ATSA Licensing
 

Recently seen at my place of employment – a letter from the Civil Aviation Group from the PCS Union, (who represent NATS ATSAs amongst others) asking for views on the possible “professional licensing” of ATSAs, Engineers etc – specifically non-ATCO positions within ATC. Reasoning behind the concept is enhancing and maintaining safety within ATC, plus a possible benefit of job protection. This topic is currently being discussed at European ATC Safety Forum level .

Does “professional licensing” already exist for ATSAs in ATC Services anywhere else? What do the NATS ATSAs and ATCOs think about it? Any other views?

It's on the agenda at Eurocontrol. The Flight Data Specialists (as they are known here) will, however, also be required to undergo regular proficiency checks. Could come in next year.

Engineers are already licensed by the CAA.

Although I appreciate that a good ATSA is worth their weight in gold, ultimately they work under the delegated authority of the ATCO or watch manager, and consequently have no technical responsibility.
On that basis I don't see how or why ATSAs should be licenced, if you want a licence, become an ATCO.

The Old Ways!!!
 

Time to get rid of the old officers and men culture of yesteryear. We can start by referring to ATCOs as Air Traffic Controllers and recognise the value of "Air Traffic Support" by adopting a seamless structure. The Local Area Supervisors at the London ACC Swanwick do not hold any validations and they make operational decisions that can have wide-ranging and severe effect. Their "competency" check is carried out in the canteen on a "you sign mine I'll sign yours" basis.

I would take issue with Nicnaks posting about operating under an ATCOs responsibility. It is not an issue of "getting a licence"or becoming an ATCO, but one of clearly defined duties and responsibilities. In this increasing litigious age, I think that these rather archaic definations of responsibilities are increasingly irrelevant given some of the increasing specialisations of some of the ATSA tasks, for example the Flight Plan supervisor or the Flight Information Service Officers at the centres and I am sure that there are other posts at other units. I can assure Nicnak that in my interview with SRG when I was involved in a 1261 doing the FIR I was the the "master of my fate". I think that it is in everyones interest as individuals and as an organisation that this system is introduced ASAP and it is not a challenge to the ATCOs ego.

DC10 - Absolutely no question of ego's, at least not on my behalf anyway.
But the major stumbling block will be that atsa's DO work under the direction, no matter how far delegated, of the senior atco on duty.

I know that London FIS is done by atsa's, but correct me if I am wrong, aren't they licenced and validated FISOs working entirely under the auspices of the FISO licence?
As for the flight plan supervisor at LATCC - I've no idea what they do other than fail to provide us with an efficiant service, regularly when we ring for joining clearances we find that flight plans have not been properly processed by the flight plans staff and the sector doesnt have them. :mad:

I'm pretty sure that NATS and most other employers will sing the praises of ATSAs until the cows come home, but would never go down the road of licensing them because the extra costs and the flexibility they would lose as an employer.

Please understand that I'm not having a pop at atsas per se, god knows I was one for long enough and know exactly what sort of **** they have to tolerate sometimes, but the ultimate stopping stone is with the senior duty atco and will be so until we're all replaced by computers.

Nicnak,

I still refer you to the original posting. I shall excude the FISOs for arguements sake as they are licensed posts with LCEs and OJTIs responsibilities. The question still remains, for example about our colleagues on the Flight Plan section, you complain about the errors that are made in dealing with joining clearances from your unit because of inputting into the Host Computer system I presume. These people have to input flight plans for the whole of the FIR not just your unit and therefore I am sure that they do it out of ignorance of your requirements and therefore a system of annual competency checks are a good idea. The Flight Plan supervisor at Swanwick is an ATSA4 who is the Flight Plan specialist do whom all of us refer to in flight planing matters, including Local Area Supervisors and the Watch Manager and yet apparently has no responsibility for their departments standard of work. The ATSA2s who work on the sectors at Swanwick are the personnel who deal with HCS matters to which most ATCOs have no interest or knowledge. To say that these personnel with their specialist knowledge have no responsibility for it and that it is the ATCOs responsibility is an outmoded concept and does a grave disservice to our ATCO colleagues who have enough to do with thir own duties and would be challenged in the courts if there were to be an accident. I also think that NATS would back a system where these anomalies could be addressed in the interests of air safety irrespective of the costs. Finally, Nicnak excepted, I still think objections that made be raised are a matter of personal ego for quite a number of people.

