ab initio failure rate?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ab initio failure rate?
Could someone tell me the failure rate for ab initio training? I have seen conflicting figures quoted, 25% and 40%, for students getting booted out. I'm not sure if these figures apply to OJT or overall including classroom work. I start training in August with Eurocontrol and am slightly concerned about the apparent high failure rate in training, bearing in mind the tough selection process.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: LATCC - TC
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicon1
I started my cadetship with the dreaded Nats in 1996.
There were 23 on my course. This is how I think it worked out:
7 posted to TC of which 4 now valid, 2 of the 7 now valid at MACC the other left to be a pilot.
4 went to airfields and validated.
The rest were chopped or were recoursed (2). 3 have ATCO jobs outside Nats at airfields.
So not bad really because I think the predicted failure rate is more like two thirds!!
If you were joining Nats you could come to TC and train on Z watch as we have a 100% pass rate with new students in the last 3 years!! - And our reward for such an achievement? Other watches with worse training records are trying to poach our controllers to even numbers up!! ( Sorry, just a bit of TC moaning )
Anyway sod failure rates, if you are good enough you'll make it!!
Good luck
I started my cadetship with the dreaded Nats in 1996.
There were 23 on my course. This is how I think it worked out:
7 posted to TC of which 4 now valid, 2 of the 7 now valid at MACC the other left to be a pilot.
4 went to airfields and validated.
The rest were chopped or were recoursed (2). 3 have ATCO jobs outside Nats at airfields.
So not bad really because I think the predicted failure rate is more like two thirds!!
If you were joining Nats you could come to TC and train on Z watch as we have a 100% pass rate with new students in the last 3 years!! - And our reward for such an achievement? Other watches with worse training records are trying to poach our controllers to even numbers up!! ( Sorry, just a bit of TC moaning )
Anyway sod failure rates, if you are good enough you'll make it!!
Good luck
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: my house
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bobby-boy,
re. your 'reward for such an achievement' - as you take it soooo personally, us on the other watches will have a whip round for you as we are so crap at training . Sorry, another bit of TC moaning
re. your 'reward for such an achievement' - as you take it soooo personally, us on the other watches will have a whip round for you as we are so crap at training . Sorry, another bit of TC moaning
Last edited by foo fighting; 30th Jun 2002 at 22:06.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TT, that would be near impossible as 'Z' watch are Terminal Control, and the ones you 'socialise' with are Area, being watches A thro E!!! However, you can moan at the presentation of the TMA outbounds toward TC, as its how we get 'em from them, destination is Dover/Clacton bound, anything more is a miracle 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spoke to one of the senior OJTIs in Maastricht a few months ago on this very point. The conversation went something like this:
Me: "So how many people don't make the grade?"
OJTI: "A few"
Me: "In terms of percentage"
OJTI: "You don't want to know"
Me: "Yes I do, because I want to know why they get chopped"
OJTI: "You really want to know?"
Me: "Yes"
OJTI: "Slightly more than 50%... mostly because they don't do the work".
It's true that the bookwork seems a long way behind you when you start the practical training, but I for one am jolly committed to doing this and wouldn't jeapordize my (potential) career by overlooking to study rather than go out boozing all the time.
I get the impression, though, that there are other reasons for some people getting chopped.
Me: "So how many people don't make the grade?"
OJTI: "A few"
Me: "In terms of percentage"
OJTI: "You don't want to know"
Me: "Yes I do, because I want to know why they get chopped"
OJTI: "You really want to know?"
Me: "Yes"
OJTI: "Slightly more than 50%... mostly because they don't do the work".
It's true that the bookwork seems a long way behind you when you start the practical training, but I for one am jolly committed to doing this and wouldn't jeapordize my (potential) career by overlooking to study rather than go out boozing all the time.
I get the impression, though, that there are other reasons for some people getting chopped.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bobby boy:
Does failing a trainee necessarily constitute a failure of the training system? I think training is about producing a satisfactory standard, if available from an individual. A significant number are not capable of a satisfactory standard. If a trainee isn't up to standard and fails to validate then our part of the system has worked.
