It has been a long time since I last wrote on this blog. I thought no one was reading it, but I was wrong. So here I am again!
This time I have been thinking about the training progression for student air traffic controllers and wondering whether it is the most efficient manner to train students.
Surely it follows a logical flow: It starts with mainly theory and gradually evolves into practice. The logical theory behind this is that a student needs to know the theory before he or she can practice.
But is this efficient?
What I mean is that: is teaching theory before practice an efficient way?
The major difficulty and failure area for student air traffic controllers lies with the skill capacity needed to control aircraft. A significant number of students, even after sophisticated screening during selection seem not to have the required capacity to control aircraft. Equally true, ATC training seems not to have yet found the right methods to teach anyone who is willing and motivated to become an air traffic controller the necessary skills to do the job. An innate level of the skill set is still a pre-requirement.
Since the difficulty is with the skill, why do we wait a few months before we start training for this area?
Is this not a waste of time?
Why should we not be able to discover at an earlier stage whether or not the student has what it takes to make it?
Why do we waste a few months of our resources and money, and of the students time when we could do it earlier?
So the question is: is a few months worth of theoretical training necessary before the student can start to practice?
For me the answer is no.
In a simulated environment, one could easily create a basic set of rules [that do not condradict the real ones] that could be quickly taught to the students for them to start practicing. For example, the full phraseology is not necessary, basic commands such as climb, descend, turn, proceed, etc. could be taught in a few hours.
Similarly the complexity of route structures, letters of agreement, advanced procedures, the encoding and decoding of route points and location indicators, etc. could also come later. We could easily teach students that this aircraft represented by this symbol needs to go from A to B via C and D, it will enter the sector at Level 250 and needs to exit at Level 300, etc. Students would need to keep 1000 feet separation between aircraft and 5nm between two which have less than this vertical separation minimum
The theory would then come after an initial period where in the student would have demonstrated that most probably [one can never be 100% sure, but at least there is a better indication than with our current training path] he or she has the innate skill necessary to successfully complete training.
I think if we did this, we would be saving ourselves money and time.
We would also be saving the students’ time.
Share on Facebook