Avman –

Thanks for the info – how is the proposal being received by the staff at Eurocontrol? Any dissenters?

055166K –

Like you, I would like to see the end of the “ex-military/old Civil Service” terms of reference – they tend to aggravate the (openly unacknowledged) “us and them” attitude that prevails between ATCOs and just about everybody else.


DC10RealMan –

Good post – this issue is not just about who should or should not be licensed. The benefit it could bring to the ATC service as a whole should be kept foremost in mind. I myself am in favour of a licensing system for all ATC ATSAs, if only to ensure that efficient standards of service are maintained (by annual LCEs, as per the ATCO requirements). Personally, I do not think that holding a licence will in any way protect us with regard to job security – once you’re surplus - you’re surplus – licence or no licence!

Niknak –

With regard to senior ATCOs being “delegated” – yes, I agree, somebody has to be responsible overall for a group of staff working together to provide a service. If I am expected to be “directed” by an ATCO, or whoever, I personally would feel much better about it if I thought that the person so “delegated” had some genuine understanding of my job and the tasks I undertake. This is often not the case, at least, not at the Aerodrome I work at!

Therefore, I cannot agree with your statement that ATSAs have “no technical responsibility”. In the same way that I cannot do your ATCO tasks, if you can’t do the job I am doing within the ATC environment, then I am responsible for it – technically, physically, professionally – any way you care to call it. We don’t have to be talking into a microphone in order to be classed as “technical” – we just do different tasks within the same overall function – providing an ATC service.

As we are providing part of that same service as yourself, and some of us, (at least), can see the benefit of maintaining the standard of service, then what is the case for ATSAs not being licensed ? Licensing, as practised by NATS/CAA, would involve the regular re-assessment of those individuals so licensed, thus maintaining (and possibly improving) the overall standard. What’s the problem with that? After all, isn't that why ATCOs do it?

I would really like to see some support for the ATSA licensing issue from ATCOs in particular. I do not see any problem with it – I feel it can only benefit the service we provide, although I do agree with you that NATS will probably reject it on financial grounds alone. Does it really boil down to the fact that ATCOs want to keep themselves separate and aloof from us mere ATSAs, and do not want anybody invading their turf ? (a bit like the Fam Flight Schemes, eh?!!).

I sincerely hope not .

PS – any LATCC Flt Plan Supervisors out there care to comment on their failure to provide an efficient service to our ATCO colleagues??

Connex,

I would agree wholeheartly with your post with one exception and as I said earlier in these litigious times NATS needs to protect itself in the event of legal action by a third party. By clarifing duties and responsibilities of its staff and maintaining a certain standard it could be proved to be providing a "duty of care" to its customers and staff. There has also been a precedent where at West Drayton the Senior Sector Assistant prior to its transfer to Swanwick was subject to an LCE and had a Certificate of Competency. This system could be adapted and amended for local use at minimum cost and I do not believe that NATS is that " cheap", but I am prepared to be disapointed.

Many [many..many] moons ago, I had the "Best Job in the World" I was a "Runway Controller" at Manch. I cleared vehicles [tc] to cross the runway vehicles to "wander" around the airfield..for Petes sake, I even cleared the Airport boss [Gordon Sweetapple] to use the Faireys and Southern taxiways for "Go Cart Testing":ok:
Then it was "discovered":{ that I was working on the Air ATCOs license:confused: So the post was "chopped":mad:
Earlier, [before I was "promoted" into the job] an ATCA11 "Runway Controller" had to have a "medical":confused:
Why? If you were on the ATCOs licence:confused: :confused:
we aim to please. it keeps the cleaners happy

DC10 - fair points, particularly about competency checks. :ok:
SRG have a reasonably efficiant and pro active audit system , so there's no reason why they couldn't employ a x - section of experienced atsas to undertake this, but don't forget what happens to atco's who don't make it - you could end up working for Serco:p .

