Of knowledge and culture.

We could say that to be successful in a particular field one would need a combination of ingredients, rather like a good balanced recipe. These ingredients are:

•  knowledge of what needs to be done,

• knowledge and application of how to behave in the environment and

• good doses of luck, audacity and timing.

 (this article appeared in the latest issue of the Hindisght magazine)

It would be very interesting to have a look at how luck, audacity and timing play their role in successful ATC, but that would need a separate article with a focus on ¨The other factors¨ (maybe in a future edition of Hindsight?). In this one I will focus on the first two points on the list which, for the sake of brevity, we could call:

• Knowledge the one I referred to as ‘knowledge of what needs to be done’ and

• Culture (short for: ¨understanding and thriving in the culture¨) the I referred to as ‘knowledge and application of how to behave….’

Whereas knowledge could be considered as a ´hard´ component – you know it and apply it or you don´t, culture is softer, and the subtleties of behaviour are harder to teach and/or learn.

 Of learning:

In any learning activity there is both formal and informal learning. We could say that formal learning is what is contained in a training syllabus and therefore what will be formally taught in a training establishment. Informal learning, on the other hand, is what a person learns that will help them in the tasks they are to carry out, but which is not itself part of the syllabus.

To illustrate the four items above, if we consider a student learning how to drive, then:

• Knowledge is what the student knows in terms of traffic signs, right of way and of handling of the car.

• Culture is how to stay calm (or lose it), how to behave in traffic jams or in busy parking lots, when to use or not the horn, etc.

• Formal learning would be what the student learns on the books and during the practice hours with their instructor.

• Informal learning would be what they learn (or shouldn´t learn) by observing their father drive through the years.

ATC training

If we apply all the above to initial ATC training, we see that in terms of formal training, we have many hard objectives focusing on the knowledge component – e.g. all the basic subjects like Navigation, Meteorology, ATM, … (with the exclusion of Human Factors) and all the procedures in the Rating part including most of the practice in the simulator. At the end of this, the student who passes will ¨know what needs to be done¨, will obtain a student licence and will be eligible to start unit training.

Formal learning in terms of culture is mainly covered in the Human Factors modules and in others dealing with the professional environment. These modules teach how to ¨behave in the environment¨ and include some application through role play and familiarisation visits.

This is already a very good start, however since the ATC culture is very rich, in my opinion one can do more – and in many schools actually more is done. In the definition of ATC culture, I would include amongst other aspects how to behave in an operations room, how to work in a team, safety culture*, and the concept of service in terms of efficiency and order.

In terms of a training organisation, it is never too early to introduce as much ATC culture to students as possible. It is true that initial training is detached from the operations room and that there are still training phases later on, such as the on the job training, when the student will have the opportunity to learn culture. However from experience, on the one hand students are eager for information on how it will feel to work as a controller and are sponges for behaviours and attitudes (good and bad ones) in the ATC world and on the other hand having the students already assimilating part of the culture as early as possible is of great benefit for their understanding of what the ATC world is about.

Culture can be transmitted during training in a number of ways, a couple of which are:

• imitating the real environment whenever it benefits training and

• raising awareness amongst the instructional team, especially the simulator instructors, about their function as role models for the profession.

In the rest of this article I will develop on these two aspects which in the end are intrinsically linked with one another.

Imitating the environment

When imitating the life environment during training, it is important to keep the balance between two things:

On the one hand that students are still learning and therefore that it is normal to do, and learn from, mistakes, and

On the other hand that even though they are working in a simulated environment, there is a certain degree of seriousness and responsibility and that everyone needs to do their best to ensure safe services.

 * how a controller behaves professionally to ensure that while he or she is working, safety is facilitated at all times and that the system within which he or she works maintains an adequate level of safety or improves it),

On other aspects, the same should apply: If it is forbidden to use mobile or smart phones in an operational room, the same should be applied in a simulator. If it is a good practice to be at least five minutes early for a hand over in the operational world, then it is also positive to teach the student punctuality, the time a good handover needs, and the need to be there a little early so that their colleagues can have a full and well deserved break. Students should be taught not only the hard and fast procedures (knowledge) but also how to address and talk to colleagues, adjacent centres, pilots and others. They should not only be taught how to execute a procedure, but also that they are part of a safety chain and that there are defensive ways of controlling that will strengthen that chain. They should learn that procedures are there for a reason and that the justifications for bending or omitting them are very rare if not nonexistent….Teaching the culture, improves safety awareness and safety.

