Granny Smith,

I agree with some of what you say, I think most of us here on PPRuNe would fully support the CATC guys and defend them against any unjust accusations from people who are somewhere in the CATC system

However I, and one or two others who e-mailed me, did detect a threatening tone in one of your posts, namely:

Now this may have been in jest, but the implication is that something would happen to make DoW's career short, that is a hollow threat as we all know, but to someone early in their career who does not necessarily have experience in the ways of the world of ATC yet, it could be read in a more sinister vein to that which you originally intended.

I am happy that points have been made to clarify what you really meant, and draw a line under this part of the debate. I'm sure the students here have learnt a salutory lesson as well.


------------------
PPRuNe Radar
ATC Forum Moderator
[email protected]

Watch Man...

I found your post interesting. Your comment that many of the students were lacking 'much of the background knowledge that we previously expected the candidate to know through their interest in aviation' is flawed. The Military Course has always been based on the premis that it will be assumed that students have no background knowledge and will be trained to a suitable standard to continue live training in the field. I also question why you expect a new entrant to know the difference between a spitfire and hurricane - do you also experct them to know the difference betwwen an AR1 and AR15 ?

Having been involved in live training for many years, I wonder if some of the perception that the standard of student is dropping is a trainers perception, and the standard has not dropped as much (if at all) as believed. As trainers get more experienced, or have been longer in a particular field of training (i.e. towards the end of your 4 year stint at CATCS), then their expectations of a new student often (unfairly) rise. I'm not knocking you when I say this, or questioning your professionalism, but its a fact thats been commented on many times.

Do you have any stats that show that the number of new (i.e. not ex-assistant) students who pass the course first time are falling which would back up your comments ?

Well that's that then.

Granny, glad to hear that your 'spies' have kept you so well informed!

However, why hasn't anyone replied to my comments (and Granny's) regarding the edit/deleting facility? Shouldn't posts only be deleted (or edited after a set time) with the moderator's consent only?

I really think that this is the answer.

I totally agree with everything said by Granny. She (just a guess!) makes a very good point that Dog may not have written the first slagging off post, but he DID agree with what was written.

Some of the nastiest controllers I have met, and don't like working with, are those that won't stick by their comments or admit an error.

Oh dear, were back to "Standard of Students Coming through again!!"

Thankyou, and goodnight.

...meanwhile, back to the subject......some 5 years ago, the then Chancellor of CATC suggested to GATCO that there were no problems with the revised training scheme for Cadets. Although GATCO quoted an accountable 70% failure rate - at the College - the Chancellor disputed this. Mr P-W apparently indicated that he considered Cadets who were 're-treaded' and were succesful 2nd time around, were still part of the original training intake and thus proved a better success rate.

Of course, GATCO suggested that had the Course lengths not been shortened to expedite larger numbers through, whilst accepting a higher failure rate, then the success rate might have been significantly higher anyway. Mr P-W was therefore right in his assertion that a longer training period might benefit some Cadets.

There was some correspondence between CATC and GATCO at the time - perhaps someone from GATCO could dig it out and remind us. I believe GATCO also took the matter up with heads of CAA and NATS.

Obviously, the problem continues. At one time NATS seemed to be looking for a 'cloning' assessment to find the right candidates at the start. They seemed to belive that if you could clone ATCOS a much better success rate might be achieved. Looks like we still haven't found the answer, then.

But, is it selection, or initial training that is the problem ?

The question of OJTI, especially at the busier Units (TC,ER and Admes) also needs addressing, because many Trainees do not seem to have a full grasp of what they have let themselves in for. 200+ hours of OJTI simply is not sustainable when you have limited staffing already at your Unit. Plus, many OJTIs are becoming increasingly frustrated at lack of recognition for their skills in bringing these 'youngsters' to 'adulthood'.

I agree with pakem, the level of student hasn't really changed, it's just a perception which appears to form when a bit of a duffer pitches up.
There is also the point about not feeling rewarded for putting your licence on the line for someone else's benefit, a point which hopefully our brothers in the union are trying to sort out.

