ATSA Licensing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: By here now in a minute
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Connex,
A few posts ago you asked if any of us can foresee problems with licensing. So far in the course of looking into this issue, I've come up with:
Possible demarcation both ATSA/ATSA and/or ATSA/ATCO
Handling of loss of license
Application of SCRATCOH?
Possible two tiers within the grade between licensed and unlicensed ATSAs - how will it be decided which tasks are licensed?
These are on top of the issues already mentioned in this thread such as the cost of running such a scheme, medical requirements, training, LCEs and the biggest one of all - ATCO opposition, (in spite of some encouraging comments on previous posts).
I'm still in favour.
A few posts ago you asked if any of us can foresee problems with licensing. So far in the course of looking into this issue, I've come up with:
Possible demarcation both ATSA/ATSA and/or ATSA/ATCO
Handling of loss of license
Application of SCRATCOH?
Possible two tiers within the grade between licensed and unlicensed ATSAs - how will it be decided which tasks are licensed?
These are on top of the issues already mentioned in this thread such as the cost of running such a scheme, medical requirements, training, LCEs and the biggest one of all - ATCO opposition, (in spite of some encouraging comments on previous posts).
I'm still in favour.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m not joking sir –
We have had a few talks amongst ourselves at work about this, and have come to similar conclusions with regards to potential problems. It will be interesting to see if the Union can formulate a “plan of action” to continue this proposal, or whether it will just die a death because the “opposition factors” are deemed insurmountable.
Spitoon –
I am afraid I cannot agree with “competence can only be managed by a unit” when it comes to the unit actually carrying out the annual competency check, because this introduces a “personal element” into the equation. If you yourself, for example, were assessed as being “not up to scratch” by somebody you worked with in your own Unit, I do not think that you would just blindly accept what your assessor was saying, however good your normal working relationship with that person. With human nature being the way it is, at the very least, you would be asking yourself “what the **&£$** does he/she know about it anyway?” There would be an “element” of objection – even more so if your job was on the line because of it, and most definitely if your assessor was younger, or had less ATC experience than you!
There is no problem with the local unit implementing a “continuous monitoring” policy to maintain the required level of competence – it is to be applauded, but the actual annual assessment itself must be conducted by an independent person in order to keep the “personal element” restricted to a minimum, and to be seen to be independent of any influence from within the Unit itself. I am sure I do not need to tell you of NATS’ overwhelming desire for keeping “bums on seats” in order to keep the customers happy, but the need to maintain and hopefully improve safety/standards should always be the aim of the annual check, irrespective of whether or not it costs individuals their jobs. As you said yourself, “in simple words, if someone can’t do their job they should be sacked”. LCEs will possibly find difficulty in having to personally address the problem of an individual’s sub-standard performance, and may even run into opposition from other quarters if the individual has a strong character, or if the Unit has staff shortages or a serious morale problem. This could possibly lead to the LCE not taking the necessary action, because of the potential backlash. Use of an independent assessor negates this problem – or at least it should.
I totally agree with the idea of Unit support for those finding difficulty with maintaining an acceptable standard – trouble is, are we ever given the resources to provide this support? At my Unit, we don’t even have sufficient resources to train people efficiently in the first place, let alone offer any form of further support once they have validated. In the last few years, training staff at all grades has gone from a sometimes time-consuming but conscientious effort from all involved to a simple “production line” mentality – minimum time (which equals minimum expenditure), minimum amount of knowledge imparted (just enough to satisfy the Board), and then its “well done, you’ve passed” and its out into the big wide ATC world. The benefits (!) of this style of training/management really come to light when the s**t hits the fan first time around, and this is especially noticeable within the ATSA function. The initial training, and therefore the achieved standard, is nowhere near as comprehensive or as thorough as it used to be. This is definitely not the fault of the trainees/mentors – this is purely down to the management policies of the Company over the last 10 years or so. And speaking of managers who can spot problems and deal with them effectively – if you know some, then send them to our Unit!
This is why I support the idea of ATSA licensing – our part in the provision of an ATC service is, in its own way, as important as any other, and it is provided by personnel who are as professional in their approach to their task as anyone else. We are not going to receive additional support in any shape or form from our own Management – they are too busy empire-building for themselves. Therefore the onus of responsibility to maintain our own professional standards lies with the ATSAs themselves, and the Union that supports us. Based on the concept of safety/standards, (you can forget the job security aspect) the Union has outlined a case for ATSA licensing, and for once, I tend to agree with them.
PS – I don’t think there was any “slight edge” in my last post – when taking part in a sensible (and constructive) debate, I have always found “to the point” to be a better tactic!
