8.08(d)(iii) Air Traffic Controller Currency, Activity, and Quality Control

[Chriss Klosowski]

Why should divisions have to provide additional training for people who want to control elsewhere with priority? This makes no sense. The words "with priority" need to be removed.

[Suprojit Paul]

To add to this, why should I waste time and resources on a controller who flunked a check elsewhere, who is going to contribute nothing to my division in return? This point is ridiculous and it needs to be removed.

[Matthew Bartels]

This point is related mostly to sub-division transfers  or visitors. It’s acknowledged in the GCAP that divisions set the standard that the core competencies are met. So it’s expected that in some places there will be a lack of meeting standard and in those cases the responsibility for training falls upon the division with the higher standard. 

The clause about “training at home with priority” comes strictly down to subdivisions within the same division. If an S3 for example is not meeting the divisional standard and fails a comp check within the same division, then the sub-division training department has failed that student by promoting below divisional standard.  Thus it’s incumbent on the subdivision who trained them to rectify the situation with remedial training.  Note that that’s only one of the options the controller can pursue. The can also wait in queue for their turn at the place that failed them. 

[1341101]

2 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

The clause about “training at home with priority” comes strictly down to subdivisions within the same division. If an S3 for example is not meeting the divisional standard and fails a comp check within the same division, then the sub-division training department has failed that student by promoting below divisional standard.  Thus it’s incumbent on the subdivision who trained them to rectify the situation with remedial training.  Note that that’s only one of the options the controller can pursue. The can also wait in queue for their turn at the place that failed them. 

Reading this now, I don't think it makes a lot of sense - someone fails a competency check, let it be in the same division (although this is NOT stated, so a re-wording should be necessary here), so then the home (sub-)division now has to prioritise them over everyone else to somehow get them "up to speed" with competencies that they themselves failed to promote? If they failed the student by promoting them below divisional standards, I think it becomes obvious that an investigation into this matter will be necessary by divisional+ staff on a case-to-case basis as to whether or not the student meets competencies, if the home sub-division failed the student by promoting them below divisional standards, or if the assessor of the competency check graded them too strictly.

It feels as if the clause and your explanation of it both quite literally assume that if the candidate fails a competency check for a visitor status, that the sub-division is at fault and that they promoted a failed student which I can 100% tell you is often not the case because places are different and have different procedures, methods of controlling, etc. Just because someone failed a competency check for another sub-division doesn't mean that their home sub-division is at fault. In any case, as I said, an investigation into the matter is probably the best case scenario, in order to find the best possible outcome for the student. Perhaps this should be reworded.
In any case, I don't think such a clause within GCAP here is necessary, at least not without any edits. But if the meaning of the clause does stay as is, I would strongly suggest a re-wording, as "same division" is not mentioned anywhere within the clause and I think a better wording should be found. 

Edited October 18, 2021 at 08:14 PM by 1341101

[Liesel Downes]

This line of reasoning fails to take into account how a student trained in a low traffic environment or even a more simplistic airspace (so the vast majority of us) could very very easily fail a check ride on extremely busy airspaces such as London, Langen, insert other relevant European airspaces here.... Is that really down to the fault of the originating facility, or is it just how life goes?

[Phil Dowling]

44 minutes ago, Liesel Downes said:

This line of reasoning fails to take into account how a student trained in a low traffic environment or even a more simplistic airspace (so the vast majority of us) could very very easily fail a check ride on extremely busy airspaces such as London, Langen, insert other relevant European airspaces here.... Is that really down to the fault of the originating facility, or is it just how life goes?

Hey Liesel.

Just reading through this thread and your example made me think.  If a sub division is running a competency check on someone, they should not be doing it in a high volume area, as that area would likely be considered "major" airspace and therefore require a "major" endorsement.  Which is separate and apart from the competency check.  Ultimately.  I don't think a competency check should be testing someone's ability to control high volume.  More so it should be checking that they can control pursuant to the procedures of that Division/Sub-Division.  Is that your take on this?

Keeping in mind that 8.08(d)(i) then specifies:

Quote

If the competency check is successful, the instructor shall advise the candidate immediately of the successful check and point them in the direction of local materials needed to control designated minor positions.

So it clearly deliniates that the competency check would not allow access to a major airspace, which I would imagine your examples would be.

Phil

[Liesel Downes]

1 hour ago, Philip Dowling said:

Hey Liesel.

Just reading through this thread and your example made me think.  If a sub division is running a competency check on someone, they should not be doing it in a high volume area, as that area would likely be considered "major" airspace and therefore require a "major" endorsement.  Which is separate and apart from the competency check.  Ultimately.  I don't think a competency check should be testing someone's ability to control high volume.  More so it should be checking that they can control pursuant to the procedures of that Division/Sub-Division.  Is that your take on this?

Keeping in mind that 8.08(d)(i) then specifies:

So it clearly deliniates that the competency check would not allow access to a major airspace, which I would imagine your examples would be.

Phil

I agree that controlling high volume goes against the spirit of what a "competency check" should be about. even if someone isn't able to control major airspace, it is a disservice to restrict from minors too.

You capture my point well. Someone should be able to be deemed competent controlling all of our Canadian FIRs during events, but not be able to handle controlling London AC South during a really busy Saturday (the airspace is so so so so more complex). I think the danger is having someone fail the latter check ride being a poor reflection on the former facility.