LACC Training (Split off from NATS Morale)
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's hoping for a paper aeroplane, not a boarding card. I'd use it to have a certain member of LACC management's eye out. 
How to improve motivation?
1) Stop treating trainees and OJTIs like second class citizens
2) Stop chopping promising trainees at the earliest given opportunity because they don't quite conform to the "ideal trainee" utopia which has been dreamt up by LACC training section as a basis for progression through live OJT.
If we do this, then maybe we will gradually get a few more valid controllers so that management can...
... which would be great for everybody.
But that could be a whole other thread.
LTP
How to improve motivation?
1) Stop treating trainees and OJTIs like second class citizens
2) Stop chopping promising trainees at the earliest given opportunity because they don't quite conform to the "ideal trainee" utopia which has been dreamt up by LACC training section as a basis for progression through live OJT.
If we do this, then maybe we will gradually get a few more valid controllers so that management can...
Ensure that you have enough staff in position
But that could be a whole other thread.
LTP
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"2) Stop chopping promising trainees at the earliest given opportunity because they don't quite conform to the "ideal trainee" utopia which has been dreamt up by LACC training section as a basis for progression through live OJT."
How many trainees have the training section chopped prior to live OJT? I'm only aware of one.
How many trainees have the training section chopped prior to live OJT? I'm only aware of one.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So am I. I think you misunderstand me - I refer to the number of trainees that have been shown the door over the past 12 months because their LIVE training has not gone as well as the training section would have liked. The numbers this year are, at best, appalling - especially of those trainees who are getting packed off up the M6 after narrowly failing the later level checks.
LTP
LTP
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll make one reply to this and if you want to continue the debate we'd better start a new thread 'cos it really doesn't fit the thread title!
The training section don't make the decision to chop students, it's down to the watch OJTIs. The OJTIs have been overruled on occasion and a student moved to another watch to try again but this has been, almost without exception, a failure.
You said " Stop chopping promising trainees at the earliest given opportunity" and then you have said "especially of those trainees who are getting packed off up the M6 after narrowly failing the later level checks" by which, I assume, you mean that the later level checks ARE the earliest opportunity. That rather implies that the trainees are being given plenty of opportunity but simply not coming up to scratch at the business end of the training.
The reality is, of course, far more difficult to assess. The drop in validations followed a significant improvement in the first 12 months of training at Swanwick and is, as such, even more baffling. There are several theories for this, but the most relevent to your post is that the earlier level checks aren't hard enough, so weaknesses aren't as apparent, particularly to the student themselves.
Remember, by a level 5 check a student has to have stopped "showing promise" and started delivering and some simply don't.
I absolutely agree with your statement
"Stop treating trainees and OJTIs like second class citizens"
Until training is afforded top priority no amount of management novelties will improve the situation (cleverly getting back on topic).
LTP, if you want to debate the above please start another thread.
The training section don't make the decision to chop students, it's down to the watch OJTIs. The OJTIs have been overruled on occasion and a student moved to another watch to try again but this has been, almost without exception, a failure.
You said " Stop chopping promising trainees at the earliest given opportunity" and then you have said "especially of those trainees who are getting packed off up the M6 after narrowly failing the later level checks" by which, I assume, you mean that the later level checks ARE the earliest opportunity. That rather implies that the trainees are being given plenty of opportunity but simply not coming up to scratch at the business end of the training.
The reality is, of course, far more difficult to assess. The drop in validations followed a significant improvement in the first 12 months of training at Swanwick and is, as such, even more baffling. There are several theories for this, but the most relevent to your post is that the earlier level checks aren't hard enough, so weaknesses aren't as apparent, particularly to the student themselves.
Remember, by a level 5 check a student has to have stopped "showing promise" and started delivering and some simply don't.
I absolutely agree with your statement
"Stop treating trainees and OJTIs like second class citizens"
Until training is afforded top priority no amount of management novelties will improve the situation (cleverly getting back on topic).