We have had a few talks amongst ourselves at work about this, and have come to similar conclusions with regards to potential problems. It will be interesting to see if the Union can formulate a “plan of action” to continue this proposal, or whether it will just die a death because the “opposition factors” are deemed insurmountable.
Spitoon –
I am afraid I cannot agree with “competence can only be managed by a unit” when it comes to the unit actually carrying out the annual competency check, because this introduces a “personal element” into the equation. If you yourself, for example, were assessed as being “not up to scratch” by somebody you worked with in your own Unit, I do not think that you would just blindly accept what your assessor was saying, however good your normal working relationship with that person. With human nature being the way it is, at the very least, you would be asking yourself “what the **&£$** does he/she know about it anyway?” There would be an “element” of objection – even more so if your job was on the line because of it, and most definitely if your assessor was younger, or had less ATC experience than you!
There is no problem with the local unit implementing a “continuous monitoring” policy to maintain the required level of competence – it is to be applauded, but the actual annual assessment itself must be conducted by an independent person in order to keep the “personal element” restricted to a minimum, and to be seen to be independent of any influence from within the Unit itself. I am sure I do not need to tell you of NATS’ overwhelming desire for keeping “bums on seats” in order to keep the customers happy, but the need to maintain and hopefully improve safety/standards should always be the aim of the annual check, irrespective of whether or not it costs individuals their jobs. As you said yourself, “in simple words, if someone can’t do their job they should be sacked”. LCEs will possibly find difficulty in having to personally address the problem of an individual’s sub-standard performance, and may even run into opposition from other quarters if the individual has a strong character, or if the Unit has staff shortages or a serious morale problem. This could possibly lead to the LCE not taking the necessary action, because of the potential backlash. Use of an independent assessor negates this problem – or at least it should.
I totally agree with the idea of Unit support for those finding difficulty with maintaining an acceptable standard – trouble is, are we ever given the resources to provide this support? At my Unit, we don’t even have sufficient resources to train people efficiently in the first place, let alone offer any form of further support once they have validated. In the last few years, training staff at all grades has gone from a sometimes time-consuming but conscientious effort from all involved to a simple “production line” mentality – minimum time (which equals minimum expenditure), minimum amount of knowledge imparted (just enough to satisfy the Board), and then its “well done, you’ve passed” and its out into the big wide ATC world. The benefits (!) of this style of training/management really come to light when the s**t hits the fan first time around, and this is especially noticeable within the ATSA function. The initial training, and therefore the achieved standard, is nowhere near as comprehensive or as thorough as it used to be. This is definitely not the fault of the trainees/mentors – this is purely down to the management policies of the Company over the last 10 years or so. And speaking of managers who can spot problems and deal with them effectively – if you know some, then send them to our Unit!
This is why I support the idea of ATSA licensing – our part in the provision of an ATC service is, in its own way, as important as any other, and it is provided by personnel who are as professional in their approach to their task as anyone else. We are not going to receive additional support in any shape or form from our own Management – they are too busy empire-building for themselves. Therefore the onus of responsibility to maintain our own professional standards lies with the ATSAs themselves, and the Union that supports us. Based on the concept of safety/standards, (you can forget the job security aspect) the Union has outlined a case for ATSA licensing, and for once, I tend to agree with them.
PS – I don’t think there was any “slight edge” in my last post – when taking part in a sensible (and constructive) debate, I have always found “to the point” to be a better tactic!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Connex, in your last post you have documented very clearly why some units are not as good as others at dealing internally with competence.
I don't disagree that having someone from the CAA visiting the unit largely removes the personal element from any unpleasant discussions but they only visit occasionally. The rest of the time it's up to the unit managers and staff. This requires a professional attitude from both managers and staff - the age and experience of the examiner are irrelevant. No-one gets respect for being in a particular post, they earn it by doing their job fairly and well.
You suggest that someone who disagrees with what a local examiner says ends up thinking “what the **&£$** does he/she know about it anyway?”. The same is more true of a CAA examiner – believe me, I speak from experience!
You seem to make a distinction between monitoring continuing competence and an annual competence check. At units in the Local Competence Scheme, the annual check is done by someone from the unit - I think it's quite rare these days for a CAA examiner to do it at anything other than a very small unit.
If we are going down the route of local competence checking – and from what I can see of the new controller’s licence, this is going to become the norm – what becomes more important is that the unit management are competent to do their jobs. It would be nice to think that the CAA would check them out once in a while – but, of course, there’s a flaw in all of this. Unit managers don’t need a licence so what can the CAA do if someone isn’t up to the job!
