Ditto. The aircraft spotters and/or ex-assistants were the easiest...!

I'd go along with that, talkdownman. I think that you can put that down to their inside knowledge, determination & motivation. Not that any of these attributes were their exclusive preserve. The other observation I have to make is that an experienced ATCO can readily identify who is going to make a good controller just by seeing him/her in action just once - more or less.

Thanks for this guys

Alfaman, what are the other providers for ATC? Is there any other providers in the UK? Be interesting to have a look.

Also, as non NATS airports, what do working conditions/salary compare like?

A former colleague opined that you could form an opinion from how the person drove a car. Probably just as good as the FEAST pantomime.

2 s

"Where's the traffic?"
"You're behind it"
"Oh no I'm not"
"Oh, yes you are..."

That's a good point 2 sheds.

I thought about voicing that opinion earlier on today. but feared it might be ridiculed.
During 1986, I and a colleague were commuting from EGCC to CATC while doing an area course. On the long journeys, many topics were discussed, including 'what makes a good ATCO?'
I remember saying that ATC is a bit like driving. You are constantly, and sub-conciously solving speed, time and distance problems, in a safety-critical environment. The environment is dependent upon Wx, day/night considerations, the skill-level of other participants, the physical attributes of the system, be it road or airport/airspace design, the regulations/procedures applicable, the potential for error and the ever-present prospect of the unexpected occurring.
Anticipation and pre-planning are key factors in both fields. In a book I have, an ex-Red Arrows pilot opines that "driving on a motorway, is like flying in close-formation with people you've never met".

Aptitude tests were formulated long before that. On my terminal course in 1974, the people from personnel gave us some proposed pictorial aptitude tests to see how we did.
One of the tests consisted of a series of pictures supposedly of a radar display and we were supposed to say which two had collided.
Having spent 2 years out of our 3 year cadet course looking at radar tubes, we found this test so unreal we just chucked all our test papers in a pile in the middle of the room!

chevvron,
that sounds like one of the tests I was given at Aviation House in 1978. There was a 'speed and accuracy test', which involved looking for identical symbols in a grid. The other test was similar to what you have just described. It was 3 boxes per question, each with a pattern of moving 'blips', but one of them was moving in a different direction to all the others. We had to identify it. Fortunately an interest in astronomy helped-out. It was like looking at 3 overlapping pictures of the constellations, and trying to spot the artificial satellite.

I should add that some of those arriving for training who had degrees admitted to having no interest in aviation or ATC. They had graduated from uni and simply looked for a job with a good financial future.

Within reason, give me the spotters & the ex- ATCAS any day.

I remember one week-end during the late 1990s, 2 of us were tasked with showing about 20 people round, who were going through the selection procedure.I showed them the ops rooms and my colleague gave them a talk about what the job/training was like. I remember 6 or 7 walking out, realising it wasn't for them.

"we found this test so unreal we just chucked all our test papers in a pile in the middle of the room!"
But not before we put someone else's name on them!:ok:

Ah so you remember!!

I joined no.54 course in March 1983. All 16 made it through the ratings courses. The 7 who went to Scottish validated. I think perhaps three who went to London failed to make it.
The recruitment criteria is critical. I think the basis of ours was how keen you were on aviation, and not how well you had done at school. Only one had a degree. A third in chemistry.
We all wanted to do it, and half were assistants (class to class promotion)

A few years later the recruitment was based on other criteria, probably more acedemic success. Guess what, significant drop in validation rate.

So to my simple mind, you select those who have a passion for aviation.

I put my name forward several times to be a recruitment interviewer but my boss at the time always refused to release me whenever they wanted to use me.
I would have asked candidates things like 'what experience do you have of flying?' and 'have you been a member of the Air Training Corps?'

What would you know ? You only do /did the job !

Just leave HR in charge with their psychobabble nonsense.

They know best, as ever.

I conducted ATCO interviews for nearly 8 years, 2001-2009.

At no stage can I remember a candidate who had a degree was more favoured purely because (s)he had a degree.

It's all about how you make decisions, solve problems, change plans, cope with adversity etc.

Equally, the fact that a candidate had spent time in the air cadets or had done some flying was not held in the candidate's favour in and of itself.

If a candidate claimed to have some pre-existing interest in ATC and aviation, of course it would be beneficial to be able to demonstrate evidence for that, but it's certainly not a requirement, nor an indicator of future performance.

The candidate should certainly try to impress the interviewers in terms of how they have prepared for their interviews.

Some of my interviewer colleagues used to ask all sorts of aviation knowledge questions, inside leg measurements of 747s, that sort of thing. That can be taught. Knowing that sort of thing doesn't make you a good ATC student.

I'd far rather spend thirty minutes exploring how you as a candidate cope with a rapidly changing situation, how you prioritise information inputs, how you cope with coming across a broken traffic light stuck on red in the middle of the night.

Chevvron,

I sort of agreed with your take on demonstrating prior interest in aviation etc but my own family situation shows the opposite.

My ATCO son had absolutely no interest in aviation, apart from noting that I seemed to be reasonably well paid and had lots of time off, but when he was on OJTI at TC in the late 90s the lovely Jane M***** reported that he was the best trainee she had ever had, excuse my choice of words.

My pilot son had wanted to fly Jaguars from age 8 after making an Airfix model and only reluctantly joined the Air Training Corps because I told him it may help his application for a 6th form flying scholarship. He left as soon as he had passed the Biggin Hill selection. He did fly Jaguars and years later is a test pilot with Airbus.

My own story is similar, lots of my mates in Camberley were in the ATC and desperate to fly, I wasn't. After one started nav' training I thought that sounds interesting, and you can guess the end of the story. Natural modesty makes me stop here.

There seemed to be more spotters among the ATCA/ATSA fraternity than ATCOs, particularly at LATCC & LL.

Gonzo

I don't wish to sound rude, but how come you were involved in ATCO selection at age 22 when you must only just have left the college yourself? I got my 'early go' from LL in early 2000, were you there then?

To the original poster, here's a reply from someone who has not long gone through the training process and age still begins with a '2' :cool: ;)

My advice would be to apply for NATS now, and should you not get through go with the degree. When you have said degree, have another go with NATS. Should it not happen again you have the degree to fall back on.

With the costs of university now it's really not worth doing it unless you're going to get some use out if it. The ATCO recruiters aren't that bothered about your qualifications, they're bothered about you being able to demonstrate the qualities they deem are needed to become an ATCO. Being able to get a degree shows certain abilities but not necessarily everything they want.

However, speaking from my personal experiences I don't think I would have got into NATS should I have not gone to university. The experiences I gained there (and I'm talking mostly about the ones gained away from academia - clubs/societies etc then the bit of travelling I did afterwards) I feel were vital to getting accepted. This is of course not the rule, I went through the college with plenty of people straight from school and they have become superb ATCO's (much better than me anyway).

If you do go down the university route, make sure it is a subject you enjoy. If you don't make it past the ATCO assessments there's nothing worse than being stuck with a degree in a subject which you don't enjoy and have a substantial debt outstanding in order to pay for it.

A few home truths to think about as well. The training with NATS will probably take you at least 3 years if not 4. Most trainees get put into the Area discipline which takes longer than Aerodrome and when you take into account any re-courses you may have to do plus holding the company may make you do while courses become available, it soon adds up to a significant period of time. Don't let this put you off though, it's still a cracking job with some cracking people.

Life always works out though, so don't fret too much about it all :)