Percent that pass

This forum has been developed to discuss ATS related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

TheJudge
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:30 am

Re: Percent that pass

Post by TheJudge »

CapitalGuy wrote:"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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
HeadingAltitudeSpeed
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Percent that pass

Post by HeadingAltitudeSpeed »

CapitalGuy wrote: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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CapitalGuy
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:54 am

Re: Percent that pass

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TA/RA
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:02 pm

Re: Percent that pass

Post by TA/RA »

CapitalGuy wrote: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! :D
---------- ADS -----------
 
wingandaprayer
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

Re: Percent that pass

Post by wingandaprayer »

CapitalGuy wrote: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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CapitalGuy
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:54 am

Re: Percent that pass

Post by CapitalGuy »

I am a controller for Nav Canada. My point was I am not a 'washout troll' as someone had suggested. My POV is that our training system is and has always been lacking. The fact that a 30% qualification rate (assuming that's accurate) seems quite acceptable to anyone is an alarming indictment of our culture. If any system is only 30% efficient, it needs fixing.

I was illuminating the fact that military pilot training is no walk in the park. I would suggest it's right up there with the most difficult ATC training, and in fact more demanding than most. I'm not comparing skillsets. I'm saying that if the RCAF can acheive 85% success then don't tell me that we can't do better than 30% in ATC. Even fighter pilot training in Cold Lake does a whole lot better than 30%, and it is, without doubt, the most demanding training in aviation, bar none.

Anything can be taught if you have the right student, the right instructor and the right system. We (controllers) all know that the learning really kicks into high gear after you qualify. No better teacher than experience. I still maintain that the original statement I took exception to (low checkout rate has nothing to do with the quality of instruction) is ridiculous. It is not the only factor but it's certainly one of them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
cyeg66
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:59 pm
Location: of my mind is in gutter.

Re: Percent that pass

Post by cyeg66 »

CapitalGuy wrote: I still maintain that the original statement I took exception to (low checkout rate has nothing to do with the quality of instruction) is ridiculous. It is not the only factor but it's certainly one of them.
Nope, IFRATC was closer to the mark than you. How would you improve checkout rates? I suppose we could lower our expectations... Oh, and threaten harm to those 20%+ of students who voluntarily 'pull the plug' even before getting down to the real work. Don't get me wrong, though, I do agree with some of the arguments you're making.

By the way, your Hornet success rate comparison is a little disingenuous, to say the least.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CapitalGuy
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:54 am

Re: Percent that pass

Post by CapitalGuy »

Diengenuous how?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “ATS Question Forum”