Connex - God help any atco who wants to keep themselves seperate and alloof from the atsas, if thats the impression I gave it wasn't what I meant, (I'd never be brave enough to take that stance with any of ours:ouch: ).

At Airports that have switchable taxiway lighting, which is operated by ATSA's, there is no form of competency checking and they work under the delegated authority of the Ground Controller. Whose competency is checked.

Why then was a trainee Lighting Operator blamed at LHR for routing an aircraft somewhere he shouldn't have, causing a ground 'incident'...?

LCE's get paid extra for being LCE's. Is NATS really going to pay ATSA's extra to be ATSA LCE's...?

............?

:confused:

From an IFPS perspective it seems a question of when , not if, the staff get licensing, and certainly at Brussels the idea has been pushed by the ops staff as well as management, probably more so by the former. The staff view it as a way of increasing quality of service as currently, when validated, an IFPO has no further competency checks ufn, so the plan is to bring in proficiency checks along with licensing. It would certainly force proficiency checking to continue, rather than the current setup where new procedures are introduced, but rapidly fade into obscurity in a matter of months or even weeks; a legal requirement would force a more continuously regulated approach in IFPS, which can't be a bad thing. It may be interesting to note that the IFPOs are made up of ex assistants, controllers (civil and military), dispatchers and ops managers, so there is certainly the experience already in place to deal with such a change.

However, the whole thing is taking some time to bring about as it seems that the licenses need the approval of ICAO to hold any weight, and such things take time. It could, as Avman says, come in as early as next year, although I have some reservations, as there was recently a management reshuffle that has created some 'interesing' results.

Muppit

Re the trainee LPO’s incident – I am informed by friends at LHR that there have been a few incidents of this sort going back to 1993 – not sure which incident you refer to, but I do not doubt that it was genuine. And re the LCE payments for ATSAs – again, I am reliably informed that LHR ATSA2s do not receive, and have never received, any form of supplementary payments for on-site training of new ATSAs, and until recently, never received any officially recognised training to allow them to undertake the task in the first place. Compare this with the ATCO arrangement – LCEs are paid a supplement for their task (as are OJTIs). So why not the ATSAs? Maybe its down to the bargaining power of the ATCO grades and their Union? Or maybe its just the same old story - one rule for them, and one for us!

With regard to the licensing issue, it would certainly help our situation if the ATCO grades were to actually voice any support they might have for us at local and Union level. If they object, perhaps they would like to tell us why?

Any comments from the ATCO boys and girls at the NATS Aerodromes?

Flight Data

Pleased to see that IFPS seems to acknowledge (at least) that a licensing system may be beneficial. I hope that the “interesting” reshuffle has not resulted in a difference of opinion with the “shopfloor workforce” on the licensing issue.

Fantastic. I get tasked with collecting views on the idea of ATSA licensing and this thread appears! Makes it a bit easier. My personal view is that licensing us is a good idea - especially from the competency angle.

Muppit,

I'm not sure which incident at LL you're referring to (the one in the CAA MOR digest a few months back?) but isn't it the case that whilst LPOs aren't licensed, under the "duty of care" understanding, they can actually be deemed responsible and therefore ultimately sued for an incident?
Plus, at LL I believe the LPOs have a lot more input into how a/c are routed than at KK - far more "follow the greens" at LL, whereas you guys set the routes here. Maybe that's why LPOs seem to kop the blame more at LL? Then again it's a funny old unit...

The payment of an ATSA OJTI allowance is always a thorny topic and one that I expect to rear it's head in the not too distant future! I think it'll be hard to get though but fingers crossed. Maybe we might even get some proper OJTI training too.

Some interesting debates ahead.

I’m not joking sir –

The payment of anything to ATSAs has always been a contentious issue, as has the provision of career development combined with properly organised, professional training programmes. The licensing issue will again bring this to the fore, because it will be inevitable that ATSAs who are required to become ATSA OJTIs/LCEs or whatever the job title is called, will expect to be paid something if they are going to take on additional tasks above their normal remit.

