Something interesting from the college....
 

Just a little rumour/truth from the college (believe what you want to)....of the 7 that sat Air/Ground on the last Aerodrome course, 2 failed.

Now, the usual process would be to re-course them on Air/Ground (providing nothing had been failed before) especially seeing as it is a "NATS requirement to pass" However....on this occasion, NSL management were "happy to accept" the two trainees on the current Approach course without the Air/Ground endorsement! Bearing in mind one of the trainees has failed every single course they have been on, how can this be justified? Are we really that short of controllers that college have to 'bodge' the results?

Now I know they have their Aerodrome licences, but one question to you is....how many people out there have been let go from NATS in recent years for failing Air/Ground after having their licence? I know of two in the past 6 months and one is now a valid controller outside of NATS....

Does this mean oral boards and summative assesments are an optional pass? Good thinking management :ok:

Seeing as Summatives and oral boards are part of the assessment they would still clearly need to be passed!

As for Air/Ground you correctly state that trainees already have their licence at this phase, so is it not feasable that these controllers if axed could go to another unit, validate and then later reapply to Nats anyway?

Surely if they are not up to scratch once doing on the job training they will be let go, I fail to see where safety is compromised?

under the radar...

I think you are failing to spot the sarcasm in my post. I am merely stating that at the college it seems to be one rule for one person and another rule for someone else. They seem to be making the numbers 'fit' from one course to the next.

As for those who have gone to other units with Licences paid for by NATS - my point here is if they are good enough for other busy units then why are NATS wasting money giving them a licence and not keeping them on if they are clearly good enough to validate?

I don't think you're the only person to notice that.

"hmm, short of trainees - quick recourse all the failures!"

"hmm, too many trainees, these people might make it but lets chop them anyway!"

"hmm, no trainees, let's give everyone a bung to find some quick!"

Fires & fighting spring to mind!

What about certain trainees who fail, fail and fail again and somehow still get recourses? :ugh:

intherealworld

Couldnt have put it better myself. you've hit the nail on the head. Maybe that should go in the NATS recruitment pack!

College
 

Its been happening for years IMHO.

Well I can't speak for other units but around LACC, most people think it's an absolute joke. A place where you have to go and dodge bullets so that you make it to a unit for some real training. Staffing a college with people ready for retirement (in fact with people who HAVE retired) is no way to train controllers of the future to cope with record traffic levels. It should be a centre of excellence with individual trainings needs adapted to. Not one course/method fits all.

Apparently quite a lot of foundation course have just failed oral boards. How can such a high number be failing? Because some people are determined to 'catch you out' rather than find out what you know! I know some people who have been chopped after failing an oral board over random questions that people here at LACC don't know the answer to! Including aircraft recognition questions on an AREA course. Aircraft performance is fair enough but recognition?? They all have 1 star/cross followed by 5 trails and a TDB at the side of it!

"They all have 1 star/cross followed by 5 trails and a TDB at the side of it!"

Is the target symbol not a diamond either hollow, solid orange os solid yellow. Followed by six trails? :)

Ok, I was trying to be generic in that instance! But as for trails, thats variable!

I haven't a clue what "Air/Ground" is but reading this thread makes me very sad. Sounds like standards in ATC are going the same way a everything else in this world - down.

You're lucky if you don't end up dodging bullets at a unit too!It's many years since I was there but I suspect we should take care to differentiate between instructors - perhaps with a lifetime of valuable experience under their belts - and managers who make the decisions about which this thread started. I can't help feeling that it is just youthful enthusaism - or arrogance - that imagines that someone reaching the end of a successful career, whether they can still do the job with contemporary traffic levels or not, has little, if anything, to offer to those starting out. A good and experienced instructor will transfer knowledge to a student that will be invaluable in the future - it's just that the student often doesn't realise it for a long time.

i have to back up what Spitoon says here, its not the instructors that are the problem, its the managers making the decisions. It is more and more evident that NATS is now a business out to make as much money (or save as much by cutbacks) as possible, and not focus on the standard they are getting out of the college.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
Air/Ground is a licence endorsement whereby when you get to your unit, you are able to work a 'split sector' almost, of one person doing Air (take off and landings) and the other on clearance delivery and manouvering on the Apron and up to the holding points ready to handover to the Air controller who controls the landing and taking off. Without it, you are told you cannot progress to your unit (or so we thought) as all NATS units apparently operate Air/Ground.

Over the last few years there have been numerous TATCs who have either been told they have been posted to regional airports (where there may be no GMC) but they are going Tower only initially or, are on their second chance having already failed a part of the aerodrome course who have sat the NATS requirement of Air/Ground. Either way, they have been told that despite passing the parts of the course that enable them to hold an aerodrome rating, if they fail Air/Ground they won't be posted and will be sent for training review, which can entail being chopped - even with a licence.

Now some bright spark has decided that passing Air/Ground is optional! What's the point in even doing it now? It's been totally discredited. What motivation will students have now for this part of the course? Disgraceful.

I seem to recall air/ground being a fun couple of exercises at the end of aerodrome 2. I don't remember it being assesed though.

Air/Ground used to be a bit of fun at the end of Aerodrome 2 but in recent times I believe it has replaced the assessed LVP's module of Aerodrome 2. I think this was to try and prepare people better for larger towers who operate this system.

The college have always 'bodged' things in my opinion and had different rules for different people. What I would say is these people will be found out when they get to the units!

Air/Ground has not replaced the LVP phase of the course, you now do both.

"Air & GMC" would be the correct description. "Air/Ground" is a radio service!

air/ gmc HAS replaced LVP's as the final set of summatives in the aerodrome phase of the college. you may still do lvps but you are not assessed anymore

VFR, IFR, LVP's and then Air/Ground (GMC) are all assessed. Its the emergency phase that is not assessed

It does all sound very sad, the way things are going. I am glad I have decided to retire at the end of September.