High College Failure Rate?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our unit has been saying for years that more Students should be failed at the college rather than be allowed to progress to live units and waste valuable training time, so, for the moment, it would be hypocritical to criticise the College for making it tougher for Students to pass, however they may be doing it. If the validation rate at LACC improves significantly as these New Course Students are posted in, then the College will have been justified in their approach. If not..........
It seems logical that if the majority who are recoursed pass second time around then lengthening the original course will improve the pass rates but I don't think it is quite that simple.
People who become Student ATCOs are generally hardworking, intelligent and above all confident. Very few Student ATCOs will have ever struggled or failed anything in their lives, prior to commencing their ATC training, so when they do struggle or fail it is a totally new experience and a challenge that some cannot rise to. It has not been uncommon at LACC (and LATCC as was) to have to fail a very capable student because they have stopped learning. They cannot conceive that they are going to fail and begin to ignore (or in some cases argue against) the instruction and advice of their OJTIs. When they are chopped it comes as a bolt out of the blue despite the evidence accumulating against them. Any capable Student chopped at LACC will be recommended for another chance at another unit (but it is not our decision whether or not they get one) and these Students often shine at their new units. I think that the realization that they CAN fail will often change their approach to their training and make them more receptive to criticism. Similarly, repeating a course can allow a Student to reassess HOW they are learning without having to worry as much about WHAT they are learning.
The effectiveness of the new courses will not be known for a couple of years yet. I have serious misgivings about the lack of experience our new trainees have but this should only lengthen the amount of time it takes to get valid, rather than prevent validation itself.
For those at, or shortly to be starting at the College I have one crumb of comfort. The greater the challenge at the College the better prepared you will be for the challenge of live training. As has been said many times before, on this thread and others, keep your head down, work hard at the theory and be 100% ready for the practical, absorb everything you are told - discuss but don't argue the point - and above all don't become isolated or brood on problems. You will learn as much from your course mates as from any instructor just by talking things through.
It seems logical that if the majority who are recoursed pass second time around then lengthening the original course will improve the pass rates but I don't think it is quite that simple.
People who become Student ATCOs are generally hardworking, intelligent and above all confident. Very few Student ATCOs will have ever struggled or failed anything in their lives, prior to commencing their ATC training, so when they do struggle or fail it is a totally new experience and a challenge that some cannot rise to. It has not been uncommon at LACC (and LATCC as was) to have to fail a very capable student because they have stopped learning. They cannot conceive that they are going to fail and begin to ignore (or in some cases argue against) the instruction and advice of their OJTIs. When they are chopped it comes as a bolt out of the blue despite the evidence accumulating against them. Any capable Student chopped at LACC will be recommended for another chance at another unit (but it is not our decision whether or not they get one) and these Students often shine at their new units. I think that the realization that they CAN fail will often change their approach to their training and make them more receptive to criticism. Similarly, repeating a course can allow a Student to reassess HOW they are learning without having to worry as much about WHAT they are learning.
The effectiveness of the new courses will not be known for a couple of years yet. I have serious misgivings about the lack of experience our new trainees have but this should only lengthen the amount of time it takes to get valid, rather than prevent validation itself.
For those at, or shortly to be starting at the College I have one crumb of comfort. The greater the challenge at the College the better prepared you will be for the challenge of live training. As has been said many times before, on this thread and others, keep your head down, work hard at the theory and be 100% ready for the practical, absorb everything you are told - discuss but don't argue the point - and above all don't become isolated or brood on problems. You will learn as much from your course mates as from any instructor just by talking things through.
Last edited by Arkady; 23rd Apr 2007 at 13:08. Reason: Edited to sort out the cr@p spelling
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Courses
I couldn't imagine being in CATC on a big course with alot of other big courses around. I found the place claustrophic and would equate it to like going back to secondary school as an adult.
I've had people ask me about my opinion concerning them going for NATS posts they've seen advertised and I'll always advise:
Don't sell property to go, I struggled and spent a fortune to get back on the ladder.