And who needs to transmit all these softer elements of behaviour and attitude? Well, the instructor.

The instructor as a role model

As mentioned in the example above, a lot of what a new driver has learned is what he or she has observed their parents, senior siblings, or significant others doing. It is like that in all aspects of life; our children do what we as parents, what society at large, what elder siblings, what TV and what cinema do. Our culture is taught informally through observation, trial and error. There are some who learn quickly, some who learn even more to the extent of manipulating others or of challenging the status quo, and others still who never learn and end up in trouble.

Now ATC being quite a closed environment, all that parenting, sibling, cinema and TV, especially in the early (but many times super intensive) days of initial training is condensed in the few instructors who have lived in and are part of the ATC culture that the students can interact with, observe and scrutinise.

So it is very important that we instructors are aware of our role and that while walking on the catwalk we need to act as positively and as naturally as possible.

What follows are a number of areas where we instructors, apart from teaching hard and fast procedures, need to be aware of our role in passing on ATC culture in the knowledge that we are ourselves being observed for such behaviour.

Setting limits

It is very important that we instructors set limits to what is and is not allowed in a simulator, both in terms of controlling traffic and in attitude and behaviour off the mike. We also need to be aware that we are under observation as we interact with our colleagues, on how we treat diverging opinions with respect, on how we correct mistakes, on how we follow rules…..

In terms of safety, for example, it is of benefit, as I commented above, to allow the student to try out new things and to push his or her limit, however this should never go to the extent as to the impression that everything could be tried out and that everything is allowed, after all ATC training is not a videogame, even if it may look like one to someone who knows nothing about its culture and goals. I am a firm believer that safety, and its paramount priority, that in our job we cannotbring aircraft too close together, shall be transmitted at all times to students.

On the same theme but outside of the immediate operational environment, we as instructors are being observed for our attitude in the simulation room: arriving late, excessive talking or laughing during an exercise should be stopped both for students and for us. ATC culture does not allow that.

Teamwork

Teamwork is another area where the instructor is being observed. In training theory we insist a lot on the necessity of good teamwork, both between controllers in a unit and between all those involved in the chain. Not all students come to training with an innate disposition to working in a team and that a team will help them and will improve safety. Some have individualistic traits that need to be curbed. In addition to teaching procedures, we should observe and correct students’ attitude towards one another and with other people in the environment such as pilots or assistants. Also, charity begins at home and we are part of that chain and we also work within a team. We should not forget that how we relate professionally with others, such as pseudo pilots or administrative members of the team is being observed by our future controllers, who are registering: ¨This is how a real controller behaves¨.

The ¨In the real world we do it differently¨ syndrome

Students look for guidance in instructors on how to apply the procedures there are being taught.

Some instructors feel the need to go further than simply teach procedures and it is of great benefit for a student to work with an instructor who explains the background as to why a procedure exists and to explain the links and rationale between procedures and how we used these with real traffic. I remember to this day an instructor on my initial ATC course who would take time to explain to my colleagues and I how he had used a certain procedure on a given day and why it came in very convenient for him to know it. He was patient and a good story teller. He used to make us feel like we were already working with him in the ops room.

On the other hand, there are only very few things which are worse than an instructor telling a student that ´in the real world´ things are done differently and that a procedure is only being used for ´school purposes´. The contextual difference between the application of a procedure in an academy and in operations is considerable, but instructors need to understand that a student who has only a few months’ experience in an academy and has not yet worked in operations cannot fully understand this context. Running before learning to walk is as illogical as trying to teach complex operational contexts to students who do not have the experience yet to appreciate them.

Boredom is an Instructor´s worst enemy

Students are still learning things instructors (should) already know. Students are still pushing their traffic threshold; ours should have already been pushed up. Students are seeing an exercise for the first time: for us it is maybe the tenth or twentieth time we are seeing the same exercise. The student is performing; we are observing.

All the elements above mean that our mental activity rate is many times slower than that of the student. This is part of training and part of our job. We should never try to make things interesting for our benefit. We should not, for example, ask the students to try new things that they have not covered. We should not, as mentioned in the part just above, oblige the student to do something in a different way to that which they have been taught already if the main reason for doing this is not for their benefit but for us to moderate our boredom. We need to remember that students have a very limited set of tools in their bag and they are still learning how these tools fit together. Adding more new tools to it will not make them better or quicker, it will just overwhelm them. It will give them the impression that you are teaching them a completely different thing to that taught on the course and we risk creating an impression of conflict between our team of instructors. It reflects badly on us as a team and on our message of teamwork.

