ATSA Licensing
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Connex - now you've got me confused.
What exactly do you want the licence for? Recognition of certain responsibilities such as being an atsa OJTI and/or LCE? or just because you are an atsa?
I have no quibbles with atsa's being paid extra grades for such extra responsibilities, but I can't see that having a licence can be justified on these grounds alone. Although your duties almost ineviatbly involves some independant decision making, as as I've said before, the buck stops for overall responsibility with the senior atco on duty, not you.
You obviously feel hard done by, as your last post clearly demonstrates. I don't know what "company perks" you don't get that the atco's do, I assume that UKATTs is one of them, but these "extras" could well be similar to those that some people do or don't get in any other industry.
You mentioned parity with atco pay grades for atsa's, which is ridiculous, the day to day and legal responsibilities of a validated atco far outweigh those of an atsa under any circumstances.
Perhaps the content of your last post sums up the reason why you're not getting much support from atco's - to be blunt, it's on the verge of a petulant outburst from someone with a huge chip on their shoulder.
What exactly do you want the licence for? Recognition of certain responsibilities such as being an atsa OJTI and/or LCE? or just because you are an atsa?
I have no quibbles with atsa's being paid extra grades for such extra responsibilities, but I can't see that having a licence can be justified on these grounds alone. Although your duties almost ineviatbly involves some independant decision making, as as I've said before, the buck stops for overall responsibility with the senior atco on duty, not you.
You obviously feel hard done by, as your last post clearly demonstrates. I don't know what "company perks" you don't get that the atco's do, I assume that UKATTs is one of them, but these "extras" could well be similar to those that some people do or don't get in any other industry.
You mentioned parity with atco pay grades for atsa's, which is ridiculous, the day to day and legal responsibilities of a validated atco far outweigh those of an atsa under any circumstances.
Perhaps the content of your last post sums up the reason why you're not getting much support from atco's - to be blunt, it's on the verge of a petulant outburst from someone with a huge chip on their shoulder.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niknak –
I shall reply to your points in turn –
Firstly, (and most importantly), let me state categorically that I personally do not want to be issued with any licence just because I am an ATSA, or an ATSA LCE/OJTI. I support the concept entirely from a safety and standards perspective only. The issue of a licence should be the tangible evidence that the holder is genuinely capable of doing a particular task/function, in a safe, conscientious and efficient manner, and by use of the annual Local Competency Examination , he/she will, and can, be expected to do so each time they turn up for work.
As for “extra grades for extra responsibilities”, I have (as have many of my counterparts) been training new staff, and taking part in validation Boards since 1993, and have never received one single penny for any of it – unlike my ATCO counterparts. Nor have I received any formally-recognised training for it – it has never been offered. A licence should not be issued just because I/we undertake this function – as I have already said, the licensing issue is all about SAFETY and the constant provision of it, in whatever part of the operation one works in. The payment for such tasks is an entirely separate matter, but will be an important one when it comes to finding personnel to take on the additional OJTI/LCE tasks if licensing is implemented.
With regard to “buck stopping” – I should think that most ATSAs can recall incidents where senior ATCOs have made ATSA-related decisions, only to see it blow up in their faces. It is very rare for an ATCO to ask the advice of an ATSA about anything operational – it is just assumed that, as an ATCO, they must know as much (if not more) than the ATSA. Do senior ATCOs know better? On ATCO related topics, a definite “yes” – ATSA issues? – not a chance! If you once were, as you say, an ATSA , then you will know this to be true. I have no problem with ATCOs making operational decisions – but if they directly involve, or have an effect on the operation of the ATSA function, then it would be prudent (and polite) to first ask for an opinion from those best placed to give it – the ATSAs themselves.
As for your comments about “Company perks” – at my place of employment, excluding UKATTS, the ATCO grades DO receive additional benefits which are denied to the ATSA grades. This has been, and continues to be, a considerable irritation to those so excluded – after all, are we not all batting for the same side?
