Air Traffic Controllers - a loss of skills?
 

Listening once again to the sound file PH-UKU posted, it got me thinking about training of Air Traffic Controllers today. Do experienced controllers out there involved in training think there has been a loss or omission in the teaching of some essential skills for Mr or Ms Ab-initio off the street with no flying/aviation background.

I believe NATS have well and truly started their "speciality specific" streaming into either Airports/Approach or Area. Here in Canada, IFR training is now being conducted at the regional Centres, and I haven't seen the curriculum, but wonder will there be components of the training that were taught not that long ago that are now being removed from programmes to get the trainees through faster.

Just a couple of examples I could think of include the flying training NATS provided (I don't know if it is still being done). Other things like navigation (some guy in his /S Cherokee who's a little geographically misplaced), weather (the effects of icing on aircraft performance etc), familiarisation flights getting controllers on the flight decks to see things like workloads, the involvement of pilots/airlines in emergency training of controllers.......are these things still being included in cirriculums, or falling by the wayside in the shadow of the almighty dollar/pound/euro/shekle?

Personally I think that there has been a general de-skilling evident in some of the trainees that i saw at West Drayton. i could never put my finger on it, but there was a lack of depth of knowledge, maybe even depth of interest in the job and the environment - but i saw that among the ATSA grade as well. Many of the students coming through, didn't know the basics - aircraft types etc (even down to numbers of engines) and worse, they didn't seem to care either...

The cutbacks in college training can only make the situation worse, but i think that the problems start all the way back at recruitment, with too many people applying for the salary, arther than the job. i'm not advocating taking on plane spotters and ATC junkies, but I have sat next to people before interview who were doing the usual rounds, with NATS one day and a merchant bank the next. ATC isn't that sort of job...

Just my opinion of course...

Got to agree here. I have only been in Nats for 7 years but there has been a decline in the "knowledge" of aviation in more recent time. Some the fault of the ab-initios and some the fault of the teaching.

Shame but I doubt there is much we can really do because for a lot of them if "it" aint there it never will be....

Interesting you mention "that fault of the ab-initios" GT. A lack of interest in their part? A lack of passion for the job?

A bit of both mate. Some are very clued up others just don't care it would seem. They can get by with a minimum level ok knowledge in some walks of life and think the same will apply in ATC.

At Heathrow, I have noticed that there is a growing tendency amongst some of the more junior ATCOs (with exceptions, Fly Bhoy! :ok: ) that once valid, that's it. Yes, of course, every one of them will gain in Heathrow experience, but some seem less inclined to expand on their ATC and aviation knowledge outside of their immediate concern.

A loss of skills is perhaps not the correct term, but loss of knowledge; perhaps.

Interesting subject. :E

It does really matter where you are, as an atco, if you don't keep up to speed with developments within atc and aviation in general, one day the system will bite you back.

I know that there are a small number of atc staff whose only interest is the pay packet and leave roster, but thankfully, for the most part, they're the ones who don't remain within industry for long.

The recording posted by PH-UKU was certainly interesting although I would say the controller’s main contribution was to remain calm and offer small pieces of advice in a way that made the pilot feel that that he was being helped and that disaster was not certain. And I have been in a light aircraft, left hand seat, in IMC, in icing conditions and in a spin. Something my instructor called recovery from unusual attitudes. We didn’t die.

All industries go through cycles where skills are first developed and then eclipsed as new technologies are brought into play. Most pilots are considerably less experienced than were their predecessors who flew in the 1950s and 1960s. This is called progress and the economics of market forces dictate where we go. However useful Flight Engineers might be in some special circumstances they have now disappeared. The overall accident statistics improve steadily but the types of incidents we have change over time. Crews now have problems because they don’t understand the automation but the airframes, avionics and engines are all now tremendously reliable.

I’ve just come back from the Air Traffic Control Association Conference in the USA. They accepted a paper I submitted on Automation in ATC which I’ve brought to your attention in a separate thread. With the problems of capacity and costs as large as they are nobody was talking about training the controllers in traditional skills.

So, the skills that are seen as traditional will slowly disappear and newer skills in operating automated systems will take their place. Today there is absolutely no need to recruit a person who could work a sector from the 1960s. Complete familiarity with Information Technology is what is required and when universal Mode S arrives that may even apply to the person in the VCR because capacity is needed even when the visibility is 50 meters. And in that case is it a VCR?