LTP, if you want to debate the above please start another thread.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until training is afforded top priority no amount of management novelties will improve the situation
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However,
I have heard of instances where trainees have finished SVC, and been told by on watch OJTIs that they would fail the level 1 check... that, to me is B**locks.
If they can find their way from the rest room to the ops room without falling over they should pass this level; it is supposed to be WITH assistance.
Only complete prats who have an attitude problem or do not put in the bookwork should get pulled at this stage, but if they were that bad, they should have been weeded out at the college or on SVC. The question then is, are people further back just passing the Buck onto later OJTIs to do the chopping?
I have heard of instances where trainees have finished SVC, and been told by on watch OJTIs that they would fail the level 1 check... that, to me is B**locks.
If they can find their way from the rest room to the ops room without falling over they should pass this level; it is supposed to be WITH assistance.
Only complete prats who have an attitude problem or do not put in the bookwork should get pulled at this stage, but if they were that bad, they should have been weeded out at the college or on SVC. The question then is, are people further back just passing the Buck onto later OJTIs to do the chopping?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bum Deal for Trainees
Training at Swanwick will always be subject to a range of factors:-
+chronic staff shortage resulting in over-the-top traffic levels
+unsuitable OJTI's
+unrealistic expectation of achievable trainee performance
+unwillingness to accomodate trainee requirements
+unwillingness to accept that maybe the system is flawed
In fact only the other day I overheard a group meeting of the OPS Room elite hatching the daily plan to screw the workers. Pretended to be reading briefing notes whilst over-hearing conversation...plan is to overload sector X by 10% as per normal, except for this three hour period when there will be a planned overload of 30%....using this special flow control code or something.....anyway the company yes-men nod furiously [no validation to worry about]....lots of brownie points to be had here.....and of course if there is a subsequent overload report we can say that the sector controllers were told that they could delay clearances on a tactical basis.......but they never do........etc. etc.
Now how the hell do you train somebody against that sort of background....is it in any way fair? Even when the traffic levels do subside we get the Kamikaze bandbox scenario resulting in high traffic level and needless over-complexity......trainees may have a very good case for claiming wrongful termination......they are being asked to achieve an unrealistic level of competence......if so many have gone on to other units to become successful controllers is it not unreasonable to conclude that Swanwick training at each and every delivery level is failing?
A trainee should not have to be a "freak" to validate....the required standard should be attainable by Joe Average and Norma Normal, and if it isn't, the whole system should be scrutinised.
+chronic staff shortage resulting in over-the-top traffic levels
+unsuitable OJTI's
+unrealistic expectation of achievable trainee performance
+unwillingness to accomodate trainee requirements
+unwillingness to accept that maybe the system is flawed
In fact only the other day I overheard a group meeting of the OPS Room elite hatching the daily plan to screw the workers. Pretended to be reading briefing notes whilst over-hearing conversation...plan is to overload sector X by 10% as per normal, except for this three hour period when there will be a planned overload of 30%....using this special flow control code or something.....anyway the company yes-men nod furiously [no validation to worry about]....lots of brownie points to be had here.....and of course if there is a subsequent overload report we can say that the sector controllers were told that they could delay clearances on a tactical basis.......but they never do........etc. etc.
Now how the hell do you train somebody against that sort of background....is it in any way fair? Even when the traffic levels do subside we get the Kamikaze bandbox scenario resulting in high traffic level and needless over-complexity......trainees may have a very good case for claiming wrongful termination......they are being asked to achieve an unrealistic level of competence......if so many have gone on to other units to become successful controllers is it not unreasonable to conclude that Swanwick training at each and every delivery level is failing?
A trainee should not have to be a "freak" to validate....the required standard should be attainable by Joe Average and Norma Normal, and if it isn't, the whole system should be scrutinised.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work at the 'other' London Radar unit... not exactly flush with staff, or quiet, yet the success rate seems to be better there. I just hope that with the move to Hampshire, the training does not go downhill.