I'd advise youngsters to go to Uni if they can afford it or get a trade before giving their life to NATS.
Anyone leaving a good job, don't burn bridges, make sure you have enough experience under your belt in your profession to be marketable when you want back in. I was lucky here and started back the day I left NATS.
Be prepared to be a NATS pawn.
I could go on. I've no idea what these people are on about when they talk about great college days. On 203 we were one of the first on the new courses (then), I can imagine it being alot harder nowadays.
We had a course of 11 but were expected to pair up on the simulators. hilarious.
As an adult the lucky ones are the ones who go down with partners or children, and rent a house, as they can have their own personal space.
A final straw among many for me was when some nosy sod open the letter containing my P45 in the locker room. That's the sort of place it is.
I think candidates giving up things should be given a more balanced view about the place on forums like this before they give up security, property, shares savings etc.
good luck to you, work hard.
I've had people ask me about my opinion concerning them going for NATS posts they've seen advertised and I'll always advise:
Don't sell property to go, I struggled and spent a fortune to get back on the ladder.
I'd advise youngsters to go to Uni if they can afford it or get a trade before giving their life to NATS.
Anyone leaving a good job, don't burn bridges, make sure you have enough experience under your belt in your profession to be marketable when you want back in. I was lucky here and started back the day I left NATS.
Be prepared to be a NATS pawn.
I could go on. I've no idea what these people are on about when they talk about great college days. On 203 we were one of the first on the new courses (then), I can imagine it being alot harder nowadays.
We had a course of 11 but were expected to pair up on the simulators. hilarious.
As an adult the lucky ones are the ones who go down with partners or children, and rent a house, as they can have their own personal space.
A final straw among many for me was when some nosy sod open the letter containing my P45 in the locker room. That's the sort of place it is.
I think candidates giving up things should be given a more balanced view about the place on forums like this before they give up security, property, shares savings etc.
good luck to you, work hard.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: BERKSHIRE
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have always been lots of people who don't make it through the college but remember lots of people DO make it through the college and validate. It's the old glass half full/empty thing.
You could argue that it is now easier to get through the college because there are fewer assessments and therefore fewer hurdles to get over with your one life line.
When I went through you had summatives at the end of Aerodrome 1, 2 lots of summatives in Aerodrome 2, Radar Skills, Area 1 and then Area 2. Also with every course there were written exams and oral boards where you could fail.
Now, unless i'm wrong you have just 3 courses to get through with a life line available for a re-course.
Couldn't be easier!
You could argue that it is now easier to get through the college because there are fewer assessments and therefore fewer hurdles to get over with your one life line.
When I went through you had summatives at the end of Aerodrome 1, 2 lots of summatives in Aerodrome 2, Radar Skills, Area 1 and then Area 2. Also with every course there were written exams and oral boards where you could fail.
Now, unless i'm wrong you have just 3 courses to get through with a life line available for a re-course.
Couldn't be easier!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Revolution
Nice toungue in cheek post (I hope!)
I think the course structure has a lot to answer for - it's packing a lot in in a shorter time.
The process will never be perfect but I know that some college instructors who still hold validations at my unit are frustrated by the pass rates.
These instructors, who still live in the real world should be better at knowing who will be succesful at a unit, rather than instructors who have no tbeen valid for years.
The college should be a centre of excellence - and that applies to instructors as well as students.
There are some very good instructors who have not been valid for years, but they are in the minority.
The college should be staffed mainly by people who retain validations, and who should do a 3 or 5 year stint before being put back out full time in the real world.
Nice toungue in cheek post (I hope!)
I think the course structure has a lot to answer for - it's packing a lot in in a shorter time.
The process will never be perfect but I know that some college instructors who still hold validations at my unit are frustrated by the pass rates.
These instructors, who still live in the real world should be better at knowing who will be succesful at a unit, rather than instructors who have no tbeen valid for years.
The college should be a centre of excellence - and that applies to instructors as well as students.
