you must have done something right it if your leaving a 33k a yr job and your only 21 mate! p.s. check your pm's roberts :ok:

"but those that fail an SVC or after only 100 hours live? Should they really have been there in the first place?"

I can name numerous names that fit this criteria who are now competent valid controllers at other units.

I would have thought it would make more economic sense to extend the course make it more encompassing equipping students with a greater knowledge not only of procedures but of how the whole system works prior to sending them to units this should also mean any failures were down to not being suitable rather than the possibility they didn't have enough time to learn what they need to.
The old courses had a much greater pass rate, recourses were not the norm as more passed their exams. Not everything that was done in the past was bad i would say it was an improvement of todays courses but with bean counters in charge its all about de skilling not producing a rounded student ATCO.

I disagree.

On a recent SVC one student had three times as much "live" time as another guy yet when it came to the svc the guy with the least amount of time was equally as good as the guy with more time.

It all comes down to the quality of instruction and not just being sat there and being left to get on with it as I have witnessed.

Plus, I have offered pre-svc guys live time and they refused so what happens then?

Also, I must ask you, when you were working the wings and an early go came up did you take it or hang around for some live time?

RO13ERTS - I too start training in September and am leaving a fairly well paid job. Reading the posts here on failure rates is worrying though, the recruitment process seems robust enough, but it sounds like even with the correct positive attitude, dedication, and ability there's still a big chance of failure.

The 10K is added pressure for some poeple (depends on personal circumstances) ie. if you have a wife, child and mortgage!! Ah well that's my little problem.

See you in September.

Bazzala, noting your age, how are you going to feel being told what to do by people a lot younger than yourself?

Ppdude

"but those that fail an SVC or after only 100 hours live? Should they really have been there in the first place?"

I can name numerous names that fit this criteria who are now competent valid controllers at other units.

But would they have validated at that other unit if they had come straight from the College? We'll never know, but the time they spent at LACC will have had some extra training benefit. Scottish and Manch have refused to take SVC failures from us for some time now.

SVC failures are not common at present. Yahoo must have been at LACC before we began formal preSVC training and in that respect may have been unlucky, however the emphasis in the first cycle on any SVC is knowledge of the Sector and procedures - not their application. The quickest way to fall behind on an SVC is to not know the bookwork and that is all down to the individual. This may or may not have been the case on Yahoos SVC, only he or she knows, but shouldn't occur anymore.

I have some sympathy for Trainees that refuse live time out of the blue. I don't think it is a good idea to turn it down but, with no live R/T experiance prior to starting at LACC, I can see why some wouldn't be too keen to try without a bit of notice!

MancBoy - don't see that as any problem whatsover, I have total respect for anyone with knowldege I can learn from. Besides my 3 yr old tells me what to do most of the time!

BAZZALA,

Congrats, I will look forward to seeing you there. I have no problem with failure if I am simply not of said mindset for the job, only if I myself cause the failure.

Couldn't help but notice you live in Chorley, is that Chorley as in Manchester?

Chorley as in near Preston, Bolton. Chorley Fm etc...

Coming in your ears!

From what I hear, the college is seriously understaffed, with instructors and assistants being asked to work overtime in order to train new instructors etc. Sounds like they're so stretched they might not even be able to fulfil NATS own training requirements soon.

I do wonder how far the house of cards is from collapse?

Are the beancounters aware of the oucome of their 'improvements'

And I've just heard a story that two instructors have been 'loaned' out to Sweden because Sweden are short of their own instructors. Any truth in that?:confused:

The concept that if we knew what characteristics would make a successful controller we would fail applicants rather than students is interesting - I hadn't thought of it in this way before. But in this imperfect world we must rely on those that do the selection to do the best that they can and then do whatever we can to help those selected to succeed. You are right that it is a combination of factors and circumstances that will determine the outcome of training - and that includes many things including the attitude of trainers at the College and units (I'm not dismissing the multitude of other factors including the attitude of the student but I think where we appear to differ is on the trainers' side). I still believe that it is important that we work toward validation (i.e. success) with failure as an unusual, but sometimes necessary, outcome. It seems from your post (and from discussions with some others involved with training it is not an isolated view) that failure is the norm and only a trainee with something special - rather than simply being competent - will be successful.
Once again, you seem to be looking for ways to fail trainees - just debating the point at which that failure takes place! Training should not be that 'done at the college' and 'that done at the unit', it should be a continuum from day 1 at the College through to success at the unit, with each stage of training building on what has gone before. This is why I earlier asked whether you cared what the College courses' training objectives are - if you do not know this how can you hope to prepare a trainee to validate?That 'certain something' that I refer to is the ability to do the job - not to reach a particular level at a nominal time.
You final point is quite valid - but that is what training is about, changing behaviours. Whilst some trainees will not change their behaviour, many patently are able to do so because they successfully work as controllers....although a good number do so outside NATS after being 'failed'.
Whilst I am no great lover of the present training regime of mlestones, a student who 'has continually shown all the signs of NOT reaching the level of knowledge and ability required' should not have progressed beyond the milestone with which they are having trouble until they have reached the required standard (or, if they are unable to do so, have had their training ended). Consequently, I believe that my point remains valid and your unit's experience with trainees may be a reflection of the training capabilities on the unit. Nonetheless, a trainee who is prepared to debate a point, despite the fact that they may be wrong, is showing a degree of learning and the response should be correction (i.e. training, a.k.a. behaviour change), not failure.
That does rather depend on why the course is harder to get through. But your comment apears to be based on numbers alone instead of any consideration of whether the trainees are better equipped to deal with unit training (and the people and attitudes that they will meet). Sadly, I have a suspicion that turning trainees with less time to comprehend the complex system into which they are being thrown is unlikely to prepare them for unit training.
But at least Arkady will be able to say "Told you so".

"Operation Tittybar" perhaps......??!?!

Anyone have a date for the September course by any chance?

Relying on those doing the selection is one thing, alas applicants first have to get through a "non NATS" aptitude day first.

Could it just be that the apparent failure rate is in part caused by suitable applicants being rejected by a defective aptitude test system. In other words perhaps we are unintentionally rejecting suitable aplicants due to flawed external assessments....

Why not just bring the applicants in and stick them in front of a simple radar vectoring exercise in the sim (e.g. 3 a/c)??? Bet you can tell immediately if the applicant has the "spatial awareness" required for the job....

Just a thought.....:hmm: :hmm:

So another slight discrepancy betwwen units then.
Here at TC students are not allowed any pre TVC RT anymore as it is against unit policy on safety grounds.
Go figure...

The 'non NATS' day must be assessing criteria set by (or acceptable to) NATS. I think we should consider the selection process as a whole, irrespective of who manages particular parts of it. However, it is impossible to know for sure but it seems likely that many suitable applicants are being rejected during the selection process (at whatever stage they are assessed as not suitable). As pointed out by Arkady, if we knew where the flaws are in the selection system we would have a 100% success rate with trainees.Sadly I'm not convinced that this would be any better. It's not just spatial awareness that is needed for the job. If we could define all of the characteristics needed maybe we could select for them. Despite many attempts to document all of the skills needed to train and to do ATC we don't seem to be improving the success rate; either the skills definition is wrong or the training given is not really linked to teaching those skills or both (my money is on the latter).

So, at working level, we have to take what we are given - to rely on the selection process to provide the best that it can - and then do our best to get tose trainees up to a standard that will enable them to work on their own. I re-iterate my point that in training we should look at how to help trainees to succeed rather than look for ways to fail them.




P.S. - Apologies for that last bit to any current and future trainees for making them sound like a commodity!

Defruiter

You have already demonstrated your ability to a satisfactory standard in completing the rating (sic) course. That is a worthy achievement and do realise that you are well grounded now for OJT - the course is as realistic as possible and was very well designed - n'est-ce pas, Berni?

However, you do illustrate the concerns that many of us had in respect of the evident level of confidence and experience of trainees such as you. Unfortunately, the NATS beancounters cannot understand that concept.

Gonzo - mostly correct

2 sheds - maybe they will if they read this thread..