One TC watch manager (not yours) is well known for filtering trainees to get a good standard. So the fact that Z watch have a 100% pass record doesn't necessarily mean that they are better at training - they may just have been lucky with the standard of trainees allocated to that watch.
There is of course another possibility... but not one that I believe to be the case.
I have no reason to believe that my watch has anything other than a 100% success rate at training but our pass rate is about 70%.
Point 4
Does failing a trainee necessarily constitute a failure of the training system? I think training is about producing a satisfactory standard, if available from an individual. A significant number are not capable of a satisfactory standard. If a trainee isn't up to standard and fails to validate then our part of the system has worked.
One TC watch manager (not yours) is well known for filtering trainees to get a good standard. So the fact that Z watch have a 100% pass record doesn't necessarily mean that they are better at training - they may just have been lucky with the standard of trainees allocated to that watch.
There is of course another possibility... but not one that I believe to be the case.
I have no reason to believe that my watch has anything other than a 100% success rate at training but our pass rate is about 70%.
Point 4
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hampshire
Age: 50
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who (hopefully 
)starts at CATC in October, I am a little nervous regarding the number of people 'binned' throughout the course. I myself am 100% comitted, am already flicking through bits of MATS Pt1, love flying and have aviation running through my veins. Nonetheless, I know this is going to be TOUGH and have a lot of apprehension about the course. Still, I am desperate to start and look forward to giving it 110% (Hope thats enough!! 
).
Seriously though, everyone I've spoken to has told me that, "if you put the work in, you have nothing to worry about". Hope thats true
)starts at CATC in October, I am a little nervous regarding the number of people 'binned' throughout the course. I myself am 100% comitted, am already flicking through bits of MATS Pt1, love flying and have aviation running through my veins. Nonetheless, I know this is going to be TOUGH and have a lot of apprehension about the course. Still, I am desperate to start and look forward to giving it 110% (Hope thats enough!! ).Seriously though, everyone I've spoken to has told me that, "if you put the work in, you have nothing to worry about". Hope thats true
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: By the Sea-side
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spamcan - welcome back.
CATC [or whatever it will be called by the time you arrive] is currently committed to training to achieve a pass-rate of over 85%. That said, this will still depend on the quality of the raw-material, i.e. YOU, so keep yer head in the books. If you're good enough, you will pass. What happens afterwards, we leave in the laps of our esteemed OJTI collegues .
Worry not, esteemed collegues, if we don't get 85%, we don't get 85%. We're trying to improve training, not drop the standards.
CATC [or whatever it will be called by the time you arrive] is currently committed to training to achieve a pass-rate of over 85%. That said, this will still depend on the quality of the raw-material, i.e. YOU, so keep yer head in the books. If you're good enough, you will pass. What happens afterwards, we leave in the laps of our esteemed OJTI collegues
.Worry not, esteemed collegues, if we don't get 85%, we don't get 85%. We're trying to improve training, not drop the standards.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The results of my course are approximately as follows. 36 started of which around 18 made it out first time, total pass rate being approx 24 including a recourse. Of the 12 that didn't I have no idea as to their progress, but it was obvious to me that some of them should never have been there in the first place - they had no desire to be an ATCO and just wanted the money. The results from LATCC, of the 18 posted out first time 8 went into TC (terminal/approach) of which 3 validated, 2 posted to another unit and are still training, 1 failed completely. The 12 that went AC (area) 6 are valid AC , 1 valid after moving to tower, 2 retraining tower, 2 retraining another centre, 1 failed completely.
Take from that what you will, failure rates are pretty high but the proffession is desperate for ATCO's so retraining will be offered, it apperars that to fail you really have to be either (a) very unlucky or (b) have your head stuck so far up your a**e that no one can be bothered with you.
Despite what they will say CATC is a numbers game, and people are failed to provide the correct numbers for later courses and probably to pacify SRG that they are maintaining some sort of standard. My advice, get there, get your head in the books as in my experience nothing less than 90% in written tests is good enough despite the pass rate being 70%. Play the game, learn what each instructor likes - how they want you to control - keep your head down and do not make a name for yourself. The same applies when training for real, do as you are told, do not work the system for early go's, your 110% should see you through.