We should neither fall into the trap of showing disinterest nor fall asleep during an exercise (like one of my instructors used to do sixteen years ago when I was a student – I still remember it!). Before we arrive at that point, it is time to move on in our career and do something else!

In conclusion, in this article I have tried to highlight the fact that ATC culture is something that ATC training professionals should be aware of as something to actively teach because it helps students to make sense of the working world and of its modus operandi. Teaching culture is not achieved mostly through formal training, since knowledge about a culture only goes some way, so the main way is by being immersed in it. Culture is soft and informal. We instructors are the ones who are best placed, in the first days of a controller’s career, to begin developing awareness of this culture. This needs to be done by being clear on the behaviour expected from the students and by being prepared to correct and comment upon this and by being aware that instructors are role models and that our behaviour in the simulation is being scrutinised by our future colleagues, who would like to look a bit like us!

Before I close I would like to make a point on one final cultural trait – Professionalism. ATC is a profession which we should be proud of it. As instructors we are the initiators (I intentionally did not write bouncers!) to the profession for all the students who eventually will become our colleagues. We need to carry the banner of our profession high. We should never talk down our profession, and when we need to criticise things (since the right sort of as criticism is healthy) we should do it constructively and in a way which can be understood by students with only a few months of experience. The analogy might be like talking about feelings to a six year old. We also need to implicitly pass on the message to our students that they made the right choice, that they are in a great professional environment and that it is good to be in ATC. The best way we can communicate this is with the message which is written all over our body.

Share on Facebook

In terms of areas for improvement, there are a few about which I would like to comment:

As a premise, I would like to start with reproducing the first part of article 2 of the regulation which says that the regulation lays down detailed rules for the issuing, suspension and revocation of air traffic control and student air traffic control licences and of associated ratings, endorsements, medical certificates and of certification of training organisations and the conditions of their validity, renewal, re-validation and use.

1 On the use of instructors in transitional training as part of unit training:

If we take 2 definitions from article 3 of the regulation:

Definition 12b states that unit training ” including transitional training prior to on- the-job training and on-the-job training, leading to the grant of an air traffic controller licence”

then, definition 9:

‘instructor endorsement’ means the authorisation entered on and forming part of a licence, indicating the competence of the holder to give on-the-job training instruction;

We can easily interpret that one does not necessarily be an OJT instructor to instruct in during transitional training, because unit training is divided into 2 parts and the instructor endorsement is only valid for the second part.

However this interpretation is somewhat blurred if one refers to definition 15 of the same article 3 which say that:

‘Unit Training Plan’ means an approved plan detailing the processes and timing required to allow the unit procedures to be applied to the local area under the supervision of an on-the-job-training instructor.

Combining the three above I think that the regulation is either saying that:

The unit training plan is a plan only for the OJT part of unit training - as it needs to be done under the supervision of the OJTI and according to definition 9 only OJT needs to be done under the supervision of an OJTI

or

That all unit training needs to be done under the supervision of an OJTI, meaning that definition 9 is incomplete as the endorsement should also be valid for transitional training as defined in definition 12b.

This unfortunately raises a big space for interpretation between different regulators across Europe, making things unequal depending on which state you are in. My opinion on the subject is that you do not need to be an active OJTI to give transitional training, i.e. you do not need at that given point in time to hold a valid unit endorsement on the unit you are instructing. However, a minimum level of qualification on the unit endorsement that will be instructed is necessary; for example ‘having held a valid unit endorsement in the 3 years preceding the provision of training’ or ‘has showed through previous training, up to date knowledge of the unit which will be instructed…

2. Who can issue new rating endorsements

A second unclear area still remaining is the process to be followed to issue new rating endorsements and which certified training provider (initial or unit or both) who would be responsible for the training towards this.  Article 8 states that holders of a student ATC licence shall be authorised to provide ATC services in accordance with the rating and rating endorsements contained in the licence. This implies that an initial ATC training provider has to give training towards at least one rating endorsement. But what about the case of a student ATCO or a qualified ATCO who wishes to obtain another rating endorsement; which entity would be capacitated to train him?

