OJTI courses/ NATS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hill Valley
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OJTI courses/ NATS
Heard a rumour that controllers from NERC are being sent on OJTI courses with only 18 months radar valid experience, with a view to getting SRG to dispense them to do without the 6 months more they need.
May be untrue, but if it is correct, is this fair? Am sure all units, and indeed controllers that want to be OJTIs, have all waited the standard 2 years (sometimes a lot more due waiting lists, and bad admin) before they go on the course, and get the responsibilities and the spine point that goes with it.
Anyone shed any light? Is every NERC controller now with an OJTI ticket, so the next on the list is 18months valid?
Or is the queue not being fairly formed down there?
Yours With Intrigue.
May be untrue, but if it is correct, is this fair? Am sure all units, and indeed controllers that want to be OJTIs, have all waited the standard 2 years (sometimes a lot more due waiting lists, and bad admin) before they go on the course, and get the responsibilities and the spine point that goes with it.
Anyone shed any light? Is every NERC controller now with an OJTI ticket, so the next on the list is 18months valid?
Or is the queue not being fairly formed down there?
Yours With Intrigue.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: london
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You cannot teach before 24 months unless you have been previously valid at your present or previous unit, as dispensated by SRG.
However you may sit the OJTI course in advance of the 24 month time limit, whereupon you can then teach after the 24 month period.
Perhaps this is what you are referring to in your post.
However you may sit the OJTI course in advance of the 24 month time limit, whereupon you can then teach after the 24 month period.
Perhaps this is what you are referring to in your post.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that the SRG requirement is 12 months valid on a position, whether it is first validation or subsequent. A local agreement at LATCC many years ago added the extra 12 months but these could be waived with the agreement of all parties. The usual reason to shorten the waiting period is the time of year. It makes far more sense to have a new OJTI begin instructing during the winter months than pitch them in in May or June just because that is the anniversary of their validation.
We have the biggest training commitment of any unit in the country, so we need the Instructors. Fairness doesn't come in to it.
We have the biggest training commitment of any unit in the country, so we need the Instructors. Fairness doesn't come in to it.
Arkady, as always you are absolutely correct. When the OJTI leglislation was passed some 3 years or more ago, the 2 years valid on position as not included. The only criteria was that you must have held the rating, and by implication, have been valid for one year. It was agreed at LATCC and followed by LACC that we would still keep to the two years experience before anyone became a practising OJTI. However it was stated that in exceptional circumstances, such as someone showing exceptional ability we could reduce to one year. However there was no reason why anyone could not do the course provided that they were not attested until the two years were up.
For what it's worth I think that some people will make very good OJTI's after one year, whereas others are not suitable after 40 years!!
For what it's worth I think that some people will make very good OJTI's after one year, whereas others are not suitable after 40 years!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that SRG/CAA require 12 months, but NATS as a company policy require 24. Therefore if NATS have people training in under 24 months, but greater than 12, they're breaking nobody's rules but their own.
Arkady, I hear what you say about your training burden, but I think you'll find that other units have a similarly large trainee to OJTI ratio, so therefore I'm glad that a precedent of sub 24 months experience has been set (if this actually is the case) and look forward to this, and the spine point being rolled out across NATS as a whole. Fairness does, to a certain degree, come in to it!
edited to reveal that colon O becomes a big smiley face!
Arkady, I hear what you say about your training burden, but I think you'll find that other units have a similarly large trainee to OJTI ratio, so therefore I'm glad that a precedent of sub 24 months experience has been set (if this actually is the case) and look forward to this, and the spine point being rolled out across NATS as a whole. Fairness does, to a certain degree, come in to it!
edited to reveal that colon O becomes a big smiley face!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoa!
I should hope that this 'fairness' doesn't come into it. The only 'fairness' that should be considered is that to the trainee by selecting ATCOs who are enthusiastic and really want to start training for the right reasons, and who are judged by their peers, WTO/UTO and WM as being suitable for the job.
Becoming an OJTI by right at a specified experience level is a backward step.
and the spine point being rolled out across NATS as a whole. Fairness does, to a certain degree, come in to it!
Becoming an OJTI by right at a specified experience level is a backward step.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hill Valley
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All points taken on board, at no point did I say that OJTI course were a right, I've had enough bad mentors to know that.
The fairness I was referring to was more allocation of courses, once it has been established that the persons in question are the deserving of the position.
I think that OJTIs have improved over the last year or two as the young blood comes through that actually want to train people and pass on their knowledge, and to whom the spine point is incidental.
My intrigue was more with regards to; at NERC and elsewhere, is it now the case that all suitable OJTIs are now trained up, and you are now looking to people with just 18months validity?
This, I guess, is a good thing (if it is the case), but I wondered if it was, and also if it isn't, would it not be wiser to keep allocating the OJTI slots to units with equally problematic training burdens (TC/MACC)....
...To people who can actually finish the course and get down to teaching, rather than wait 6 months, unless SRG decide they have a yoda like quality, which I think is also hard to gauge, because as we all know, just because someone is good or even brilliant at the job, it has no link to how they will train.
