Screening of ATC candidates
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako
-
scrambled_legs
- Rank 5
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:14 pm
Re: Screening of ATC candidates
Right, so you know the rule verbatim but if someone asked you whether you have to or should do something, you won't be able to answer them because they said have to and not shall??? If you understand the precise meaning, then you will be able to write the precise answer down with the odd different word thrown in. Like I said most of my answers were damn close to verbatim still. If you know the answer verbatim but don't understand what the precise meaning is, then you're going to be in trouble when you try to apply it in the real world. Like you said internet advice is worth what you pay for it. Not sure where you got "close enough" from the precise meaning with different words. I guess that's what you were saying about your inability to write what you read in your own words.
Re: Screening of ATC candidates
You need to know Manops verbatim. Knowing it verbatim doesn't preclude you from also having to understand the intent of the rule, but not knowing it verbatim and mixing up and/or should/shall will always change the intent and meaning of the rule.
If I'm your instructor and your answer isn't verbatim, it will be marked wrong on your exam.
If I'm your instructor and your answer isn't verbatim, it will be marked wrong on your exam.
Re: Screening of ATC candidates
Ahh, a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing............
A controller has to know the rules, simple as that. Caveats and every inclusion of "shall, might, maybe, on a Saturday afternoon" is required. But, as I have mentioned, I have encountered trainees who have spent hundreds of hours (well, maybe 2 on that Saturday afternoon before heading down the pub) walking around with the all too famous "study cards" memorising word for word ManOps. They sit their exam, parrot it off word for word and all is good in the world. Now, application time in the simulator becomes a different matter. I've asked the question more than once in the sim "So, what does ManOps" say, and am met with word perfect answer.........."So, why aren't we applying it?"
I also experienced an interesting situation re memorising the book, and this falls flat at out at our present method of training. I had an abinitio ask me a question regarding speed control (we are all familiar with the table). In answering his question and discussing it, I mentioned about 250 knots below 10,000 not applying on Departure. The look on the individuals face border on panic "Where does it say that? It's not in ManOps! Where, Where!?!?!". We went and found CARS and I showed him section 602.32. Boy, was he confused, and through no fault of his own. More than just ManOps folks.
A controller has to know the rules, simple as that. Caveats and every inclusion of "shall, might, maybe, on a Saturday afternoon" is required. But, as I have mentioned, I have encountered trainees who have spent hundreds of hours (well, maybe 2 on that Saturday afternoon before heading down the pub) walking around with the all too famous "study cards" memorising word for word ManOps. They sit their exam, parrot it off word for word and all is good in the world. Now, application time in the simulator becomes a different matter. I've asked the question more than once in the sim "So, what does ManOps" say, and am met with word perfect answer.........."So, why aren't we applying it?"
I also experienced an interesting situation re memorising the book, and this falls flat at out at our present method of training. I had an abinitio ask me a question regarding speed control (we are all familiar with the table). In answering his question and discussing it, I mentioned about 250 knots below 10,000 not applying on Departure. The look on the individuals face border on panic "Where does it say that? It's not in ManOps! Where, Where!?!?!". We went and found CARS and I showed him section 602.32. Boy, was he confused, and through no fault of his own. More than just ManOps folks.
Re: Screening of ATC candidates
You're right, I guess my paraphrasing or summation of your intent wasn't correct. Guess next time I'll quote it verbatim....scrambled_legs wrote:Like you said internet advice is worth what you pay for it. Not sure where you got "close enough" from the precise meaning with different words. I guess that's what you were saying about your inability to write what you read in your own words.
-
Alex YCV
- Rank 4
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:41 pm
- Location: The old Cartierville Airport
- Contact:
Re: Screening of ATC candidates
Considering that the CT rates are fairly high during training, it could be surmised that the selection process has something to do with this. I don't think it is news to anyone that SHL won't be doing the testing for NavCanada by the end of 2008 or so ( http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 68&t=38999 ), which is an indication that the end results aren't what NavCanada are looking for at this point.
(let me put up here that I am a two time interview washout with SHL, I have been through the mill twice and I know where I passed and where I failed)
The basic methods of SHL (beyond the initial testings) has been using is situational questions. "Give an example of when you had a problem with a manager and how did you resolve it" sort of questions. The concept is that past behaviors (actual actions) will forecast and predict your future actions in an entirely different situation.
Long details on a variation of it here: http://www.era.org.in/Library/BestPract ... ctInt1.pdf
Better explaination here: http://www.quintcareers.com/behavioral_ ... ewing.html
Behavioral Interviewing is said to be significantly more successful than other methods. Depending on the study (and the company hyping them) numbers from 25% to 60% more effective than unstructured interviews are mentioned. However, depending on the questions asked and the weighting of the value of the answers, you can end up with a system that is more likely to be successful for certain types of candidates and less successful for others. Effectively, candidates with less life experience, less job experience, and perhaps even less exposure to challenging work enviroments would do better than someone who has worked in a higher pressure enviroment.
BI basically looks at negative situations and sees how you dealt with them. Someone who has little real work experience might not have too many truly negative experiences, and it is likely the situation discussed was resolved reasonably well. However, many people work in high stress environments where the resolution to an issue might not be entirely to everyones satisfaction. That would plummet you down the scoring in a BI interview / testing situation.