3. Could one end up with 2 licences simultaneously: an ATCO and a student ATCO at a given point in time?

To follow on the above, the regulation does not cater, in my opinion, for conversion training, that is training for a qualified controller to qualify in another rating, for example a tower controller converting in approach or area control. The regulation does not cater of how a new rating is issued and the only path described in this regulation to get another rating is to follow initial training (it is neither clear that part of the initial training could be validated as being covered in the original initial training the ATCO received).

If we follow this line of thought, then there is no procedure described of how the new rating will be inscribed on a licence. Since no procedure for conversion training exists in the regulation and since the only way described to issue a new rating is via initial training, then I deduce that a qualified ATCO who obtains a new rating needs to be issued with a new Student Licence.  Note that this is not clear, and I am only arriving to this through deduction and that therefore I presume that this would be open to different interpretation in different countries.

If my scenario is correct, then a current controller will see herself issued with a student ATC licence whilst already holding a valid ATC licence. If this is the case, then, one person could end up holding more than one ATC licence (example in the case of exchanging the newly student licence received in a second EU country, going through unit training and receiving an ATC licence, whilst retaining the original ATC licence with the first rating the controller had obtained before).

I do not wish to say that the above will take place easily, but that the procedure is unclear and leaves a blank when it comes to the procedure of adding ratings to a controller’s licence.

4. Language endorsement

The first paragraph of article 13 states:

Air traffic controllers and student air traffic controllers shall not exercise the privileges of their licence unless they have an English language endorsement.

Does this mean that a student ATC licence could be issued without the person having a minimum English proficiency of level 4 but that the person cannot work (exercise the privilege of) on her licence? Or does it mean that before the licence is issued the candidate needs to have a minimum level 4 in English?

Article 8 paragraph 3 states

The student air traffic controller licence shall contain the language endorsement(s) and at least one rating and if applicable, one rating endorsement.

So from the two above I interpret that a student shall have at least one language endorsement which does not need to be English to be issued with a student ATC licence but that to do OJT (to exercise the privileges) the student needs the English language endorsement.

Again subject to interpretation and potential  difference in application in different Member States.

5. Instructor endorsement

Article 14 part 2b says that:

Applicants for the issue of an instructor endorsement shall:
(b) have exercised the privileges of an air traffic controller licence for an immediately preceding period of at least one year, or such longer duration as is fixed by the competent authority having regard to the ratings and endorsements for which instruction is given

I have two problems understanding this:

1: What does a: “an immediately preceding period of at least one year” mean? Does it mean that the licence or rating or endorsement was valid during the 12 months preceding the issuing of the OJTI endorsement? or is there a minimum period in the year preceding (e.g. 3 months work minimum or a minimum number of hours accomplished within the year) or does it have to be a full year?

I say that this is yet another area which will be subject to interpretation and therefore differently applied in different states.

2: What does it mean: “or such longer duration as is fixed by the competent authority having regard to the ratings and endorsements for which instruction is given”? does this mean that the longer duration depends on the rating and endorsement? And what endorsements are we talking about? Rating? Unit? Both?

Does this mean that controller A working in Tower 1 with an average of 10 movements a day and who has worked for a minimum amount of hours on the unit endorsement in the TWR enough to keep it valid during the preceding 12 months, then do unit training in TWR 2, which is a country’s major airport and international hub, and on the same day she checks out on one sector she can on the same day start instructing others on the job? Does this regulation not recommend a minimum period of time or working hours in the unit for which training is to be provided before the instructor endorsement can be used at to give training at this particular unit?
This area is the least clear in the regulation.

To continue with the instructor endorsement, part 3 of article 11 says that the instructor endorsement shall be valid for a renewable period of three years. But it does not say what the criteria for renewal should be. If there are no criteria (such as refresher training for example or an assessment of performance as OJTI) then why would renewal of such an endorsement be necessary?

6. Mistake!

There is a mistake which creep ed in in the regulatory text (at least the English version) of the official journal publication -11.8.2001. official journal of the EU 206/31): Part 2 of Article 27 talks of a Chapter IV.
Chapter IV does not exist in the regulation. I assume that the regulation should refer to Annex 2.
It is quite a serious mistake, I find, that an official and binding regulation, refers to something that does not exist!