“Parity with ATCO pay grades” – pay scales were not specifically mentioned – please read it again, for I fear that you have misunderstood. The implication was that we, as ATSAs, are not on a “par” when it comes to anything that the ATCOs are privy to, and I then highlighted the Company perks, plus put-downs (in the professional sense) and lack of support as examples. These are, admittedly, separate issues from the licensing, but would also play their part if/when it came around to finding staff to fulfil the additional tasks which licensing would create. However, there is no reason whatsoever why we ATSAs should not be afforded the same level of professional acceptance and courtesy by others employed within NATS ATC, and we should also be allowed to share in the rewards (perks), whatever they may be.
With regard to lack of visible support from ATCOs for the ATSA licensing issue - you might like to consider the possibility that your colleagues don’t actually want to be seen to be taking sides with the “opposition” – nor do they want to fall out with us, because we all still have to work together, don’t we? And this website is not as “anonymous” as you would like to think. If, unlike yourself, they do not wish to air their views in public, perhaps they might take the trouble to engage in a little sensible debate with their ATSA counterparts at their own Station/Centre?
Finally, with regard to “hard done by, petulant outburst, chip on shoulder” - when debating an issue with anyone, never resort to making direct derogatory personal comments about the opponent – you do not know them personally, and it only indicates to all and sundry that the perpetrator of said comments has nothing constructive left to say. (happens far too often on Pprune, as it is).
I shall reply to your points in turn –
Firstly, (and most importantly), let me state categorically that I personally do not want to be issued with any licence just because I am an ATSA, or an ATSA LCE/OJTI. I support the concept entirely from a safety and standards perspective only. The issue of a licence should be the tangible evidence that the holder is genuinely capable of doing a particular task/function, in a safe, conscientious and efficient manner, and by use of the annual Local Competency Examination , he/she will, and can, be expected to do so each time they turn up for work.
As for “extra grades for extra responsibilities”, I have (as have many of my counterparts) been training new staff, and taking part in validation Boards since 1993, and have never received one single penny for any of it – unlike my ATCO counterparts. Nor have I received any formally-recognised training for it – it has never been offered. A licence should not be issued just because I/we undertake this function – as I have already said, the licensing issue is all about SAFETY and the constant provision of it, in whatever part of the operation one works in. The payment for such tasks is an entirely separate matter, but will be an important one when it comes to finding personnel to take on the additional OJTI/LCE tasks if licensing is implemented.
With regard to “buck stopping” – I should think that most ATSAs can recall incidents where senior ATCOs have made ATSA-related decisions, only to see it blow up in their faces. It is very rare for an ATCO to ask the advice of an ATSA about anything operational – it is just assumed that, as an ATCO, they must know as much (if not more) than the ATSA. Do senior ATCOs know better? On ATCO related topics, a definite “yes” – ATSA issues? – not a chance! If you once were, as you say, an ATSA , then you will know this to be true. I have no problem with ATCOs making operational decisions – but if they directly involve, or have an effect on the operation of the ATSA function, then it would be prudent (and polite) to first ask for an opinion from those best placed to give it – the ATSAs themselves.
As for your comments about “Company perks” – at my place of employment, excluding UKATTS, the ATCO grades DO receive additional benefits which are denied to the ATSA grades. This has been, and continues to be, a considerable irritation to those so excluded – after all, are we not all batting for the same side?
“Parity with ATCO pay grades” – pay scales were not specifically mentioned – please read it again, for I fear that you have misunderstood. The implication was that we, as ATSAs, are not on a “par” when it comes to anything that the ATCOs are privy to, and I then highlighted the Company perks, plus put-downs (in the professional sense) and lack of support as examples. These are, admittedly, separate issues from the licensing, but would also play their part if/when it came around to finding staff to fulfil the additional tasks which licensing would create. However, there is no reason whatsoever why we ATSAs should not be afforded the same level of professional acceptance and courtesy by others employed within NATS ATC, and we should also be allowed to share in the rewards (perks), whatever they may be.