This will be regarded as especially relevant if this new task has any form of accountable safety implications attached. So, even if the licensing issue is accepted and introduced, and, as the OJTI/LCE positions would (presumably) be voluntary – who’s going to volunteer to do the job if there is no additional payment for doing so, as per our ATCO colleagues?

If licensing is introduced, it follows that part of the package must be NATS’ acceptance of the requirement to pay those ATSAs involved in OJTI/LCE tasks – anything less is only going to inflame the “us and them” syndrome, and turn ATSA opinion away from what is fundamentally a very positive step forward with regard to safety and standards of service.

I can only refer to the ATSA4s who do the FIR at Swanwick. The OJTIs and LCEs on this position sat exactly the SRG mandated examination that the ATCO OJTIs/LCEs sat at Bournemouth, unfortunately without any financial reward whatsoever. This was done because they were keen, enthusiastic, and were not to interested in monetary reward. One would like to think that under the new management regime that would be acknowledged and put right by paying an allowance to all ATSA OJTIs and LCEs, but as before I am prepared to be disapointed!.

I'm not joking sir -

Out of interest - are you canvassing ATCO opinions at your place of work on this issue, as well as from ATSAs? There has not been much of a response (either way) posted from ATCOs, so far as this thread is concerned, but I still think that ATCO support would be most helpful in progressing the concept forward. It stands to reason that the more support there is from those that provide the ATC service, the stronger the case for it to be considered.

Connex..et al
I joined the "Firm" in 1969..straight from the RAF. I have honestly [really] lost count of the number of people that I have trained, both ATCA/ATSAs and ATC cadet/ab initio/promotion prospects etc. A lot of my "pupils" are now a senior grade to me....Big Deal...
Got nowt for it, didn't expect to, part of the job then:ok:
Now, [just] perhaps another matter:confused:
at the end of the day, when the poor so 'n so's have left the "Training Section", it's us at the "sharp end" that has to sort the Beggars out:uhoh: :{
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

Chiglet –

Just a thought - have you never felt that your efforts should have been rewarded in any small way at all - not financially, but on a “professional” level? I had not been in the job for more than a year before the non-parity of the ATCOs/ATSAs became glaringly apparent, and not just in financial terms. I simply feel that, now, as participants in the same service, the very least we should be accorded is the acknowledgement that the part we play is important too. If, as we are allegedly told, the ATCOs , NATS Management and others do regard us as “professional”, and part of the team, then why are we subject to the constant put-downs, the lack of support at ALL levels, and the perpetual exclusion from virtually anything which could be regarded as a “Company perk”? So much for parity! And now what have we got – very little in the way of support from our colleagues - just one ATCO stating that he can’t see why ATSAs should be licensed at all as we have “no technical responsibility” (at least he had the ba**s to write in and say his piece – the rest of them are notable by their absence!)

ATSAs should not be going down the licensing avenue if all they are looking for is some form of “professional I.D.” Holding a licence is not a status symbol – (what was it Niknak said? – oh,yes – “if you want a licence, become an ATCO”) – it should be regarded as proof that the holder is a capable, responsible and PROFESSIONAL person who will deliver the goods every time he/she comes to work and becomes part of the TEAM providing the service. And, yes, they are accountable for their input, and will be tested regularly/annually to ensure that they are up to the task. Just in case it has slipped anybody’s mind out there – ATSAs are part of the team!!

One part of the idea of licensing, as stated by the PCS Union Rep in his letter, is to “enhance the safety chain” – that, combined with the element of maintaining (and possibly improving) standards, should be valid enough reason for the introduction of licensing for the “professional” non-ATCO grades within ATC.

PS – I don’t think the poor so-and-so’s will be too happy to know that we “sharp-enders” are watching them – after all, they’ve got licences!!
:ok:

Connex,

I've asked a few ATCOs to comment but so far none of them have been forthcoming...

I'm not joking sir -

Are we at all surprised??

Connex - now you've got me confused.

What exactly do you want the licence for? Recognition of certain responsibilities such as being an atsa OJTI and/or LCE? or just because you are an atsa?