7. Mutual recognition of licences.

ATC licences, student licences, associated ratings and language endorsements are mutually recognised. Instructor endorsement is not. Why? Is this because one would need a unit endorsement on which to exercise the privileges of the OJTI endorsement? and if yes, once the condition is met, could not the other parts of article 14 (i.e. to have completed an approved instructors’  training) be mutually recognised?

In conclusion:

A new regulation which is directly applicable in all EU member states has entered into force last September 2011. This is another step towards harmonisation of the ATC licencing, training and certification process and an improvement over the previous directive where each member state had the ‘freedom’ of transposing the rules in a different manner.l

The new text (except of the fact of being regulation of course) does not bring a revolution in the system, even though a number of improvements have been introduced such as the mutual recognition of student licences and the need of English language endorsement. It also brings in many areas clearer structure in the articles.

It unfortunately also leaves a number of areas unclear and which will still give rise to different interpretations across the EU, such as the case of the instructor endorsement, who can instruct during the transitional sub-phase of unit training, and other items as have been mentioned in this post.

Share on Facebook

The first difference, of course, is that while the new set of rules are considered ‘Regulation’ which is `binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States` the former document was a directive, meaning that Member States were obliged to bring into force the laws, regulations and provisions to comply with the directive. The first is directly applicable as is, the second was applicable indirectly through transposition into local law. An EU regulation normally has a higher harmonising effect across the Union than a directive would.

This article is divided into 2 post, the first part will focus on a comparison between this regulation and the EU directive, the second, which will be published in the 1st week of 2012 will focus more on the areas of improvements that I see needed to this new regulation.

Comparison:

First and foremost, in essence the regulation is an evolution of the principles laid down in the directive. The regulation in my opinion does not constitute a revolution. I feel that the writers of the regulation have attempted to improve the coherence and clarity of the rules described and to add information where it was missing.

The first addition worth noting is the initial consideration point 7 where the regulation mandates EASA to develop certification specifications, accepted means of compliance and guidance material to facilitate the necessary regulatory uniformity.  EASA was not mentioned in the 2006 directive, mainly because it had not yet endorsed ATM regulation within its scope back then.
Also, in relation to EASA, in article 4c, it has been attributed the competence over the certification of any organisation that has its principle place of operation outside the territory of the EU. In this sense EASA is not anymore only a supervisor (or regulator) of regulators, but will also need to apply regulation itself.

Second novelty is that the scope of the regulation has been enlarged (article 2.2.c) to persons and organisations involved in the licensing, training, testing, checking and medical assessment of applicants. This article is new in itself but its contents are part clarification of the scope of what the directive was about (but which was not clear) and part novelty, as in the case of the medical assessment.

Third, a new scope of this regulation over the directive is that it obliges Member States to ensure that the services provided by military personnel to the public is of a safety level equivalent to that offered by civil service providers. This scope widening also opens the door to approach military ATC service provision to its civil counterpart, opening the door to civil ATC licences to military personnel.

Fourth, in article 6 (a) cases of misconduct have been added as being a valid reason for the suspension of a license or endorsement(s) or rating(s)

Fifth, to become an air traffic controller, one does not need anymore to hold a university entry level of education as the new regulation defines that `any other secondary education qualification which enables the candidate to complete ATC training` would be a valid entry level. This for me is a significant improvement in this area, as, from a given level of education, which does not necessarily need to correlate with university entry level, a new population could be allowed into the profession and who could make a very good career in it.

Sixth, the second part of article 10 of the directive which said that Member States, for safety reasons could limit the maximum age of working under a specific unit endorsement has been deleted.

Seventh, an article that requires English language proficiency as part of your student license before starting to exercise the privelages of such a licence has been added, even if in my opinion, the way that it has been written leaves a door open to interpretations as I will comment in the next post.

Eighth, there has been further elaboration about the validity of medical certification in article 16 and the introduction of a new article (17) about reduced medical fitness.

Ninth, the tasks of competent authorities (article 22) have been increased to take into account the new language proficiency and the reduction of medical fitness provisions.

Tenth and final comparison, the new regulation establishes mutual recognition for student licences, something that was not the case before, and which in my opinion, since the harmonisation achieved in initial training through the common core content training objectives, is something which is more evident than the mutual recognition and comparisons of two ATC licences where the licence does not describe prior experience, traffic levels and unit complexities, level and type of refresher training, etc…What should be more comparable than two school leavers who have studied against a harmonised set of objectives?