With regard to lack of visible support from ATCOs for the ATSA licensing issue - you might like to consider the possibility that your colleagues don’t actually want to be seen to be taking sides with the “opposition” – nor do they want to fall out with us, because we all still have to work together, don’t we? And this website is not as “anonymous” as you would like to think. If, unlike yourself, they do not wish to air their views in public, perhaps they might take the trouble to engage in a little sensible debate with their ATSA counterparts at their own Station/Centre?
Finally, with regard to “hard done by, petulant outburst, chip on shoulder” - when debating an issue with anyone, never resort to making direct derogatory personal comments about the opponent – you do not know them personally, and it only indicates to all and sundry that the perpetrator of said comments has nothing constructive left to say. (happens far too often on Pprune, as it is).
Guest
Posts: n/a
ATSA Licensing
Well said Connex!
I think licensing of Atsa's is an excellent idea.
A year or so ago a couple of NAS input "errors" crashed the entire FDPS system throughout the UK on at least two occasions, costing the airlines millions.
If the ATSA'S were licensed and given competency checks these errors probably would not have occurred, although I can sympathise with the Atsa's concerned as NAS is "creaking at the seams".
The Atsa's go to enormous lengths to ensure data input is correct, give them your support folks -- they have supported us long enough!
I think licensing of Atsa's is an excellent idea.
A year or so ago a couple of NAS input "errors" crashed the entire FDPS system throughout the UK on at least two occasions, costing the airlines millions.
If the ATSA'S were licensed and given competency checks these errors probably would not have occurred, although I can sympathise with the Atsa's concerned as NAS is "creaking at the seams".
The Atsa's go to enormous lengths to ensure data input is correct, give them your support folks -- they have supported us long enough!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ayr_Man,
If more proper testing of NAS patches took place, then unforseen consequences of inputs wouldn't happen.
Not many years ago, NAS was 'foolproof' as regards an input crashing it.
BTW, rumour had it that one crash was caused by an ATCO doing an input! True or not, I don't know.
Your recognition of the ATSA work is appreciated, although personally I'm still undecided about licensing.
A thought worth thinking about- If I pass a clearance to an airfield incorrectly and an incident results, who gets hung drawn and quartered- me or the ATCO whose licence I'm working under?
Also, I believe that ATSA LCE's at Swanwick get extra money- true or false. Might be wrong as it came from a pub conversation!
If more proper testing of NAS patches took place, then unforseen consequences of inputs wouldn't happen.
Not many years ago, NAS was 'foolproof' as regards an input crashing it.
BTW, rumour had it that one crash was caused by an ATCO doing an input! True or not, I don't know.
Your recognition of the ATSA work is appreciated, although personally I'm still undecided about licensing.
A thought worth thinking about- If I pass a clearance to an airfield incorrectly and an incident results, who gets hung drawn and quartered- me or the ATCO whose licence I'm working under?
Also, I believe that ATSA LCE's at Swanwick get extra money- true or false. Might be wrong as it came from a pub conversation!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ATCO, I would welcome ATSA licensing, if only from the point of view of reassurance that the colleague sitting next to me went through a similar examination to me in the past year.
I may be being naive here, but would it not also encourage in some a bit more pride and professionalism? Ok, maybe that's not how I meant to say it, as many of our ATSAs take the utmost pride in their work as it stands..... I guess I'm trying to say that it would be an official recognition from the company, and us as controllers, that that professionalism and pride is valued.
After all we are on the same team, and, certainly at my unit, the input from ATSAs can have serious ramifications if a mistake is made.
I may be being naive here, but would it not also encourage in some a bit more pride and professionalism? Ok, maybe that's not how I meant to say it, as many of our ATSAs take the utmost pride in their work as it stands..... I guess I'm trying to say that it would be an official recognition from the company, and us as controllers, that that professionalism and pride is valued.