I still believe the proposals on my website (polemic said one of you) will be the future.

Thanks for the input so far guys, and I hope to get more.

I guess another reason I started thinking about this was the implication of something that I overheard a newly checked out controller say recently. We had fairly bad weather about, and some of the drivers were reporting moderate icing. I overheard someone take an icing report from a turbo-prop........and then ask the very same aircraft to expedite a climb. Had me scratching my head a bit.

I'll throw this out to some of the drivers out there as well. Has there been a reduction/culling of getting into the centres/towers to see what goes on there as well?

I believe there was an airprox a number of years ago where the selection of airframe and/or engine antice reduced the rate of decent without the controller noticing. One of the observations made in the report was the "lack of understanding" by ATC staff of aeroplane type issues and a recommendation of more famil flights for ATC staff. NATS response was to shut down the fam flight office at Bournemouth to save money.

It is the 80% of 80% rule. I took in 80% of what I was taught, got rated and got some extra experience but could only teach 80% of all of that to my first trainee, he in turn got rated, got some experience, had a trainee and so on. Kind of like World's best practice really.

A fairly high percentage of our abinitios have no, or very little background aviation knowledge. I find that odd, but then again I'm of an ancient and endangered generation! :D

(When I started in ATC most of the ATCOs at my unit were ex RAF pilots or had some form of aviation background).

I understand what's been said regarding automation and moving on etc and I accept the fact we will lose some bare skills...But, the bottom line is that unfortunately, we are getting people in the seats whose main motivation for becoming an ATC'r was the salary. Not even a thread of interest in the job at hand. I can give many examples of the lack of knowledge demonstrated recently.... particularly types of a/c etc... very sad, but ok.... not much we can do at this end heh? :{ I wonder if pilots can detect this all on the freq??

I'm glad you bring up the automation issue NewModel, as that is one of the very areas that de-skilling will one day prove fatal..........what happens if the automated system is taken away?

I remember the analogy of future cockpits having a pilot and a dog in there. The dog to bite the pilot if he touches anything and the pilot there to feed the dog.

One of the major times when all the experience and knowledge a controller may need to draw on is when you hear those very words "Mayday, Mayday". You can automate everything up the yin-yang, yet every problem is unique.......and probably wouldn't help our friend in N9815L.

I always ask the same questions of pre Interview visit people.
I always ask them if they were in the Air Training Corp, most reply with a shrug of their shoulders and say what's that ?
I ask them what their interest in aviation is, again I often get a shrug of the shoulders from them.

We are still getting quality students through the system, they of course are the ones who go on to validate, they are keen and eager to learn. I feel so sorry for them coming out to units now with the knowledge of a 6 weeker and be expected to to be part of the full team. It is a much harder slog for them.

Knowledge is power, as TRM seems to be saying to us, so why put into units students who are not getting the same time to learn in the initial phases. It is unfair on them and unfair on the units.

DC10RealMan,

Your example is actually a good argument for automation. Either the aircraft would inform the ground system (by Mode S or whatever) of its performance characteristics or the ground system would observe the actual performance and react accordingly. Even in the latter case the surveillance system would always get to see more data than the controller and could intervene immediately. Even with the most experienced controller his/her attention may be elsewhere as the situation develops.

Jerricho,

It is interesting to ask about what happens when the automated system goes away. The Airbus fly-by-wire system finally falls back to differential throttle for yaw and horizontal stabiliser trim for pitch. An aircraft has been landed in the simulator using only these controls. I have explored in some detail how the same fail-soft philosophy could be applied to ATC.

Some people think that separation could be delegated wholly to the aircraft by combining ACAS and Free Flight. I don’t think it could be, but if ACAS is being considered for separation it could certainly be used in a fall-back situation.

The reason I have joined your thread is because I believe automation will come to ATC sooner than many people think and that there is an important choice to be made between a ground-based system with controllers and an air-based system operated by the aircrew. I would like to see current controllers participating much more in the discussion and not just keeping their heads down.

