|
ANS v NATS
I notice Air Navigation Solutions are advertising for trainee ATCOs at the moment. The timing isn't right for me to apply this time around but hopefully will be next year, which got me thinking - would people recommend ANS compared to NATS?
- With NATS you could end up anywhere (eg, area or aerodrome in London, Aberdeen or anwhere in between) whereas ANS is only LGW / EDI and all aerodrome/approach (I think?). Obviously if you desperately want to avoid London/Edinburgh then NATS might be the better option but if not, ANS offers a little more certainty. - NATS have a long track record of training newbies and developing their careers, how do ANS compare in this regard? - Job security is probably higher at NATS but then again a validated ATCO is unlikely to struggle to find work if the worst happened Any thoughts? Clearly neither are bad options |
NATS offers a much better chance of avoiding London as 90% of the trainees will end up doing Area control instead. In terms of training I have no idea what ANS are like, but being tower only will give you more flexibility to move elsewhere in the country. With my Area rating I'm stuck at Swanwick or Prestwick or the few countries abroad that allow non nationals, and have English as their main language, to work in air traffic.
ANS don't do the approach for Gatwick, that's done by NATS at Swanwick and I'm not sure about Edinburgh. |
ANS remains an unknown entity to most and is building a poor reputation - last week's EFPS failure, one example.
Their ATCO training scheme and its success is unknown. Job security, unknown. ANS do approach radar at Edinburgh only, potential for dual ratings. Word on the street is staff at Gatwick are not happy bunnies, short staff crisis and shipping support in from German towers to make ends meet. Worth noting, since some initial 'success' in securing the ATC Tower contracts at Gatwick & Edinburgh (co-incidentally owned/operated by the same company at the time), ANS have failed to gain any further major business in the UK... |
Worth remembering that should you train at Gatwick and fail to validate, ANS have only Edinburgh to possibly post you too. There are only so many ATCO’s needed there however. At least one such failure was offered a Lighting Operator position at Gatwick, but long term this role will be automated. NATS, having more airfields potentially, may be able to potentially offer those failing to validate at busy airfields more sedat3 locations. There are other ANSP’s however to apply to if you fail. Few of these would be of interest perhaps to either ANS or the greater NATS I think. |
NATS training currently isn't refined to the sunny south coast of the UK either, there have been courses recently sent to Jerez in Spain to do initial training.
NATS can send you anywhere however you also have the ability to move within the company and if you seek a more managerial position then there are very good & numerous prospects available. |
Originally Posted by T250
(Post 10521970)
ANS remains an unknown entity to most and is building a poor reputation - last week's EFPS failure, one example.
Because Nats (or other ANSPs for that matter) never had an equipment failure resulting in major disruption? Or airport closures due to ATC staffing? Or en route restrictions due to ATC staffing? This summer's CTOTs are horrendous on a fairly regular basis. |
Originally Posted by BigDaddyBoxMeal
(Post 10522757)
Other examples?
Because Nats (or other ANSPs for that matter) never had an equipment failure resulting in major disruption? Or airport closures due to ATC staffing? Or en route restrictions due to ATC staffing? This summer's CTOTs are horrendous on a fairly regular basis. |
I find it quite baffling looking at the ANS accounts who got paid for what they did and then researching ANS further online who benefits from all of it too!!!! The 2018 accounts are of most interest.....
|
Some interesting replies so far, keep them coming :ok:
NATS offers a much better chance of avoiding London as 90% of the trainees will end up doing Area control instead NATS can send you anywhere however you also have the ability to move within the company and if you seek a more managerial position then there are very good & numerous prospects available. |
If you do get an interview with ANS you may want to enquire as to the success rate for trainees at Gatwick following the post NATS period.
|
|
My experience to date (after joining ANS in January 18) has been very positive. The success rate of the Ab-Initio programme rivals NATS and the certainty of knowing where I was going to be posted was far better for me. As people have mentioned above, Edinburgh is TWR/APP whereas Gatwick is TWR only. I disagree with the comment above that ANS have a poor track record, the EFPS failure the other day was unprecedented, but failures occur in technology all the time - I don’t feel like ANS has had more than a “normal” amount. If anybody has any questions about the ANS process I’d be more than happy to help where possible 🙂 |
Originally Posted by middles
(Post 10524207)
If you do get an interview with ANS you may want to enquire as to the success rate for trainees at Gatwick following the post NATS period.
