ATSA Licensing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSA Licensing
Recently seen at my place of employment – a letter from the Civil Aviation Group from the PCS Union, (who represent NATS ATSAs amongst others) asking for views on the possible “professional licensing” of ATSAs, Engineers etc – specifically non-ATCO positions within ATC. Reasoning behind the concept is enhancing and maintaining safety within ATC, plus a possible benefit of job protection. This topic is currently being discussed at European ATC Safety Forum level .
Does “professional licensing” already exist for ATSAs in ATC Services anywhere else? What do the NATS ATSAs and ATCOs think about it? Any other views?
Does “professional licensing” already exist for ATSAs in ATC Services anywhere else? What do the NATS ATSAs and ATCOs think about it? Any other views?
It's on the agenda at Eurocontrol. The Flight Data Specialists (as they are known here) will, however, also be required to undergo regular proficiency checks. Could come in next year.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineers are already licensed by the CAA.
Although I appreciate that a good ATSA is worth their weight in gold, ultimately they work under the delegated authority of the ATCO or watch manager, and consequently have no technical responsibility.
On that basis I don't see how or why ATSAs should be licenced, if you want a licence, become an ATCO.
Although I appreciate that a good ATSA is worth their weight in gold, ultimately they work under the delegated authority of the ATCO or watch manager, and consequently have no technical responsibility.
On that basis I don't see how or why ATSAs should be licenced, if you want a licence, become an ATCO.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Old Ways!!!
Time to get rid of the old officers and men culture of yesteryear. We can start by referring to ATCOs as Air Traffic Controllers and recognise the value of "Air Traffic Support" by adopting a seamless structure. The Local Area Supervisors at the London ACC Swanwick do not hold any validations and they make operational decisions that can have wide-ranging and severe effect. Their "competency" check is carried out in the canteen on a "you sign mine I'll sign yours" basis.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would take issue with Nicnaks posting about operating under an ATCOs responsibility. It is not an issue of "getting a licence"or becoming an ATCO, but one of clearly defined duties and responsibilities. In this increasing litigious age, I think that these rather archaic definations of responsibilities are increasingly irrelevant given some of the increasing specialisations of some of the ATSA tasks, for example the Flight Plan supervisor or the Flight Information Service Officers at the centres and I am sure that there are other posts at other units. I can assure Nicnak that in my interview with SRG when I was involved in a 1261 doing the FIR I was the the "master of my fate". I think that it is in everyones interest as individuals and as an organisation that this system is introduced ASAP and it is not a challenge to the ATCOs ego.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC10 - Absolutely no question of ego's, at least not on my behalf anyway.
But the major stumbling block will be that atsa's DO work under the direction, no matter how far delegated, of the senior atco on duty.
I know that London FIS is done by atsa's, but correct me if I am wrong, aren't they licenced and validated FISOs working entirely under the auspices of the FISO licence?
As for the flight plan supervisor at LATCC - I've no idea what they do other than fail to provide us with an efficiant service, regularly when we ring for joining clearances we find that flight plans have not been properly processed by the flight plans staff and the sector doesnt have them.
I'm pretty sure that NATS and most other employers will sing the praises of ATSAs until the cows come home, but would never go down the road of licensing them because the extra costs and the flexibility they would lose as an employer.
Please understand that I'm not having a pop at atsas per se, god knows I was one for long enough and know exactly what sort of **** they have to tolerate sometimes, but the ultimate stopping stone is with the senior duty atco and will be so until we're all replaced by computers.
But the major stumbling block will be that atsa's DO work under the direction, no matter how far delegated, of the senior atco on duty.
I know that London FIS is done by atsa's, but correct me if I am wrong, aren't they licenced and validated FISOs working entirely under the auspices of the FISO licence?
As for the flight plan supervisor at LATCC - I've no idea what they do other than fail to provide us with an efficiant service, regularly when we ring for joining clearances we find that flight plans have not been properly processed by the flight plans staff and the sector doesnt have them.