There are some very good instructors who have not been valid for years, but they are in the minority.
The college should be staffed mainly by people who retain validations, and who should do a 3 or 5 year stint before being put back out full time in the real world.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Instructors work to the sylibuss and standards required by the CAA, this is the same at Hurn as it is at ASTAC or BAe Cwmbran.
What differs is the attitude to hard work and comittment of the students, at the varying colleges.
At Hurn, there are NATS cadets who have undergone a selection process and have gained their place on that process.
At ASTAC and Cwmbran, the students have been forwarded by their employer or, exceptionally have self sponsered, and have undergone much the same selection tests to get on the courses.
Ultimately, where ever you are, you will get maximum support from the Instructors, but if your attitude smells like crap - you'll be treated like crap!
As an operational ATCO I've seen both sides and although I would give students as much leeway as possible, some of them have breathtaking arrogance and expectations.
I would venture to suggest that at Hurn, whilst the majority are commited to passing the courses, they haven't given up all and everything to attend a course that makes the difference between ultimate success, or failure and penury.
If you want to succeed, not just at the college but at subsequent unit standard, it's down to to positive attitude, ability and commitment.
What differs is the attitude to hard work and comittment of the students, at the varying colleges.
At Hurn, there are NATS cadets who have undergone a selection process and have gained their place on that process.
At ASTAC and Cwmbran, the students have been forwarded by their employer or, exceptionally have self sponsered, and have undergone much the same selection tests to get on the courses.
Ultimately, where ever you are, you will get maximum support from the Instructors, but if your attitude smells like crap - you'll be treated like crap!
As an operational ATCO I've seen both sides and although I would give students as much leeway as possible, some of them have breathtaking arrogance and expectations.
I would venture to suggest that at Hurn, whilst the majority are commited to passing the courses, they haven't given up all and everything to attend a course that makes the difference between ultimate success, or failure and penury.
If you want to succeed, not just at the college but at subsequent unit standard, it's down to to positive attitude, ability and commitment.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quincy
A very good question, although i think we both know the answer to that one 
Echo
Hi Scarf.
Thanks for the advice. Would you say practicals or oral boards are the hardest aspect of the course?
Thanks for the advice. Would you say practicals or oral boards are the hardest aspect of the course?
Echo
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whilst I don't know what is going on at the College these days other than hearsay, I can't help but make a few observations about Arkady's post
Well, there's a nice positive attitude and a welcome for new starters. I always thought we did training aiming for success rather than failure.
And so Arkady, you don't think the quality of your unit's training has anything to do with it. You don't think, either, that your OJTI's have/need skills in finding training techniques that suit the trainee's needs. once again, you seem to be almost planning for failure, for a lower pass rate - perhaps only so that you can say "I told you so".
A stunning generalisation but if true, good for them. It's just a shame that you appear to feel that you need to break them in (rather like horses).
Maybe you do not recognise that someone prepared to argue a professional point is showing all the signs of reaching a level of knowledge and confidence where the training is paying off. Instead, you see it as something that needs to be knocked out of them! Again, perhaps this is more a reflection of your unit's trainers' skills.
Or, just maybe, it's a reflection on your unit.
Doesn't that rather depend on what the training objectives for the college courses are. Or do you not care?
That's nice.
I can't help finding Arkady's kind of arrogance rather disappointing. Whilst NATS still seems to have problems selecting and training ATCOs ( it has for the last 30 years since I started in this business), I thought the 'we have to fail people to show how good we are' attitude was long gone.
Before anyone at LACC starts telling me how hard it is to do the job there (and no, I've never worked LACC/LATCC), there's plenty of people who have managed to get validated so you don't change for work in a telephone box! And [B]every[B] unit has challenges - showing that you will be able to handle those challenges properly is all that should be needed for a trainee at any unit.
There is no question that you need a certain something to be a controller. What that 'something' is no-one seems to have managed to pin down otherwise we'd have a 100% record on selection and training. But, for heaven's sake, when somebody does get selected (whatever criteria might have been used to select them), let's try and help them get through.