|
Originally Posted by DanJaws
(Post 10525365)
My experience to date (after joining ANS in January 18) has been very positive. The success rate of the Ab-Initio programme rivals NATS and the certainty of knowing where I was going to be posted was far better for me. As people have mentioned above, Edinburgh is TWR/APP whereas Gatwick is TWR only. I disagree with the comment above that ANS have a poor track record, the EFPS failure the other day was unprecedented, but failures occur in technology all the time - I don’t feel like ANS has had more than a “normal” amount. If anybody has any questions about the ANS process I’d be more than happy to help where possible 🙂 |
If you fail to validate at Gatwick will ANS offer you a place at Edinburgh and give you an APS rating later on? Rgds AyrTC |
Originally Posted by AyrTC
(Post 10526839)
If you fail to validate at Gatwick will ANS offer you a place at Edinburgh and give you an APS rating later on? Rgds AyrTC Gatwick is a bloody hard place to validate, so I’m sure they have many contingencies in mind! |
Originally Posted by DanJaws
(Post 10526971)
Gatwick is a bloody hard place to validate, so I’m sure they have many contingencies in mind! Not to say some controllers at Gatwick (especially in the tower) in the NATS era weren't ace; I was inbound on a fam flight one day and when we were at 4 miles (the previous lander just vacating), they still managed to get 2 departures away before we were cleared to land. Hopefully this skill has been carried over to ANS controllers. |
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 10527331)
Several people from Farnborough were posted there when it was still NATS and they came back with the definite impression that certain persons made it their business to make sure they didn't validate; hopefullly those persons are now gone.
Not to say some controllers at Gatwick (especially in the tower) in the NATS era weren't ace; I was inbound on a fam flight one day and when we were at 4 miles (the previous lander just vacating), they still managed to get 2 departures away before we were cleared to land. Hopefully this skill has been carried over to ANS controllers. |
I think you’ll find that most of the instructors that are at Gatwick now are the same ones who were there when NATS were the ANSP. So they probably have gone!! And like most things in life, there is good and not so good; good instructors and not so good instructors. Also, there are probably some instructors there who really shouldn’t be instructing! It’s also safe to say though, I’m sure your friends from Farnborough ‘impression’ was I’m sure just that. I am certain there is nobody there who ‘made it their business to make sure they didn’t validate’. Maybe they just weren’t good enough?? That’s normally the case �� |
Originally Posted by DanJaws
(Post 10527345)
Not sure about the NATS era, but instructors have made it clear that provided you’re showing the effort and commitment required, they’ll go to great lengths to ensure a successful outcome. I’ve never had a problem with anybody helping me, or guiding me during my training. |
Why would he wish to give out such information? Seems a few on here have an agenda where ANS is concerned. Personally, I think they’re a breath of fresh air in a market that really needed it. |
Originally Posted by handleturning
(Post 10527605)
Why would he wish to give out such information? Seems a few on here have an agenda where ANS is concerned. Personally, I think they’re a breath of fresh air in a market that really needed it. Seems there are few people here that think everyone have an agenda where ANS is concerned. |
Originally Posted by Rwy1234
(Post 10527618)
Why such defence and why would he not give out such information? He has given out other such information in his 3 posts. Seems there are few people here that think everyone have an agenda where ANS is concerned. |
Originally Posted by handleturning
(Post 10527714)
He hasn't given out 'other such information'. I would imagine any organisation would consider that information to be 'of a sensitive nature', so to encourage a junior (sorry DanJaws I may be judging you here) member of staff to publish is somewhat inappropriate.
As you say, I’m not sure what people’s problem is with competition, I can only see it as a good thing for ATC in the UK. |
The way ANS are handling LGW can only be seen as a great thing for NATS. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the contract comes back their way either at renewal or even possibly before. |
Originally Posted by handleturning
(Post 10527714)
I would imagine any organisation would consider that information to be 'of a sensitive nature', so to encourage a junior (sorry DanJaws I may be judging you here) member of staff to publish is somewhat inappropriate.
Perhaps DanJaws or indeed anyone less sensitive than handleturning, could divulge what the success, failure or resignation rate was when NATS ran Gatwick? Or is this the nations top secret. |
Originally Posted by Rwy1234
(Post 10528128)
Perhaps DanJaws or indeed anyone less sensitive than handleturning, could divulge what the success, failure or resignation rate was when NATS ran Gatwick? Or is this the nationals top secret.
Perhaps it's not accessible information? Perhaps nobody else on here cares? I haven't been to gatters for a few years but keep in touch with some who are still there - and the numbers are slightly lower under the new lot. Perhaps one dan jaws can answer - what is the general moral like? There were some right characters there back in the day who were the typical "don't need to learn your name because you won't validate" type. I never got involved in training but some of the new fish from the training college were treated was pretty poorly. |
One of the threads at the time of the original takeover in 2016 stated they had recruited ATCOs from such airports as Cambridge. Word on the street is there have been far more resignations than validations. Can anyone confirm?
|
Well.. Nats applications are now closed so the dilemma is over :)
|
Originally Posted by T250
(Post 10528173)
One of the threads at the time of the original takeover in 2016 stated they had recruited ATCOs from such airports as Cambridge. Word on the street is there have been far more resignations than validations. Can anyone confirm?