The most animated session at the ATCA conference was the one on the US FAA Trust Fund. There just isn’t the money for SESAME or NGATS because even if it works in Europe and the USA who is going to pay for the infrastructure in Russia, Africa, China or South America? We need to focus on identifying a workable Concept of Operations and not just on making a shopping list of technologies.

Whether you call it de-skilling, loss of knowledge or dumbing-down it’s a real phenomenon in every business. You guys (and gals) have an enormous history to be proud of. As an engineer I’d just like to help you prevent the politicians and managers from making a complete bedtime drink out of it all.

And that is my very concern, and I find it interesting you use the word business. Unfortunately that is a word I hate to see applied ot what we do.

IMHO there is knowledge and skill that is vital to ATC that, for what ever reason be it budgeting, change of curriculum, a decrease in the passion for the job..........all have the potential to degrade the service we provide, especially in unusual circumstances. And once again, it is the uniqueness of these events that a controller becomes very reliant on both experience AND training.

I think there are two separate threads going on here.

There is an argument on automation and the resultant loss of ATCO skills (eg. the introduction, or not, of Final Approach Spacing Tool at TC), and there is the fact that more and more ATC entrants are not 'aviation aware'. The impact of that loss of knowledge of even the most insignificant fact regarding the operation of aircraft and interfacing with ATC has yet to be seen.

Or has it? For ten points can anyone tell me the reason why ECT was introduced for UK ATCOs?

I have just watched the Level Bust DVD that came with CHIRP. I noted with interest that ATCOs are not expected to crosscheck the cleared level with the MCP selected level. Why not?

Hey Gonze, what you reckon the chances are of me getting a copy of that DVD please :ok:

As to the two "topics" being discussed, I did intend for a discussion regarding the second of the points Gonzo has so eloquently raised. NewModel, the pros and cons of automation have been discussed on another thread. The points I have been trying to get input go far beyond automation and the systems ATC use.

Jer, let me have your snail mail, and I'll get it to you.

In the second incident, I hope someone picked up the ATCO for using the wrong callsign each time. No wonder the pilot was confused by heading and level if he wasn't sure if he was being addressed or not :) (Fictitious aircraft shown is VSHJV - ATCO uses V-YV each time).

NATS should sack the continuity checker ... unless the ATCO really did make a horlicks of the callsign in the actual incident !!

Yes, I did notice that. Wasn't sure if it was intended.

Definate dumbing down of ATC from my point of view. No one is willing to spend the money for a good product. Just make sure they can keep them apart and get them checked out. Doesn't matter if they don't understand the first thing about what an aircraft can do or not, nor what to actually ask an aircraft to do. Then there is that pesky little thing about being able to help someone out when they are in trouble.

Model ATC... Sorry I am going to have to disagree with you. First of all, you are going to need to have EVERY aircraft be able to datalink you all that wonderful information. Shoot, we just canceled CPDLC do to lack of money, so that isn't going to happen here anytime soon. Besides, if I need to figure out how to separate some aircraft, I have seconds to do that sometimes when things get BUSY! I don't have time to start looking up things in Janes or on the aircraft datalink (if they have it.) I should KNOW that sort of stuff. It's kind of like knowing your airspace, if you don't you are going to get yourself in a lot of trouble quickly.

I don't think that ATC automation is anywhere nearly ready for self sepatation yet. I think that there are a lot of neat tools out there for display purposes in the cockpit, but again, you have to have EVERYONE equiped and that just isn't going to happen in this climate where the industry is trying to bankrupt itself. Also, when talking with the different pilot groups, they seem more than happy to help out with the separation stuff, but they always say that when it gets to busy or they can't handle it, they want to give it back. It just won't work that way, if you want separation duties in the cockpit, they you get to have it as well as the responsibility of what happens when you close to 2.96 miles instead of 3 miles and the computer snitches on you.

Wish I would have known that you were in the Dallas Fort Worth area. I went to ATCA on Wednesday and would have been able to meet you for a bite sometime during the week (I live about 15 minutes from the Gaylord.)

regards

Scott

Assuming MCP is Mode Control Panel then NATS did some work on that in 2000. Also, in the mid-1990s there was a retired Group Captain working for NATS whose group worked on Mode S requirements. He was passionately against using any downlinked tactical data such as level. I admit I don’t know the acronym ECT. A PM would be appreciated.