Although how having 60 in a class for the formative training courses will help I really can't imagine!!!!
Originally Posted by Arkady
Our unit has been saying for years that more Students should be failed at the college rather than be allowed to progress to live units and waste valuable training time, so, for the moment, it would be hypocritical to criticise the College for making it tougher for Students to pass, however they may be doing it.
If the validation rate at LACC improves significantly as these New Course Students are posted in, then the College will have been justified in their approach. If not..........
People who become Student ATCOs are generally hardworking, intelligent and above all confident. Very few Student ATCOs will have ever struggled or failed anything in their lives, prior to commencing their ATC training, so when they do struggle or fail it is a totally new experience and a challenge that some cannot rise to.
It has not been uncommon at LACC (and LATCC as was) to have to fail a very capable student because they have stopped learning. They cannot conceive that they are going to fail and begin to ignore (or in some cases argue against) the instruction and advice of their OJTIs. When they are chopped it comes as a bolt out of the blue despite the evidence accumulating against them.
Any capable Student chopped at LACC will be recommended for another chance at another unit (but it is not our decision whether or not they get one) and these Students often shine at their new units. I think that the realization that they CAN fail will often change their approach to their training and make them more receptive to criticism.
The effectiveness of the new courses will not be known for a couple of years yet. I have serious misgivings about the lack of experience our new trainees have but this should only lengthen the amount of time it takes to get valid, rather than prevent validation itself.
For those at, or shortly to be starting at the College I have one crumb of comfort. The greater the challenge at the College the better prepared you will be for the challenge of live training.
I can't help finding Arkady's kind of arrogance rather disappointing. Whilst NATS still seems to have problems selecting and training ATCOs ( it has for the last 30 years since I started in this business), I thought the 'we have to fail people to show how good we are' attitude was long gone.
Before anyone at LACC starts telling me how hard it is to do the job there (and no, I've never worked LACC/LATCC), there's plenty of people who have managed to get validated so you don't change for work in a telephone box! And [B]every[B] unit has challenges - showing that you will be able to handle those challenges properly is all that should be needed for a trainee at any unit.
There is no question that you need a certain something to be a controller. What that 'something' is no-one seems to have managed to pin down otherwise we'd have a 100% record on selection and training. But, for heaven's sake, when somebody does get selected (whatever criteria might have been used to select them), let's try and help them get through.
Although how having 60 in a class for the formative training courses will help I really can't imagine!!!!
Last edited by Spitoon; 30th Apr 2007 at 12:28.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: LTCC
Age: 45
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a minor point,
Although there can be up to 64 on 'a course' it is effectively 2 courses - A and B groups. We are taught comlpetely separately on different timetables.
For instance, 211 is 42 TATC's - 22 A's and 20 B's.
Although there can be up to 64 on 'a course' it is effectively 2 courses - A and B groups. We are taught comlpetely separately on different timetables.
For instance, 211 is 42 TATC's - 22 A's and 20 B's.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: LTCC
Age: 45
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what you mean but if you mean is there a divide then no. People share houses/B&B's from different groups. If someone makes a good revision aid then everone gets it if they want it. All 4 one and one 4 all!!!
We are physically split in that we never spend any time in the classroom together, nor on the sims as i understand it.
We are physically split in that we never spend any time in the classroom together, nor on the sims as i understand it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: solihull
Age: 38
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, just the answer I was looking for. Groups that are split often become competetive (Tower & Area maybe, reading some of the posts on here!). I was just interested more than a genuine concern!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Hounslow International
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even the Aerodrome/Area split doesn't really create much rivalry! There's a bit of banter that goes on (which discipline is the better), but you still go out and socialise with everyone from your course. You may not get to see other course members all day every day, but there isn't any rivalry involved, more just playful banter (i'd like to think so anyway hehe!)
