Question about Ageism
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
leuven,
I didn't attempt to reason my statement. I stuck firmly to ab initio people based on my long experience in the job. Having been in the job over 30 years I have already passed the 45 mark and know how the stresses of the job have started to take their toll. I don't know of a single experienced controller over the age of 35 who hasn't struggled to get to validation standard at Swanwick. The fact is that there are no sectors to "hide" on any more. Yes controllers do slow down after about 40 and as has already been said before then is when experience kicks in. We are talking here about,potentially, people with no experience and already past that "slow down stage".
However I am speaking from an Area viewpoint and there may well be postings at airfields where an older recruit may be able to validate in which case I'm sure it won't be long before someone challenges NATS in the courts.
I didn't attempt to reason my statement. I stuck firmly to ab initio people based on my long experience in the job. Having been in the job over 30 years I have already passed the 45 mark and know how the stresses of the job have started to take their toll. I don't know of a single experienced controller over the age of 35 who hasn't struggled to get to validation standard at Swanwick. The fact is that there are no sectors to "hide" on any more. Yes controllers do slow down after about 40 and as has already been said before then is when experience kicks in. We are talking here about,potentially, people with no experience and already past that "slow down stage".
However I am speaking from an Area viewpoint and there may well be postings at airfields where an older recruit may be able to validate in which case I'm sure it won't be long before someone challenges NATS in the courts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... still controlling at 75 yrs old and the UK chap had cut down his drinking to accommodate his 39 yr old girlfriend.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my good God! 
I go away for three weeks and come back to this preposterous thread.
Slip and Turn....nobody is saying that once you hit an arbitrary age you will never make an ATCO. It's all about probability....surely you must understand that?
My opinion.......As far as I understand, it is not illegal to state an age limit as NATS has done. It is, however, illegal if such an age limit is deemed to be 'discriminatory'. You can bet your life that NATS Legal had enough evidence to defend a court case claiming such, when the limit was re-introduced following a period of unrestricted recruitment.
I go away for three weeks and come back to this preposterous thread.
Slip and Turn....nobody is saying that once you hit an arbitrary age you will never make an ATCO. It's all about probability....surely you must understand that?
My opinion.......As far as I understand, it is not illegal to state an age limit as NATS has done. It is, however, illegal if such an age limit is deemed to be 'discriminatory'. You can bet your life that NATS Legal had enough evidence to defend a court case claiming such, when the limit was re-introduced following a period of unrestricted recruitment.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that an age-limit is sensible in this case, as extensive research shows that the older the applicant, the less likely he/she will be to pass the training.
What do you mean by ok?
Ethical? Reasonable? Legal?
Why do the military organisations have an upper age limit to their flight crew/ATC/FC jobs? Regardless of differing legal standpoints, do you think that is ok?
What do you mean by ok?
Ethical? Reasonable? Legal?
Why do the military organisations have an upper age limit to their flight crew/ATC/FC jobs? Regardless of differing legal standpoints, do you think that is ok?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's distinguished, 1985, not old!!!
Vercingetorix, I am that old/young, yes. I actually have far more posts to my name. I remember being a member when it was just Rumours and News and Jet Blast and it was an email daily digest!
Now come on, where are all my detractors? P7? Jer?
Vercingetorix, I am that old/young, yes. I actually have far more posts to my name. I remember being a member when it was just Rumours and News and Jet Blast and it was an email daily digest!
Now come on, where are all my detractors? P7? Jer?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Independent research commissioned by NATS has shown that the skills required to be an effective controller decline with age.
In actual fact, there is an optimum age range where experience and relative youth combine to enable high performance. It's generally thought to be after about 5 years post 'validation' which is probably in the mid-to-late twenties, and continues until the early forties. Thereafter, increasingly, experience has to compensate for declining cognitive ability but this reduces with time and eventually it can no longer compensate and so performance declines. Obviously, the complexity and workload of the ATC task involved plays an important part in the timing of this effect and different individuals are affected differently.