IMHO this is a fair question, I don’t understand why it would be sensitive. I wonder if the question has been asked by candidates at interview or if it was too “sensitive” to answer. |
It is sensitive, but only because the validation rate has been low (reportedly from very good sources) and the resignation rate higher than you’d expect. Consequently, ATCOs are having to work full shifts and moral is low (reportedly from very good sources ��) |
Originally Posted by Rwy1234
(Post 10528529)
A question some posters here (likely to be ANS Managers) have said is to be “sensitive information” so will likely attempt to prevent answer again. IMHO this is a fair question, I don’t understand why it would be sensitive. I wonder if the question has been asked by candidates at interview or if it was too “sensitive” to answer. |
Originally Posted by GAPSTER
(Post 10528112)
The way ANS are handling LGW can only be seen as a great thing for NATS. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the contract comes back their way either at renewal or even possibly before. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49122644 |
Originally Posted by handleturning
(Post 10528925)
|
I have little knowledge of the Gatwick operation today so cannot offer any insight or answers to the questions that some feel need to be asked.
BUT, I started off a career in ATC some 40+ years ago. I was a NATS cadet (for those that care) and got posted to an aerodrome which was known as a cadets' graveyard and, before too long, joined the many before me that got chopped. To an extent, it was a case of if your face didn't fit you were not going to make it through the training. In fairness though, I did not perform well and now can see some of the reasons for this. There was undoubtedly a culture which made successful completion of the training contingent upon getting (sometimes struggling) over a number of hurdles, with little help from the unit as a whole. Despite this setback, I was able to gain a licence with all the ratings for an aerodrome and went on to work fairly successfully at a number of airports around the UK for the best part of 20 years. I note as a matter of interest for those less familiar with the system that this would be impossible today. Later I worked in a wide range of other roles, including, strangely enough, training, but all still connected with ATC and aviation. I have seen concepts such as 'Train for success' rather than failure being tried and promoted, and lots of changes to training systems for ATC and other disciplines....but still failure rates are high. I was not alone in failing to complete the NATS but subsequently going on to a successful career as a controller and it is worth pondering why, with all of the resources and expertise that NATS had, it could not reap a return on its investment in my training. I don't know if ANS faces the same challenges but, assuming its staff were in part, at least, inherited from NATS, I guess the culture of that organisation may also have been inherited. What I find quite stunning is to read in this thread that the attitudes of some of those in ATC is little changed after 40 years. And that some people feel able to support it, or at least, content with it. Some of the people I started off with are now managers (or recently retired managers), and it seems that they chose, or were unable to, do anything to change things. Perhaps its a case of 'I went through it and it never did me any harm', but surely someone, somewhere at the right level recognises that this culture is not good - and, more importantly to a manager, inefficient. That is not so suggest that everyone who starts training should ultimately go on to hold a licence, or be able to hold a C of C at Gatwick, but the failure rates that are suggested to exist surely could be reduced. I could go on - or even suggest what could be at the root of today's problems - but I won't bore you! |
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 10527331)
and when we were at 4 miles (the previous lander just vacating), they still managed to get 2 departures away before we were cleared to land.
Hopefully this skill has been carried over to ANS controllers. As for ANS....... watch this summer I think. |
Originally Posted by LookingForAJob
(Post 10530363)
still failure rates are high. A more modern, structured, approach to learning is much needed with better use of technology available to make the whole OJT learning process more effective, developmental and incremental. Kudos to you though for sticking with it and having a great career :ok: |
Originally Posted by Flying184
(Post 10530372)
This is because the training styles and learning employed in the ATC world are still stuck in the 1950's.... I mean rote learning lists from MATS1 at the college?! And then at unit being plugged in and training OTJ regardless of what comes along on the frequency. Bonkers. I liken it to being a brand new learner driver, and on your first lesson being told we are going to drive on the motorway, do clutch control, mirrors, indicating, roundabouts etc etc but don't worry i'll help you along the way. The effect is sensory overload, workload saturation, stress etc which do not result in learning or skill development. People make the grade because they are, in many cases, dragged across the line and those who are chopped are often because they have fallen victim to training methods not fit for purpose in such a modern industry.
A more modern, structured, approach to learning is much needed with better use of technology available to make the whole OJT learning process more effective, developmental and incremental. Kudos to you though for sticking with it and having a great career :ok: |
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 10530960)
Our UTP required the mentor to take over when traffic got to certain levels, depending on how much training the U/T had carried out. I assume this is 'standard' for UTP at all NATS units.