I have no quibbles with atsa's being paid extra grades for such extra responsibilities, but I can't see that having a licence can be justified on these grounds alone. Although your duties almost ineviatbly involves some independant decision making, as as I've said before, the buck stops for overall responsibility with the senior atco on duty, not you.

You obviously feel hard done by, as your last post clearly demonstrates. I don't know what "company perks" you don't get that the atco's do, I assume that UKATTs is one of them, but these "extras" could well be similar to those that some people do or don't get in any other industry.
You mentioned parity with atco pay grades for atsa's, which is ridiculous, the day to day and legal responsibilities of a validated atco far outweigh those of an atsa under any circumstances.

Perhaps the content of your last post sums up the reason why you're not getting much support from atco's - to be blunt, it's on the verge of a petulant outburst from someone with a huge chip on their shoulder.

Niknak –

I shall reply to your points in turn –

Firstly, (and most importantly), let me state categorically that I personally do not want to be issued with any licence just because I am an ATSA, or an ATSA LCE/OJTI. I support the concept entirely from a safety and standards perspective only. The issue of a licence should be the tangible evidence that the holder is genuinely capable of doing a particular task/function, in a safe, conscientious and efficient manner, and by use of the annual Local Competency Examination , he/she will, and can, be expected to do so each time they turn up for work.

As for “extra grades for extra responsibilities”, I have (as have many of my counterparts) been training new staff, and taking part in validation Boards since 1993, and have never received one single penny for any of it – unlike my ATCO counterparts. Nor have I received any formally-recognised training for it – it has never been offered. A licence should not be issued just because I/we undertake this function – as I have already said, the licensing issue is all about SAFETY and the constant provision of it, in whatever part of the operation one works in. The payment for such tasks is an entirely separate matter, but will be an important one when it comes to finding personnel to take on the additional OJTI/LCE tasks if licensing is implemented.

With regard to “buck stopping” – I should think that most ATSAs can recall incidents where senior ATCOs have made ATSA-related decisions, only to see it blow up in their faces. It is very rare for an ATCO to ask the advice of an ATSA about anything operational – it is just assumed that, as an ATCO, they must know as much (if not more) than the ATSA. Do senior ATCOs know better? On ATCO related topics, a definite “yes” – ATSA issues? – not a chance! If you once were, as you say, an ATSA , then you will know this to be true. I have no problem with ATCOs making operational decisions – but if they directly involve, or have an effect on the operation of the ATSA function, then it would be prudent (and polite) to first ask for an opinion from those best placed to give it – the ATSAs themselves.

As for your comments about “Company perks” – at my place of employment, excluding UKATTS, the ATCO grades DO receive additional benefits which are denied to the ATSA grades. This has been, and continues to be, a considerable irritation to those so excluded – after all, are we not all batting for the same side?

“Parity with ATCO pay grades” – pay scales were not specifically mentioned – please read it again, for I fear that you have misunderstood. The implication was that we, as ATSAs, are not on a “par” when it comes to anything that the ATCOs are privy to, and I then highlighted the Company perks, plus put-downs (in the professional sense) and lack of support as examples. These are, admittedly, separate issues from the licensing, but would also play their part if/when it came around to finding staff to fulfil the additional tasks which licensing would create. However, there is no reason whatsoever why we ATSAs should not be afforded the same level of professional acceptance and courtesy by others employed within NATS ATC, and we should also be allowed to share in the rewards (perks), whatever they may be.

With regard to lack of visible support from ATCOs for the ATSA licensing issue - you might like to consider the possibility that your colleagues don’t actually want to be seen to be taking sides with the “opposition” – nor do they want to fall out with us, because we all still have to work together, don’t we? And this website is not as “anonymous” as you would like to think. If, unlike yourself, they do not wish to air their views in public, perhaps they might take the trouble to engage in a little sensible debate with their ATSA counterparts at their own Station/Centre?

Finally, with regard to “hard done by, petulant outburst, chip on shoulder” - when debating an issue with anyone, never resort to making direct derogatory personal comments about the opponent – you do not know them personally, and it only indicates to all and sundry that the perpetrator of said comments has nothing constructive left to say. (happens far too often on Pprune, as it is).