Given the ATC units that NATS operates and the unique multi-tasking skills required of air traffic controllers (as opposed to pilots), it therefore makes sense to recruit for training, only those candidates who will have a better than average chance of success at training and of working efficiently and safely for a reasonable period of time thereafter.
And before any PC person raises it, this isn't ageism - it's good old-fashioned common sense.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...And before any PC person raises it, this isn't ageism - it's good old-fashioned common sense
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I thought you'd gone, S and T!
Please do enlighten us all here as to your arguments why there should be no age limit.
I've tried to go back through your previous posts here, but I'm finding it difficult to ascertain a coherence to them all.
Please do enlighten us all here as to your arguments why there should be no age limit.
I've tried to go back through your previous posts here, but I'm finding it difficult to ascertain a coherence to them all.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is very easy to explain Gonzo.
I speak from a viewpoint in the UK. I think many of you are familiar with our laws. There are of course growing similarities with laws in other countries.
To be an Air Traffic Controller requires a contract of employment with a service provider like NATS.
NATS is subject to UK employment law.
You may have noticed that over the past generation the UK has voted to implement equality laws. As of October last year, we now have a full set which outlaws ageism in the workplace and imposes severe penalties on employers who think they know better.
Some of you might hope that the age discrimination laws continue to be as ineffective as anti-hunting law. Enjoy the false dawn while it lasts ...
I don't believe we have seen any real test of the new laws yet. Significant numbers within the Rotorcraft forum are sponsoring one action which will no doubt be a good test.
The rest will be history and "common sense" or not, employers like NATS will have to properly demonstrate that they are offering equal opportunity to all, and not applying some kind of Nazi-like super-race filter before they even accept applications.
You did ask, Gonzo....
I speak from a viewpoint in the UK. I think many of you are familiar with our laws. There are of course growing similarities with laws in other countries.
To be an Air Traffic Controller requires a contract of employment with a service provider like NATS.
NATS is subject to UK employment law.
You may have noticed that over the past generation the UK has voted to implement equality laws. As of October last year, we now have a full set which outlaws ageism in the workplace and imposes severe penalties on employers who think they know better.
Some of you might hope that the age discrimination laws continue to be as ineffective as anti-hunting law. Enjoy the false dawn while it lasts ...
I don't believe we have seen any real test of the new laws yet. Significant numbers within the Rotorcraft forum are sponsoring one action which will no doubt be a good test.
The rest will be history and "common sense" or not, employers like NATS will have to properly demonstrate that they are offering equal opportunity to all, and not applying some kind of Nazi-like super-race filter before they even accept applications.
You did ask, Gonzo....
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've suitably explained your own opinion on the legalities.
Thank you.
I would counter by highlighting that the laws introduced on the 1st of October, those to which I assume you refer, allow employers to continue to stipulate age limitations for the purposes of recruitment if the organisation can 'objectively show' that such a limit constitutes a sound business reason.
I don't believe anyone here 'hopes the age discrimination continue to be....ineffective', and remarking as such is rather low.
I work with an old codger and he's not bad. He validated at Heathrow when he was nearly 40, although he came from the RAF and had considerable relevant experience.
So do you dispute the evidence then? That, the likelihood of passing training decreases as age increases?
Thank you.
I would counter by highlighting that the laws introduced on the 1st of October, those to which I assume you refer, allow employers to continue to stipulate age limitations for the purposes of recruitment if the organisation can 'objectively show' that such a limit constitutes a sound business reason.
I don't believe anyone here 'hopes the age discrimination continue to be....ineffective', and remarking as such is rather low.
I work with an old codger and he's not bad. He validated at Heathrow when he was nearly 40, although he came from the RAF and had considerable relevant experience.