The fairness I was referring to was more allocation of courses, once it has been established that the persons in question are the deserving of the position.
I think that OJTIs have improved over the last year or two as the young blood comes through that actually want to train people and pass on their knowledge, and to whom the spine point is incidental.
My intrigue was more with regards to; at NERC and elsewhere, is it now the case that all suitable OJTIs are now trained up, and you are now looking to people with just 18months validity?
This, I guess, is a good thing (if it is the case), but I wondered if it was, and also if it isn't, would it not be wiser to keep allocating the OJTI slots to units with equally problematic training burdens (TC/MACC)....
...To people who can actually finish the course and get down to teaching, rather than wait 6 months, unless SRG decide they have a yoda like quality, which I think is also hard to gauge, because as we all know, just because someone is good or even brilliant at the job, it has no link to how they will train.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Or is the queue not being fairly formed down there?”
There is no significant queue or waiting list for OJTI courses at LACC. Every ATCO deemed suitable will be on an OJTI course at the first possible opportunity. This is what I meant by “fairness not coming into it”.
“…I hear what you say about your training burden, but I think you'll find that other units have a similarly large trainee to OJTI ratio…”
I did not say anything about training burden or OJTI to trainee ratio. I said we have the largest training commitment in the country, the most trainees and therefore the most OJTIs. That means, in the context of this discussion, that we fill the most places on the OJTI courses, so they tend to be scheduled to suit our needs, cutting down any possible delay “due waiting lists or bad admin”. One of the advantages of being at a big unit.
“My understanding is that SRG/CAA require 12 months, but NATS as a company policy require 24. Therefore if NATS have people training in under 24 months, but greater than 12, they're breaking nobody's rules but their own.”
No. The extra 12 months is not NATS policy or any sort of rule, it is part of an agreement with the Unions that, at LACC, has been applied appropriately and with common sense.
LACCs approach to OJTI training means that all but a few ATCOs will be sent on an OJTI course after being valid for two years, without a great deal of consideration as to their suitability for the task. A few more will not be attested after their courses if their results were considered poor, but the over whelming majority will go on to instruct by their 2 year anniversary.
Although this method of “selection” is far from ideal it is not as bad as it sounds. Most ATCOS make competent Instructors, a few make really good ones. We monitor our OJTIs annually through an OJTI Competency Assessment scheme, taking feedback from the students and other OJTIs. Remedial training can (and has) been given to OJTIs who are considered not to be up to standard. ATCOs have also been removed from Instructing, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. Our difficulties begin when the pool of OJTIs for a particular sector group on a watch contains only competent instructors and no good ones. With a lot of LACCs OJTIs doing the maximum amount of training, any weaknesses or incompatibilities with a student become far more apparent. This does not make them bad instructors, often the OJTIs are the first to spot the problem. In the past reducing the amount of time that OJTI had with that student (sometimes to nil) would solve the problem. That is often not an option these days.
There is no significant queue or waiting list for OJTI courses at LACC. Every ATCO deemed suitable will be on an OJTI course at the first possible opportunity. This is what I meant by “fairness not coming into it”.
“…I hear what you say about your training burden, but I think you'll find that other units have a similarly large trainee to OJTI ratio…”
I did not say anything about training burden or OJTI to trainee ratio. I said we have the largest training commitment in the country, the most trainees and therefore the most OJTIs. That means, in the context of this discussion, that we fill the most places on the OJTI courses, so they tend to be scheduled to suit our needs, cutting down any possible delay “due waiting lists or bad admin”. One of the advantages of being at a big unit.
“My understanding is that SRG/CAA require 12 months, but NATS as a company policy require 24. Therefore if NATS have people training in under 24 months, but greater than 12, they're breaking nobody's rules but their own.”
No. The extra 12 months is not NATS policy or any sort of rule, it is part of an agreement with the Unions that, at LACC, has been applied appropriately and with common sense.
LACCs approach to OJTI training means that all but a few ATCOs will be sent on an OJTI course after being valid for two years, without a great deal of consideration as to their suitability for the task. A few more will not be attested after their courses if their results were considered poor, but the over whelming majority will go on to instruct by their 2 year anniversary.
Although this method of “selection” is far from ideal it is not as bad as it sounds. Most ATCOS make competent Instructors, a few make really good ones. We monitor our OJTIs annually through an OJTI Competency Assessment scheme, taking feedback from the students and other OJTIs. Remedial training can (and has) been given to OJTIs who are considered not to be up to standard. ATCOs have also been removed from Instructing, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. Our difficulties begin when the pool of OJTIs for a particular sector group on a watch contains only competent instructors and no good ones. With a lot of LACCs OJTIs doing the maximum amount of training, any weaknesses or incompatibilities with a student become far more apparent. This does not make them bad instructors, often the OJTIs are the first to spot the problem. In the past reducing the amount of time that OJTI had with that student (sometimes to nil) would solve the problem. That is often not an option these days.
