Percent that pass

[172pilot]

How many people in a typical IFR, and VFR, class get checked out?


Thank you in advance.

[natej]

These are by no means, hard numbers, but just what I've heard over the years.

I'd say around 60-70% of VFR Controllers check out, and the check out rate for IFR Controllers is around 20-30%. FSS is around 95%.

[thatdaveguy]

These are by no means, hard numbers, but just what I've heard over the years.

I'd say around 60-70% of VFR Controllers check out, and the check out rate for IFR Controllers is around 20-30%. FSS is around 95%.

Your FSS numbers are awfully high... it was around 70-80% in my experience.

[natej]

Your FSS numbers are awfully high... it was around 70-80% in my experience.

Well, depends if we include the classroom numbers. I'd say the % that pass classroom, training, over 90% checkout once in the field. But yeah 70-80% make it pass the classroom training, in my experience.

[whipline]

Curious as to why the low checkout rates in IFR? If I were an instructor with a 20-30 percent pass rate I would identify myself as the problem. Does nav can have any initiatives in place to improve the IFR training course?

[kevenv]

Curious as to why the low checkout rates in IFR? If I were an instructor with a 20-30 percent pass rate I would identify myself as the problem. Does nav can have any initiatives in place to improve the IFR training course?

Did you do a search of the forum? This has been beaten to death in the past.

[FSS2552]

IFR training is a heck of a training to go through. So much to learn, not enough time to master for 70% of the bunch...

[yippiekaiyea]

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that there is no way to accurately find out what the curriculum actually is until you get selected for training. On these forums, there is lots of speculation, and general aptitude requirements info, but nothing on what one learns specifically, from start to finish (like a course curriculum in a College class for example).

It would be nice if someone actually posted that, but I'm not holding my breath since, once a person is selected, they disappear into the ether. Makes me wonder if one has to sign a confidentiality clause as part of the requirement?

I do know that it costs NAV Can a ton of money to train people and they wouldn't select a candidate if they didn't think that candidate had what it took to get through.

Sure it's probably wicked hard, but so is life. My advice: 'Give'r' as hard as you can until you either make it through, or till they tap you on your shoulder and tell you your time is up. Either way, if you make it to selection...it's going to be a heck of a ride!

[crazy horse]

The problem is not what is in the curriculum, yippi (if I may call you that), and it really wouldn't help to know that ahead of time. And there isn't a confidentiality clause not to divulge what is taught. In IFR training, there is an enormous amount of information, rules, procedures, agreements, airspace etc. that must be committed to memory. Now, most people that make it through the selection process can do this part. It is a lot of work and extremely time consuming, but if you work hard you will succeed in this part. The problem is all of the above mentioned information must be able to be recalled instantly, and applied appropriately to an evolving situation. Not everyone is able to do this efficiently. The controller must be several steps ahead of a given conflict, and have more than one solution available, taking into consideration airspace, procedures, aircraft performance, weather, terrain, etc. Not every situation can be taught, you must have a natural aptitude. So unfortunately the reason for the 30% success rate, isn't because there isn't enough time to master it or not enough heads up as to what is in the curriculum. It is simply not intuitive to most people.

[IFRATC]

Applying yourself to theory can be mastered by anyone if you put in the tremendous hours required to recall all the information. Taking that information and understanding how to use it in a very quick and dynamic workplace with factors such as stress, task management, prioritizing workload, coordination with other agencies, etc, cannot be screened with an aptitude test. Unfortunately the only true measuring stick to guage ones ability is when they sit down and plug in. Its hard to keep up. Its very intimidating to plug in and train. many eyes are watching what you do because it affects there workload as well. There is alot of bravado that comes with the job and you need to be able to sit down with minimal knowledge as a trainee and take control of the situation in front of you. Confidence in your decision making is a big part of the job and trainees don't have that when they first sit down. You have to keep plugging away and see as many ass puckering situations as you can while still making reasonable decisions on your own. This is not easy when your instructor is breathing down your neck listening and anticipating your next bad decision. Believe me you will make many mistakes while training. You need to be able to debrief after unplugging by taking that criticism and learning to apply it another day. It is a very long road. I have had many trainees in my time. The one measuring stick I always use when someone may be close to a checkride is this..."Could I go home to bed knowing XXXX is working tonight and my family is flying out through that airspace...."
It is very difficult to apply all that knowledge while gathering information from a two dimensional screen... converting it three dimensionally in your brain, and then come up with the proper solution each time. That is the reason checkout rates are where they are at, not the quality of instruction. There is a certain part to this job that cannot be taught. This is the part of training that will decide whether you qualify or not.

IFRATC

[CapitalGuy]

"That is the reason checkout rates are where they are at, not the quality of instruction. There is a certain part to this job that cannot be taught. This is the part of training that will decide whether you qualify or not. "


What a crock.

[evilgravy]

"That is the reason checkout rates are where they are at, not the quality of instruction. There is a certain part to this job that cannot be taught. This is the part of training that will decide whether you qualify or not. "


What a crock.

why is that a crock? makes sense to me...

[lostaviator]

washout troll.

[CapitalGuy]

Not exactly. I have been a controller for >20 years. I was a flight instructor in the RCAF before that. Let me just say that during wings training on the basic jet course in the air force, the success rate was ~80-85%. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

[crazy horse]

Not exactly. I have been a controller for >20 years. I was a flight instructor in the RCAF before that. Let me just say that during wings training on the basic jet course in the air force, the success rate was ~80-85%. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

I conclude that far more people have the aptitude to fly than to control. I don't think it is even close.