I'm pretty sure that NATS and most other employers will sing the praises of ATSAs until the cows come home, but would never go down the road of licensing them because the extra costs and the flexibility they would lose as an employer.
Please understand that I'm not having a pop at atsas per se, god knows I was one for long enough and know exactly what sort of **** they have to tolerate sometimes, but the ultimate stopping stone is with the senior duty atco and will be so until we're all replaced by computers.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicnak,
I still refer you to the original posting. I shall excude the FISOs for arguements sake as they are licensed posts with LCEs and OJTIs responsibilities. The question still remains, for example about our colleagues on the Flight Plan section, you complain about the errors that are made in dealing with joining clearances from your unit because of inputting into the Host Computer system I presume. These people have to input flight plans for the whole of the FIR not just your unit and therefore I am sure that they do it out of ignorance of your requirements and therefore a system of annual competency checks are a good idea. The Flight Plan supervisor at Swanwick is an ATSA4 who is the Flight Plan specialist do whom all of us refer to in flight planing matters, including Local Area Supervisors and the Watch Manager and yet apparently has no responsibility for their departments standard of work. The ATSA2s who work on the sectors at Swanwick are the personnel who deal with HCS matters to which most ATCOs have no interest or knowledge. To say that these personnel with their specialist knowledge have no responsibility for it and that it is the ATCOs responsibility is an outmoded concept and does a grave disservice to our ATCO colleagues who have enough to do with thir own duties and would be challenged in the courts if there were to be an accident. I also think that NATS would back a system where these anomalies could be addressed in the interests of air safety irrespective of the costs. Finally, Nicnak excepted, I still think objections that made be raised are a matter of personal ego for quite a number of people.
I still refer you to the original posting. I shall excude the FISOs for arguements sake as they are licensed posts with LCEs and OJTIs responsibilities. The question still remains, for example about our colleagues on the Flight Plan section, you complain about the errors that are made in dealing with joining clearances from your unit because of inputting into the Host Computer system I presume. These people have to input flight plans for the whole of the FIR not just your unit and therefore I am sure that they do it out of ignorance of your requirements and therefore a system of annual competency checks are a good idea. The Flight Plan supervisor at Swanwick is an ATSA4 who is the Flight Plan specialist do whom all of us refer to in flight planing matters, including Local Area Supervisors and the Watch Manager and yet apparently has no responsibility for their departments standard of work. The ATSA2s who work on the sectors at Swanwick are the personnel who deal with HCS matters to which most ATCOs have no interest or knowledge. To say that these personnel with their specialist knowledge have no responsibility for it and that it is the ATCOs responsibility is an outmoded concept and does a grave disservice to our ATCO colleagues who have enough to do with thir own duties and would be challenged in the courts if there were to be an accident. I also think that NATS would back a system where these anomalies could be addressed in the interests of air safety irrespective of the costs. Finally, Nicnak excepted, I still think objections that made be raised are a matter of personal ego for quite a number of people.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avman –
Thanks for the info – how is the proposal being received by the staff at Eurocontrol? Any dissenters?
055166K –
Like you, I would like to see the end of the “ex-military/old Civil Service” terms of reference – they tend to aggravate the (openly unacknowledged) “us and them” attitude that prevails between ATCOs and just about everybody else.
DC10RealMan –
Good post – this issue is not just about who should or should not be licensed. The benefit it could bring to the ATC service as a whole should be kept foremost in mind. I myself am in favour of a licensing system for all ATC ATSAs, if only to ensure that efficient standards of service are maintained (by annual LCEs, as per the ATCO requirements). Personally, I do not think that holding a licence will in any way protect us with regard to job security – once you’re surplus - you’re surplus – licence or no licence!
Niknak –
With regard to senior ATCOs being “delegated” – yes, I agree, somebody has to be responsible overall for a group of staff working together to provide a service. If I am expected to be “directed” by an ATCO, or whoever, I personally would feel much better about it if I thought that the person so “delegated” had some genuine understanding of my job and the tasks I undertake. This is often not the case, at least, not at the Aerodrome I work at!
