60 and only 48 valid controllers with 4 this year, myself included, leaving for DXB, and 3 retirements, getting trainees valid is a huge priority.

To be fair Spitoon I was just disappointed by your comment that we at LL focus on failiure and not success, couldn't be further from the truth and I just wonder what you base this on?

[Spitoon]

Continuing the hijack...

I base my comments on a bad experience around 30 years ago (which has left me with a healthy predisposition to doubt the efficacy NATS' training system) and the comments of ex-NATS trainees over the intervening period, most of which suggest that the NATS system hasn't changed much.

To be fair, I haven't had much involvement in controller training for the last four years so my bias may be getting a little out of date! I don't doubt your sincerity when you say that you'll pull out all the stops for a capable trainee - I'm just not sure that that is a universally held view.

So my apologies if you felt my comments were aimed at you personally - which is most certainly not the case.

And good luck in DXB.

[Yellow Snow]

Final hijack..

Cheers for the honesty and wishes.

I can honestly say that all the OJTI's at LL would give 100%, although I agree that it hasn't always been the case:ugh:

So back to Malaga tower.....

[Lon More]

If the traffic is above the trainees capability the OJTI should step in.


OK. But, where do you draw the limit? Your limit with a particular trainee may not be the same as another trainers. or even vary on a dat to day basis I've gone (almost) to an airmiss with some; with others. nowhere near so far. As previously stated, the trainee has to fit in; largely a question of attitude.

all I was asking why train in a v v busy time.
I thought I'd made it obvious. We have little choice. Trainees come into the real world at inconvenient moments.For somewhere like Malaga there is no quiet period any more. Imagine what the situation will be like for one commencing training in July/August? If you are so unhappy with the situation why not request a visit to the tower? Who knows, you might create a bond with the staff there that could work to your advantage:oh:

[Bearcat]

Lon More , Thank You for your lecture. You comments are noted, though I doubt your fellow ATC-ers may harbour the all or nothing staunch view. From our side on the basis of risk management one would not find it prudent to throw a trainee / low low hour F/O into a 35kt cross wind......takes all sorts though. Regards and Good Bye!

[GunkyTom]

Bearcat, having re-read the threads, I can't see where it said they were low hour trainees. As for training during vv busy periods, all trainee controllers must be able to cope with the busy spells before going solo. It may be that this was their first time having to train with those traffic levels but regardless, at some stage they are going to have to experience it to validate

[Lon More]

Bearcat, that was not a lecture; it was a series of observations attempting to politely address your complaints based on the minimal information you have given to us.

If you really want an answer why don't you provide some more information about what happened, or do you just want an excuse to knock ATC?

[slatch]

Airlines use simulators to reduce thier expense while training pilots. ATC does not use realistic simulators for training because it would cost them money. Using live traffic for training cost the airlines money not the service provider. It has been one of the biggest failures in ATC in my opinion. I have seen the system users punished so much by unneeded delays and potential mishaps while low hour ATC trainies try to get the flick. When you talk to management about it they respond they dont have the resourses to put an instructor in the Dynamic Simulation Lab with a trainie. But seeing the Trainier is working a live traffic position already putting a trainie with him/her cost the service provider nothing. They dont care how much it cost the customers paying for the service for unneeded delays. Just ask the pilots over MVA last week how they liked thier RA at FL300 head on. Just another day with a trainie.

[Slo Moe]

It might be very close to the point. With the remark that the "High definition" ATC tower and ground simulators have been available only for about 10-15 years.

And the fact that when using these simulators they still rely heavily on the use of expensive manpower. The flights that are simulated in tower simulations need to be run mainly by humans. Which is expensive. And that might be the reason limiting the use of twr simulations. The use of live traffic sdoes not cost any extra to the ANSP.

Also the simulated radio frequencies must be operated mainly by the same humans. On the other hand almost all facets of the simulation can be managed and produced by a computer with the flight simulators. And the ACC/APP/TWR radio frequency is simulated by the instructor in the flight simulators. And in many cases the instructor is the only human involved among the trained flight crew. (Except maybe for the technical personnel, that might have to be available anyway).

It is partly also a matter of fact that during these 10-15 years that "HiDef" tower simulators have been around only lately the use of simulations have started emerging in a way of simulating "true life heavy traffic".

One thing to bear in mind is, that tower environment is still so complicated that all the things that happen daily in a random fashion and take the attention of the trainee simply can not be simulated. Or at least that is the prevailing part of the belief systems at the moment, that explains why the simulators are not used as extensively as they arte in pilot training.