In my experience the very best at college do not make it purely because they believe they are the dogs danglies, keep working at it and you can make it but only with the right attitude!!!!
Take from that what you will, failure rates are pretty high but the proffession is desperate for ATCO's so retraining will be offered, it apperars that to fail you really have to be either (a) very unlucky or (b) have your head stuck so far up your a**e that no one can be bothered with you.
Despite what they will say CATC is a numbers game, and people are failed to provide the correct numbers for later courses and probably to pacify SRG that they are maintaining some sort of standard. My advice, get there, get your head in the books as in my experience nothing less than 90% in written tests is good enough despite the pass rate being 70%. Play the game, learn what each instructor likes - how they want you to control - keep your head down and do not make a name for yourself. The same applies when training for real, do as you are told, do not work the system for early go's, your 110% should see you through.
In my experience the very best at college do not make it purely because they believe they are the dogs danglies, keep working at it and you can make it but only with the right attitude!!!!
Just to put things in to perspective a little, and to show exactly how NATS management (and their "bean counters", along with one particularly idiotic ex-RAF person) have let things deteriorate, and let the trainees down...........
On the old-style Cadetships, the "ab-initio" failure rate - that is to say those that finished the cadetship and were posted to a final unit - was ZERO !!!!!!!!!!!!
On the old-style Cadetships, the "ab-initio" failure rate - that is to say those that finished the cadetship and were posted to a final unit - was ZERO !!!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bobby-boy,
So let's say a hypothetic trainee has no problems with attitude or committed-ness (is that a word?) and is training in ACC radar with NATS. If he gets the chop, what is the possibility of getting picked up by Eurocontrol, and vice-versa?
So let's say a hypothetic trainee has no problems with attitude or committed-ness (is that a word?) and is training in ACC radar with NATS. If he gets the chop, what is the possibility of getting picked up by Eurocontrol, and vice-versa?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CATC a numbers game...
BwatchGrunt
I'm afraid I have to disagree with that statement about it being a numbers game at ATTSC (CATC). There are tens of students on holdover at the moment, some on six months holdover, to enable them to get on to a course. They have not been chopped to provide the correct numbers!
The new PPP business plan has a requirement to increase the ab-initio pass rate to approx 85% - to this end the area course is being re-structured to allow a period of consolidation at the end of area two if required, before the summatives. This does not constitute the use of your lifeline.
As for recourses and your statement that students will not fail unless really unlucky or that they have p*!*ed somenone off - not true. There are, unfortunately, some people who get through the selection process and who are still, through no fault of thier own, not able to do the job.
The selection process is merely a means to provide an indication of a persons suitability and is not infallible. The results of all tests are continually monitored to try to improve accuracy of this process.
This is recognised by all included in training, and is why the business plan is not asking for a 100% pass rate.
Helicon1
Good luck, work hard and keep your nose clean. (Un)fortunately, instructors ARE human and if a student comes across as obnoxious etc, it is very likely to influence instructors! It is not difficult to stay on the right side of them without the need for brown nosing - just be yourself. Remember, these people are instructing people who they may have to one day work alongside.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with that statement about it being a numbers game at ATTSC (CATC). There are tens of students on holdover at the moment, some on six months holdover, to enable them to get on to a course. They have not been chopped to provide the correct numbers!
The new PPP business plan has a requirement to increase the ab-initio pass rate to approx 85% - to this end the area course is being re-structured to allow a period of consolidation at the end of area two if required, before the summatives. This does not constitute the use of your lifeline.
As for recourses and your statement that students will not fail unless really unlucky or that they have p*!*ed somenone off - not true. There are, unfortunately, some people who get through the selection process and who are still, through no fault of thier own, not able to do the job.
The selection process is merely a means to provide an indication of a persons suitability and is not infallible. The results of all tests are continually monitored to try to improve accuracy of this process.
This is recognised by all included in training, and is why the business plan is not asking for a 100% pass rate.