Some people in the OPS room need to realise that they are training their relief controllers and not 'chopping for job security'.
Some people in the OPS room need to realise that they are training their relief controllers and not 'chopping for job security'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, where to start? I think we all agree that the training process at LACC is flawed. Either that, or it's going through one hell of a "blip" owing to poor trainees.
However, all trainees that start live training at LACC have successfully completed college, as well as their sector-specific simulator training. They are in effect the most promising students that NATS has. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have been invested in each one of them. The past twelve months have seen a great many of these trainees "chopped" - more often than not at their final level checks (L5 or L6) - and sent elsewhere, to units at which it is supposedly easier to validate. But students who get this far MUST already know how to separate traffic - they just need exposure to busy scenarios in order to learn how to operate safely when the heat is on. My point is, if a trainee has got this far in his/her training, s/he should be given every possible chance to succeed. Flogging trainees for 60 hours of busy traffic is NOT giving many of them a chance. Consider this: The current training process calls for a student to be live-trained for 240hrs in light to moderate traffic, and only 120hrs in moderate to busy. Should it not be the other way around, given that a student with at least 24 months' experience should already be able to separate traffic at light to moderate levels?
But instead of giving these students the hours they need at their first unit, NATS packs them off to another unit at which it is perceived to be easier to validate. When the student validates at this new unit (which, given 300hrs of further training, most will), NATS considers this to be "success", and the transfer process becomes commonplace. Net result: LACC staffing problems compounded, LACC training programme set back by 12 months, money wasted.
Turn the scenario on its head: An imaginary group of students train at Manchester ACC and all fail to validate after 300hrs of training. If this group were transferred to LACC and given 360hrs to validate a sector, I reckon a fair proportion would validate. Of course, this scenario never happens because management perceives ALL LACC sectors to be more difficult than ALL MACC sectors.
Management at LACC have recently come up with a controversial solution for solving training problems on one particular sector group - stop training "ab-initio" students on the sector, and pilfer single-sector valid controllers from other parts of the room to train on this troublesome beast. I'm sure some of the people who regularly post on here will have views on whether this is a good idea or not, so I'll leave my opinions out of it. But is this not an admission of failure by LACC training management? That their training process on this sector is only producing an ab-initio validation rate of 38%? At the very least, it is an admission that this sector is more difficult than any other at LACC, which raises yet more questions.
Something, sooner or later, has to change. Maybe the validation rates will get better by themselves, if we assume that the current crop of narrowly-failed trainees is some sort of demographic trough. But more likely, they won't.
Ark, while I agree with your sentiment that
I think that management honestly believe that they ARE affording top priority to training. Apparently they are just at a loss as to how to improve on the status quo.
LTP
However, all trainees that start live training at LACC have successfully completed college, as well as their sector-specific simulator training. They are in effect the most promising students that NATS has. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have been invested in each one of them. The past twelve months have seen a great many of these trainees "chopped" - more often than not at their final level checks (L5 or L6) - and sent elsewhere, to units at which it is supposedly easier to validate. But students who get this far MUST already know how to separate traffic - they just need exposure to busy scenarios in order to learn how to operate safely when the heat is on. My point is, if a trainee has got this far in his/her training, s/he should be given every possible chance to succeed. Flogging trainees for 60 hours of busy traffic is NOT giving many of them a chance. Consider this: The current training process calls for a student to be live-trained for 240hrs in light to moderate traffic, and only 120hrs in moderate to busy. Should it not be the other way around, given that a student with at least 24 months' experience should already be able to separate traffic at light to moderate levels?
But instead of giving these students the hours they need at their first unit, NATS packs them off to another unit at which it is perceived to be easier to validate. When the student validates at this new unit (which, given 300hrs of further training, most will), NATS considers this to be "success", and the transfer process becomes commonplace. Net result: LACC staffing problems compounded, LACC training programme set back by 12 months, money wasted.