Therefore, I cannot agree with your statement that ATSAs have “no technical responsibility”. In the same way that I cannot do your ATCO tasks, if you can’t do the job I am doing within the ATC environment, then I am responsible for it – technically, physically, professionally – any way you care to call it. We don’t have to be talking into a microphone in order to be classed as “technical” – we just do different tasks within the same overall function – providing an ATC service.
As we are providing part of that same service as yourself, and some of us, (at least), can see the benefit of maintaining the standard of service, then what is the case for ATSAs not being licensed ? Licensing, as practised by NATS/CAA, would involve the regular re-assessment of those individuals so licensed, thus maintaining (and possibly improving) the overall standard. What’s the problem with that? After all, isn't that why ATCOs do it?
I would really like to see some support for the ATSA licensing issue from ATCOs in particular. I do not see any problem with it – I feel it can only benefit the service we provide, although I do agree with you that NATS will probably reject it on financial grounds alone. Does it really boil down to the fact that ATCOs want to keep themselves separate and aloof from us mere ATSAs, and do not want anybody invading their turf ? (a bit like the Fam Flight Schemes, eh?!!).
I sincerely hope not .
PS – any LATCC Flt Plan Supervisors out there care to comment on their failure to provide an efficient service to our ATCO colleagues??
Thanks for the info – how is the proposal being received by the staff at Eurocontrol? Any dissenters?
055166K –
Like you, I would like to see the end of the “ex-military/old Civil Service” terms of reference – they tend to aggravate the (openly unacknowledged) “us and them” attitude that prevails between ATCOs and just about everybody else.
DC10RealMan –
Good post – this issue is not just about who should or should not be licensed. The benefit it could bring to the ATC service as a whole should be kept foremost in mind. I myself am in favour of a licensing system for all ATC ATSAs, if only to ensure that efficient standards of service are maintained (by annual LCEs, as per the ATCO requirements). Personally, I do not think that holding a licence will in any way protect us with regard to job security – once you’re surplus - you’re surplus – licence or no licence!
Niknak –
With regard to senior ATCOs being “delegated” – yes, I agree, somebody has to be responsible overall for a group of staff working together to provide a service. If I am expected to be “directed” by an ATCO, or whoever, I personally would feel much better about it if I thought that the person so “delegated” had some genuine understanding of my job and the tasks I undertake. This is often not the case, at least, not at the Aerodrome I work at!
Therefore, I cannot agree with your statement that ATSAs have “no technical responsibility”. In the same way that I cannot do your ATCO tasks, if you can’t do the job I am doing within the ATC environment, then I am responsible for it – technically, physically, professionally – any way you care to call it. We don’t have to be talking into a microphone in order to be classed as “technical” – we just do different tasks within the same overall function – providing an ATC service.
As we are providing part of that same service as yourself, and some of us, (at least), can see the benefit of maintaining the standard of service, then what is the case for ATSAs not being licensed ? Licensing, as practised by NATS/CAA, would involve the regular re-assessment of those individuals so licensed, thus maintaining (and possibly improving) the overall standard. What’s the problem with that? After all, isn't that why ATCOs do it?
I would really like to see some support for the ATSA licensing issue from ATCOs in particular. I do not see any problem with it – I feel it can only benefit the service we provide, although I do agree with you that NATS will probably reject it on financial grounds alone. Does it really boil down to the fact that ATCOs want to keep themselves separate and aloof from us mere ATSAs, and do not want anybody invading their turf ? (a bit like the Fam Flight Schemes, eh?!!).
I sincerely hope not .
PS – any LATCC Flt Plan Supervisors out there care to comment on their failure to provide an efficient service to our ATCO colleagues??
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Connex,
I would agree wholeheartly with your post with one exception and as I said earlier in these litigious times NATS needs to protect itself in the event of legal action by a third party. By clarifing duties and responsibilities of its staff and maintaining a certain standard it could be proved to be providing a "duty of care" to its customers and staff. There has also been a precedent where at West Drayton the Senior Sector Assistant prior to its transfer to Swanwick was subject to an LCE and had a Certificate of Competency. This system could be adapted and amended for local use at minimum cost and I do not believe that NATS is that " cheap", but I am prepared to be disapointed.
