Air Traffic Management

Once upon a time training managers actively participated in harmonising ATM training  for 3 main reasons

The first being that it was a bottom up approach so they owned the proposals.

The second being that they believed in the benefits of the proposals.

The third being that they knew it was guidelines material with the only aim of improving training and not to oblige them to do anything they would otherwise not do.

Presently, we seem to have come against a hurdle which is hard to overcome.  Training harmonistation has been severely slowed down in certain areas like:

Revisions and additions to CCC

Other guidelines

The reasons may be manifold but here are some:

First is that the initiative many times has drifted from bottom up to top down by interpreting requirements stemming from European Union directives or ESARRS. [Note I write interpreting because mant times a top down direction of what to work on is not clear either - this the whole system is left in vacuum]

Second, some trainingproviders fear that in the past they have been cheated because the work they have participated in with the intent to serve as guidelines was hijacked and became regulation.  They are very defensive not to repeat the same mistake again.

Third the system of defining a working plan has not changed with times.  The system is still looking for consensus from the wron forums where sometimes we are obliged to develop material.  Here the direction setting from the commission is very weak.

It is time to change all this.

A difference needs to be made between obligatory work for which we get  by the European Commission to execute - and which would then support some sort of regulation, and bottom up work to produce guidelines – which will always remain thus, with the aim of sharing knowledge and harmonising / improving training.Â

Until such time a difference is made, we will continue to stumble with every few steps.

[Note - the situation is only gloomy where it comes to guidelines and standards, common material development is still very popular, highly used and highly encouraged.]

Share on Facebook

In recent discussions I have had with training providers, I seem to notice that there is a general tendency to relate more and more initial training [composed of Basic and Rating] for ATCOs to the operational requirements of the units at which the future ATCOs are expected to then work.

If this tendency is true, then European training providers are drifting away from the principles of a common core of ATC training for students.

As a reminder the principle is that at the end of the rating component, the successful student ATCO will be issued with a student license.  This student license does not have any unit related connotation, meaning, it does not say that this student license was issued to work in country A in regional towers with low traffic and this other was issued to work in country B in a complex area environment.

Based on this principle, the European Directive was issued and which gives the right to a holder of a student license to start unit training anywhere in Europe.  This would not be possible if the initial training received is embedded in the particular unit requirements.

Subsequently, in my opinion, ANSPs refusing holders of a student license issued by a training provider other than that which normally provides it with Initial ATC training service, to start unit training on the premise that the initial training received was not adequate would be breaching European law.

If the trend I mentioned above continues, then we will just have to wait for a litigation case which will set a precedent on this issue…

Share on Facebook

To date, in most of the ATC training institutions I know, common core content [CCC] training for ATCOs is delivered in a classical format, that is on-site learning made up of theoretical [mainly classroom] sessions and practical sessions [simulations, some times preceded by part task training].

What would be the benefits and constraints should part of this training be delivered in distance mode?

And how much of this training could already be delivered in distance mode?

Finally, what are the methods and media that could likely be used do deliver CCC in distance mode.

Let’s start by the 1st question first:

What would be the benefits and constraints should part of this training be delivered in distance mode?

There are a number of benefits that I can think of; here I’ll just name 3:

The first benefit I can think of is that the selected candidates [yes, I am still assuming that a selection process takes place prior to the start of training] do not need to move to a location where the course is being delivered, at least in the initial stages.  This will in turn reduce their costs in finding new accommodation arrangements for a few months more [and with the renting prices in some cities these days, this could be of enormous benefit!]

If the company hiring these students is in some ways subsidising the cost of travel and relocation – for example in the form of allowances or direct remuneration or subsidy of accomodation fees, then these costs could be radically reduced during the period when distance learning is being provided.

Thirdly,for the training organistaion, providing distance learning where it fits, frees classroom space for sessions where on-site training is more beneficial over distance learning.  Therefore a gain in effectiveness of space usage.

A coin has 2 sides, so let us now turn to the second part of the questions and describe the constraints; here again I’ll just name 3, but I’ll also hint as to how to overcome these.