Turn the scenario on its head: An imaginary group of students train at Manchester ACC and all fail to validate after 300hrs of training. If this group were transferred to LACC and given 360hrs to validate a sector, I reckon a fair proportion would validate. Of course, this scenario never happens because management perceives ALL LACC sectors to be more difficult than ALL MACC sectors.
Management at LACC have recently come up with a controversial solution for solving training problems on one particular sector group - stop training "ab-initio" students on the sector, and pilfer single-sector valid controllers from other parts of the room to train on this troublesome beast. I'm sure some of the people who regularly post on here will have views on whether this is a good idea or not, so I'll leave my opinions out of it. But is this not an admission of failure by LACC training management? That their training process on this sector is only producing an ab-initio validation rate of 38%? At the very least, it is an admission that this sector is more difficult than any other at LACC, which raises yet more questions.
Something, sooner or later, has to change. Maybe the validation rates will get better by themselves, if we assume that the current crop of narrowly-failed trainees is some sort of demographic trough. But more likely, they won't.
Ark, while I agree with your sentiment that
Until training is afforded top priority no amount of management novelties will improve the situation
LTP
The present system of student training at LACC gives the candidate far more opportunity to prove their ability than was previously the case at LATCC. Now in order for a student to fail a level assessment there has to be totally objective evidence that they have not met the criteria for that level. The students are given ample opportunity to demonstrate whether they are up to the task and this is why they are not failing until level 4 or 5. As the reports are measured against defined traffic levels there is no room for OJTI subjectivity, everything must be black and white. The evidence for this is that average time to failure now exceeds average time to validation!! I believe that the present UTP gives the student a far better chance of "making it" as it tries to eliminate the predicting element that was very much in vogue over the last few years.
Secondly the training section do all they can to assist students that are finding it difficult and often they will fight the students corner when discussing their progress with the watch often suggesting different options.
As for the failure rate having increased recently where is the evidence for this? At the moment there are almost 50% more students in the system than 18 months ago, therefore the amount that fail is bound to increase but I am certain that the increase is less than 50%.
As to the option for West end training only time wil tell if it is the correct solution but West end development dictates that we need to increase the staffing levels there significantly and so far no-one has come up with a better idea to achieve 50 validations over the next 5 years [which is the figure that I have heard is required}
Secondly the training section do all they can to assist students that are finding it difficult and often they will fight the students corner when discussing their progress with the watch often suggesting different options.
As for the failure rate having increased recently where is the evidence for this? At the moment there are almost 50% more students in the system than 18 months ago, therefore the amount that fail is bound to increase but I am certain that the increase is less than 50%.
As to the option for West end training only time wil tell if it is the correct solution but West end development dictates that we need to increase the staffing levels there significantly and so far no-one has come up with a better idea to achieve 50 validations over the next 5 years [which is the figure that I have heard is required}
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTP
I agree 100% with your point of view but your perception of how the training at LACC works is rather different from the reality. It is worth noting that somebody who has been through the process is unaware of how it actually works, and that is a definite failing on the part of the OJTIs and WTMs.
“The current training process calls for a student to be live-trained for 240hrs in light to moderate traffic, and only 120hrs in moderate to busy”
Students are live trained in whatever traffic is available. The first 240 hours is assessed against light to moderate traffic, but the trainee will be trained in busy traffic from day one, if it is present. So the reality is, a student can consistently fail to cope with busy traffic levels for 240 hours but cannot be assessed on this shortcoming until the 300 hour check. For a successful student I would expect them to be able to cope with straight forward busy traffic with occasional input from an OJTI by 240 hours. They will have certainly have seen a lot of busy traffic by then. Good students used to validate 2 sectors at West Drayton in 250 hours so I don’t think that is an unreasonable expectation.