In the next post I will look at areas of improvement to the regulation.

Share on Facebook

Image courtesy of whatcomsymphony.com

Hello dear reader of AriaTM,

In this short post I would like to thank you for following this blog.

In 2011, the blog has been visited over 3240 times, against 2650 in 2010 (22% increase) and just over 500 in 2009.
The top 3 countries visiting are the US, Spain and the UK in that order.

In 2011, the blog saw 11 new posts (admittedly too few) on subjects related to ATC, Training, Environment, Human Factors and Aviation Business amongst others.

Next year I would like to continue bringing insight, opinion and ATM related articles and wish to evolve into a collaborative space, where different experts submit posts. This is a wish I have had for a while but which is being hard to realise (yet). If you would like to submit posts to this blog, drop me a line via the contact area or via the fb / twitter pages and we can talk about it…
I will also give a fresher look and feel to the blog…and I aim for over 4000 visits.

In the mean time, I wish to thank you for reading and wish you a happy and successful 2012, and please enjoy the next post about the 2011 EU regulation about ATC licences, training and certification.

Share on Facebook

¨FABEC States are Establishing Formal Structures

On 19 October, the first Provisional FABEC Council meeting took place. With this meeting, FABEC has initiated the formal change from project status to operational status. By building up the structures almost one and half years before the formal deadline set by the European Commission, the six FABEC States Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland strongly underline their commitment to improve cooperation in air navigation services to enhance safety, capacity and flight efficiency in the FABEC airspace. The FABEC Council will be the main governance body of the FABEC Cooperation as laid down in the FABEC Treaty which is under national ratification.

To safeguard the progress and to develop concrete improvements, the FABEC Council will be supported by Committees and the FABEC States Bureau. In addition, the FABEC Council decided to establish an Air Navigations Service Provider Consultative Board whose task is to advise the FABEC Council on air navigation services aspects. All FABEC bodies are composed of civil and military representatives and will be provisional until the FABEC Treaty has been ratified by all countries.

FABEC brings together the six States of Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland, their civil and military air navigation service providers as well as EUROCONTROL’s four-State air traffic control centre in Maastricht. The civil FABEC ANSPs employ a total of 17,700 people. 5,400 are traffic controllers. 55 % of all European traffic takes place in the FABEC area. ¨

When I read this, I could not help not thinking of the similarities with the Eurocontrol (and European bureaucracy) structure:

• Governed by a Provisional Council (Eurocontrol has exactly had a Provisional Council since the 1990ies)
• The FABEC council will be supported by committees….so does Eurocontrol
• FABEC will establish an Air Navigation Service Provider Consultative Board….So does Eurocontrol, It has an ANS Board
• All FABEC bodies composed of civil and military representatives…So does Eurocontrol
• There is a FABEC treaty which still needs to be ratified by all countires (this the name of Provisional for the council) so exactly does Eurocontrol.
• Finally the mission / commitment: ¨ their commitment to improve cooperation in air navigation services to enhance safety, capacity and flight efficiency in the FABEC airspace¨ Is this not the same for Eurocontrol?

So my questions are: Is Eurocontrol too ´big´ that the core states need an elite group in which to push their cooperation and improvement?

Is Eurocontrol´s structure that good to imitate it that closely? Then why that much criticism?

Finally what will the relationship between FABEC, the European Commission and other Eurocontrol states be in the future, or better, given another few FABS with a similar structure to that announced by FABEC, what will Eurocontrol´s future be?

Share on Facebook

Basically this is what I think a student should do in sequencial order to progress well in the practical part of training:

1 Learn the procedures well (because,  if you don’t know what you should do, 1 you won’t stand a chance to do it well and 2 you will spend a lot of your mental capacity to think about what should be done).

2 Automate basic skills / practices as early as possible, such as:

• Talking on the frequency using correct phraseology, whilst manipulating strips
• Manipulating strips (writing information and reordering them) whilst taking action
• Follow up actions with necessary coordination.

3 Get into the custom (as I do not want to call it habit) of Scanning the strips, then the runway, then the air, to update your situational awareness and to make plans. Take action, and recommence with the scanning. Do this continuously.

4 Do not learn situation in boxes (meaning isolated from other situations) but more like pieces of a puzzle (meaning with those intruding and protruding bits which link with other pieces of a puzzle)

Meaning like this: and not like this:

5 In continuation with 4, continuously make links between situations. Continuously create your image by using pieces of the puzzle.  This is what the controllers refer to as ‘ I have the picture’ meaning I know what is going on in my area of responsibility and I know what I need to do (what procedures to apply, which actions to take and in what order of priority).

