1. While other countries have a success rate of well over 80%, Nav-Canada has a success rate well below 80%. And they make no effort in warning you about that.
I feel that all this adventure was a trap and after 6 years, i still get upset for falling into it.
Would you be so kind as to post your factual documentation / information that you are basing this statement on or provide links to these countries ATS systems that shows / claims 80% plus success rates?brtalbot wrote:1. While other countries have a success rate of well over 80%, Nav-Canada has a success rate well below 80%. And they make no effort in warning you about that.
One from Sweden and the other one from the UK clearly stating their success rate.
http://www.edu.avesta.se/domarhagsskola ... /satsa.pdf
I did not see anything like that on Nav-Canada web site.
If you would be so kind as to identify your current position: Student - Ex-Student - Controller. Thank you
P.S. Few years ago i found in the minutes of a shareholders meeting a reference to 36% success rate in atc training. I will try to dig it out again.
UK Nats- Success rate from the College - about 66%
This is the college not the actual checkout rate.
Sweden- "SATSA´s training goal is to reach and maintain a 90 % success rate..."
Again this document is from their school, doesn't provide the actual success rate and nowhere mentions a final check out rate.
FAA- They are talking about their academy success rate, not check out rate.
If there was a way to achieve a 95% success rate to checkout, there wouldn't be a shortage of controllers everywhere.
If you are going to start a lawsuit I would suggest you take your lawyer more than those links.
BTW, in response to your question, I have a license.
If you flunked out, move on. We don't need controllers who need OJIs their entire career.
The system works.
http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefiniti ... 008_en.pdf
The global benchmark for measuring safety performance is the rate
of IFR-to-IFR losses of separation. From a rate of about one per 100,000
air traffic movements in fiscal 2001, the five-year moving average has
declined to about 0.75 per 100,000 in the past fiscal year.
The point of this above rant is that it is practically impossible to be able to hire and train only those who will qualify. This job is very dynamic, and very different in its different disciplines.
As for not knowing the low checkout rate, I will call BS because even 14 years ago when I hired on, I knew that it was dismally low, everyone who went through NCTI knew that just getting through there was only a first step on the long road to qualification. And this checkout rate has not gotten any better, nor do I see it in the future.
You write the online test.
You write the 6 hour aptitude test in person.
In person interview.
3 References/security/medical clearance.
Then once you show up.
4-8 tests in which you MUST get over 80%... multiple SIM evaluations in which you must also get 80%....
THEN you start on the floor/in the tower, and have to pass multiple phases/levels of training.
So where do you think another test is appropriate? You can only test potential candidates so much. Someone could in theory be a genius, ace every test, do well in the sim, but when they get to the real world, and you add the factor of unpredictability, fall to pieces and be unable to handle the stress.
Until you are checked out, you are not done the recruitment/checking/training process. It is a long, 1-2, even 3 year process. Just because you made it through the basic training, and onto the floor, does not mean you are done. It's just another step in the process.
There comes a time in every profession where you need to find out if you make the cut or not. They don't just give anyone a MD, or a license to control aircraft with thousands of lives.
If you want to try again, go for it. Do it. But what do you plan on getting out of this class action suit? Cause I am willing to bet you the $1,000,000.00 you are trying to sue them for that you will never get a job with them if you try something so silly.
My point is Nav Canada should do a better job at selecting its trainee.
Yeah maybe they should, and if I could come up with a simple, efficient, and accurate test that would tell Nav Canada (and other ATS providers) that somebody off the street has what it takes to be a controller I wouldn't have to worry about living on the money they pay me to control airplanes.
1. Better selection process in order to achieve a higher success rate than 35% (and more transparency at the beginning)
2. Once you get to your regional school, to have a better support program for student (At the time of my training, there was someone to support us, but her son was going trough the program so there was sort of a conflict of interest. She wouldn't listen to us at all.)
3. An a monetary reward (minimal) in order for them to realize that they cant play with people life and therefore they should take it seriously. (a week of remedial training with several strong assessments from someone from the floor completely disregarded is not serious at all).
I do not like some of the comments that were made. I don't think that i have been disrespectful to anybody. But of course anonymity brings down all the barrier.
It is only a discussion and no it wont affect your tax return or something serious like that.
BUT, you sound like you have a HUGE sense of entitlement. You failed, you weren't good enough. Your instructors decided that. Period. Get over it and carry on with life.
I recall very clearly knowing right from the beginning of my training at NCTI that the success rate is very low. Did it affect, in any way, my desire to continue? No. Did I ever think "Oh, maybe I should just quit since only 35% of us trainees will get a license."? No. I trained every day with the idea in my mind that I was going to get a license. Some days perhaps not so much (like the time I f*&#ed up a clearance on my check ride. Really fun.). I think that you would be hard pressed to find a trainee that does not go to work every day with that same idea in their mind. You say that you were not aware of the low success rate, which raises the following question: Had you known that the success rate was so low, would you have up and quit right at the start? Honestly. I have never heard of anyone packing it in because they found out that the success rate is what it is.
I just cannot see how it could be possible that you were not aware of the low success rate. As a previous poster said, move on with your life. Not everyone is capable of obtaining an ATC license. That's just the way it is
Do you think that a teenage hockey player who gets a spot on a junior team (WHL, OHL, QMJHL) thinks "Well, I know that I will never make the NHL but what the heck, I'll do this anyways."?
Sorry, I never caught your name.But of course anonymity brings down all the barrier.
I have had many many trainees in my 13 years thus far. I make every effort to see them succeed. The onus is on the trainee to learn and progress. I am only the facilitator of this learning. A backboard lets call it. Don't use me as your excuse for not succeeding. Grow up...
So you went through under the SHL/NCTI system? NATS UK were using SHL around the same time. AirServices Australia were using it as well. There are countless Controllers all over the world who have attained licences having been selected under the same process. As tower controller says, the first person who comes up with a test/formula/crystal ball for candidate screening will become one rich individual.brtalbot wrote:My point is Nav Canada should do a better job at selecting its trainee.
The truth is with any selection process, there are specific traits/abilities that Air Navigation providers look for, but nobody can ever say if any new hire walking in the door day 1 will be successful in training. Some trainees are ceased trained in the first few weeks of a course (failing written exams which is pretty much inexcusable), some go at various stages of simulation for various reasons (not putting the work OR working their asses off and just not getting it). Some make it to the floor and seem to be progressing well then crap the bed, or stagnate and can't get out of their reliance on the OJI sitting next to them to make decisions. Some can do the job to a certain workload but when things turn to sh*t (weather avoidance, blocked runway) just can't keep up.