If a student is failing to cope with busy periods and, most significantly, is showing no improvement, I have to pass them on the 1 to 4 checks AND I can’t mark them down for this shortcoming (I’ve tried and been taken to task for it). Consequently, the student is getting mixed messages – a daily report that highlights the problems in busy traffic but a milestone report that ignores them. It is no wonder that some students are bewildered when their level 5 is unsatisfactory.
“The past twelve months have seen a great many of these trainees "chopped" - more often than not at their final level checks (L5 or L6)”
A Students training is rarely terminated on the strength of one failed level check. The Student is given some goals to achieve in the next fifty hours of training and reassessed at 25 and fifty hours. This works pretty well for those students who aren’t at the required standard but who are showing steady improvement. It also highlights those who have reached their limit -under those training conditions. It would be nice to then move the student to another watch or sector to see if that makes a difference. It has been done on occasion with very little success. Giving the student a fresh start at another unit seems to be the fairest way of allowing them to continue their training with a clean sheet.
The idea of training Students at MACC and, particularly, at Scottish and then transferring them to LACC or TC has been debated before and I believe the theory is a good one BUT the reality (again) is somewhat different. Firstly, both TC and AC (and I believe the LL tower) have a much better success rate with ab-initios than with valid controllers. Secondly, once fully valid, there is little incentive for a transferred trainee to validate at a Southern Unit unless they particularly want that unit or there is a huge pay difference between the Area Centres, and I don’t see Manch or Scottish buying that one.
So what is wrong with the training?
OJTIs
NATS operates a policy that if you can do the job you can teach somebody else to do the job, with wildly varying levels of success. In the main I think most ATCOs at LACC are competent Instructors but few are really good ones.
More particularly, there aren’t enough instructors to match them to the period of a Students training that suits them best.
SVCs
Not enough instructors, not enough simulated radar time, no realistic sector to sector co-ordination, indifferent feed (through no fault of the APSs, they’re just asked to do too much without sufficient training) too much repetition of the (usually very good) exercises.
Assessment
See above. The Student should be assessed against validation standard from day one. Also, a level assessment is now a 7 page document, where it used to be just one. Assessors do not have much enthusiasm for carrying these checks out.
Single sector
Only doing one sector must be such a grind for students. Same thing day in day out for over a year. Doing two sectors gives you some variety, lets you look at the same problems from a different angle, perhaps a more comprehensible angle for that student. Most importantly, if a student starts to struggle on one sector, working on the other can be a relief and a confidence booster for them. (And just for the record I am dead against Tactical only training for T&Ds simply because none of the rest of us will ever get to sit on Radar). But it won’t be done because that would mean bigger and longer SVCs requiring more valid ATCOs to be taken from the ops room and the consequent service hit.
The only way we are going to train our way out of the hole we are in is to put training before service delivery for two or three years, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
I agree 100% with your point of view but your perception of how the training at LACC works is rather different from the reality. It is worth noting that somebody who has been through the process is unaware of how it actually works, and that is a definite failing on the part of the OJTIs and WTMs.
“The current training process calls for a student to be live-trained for 240hrs in light to moderate traffic, and only 120hrs in moderate to busy”
Students are live trained in whatever traffic is available. The first 240 hours is assessed against light to moderate traffic, but the trainee will be trained in busy traffic from day one, if it is present. So the reality is, a student can consistently fail to cope with busy traffic levels for 240 hours but cannot be assessed on this shortcoming until the 300 hour check. For a successful student I would expect them to be able to cope with straight forward busy traffic with occasional input from an OJTI by 240 hours. They will have certainly have seen a lot of busy traffic by then. Good students used to validate 2 sectors at West Drayton in 250 hours so I don’t think that is an unreasonable expectation.
If a student is failing to cope with busy periods and, most significantly, is showing no improvement, I have to pass them on the 1 to 4 checks AND I can’t mark them down for this shortcoming (I’ve tried and been taken to task for it). Consequently, the student is getting mixed messages – a daily report that highlights the problems in busy traffic but a milestone report that ignores them. It is no wonder that some students are bewildered when their level 5 is unsatisfactory.