After all we are on the same team, and, certainly at my unit, the input from ATSAs can have serious ramifications if a mistake is made.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I make a suggestion!. It seems that everyone is a agreed that bi-annual or annual checking of ATSAs is a good idea. I think that for some of us the word "licence" is a problem. Can I suggest that we call it "Certificates of Competency", the administration remains the same, but then there is no confusion with ATCO licences.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Connex
You make very convincing arguments for atsa's/atca's to be well paid for the work that they do, but using the premise presented, you'd never convince NATS management or SRG that the post warrants an individual licence.
When it comes to support from atco's, they have no reason not to be forthcoming on this forum, I know that NATS frown upon being critisised in public - as does any employer, but as long as its constructive and valid they have nothing to fear.
On several occassions, you've used the phrase "team work", agreed, we are a team - each member of which has a duty of care to do their job to the best of their ability, but a team must have someone who is ultimately responsible, and like or not, that's not going to be the duty atsa (s).
Re reading my post, I accept that the final paragraph was unnecessary, and for that you have my apologies.
Finally, I fully support DC10's suggestion about certificates of competence, to be renewed annually and standards monitered on a regular basis, with the option for it to be suspended if standards are not maintained.
Personally I think that both NATS, non NATS employers and SRG will buy the C of C idea, and will give the atsa post the recognition it deserves.
You make very convincing arguments for atsa's/atca's to be well paid for the work that they do, but using the premise presented, you'd never convince NATS management or SRG that the post warrants an individual licence.
When it comes to support from atco's, they have no reason not to be forthcoming on this forum, I know that NATS frown upon being critisised in public - as does any employer, but as long as its constructive and valid they have nothing to fear.
On several occassions, you've used the phrase "team work", agreed, we are a team - each member of which has a duty of care to do their job to the best of their ability, but a team must have someone who is ultimately responsible, and like or not, that's not going to be the duty atsa (s).
Re reading my post, I accept that the final paragraph was unnecessary, and for that you have my apologies.
Finally, I fully support DC10's suggestion about certificates of competence, to be renewed annually and standards monitered on a regular basis, with the option for it to be suspended if standards are not maintained.
Personally I think that both NATS, non NATS employers and SRG will buy the C of C idea, and will give the atsa post the recognition it deserves.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC10RealMan –
Although you have no doubt seen the original letter, for the benefit of who haven't, the term “professional licence” is taken directly from the Union letter which originally prompted this thread. I would not expect many ATSAs to object to the proposed licence being called a Certificate of Competency, ATSA Licence or anything else you want to call it, although the Union, for whatever reason, might prefer the term “licence” to be used. I just hope that all grades within ATC give a fair and unbiased hearing to the possibility of ATSA Licensing. Lets just all look rationally at the potential benefits/pitfalls (?) before making any decisions.
Any ATSAs out there who genuinely foresee problems with ATSA licensing?
And thanks to those ATCOs/ATSAs who have posted their views, or have been professional enough to discuss this issue with me at my Station without recourse to verbal slanging matches.
Niknak included!!
Although you have no doubt seen the original letter, for the benefit of who haven't, the term “professional licence” is taken directly from the Union letter which originally prompted this thread. I would not expect many ATSAs to object to the proposed licence being called a Certificate of Competency, ATSA Licence or anything else you want to call it, although the Union, for whatever reason, might prefer the term “licence” to be used. I just hope that all grades within ATC give a fair and unbiased hearing to the possibility of ATSA Licensing. Lets just all look rationally at the potential benefits/pitfalls (?) before making any decisions.
Any ATSAs out there who genuinely foresee problems with ATSA licensing?
And thanks to those ATCOs/ATSAs who have posted their views, or have been professional enough to discuss this issue with me at my Station without recourse to verbal slanging matches.
Niknak included!!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the ATSA task encompasses such a wide range of responsibilites, what exactly would you like to see being examined as part of the annual check/licence/COC?
Would it include some form of medical (I know that if it did at least a third of our team would lose their jobs
)?
