7.09(f) Failure of a Practical Exam

[Martijn Rammeloo]

7.09(f)(ii) The candidate shall be eligible for another attempt at a practical examination not more than 14 days from completion of remedial training.

Just like with comp tests, 14 day periods are only feasible when all planets align... Even without an examination backlog (yeah, right...), you depend on some examiners, as well as the candidate. These people all have commitments, both real-life as well as VATSIM, and one can hardly expect them to cancel everything because of this clause. I frankly don't understand the rush. All parties involved have the same interest: a successful exam as soon as practically possible.

Martijn

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2021 at 05:19 AM by Martijn Rammeloo

[Thimo Koolen]

And here, exams are usually planned 14 days ahead (because people make plans on shorter notice), and that is if no backlog exists. Retakes don't get priority over those taking the first chance (unless there's a huge waiting list for those, then retakers will be spread across that, for no unnecessary wait).

Just like Martijn mentions, everyone wants them to succeed as soon as possible. But really, we should be realistic. 14 days is barely possible, even without an exam backlog.

[Rick Rump]

Eligible does not mean it must be scheduled in 14 days. However, I do agree that any time stipulation here is unnecessary.

[Matthew Bartels]

So we fail a student and we can make them wait 180 days until they are eligible for a retest?

The intent of clause here is that you cannot withhold eligibility for a retest for more than 14 days. Not when it gets actually scheduled. They should get the first available slot once remediation is complete.

[Martijn Rammeloo]

10 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

So we fail a student and we can make them wait 180 days until they are eligible for a retest?

The intent of clause here is that you cannot withhold eligibility for a retest for more than 14 days. Not when it gets actually scheduled. They should get the first available slot once remediation is complete.

Perhaps my language skills are letting me down here, but what is the exact meaning of 'eligible' in this context?

Within Dutch VACC, at the moment remedial training is finished, the mentor sets a 'flag' in our training system. Isn't that the same as being eligible? One way or another, it serves as a trigger for the Training Department to start planning the practical test.

So, from my perspective, this seems like a hollow clause.

Martijn

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2021 at 09:37 AM by Martijn Rammeloo

[1341101]

9 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

So we fail a student and we can make them wait 180 days until they are eligible for a retest?

 

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your trend of bringing up unnecessary overexaggerated examples of things that are obviously "too far", when someone is addressing the fact that something is too strict. There's a vast difference between 14 days and 180 days. 40 hours/week is significantly more than 6 hours/6 months. Saying "we're not gonna change this from 14 days because we're not gonna make them wait 180 days" is unreasonable, when this is a public review that is there for discussion and for bringing up new ideas and proposals as to what is appropriate.

Quote

The intent of clause here is that you cannot withhold eligibility for a retest for more than 14 days. Not when it gets actually scheduled. They should get the first available slot once remediation is complete.

Then the clause should be re-worded, to explicitly mean this without you having it to explain, so that everyone can understand it from the policy. 

[Thimo Koolen]

It's not in anyone's favor to have people wait unnecessary long for an exam. Not for the trainee, not for their mentor, not for the training staff, not for everyone else. The fact that you mention 180 days here is just ridiculous and doom-thinking. Let's just be realistic here, please. 

[Andreas Fuchs]

Obviously there have been cases where candidates had to wait almost 6 months for a retake. Would you deem this acceptable? I wouldn't. A candidate should be re-assessed within 14 days and then a new CPT-date set that has to be within x weeks. That would be appropriate.

[1341101]

1 minute ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Obviously there have been cases where candidates had to wait almost 6 months for a retake. Would you deem this acceptable? I wouldn't. A candidate should be re-assessed within 14 days and then a new CPT-date set that has to be within x weeks. That would be appropriate.

We're not talking about whether or not 6 months is appropriate - it obviosuly is NOT appropriate. That's why we have these "restrictions". But 14 days is also not enough, as loads of vACCs have stated here. Bringing up a ridiculous example of 180 days is irrelevant in this case, no one has ever said we should make the maximum 180 days...