My point was merely in relation to the way in which training is conducted as an industry, not specific to any unit, ANSP, college etc. Just feels very archaic compared to the way in which pilot training is conducted, but that is just my opinion. :O |
Originally Posted by LookingForAJob
(Post 10531340)
I'm afraid I think there's a lot more to it than simply stepping in and taking over when it gets busy or complex...however that is determined.
I understand exactly what you're saying. But I'm not sure that learning by rote to start with is such a bad thing. Everything else I'm 100% in agreement with. In the years since I went through the basic training I've seen a number of big changes (particularly with respect to NATS' trainees). Back in my day, your description fitted my experience perfectly - sit in, often with a mentor who didn't like or didn't want to do training, do the best you could until you did something wrong when the mentor took over and then maybe gave it back to you, but rarely had any explanation of what happened, why or how to have handled it better. Alternatively you were left until you were out of your depth and the mentor had to rescue you which did little to build one's confidence. Unless you were a natural at the job it was an uphill struggle, made harder still sometimes if you had the temerity to say you weren't happy with the training. Of course, it wasn't all as bad as that but there were plenty of days when that was the only memory! There seemed to be a disconnect between the college, mainly theory and sim-based teaching, and the trainers in the real world. The way I sum this up now is to point out that it is very difficult to remember how little you knew on your first day out of the college. As you mention, one could quote passages from the book but had little understanding of what it meant when applied to the real world. Somewhere along the way those who go on to have successful careers learn how to apply the theory to the real world and a lot more besides. The unit training for a previously unqualified person needs to take them from that very green and keen college trainee and feed them everything that us old hands know in a way that makes sense and at a rate that can be assimilated effectively. Then, I guess in the mid-80s, we got UTPs. Lots of training/learning objectives and, sometimes, even performance standards to be achieved. It was a lot of hassle to put together but, if the UTP truly covered all of the activities at the unit - including those that don't happen very often - it could form the basis of a good training programme with material being fed in at the right time. But not everyone put together a tailored UTP, and there was a fair bit of cutting and pasting going on where only the unit name changed! About the same time we got an OJTI rating/endorsement - initially, IIRC, given to those who asked and could show previous experience in OJT, and later issued following completion of a training course. So, I remember a few reluctant mentors who, willing or otherwise, got OJTI tickets because of their past experience and others who actively tried to get the ticket because they enjoyed the power/authority, even if not the training. And then, because it went on the licence, people wanted more money if they had the ticket. Sadly, little of this bore any relationship to whether anyone had the skills or ability to train effectively. In the 90s, a decision was made in NATS to shorten the time that trainees spent at the college. The reasons for this seemed to vary depending who you spoke to but it was at the time NATS units became separate business units, and managers had to manage the money. The units had to pay the college for each trainee. So, before long, unit managers started trying to find ways to save some of that money by reducing the time trainees spent at the college. This, of course, meant that the trainees came out of the college even greener than before (but hopefully still keen). This was fine for the unit managers because, they said, it enables the unit to provide more bespoke training for their people. I presume that the UTPs for these units were suitably expanded to meet the needs of both the units and the trainees. We've now got approved courses which must be followed at certified training organisations. This has increased the costs involved for everyone, and blocked a route into the industry which I followed, but - hopefully - has improved the quality of training and, ultimately, better prepared the people providing services for whatever they may be faced with when doing the job and thus provide a safer service. Because those last couple of points is what it's all for - right? We've now also got EU regulations to cover all of these things - running to over 450 pages of law and guidance. Whatever one may think about the EU, I would point out that the UK took the lead in many of the concepts in the EU legislation and had implemented them in the UK rule framework long before EASA had any involvement with ATM. So the UK has a mature training system in place. And the CAA carefully oversees industry operators, using safety arguments put forward by ATC units to justify what bespoke training is needed for their respective locations, challenged when appropriate if the CAA experts are not convinced by those safety arguments (a bit like what the FAA does with Boeing) and not approving something if it does not meet the necessary safety standards. As I say, a lot has changed over 40 years or so. But it sounds like the training experience for some, at least, of today's trainees is much the same as it was all those years ago. It's a bit of a shame, isn't it? I do agree that there is some worth in rote learning lists at the college to begin with, but I would like to see (as you rightly point out) more of a link between this and real world applications. As I said in my original post, there is a significant difference in the training styles/technologies used in pilot training compared to ATC. I have also been searching lately for research/articles/publications into the study of training of ATCOs and can find very little if anything. Yet the pilot industry has many research articles and publications. Definitely a big gap for some research into ATC training! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:22. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.