I would agree wholeheartly with your post with one exception and as I said earlier in these litigious times NATS needs to protect itself in the event of legal action by a third party. By clarifing duties and responsibilities of its staff and maintaining a certain standard it could be proved to be providing a "duty of care" to its customers and staff. There has also been a precedent where at West Drayton the Senior Sector Assistant prior to its transfer to Swanwick was subject to an LCE and had a Certificate of Competency. This system could be adapted and amended for local use at minimum cost and I do not believe that NATS is that " cheap", but I am prepared to be disapointed.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many [many..many] moons ago, I had the "Best Job in the World" I was a "Runway Controller" at Manch. I cleared vehicles [tc] to cross the runway vehicles to "wander" around the airfield..for Petes sake, I even cleared the Airport boss [Gordon Sweetapple] to use the Faireys and Southern taxiways for "Go Cart Testing"
Then it was "discovered"
that I was working on the Air ATCOs license
So the post was "chopped"
Earlier, [before I was "promoted" into the job] an ATCA11 "Runway Controller" had to have a "medical"
Why? If you were on the ATCOs licence
we aim to please. it keeps the cleaners happy
Then it was "discovered"
that I was working on the Air ATCOs license So the post was "chopped" Earlier, [before I was "promoted" into the job] an ATCA11 "Runway Controller" had to have a "medical"
Why? If you were on the ATCOs licence
we aim to please. it keeps the cleaners happy
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC10 - fair points, particularly about competency checks.
SRG have a reasonably efficiant and pro active audit system , so there's no reason why they couldn't employ a x - section of experienced atsas to undertake this, but don't forget what happens to atco's who don't make it - you could end up working for Serco
.
Connex - God help any atco who wants to keep themselves seperate and alloof from the atsas, if thats the impression I gave it wasn't what I meant, (I'd never be brave enough to take that stance with any of ours
).
SRG have a reasonably efficiant and pro active audit system , so there's no reason why they couldn't employ a x - section of experienced atsas to undertake this, but don't forget what happens to atco's who don't make it - you could end up working for Serco
.Connex - God help any atco who wants to keep themselves seperate and alloof from the atsas, if thats the impression I gave it wasn't what I meant, (I'd never be brave enough to take that stance with any of ours
).
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SE UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At Airports that have switchable taxiway lighting, which is operated by ATSA's, there is no form of competency checking and they work under the delegated authority of the Ground Controller. Whose competency is checked.
Why then was a trainee Lighting Operator blamed at LHR for routing an aircraft somewhere he shouldn't have, causing a ground 'incident'...?
LCE's get paid extra for being LCE's. Is NATS really going to pay ATSA's extra to be ATSA LCE's...?
............?
Why then was a trainee Lighting Operator blamed at LHR for routing an aircraft somewhere he shouldn't have, causing a ground 'incident'...?
LCE's get paid extra for being LCE's. Is NATS really going to pay ATSA's extra to be ATSA LCE's...?
............?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: the murky depths
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an IFPS perspective it seems a question of when , not if, the staff get licensing, and certainly at Brussels the idea has been pushed by the ops staff as well as management, probably more so by the former. The staff view it as a way of increasing quality of service as currently, when validated, an IFPO has no further competency checks ufn, so the plan is to bring in proficiency checks along with licensing. It would certainly force proficiency checking to continue, rather than the current setup where new procedures are introduced, but rapidly fade into obscurity in a matter of months or even weeks; a legal requirement would force a more continuously regulated approach in IFPS, which can't be a bad thing. It may be interesting to note that the IFPOs are made up of ex assistants, controllers (civil and military), dispatchers and ops managers, so there is certainly the experience already in place to deal with such a change.