I guess all this isn’t really relevant to your original question, but having given it some thought I needed to get it off my chest! I stand by my point that good unit management makes local competence checking a reality, poor unit management makes it a personality-ridden fudge that brushes ‘problems’ under the carpet.
I once worked at a unit where the boss truly managed the unit, set standards to be followed by LCEs and everyone else. Not everything was wonderful but you knew where you stood. Unfortunately, after being in the business for many years and having worked at a variety of units, I’ve only seen it once.
I don't disagree that having someone from the CAA visiting the unit largely removes the personal element from any unpleasant discussions but they only visit occasionally. The rest of the time it's up to the unit managers and staff. This requires a professional attitude from both managers and staff - the age and experience of the examiner are irrelevant. No-one gets respect for being in a particular post, they earn it by doing their job fairly and well.
You suggest that someone who disagrees with what a local examiner says ends up thinking “what the **&£$** does he/she know about it anyway?”. The same is more true of a CAA examiner – believe me, I speak from experience!
You seem to make a distinction between monitoring continuing competence and an annual competence check. At units in the Local Competence Scheme, the annual check is done by someone from the unit - I think it's quite rare these days for a CAA examiner to do it at anything other than a very small unit.
If we are going down the route of local competence checking – and from what I can see of the new controller’s licence, this is going to become the norm – what becomes more important is that the unit management are competent to do their jobs. It would be nice to think that the CAA would check them out once in a while – but, of course, there’s a flaw in all of this. Unit managers don’t need a licence so what can the CAA do if someone isn’t up to the job!
I guess all this isn’t really relevant to your original question, but having given it some thought I needed to get it off my chest! I stand by my point that good unit management makes local competence checking a reality, poor unit management makes it a personality-ridden fudge that brushes ‘problems’ under the carpet.
I once worked at a unit where the boss truly managed the unit, set standards to be followed by LCEs and everyone else. Not everything was wonderful but you knew where you stood. Unfortunately, after being in the business for many years and having worked at a variety of units, I’ve only seen it once.
Last edited by Spitoon; 29th Sep 2003 at 16:22.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon –
Point taken about who does the checks at Stations within the Local Competency Scheme – at our Unit the LCS is done in-house by appointed LCEs, and not by CAA Examiners. My personal view is that this is not good practice, and I would refer back to my previous post for the reasons why. Having these in-house LCEs doing the continuous monitoring combined with the Annual Check is, IMHO, a basic mistake – they are open to influence at all levels within the Unit. In order to be able to make an impartial judgement on an individual’s competence, the assessors must themselves be fully conversant (competent?) with the working practices they are checking, and most importantly, they must be completely removed from any regular connections with the individuals/Unit they are assigned to check out. Not easy to achieve in practice, but essential nevertheless if a rational, unbiased and honest assessment is to be made.
I do not wish to go too far off track from the original thread, but like yourself, there is one point I would also like to get off my chest, too. I totally agree with your point about the link between good Unit management and maintaining standards of Unit competency. Trouble is, we do not have that many good Unit managers! I can’t think of any NATS Unit, be it Station or Centre, where the generally-aired view is that Management (at any level) is doing a good job – at least, that is the conclusion I come to after listening to the continual complaints, whinging and arguments between Management and Staff which filter down the NATS grapevine. At my own place of work, I don’t see much in the way of a “vote of confidence” expressed for our own Management by my colleagues – (and this is right from the Top Man down to the Watch Managers) – we are, to use your own words, subject to a “personality-ridden fudge that brushes problems under the carpet”. Couldn’t have put it better myself!
Some of the previous posts have touched on points which could make good topics for discussion in themselves – local management, for instance. As for the ATSA licensing, I shall still throw my hat in the ring with the Union, purely because I want to see ATSA standards/safety maintained and improved upon, and I see licensing as the means to achieve this. Licensing will actually throw the ball back into the individual’s court – if, by your own efforts, you don’t keep up your work standards, then you may find yourself in the proverbial “s**t”. If we want to be regarded as “professional”, then we must conduct ourselves professionally, and be able to demonstrate our “professionalism” when the Annual Check comes around.