ATSA Licensing
 

Well said Connex!

I think licensing of Atsa's is an excellent idea.

A year or so ago a couple of NAS input "errors" crashed the entire FDPS system throughout the UK on at least two occasions, costing the airlines millions.
If the ATSA'S were licensed and given competency checks these errors probably would not have occurred, although I can sympathise with the Atsa's concerned as NAS is "creaking at the seams".
The Atsa's go to enormous lengths to ensure data input is correct, give them your support folks -- they have supported us long enough!

Ayr_Man,
If more proper testing of NAS patches took place, then unforseen consequences of inputs wouldn't happen.
Not many years ago, NAS was 'foolproof' as regards an input crashing it.
BTW, rumour had it that one crash was caused by an ATCO doing an input! True or not, I don't know.
Your recognition of the ATSA work is appreciated, although personally I'm still undecided about licensing.

A thought worth thinking about- If I pass a clearance to an airfield incorrectly and an incident results, who gets hung drawn and quartered- me or the ATCO whose licence I'm working under?

Also, I believe that ATSA LCE's at Swanwick get extra money- true or false. Might be wrong as it came from a pub conversation!

As an ATCO, I would welcome ATSA licensing, if only from the point of view of reassurance that the colleague sitting next to me went through a similar examination to me in the past year.

I may be being naive here, but would it not also encourage in some a bit more pride and professionalism? Ok, maybe that's not how I meant to say it, as many of our ATSAs take the utmost pride in their work as it stands..... I guess I'm trying to say that it would be an official recognition from the company, and us as controllers, that that professionalism and pride is valued.

After all we are on the same team, and, certainly at my unit, the input from ATSAs can have serious ramifications if a mistake is made.

Can I make a suggestion!. It seems that everyone is a agreed that bi-annual or annual checking of ATSAs is a good idea. I think that for some of us the word "licence" is a problem. Can I suggest that we call it "Certificates of Competency", the administration remains the same, but then there is no confusion with ATCO licences.

DC10.....Just for info the Controllers at Maastricht (Eurocontrol) have a Certificate of Competency and not a licence!

Connex

You make very convincing arguments for atsa's/atca's to be well paid for the work that they do, but using the premise presented, you'd never convince NATS management or SRG that the post warrants an individual licence.
When it comes to support from atco's, they have no reason not to be forthcoming on this forum, I know that NATS frown upon being critisised in public - as does any employer, but as long as its constructive and valid they have nothing to fear.
On several occassions, you've used the phrase "team work", agreed, we are a team - each member of which has a duty of care to do their job to the best of their ability, but a team must have someone who is ultimately responsible, and like or not, that's not going to be the duty atsa (s).

Re reading my post, I accept that the final paragraph was unnecessary, and for that you have my apologies.

Finally, I fully support DC10's suggestion about certificates of competence, to be renewed annually and standards monitered on a regular basis, with the option for it to be suspended if standards are not maintained.

Personally I think that both NATS, non NATS employers and SRG will buy the C of C idea, and will give the atsa post the recognition it deserves.

DC10RealMan –

Although you have no doubt seen the original letter, for the benefit of who haven't, the term “professional licence” is taken directly from the Union letter which originally prompted this thread. I would not expect many ATSAs to object to the proposed licence being called a Certificate of Competency, ATSA Licence or anything else you want to call it, although the Union, for whatever reason, might prefer the term “licence” to be used. I just hope that all grades within ATC give a fair and unbiased hearing to the possibility of ATSA Licensing. Lets just all look rationally at the potential benefits/pitfalls (?) before making any decisions.

Any ATSAs out there who genuinely foresee problems with ATSA licensing?

And thanks to those ATCOs/ATSAs who have posted their views, or have been professional enough to discuss this issue with me at my Station without recourse to verbal slanging matches.
:ok:

Niknak included!!:ok:

Given that the ATSA task encompasses such a wide range of responsibilites, what exactly would you like to see being examined as part of the annual check/licence/COC?

Would it include some form of medical (I know that if it did at least a third of our team would lose their jobs :) )?