The first constraint is that it is new.  It is easier for anyone to keep doing what they have been doing [successfully] for a number of years than it is to venture into new and uncharted seas, after all ATCO training is a regulated environment.  However if budgetary constraints on the students’ employer  and or the training institution, or space constraints for the training institution to grow are bigger, then changing over [and innovating] may well be a competitive advantage over other training centres…

The second constraint I can think of regards motivation:

Since distance learning reduces the physical human contact that is created between peers and between students and the training team, and since this human contact is one of the main sources of motivation, then distance learning may well pose a problem – if motivational issues are not dealt with during the the training programme planning.

Motivational problems may hit both students [who might feel isolated] and instructors [who might also feel that their main platform or outreach has been taken away and that they are now confined to work permanently behind a computer]

To prevent this from happening a number of measure may be taken.  I will only mention some at a very shallow level.

For students:

Distance learning should not mean web based learning in stand -alone mode in front of a computer [like many of today's ATC instructors seem to think].  Instead a series of tools an methods are used to get the students to learn and explore new subjects.  Group sessions [eg. virtual classrooms] can be organised remotely over the web.  Peers can get connected to one another.  Students can get assignments and they can have scheduled 1 on 1 sessions with their tutors – using for example voice enabled chat sessions]  The training could be divided into phases, and the tutor would be able to enter in relationship with the students at every phase.  A number of collaborative sessions between peers could be organised and of course a number of stand alone WBTs could be used!

To improve motivation the students could also be invited for a first week of on -site presentations.  This would allow them to meet each other and the training staff and also for introductions to be done on items such as expectations, culture, rigour, ways of doing etc.  Also a social bonding could be created and this could then be used as an advantage to learning during distance mode.

For instructors:

We are all afraid of what we do not know and understand, so the first steps should be explaining and providing training to instructors on how to deliver training in distance – mode.  They should also be involved in the development phase of the programme.  The instruments they use should be user friendly and ones which facilitate their life.  Finally the reasons why the shift is done and the fact that the personal contact with the students would not be taken away, but just changed should be explained…

Now let us turn to question 2:

How much of this training could already be delivered in distance mode?

In the ATCO CCC, a good chunk of the basic training could in my opinion be already be delivered in distance mode. I will come to what I mean by ‘already’ later on.

Most of the subjects contain objectives which are at a taxonomy level 1 or 2.  These objectives normally require knowledge and understanding of the corpus included in the objective.  Knowledge acquisition is something that could be thought in distance learning.  Subjects such as meteorology and navigation, as well as others could be almost completely covered by distance learning [taking my description of the provision and not the stand alone WBT mode].

At this stage I would stop at objectives in the levels 1 & 2 categories for the simple reason that from level 3 onwards we start looking at application of knowledge and skill acquisition. Â

A word about the ‘already’:  I think that stopping for the time being on level 1 and 2 would be a good idea for 2 main reasons:  Firstly because skill acquisition requires different types of techniques that would need to be developed to be effective and efficient in distance mode – and I do not think we are there yet – but we will get there.  Secondly because with any new thing it is better if it is phased – to enable everyone to understand what it takes in a more paced way -rather than jumping into the deep end as they say!

And now the third question:

What are the methods and media that could likely be used do deliver CCC in distance mode?

This question has partly been explored in the 1st question, however here are some methods and tools.

The right blend should consider that the training experience should be effective and efficient and realistic.

Synchronous sessions on particular subjects with student – student – tutor interactions.  This is like a remote classroom session.

Delivery of training notes and video casts and pod casts containing knowledge

Assignments and a focus on 1 on 1 student tutor – chats – voice chats

Asynchronous WBT modules

Access to a knolwedge library

Possibiity of contact the tutor via email outside scheduled time

Peer collaborative assignments – where peers learn together and from each other

Etc. Etc

To conclude

So to conclude this rather lengthy post:

I believe it is possible to deliver considerable parts of the CCC for ATCOs [objectives at levels 1 & 2] via distance learning

I believe that this can have benefits mainly to the students [pockets] and to the organisations effectiveness in fulfilling their training mission of quality and growth

The quality would not be impaired

Proper planning should be done – in particular about the subjects to be thought, the blend, the motivation of staff and students and resources.

Well that is it.  If you have more thoughts on this, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Share on Facebook