However, the whole thing is taking some time to bring about as it seems that the licenses need the approval of ICAO to hold any weight, and such things take time. It could, as Avman says, come in as early as next year, although I have some reservations, as there was recently a management reshuffle that has created some 'interesing' results.
However, the whole thing is taking some time to bring about as it seems that the licenses need the approval of ICAO to hold any weight, and such things take time. It could, as Avman says, come in as early as next year, although I have some reservations, as there was recently a management reshuffle that has created some 'interesing' results.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Muppit
Re the trainee LPO’s incident – I am informed by friends at LHR that there have been a few incidents of this sort going back to 1993 – not sure which incident you refer to, but I do not doubt that it was genuine. And re the LCE payments for ATSAs – again, I am reliably informed that LHR ATSA2s do not receive, and have never received, any form of supplementary payments for on-site training of new ATSAs, and until recently, never received any officially recognised training to allow them to undertake the task in the first place. Compare this with the ATCO arrangement – LCEs are paid a supplement for their task (as are OJTIs). So why not the ATSAs? Maybe its down to the bargaining power of the ATCO grades and their Union? Or maybe its just the same old story - one rule for them, and one for us!
With regard to the licensing issue, it would certainly help our situation if the ATCO grades were to actually voice any support they might have for us at local and Union level. If they object, perhaps they would like to tell us why?
Any comments from the ATCO boys and girls at the NATS Aerodromes?
Flight Data
Pleased to see that IFPS seems to acknowledge (at least) that a licensing system may be beneficial. I hope that the “interesting” reshuffle has not resulted in a difference of opinion with the “shopfloor workforce” on the licensing issue.
Re the trainee LPO’s incident – I am informed by friends at LHR that there have been a few incidents of this sort going back to 1993 – not sure which incident you refer to, but I do not doubt that it was genuine. And re the LCE payments for ATSAs – again, I am reliably informed that LHR ATSA2s do not receive, and have never received, any form of supplementary payments for on-site training of new ATSAs, and until recently, never received any officially recognised training to allow them to undertake the task in the first place. Compare this with the ATCO arrangement – LCEs are paid a supplement for their task (as are OJTIs). So why not the ATSAs? Maybe its down to the bargaining power of the ATCO grades and their Union? Or maybe its just the same old story - one rule for them, and one for us!
With regard to the licensing issue, it would certainly help our situation if the ATCO grades were to actually voice any support they might have for us at local and Union level. If they object, perhaps they would like to tell us why?
Any comments from the ATCO boys and girls at the NATS Aerodromes?
Flight Data
Pleased to see that IFPS seems to acknowledge (at least) that a licensing system may be beneficial. I hope that the “interesting” reshuffle has not resulted in a difference of opinion with the “shopfloor workforce” on the licensing issue.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: By here now in a minute
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fantastic. I get tasked with collecting views on the idea of ATSA licensing and this thread appears! Makes it a bit easier. My personal view is that licensing us is a good idea - especially from the competency angle.
Muppit,
I'm not sure which incident at LL you're referring to (the one in the CAA MOR digest a few months back?) but isn't it the case that whilst LPOs aren't licensed, under the "duty of care" understanding, they can actually be deemed responsible and therefore ultimately sued for an incident?
Plus, at LL I believe the LPOs have a lot more input into how a/c are routed than at KK - far more "follow the greens" at LL, whereas you guys set the routes here. Maybe that's why LPOs seem to kop the blame more at LL? Then again it's a funny old unit...
The payment of an ATSA OJTI allowance is always a thorny topic and one that I expect to rear it's head in the not too distant future! I think it'll be hard to get though but fingers crossed. Maybe we might even get some proper OJTI training too.
Some interesting debates ahead.
Muppit,
I'm not sure which incident at LL you're referring to (the one in the CAA MOR digest a few months back?) but isn't it the case that whilst LPOs aren't licensed, under the "duty of care" understanding, they can actually be deemed responsible and therefore ultimately sued for an incident?