I've never understood why people in ATC (particularly NATS) have such a hangup about getting paid for training. Surely once you get to a certain level of experience/seniority you are expected to contribute to training the next generation - in my last job that's certainly the way it was: "this bloke's on your watch, get used to it!". We cannot claim to be professionals with one hand and then insist on piece work money with the other.
Would it include some form of medical (I know that if it did at least a third of our team would lose their jobs
)?I've never understood why people in ATC (particularly NATS) have such a hangup about getting paid for training. Surely once you get to a certain level of experience/seniority you are expected to contribute to training the next generation - in my last job that's certainly the way it was: "this bloke's on your watch, get used to it!". We cannot claim to be professionals with one hand and then insist on piece work money with the other.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1261 –
I would expect the annual check to be akin to taking an ATSA Validation Board test – ie: practical and oral tests covering all aspects of the ATSA function specific to the location at which the test is being held, and for which the licence/COC will be issued. Practical examinations to be carried out by delegated ATSAs, and possibly an ATCO with knowledge of ATSA issues to sit in on the oral Board . The whole process should be overseen by SRG, to ensure that standards are being maintained.
As for a medical examination - bit of a grey area - I am not certain whether this would be as much of a requirement as it is for ATCOs – depends upon the particular ATSA function, I suppose. There could be good grounds for needing one if the ATSA is engaged in “live” situations, such as Lighting Panel or supporting ATCOs in VCRs or En-Route for instance, whereas ATSAs working permanently in ATC office environments, (for want of a better expression) may not be deemed to require the same level of medical check. I myself do not object to medical examinations being part of the licence requirement.
With regard to the payment for training, or for being paid as an OJTI/LCE for that matter, I think NATS has made a rod for its own back -you cannot set a precedent by rewarding one group of individuals for doing a job, and then steadfastly refuse to reward another group for doing what is essentially the same task. This is the situation as it stands – generally, ATCOs get paid for training; ATSAs don’t.
Unfortunately, the days of being “professional” when it comes to NOT being paid for something have long gone. Although I am a volunteer ATSA mentor myself, I personally don’t see many volunteers in ATC offering to undertake additional (unpaid) duties. Also, I am not so financially comfortable as to be able to accept “professional pride” in lieu of hard cash!
1261 – although I personally support your idea of “professionalism” within ATC, IMHO professionalism in this day and age only comes at a price. Nothing is more certain to cause dissent amongst a Company workforce than the issue of pay. Although you may get a few “volunteers” along the way, today’s workforce does not accept the principle of “something for nothing” – you do something, you get paid for it – and especially if somebody else is already 'doing' and 'getting' just that. Sorry, but there are no friends where money is concerned!
I would expect the annual check to be akin to taking an ATSA Validation Board test – ie: practical and oral tests covering all aspects of the ATSA function specific to the location at which the test is being held, and for which the licence/COC will be issued. Practical examinations to be carried out by delegated ATSAs, and possibly an ATCO with knowledge of ATSA issues to sit in on the oral Board . The whole process should be overseen by SRG, to ensure that standards are being maintained.
As for a medical examination - bit of a grey area - I am not certain whether this would be as much of a requirement as it is for ATCOs – depends upon the particular ATSA function, I suppose. There could be good grounds for needing one if the ATSA is engaged in “live” situations, such as Lighting Panel or supporting ATCOs in VCRs or En-Route for instance, whereas ATSAs working permanently in ATC office environments, (for want of a better expression) may not be deemed to require the same level of medical check. I myself do not object to medical examinations being part of the licence requirement.
With regard to the payment for training, or for being paid as an OJTI/LCE for that matter, I think NATS has made a rod for its own back -you cannot set a precedent by rewarding one group of individuals for doing a job, and then steadfastly refuse to reward another group for doing what is essentially the same task. This is the situation as it stands – generally, ATCOs get paid for training; ATSAs don’t.
Unfortunately, the days of being “professional” when it comes to NOT being paid for something have long gone. Although I am a volunteer ATSA mentor myself, I personally don’t see many volunteers in ATC offering to undertake additional (unpaid) duties. Also, I am not so financially comfortable as to be able to accept “professional pride” in lieu of hard cash!