And to answer the question on the simulator splits, your still kept in A and B groups (or at least we were). Everything is done in your "mini course", although outside work and during social hours it all blends back into one big course
And to answer the question on the simulator splits, your still kept in A and B groups (or at least we were). Everything is done in your "mini course", although outside work and during social hours it all blends back into one big course
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheat Sheets
Don't worry Ro13erts there's a million cheatsheets and pass papers going around on your basic course et al.
All the answers are on them and often exams can be an exact replica of the pass paper photo copy you have. It's all very exiting as the instructors pretend they don't know.
Aye Right...
All the answers are on them and often exams can be an exact replica of the pass paper photo copy you have. It's all very exiting as the instructors pretend they don't know.
Aye Right...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Monaco
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flabbergasted
It is still shocking to see such a gross waste of effort and money. The costs involved with recruiting and training a student are large enough in the present day as it is. Shirley (sic) someone has added up the pennies to find out the cost of "binning" those students through the college. Thousands,,,perhaps more ?
As someone who has been through the dungeons of Hurn and lived to tell the tale, I am appalled that this civil servant, spend as though money was no object mentality still exists. What a fantastic (Not) solution to saving money, by cutting students pay and making sure that the student has another (possibly bigger) problem to deal with. There are commercial solutions to the recruitment of high calibre staff, some of which might not necessarily come from within NATS itself ??
Jenson Button
PS - best wishes to those working hard down on the south coast.
As someone who has been through the dungeons of Hurn and lived to tell the tale, I am appalled that this civil servant, spend as though money was no object mentality still exists. What a fantastic (Not) solution to saving money, by cutting students pay and making sure that the student has another (possibly bigger) problem to deal with. There are commercial solutions to the recruitment of high calibre staff, some of which might not necessarily come from within NATS itself ??
Jenson Button
PS - best wishes to those working hard down on the south coast.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon
You say that “...you need a certain something to be a controller. What that 'something' is no-one seems to have managed to pin down otherwise we'd have a 100% record on selection and training.” I’d argue that it is a combination of factors and circumstances but either way we are agreed that we are unable to select recruits who will definitely validate, thus some must be failed at some point. Let’s face it, if we had a perfect selection process we would simply be “failing” applicants rather than Students.
In the real world the first opportunity to see if an applicant has got your “certain something” is the college. If we could identify at that point who would definitely validate, any failures at the units could be seen as reflecting on the unit training rather than the individual Student. However we still can’t pinpoint the “certain something” at this stage so some Students who can cope at the College are going to progress to live units and fail there. Fact of life.
Within NATS, Area training is cumulative, it gets more demanding the further you progress. At some point, those without the “certain something” will find they can no longer cope. That is not the end (at least not at LACC) as the Student will then be given further time in which to reach the desired level of achievement. This is crunch time. Whatever the circumstances the Student has to face the need to change something about the way they are approaching the task. Perhaps they are not methodical enough – they need to be more disciplined, maybe they are too cautious – they need to have faith in their decisions (and trust their mentors to catch their errors) or maybe they need to grasp the bigger picture to work better in the team. They will be given plenty of help to identify the problem and how to solve it. The one thing they cannot do is change nothing. Unfortunately for some, this will be the first time in their lives that they have ever had to question their own ability and methods. I stand by what I said in my previous post, Student ATCOs are, by definition, the sort of people who will have rarely, if ever, struggled at something. The first time it happens can make or break and success will have to come from within. They have to find a “certain something”.
You are concerned that “…. you do not recognise that someone prepared to argue a professional point is showing all the signs of reaching a level of knowledge and confidence where the training is paying off.” The context of my comment was a Student who has continually shown all the signs of NOT reaching the level of knowledge and ability required. In fact, your comment is a perfect example of this sort of thing. You have made a perfectly good and valid general point but utterly failed to recognise that within the context of the specific situation your argument is irrelevant.