Helicon1
Good luck, work hard and keep your nose clean. (Un)fortunately, instructors ARE human and if a student comes across as obnoxious etc, it is very likely to influence instructors! It is not difficult to stay on the right side of them without the need for brown nosing - just be yourself. Remember, these people are instructing people who they may have to one day work alongside.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Somewhere in the Ether!
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really must log-on more often. How could I have missed the start of this thread on one of my favorite topics!
Go for 5, Get 3:
> I'm afraid I have to disagree with that statement about it being
> a numbers game at ATTSC (CATC). There are tens of students
> on holdover at the moment, some on six months holdover, to
> enable them to get on to a course. They have not been
> chopped to provide the correct numbers!
They're only holding because NATS decided to take on a load more students (to make up the huge projected shortfall in controllers) and then found out that they couldn't do the shift thing at the college! The poor people haven't even had a chance to get chopped yet!
And on your next point - there has always been a "there's 16 places on the next module and we have 19 good people on this one" problem.
The consolidation idea is laudable and it's about time it happened. There are many people who have started off wobbly and turned out to be very good controllers, just as there are some who started off well and have made very bad controllers or failed (but the more worrying ones are those who started off badly, continued badly, and are still valid!)
And, yes, there are those who flew through the selection stuff and are not suitable for the job (they normally get promted very quickly)
However on my course (not counting re-course bods), which was perceived as being a "good" course (as there weren't too many "wasters" on it!), out of the 23 people who started the fail to make it/stay with NATS rate was as follows:
Left the college: 1
Chopped: 6
Chopped but
valid elsewhere: 3
Valid/Expected to
validate but left
to work elseswhere: 2
Still training: 2
Valid: 9
I.E. A 60% failure rate. Even if you count the two still training as eventually validating it's still only 50/50. Any other training institution that had a 50% failure rate would probably have been closed down by now!
One of the people who left went to work for one of those big commercial flying outfits. Their pass rate was about 95%. Now I know they're only flying one aluminium tube and we're controlling lots of them, but that has to say somethhing about their training/ training culture. (Bearing in mind, going back to the bookwork bit, that they have to learn a lot more technical stuff than we controllers do.)
And why are NATS throwing money away buy chopping people who subsequently go on to pass the same SRG validations as NATS controllers do, but who are working for other companies? In the current financial climate is this wise?
Go for 5, Get 3:
> I'm afraid I have to disagree with that statement about it being
> a numbers game at ATTSC (CATC). There are tens of students
> on holdover at the moment, some on six months holdover, to
> enable them to get on to a course. They have not been
> chopped to provide the correct numbers!
They're only holding because NATS decided to take on a load more students (to make up the huge projected shortfall in controllers) and then found out that they couldn't do the shift thing at the college! The poor people haven't even had a chance to get chopped yet!
And on your next point - there has always been a "there's 16 places on the next module and we have 19 good people on this one" problem.
The consolidation idea is laudable and it's about time it happened. There are many people who have started off wobbly and turned out to be very good controllers, just as there are some who started off well and have made very bad controllers or failed (but the more worrying ones are those who started off badly, continued badly, and are still valid!)
And, yes, there are those who flew through the selection stuff and are not suitable for the job (they normally get promted very quickly
)However on my course (not counting re-course bods), which was perceived as being a "good" course (as there weren't too many "wasters" on it!), out of the 23 people who started the fail to make it/stay with NATS rate was as follows:
Left the college: 1
Chopped: 6
Chopped but
valid elsewhere: 3
Valid/Expected to
validate but left
to work elseswhere: 2
Still training: 2
Valid: 9
I.E. A 60% failure rate. Even if you count the two still training as eventually validating it's still only 50/50. Any other training institution that had a 50% failure rate would probably have been closed down by now!
One of the people who left went to work for one of those big commercial flying outfits. Their pass rate was about 95%. Now I know they're only flying one aluminium tube and we're controlling lots of them, but that has to say somethhing about their training/ training culture. (Bearing in mind, going back to the bookwork bit, that they have to learn a lot more technical stuff than we controllers do.)