I dont think that any instructor at CATC would be so unprofessional to fail a student due to what they ahve said on PPRune. And anyway is this not a annonymous forum??

On the subject of background knowlegde before you join the industry, at the interview stage you are told that being a spotter is not a requirement of the job. However when you are at CATC you are expected to build up your general knowledge of aviation.

But I do ask all the valid controllers who slate new trainees for not having the enthusiasm or background knowledge that they think is needed:
1- Did you have the same level of both when you went to your first posting?
2- And also would you not be one of a group who would laugh at a new trainee who claims to be a spotter?

And finally (i know i have went on a bit) what granny smith said "C'mon this is ATC - if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined" is so true. Maybe we all need to remind ourselves about that!

Ok.

If I'm not going to get flamed here again, I would like to hazard these points.

First, I removed my post because it seemed to be offending people. If it did, I apologise sincerely.

Second, I admit it was the wrong comment to quote for the same reason. Although I changed the word 'bastards' to 'so & so's' because I felt it was in poor taste, I should have taken more time deciding what to say before I hit 'Submit'. As it was, I accept that it might not have been taken in the humour that was intended. It was also the wrong quote to make my point, and that is my fault alone.

However I do stand by what I meant, even if it was badly put across - that the instructors DO change between the formative and summative phases. This is a ***Good Thing*** (are we clear on that?). The instructors apply the standards rigidly at the summatives and put aside all the banter and friendliness during the exercises (in fact, normally they say nothing), although they revert to friendly mentor mode afterwards. And when it comes to marking, again, the standards are rigidly applied. I don't think anyone could reasonably suggest that they should do otherwise, so I was miffed to see that I was accused of suggesting just that! See comments above about young, impressionable SATC's and the effects of perceived threats to their careers http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif . I perhaps made my point badly, but I still don't think the response was justified. But enough of that, eh? Please accept the above with the sincerity intended.

Aaaanyway, back to the topic (gosh, there was a topic??)...

I can only speak for myself, although I'm sure my colleagues would agree, that in terms of our attitude to OJT, we are massively looking forward to it and have every intention of giving a good account of ourselves. I don't think anyone thinks of it as a holiday, as was suggested.

As far as a/c knowledge goes, I would say ours is pretty reasonable as everyone had to put in great effort to achieve the standards required in the verbal examinations, and consequently the general interest in aviation is high. Whether NATS should be recruiting 'spotters' or not is a question I'll leave to the philosophers.

However I would humbly suggest that aircraft knowledge can be learned, whilst aptitude is a different kettle of fish. I came to this job with a little bit of aviation knowledge (call me a spotter and I'll clean your clock, matey! ;) ) but the fact is that many of my colleagues, who perhaps knew little about aviation before joining, will be better controllers than I ever will.

Is aptitude not the defining quality recruiters should be looking for, albeit with a willingness to learn about airyplanes?


[This message has been edited by Dog On Wheels (edited 05 September 2000).]

Bright-Ling,

Captain PPRuNe is away at the moment. I'll raise the issue of editing posts on his return. My suspicion is that the software is probably not capable of this, but you never know.

Now.....on with the debate ;)

------------------
PPRuNe Radar
ATC Forum Moderator
[email protected]

Good heavens - so many points:

PPruNe radar: Thanks

Dog on Wheels: Well done - not an easy post to write!

Cleared to Land 27 Left: You don't need to be a spotter. I take the **ss out of spotters, but if anyone tried the same with me BECAUSE I know an ATC Worthy fact about an aircraft type they would get a right mouthful! You don't need to be a spotter, but I personally believe a general interest in aviation is so very important and a pre-requisite for the application form. You don't need to know too much, as CATC has A/C Characteristics Lesson's in the syllabus. (And there is a very good self-study CBT).

It is all about professional pride.

Anyway, good luck to the next generation of 6 weekers. If anyone comes to us, see ya then!