1261 – although I personally support your idea of “professionalism” within ATC, IMHO professionalism in this day and age only comes at a price. Nothing is more certain to cause dissent amongst a Company workforce than the issue of pay. Although you may get a few “volunteers” along the way, today’s workforce does not accept the principle of “something for nothing” – you do something, you get paid for it – and especially if somebody else is already 'doing' and 'getting' just that. Sorry, but there are no friends where money is concerned!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair points indeed, Connex; I'd much rather there was a one-off compensation payment and then no such training payments for ATCOs either. However, as you rightly say, it'll never happen in NATS.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1261
You are way out of touch regarding OJTI duties, it's an onorous responsibility being a mentor to any student atco, if they "f*ck up" it's your licence at risk.
The vast majority of employers (even Serco!) recognise this by rewarding atco's willing to train others, a minority don't - mine included.
I happen to enjoy the challenge of being responsible for someone's training and progress, and take a great deal of satisfaction in seeing them through the validation, but if they don't make it, or screw up shortly afterwards, questions are asked not only of the LCEs but the OJTI as well.
In any industry, increased responsibility is rewarded with increased renumeration, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
You are way out of touch regarding OJTI duties, it's an onorous responsibility being a mentor to any student atco, if they "f*ck up" it's your licence at risk.
The vast majority of employers (even Serco!) recognise this by rewarding atco's willing to train others, a minority don't - mine included.
I happen to enjoy the challenge of being responsible for someone's training and progress, and take a great deal of satisfaction in seeing them through the validation, but if they don't make it, or screw up shortly afterwards, questions are asked not only of the LCEs but the OJTI as well.
In any industry, increased responsibility is rewarded with increased renumeration, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niknak, out of interest, did your employer used to sponsor a local league club (forget it if I'm barking up the wrong tree)?
I'd dispute your assertion that "any industry" pays more for training - they certainly didn't in my previous job. And believe me, the trainee f*ucking up on the bridge of a tanker carrying 40,000t of Jet A-1 can ruin your entire day!
I'd dispute your assertion that "any industry" pays more for training - they certainly didn't in my previous job. And believe me, the trainee f*ucking up on the bridge of a tanker carrying 40,000t of Jet A-1 can ruin your entire day!
Guest
Posts: n/a
To get back to the main issue - the reason for a licence is first to denote a certain minimum level of knowledge or competence and second to give the issuing authority something to take away if that minimum knowledge or competence is not maintained.
Given that ATSAs don't just walk in off the street but are employed by a small number of easily identifiable companies surely it's possible to achieve all of the safety measures within each individual ATC unit. It's been possible for years - although it's been done better by some units than others. OJTI responsibilities and all other special tasks can be done locally.
Let's get real. There's no need for a licence for ATSA - there are lots of other ways to ensure they are competent. In spite of claims to the contrary, the only reason anyone would want an ATSA licence is either for some form of status or to justify more money.
The same is true of controllers too. The only reason that they have licenses is because it's an international regulation. It would be interesting to guess whether if the regulation wasn't there, would controllers have licenses or just bits of paper authorising them to do the job - there really isn't a lot of difference if all you want to do is the job.
And btw, like it or not, even though controllers may not be able to do ATSA jobs as quickly, the job is supporting the controller and so they could do it if they needed to - or at least they certainly should be able to!
Given that ATSAs don't just walk in off the street but are employed by a small number of easily identifiable companies surely it's possible to achieve all of the safety measures within each individual ATC unit. It's been possible for years - although it's been done better by some units than others. OJTI responsibilities and all other special tasks can be done locally.
Let's get real. There's no need for a licence for ATSA - there are lots of other ways to ensure they are competent. In spite of claims to the contrary, the only reason anyone would want an ATSA licence is either for some form of status or to justify more money.
