A wise course of action?
 

Hi, i am looking for some advice. I currently have ambitions to become an airline pilot in the near future but i do not possess the neccessary funds and/or assets to fund my training and my current employment does not yield a sufficient salary to save enough dough for ab-initio training. i have therefore considered a career in ATC as it is obvioulsy an aviation related field and apparantly a well paid one. i have applied for stage 1 selection at NATS on Friday 040408 and i was wondering if anyone with experience could advise me if this is a wise course of action. Please respond either in the open or by PM with any suggestions that you may have. Any information received will be much appreciated.

One Piece of advice.

If I were you I would'nt mention that the only reason I wan't the job is to make enough money to f*** off after a year or two to become a pilot. They would'nt be impressed by that :E

Yes, i think i would keep that minor detail to myself, i was wondering if there were others who may have gone down that particular route who may have somoe experience to share

I'm assuming your name is John, your profile say you are age 22 and you are from Northampton, it's not going to take long for someone to realise who you are at a selection centre :hmm::hmm::hmm:.

Others have done it. Those that I know seem to be happy with their career choices. But please don't imagine that becoming a controller will be a quick route to enough money to get a pilot's licence. The two jobs are different, albeit in the same field, but one mate who now flies big Boeings once told me that he found as hard to get his controller's licence as he did his pilot licence despite already having a good understanding of the environment.

Quite a few ATCOs are also pilots, but they're ATCOs first and foremost and most were pilots of some description before the before they trained to be ATCOs.
The nature of our shift systems allows for sufficiant time off to get the flying work as and when it becomes available on rest days, but whether you'd get enough time off, earn enough money and be disciplined enough to undertake an ATPL at the same time is questionable (not a personal reflection upon you, just the reallity of the situation).

I'd like to think you could do it, but it's an enormous task, some may say bordering on the unachievable and you could end up meeting yourself coming back if you're not careful.

johno, this may sound harsh but I want to train people who want to be controllers, I don't want to waste my time training people who are using it to fund what they really want to do and, assuming they get through to validation then p1ss off a year or two later.

Decide what you really want to do, if it's to be an airline pilot then where there's a will there's a way just don't waste my valuable time and an important slot in the training system in the process.

Roffo, that is a very fair comment and i completly understand where you are coming from. If i could find a direct route into becoming a pilot then i would pursue it, but for those of us who do not have the finances then considering an alternative career in the aviation industry does seem like the only other option.

CaptainJohno

Why don't you apply to the armed forces to fly? I've never flown civilian professionaly, but I've been on a couple of jump seat rides and believe me, I found the whole experience, even on short haul (therefore relatively busier) flights very tedious.

On the other hand, flying in the military was exhilarating and very challenging. If you want to fly for flyings sake and not just for the money, then I seriously think you should consider the forces. You can always punch out after your initial commission and go civvy.

If however it is more the money you are after, then may I suggest you do not bother with ATC... I'm now a civvy ATCO, and hand on heart I can assure you that getting your tickets as an ATCO is as hard, if not harder than getting you wings either in civvy or military terms. (Mind you, as you indicate that you are not blessed with money, you will need a fair bit of natural aptitude to get your ATPL, unlike some people who can afford to pay for lots of extra hours).

ATC is IMHO as exhilarating and routinely more challenging than flying an airliner... certainly when compared to long haul flights and more often than not when compared to short haul.

Neither career is one that you should enter half heartedly - both need professional dedicated people, not someone who is after some perceived kudos, a uniform, and a barrow full of dosh.

You really need to sit yourself down and think about what you want to do, and why. Good luck with whatever you choose, but make sure your heart is in it - it is a hard road whichever you choose.

But that's the nature of the beast in training, instruction and education of any kind. Think of the regional turboprop operators that train new First Officers knowing fine well that they'll disappear at the earliest opportunity.

Every production process has an element of waste and training/education are no different.

Just because one can't commit to a lifetime in the same job, doesn't mean they are not entitled to trying. It would be a boring world if when we're 16 we all knew what we will be doing for the next 40 years. :)

Just because NATS is a higher profile employer than a call centre or McDonalds, doesn't mean there can't be an element of waste in their training process. I've met lawyers and GPs that after years in the profession left it and started flying. A job is a job and fortunately we are still free to choose what we do with our lives :)


Ivor

Time to bond the new recruits- at least 5 years after 1st validation. Remember, the training costs come out of the same account that pays salaries and pensions.

Bonding new recruits:-
Surely if NATS is a World Leader In Air Traffic Management and a Sunday Times Top 20 Big company, why would anyone want to leave?

I'm with 250Kts on this one - a question I have asked from day one.

However Zooker you might have hit upon something (at least Barron might thinks so as he seems to believe we can get trainees to do the course for nothing, he believes we could be like the pilot training pipeline where everyone pays to train).

Taking your argument one step further... as we are in the top 20 big companies (by the skin of our teeth), we could ask applicants to offset any bond with a large wad of dosh.