So do you dispute the evidence then? That, the likelihood of passing training decreases as age increases?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On your two main points, Gonzo, I am firstly not sure where you obtained your paraphrasing "allow employers to continue to stipulate age limitations for the purposes of recruitment if the organisation can 'objectively show' that such a limit constitutes a sound business reason". (I don't think such phraseology exists in the legislation ... sounds a bit like accountant speak again?)
and secondly, I don't understand the relevance of the rather simplistic observation that "the likelihood of passing training decreases as age increases". That's a bit like saying that your eyesight and hearing goes as you get older, it gets harder to fight the flab, and impotence might also overtake you before you discover an increased PSA count! There are remedies for all of those conditions, and none of them required a law to be enacted! Indeed I am continually reminded that loss of eyesight, hearing, enhanced cuddliness and a certain mellowing of the urges of youth often all conspire to defy gravity and actually improve one's chances of Carrying On as I am sure you Gonzo would most definitely agree
Such observations may be of passing interest, but in all seriousness, the application of the recent law is to provide protection and remedy to individuals who are being discriminated against unilaterally on the basis of age.
and secondly, I don't understand the relevance of the rather simplistic observation that "the likelihood of passing training decreases as age increases". That's a bit like saying that your eyesight and hearing goes as you get older, it gets harder to fight the flab, and impotence might also overtake you before you discover an increased PSA count! There are remedies for all of those conditions, and none of them required a law to be enacted! Indeed I am continually reminded that loss of eyesight, hearing, enhanced cuddliness and a certain mellowing of the urges of youth often all conspire to defy gravity and actually improve one's chances of Carrying On as I am sure you Gonzo would most definitely agree
Such observations may be of passing interest, but in all seriousness, the application of the recent law is to provide protection and remedy to individuals who are being discriminated against unilaterally on the basis of age.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I 'obtained' my 'phraseology' from my head. I'm not going to painstakingly search through legislation to find the subject passages to cut and paste here, but you must agree that such legislation does exist. I'm sure the phrase 'objectively show', or perhaps it was 'objectively demonstrate' does exist within that legislation.
Do you deny that there exists such a 'get out clause'?
Yes, saying 'the likelihood of passing training decreases as age increases' is exactly like saying 'your eyesight and hearing goes as you get older, it gets harder to fight the flab'..in that they are both fact. Or are you arguing this as well?
Please bear with me, I'm trying ever so hard to detect a point in your last post.
Or is your point in this case, that NATS should design a three-year training course for over 30s, alongside the 6-12 month course they provide to under 30s, and allow the over 30s up to 1000 hours of training at Heathrow, rather than 375 for the under 30s?
Do you deny that there exists such a 'get out clause'?
Yes, saying 'the likelihood of passing training decreases as age increases' is exactly like saying 'your eyesight and hearing goes as you get older, it gets harder to fight the flab'..in that they are both fact. Or are you arguing this as well?
Please bear with me, I'm trying ever so hard to detect a point in your last post.
Or is your point in this case, that NATS should design a three-year training course for over 30s, alongside the 6-12 month course they provide to under 30s, and allow the over 30s up to 1000 hours of training at Heathrow, rather than 375 for the under 30s?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that's the point you see, you are an ATCO I take it, but you suggest that you must painstakingly search for something to obtain an answer and conclude that it isn't worth it and will carry on regardless! A painstaking search actually isn't necessary. The technology is here to help you.
I published the link a few pages earlier ... http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20061031.htm ... you can then search for your half remembered words or bits of phrases in a jiffy old chap!
I knew that because I am happy with new technology and search tools...didn't you? Is that an age thing too?
I'll save you some of the trouble ... the words objective and demonstrate do not appear in it. The word show appears once. There are in addition three instances of derivatives of the word show.
As for the content of my last post, I wasn't under the impression that I needed to make a further point?
As for the content of yours, why would NATS need to make special provision for anyone on the basis of age? Is NATS incapable of distinguishing no-hopers from a mixed bag before it offers training positions?