The same is true of controllers too. The only reason that they have licenses is because it's an international regulation. It would be interesting to guess whether if the regulation wasn't there, would controllers have licenses or just bits of paper authorising them to do the job - there really isn't a lot of difference if all you want to do is the job.
And btw, like it or not, even though controllers may not be able to do ATSA jobs as quickly, the job is supporting the controller and so they could do it if they needed to - or at least they certainly should be able to!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon –
Taken within the context of this thread, your first paragraph is a strong argument in favour of ATSA licensing. However, you then go on to say that ATC ATSAs (and ATCOs) do not really “need” licences. This would carry more weight if there were another alternative REGULATED method by which standards could be maintained. As far as I am aware, there isn’t, so licensing plus annual LCEs it will remain until another "non-licensed" method of maintaining standards ACROSS ALL GRADES is devised and implemented.
The important point is that licensing must, and does, fulfil its prime purpose, which is to be the “machinery” by which competency and safety standards are regularly checked and maintained. If improvement of these standards result as a by-product of such assessments, then so much the better. This is the crux of the debate/proposal concerning ATSA licensing – the issues over pay awards, who will be LCE/OJTIs etc are all side issues which can be addressed separately. If it can be reasoned that annual competency checks for ATSAs could be genuinely beneficial to the overall provision and standard of the ATC service, then that makes a good case for considering implementation of licensing for ATSAs.
I would be inclined to agree with your statement that ATCOs “certainly should be able to” do ATSA tasks – but by experience from what I have seen at my own Station, most ATCOs (with a few notable exceptions) have no more than a basic knowledge or passing interest in our tasks, let alone the detailed knowledge (and therefore the competency?) to be able to do them correctly.
I would be very interested to hear your ideas on how ATCO/ATSA competency can be checked (regulated?) at local (Unit) level; or how exactly it has “been done better by some Units” if it is not by annual LCE checks.
Taken within the context of this thread, your first paragraph is a strong argument in favour of ATSA licensing. However, you then go on to say that ATC ATSAs (and ATCOs) do not really “need” licences. This would carry more weight if there were another alternative REGULATED method by which standards could be maintained. As far as I am aware, there isn’t, so licensing plus annual LCEs it will remain until another "non-licensed" method of maintaining standards ACROSS ALL GRADES is devised and implemented.
The important point is that licensing must, and does, fulfil its prime purpose, which is to be the “machinery” by which competency and safety standards are regularly checked and maintained. If improvement of these standards result as a by-product of such assessments, then so much the better. This is the crux of the debate/proposal concerning ATSA licensing – the issues over pay awards, who will be LCE/OJTIs etc are all side issues which can be addressed separately. If it can be reasoned that annual competency checks for ATSAs could be genuinely beneficial to the overall provision and standard of the ATC service, then that makes a good case for considering implementation of licensing for ATSAs.
I would be inclined to agree with your statement that ATCOs “certainly should be able to” do ATSA tasks – but by experience from what I have seen at my own Station, most ATCOs (with a few notable exceptions) have no more than a basic knowledge or passing interest in our tasks, let alone the detailed knowledge (and therefore the competency?) to be able to do them correctly.
I would be very interested to hear your ideas on how ATCO/ATSA competency can be checked (regulated?) at local (Unit) level; or how exactly it has “been done better by some Units” if it is not by annual LCE checks.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst awaiting Spitoon's response to my last post, perhaps some kind soul out there can inform us all as to how ATSA competency is checked/maintained (without the use of LCEs) at their particular work location.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Do I detect a slight edge to your last post Connie? It comes to something when you can't even go away for a few days without being missed on pprune!
To answer your questions, competence can only be managed by a unit. Continuous monitoring and annual checks will show up anyone who is having difficulties for whatever reason. Of course, work colleagues will usually pick up the signs even earlier. The unit management have a responsibility to ensure that people doing jobs are competent to do so - for many, many, reasons aside from licensing. So, if a unit manager becomes aware of someone who is not competent they should do something about it - the problem is what they should do. There are often few options, controllers and assistants are employed to do those jobs and there sometimes no other jobs on the unit that require this skillset (and we already know they're not up to scratch anyway).