I've never understood why people in ATC (particularly NATS) have such a hangup about getting paid for training. Surely once you get to a certain level of experience/seniority you are expected to contribute to training the next generation - in my last job that's certainly the way it was: "this bloke's on your watch, get used to it!". We cannot claim to be professionals with one hand and then insist on piece work money with the other.

1261 –

I would expect the annual check to be akin to taking an ATSA Validation Board test – ie: practical and oral tests covering all aspects of the ATSA function specific to the location at which the test is being held, and for which the licence/COC will be issued. Practical examinations to be carried out by delegated ATSAs, and possibly an ATCO with knowledge of ATSA issues to sit in on the oral Board . The whole process should be overseen by SRG, to ensure that standards are being maintained.

As for a medical examination - bit of a grey area - I am not certain whether this would be as much of a requirement as it is for ATCOs – depends upon the particular ATSA function, I suppose. There could be good grounds for needing one if the ATSA is engaged in “live” situations, such as Lighting Panel or supporting ATCOs in VCRs or En-Route for instance, whereas ATSAs working permanently in ATC office environments, (for want of a better expression) may not be deemed to require the same level of medical check. I myself do not object to medical examinations being part of the licence requirement.

With regard to the payment for training, or for being paid as an OJTI/LCE for that matter, I think NATS has made a rod for its own back -you cannot set a precedent by rewarding one group of individuals for doing a job, and then steadfastly refuse to reward another group for doing what is essentially the same task. This is the situation as it stands – generally, ATCOs get paid for training; ATSAs don’t.

Unfortunately, the days of being “professional” when it comes to NOT being paid for something have long gone. Although I am a volunteer ATSA mentor myself, I personally don’t see many volunteers in ATC offering to undertake additional (unpaid) duties. Also, I am not so financially comfortable as to be able to accept “professional pride” in lieu of hard cash!

1261 – although I personally support your idea of “professionalism” within ATC, IMHO professionalism in this day and age only comes at a price. Nothing is more certain to cause dissent amongst a Company workforce than the issue of pay. Although you may get a few “volunteers” along the way, today’s workforce does not accept the principle of “something for nothing” – you do something, you get paid for it – and especially if somebody else is already 'doing' and 'getting' just that. Sorry, but there are no friends where money is concerned!

Fair points indeed, Connex; I'd much rather there was a one-off compensation payment and then no such training payments for ATCOs either. However, as you rightly say, it'll never happen in NATS.

1261
You are way out of touch regarding OJTI duties, it's an onorous responsibility being a mentor to any student atco, if they "f*ck up" it's your licence at risk.
The vast majority of employers (even Serco!) recognise this by rewarding atco's willing to train others, a minority don't - mine included.
I happen to enjoy the challenge of being responsible for someone's training and progress, and take a great deal of satisfaction in seeing them through the validation, but if they don't make it, or screw up shortly afterwards, questions are asked not only of the LCEs but the OJTI as well.

In any industry, increased responsibility is rewarded with increased renumeration, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Niknak, out of interest, did your employer used to sponsor a local league club (forget it if I'm barking up the wrong tree)?

I'd dispute your assertion that "any industry" pays more for training - they certainly didn't in my previous job. And believe me, the trainee f*ucking up on the bridge of a tanker carrying 40,000t of Jet A-1 can ruin your entire day!

To get back to the main issue - the reason for a licence is first to denote a certain minimum level of knowledge or competence and second to give the issuing authority something to take away if that minimum knowledge or competence is not maintained.

Given that ATSAs don't just walk in off the street but are employed by a small number of easily identifiable companies surely it's possible to achieve all of the safety measures within each individual ATC unit. It's been possible for years - although it's been done better by some units than others. OJTI responsibilities and all other special tasks can be done locally.

Let's get real. There's no need for a licence for ATSA - there are lots of other ways to ensure they are competent. In spite of claims to the contrary, the only reason anyone would want an ATSA licence is either for some form of status or to justify more money.

The same is true of controllers too. The only reason that they have licenses is because it's an international regulation. It would be interesting to guess whether if the regulation wasn't there, would controllers have licenses or just bits of paper authorising them to do the job - there really isn't a lot of difference if all you want to do is the job.