My issue is not with U/Ts who have a low base knowledge of aviation, ATC and related subjects, but with those who make no effort to improve it.

After validation there is no need to convince anyone of ones motivation, but I would suggest that it is beneficial to a trainee to at least SHOW some enthusiasm.
Mentors are human, and if they feel that they are training someone who isn't bothered, it becomes a 2-way street very quickly !
Those who have supreme natural ability and never experience any problems in training are the only exceptions ...... and exceptions they most certainly are !

INS

Nothing really changes.
I shall probably put the cat amongst the pigeons with this but in the early 60s when I was a mentor at Heathrow we received the first of the Cadets i.e. 1, 2 and then 3 course (in those days the cadets spent, as I remember, three years training and did both Area and Airfield) and the consensus after the first year amongst the mentors was that the standard of the Cadets was much lower than the direct entry people from the Services and that the big problem was going to be in the future when they became the management of ATC. I think that that opinion has now been proved correct. It was those who couldn’t hang up their headsets quickly enough and get to desk jobs that are now your bosses—nuf said.

Bright: I do not discount the need for having knowledge of particular a/c types. I myself have this. But what annoys me is that some mentors will really poke fun if you say something which could be classed as "spotter knowledge". I myself enjoy aviation but i do not write down the numbers of any a/c that i see.

Enthusiasm (i think thats how you spell it) is a real must as you correctly stated.

Cleared....

I think that we are singing from the same hymn sheet here!

I too like aviation, but have never been and will never be a spotter! (ain't that right Silent Handover!!!!!)

At the end of the day, it is, as I said, professional pride. Every day I see people ask questions or say something to a pilot that makes me cringe. Not because they have made a controlling error per se (we all do that) but because it is concerning something they should know about an aircraft type.

My tip to any trainees is to find out as much as you can about the aircraft that you may end up working with. Have a good all-round knowledge but know lots about your base a/c, particularly their limitations.

Knowing little innoculous things will help you save face and IF it all goes wrong, may even help you one day.

I stand by both of you on this one. I too am not a "spotter", but I have a professional interest in aviation and the number of times that a seemingly trivial piece of aircraft related knowledge has saved my bacon are great in number. I too sing from the same hymn sheet!!

Shack's account of ATC training in the 1960's speaks for itself. The arrogant, prejudiced attitude typified by his comment was rife in the ATC service at that time. There were some very sound types, but also a high proportion who could not grasp that given appropriate training, people with varied backgrounds and experience could become perfectly successful controllers.
Hardly surprising that a direct-entry ATCO with ten years military experience in ATC or aircrew was probably quicker off the mark than some of the early cadets after only one year of a three-year cadetship - he is not comparing like with like.
However, with appropriate training and experience, I doubt if there is anything to choose between the two, and that is the point - appropriate training - something that many of the mentors of that period were not very good at.
If we deserve the bosses of today, what did Shack and his contemporaries do to deserve some of the stuffed-shirted clots of the 60's, whose only skill in ATC was to fire a Very pistol?

Well it sounds like I rattled 2 sheds cage, had he read my comments carefully he would have seen that I said “after the first year”—“ that the standard of the Cadets was much lower than the direct entry people from the Services and that the big problem was going to be in the future when they became the management of ATC.” I did not say that the eventual standard of the “working” controller was going to be any different, regardless of the method of entry. I tried to make my point in the last sentence, that it was those who could not hang up their headsets and get away from the heat quickly enough who are today’s bosses. Could you dispute that the standard of leadership is nil, the lack of decision-making is pitiful and if the comments made on the forum about strike action are correct so is the morale. I can only go on what I hear from people who are still working and what I read on the forum, happily I retired from LATCC ten years ago.

I do agree about the stuffed-shirted clots of the 60’s though, a great example was my final oral board at Hurn, when because I turned up in jacket and slacks the chairman’s last remark was “do the Board the courtesy of wearing a suit next time you appear” to which I replied that I though it was an oral examination not a sartorial one. Strangely I passed.