The other part could be that the 10-15 years of experience of simulators have not given the ANSP:s or the parties training air traffic controllers enough accumulated experience to use simulators effectively in a way that pilots are trained. The flight simulators have been around a longer time. It is only 20 years ago when tower trainees had their initial training with a "Real 3D" simulators: Miniature models of airplanes carried in the hands of other trainees that landed on a miniature airport.

Maybe there will be that one day that an ATCO trainee also steps to the real tower just for a couple of days of final validation check, when all the daily occurrances can and will be thoroughly simulated as in flight simulators. Just as pilots do.

[Tordan]

Just a wild and ridiculous thought regarding the possibility of simulating high stress situations for trainees. As some of you know there is a world-wide online network of people using flightsims, flying around in a virtual world that is also populated by folks acting as ATC. The major networks actually have rather high standards regarding the training and seriousity (sp?) of the participants. The software is also of surprisingly high standard and not far from what is actually used. There are frequently so-called Flyins organized for major areas such as London, LAX and so on that usually generate large amounts of traffic.

There are obvious reasons why official traning never can, or will, make use of such an environment but trainees can perhaps be pointed in that direction in their spare time, as opposed to playing WoW all night long :8

FYI, one such network is called Vatsim, www.vatsim.net, there are others as well.

Starting a new thread, same content as this post.

[Slo Moe]

What an excellen idea!

Remains to be seen how long time it takes
to sift through the conservative world of aviation.

Then there is the question of quality control,
how to ensure the quality of the service produced this way.

But this HAS to be the topic of another thread. Otherwise
this might lead to thread hijacking.

[Gonzo]

For simulating a busy tower environment, the only thing that comes close is a 360 degree sim. However, to accurately represent realistic traffic, you'll need to spend £5m a piece, if not more, and have a staff of 10-20 running it (double that if you're going to use this one sim in shifts......)

Oh, and that's for four ATCO positions.

Synthetic ATCO training cannot be compared to synthetic pilot training. Teaching someone how to operate an aircraft requires no extra personnel other than an instructor sat next to the trainee.

Until direct voice input matures and the technology becomes affordable, they're just not comparable.

[Slo Moe]

In some countries the tower training is indeed done somehow like this.

The challenge at the moment is how to put incentive to
air navigation service providers or respective training organizations
to develop systems that can ease the step from the simulators
to the tower with live traffic.

The lacking incentive is partly due to the reason as Gonzo illustrates it,
that "HiDef" tower simulators cost real money and especially the needed amount of personnel to run the apparatus is so very expensive. Until technology matures, as Gonzo so well put it. And 360 sims have been around at least for 10-15 years. The training systems or training philosophies or belief systems associated to ATC training might need some upgrading.

So this leaves the cheapest (ANSP point of view, not necessarily from airline, i.e. customer, point of view) alternative to train the trainee with real and live traffic. Almost from scratch. With all the associated pain. (Not only customers...) And still, it is possible even now, to organize training just as it is done with pilots' type validation training.

It is partly a matter of incentive. Money in this case is just one incentive, although a highly prioritized one.

[loubylou]

Bearcat - unfortunately (not having seen the 360 deg sim :p) I don't think that the ATC sims available are good enough to take a trainee controller from zero experience to nearly or indeed valid.
I know that the aircraft sims are pretty much good enough to complete a pilot's training which is why you probably don't get why we are unable to do this in ATC.
You have the "luxury" of not allowing a newly trained FO to not land the aircraft in tricky wind conditions etc as the Captain would take the aircraft at this point, and the FO would learn from the experience. As a newly valid controller, you're it - there is no one available to sit in and help out with tricky situations as you're trained up. So the trainee has to be allowed to make mistakes and recover from them. Most frequencys have trainees these days, you just may not be aware of it!
Please feel free to contact the ATC at your base as I'm sure they would be more than happy to show you around - or if you have a few hours then to sit in and watch.
We had some chaps who were on a stand by duty come into ATC for a few hours and really found it useful as it gave them a useful perspective on how ATC think.

louby

[Slo Moe]

Louby has a point. And a good one. It does make sense to increase the awareness and understanding of pilots and ATCOs about their work and "turf".

In growing amount of branches of businesses the customerfeedback is highly valued and appreciated. It carries within a possibility to make the system better. If there is the understanding AND the will to see through the imminent frustration that an imperfect or malfunctioning system produces to the CUSTOMERS.

And my humble opinion is that this is clearly the case behind these occurrences that lead the original poster to speak up his opinion bravely in the first hand. It was a system that is widely recognized as a valid one to train the trainee with live traffic. Although there are alternatives. They might cost a few more "beans", but to my understanding even modern flight simulators are quite an expense. Yes, there are some advantages cost wise to the flight sims: the need of people running it is smaller etc. But on the other hand the tower sims do not have to have 6 axel 3 dimensional full motion systems, which are quite expensive too. Or if they had, it might be quite a ride...