I agree that there are two distinct skills issues. I’m just suggesting that automation is some compensation for the loss of a broader aviation background. It is the environment that youngsters grow up in that is driving change. Very few kids make flying models these days or take them to playing fields to fly them. The model market is almost completely RTF - Ready to Fly – and most of today’s aeromodellers grew up in the 1960s.

Almost all aircraft now look the same and there is no steady flow of distinctive new civil and military types. Many RAF aircraft are in long term store. The on-board systems are so complex that the old syllabus items of pitot-static systems and gyroscopes don’t get you very far in understanding the displays. All of this excludes youngsters from aviation.

So we should expect to see changes in the backgrounds of people applying for jobs as aircrew or controllers. The challenge is to find ways of encouraging and developing the best people that can be found.

ECT - Emergency Continuation Training, now known as TRUCE - Training in Unusual Circumstances and Emergencies.

I personally think that there is a move away from the sort of training we used to get at the college, with the emphasis now on getting as many bums on seats in the quickest time.

My interview for NATS in 1996 concentrated on any aviation interest I had, visits and fam flights I had arranged etc. The training at Bournemouth included aircraft recognition and characteristics, Aerodrome (+OJT) even though I was destined for Area, BA course, flying training etc. All this, I hope, made me aware of aircraft, pilots, other units and not just the Area task I was ultimately training for.

Ab initios are arriving at our units with very little exposure to these things, and in my view it is the fault of the management, they are desperate to fill places with no regard to all of the skills these people need (two weeks with BA may seem like a jolly to bean counters but I learned a lot from talking to pilots about their workload and what would help them in emergencies and bad weather).

I think the situation is only going to get worse, especially when our man in charge says that he doesn't think of flights as aircraft, but sales in a salesbook, and his aim is to get as many sales in his book as possible!!

I have to echo some of the previous comments: in it for the $, no aviation background, almost going through their careers in a daze! 25 years ago, we got in because we felt it was so cool to vector airplanes all over, to be part of the aviation community! The money wasn't an issue...

However, today's system works! How can that be? Let me tell you... Automation is one part of it, sectorization the other. In our brave new world, a new hire only has to master one particular sector, be it FL290 and above, or in a busy terminal, vector left downwind from 2 entry points. In the towers, everything is regulated to death, whatever you do, don't become innovative. That's it. It's great for the company, although it requires more staff. It's great for the newbie, he/she can qualify faster than ever before. It's just that, like some other posters, I feel a loss that I can't quite define. Kind of like the crusty, I've seen it all jet captain, versus the kid who bought his training at E. Riddle and now is rt. seat in an RJ with 300 hours...

:{ :ugh: :confused: :( :{

During my basic training I identified the following groups:

1-In it for the money, and have the aptitude for the job.
2-In it for the money but have no aptitude for the job.
3-Aviation buffs with aptitude for the job.
4-Aviation buffs but with no aptitude for the job.
5-The rest.

#3 are usually the most fun to work with.

It is a very unique profession, and the training after all these years seems to be an elusive academic mystery, which is not getting helped by the exponential growth of traffic.

The reason for the reduction in training time at the college is that The Board have identified that it costs £xxx 000 to train a multi disciplined ATCO but £xxx 000 minus a lot to train specifically to a given discipline.

So, as is the way in the world of business (I hate it too Jer), students are streamed to their disciplines very early on. I was lucky enough to visit the college to see what is going on and my findings are as follows:

1/. The reduction in quality of Aerodrome ab initios is down to the fact that the essential skills of observation of other controllers workload and advanced co-ordination, something that dynamic Tower ATC vitally requires, are not practised on the ADC course. In the past, tthose of us who were lucky enought to do APR Rad practised these skills on that course. I'm not advocating that everyone undertakes this (although I do believe that they should!!) just that the skills are missed form the current course. The proposed introduction of "bolt on" modules for the bigger aerdromes may help to rectify this but only if they are approved by said aerodromes.