You are looking for a licence for the wrong reasons. The CAA may issue licences and so the CAA can take them away - but this should be a last resort or the last stage of preventing someone who is not competent from endangering others. The first step should be at local management level - what you seem to want is for the CAA to be the bogeyman that takes away the licence while unit management wring their hands and say it's not their fault. You don't need a licence because, in simple words, if someone can't do their job they should be sacked. It sounds harsh but taking away a licence they need to do a job has the same effect in practice.
One would hope that lots of avenues are tried before someone in this position loses their job but the bottom line - and I think we agree on this - is that someone who is not competent must not continue to work in ATC.
As you say, payment for extras like training are secondary to ensuring competence and can be dealt with separately - and don't need a licence either.
I said that some units are better than others - and that applies to competence and usually all other things. A good manager (be that a Unit General Manager or Watch Supervisor) will be aware of how their patch is running. They'll spot problems as soon as they arise or, even better, will have an open door for someone who's got problems to go and talk and, hopefully, sort it out long before it becomes serious or can affect other. A unit or watch with a good manager will have some system that ensures competence that does not require a licence. A cr@p manager will actively deter such openess and when someone has a problem the first thing that will officially be recorded is an incident that gets reported to the CAA. Then the 'difficult' decisions are taken by the CAA.
OK, these are two extremes but I hope you get my point.
Finally, your point that controllers do not understand the ATSA's job is probably valid in many cases - hence my claim that they should be able to do the ATSA's job if necessary. But this again is a unit thing - a controller who may be called upon to do work normally done by an ATSA should be trained and considered competent to do it before being signed off as competent to work in any particular position.
To answer your questions, competence can only be managed by a unit. Continuous monitoring and annual checks will show up anyone who is having difficulties for whatever reason. Of course, work colleagues will usually pick up the signs even earlier. The unit management have a responsibility to ensure that people doing jobs are competent to do so - for many, many, reasons aside from licensing. So, if a unit manager becomes aware of someone who is not competent they should do something about it - the problem is what they should do. There are often few options, controllers and assistants are employed to do those jobs and there sometimes no other jobs on the unit that require this skillset (and we already know they're not up to scratch anyway).
You are looking for a licence for the wrong reasons. The CAA may issue licences and so the CAA can take them away - but this should be a last resort or the last stage of preventing someone who is not competent from endangering others. The first step should be at local management level - what you seem to want is for the CAA to be the bogeyman that takes away the licence while unit management wring their hands and say it's not their fault. You don't need a licence because, in simple words, if someone can't do their job they should be sacked. It sounds harsh but taking away a licence they need to do a job has the same effect in practice.
One would hope that lots of avenues are tried before someone in this position loses their job but the bottom line - and I think we agree on this - is that someone who is not competent must not continue to work in ATC.
As you say, payment for extras like training are secondary to ensuring competence and can be dealt with separately - and don't need a licence either.
I said that some units are better than others - and that applies to competence and usually all other things. A good manager (be that a Unit General Manager or Watch Supervisor) will be aware of how their patch is running. They'll spot problems as soon as they arise or, even better, will have an open door for someone who's got problems to go and talk and, hopefully, sort it out long before it becomes serious or can affect other. A unit or watch with a good manager will have some system that ensures competence that does not require a licence. A cr@p manager will actively deter such openess and when someone has a problem the first thing that will officially be recorded is an incident that gets reported to the CAA. Then the 'difficult' decisions are taken by the CAA.
OK, these are two extremes but I hope you get my point.
Finally, your point that controllers do not understand the ATSA's job is probably valid in many cases - hence my claim that they should be able to do the ATSA's job if necessary. But this again is a unit thing - a controller who may be called upon to do work normally done by an ATSA should be trained and considered competent to do it before being signed off as competent to work in any particular position.