"I can't help finding Arkady's kind of arrogance rather disappointing. Whilst NATS still seems to have problems selecting and training ATCOs ( it has for the last 30 years since I started in this business), I thought the 'we have to fail people to show how good we are' attitude was long gone. "
We have to fail people because they have not shown the ability to perform the task to the required standard within the time allowed. No LACC Student is failed lightly, many run up 400+ hours before the axe falls, but those that fail an SVC or after only 100 hours live? Should they really have been there in the first place? Live unit training is not really relevant to this thread and I’ll not be drawn on it any here any further. Start a new thread if you wish to debate it further.
I reserve judgement on the new courses at the College until we see the Students themselves but if it is more difficult to get through that can only be to the benefit of those that pass and the units to which they are posted.
You say that “...you need a certain something to be a controller. What that 'something' is no-one seems to have managed to pin down otherwise we'd have a 100% record on selection and training.” I’d argue that it is a combination of factors and circumstances but either way we are agreed that we are unable to select recruits who will definitely validate, thus some must be failed at some point. Let’s face it, if we had a perfect selection process we would simply be “failing” applicants rather than Students.
In the real world the first opportunity to see if an applicant has got your “certain something” is the college. If we could identify at that point who would definitely validate, any failures at the units could be seen as reflecting on the unit training rather than the individual Student. However we still can’t pinpoint the “certain something” at this stage so some Students who can cope at the College are going to progress to live units and fail there. Fact of life.
Within NATS, Area training is cumulative, it gets more demanding the further you progress. At some point, those without the “certain something” will find they can no longer cope. That is not the end (at least not at LACC) as the Student will then be given further time in which to reach the desired level of achievement. This is crunch time. Whatever the circumstances the Student has to face the need to change something about the way they are approaching the task. Perhaps they are not methodical enough – they need to be more disciplined, maybe they are too cautious – they need to have faith in their decisions (and trust their mentors to catch their errors) or maybe they need to grasp the bigger picture to work better in the team. They will be given plenty of help to identify the problem and how to solve it. The one thing they cannot do is change nothing. Unfortunately for some, this will be the first time in their lives that they have ever had to question their own ability and methods. I stand by what I said in my previous post, Student ATCOs are, by definition, the sort of people who will have rarely, if ever, struggled at something. The first time it happens can make or break and success will have to come from within. They have to find a “certain something”.
You are concerned that “…. you do not recognise that someone prepared to argue a professional point is showing all the signs of reaching a level of knowledge and confidence where the training is paying off.” The context of my comment was a Student who has continually shown all the signs of NOT reaching the level of knowledge and ability required. In fact, your comment is a perfect example of this sort of thing. You have made a perfectly good and valid general point but utterly failed to recognise that within the context of the specific situation your argument is irrelevant.
"I can't help finding Arkady's kind of arrogance rather disappointing. Whilst NATS still seems to have problems selecting and training ATCOs ( it has for the last 30 years since I started in this business), I thought the 'we have to fail people to show how good we are' attitude was long gone. "
We have to fail people because they have not shown the ability to perform the task to the required standard within the time allowed. No LACC Student is failed lightly, many run up 400+ hours before the axe falls, but those that fail an SVC or after only 100 hours live? Should they really have been there in the first place? Live unit training is not really relevant to this thread and I’ll not be drawn on it any here any further. Start a new thread if you wish to debate it further.
I reserve judgement on the new courses at the College until we see the Students themselves but if it is more difficult to get through that can only be to the benefit of those that pass and the units to which they are posted.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: solihull
Age: 38
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, thanks for the advice all! I'll be giving it my best shot (which was never in question) and "certain something" prevailing, see some of you operationally.
Arkady,
You're right in my case, I have never failed at anything. I'd like to think it was down to me, but in reality it's down to a lot of the people who've helped me in whatever I've tried to do (I'll have a little credit though if it's on offer).
Arkady,
You're right in my case, I have never failed at anything. I'd like to think it was down to me, but in reality it's down to a lot of the people who've helped me in whatever I've tried to do (I'll have a little credit though if it's on offer).