As a result, there is potential that the ideal SHL candidate is someone who has never faced much true stress, but has reacted well to small stresses placed on them. Training to be a controller can be a heavy stress environment, and I think that the failure in the system may be as a result of the types of candidates that the current system prefers by it's very nature.
Aptitude testing is a pretty easy deal, it is a real go or no-go deal. It is a very functional way to filter out a large percentage of the people. In two sets of testing, I have seen people unable to fill out their name on the form, unable to follow simple directions (don't open the book until told to), and I am sure the intial tests wipe out about 80-90% of the people who come for testing, either as not able to do the work or not scoring high enough. There is no memory test, although the audio part of the test does require a certain amount of extreme short term memory to make it really work out.
At the end of the day, the results are what they are. For 1000 applicants to testings, about 100 are getting past stage 1, and probably less than 50 are getting past stage 2, and I am sure more are lost after that. Even after all of that filtering and poking and prodding, the TC rates for some of the training classes is extremely high. According to some numbers I have seen, the failure rates in some cases are as high as 80%.
Nothing against the people who are getting into the system, but with high failure rates either the training isn't very good or the wrong people are getting in to start with, and based on NavCanada dropping SHL and moving to some other setup, I am thinking the latter rather than the former.
(let me put up here that I am a two time interview washout with SHL, I have been through the mill twice and I know where I passed and where I failed)
The basic methods of SHL (beyond the initial testings) has been using is situational questions. "Give an example of when you had a problem with a manager and how did you resolve it" sort of questions. The concept is that past behaviors (actual actions) will forecast and predict your future actions in an entirely different situation.
Long details on a variation of it here: http://www.era.org.in/Library/BestPract ... ctInt1.pdf
Better explaination here: http://www.quintcareers.com/behavioral_ ... ewing.html
Behavioral Interviewing is said to be significantly more successful than other methods. Depending on the study (and the company hyping them) numbers from 25% to 60% more effective than unstructured interviews are mentioned. However, depending on the questions asked and the weighting of the value of the answers, you can end up with a system that is more likely to be successful for certain types of candidates and less successful for others. Effectively, candidates with less life experience, less job experience, and perhaps even less exposure to challenging work enviroments would do better than someone who has worked in a higher pressure enviroment.
BI basically looks at negative situations and sees how you dealt with them. Someone who has little real work experience might not have too many truly negative experiences, and it is likely the situation discussed was resolved reasonably well. However, many people work in high stress environments where the resolution to an issue might not be entirely to everyones satisfaction. That would plummet you down the scoring in a BI interview / testing situation.
As a result, there is potential that the ideal SHL candidate is someone who has never faced much true stress, but has reacted well to small stresses placed on them. Training to be a controller can be a heavy stress environment, and I think that the failure in the system may be as a result of the types of candidates that the current system prefers by it's very nature.
Aptitude testing is a pretty easy deal, it is a real go or no-go deal. It is a very functional way to filter out a large percentage of the people. In two sets of testing, I have seen people unable to fill out their name on the form, unable to follow simple directions (don't open the book until told to), and I am sure the intial tests wipe out about 80-90% of the people who come for testing, either as not able to do the work or not scoring high enough. There is no memory test, although the audio part of the test does require a certain amount of extreme short term memory to make it really work out.
At the end of the day, the results are what they are. For 1000 applicants to testings, about 100 are getting past stage 1, and probably less than 50 are getting past stage 2, and I am sure more are lost after that. Even after all of that filtering and poking and prodding, the TC rates for some of the training classes is extremely high. According to some numbers I have seen, the failure rates in some cases are as high as 80%.
Nothing against the people who are getting into the system, but with high failure rates either the training isn't very good or the wrong people are getting in to start with, and based on NavCanada dropping SHL and moving to some other setup, I am thinking the latter rather than the former.
This is a my sig... I hope you like it.
-
scrambled_legs
- Rank 5
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:14 pm
Re: Screening of ATC candidates
Those rates are typical of all ATS systems across the world. No-one has found the magic key and no-one will anytime soon.
It's not like you're teaching a skill over a matter of years like you are with pilots learning to fly. You don't start out flying a cessna, then transition your way up to a 747 over 10 years. Except for a lucky few who get to start out in Langley or Oshawa etc, you're thrown into the hot seat right out of school. Then you look at the experienced controller checkout rate in places like CYYZ tower and you realize that there are sectors and towers that require extreme skill no matter how long you've had to practice. Ever hear of an aircraft that the airlines can't train 70% of the pilots on after years of flying more and more complex aircraft?
It's not the McDonald's drive thru. You have to throw a lot of flies at the wall before one will stick.
It's not like you're teaching a skill over a matter of years like you are with pilots learning to fly. You don't start out flying a cessna, then transition your way up to a 747 over 10 years. Except for a lucky few who get to start out in Langley or Oshawa etc, you're thrown into the hot seat right out of school. Then you look at the experienced controller checkout rate in places like CYYZ tower and you realize that there are sectors and towers that require extreme skill no matter how long you've had to practice. Ever hear of an aircraft that the airlines can't train 70% of the pilots on after years of flying more and more complex aircraft?
It's not the McDonald's drive thru. You have to throw a lot of flies at the wall before one will stick.