And btw, like it or not, even though controllers may not be able to do ATSA jobs as quickly, the job is supporting the controller and so they could do it if they needed to - or at least they certainly should be able to!

Spitoon –

Taken within the context of this thread, your first paragraph is a strong argument in favour of ATSA licensing. However, you then go on to say that ATC ATSAs (and ATCOs) do not really “need” licences. This would carry more weight if there were another alternative REGULATED method by which standards could be maintained. As far as I am aware, there isn’t, so licensing plus annual LCEs it will remain until another "non-licensed" method of maintaining standards ACROSS ALL GRADES is devised and implemented.

The important point is that licensing must, and does, fulfil its prime purpose, which is to be the “machinery” by which competency and safety standards are regularly checked and maintained. If improvement of these standards result as a by-product of such assessments, then so much the better. This is the crux of the debate/proposal concerning ATSA licensing – the issues over pay awards, who will be LCE/OJTIs etc are all side issues which can be addressed separately. If it can be reasoned that annual competency checks for ATSAs could be genuinely beneficial to the overall provision and standard of the ATC service, then that makes a good case for considering implementation of licensing for ATSAs.

I would be inclined to agree with your statement that ATCOs “certainly should be able to” do ATSA tasks – but by experience from what I have seen at my own Station, most ATCOs (with a few notable exceptions) have no more than a basic knowledge or passing interest in our tasks, let alone the detailed knowledge (and therefore the competency?) to be able to do them correctly.

I would be very interested to hear your ideas on how ATCO/ATSA competency can be checked (regulated?) at local (Unit) level; or how exactly it has “been done better by some Units” if it is not by annual LCE checks.

Whilst awaiting Spitoon's response to my last post, perhaps some kind soul out there can inform us all as to how ATSA competency is checked/maintained (without the use of LCEs) at their particular work location.

Do I detect a slight edge to your last post Connie? It comes to something when you can't even go away for a few days without being missed on pprune!

To answer your questions, competence can only be managed by a unit. Continuous monitoring and annual checks will show up anyone who is having difficulties for whatever reason. Of course, work colleagues will usually pick up the signs even earlier. The unit management have a responsibility to ensure that people doing jobs are competent to do so - for many, many, reasons aside from licensing. So, if a unit manager becomes aware of someone who is not competent they should do something about it - the problem is what they should do. There are often few options, controllers and assistants are employed to do those jobs and there sometimes no other jobs on the unit that require this skillset (and we already know they're not up to scratch anyway).

You are looking for a licence for the wrong reasons. The CAA may issue licences and so the CAA can take them away - but this should be a last resort or the last stage of preventing someone who is not competent from endangering others. The first step should be at local management level - what you seem to want is for the CAA to be the bogeyman that takes away the licence while unit management wring their hands and say it's not their fault. You don't need a licence because, in simple words, if someone can't do their job they should be sacked. It sounds harsh but taking away a licence they need to do a job has the same effect in practice.

One would hope that lots of avenues are tried before someone in this position loses their job but the bottom line - and I think we agree on this - is that someone who is not competent must not continue to work in ATC.

As you say, payment for extras like training are secondary to ensuring competence and can be dealt with separately - and don't need a licence either.

I said that some units are better than others - and that applies to competence and usually all other things. A good manager (be that a Unit General Manager or Watch Supervisor) will be aware of how their patch is running. They'll spot problems as soon as they arise or, even better, will have an open door for someone who's got problems to go and talk and, hopefully, sort it out long before it becomes serious or can affect other. A unit or watch with a good manager will have some system that ensures competence that does not require a licence. A cr@p manager will actively deter such openess and when someone has a problem the first thing that will officially be recorded is an incident that gets reported to the CAA. Then the 'difficult' decisions are taken by the CAA.

OK, these are two extremes but I hope you get my point.

Finally, your point that controllers do not understand the ATSA's job is probably valid in many cases - hence my claim that they should be able to do the ATSA's job if necessary. But this again is a unit thing - a controller who may be called upon to do work normally done by an ATSA should be trained and considered competent to do it before being signed off as competent to work in any particular position.