“The past twelve months have seen a great many of these trainees "chopped" - more often than not at their final level checks (L5 or L6)”
A Students training is rarely terminated on the strength of one failed level check. The Student is given some goals to achieve in the next fifty hours of training and reassessed at 25 and fifty hours. This works pretty well for those students who aren’t at the required standard but who are showing steady improvement. It also highlights those who have reached their limit -under those training conditions. It would be nice to then move the student to another watch or sector to see if that makes a difference. It has been done on occasion with very little success. Giving the student a fresh start at another unit seems to be the fairest way of allowing them to continue their training with a clean sheet.
The idea of training Students at MACC and, particularly, at Scottish and then transferring them to LACC or TC has been debated before and I believe the theory is a good one BUT the reality (again) is somewhat different. Firstly, both TC and AC (and I believe the LL tower) have a much better success rate with ab-initios than with valid controllers. Secondly, once fully valid, there is little incentive for a transferred trainee to validate at a Southern Unit unless they particularly want that unit or there is a huge pay difference between the Area Centres, and I don’t see Manch or Scottish buying that one.
So what is wrong with the training?
OJTIs
NATS operates a policy that if you can do the job you can teach somebody else to do the job, with wildly varying levels of success. In the main I think most ATCOs at LACC are competent Instructors but few are really good ones.
More particularly, there aren’t enough instructors to match them to the period of a Students training that suits them best.
SVCs
Not enough instructors, not enough simulated radar time, no realistic sector to sector co-ordination, indifferent feed (through no fault of the APSs, they’re just asked to do too much without sufficient training) too much repetition of the (usually very good) exercises.
Assessment
See above. The Student should be assessed against validation standard from day one. Also, a level assessment is now a 7 page document, where it used to be just one. Assessors do not have much enthusiasm for carrying these checks out.
Single sector
Only doing one sector must be such a grind for students. Same thing day in day out for over a year. Doing two sectors gives you some variety, lets you look at the same problems from a different angle, perhaps a more comprehensible angle for that student. Most importantly, if a student starts to struggle on one sector, working on the other can be a relief and a confidence booster for them. (And just for the record I am dead against Tactical only training for T&Ds simply because none of the rest of us will ever get to sit on Radar). But it won’t be done because that would mean bigger and longer SVCs requiring more valid ATCOs to be taken from the ops room and the consequent service hit.
The only way we are going to train our way out of the hole we are in is to put training before service delivery for two or three years, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arkady, great post.
Solutions?
If we all agree that single sector isn't working (certainly not from my experience for more reasons that plain ability of students) then united together the training section HAS TO LISTEN and come up with a way of dual sector validations. If this means Tac only, then put in a clause to extend to Planner within 3 months as the number 1 student on the sector, from the one experience Swanwick has had of this it took very little time to extend.
Why not extend the intro course by a week just for student ATCO's to go more indepth with the electronics, then at least this doesn't hinder initial training, and they can have some knowledge of the Planners role even if just training on Tac.
Grade the OJTI's if we all have to do it. I agree that the standards of OJTI are very varied, fortunately all still competent of producing results even if not at all levels. My experience is that the older wiser OJTI's are generally better for levels 4,5 and 6 when that final push is needed, and the newer ones good for initial training to get the basics installed very early on. Obviously its not that black and white, but I think you get my theory. Having fewer OJTI's as has been mentioned by rumour mill, but making them the "elite" will never sort out the backlog. We have nearly everyone we possibly could as OJTI, and we regularly have students twiddling their thumbs.
Final thought? If management want more from their students, they will need more from their OJTI's. I quite often feel that training is a chore and get little enjoyment out of it. I have no idea how to change this but its a starting block to improve the current sham.
Solutions?
If we all agree that single sector isn't working (certainly not from my experience for more reasons that plain ability of students) then united together the training section HAS TO LISTEN and come up with a way of dual sector validations. If this means Tac only, then put in a clause to extend to Planner within 3 months as the number 1 student on the sector, from the one experience Swanwick has had of this it took very little time to extend.