Forgive me, but I think the evidence shows that no great deal of careful thought or research has been put into the problem. The disclosure that NATS dropped the age requirement and then reapplied it again since October is an indication in itself of management inadequacy and lack of preparedness, I'd say.
I published the link a few pages earlier ... http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20061031.htm ... you can then search for your half remembered words or bits of phrases in a jiffy old chap!
I knew that because I am happy with new technology and search tools...didn't you? Is that an age thing too?
I'll save you some of the trouble ... the words objective and demonstrate do not appear in it. The word show appears once. There are in addition three instances of derivatives of the word show.
As for the content of my last post, I wasn't under the impression that I needed to make a further point?
As for the content of yours, why would NATS need to make special provision for anyone on the basis of age? Is NATS incapable of distinguishing no-hopers from a mixed bag before it offers training positions?
Forgive me, but I think the evidence shows that no great deal of careful thought or research has been put into the problem. The disclosure that NATS dropped the age requirement and then reapplied it again since October is an indication in itself of management inadequacy and lack of preparedness, I'd say.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem to be very keen on spending time while 'eating hot dinners' and looking up at the interface between LHR and LCY traffic on reading various materials, and yet you seem unable to spend five seconds to click on 'see public profile' underneath my user name. if you had done you would see that I am indeed an ATCO. In fact, many frequent posters here know exactly who I am; I make no effort to hide behind anonymity. You can even see a few photos of me in JetBlast.
Then I am mistaken regarding the legislation's wording, I must be recalling legal opinion on the matter, rather than the wording itself.
Again, I'm struggling to see your point here....."I knew that because I am happy with new technology and search tools...didn't you? Is that an age thing too?"
You do seem awfully keen to judge others. What do you mean by 'age thing'? I'm 28 (as it says over there <--- under my username). Is that young or old in this context?
NATS would need to make special provision for older (over 30) applicants (if there were no age limitations), because the vast majority would not be able to complete it. I am quite familiar with the content, and it is incredibly intense.
Before I make any judgements, please do elaborate on your experience with, and knowledge of, NATS' training course, selection processes and similar courses and processes of other equivalent organisations.
Am I correct in thinking that you believe I and my colleague are ageist? Quite ridiculous.
Then I am mistaken regarding the legislation's wording, I must be recalling legal opinion on the matter, rather than the wording itself.
Again, I'm struggling to see your point here....."I knew that because I am happy with new technology and search tools...didn't you? Is that an age thing too?"
You do seem awfully keen to judge others. What do you mean by 'age thing'? I'm 28 (as it says over there <--- under my username). Is that young or old in this context?
NATS would need to make special provision for older (over 30) applicants (if there were no age limitations), because the vast majority would not be able to complete it. I am quite familiar with the content, and it is incredibly intense.
Before I make any judgements, please do elaborate on your experience with, and knowledge of, NATS' training course, selection processes and similar courses and processes of other equivalent organisations.
Am I correct in thinking that you believe I and my colleague are ageist? Quite ridiculous.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you could be anonymous if you tried now, Gonzo!
I had not realised that a 28 year old and his colleague might be the only ageists managing the show - a truly gargantuan, superhuman and no doubt doubly intense task. Surely there are more of you? (I'll skip the photos!)
My qualifications? Well as I've said elsewhere, significant hot dinners, numerous incredibly intense experiences (all enjoyed and easily survived), plus newly acquired knowledge of NATS age discriminatory cutoff at 36. Do I need more for this particular thread?
I had not realised that a 28 year old and his colleague might be the only ageists managing the show - a truly gargantuan, superhuman and no doubt doubly intense task. Surely there are more of you? (I'll skip the photos!)
My qualifications? Well as I've said elsewhere, significant hot dinners, numerous incredibly intense experiences (all enjoyed and easily survived), plus newly acquired knowledge of NATS age discriminatory cutoff at 36. Do I need more for this particular thread?