Last thought for general consumption – with “modernisation” gearing itself up to replace many ATSAs, I also happen to think that the ATSA grades should be locally “self-managing” to a point, with our own internal (self-appointed?) “management” structure staffed by ATSAs for ATSAs, but with a direct link to Senior Management – rather than via an ATCO “spokesperson”. This should also be separate from the PCS Union and Union-related issues. When it comes to making your voice heard at Management level - how many ATSA staff members have any real confidence in what are essentially ATCO managers speaking on your behalf? When was the last time Management asked YOU for your opinion about something? I cannot remember the last time I spoke to an (ATCO) Manager who really and truly understood the ATSA function, its Working Practices, the day-to-day problems of staffing, shortfalls, crappy equipment, lack of support, etc etc. Lets be honest, they don’t really know, and as long as the ATSA bums-on-seats count is correct each day, they don’t really care! I would much rather place my support/trust to someone who knows the job inside-out, and let them do the talking to Senior Management, rather than give it to yet another “Yes-Man” in the guise of a Watch Manager. From my personal standpoint, its probably too late in the day for all this – but for those ATSAs who will be working on into the (distant) future - something to consider, perhaps?
Point taken about who does the checks at Stations within the Local Competency Scheme – at our Unit the LCS is done in-house by appointed LCEs, and not by CAA Examiners. My personal view is that this is not good practice, and I would refer back to my previous post for the reasons why. Having these in-house LCEs doing the continuous monitoring combined with the Annual Check is, IMHO, a basic mistake – they are open to influence at all levels within the Unit. In order to be able to make an impartial judgement on an individual’s competence, the assessors must themselves be fully conversant (competent?) with the working practices they are checking, and most importantly, they must be completely removed from any regular connections with the individuals/Unit they are assigned to check out. Not easy to achieve in practice, but essential nevertheless if a rational, unbiased and honest assessment is to be made.
I do not wish to go too far off track from the original thread, but like yourself, there is one point I would also like to get off my chest, too. I totally agree with your point about the link between good Unit management and maintaining standards of Unit competency. Trouble is, we do not have that many good Unit managers! I can’t think of any NATS Unit, be it Station or Centre, where the generally-aired view is that Management (at any level) is doing a good job – at least, that is the conclusion I come to after listening to the continual complaints, whinging and arguments between Management and Staff which filter down the NATS grapevine. At my own place of work, I don’t see much in the way of a “vote of confidence” expressed for our own Management by my colleagues – (and this is right from the Top Man down to the Watch Managers) – we are, to use your own words, subject to a “personality-ridden fudge that brushes problems under the carpet”. Couldn’t have put it better myself!
Some of the previous posts have touched on points which could make good topics for discussion in themselves – local management, for instance. As for the ATSA licensing, I shall still throw my hat in the ring with the Union, purely because I want to see ATSA standards/safety maintained and improved upon, and I see licensing as the means to achieve this. Licensing will actually throw the ball back into the individual’s court – if, by your own efforts, you don’t keep up your work standards, then you may find yourself in the proverbial “s**t”. If we want to be regarded as “professional”, then we must conduct ourselves professionally, and be able to demonstrate our “professionalism” when the Annual Check comes around.
Last thought for general consumption – with “modernisation” gearing itself up to replace many ATSAs, I also happen to think that the ATSA grades should be locally “self-managing” to a point, with our own internal (self-appointed?) “management” structure staffed by ATSAs for ATSAs, but with a direct link to Senior Management – rather than via an ATCO “spokesperson”. This should also be separate from the PCS Union and Union-related issues. When it comes to making your voice heard at Management level - how many ATSA staff members have any real confidence in what are essentially ATCO managers speaking on your behalf? When was the last time Management asked YOU for your opinion about something? I cannot remember the last time I spoke to an (ATCO) Manager who really and truly understood the ATSA function, its Working Practices, the day-to-day problems of staffing, shortfalls, crappy equipment, lack of support, etc etc. Lets be honest, they don’t really know, and as long as the ATSA bums-on-seats count is correct each day, they don’t really care! I would much rather place my support/trust to someone who knows the job inside-out, and let them do the talking to Senior Management, rather than give it to yet another “Yes-Man” in the guise of a Watch Manager. From my personal standpoint, its probably too late in the day for all this – but for those ATSAs who will be working on into the (distant) future - something to consider, perhaps?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at our Unit the LCS is done in-house by appointed LCEs, and not by CAA Examiners
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPruneRadar -
Thanks for the info, but LCEs are still part of the Unit, and are thus subject to the same local "influences" I mentioned previously. Simply stating that they are working as CAA Examiners does not remove them from that influence. Therefore, their assessment of staff cannot be as impartial as one undertaken by an assessor from outside the Unit.
Thanks for the info, but LCEs are still part of the Unit, and are thus subject to the same local "influences" I mentioned previously. Simply stating that they are working as CAA Examiners does not remove them from that influence. Therefore, their assessment of staff cannot be as impartial as one undertaken by an assessor from outside the Unit.