6 Use logic and common sense. In air traffic control, procedures are applied for a reason. UNDERSTAND the reason before applying something, otherwise you are just parrot applying what you have been told.

7 And finally DO NOT LEARN situations or exercises by heart. Air traffic control is a complex system where the environment (weather, type of aircraft, technology, …) and different people (with different reaction rates, different situational contexts, etc.) interact continuously. Even if many situations resemble each other, no 2 situations are exactly the same, and it is enough for 1 parameter to change, e.g. delaying 1 aircraft, a wind change, different type of aircraft, etc. to have a complete different situation.
Learning situations by heart (and I know that many students fall into the temptation to learn parts of the examinations by heart based on what other students tell them – even if they have no guarantee that it is exactly the same exam that they will do) is most of the times DETREMENAL to your performance, because you stop acting by using your awareness, understanding and appreciation of a situation and start reacting mechanically to a scenario.

With these 7 tips, I hope that if you are a future student, you will have some more help as on how to learn effectively during practical training.  If you are an instructor, maybe you can use some of these tips, or contribute by providing others.

And you, instructor, students, or controller alike, what do you think? Leave us a comment…

Share on Facebook

This website is the OBSA: The Observatory of Sustainability in Aviation: www.obsa.org

This observatory is  a reference point on the analysis of the sustainability of the triple bottom line: environment, social and economic factors on the aviation sector.

Of the triple bottom line, environment seems to be the one winning most shares, but to its merit, finally, I found a one spot shop where I can find answers to some of the questions I asked in previous posts about the environment and the future of aviation.

One very interesting theme for me is the information given about bio fuels. Now I can read and dig further into where the industry is heading towards in this area.  Well done to OBSA!

As a word of improvement, I notice that the English site contain unfortunately only a fragment of  its Spanish equivalent. From my knowledge, OBSA seems to be on the leading edge of information about sustainability in aviation in Europe, if not world-wide. A more complete English site could give further coverage to this valuable work.

And now I am going to read some more articles through OBSA and most probably I will update some of my previous posts related with environment…

(OBSA is an independent project, initiative of the Spanish State company SENASA.)

Share on Facebook

This edition focuses on fatigue in air traffic control. The articles presented range from how fatigue can affect performance to practical hints on how to use caffeine (and how not to abuse it!) to combat fatigue.

The magazine blends the theoretical with the practical in a perfect way. It is an easy but useful read in these hot (in some places at least) summer months, not to just read at work, but also to take to the beach or home and read before a sweet summer siesta

Click here to download a free copy of  Hindsight on fatigue

Share on Facebook

During SES1, the commission left the intitiative to its member states and alliances between states and their ANSPs were happening slowly. In 2008, with SESII and seeing that nothing much had happened since, the revised regulation stated that each member state should be part of a FAB by 2012.

With this rate, if ever this will happen, the first FABs will operate at least a decade and a half after their inception – And it is still to be proved that they will bring with them the advocated gains in efficiency and cost effectiveness.

But what makes me somewhat wonder is their name:  Functional.

To get neighbouring states to work together through a regulation, is that really functional or is it more Political?

If they were really to be ‘functional’ why limit the agreements to neighbouring states on upper airspace?  For me, it would be more functional if for example:

• All the oceanic centres: Scotland, Ireland, France and Portugal would join into one block. They have the same function, they can gain economy of scale for providing the same service with same expertise, same structure, same equipment…
• Or why would airports of a similar scale and traffic type not come together?  For example all hub airports: Heathrow, Roissy, Frankfurt, Schiphol…do they not have the same function?  Similar management of traffic, of information, similar equipment and expertise. Would that not bring added value to the system?
• Or why lower airspace for stong citypairs E.g . Frankfurt – Paris  not come together and optimise the flow?

Well, I am not saying that these have to be the solutions, as this is exactly the point. A function should be defined depending on a particular need and not simply say that there is only one function and that this is an agreement between neighbouring states for upper airspace.