And why are NATS throwing money away buy chopping people who subsequently go on to pass the same SRG validations as NATS controllers do, but who are working for other companies? In the current financial climate is this wise?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it isn't wise, but it's a great way to haemorrhage money - which is why we do it! NATS management are always on the lookout for ways to get rid of bucketloads of money for no return.
The same was true for our course; everyone who was chopped (nobody was binned before the end of ADC) is now working as a controller outside NATS. There is even one chap who left NATS, validated (with no problems, I understand), and now works for NATS again (getting paid more that I do, I may add!) as we took over that particular contract!!
Remember, this could all change soon as the college moves to single rating courses. It's almost as if they've admitted they were wrong all along....
The same was true for our course; everyone who was chopped (nobody was binned before the end of ADC) is now working as a controller outside NATS. There is even one chap who left NATS, validated (with no problems, I understand), and now works for NATS again (getting paid more that I do, I may add!) as we took over that particular contract!!
Remember, this could all change soon as the college moves to single rating courses. It's almost as if they've admitted they were wrong all along....
Last edited by 1261; 5th Jul 2002 at 08:05.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: CATC a numbers game...
Go for 5 get 3
I'm afraid I have to disagree with that statement about it being a numbers game at ATTSC (CATC). There are tens of students on holdover at the moment, some on six months holdover, to enable them to get on to a course. They have not been chopped to provide the correct numbers!
This just adds further to the lie!!!!, look at the past stats for validations on area 2 courses, start at say course 104 ish. Is the pattern not very similar ie. number of people succesfully completing area 2 almost identical each time. Perhaps CATC doesn't have a numbers game but LATCC dictated to them how many they could accept which thus dictated how many could pass.
You may not be aware but it was blindingly obvious to us students on the receiveing end, that our numbers were MOULDED to fit subsequent courses. HOLDING is just an escape route for not having to fail too many people as this would obviously have looked bad for management.
Take the example of 105 or 106 course I cant quite remember but think it was the latter. An incoming Dutch course could not be run because it was short of ACPO's (blip drivers) - solution : fail that number of people and train them for the job. THIS HAPPENED it is not fiction, and they weren't just held for three months, it was six months before they got their recourse.
The whole place reeks of bad management, what amazes me is that most if not all are still there. Why has the airline group not been in there to flush out the dead wood. How FH still justifies being paid a large salary is beyond me!!!
Do other people lucky to have made it out alive not have anything to add!!!
I'm afraid I have to disagree with that statement about it being a numbers game at ATTSC (CATC). There are tens of students on holdover at the moment, some on six months holdover, to enable them to get on to a course. They have not been chopped to provide the correct numbers!
This just adds further to the lie!!!!, look at the past stats for validations on area 2 courses, start at say course 104 ish. Is the pattern not very similar ie. number of people succesfully completing area 2 almost identical each time. Perhaps CATC doesn't have a numbers game but LATCC dictated to them how many they could accept which thus dictated how many could pass.
You may not be aware but it was blindingly obvious to us students on the receiveing end, that our numbers were MOULDED to fit subsequent courses. HOLDING is just an escape route for not having to fail too many people as this would obviously have looked bad for management.
Take the example of 105 or 106 course I cant quite remember but think it was the latter. An incoming Dutch course could not be run because it was short of ACPO's (blip drivers) - solution : fail that number of people and train them for the job. THIS HAPPENED it is not fiction, and they weren't just held for three months, it was six months before they got their recourse.
The whole place reeks of bad management, what amazes me is that most if not all are still there. Why has the airline group not been in there to flush out the dead wood. How FH still justifies being paid a large salary is beyond me!!!
Do other people lucky to have made it out alive not have anything to add!!!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BwatchGRUNT - my, my we are a cynical little bunny aren't we! Having been on both sides of CATC/ATTSC/whateveritscallednow as both cadet and instructor I can safely say you are talking B*@*^&ks. The course numbers you quote are ancient history and totally irrelevant to the current debate. Much has changed at the college - maybe go for a look and see for yourself.
Granny