Why not extend the intro course by a week just for student ATCO's to go more indepth with the electronics, then at least this doesn't hinder initial training, and they can have some knowledge of the Planners role even if just training on Tac.
Grade the OJTI's if we all have to do it. I agree that the standards of OJTI are very varied, fortunately all still competent of producing results even if not at all levels. My experience is that the older wiser OJTI's are generally better for levels 4,5 and 6 when that final push is needed, and the newer ones good for initial training to get the basics installed very early on. Obviously its not that black and white, but I think you get my theory. Having fewer OJTI's as has been mentioned by rumour mill, but making them the "elite" will never sort out the backlog. We have nearly everyone we possibly could as OJTI, and we regularly have students twiddling their thumbs.
Final thought? If management want more from their students, they will need more from their OJTI's. I quite often feel that training is a chore and get little enjoyment out of it. I have no idea how to change this but its a starting block to improve the current sham.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A Barn
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe one problem is the fact that at only 8 weeks into the intro course we are being asked to chose which discipline we want (26 to area). That obviously means some who dont want Swanwick will end up there, is this a good way to start a challenging career? As for the comments above, it's just more of the ultra-negative crap we seem to get everyday. If you ask me the whole business needs less boarding cards (we didn't get airplanes) and more prozac!!!!!!
We heard an interesting fact today, a group of ATCOs is known as a'whinge'.
We heard an interesting fact today, a group of ATCOs is known as a'whinge'.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Maybe one problem is the fact that at only 8 weeks into the intro course we are being asked to chose which discipline we want (26 to area). That obviously means some who dont want Swanwick will end up there, is this a good way to start a challenging career?"
Sounds like "ultra-negative crap" to me and a "whinge" to boot.
I guarantee that you and your course mates will get to a point when you won't care where the hell you are posted to, as long as you pass the next set of summatives.
Sounds like "ultra-negative crap" to me and a "whinge" to boot.
I guarantee that you and your course mates will get to a point when you won't care where the hell you are posted to, as long as you pass the next set of summatives.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hurn-ia
Get some time in before putting that sort of sh
te on PPRuNe.
You better hope no one knows your identity when you go to a unit. The last muppet to start mouthing off while still at CATC was dog on wheels. Have a look for his posts and see how popular he became.
Anyway...... back to the thread.
Unfortunately ATC is far more than simply separating aircraft.
Dealing with unusual circumstances; recognising the need for coordination; creative thinking; devising clearances; assimilating/disseminating varied information; teamworking; command of the RT/sector - - - etc are all part of the development of a traineee ATCO.
It's quite often a combined lack of a few of these abilities that sees a TATC fail to make the 'final push' to validation standard. I don't think it is the increased traffic that makes LACC difficult compared to other units. It is having to do more of the above that pulls them down.
There are plenty of very capable trainees stopping at LVL5 and 6 because they are been nursed through the unusual stuff by the OJTIs at LVLs1-4. The jump from LVL 4 to 5 is being made too great by the relatively sharp reduction in OJTI intervention.
I agree then with Arkady who says
and add that students/trainees should be encouraged to tackle unusual situations from early in their training [except for where safety of life is concerned 
]
cheers
VL
a group of ATCOs is known as a'whinge'.
te on PPRuNe.You better hope no one knows your identity when you go to a unit. The last muppet to start mouthing off while still at CATC was dog on wheels. Have a look for his posts and see how popular he became.
Anyway...... back to the thread.
The past twelve months have seen a great many of these trainees "chopped" - more often than not at their final level checks (L5 or L6)............. But students who get this far MUST already know how to separate traffic
Dealing with unusual circumstances; recognising the need for coordination; creative thinking; devising clearances; assimilating/disseminating varied information; teamworking; command of the RT/sector - - - etc are all part of the development of a traineee ATCO.