[Old Dog Flying]

I'll jump in here agreeing with crazyhorse. I spent nearly half a century in ATC, both RCAF and civil and at the same time flew thousands of hours as a flight instructor. ATC training was far more difficult than trying to teach someone to fly...and controlling IFR traffic is akin to having a super computer implanted between your ears.

VFR controlling is an art, IFR is a science. IFR wise one must have the ability to recall rules and applications in an instant, think in 3 dimensions, and get the message to the traffic in a timely manner. Try controlling in a very busy terminal area without radar, with multiple types of approaches and different types of aircraft..that was Moose Jaw in the 70s when I checked out as both a tower and terminal controller. Not everyone made the grade.

I'm now retired but still fly regularly and it is very easy to pick out those controllers that have potential to go IFR and those that have met their limitations.

[HavaJava]

I don't have exact statistics but I heard that the failure rate in the U.S. is much lower than in Canada

From my perspective as a pilot, along with having to deal with far more traffic in a much more dynamic environment, American controllers are far more efficient and provide far more service than Canadian controllers. Perhaps that is because Canadian controllers are hamstrung by their MANOPS or by poorer equipment.

Makes you wonder what they are doing right and what Canadians are doing wrong...

On a side note, I've heard from a couple different controllers that the cease-training rate is so high due to job (over-time) protection by the active controllers.

I wish pilots would stick up for each other like that!

[CapitalGuy]

There is a BIG difference between getting your PPL and getting your military wings.

[No_Delay]

Worldwide ATC checkout rates for IFR are similar to Canada. It is a world wide training issue. Of course companies (Nav Canada) or other would love to check out 100% of controllers. It costs them a lot of money and resources too. Overtime protection does not exist.

[CapitalGuy]

"controlling IFR traffic is akin to having a super computer implanted between your ears." Gimme a break. I'm so sick and tired of hearing that terminal or enroute controllers are gods. (in their own minds).

It's actually laughable how arrogant "IFR" controllers can be. I got news for you. There's a ton of towers out there that deal with IFR traffic every day. IFR is not synonomous with terminal or enroute control. It's the body of rules governing a particular flight.

[TheJudge]

"controlling IFR traffic is akin to having a super computer implanted between your ears." Gimme a break. I'm so sick and tired of hearing that terminal or enroute controllers are gods. (in their own minds).

It's actually laughable how arrogant "IFR" controllers can be. I got news for you. There's a ton of towers out there that deal with IFR traffic every day. IFR is not synonomous with terminal or enroute control. It's the body of rules governing a particular flight.

IFR controlling, in an ATC context, does not really refer to only controlling aircraft with an IFR flight plan. It refers to the type of work being performed (High / Low Centre, or Terminal). Likewise, being a VFR controller in an ATC context does not mean they only work with VFR aircraft, it once again refers to the type of work being performed (Tower). Although there are very specific rules for when a tower controller may take control of IFR aircraft (generally only in VMC conditions, otherwise the IFR controller has control immediately after takeoff, and until landing). I may be pointing out the obvious, but I digress..

My main reason for posting is, as a current IFR student, to defend the instructors I have dealt with thus far. Based on my experience, the posts blaming the quality of instruction for the pass rate could not be more off base. The instructors have all been extremely knowledgeable and helpful, and willing to put in as much work as necessary to help students be successful. However, the key word in the previous sentence is HELP. They cannot ultimately do the job for the student. As much as I hate to do it, I'll steal a quote from TC's instructor guide: "...and there is, strictly speaking, no such art as teaching, only the art of helping people to learn."

ATC training is alot of work. I cannot compare, obviously, in a blanket statement to all other post secondary training. But, I can say definitively (having done all of the following), it is more difficult than flight school (CPL and instructor), an aviation college diploma, university engineering, and university business - by a significant margin. The amount of work that needs to be put in is staggering. The material must be known in not just a textbook "give me the definition of, or give me the rule for" way (although textbook style learning is still required), but more importantly in a practical way.

I would say, given my limited experience, that those posts that refer to part of ATC as "not being teachable" are partially correct. Some people, regardless of how effective of a training program they are put through, would not be able to be controllers. I would liken this to someone not having the nerves to be a surgeon - you can't teach someone to have a steady hand. At the same time, most of the skills necessary to be a controller can be picked up and learned over time. If you gave every trainee 20 years to learn the job, the checkout rate would be very high. This is obviously not practical for financial reasons. Therefore the question is, it seems to me, whether the student is capable of learning at the rate that the course requires.

[HeadingAltitudeSpeed]

Not exactly. I have been a controller for >20 years. I was a flight instructor in the RCAF before that. Let me just say that during wings training on the basic jet course in the air force, the success rate was ~80-85%. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

So please share which unit you work at and how you have stepped out to help raise the success rate. I know that the training department would love to see your expertise put to use.

[CapitalGuy]

Of course. You want to compare where we work so that you can judge whether or not I have credibility; based on your perception of our comparitive workload, and hence importance in the world.

[TA/RA]

Of course. You want to compare where we work so that you can judge whether or not I have credibility; based on your perception of our comparitive workload, and hence importance in the world.

Somehow when I read that my brain felt a bit like when we had to read shakespeare in grade school. Poetic yet to the point. I like it!

[wingandaprayer]

Not exactly. I have been a controller for >20 years. I was a flight instructor in the RCAF before that. Let me just say that during wings training on the basic jet course in the air force, the success rate was ~80-85%. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Just trying to understand your POV. Would I be correct in assuming you are a military tower controller? What are the parameters and skill sets required for "getting your military wings?" Particularly the ones comparable to that of an en route controller? From my admittedly limited experience, flying and controlling take two significantly different skill sets.