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..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.
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.