It's quite often a combined lack of a few of these abilities that sees a TATC fail to make the 'final push' to validation standard. I don't think it is the increased traffic that makes LACC difficult compared to other units. It is having to do more of the above that pulls them down.
There are plenty of very capable trainees stopping at LVL5 and 6 because they are been nursed through the unusual stuff by the OJTIs at LVLs1-4. The jump from LVL 4 to 5 is being made too great by the relatively sharp reduction in OJTI intervention.
I agree then with Arkady who says
The Student should be assessed against validation standard from day one
]cheers
VL
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We used to assess training against validation standard from day one.. but it was incredibly subjective. Effectively, you get a series or reports that says "no good" "no good" "no good" "getting better" "made it"
What does this actually tell you about a trainee's progress? Nothing. We moved, thanks to RGAT, to a system of objective based reporting, i.e., at this stage, under these conditions, a student whould be able to do the following. It doesn't say that a student shouldn't be exposed to heavy traffic, it simply sets the grading criteria.
By use of the RGAT system, a trainee's progress should be identifiable and appropriate intevention can be taken at an earlier stage. Under the old system, we couldn't normally do this - we also didn't usuallyhave the evidence to support terminating training.
One of the problems with any reporting system, is what is actually written down by the OJTIs. I have heard of simulator reports with several incidents under "safety" and then under final comments "another good day, keep it up". Many is the time when OJTIs have said that a student is no good, only to be confronted with a series of reports that say no such thing!
VectorLine I think that the reference to a "whinge" of controllers was meantto be a joke. Your response was way over the top. Perhaps you need to chill out a little.
What does this actually tell you about a trainee's progress? Nothing. We moved, thanks to RGAT, to a system of objective based reporting, i.e., at this stage, under these conditions, a student whould be able to do the following. It doesn't say that a student shouldn't be exposed to heavy traffic, it simply sets the grading criteria.
By use of the RGAT system, a trainee's progress should be identifiable and appropriate intevention can be taken at an earlier stage. Under the old system, we couldn't normally do this - we also didn't usuallyhave the evidence to support terminating training.
One of the problems with any reporting system, is what is actually written down by the OJTIs. I have heard of simulator reports with several incidents under "safety" and then under final comments "another good day, keep it up". Many is the time when OJTIs have said that a student is no good, only to be confronted with a series of reports that say no such thing!
VectorLine I think that the reference to a "whinge" of controllers was meantto be a joke. Your response was way over the top. Perhaps you need to chill out a little.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is true that as far as postings are concerned, once you get to the latter stages of the college, you could not give a monkeys. All attentions are to the verbal, written or next set of summatives. People tend to decide to deal with the training at their units, WHEN they get there.
With all training there is going to be good and bad elements. In my experience it is best to knuckle down and deal with it. If you try your hardest then this will be noted and assistance provided by instructors when you are having a few little problems.
There are always people on hand to moan about the training. But I have to say most of these people tend to be having a tough time in the sim at that particular time. A couple of weeks later when they have seen the light as it were, they are happy again.
With all training there is going to be good and bad elements. In my experience it is best to knuckle down and deal with it. If you try your hardest then this will be noted and assistance provided by instructors when you are having a few little problems.
There are always people on hand to moan about the training. But I have to say most of these people tend to be having a tough time in the sim at that particular time. A couple of weeks later when they have seen the light as it were, they are happy again.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You better hope no one knows your identity when you go to a unit. The last muppet to start mouthing off while still at CATC was dog on wheels. Have a look for his posts and see how popular he became.
You can look for my posts, but they aren't there any more, thanks to some wilfully belligerent morons who refused to actually read what I'd posted and jumped on the 'bash the student' bandwagon. The threats and abuse I got actually had a very negative effect on my life for a month or so, and made college life that bit more difficult, so I would ask you to think carefully before jumping in with both feet again the second another student ventures an opinion.
Last edited by Dog On Wheels; 27th Oct 2004 at 23:40.