Plus, at LL I believe the LPOs have a lot more input into how a/c are routed than at KK - far more "follow the greens" at LL, whereas you guys set the routes here. Maybe that's why LPOs seem to kop the blame more at LL? Then again it's a funny old unit...
The payment of an ATSA OJTI allowance is always a thorny topic and one that I expect to rear it's head in the not too distant future! I think it'll be hard to get though but fingers crossed. Maybe we might even get some proper OJTI training too.
Some interesting debates ahead.
Last edited by I'm not joking sir; 12th Sep 2003 at 06:05.
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 –
The payment of anything to ATSAs has always been a contentious issue, as has the provision of career development combined with properly organised, professional training programmes. The licensing issue will again bring this to the fore, because it will be inevitable that ATSAs who are required to become ATSA OJTIs/LCEs or whatever the job title is called, will expect to be paid something if they are going to take on additional tasks above their normal remit.
This will be regarded as especially relevant if this new task has any form of accountable safety implications attached. So, even if the licensing issue is accepted and introduced, and, as the OJTI/LCE positions would (presumably) be voluntary – who’s going to volunteer to do the job if there is no additional payment for doing so, as per our ATCO colleagues?
If licensing is introduced, it follows that part of the package must be NATS’ acceptance of the requirement to pay those ATSAs involved in OJTI/LCE tasks – anything less is only going to inflame the “us and them” syndrome, and turn ATSA opinion away from what is fundamentally a very positive step forward with regard to safety and standards of service.
The payment of anything to ATSAs has always been a contentious issue, as has the provision of career development combined with properly organised, professional training programmes. The licensing issue will again bring this to the fore, because it will be inevitable that ATSAs who are required to become ATSA OJTIs/LCEs or whatever the job title is called, will expect to be paid something if they are going to take on additional tasks above their normal remit.
This will be regarded as especially relevant if this new task has any form of accountable safety implications attached. So, even if the licensing issue is accepted and introduced, and, as the OJTI/LCE positions would (presumably) be voluntary – who’s going to volunteer to do the job if there is no additional payment for doing so, as per our ATCO colleagues?
If licensing is introduced, it follows that part of the package must be NATS’ acceptance of the requirement to pay those ATSAs involved in OJTI/LCE tasks – anything less is only going to inflame the “us and them” syndrome, and turn ATSA opinion away from what is fundamentally a very positive step forward with regard to safety and standards of service.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only refer to the ATSA4s who do the FIR at Swanwick. The OJTIs and LCEs on this position sat exactly the SRG mandated examination that the ATCO OJTIs/LCEs sat at Bournemouth, unfortunately without any financial reward whatsoever. This was done because they were keen, enthusiastic, and were not to interested in monetary reward. One would like to think that under the new management regime that would be acknowledged and put right by paying an allowance to all ATSA OJTIs and LCEs, but as before I am prepared to be disapointed!.
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 -
Out of interest - are you canvassing ATCO opinions at your place of work on this issue, as well as from ATSAs? There has not been much of a response (either way) posted from ATCOs, so far as this thread is concerned, but I still think that ATCO support would be most helpful in progressing the concept forward. It stands to reason that the more support there is from those that provide the ATC service, the stronger the case for it to be considered.
Out of interest - are you canvassing ATCO opinions at your place of work on this issue, as well as from ATSAs? There has not been much of a response (either way) posted from ATCOs, so far as this thread is concerned, but I still think that ATCO support would be most helpful in progressing the concept forward. It stands to reason that the more support there is from those that provide the ATC service, the stronger the case for it to be considered.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Connex..et al
I joined the "Firm" in 1969..straight from the RAF. I have honestly [really] lost count of the number of people that I have trained, both ATCA/ATSAs and ATC cadet/ab initio/promotion prospects etc. A lot of my "pupils" are now a senior grade to me....Big Deal...
Got nowt for it, didn't expect to, part of the job then
Now, [just] perhaps another matter
at the end of the day, when the poor so 'n so's have left the "Training Section", it's us at the "sharp end" that has to sort the Beggars out
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
I joined the "Firm" in 1969..straight from the RAF. I have honestly [really] lost count of the number of people that I have trained, both ATCA/ATSAs and ATC cadet/ab initio/promotion prospects etc. A lot of my "pupils" are now a senior grade to me....Big Deal...