Real functional blocks would happen when two partners come together and describe the function they will make more efficient by working together…

Then there is the other conundrum: Is the commission for a liberlised market that would look for efficiencies and for consolidation by itself? Or is it for intervening directly on composition and structure of operations?  I thought it was more of the former, but in FABs it is acting more like in the latter. To me it seems it is a hybrid solution which is will not lead too far.

ANS provision should be liberalised. The European union should build a strong safety regulatory framework and should federalise regulation. It should push States to liberalise their ANSPs. In this way the stakeholders of the ANS system (e.g. Airlines) could directly buy shares into ANSPs and drive them to efficiency and cost effectiveness (while being obliged to follow European regulation). It would even allow them to earn from service charges!  Why does the commission push through regulation the creation of Functional airspace blocks (which are NOT functional) and yet allow states (like Ireland for example) with service provision and regulation still under the same corporate structure? (e.g. the Irish Aviation Authority)

To conclude:

Functional Airspace Blocks are not functional they are Political.

Political Airspace Blocks are not Functional but Unfunctional.

So instead of FABs we have P[olitical] U[nfunctional] B[lock]S.

And now it is time for a drink…to forget our sorrows.

Share on Facebook

For those who are not familiar, Eurocontrol Agency executes a number of projects and delivers a number of services on behalf of its 38 member states or directly for on behalf of the European commission.  Some of the projects it manages produces deliverables which historically have been turned into services that Eurocontrol then delivers. Some of these services, like for example the CFMU, are pan-European services, whilst others (one can almost say with ease: the majority) are provided to a number of entities (be it regulatory units, service providers (ATS or training or other) or other parts of industry) within only a limited number of member states.

Right now, mainly because of the 2 reasons I mentioned in the introduction paragraph, Eurocontrol, together with its stakeholders is studying the introduction of the user pays principle (UPP).

I have recently had a very interesting discussion with some colleagues about this theme and I would like to bring it forward to this blog:

The UPP seems to be a good and fair idea: Who uses a service pays for it, and who does not use it, does not.

However, scraping just a little bit the surface, one may soon discover some serious concerns:

1 It is neither service providers, nor the industry who pays for Eurocontrol’s budget.  So those who don’t use the service will not pay less. However those who use the service WILL PAY MORE.

2 Member states pay for Eurocontrol’s budget.  Do they want to pay less budget once the UPP is introduced?

3 Eurocontrol is seeking extra sources of financing, and not potential budget cuts and with 3 above, it would be more of the latter and less of the form.  Or is it not?

4 A lot of the beneficiaries of these services are service providers. And a lot (the vast majority) of these service providers in Europe are still public or corporatised entities.  When public entities have to contract work for which they need to pay and where public money is involved, once the payment exceeds a certain sum, they have to go for a public tender.

5 This means that not only Eurocontrol would have to charge for a service that either has already been paid for through member state financing (through budget) or else play a commercial risk while being a public company, but it will also mean that Eurocontrol will have to submit offers.

6 This means that Eurocontrol would have to compete with private companies on certain services.

7 But many have argued in the past that Eurocontrol should not compete as it is funded by member states and that therefore it would be unfair competition (especially in the European market)

8 If Eurocontrol cannot compete then it cannot offer its services.  Therefore the UPP is there to stop Eurocontrol from offering the service.

9 The philosphy of European memberstates funding a European agency to develop and deliver services for the benfit of its own industry is still viable today.  European states need each other, otherwise we would not have a European union. So what is different in European air traffic management?

10 If one argues that Europe should let the market have a fair chance of emancipating itself and thet at onepoint the demand versus offer will rule, then with the same argument, Europe should not oblige service providers to form functional airspace blocks.  Either we intervene for the benefit of the industry (and fund Eurocontrol to offer services to service providers) or we let the market to act freely (and not interfere on the FABs (and other) issue(s).

So, again, the UPP would make sense for a commercial company or where those who do not use would gain from the recipe: Who uses pays (company takes a risk, gets users and funds its activity), who does not use, does not pay.
However Eurocontrol is an agency funded by member states. If the member states want to save money, then they will be asphyxiating Eurocontrol, especially if they keep it mission of public service (meaning that its first aim is not always commercial viability), ask it to take commercial risks without being able to reap the benefits, maintain the principle of non competition, and cut its funding because of UPP.

Member states, and European industry have reaped a lot of benefits from heaving an agency like Eurocontrol concerting, harmonising, developing and delivering work. Going backwards to individual benefits in a globalised world will be the wrong path to take.

Share on Facebook