Second degree (university), what would be your choice?

[Aviator_IT]

Thinking about obtaining a university degree besides by ATCO qualification. What would be your choice? I'm not particularly interested in anything besides aviation (and woman, I may add):}, I've been considering Aeronautical university degree, but that seems futile now after my ATC background.

My guess were law, economy studies, computer science? Something that might be combined with my current qualification? I'm really cool with this as it is, but I guess getting a university degree wouldn't hurt (I'm in my early 20s, have the money to do it) so why not, you never know what life brings you. I really can't imagine myself working anything else than being an ATCO.

Have any of you colleagues ever been thinking about a university degree? What would you do, or have decided already? Any comment, thought and advice is highly appreciated!

[ZOOKER]

I'd definitely go for an 'ology'.
Checking out your location indicator, Egyptology seems fairly close to home, or 'golf management'! :ok:

[PeltonLevel]

You could annoy some of the more narrow-minded of those posting on this forum by doing Human Factors - a good understanding of how systems can be made to help you do your main job better can never come amiss. Loughborough has a very good course.

[ZOOKER]

Loughborough (an East Midlands market town, pop 63,000) specializes in education, engineering, hosiery, bell-casting and PE. Its pubs serve Marston's Pedigree, Shipstones and Home Ales. It does not, never has, or ever will have, a wish to be associated with the dark art that is 'Human Factors'. :E

[anotherthing]

Loughborough is a bit of a commute from Alexandria, regardless of how keen someone may be.

[PeltonLevel]

It does not, never has, or ever will have, a wish to be associated with the dark art that is 'Human Factors'.Sorry - should have said 'the more narrow-minded and the ignorant'!
see: Ergonomics (Human Factors Design) - Human Sciences - Departments - Taught Courses - Undergraduate Prospectus - Loughborough University (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/prospectus/ug/courses/dept/sehs/ergonomics/index.htm).

Isn't anywhere a bit of a commute from Alexandria?

[Aviator_IT]

I wouldn't have put Alexandria if I knew it would mislead you. Anyhow, my current location is Italy (I will update it now) so those "ology" aren't that current now :)

[2 sheds]

Sorry - should have said narrow-minded and ignorant!

Pelton

Before you get even ruder to the main users of this forum, could I commend the application of a few everyday HFs, e.g. perhaps consider why there is an immediate reaction against that term?

Your link, referring specifically to Ergonomics, is fine. Nobody would have any objection to something being intelligently designed to suit the user, and all the other factors that go into ergonomic design. However, in many other areas, HF has become, IMO, a real industry of self-perpetuation with the protagonists merely regurgitating what "is written" as Gospel without a great deal of critical thought or understanding about the practical application.

2 s

[anotherthing]

I think that HF has its place in ATC, most definitely. However I along with some other supposed 'narrow-minded' people wonder how effective the department is at times.

At the end of the day when installing operational systems the end users, us ignorant narrow-minded people, are the customers.

Frustration arises when (and it may seem trivial) - seats are bought at great expense for TC and when questioned the answer was 'no one objected to them in the trial' - a statement that was factually incorrect.

Headsets bought that are uncomfortable and not fit for purpose.

No colour display on stack management cameras/displays because it was felt it would 'overwhelm ATCOs' who were moving from WD to Swanwick.

Furthermore, and here is the biggy - what is the HF take on EFPS for TC? A busy environment, with multiple conflictions per aircraft that requires a lot of moving strips manually to highlight the conflictions.

I remember being told by HF that one of the biggest and best aide memoirs for an ATCO was the sensation of physically picking up, handling, and moving a physical strip.

How does that theory (which I fully believe), sit with EFPS? Is anyone from HF bringing this point up? Surely that is what HF is there for - technology for technology's sake is not the way to implement new equipment.

I'd hope HF would put a stopper on things if needed, but it seems that if management want something, it will happen, regardless of what is common sense.

HF does have a place in ATC, but sometimes its readily apparent why people are cynical.

[PeltonLevel]

The 'narrow-minded' was a bit of a leg-pull, given the lack of appreciation for the dark art shown here.

I do think, however, that HF has value if paired with a bit of domain knowledge, which was, I thought, the purpose of the original question.

The 'ignorant' was targeted.

[ASD]

Study something that you are interested in, nothing more boring than studying "economics" if you have absolutely no interest in it.

Ask yourself, what career would you be doing if ATC was not an option - then go study for that. Always nice to have a degree to fall back on if you later decided not to continue with ATC (or if one day you get a cranky doctor who fails your medical).

[goatface]

Aerospace engineering or similar, I've always wanted to join the AAIB but current qualifications preclude it.

[ZOOKER]

Pelton,
I have, unfortunately, been on the receiving end of 'Human Factors Input'. Occasionally, these folk come up with useful nuggets of information.
But, by and large these individuals talk out of their a***holes.
In my line of work this is not good.
Ding-Dong.