It is quite much a matter of priorities of the ANSP:s and the ATC training organizations. What are the priorites? It comes really down to the point that one must put money on the other end of the scale and let's say safety on the other end. Or even customer satisfaction.

And of course it is a matter of change: Things have always been done like this, why do we have to change it?

There is a proverb, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". In some branches of business customer feedback such as the one that started this thread might be understood that it has a pointer showing a clear need to upgrade the system. A customarily situation that leads to a great customer pain is a brightly coloured flag that is raised to give notice that the SYSTEM has some malfunctions or glitches and the system CAN and should be upgraded.

At the same time one must admit that also the beliefs and assumptions that lie behind the present system, that causes this kind of occurrences might need some adjustment or even upgrading also. One strong belief, that many ANSP:s might have has to do with the "beans": If it is expensive, there must be a way to avoid it.

The systemic upgrade that leads to lowering the waiting time of the customers (airlines) on the tarmac AND at the same time eases customers (airlines) jet fuel bills, might be very very welcome. At least for the customers. But this kind of feedback is very very rare even to be collected and leading to the system to be corrected.

One factor is also the inertia that comes with all kinds of organizations. Even the training organizations have inertia for change.

But I am positive that ATC training will follow the guidelines of pilot training. As in many good cases have been. It is merely a matter of time. It is a fact that ATC training is younger than pilot training. The good point is that some things have been already tried and found out to be enhancing safety.

Another topic for another thread is what Louby also pointed out that in many towers and other ATC units it is a current belief that SMO:s (single man operations) are the only choice available, because the alternative also costs more "beans".

And actually one more topic that might need some thinking is that pilot training has something of an advantage at the moment that might be helpful for the ATC. Especially in such ATC units that have more positions than one or where the work is done in "pairs", like area control centres. Pilots training has nowadays a CRM part with it (Crew Resource Management). It is clear to see that a CRM trained dynamic duo, (crews in cockpits) , have an astounding advantage over a crew without the CRM training. And not only in emergencies, but also in the normal flow of daily routine work.

Does anybody know if any ATC training system has anything like CRM training nowadays?

E.g. in many cases it is quite much left to the individuals to figure out what is good and benefitial kind of co-operation and what is not. And in many cases the interpretations have quite far too large a variation. This kind of variations could and should be reduced with CRM-training or equivalent (ARM=ATC resource management) training.

Which ATC training system around the world might be the first one on this subject also?

[1985]

Does anybody know if any ATC training system has anything like CRM training nowadays?



Yep. Its called TRM (team resource management) and its modelled on CRM. Its a part of the initial course at the college i think and everyone else got sent on a course.

As for sims v live traffic. A sim cannot (at the moment) replicate live traffic in any environment be it tower or radar. Live traffic is too dynamic to be replicated by the psuedo pilots in the sims, they do a fantastic job but can only get the trainee so far. After that the trainee has to see live traffic so experience the oddities.

[Bearcat]

many thanks for the great and detailed replys.....a great insight.

[Slo Moe]

1985

It is really great that TRM already exists!

Then there is not that much inventing and experimenting to be done by the training organizations. All that many ANSP:s and ATSU:s (ATS units) need to do is to copy the best practises learned from earlier experiences. The Brits are advanced in many fields!

Then there is the challenge of how to simulate the oddities of the daily air traffic control work! So that the step from the ATC sims to the workplace would be lower. I am confident that it can be done. It is a matter of giving it a priority. The "globes" i.e. 360deg sims have been around for a while. It is also a matter of enhancing the simulation to make it more real. Of course it costs "beans". And it can be done also in ACC sims, that I am sure of. It might require some imagination. But what about the positive outcomes, if we consider tower simulations?

It might really ease the "customer pain" felt on the tarmac by the pilots. There would be a very positive outcome also to the goal of minimizing the waiting time of the flight passengers. And this would lead directly to great savings for the airlines. Every extra minute waiting costs real money. And also directly it would save jet fuel thus leading to minimizing the greenhouse gases. Every extra minute with engines running is quite unnecessary.

It might actually be a win-win-win-win-win situation, when done properly.

If I recall right there are some statements in the training materials and the ICAO DOC:s for the ATC:s mentioning the safe and expedient flow of traffic. Maybe these very same statements should be written also in the manuals and guidelines of the ATC training organizations. It is evident that at the moment these kind of goals do not exist at these crucial parts of the system. But once again. Another topic. Another thread...