Got nowt for it, didn't expect to, part of the job then
Now, [just] perhaps another matter
at the end of the day, when the poor so 'n so's have left the "Training Section", it's us at the "sharp end" that has to sort the Beggars out
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chiglet –
Just a thought - have you never felt that your efforts should have been rewarded in any small way at all - not financially, but on a “professional” level? I had not been in the job for more than a year before the non-parity of the ATCOs/ATSAs became glaringly apparent, and not just in financial terms. I simply feel that, now, as participants in the same service, the very least we should be accorded is the acknowledgement that the part we play is important too. If, as we are allegedly told, the ATCOs , NATS Management and others do regard us as “professional”, and part of the team, then why are we subject to the constant put-downs, the lack of support at ALL levels, and the perpetual exclusion from virtually anything which could be regarded as a “Company perk”? So much for parity! And now what have we got – very little in the way of support from our colleagues - just one ATCO stating that he can’t see why ATSAs should be licensed at all as we have “no technical responsibility” (at least he had the ba**s to write in and say his piece – the rest of them are notable by their absence!)
ATSAs should not be going down the licensing avenue if all they are looking for is some form of “professional I.D.” Holding a licence is not a status symbol – (what was it Niknak said? – oh,yes – “if you want a licence, become an ATCO”) – it should be regarded as proof that the holder is a capable, responsible and PROFESSIONAL person who will deliver the goods every time he/she comes to work and becomes part of the TEAM providing the service. And, yes, they are accountable for their input, and will be tested regularly/annually to ensure that they are up to the task. Just in case it has slipped anybody’s mind out there – ATSAs are part of the team!!
One part of the idea of licensing, as stated by the PCS Union Rep in his letter, is to “enhance the safety chain” – that, combined with the element of maintaining (and possibly improving) standards, should be valid enough reason for the introduction of licensing for the “professional” non-ATCO grades within ATC.
PS – I don’t think the poor so-and-so’s will be too happy to know that we “sharp-enders” are watching them – after all, they’ve got licences!!
Just a thought - have you never felt that your efforts should have been rewarded in any small way at all - not financially, but on a “professional” level? I had not been in the job for more than a year before the non-parity of the ATCOs/ATSAs became glaringly apparent, and not just in financial terms. I simply feel that, now, as participants in the same service, the very least we should be accorded is the acknowledgement that the part we play is important too. If, as we are allegedly told, the ATCOs , NATS Management and others do regard us as “professional”, and part of the team, then why are we subject to the constant put-downs, the lack of support at ALL levels, and the perpetual exclusion from virtually anything which could be regarded as a “Company perk”? So much for parity! And now what have we got – very little in the way of support from our colleagues - just one ATCO stating that he can’t see why ATSAs should be licensed at all as we have “no technical responsibility” (at least he had the ba**s to write in and say his piece – the rest of them are notable by their absence!)
ATSAs should not be going down the licensing avenue if all they are looking for is some form of “professional I.D.” Holding a licence is not a status symbol – (what was it Niknak said? – oh,yes – “if you want a licence, become an ATCO”) – it should be regarded as proof that the holder is a capable, responsible and PROFESSIONAL person who will deliver the goods every time he/she comes to work and becomes part of the TEAM providing the service. And, yes, they are accountable for their input, and will be tested regularly/annually to ensure that they are up to the task. Just in case it has slipped anybody’s mind out there – ATSAs are part of the team!!
One part of the idea of licensing, as stated by the PCS Union Rep in his letter, is to “enhance the safety chain” – that, combined with the element of maintaining (and possibly improving) standards, should be valid enough reason for the introduction of licensing for the “professional” non-ATCO grades within ATC.
PS – I don’t think the poor so-and-so’s will be too happy to know that we “sharp-enders” are watching them – after all, they’ve got licences!!