[HigherSights]

As an ergonomist myself (and someone who really doesn't like the term "human factors" for some of the reasons cited, and some others), I thought I'd defend my discipline. First of all Zooker, to say "by and large these individuals talk out of their a***holes" seems somewhat ignorant (perhaps a little Freudian projection? ;-)). How many have you met to make this sweeping (personal) judgement? In my experience, they are far too professional to use such language themselves about another group of professionals (especially on an internet forum!). And are your old HF enemies really qualified ergonomists, or are they part of the growing band of people who are 'HF experts', without any formal and thorough education in ergonomics. Since you are so convinced that Loughborough - the birthplace of British Ergonomics, and still the home of The Ergonomics Society and the oldest Ergonomics course in Britain - "never has, or ever will have anything to do with it", you are not really sounding like a reliable source.

But Zooker, I think I can understand your point on dark art. I think you mean opinion. Ergonomics proper is a science and an engineering discipline. But many organisations do not allow for it to be practised empirically, and require judgement based on knowledge of the organisation, job, tasks, literature, and feeling. A practitioner therefore sometimes has to practise Ergonomics as a craft and give an opinion - something you, surely, understand. I can also understand '2 sheds' point, and I sympathise with it. True ergonomics IS about design. But its American cousin 'Human Factors' has muscled in and has come to mean anything to do with people at work, especially where safety is concerned.

I also - again - agree with you 'anotherthing'. But what I would say is that you are probably not party to the huge compromises that have to be made, and are often demanded. "HF" get tarred with higher level decisions, purely because they have been involved in the process, but they do not necessarily agree with the outcome. EFPS for TC: there have been some very critical HF reviews on EFPS. The architecture means that many of the (compromise) recommendations are not possible, partly because it is, at the end of the day, based on Windows and is not a bespoke NATS system. Also, consider whether it was already purchased before HF had any input... My personal view is that it is not well suited to TC - but I am still a fan of paper strips, having seen nothing yet to beat their usability (handwriting issues aside). But then I was not a fan of EFPS for busy airports, and it seems to have worked out in the end. Usability is only one consideration - albeit (in my opinion) the most important. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where HF specialist have stuffed up, but unless the same cannot be said of controllers, then perhaps we can agree that we all have to make decisions in a messy environment, and none of us is perfect. As I'm sure you know, few of them will be reading these boards though, to defend themselves. It would be better to speak directly with them to get the background - and I'm sure you probably do that too.

I can vouch for the sheer commitment of NATS' HF specialists (as they are called in NATS) to end users (mostly controllers and engineers). Some HF specialists have been willing to (and have) put their jobs on the line to stand up to senior management for issues that they believe are safety-critical. So you can certainly bet that HF specialists are bringing up your points, and equally that they are seen by the receivers as 'points to be considered'. HF specialists rarely have the final decision making power. Having spent a lot of time with several other HF specialists, I can honestly say I have rarely heard the kind of language used by Zooker, used against controllers. Of course, certain characterisations come up, like "10 controllers, 10 opinions", but that is true of any end-users (and often said by controllers) - and it is sometimes true of HF specialists too.

Aviator_IT - my advice is to study something that you are really, really interested in, and would study for pleasure. If that did happen to be Ergonomics, then feel free to PM me.

[ZOOKER]

Aviator,
going back to your original question, as HigherSights says, do something you are really interested in. (Photography could combine aviation and women). :ok:
Do you get time off to study for this or is it purely a 'spare-time' interest?
PS. Meanwhile, I look forward to HigherSights forthcoming book on 'The Pleasures of Ergonomics'. :}

[alfaman]

For HigherSights: I'm an ATCO, & I have nothing but praise for all the HF Specialists I've met & worked with: I often find those with less attention to detail confuse HF with HR - a completely different work group, & a mistake akin to confusing me with "the bloke with the ping-pong bats" - a mistake no HF person would ever make.
You make a range of excellent & accurate points - that's never wasted, but sadly I am led to believe Zooker is one of those those mythical Scandanavian creatures that dwell beneath bridges, frightening goats - this will only serve to encourage him/her/it...:hmm:

[ZOOKER]

alfaman,
Scandanavian? The jury's still out on that aspect, but, rest assured, all bridges are well worth dwelling beneath, especially those designed by Benjamin Baker and Sir John Fowler! :ok:

[RustyNail]

You could try an Aviation based degree but move away from just ATC based papers and go more towards Airport & Airline Management.

E.g. Human Factors, Aviation Strategic Management, Airport Planning, Environmental Planning, Business Management etc.

It will enhance your ATCO background but also give you a much broader knowlege base if you can display an aptitude and interest in Airport Planning and Strategic management (airlines) as well.

Good luck :ok:

[ZOOKER]

Aviation Management.
Or you could do industrial chemistry and try to find a viable replacement for oil. It might prolong your ATC career a bit.
Good luck. :ok:

[Aviator_IT]

Ha ha. :}

Not bad, not bad. Thank you all. Keep it coming.

[ZOOKER]

Keen observers will have noticed that Aviators location indicator is now 'Italy'.
The pull of Loughborough is obviously irresistable!