2/. The reduction in quality of the Area/Apr students is down to the fact that the non completion of an Aerdormoe course leaves them without the very basic but vital grounding that the ADC course provides. Trying to cram all of the book work into the new Intro course, before the guys and gals have even stepped into a simulator to put these rules into practice to appreciate their effects, is, for my money, the biggest retrograde step that has taken place in NATS training regime. The ADC course sgowed the relationship bewtween the boring lesson work undertaken and the real world ATC effect. That has now gone and units now are getting students that, through little fault of their own, lack some of the skills that they require to validate at the busier NATS units.

I'm sorry to any students that may be reading this. I'm not in any way laying any blame at your door, this is a rod that NATS has made for its own back. However, this is something that we need to address, as a company, to maintain the skillsets required and to keep our jobs as the most enjoyable in aviation. Well mine is anyway:ok:

P7

Hey, Jer, note this down; I agree 100% with P.7!!!

Yeah, shock to me too!

Not much one can add to that, at least regarding NATS. It will be fascinating to see how this all pans out.

:confused:

I couldn't agree more with point seven but I think the days of everyone doing the aerodrome course will never return.

The Intro course has managed to totally screw up all the other courses at the college but the company must be happy otherwise the main drivers behind this disaster would not have been promoted.

Now that the staff rather than the managers have been proved right, the intro course is now a thing of the past.

For what is worth, I'm usually happy with the services I receive.

Thanks Westy, and I know I speak for everyone when I say that when a controller puts his/her hat on, they only want to provide the best service they can provide.

But with more and more of the older generation parting ways through retirement, there is a huge wealth of knowledge that is walking out the door. I've lost count of the things I have picked up from these people that I have drawn on, and can only hope to impart to newer types coming through, but as Gonzo says "It will be fascinating to see how this all pans out."

Ahhh... the weird world of NATS management promotions.. and this ladies and gentlemen is a huge part of the problem within NATS. managers do an appalling job, don't listen to their staff, cause monumental cock ups, and yet get promoted further up the food chain, where they can make even bigger cock ups, and have more staff to listen to less.

Yes, I have now left the company, due entirely to the state of NATS management, and found out that it is actually different in the outside world.

So, there is another reason thrown in to the ring - anyone care to tell me that i am wrong?

(The bit about "Don't listen to their staff" is the biggest problem)

I count myself as an "old timer aviation type person" alluded to previously. In the old days going to work used to be "FUN" and now it is not fun anymore. I put it down to getting older, the privitisation of NATS, the tyranny of accountants and their pursuit of profits and the "competence"of NATS mangers, both locally and nationally. I do not want to be part of it anymore and look forward to retirement with increasing pleasure.

I wonder if the current crop of talent that looks with lament towards the FNG's were looked down upon themselves by the old timers who trained them.

West Coast, you are absolutely right. I joined 25 years ago and then we had a lot of ex-military personnel who looked down on you if you were not ex-military. I did mention this in my posting that I think that this is a function of getting older where things are not as good as in the "old days". In the UK though and in NATS in particular I think the preoccupation with profit and the tyranny of accountants is paramount with inevitable reduction of the "fun factor" in the job.

We were, as the old timers validated their Aerodrome rating before going back to do Approach, validate again and then do Area, making the whole training process much longer.

I guess everyone will lament the next generations as they come along if training is pruned further in years to come.

It's not a new thing. Probably started the day Min. against Av. employed me. :uhoh:
I can remember that there were a couple of new ATCAs on my course who couldn't tell the difference between an HS06 and a CV99.
Things haven't improved, I think it's for economic reasons. Even at Eurocontrol, where there is 0% chance of working TWR/APP we did sim training for that. Dropped now, to get people through quicker and cheaper. Same with the Fam Flight programme, if management and airlines were really interested it would still be possible.
Also the selection process itself. See some of the links here, people not really asking for details of the job, only, "How do I pass the tests?" As a training officer I complained long and loud about the fact that, in order to keep the numbers up, people often made it through the initial phase, only to fall directly when OTJ training commenced.
Management is also distancing itself from the workers; extra layers inserted - often those who were not suited/suitable/interested in working in the Ops. Room (before someone posts it, I know being a good controller is not a guarantee of being a good manager; however an ATC manager should have a good knowledge of what's involved an, more importantly, be interested in it, not just in furthering his/her own career).
Rant over, and no further suggestions for rectifying the problem as I'm too busy enjoying retirement:ok: