ATC Training

Has the penny finally dropped about busy airports producing better controllers sooner, then? I have been going on about this for years.. last mentioned here....

Thank you for performing this review, but I do fundamentally disagree with this statement:

Quote

It is very important that this does not cause VATSIM UK to throw all its training onto the handful of “busy” air elds. To do so would be at detriment to the division - as it has the poten al to stop these air elds from receiving as much tra c and reduces the breadth of local knowledge and diversity in the division. This also disadvantages controllers who would like to train at their local airfield.

Can you provide more justification for this statement as it comes across as a cynical attempt at social engineering. You say later in your document "as per GRP, all training systems should seek to minimise delays, especially to those members who wish to become a new controller". I agree with this principle. Why can't you train people for the rating quicker, then the rated controllers can take their rating to any airfield they feel like. The majority of people I see online regularly are at CC/KK anyway.

I'd say focusing training at the busiest airfields is totally the right thing to do, when you reach capacity then add the 'next busiest' airfield to the training plan. You can still expand. Please consider adding LL as a primary training field... anybody who says it's 'impossible' is talking out of their backside.

In addition it quashes this later point:

Quote

This is, of course, a two-way street to which there isn’t really a de ni ve quan able answer. If we don’t train students to handle a fair workload, we must bear in mind that they could get their ra ng and immediately jump on a busier air eld such as Manchester or Gatwick without any further training.

If you train people at the busier airfields (including LL) for their rating, they will be used to the traffic level and will pass an exam quicker which is a win-win situation. People should be judged handing a normal evening of traffic. I know from personal experience that even when hammered with traffic during training and exam, as soon as I had the rating and was dealing with 'normal traffic' the high workload coping mechanisms were soon distant memories. Plus, a lot of it comes with experience... let people learn how capably handle CTP/event traffic once they have the rating. It's just like a driving test, its a licence to learn. Nobody dies on VATSIM.

I am very pleased to see pre-exams abolished. A positive step!

Edited March 19, 2018 by Callum McLoughlin

We've tried using LL for training to a new rating before - for a variety of reasons, it didn't work. This is not something that we're necessarily opposed to trying again, however. At a TWR level at least, it isn't viable for demonstrating GRP competencies including circuit management - unless we suddenly decide to forget about real-world procedures whilst training (which tends to irritate people quite a bit!). At an APP level, we could try this again and we will give it due consideration - I've raised it for discussion at the next DSG meeting (Thursday).

1 hour ago, Callum McLoughlin said:

Can you provide more justification for this statement as it comes across as a cynical attempt at social engineering.

Most of our students are training at EGCC or EGKK - there are around twice as many training places at each of these fields than the remainder of the fields in their respective TGs combined. We do try to strike a balance, however. Have too many students training at one airfield, then regular controllers will struggle to find a time to control during "peak hours" and we also potentially lose out in terms of mentoring resources - we have plenty of mentors who are only interested/comfortable in training students at their "local" field. Our balance, therefore, is to spread training across the ~4 "busiest" fields in each TG.

What I was trying to say was, we shouldn't necessarily be forcing all students through a very small number of airfields (let's call them, "the big three") for training. Students often enjoy the training much more if they're given a decent selection to choose from - and as detailed in the last section of the document, there are potentially ways to standardise our training without having to reduce the diversity of it. By training at a wider range of airfields, we also keep pilots interested in flying there on a regular basis and have controllers with a wide variety of local knowledge at a base level as well - I think we'd all prefer it if VATUK didn't become a "three airport division"!

1 hour ago, Callum McLoughlin said:

Nobody dies on VATSIM.

Correct, but at the same time, it's not nice having consistent negative feedback about controllers (for the staff, or the controllers themselves). Maybe this is VATSIM culture that needs to change, but we get a fair amount of incredibly critical feedback (and not just from members of this division) because someone couldn't handle the traffic - if a mentoring session or two can get them started on the right path for this, is it necessarily a bad thing?

Edited March 19, 2018 by Andy Ford

31 minutes ago, Andy Ford said:

At a TWR level at least, it isn't viable for demonstrating GRP competencies including circuit management - unless we suddenly decide to forget about real-world procedures whilst training (which tends to irritate people quite a bit!).

I am sure there is a workaround for this, VATUK has been very good at finding reasons to appear to comply with GRP for years (i.e. over egging the level of compliance) so perhaps the efforts can be employed to re-examine this and work out how it can be managed. I'm confident there is a solution.

Quote

Most of our students are training at EGCC or EGKK - there are around twice as many training places at each of these fields than the remainder of the fields in their respective TGs combined. We do try to strike a balance, however. Have too many students training at one airfield, then regular controllers will struggle to find a time to control during "peak hours" and we also potentially lose out in terms of mentoring resources - we have plenty of mentors who are only interested/comfortable in training students at their "local" field. Our balance, therefore, is to spread training across the ~4 "busiest" fields in each TG.

The other airfields are still available but I do understand that airports can lack training capacity, as such my recommendation is using the top X airfields for movements, then adding the 'next busiest' as and when more capacity is required. That way you are doing the best you possibly could be with the resources available to you.

Quote

What I was trying to say was, we shouldn't be forcing all students through a very small number of airfields (let's call them, "the big three") for training, just because they're the "biggest" ones. Students often enjoy the training much more if they're given a decent selection to choose from - and as detailed in the last section of the document, there are potentially ways to standardise our training without having to reduce the diversity of it. By training at a wider range of airfields, we also keep pilots interested in flying there on a regular basis as well - I think we'd all prefer it if VATUK didn't become a "three airport division"!

Regardless of where training is offered, people can still control where they like (aside from S1s). If trainee controllers would rather be disadvantaged with slower training outcomes for the sake of training at their local airfield then so be it, but I see people moving where mentoring seems to be happening. Maybe it's worth a vote of students, rather than second guessing what they want?

I am quite sure pilots will still fly into the UK quite happily. I see lots flying into and out of airports that never have any regular ATC! More ATC is great, but you will probably find that if you get the core positions online more regularly, other airfields will begin to benefit because controllers won't get bored waiting for training and disappear, overspilling into controlling other positions nearby, with pilots wanting to fly more in the UK to take advantage of the said ATC. I've seen it before where one busy airport drives traffic to those around it.

Quote

Correct, but at the same time, it's not nice having consistent negative feedback about controllers (for the staff, or the controllers themselves). Maybe this is VATSIM culture that needs to change, but we get a fair amount of incredibly critical feedback (and not just from members of this division) because someone couldn't handle the traffic - if a mentoring session or two can get them started on the right path for this, is it necessarily a bad thing?

Use the training time to focus on the important things - e.g. radio confidence and expedient services, rather than obsessing over whether its 2 minute or 3 minute separation etcetera. It sounds counter-intuitive but on VATSIM that 3/2 minute seperation doesn't really help much. It's usually dithering waiting for APP releases, or a controllers attention being swallowed up by one tricky (often new DCT GPS) pilot. That's what I see, anyway!

Oh, and sometimes controllers are just busy :P The best way to combat that is more ATC online who can take adjacent positions, which brings me back full circle to the issue... more rated controllers are needed and the only way to make it happen is to upgrade more people :D

Sometimes, less complex solutions have better outcomes... simple works!

Edited March 19, 2018 by Callum McLoughlin

14 minutes ago, Callum McLoughlin said:

rather than obsessing over whether its 2 minute or 3 minute separation etcetera

Funnily enough, we received two negative pieces of feedback on our controller feedback form about that in recent weeks - because exactly that situation screwed over the next controller badly!

14 minutes ago, Callum McLoughlin said:

If trainee controllers would rather be disadvantaged with slower training outcomes for the sake of training at their local airfield then so be it, but I see people moving where mentoring seems to be happening.

Hopefully, one day, we'll be able to get to a point where it doesn't really matter where you train - "the big three" or otherwise. We're currently looking into ways (Section 1.15, for example) to help achieve this.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Andy Ford

I'd take the negative feedback over a minor issue with a couple of planes being too close together over an out of control training waiting list any day of the week. Nobody is perfect and no controller has never made a mistake. I make too many to count LOL

I'm afraid I feel like this consultation is yet another bureaucratic obstacle to delivering change. Whilst the metrics that the document provides are interesting, the report goes no way into identifying the cause of many of these issues, and certainly makes no attempt that I've discerned to provide credible, achievable objectives to mitigate the issues. The report makes such sweeping statements as "as the stats show, the average has generally remained consistent or slightly improved across the board", yet no attention is drawn to City Tower as a wildly disparate training aerodrome - this is an obvious issue that should and could be addressed, yet there is no explicit mention of the issue in the report. 

Section 1.5 talks about standardisation and mentor selection. These are almost two segregate processes, and yet identified as two action points. Even more puzzliing is the subsequent mention that "following passing an exam, there are no formal processes for monitoring members progression." This isn't a function of the ATC Training Department. The departments objective is to facilitate the obtainment of ratings within the United Kingdom, as defined in GRP. If the division, or the department, believes that there is or should be jurisdiction to 'do more' as the document implies, it is sorely mistaken and some consideration needs to be given quite urgently as to what people think the department is doing, should be doing and should stop doing.

Negative feedback is an issue easily dealt with - if you're afraid to speak to people about feedback that has been provided regarding members trained within the department, there's a wider issue that needs exploring about conflict management - and I don't mean in the traffic sense.

Sections 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 and 1.15 I will deal with in one lump some. I have said it before and I will say it again until I'm blue in the face: the issues were resolvable in the original vision for CT. That vision has long been forgotten; it's frequently misquoted, I think it was misunderstood and it's being used to champion ideas which it was never designed to champion. S3 and C1 training will always be more complicated, for the reasons that the report has identified; it's arguably a tougher learning curve to work in more dimensions, in more space, at higher speeds, more varied speeds and with much more freedom to make decisions and errors, but people will easily become disengaged with the network whilst waiting for training at the higher echelons, meaning that mentors will always be in shorter supply. Finding mentors, however, is easy; finding good mentors and retaining them is an altogether different challenge. 

Considering the frequency with which I hear and am told that 'the original vision for CT remains largely unchanged', it worries me that there is a new action point to address the issue of self teaching theory. This isn't, and shouldn't be, new. This is important, it's necessary and it needs to happen sooner rather than later. Whilst mentors are bogged down training, re-training and validating theory, they'll not be delivering practical training. The more time that goes by between practical training sessions, the more theory and skill is forgotten, and a game of catch up begins. This is an easily solvable issue, and a strong focus needs to be applied to this. 

Similarly, the 'new' idea that training focuses on core skills, addressed in Section 1.6, is not new. The whole premise of Central Training is and was to introduce skills based training, with the mantra of 'teach controllers how to control positions, not places' becoming something of a campaign strapline. There seems to be an oft-missed lesson within the UK where we've always strived to utilise the traffic on the live network to train; traffic is a vicious circle. If controllers come, pilots will come. if pilots come, controllers will come. Training, validating and passing more student controllers generates more independent controllers, which opens more positions which generates more traffic. I personally don't, and haven ever, cared where training or exams are performed, as long as students get trained, and pass ratings. I've conducted exams in the most unlikely of situations and made some damned good controllers out of it, because I seized opportunity and did the right things by the division and the student - a lesson that the UK could learn from; utilise Sweatbox, for pete's sake.

Do what you've always done and you'll get what you've always got.

18 hours ago, Andy Ford said:

Funnily enough, we received two negative pieces of feedback on our controller feedback form about that in recent weeks - because exactly that situation screwed over the next controller badly!

Hopefully, one day, we'll be able to get to a point where it doesn't really matter where you train - "the big three" or otherwise. We're currently looking into ways (Section 1.15, for example) to help achieve this.

1. Yes, VATSIM is a hobby, and we aren't recruiting for NATS/SERCO/RAF/Whoever, but personally, keeping the realism in place where we can is good, and, as you said, it's there to help adjacent positions!

2. I'm training at bristol, and to be honest, with the way my training has gone, I'm happy I have trained at a "quieter field" as I (I know it may not be best for all) found it better to control at a quiet field, as I would most likely have taken longer to be forwarded for my exam had I had more traffic! As has also been said, no matter where you train, when you pass, you can get experience at your own rate!

5 hours ago, Adam Arkley said:

no attention is drawn to City Tower as a wildly disparate training aerodrome

EGLC was removed as a training aerodrome in early 2017 as it was determined non-viable for training, the stats were only there for completeness.

5 hours ago, Adam Arkley said:

Negative feedback is an issue easily dealt with - if you're afraid to speak to people about feedback that has been provided regarding members trained within the department, there's a wider issue that needs exploring about conflict management - and I don't mean in the traffic sense.

I don't think anybody here is "afraid" to speak to people about negative feedback. However, I think most will agree that going bull-at-a-gate isn't the right way to do it and there are ways to approach it that allow you to get the point across but also be constructive. We get a lot of feedback that is over-exaggerated or repeatedly targets an individual. What we're currently thinking about it how and when we deliver the feedback.

5 hours ago, Adam Arkley said:

it worries me that there is a new action point to address the issue of self teaching theory

The action point in question (assuming you mean Section 1.6) isn't new. It exists in the document to re-affirm our commitment to getting this finished as quickly as is reasonably possible. As we've also stated in the document, we only have a handful of contributors for each course, so this isn't going to magically appear overnight - though if anybody wishes to contribute, they are more than welcome. Alex B is currently coordinating the completion and testing of the S2 Moodle course and I am currently coordinating the early stages of (we only started in the past month) of the S3 Moodle course.

5 hours ago, Adam Arkley said:

a lesson that the UK could learn from; utilise Sweatbox, for pete's sake

This is something that we'll be looking at as per Section 1.15 - I've already reached out to people (staff and non-staff) to cultivate ideas and get this rolling.

5 hours ago, Adam Arkley said:

I'm afraid I feel like this consultation is yet another bureaucratic obstacle to delivering change.

If we had no intention of making changes, we wouldn't have bothered going out of our way to ask the membership for their opinions. The division has been widely criticised in recent months for not giving members the opportunity to influence policy and for cultivating a perceived "them versus us" atmosphere - this consultation was to give members a chance to voice their opinions and what matters most to them. As you can see from a number of the already completed points in the document, people suggested changes and we made them. Yes, fair enough, the changes so far aren't necessarily the most exciting change in the world, so continue to watch this space.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Andy Ford

Continuing to learn post-rating is very important, but I do want to ensure my view is explicitly clear. I think that the syllabus for all ratings should be fully reviewed and candidate performance required to pass fully evaluated. In other words, a more reasonable 'minimum standard' - less training is required and its more likely to generate more exam passes sooner.

I would also determine 'essential' and 'desirable' aspects of the syllabus for demonstration during an exam; if the situation required to exam certain criteria doesn't occur then a pass can still be issued without requiring another exam to finish it off.

If you really cut out all of the 'above and beyond' aspects of passing an exam, then supporting the continuation and 'bedding in' of a new controller so they can take advantage of the knowledge that is out there, understand the more complex ATC concepts and enhance the level of service they can provide is absolutely wonderful.

But don't hold people back!