Lets say they pay for their training, but because we are in the top 20, on top of that they then have to stay for 5 years after they complete the training (they have paid for). If they want to leave early, to work for SERCO for instance (:D), they pay £10k for every year they leave before the 5 is up.

All monies received go into the OJTI payment pot.

We might have been in the top 20 big companies....but you all know that only 46 big companies entered themselves into the assessment, don't you......?:}

I might have agreed with bonding when I worked for NATS, but now that I know the company has no more loyalty to its staff than those who leave have for NATS, I think differently.

I stayed considerably longer than 5 years and when I wanted the option of returning, the company preferred to hire those who cost less, hence a severe shortage of controllers at my old locale where those with 2 years of tower-only experience at Little Hampton on the Wold have trouble validating...

The company wants your pension, your days off, your lunchion vouchers and a lot more besides. When they earn loyalty, they can have it. Now, not so much...

I'm with Ivor on this one. I don't think bonding works. Where I've seen it tried it has been ineffective - it will often cost the employer more to recover what might be due and tends to attract unflattering publicity, particularly when it's a big company and a young trainee.

One would hope that the recruitment process would weed out anyone with captainjohno's motivation. Nonetheless, if someone gets through their training then good for them - if they happen to want to go elsewhere or do other things, good for them too. After all, you only live once, and some might say that to have trained as a controller at 18 and done the job until retirement was a waste of many other opportunities. To each their own.

So the company that paid for all your training, gave you a wage whilst you were doing so, and paid you very well with good benefits did not agree to your request that you could leave, but (possibly) return if you felt like it (i.e. if things did not work out as you expected or wanted)?

How disloyal eh?!!

I agree with you to an extent - a controller who has previously been valid with NATS has to be a better proposition than an ab inito... but pray tell, what conditions did you attach to your possible return?
Return on the pay spine you left on, or even a higher one commensurate with accrual during your years away?

Very few companies will provide all of the above in the first paragraph, then quite happily let you swan off when you want to work somewhere else and allow you to return at your convenience!!

Some people obviously think that they are more important than the company as a whole and feel that they are owed a living... the same people need to wake up and smell the coffee instead of expecting to be cossetted!

NATS, on the whole (at this point in time), provides a very good package, especially for ATCOS... it's a shame that people who have never worked anywhere else before joining NATS don't have the experience to realise this.

Ah Bonding! Joined NATS as ex military direct entrant in 1990. We were supposed to be bonded for minimum three years! Never signed the paperwork or handed it back, never bonded, posting of choice too! HR are great, would never have a bad thing said against them!:)

Ah, but some companies might value the experience that their staff member has gained elsewhere and try and benefit from it. They might also recognise that the individual is of known quality (having validated before). Or imagine that the staff member is more rounded, has seen how another employer works (and still wants to come back) and appreciate that the individual will recognise the good things that are provided....be qualified quickly and may stay longer this time.

Perhaps, though, the company doesn't believe that they can learn anything from 'outside'. Perhaps they are concerned that good ideas learned elsewhere might in some way upset the status quo.


Strangely, I believe that some of the best performing companies in the world actually encourage some of their staff to get a wider view of the world and then come back to a more responsible job. Why, some even have formal exchange and secondment schemes.

Gonzo mentioned that only 46 big companies put themselves forward for assessment in this To 20 table that gets bandied around so much. Perhaps all the other big companies are too busy giving their staff opportunities to develop themselves and making use of the skills that their employees have to waste time on self-aggrandisement.

Spitoon,

If you read my post correctly, you will see that I agree that NATS may be missing a trick... however I was replying in the main to Scooby Don't bemoaning the fact that NATS did not show him any loyalty... that's after NATS had paid for his training and given him a wage whilst doing so and paid him a decent wage until he decided he wanted to go elsewhere.

Calling NATS disloyal becasue they would not pander to his whims to let him leave the company, then only possibly return is IMHO a touch ridiculous. It's not the same as letting someone take a sabbatical for a specific period of time, knowing that they will come back when that time is up.

Many companies do and you are correct, many are in fact enlightened enough to

However, that is not what was talked about...
I think you will find it difficult to find many (if any) companies that will pay out all of the things that I have outlined above, then let their employees take up employment elsewhere on a whim, with the guarantee that if they don't happen to like their new job, they can always come back to the one they wantesd to leave in the first place!!

Scooby Don't was the person who brought up loyalty, but loyalty is a two way street... and it certainly is not a God given right, like so many ATCOs like to think :ugh:

I atually do believe that NATS often shoots itself in the foot, but there has to be some agreement on the part of the employee who wishes to bugger off for a few years, not just a throwaway "If I don't like it, or if it does not work out, and/or if I do not happen to find another job besides the one I am leaving for, I may want to come back"!!

The sentence says it all to me with regards to where Scooby Don't felt he belonged in the scheme of things