[Martijn Rammeloo]

13 minutes ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Obviously there have been cases where candidates had to wait almost 6 months for a retake. Would you deem this acceptable? I wouldn't. A candidate should be re-assessed within 14 days and then a new CPT-date set that has to be within x weeks. That would be appropriate.

And now it gets really confusing... 

7.09(f)(i) Should a candidate for any rating or endorsement be unsuccessful during a practical exam, that candidate shall be provided a summary of deficient areas, returned to solo endorsement if applicable, and scheduled for remediation training with an instructor or mentor.

Please note that the policy does not prescribe when this remedial training should take place, or even start. But... after finishing this training, the controller shall be eligible for a second try within 14 days, but this does not mean 'scheduled'.

The intent of 7.09(f) is more than clear ('as soon as possible after a failed exam'), but the wording is beyond my comprehension. I can take whatever I time I want for remedial training (thankfully!), they should get the first available slot (fine with me) but something shall be accomplished within 14 days. Again, this may be a lack of language skills on  my side, but I am lost about exactly what that 'something' is.

Suggestion:

7.09(f)(i) Should a candidate for any rating or endorsement be unsuccessful during a practical exam, that candidate shall be provided a summary of deficient areas, returned to solo endorsement if applicable, and scheduled for remediation training with an instructor or mentor.

7.09(f)(ii) The candidate shall be eligible for another attempt at a practical examination after completion of remedial training. This exam shall be scheduled at the first available slot.

Martijn

 

Edited October 25, 2021 at 10:19 AM by Martijn Rammeloo

[Matthew Bartels]

4 hours ago, 1341101 said:

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your trend of bringing up unnecessary overexaggerated examples of things that are obviously "too far", when someone is addressing the fact that something is too strict. There's a vast difference between 14 days and 180 days. 40 hours/week is significantly more than 6 hours/6 months. Saying "we're not gonna change this from 14 days because we're not gonna make them wait 180 days" is unreasonable, when this is a public review that is there for discussion and for bringing up new ideas and proposals as to what is appropriate

You call them over exaggerated examples. I call them potential abuses of policy. Without a safeguard in place then you and I can agree that something like 180 days is ridiculous, but that doesn’t stop someone else from thinking it’s not. They can thumb their nose at us and say that you can’t stop me because there is no policy saying I can’t. 

Note that every “far reaching” GCAP Clause, especially those with hard timeframes are a result of a history of past abuses across the network. Hence why we felt the need to define them from the topmost level.

The goal of this clause is simple. A training team can not make a student wait an unreasonable amount of time prior to letting them take a retest, and we’ve said that there must be remediation completed. 

So here is what we want to happen, please give me better wording.

- Student Fails CPT

- Student is debriefed and returned to solo status if applicable

- Student MAY be subject to a REASONABLE cooloff period

- Student gets remediation training as soon as possible, even if that means displacing other students.

- Student completes remediation training and gets scheduled for CPT retake as soon as possible after completing training if they feel ready.

[Kirk Christie]

7.09(f)(ii) The candidate shall be eligible for another attempt at a practical examination not more than 14 days from completion of remedial training.

It only states eligible for another attempt, it does not state that another attempt must be conducted with in 14 days of a previously failed exam, all this means thay you can not set the time frame for which they can't re apply for another exam, aka cooling off period, greater than 14 days. It's also states from completion of remedial training, not from the failed exam date. 

Edited October 25, 2021 at 10:54 PM by Kirk Christie

[Martijn Rammeloo]

5 hours ago, Kirk Christie said:

7.09(f)(ii) The candidate shall be eligible for another attempt at a practical examination not more than 14 days from completion of remedial training.

It only states eligible for another attempt, it does not state that another attempt must be conducted with in 14 days of a previously failed exam, all this means thay you can not set the time frame for which they can't re apply for another exam, aka cooling off period, greater than 14 days. It's also states from completion of remedial training, not from the failed exam date. 

Kirk,

I think I understand your point: limiting a cooldown period. I think that is reasonable.

However. This won't work, because 7.09(f)(i) has no time limits in it at all (thankfully...), opening the door for a (longer than needed) cooldown period again, simply by 'dragging' the training.

Martijn

 

[Rick Rump]

The return to solo status should be at the prerogative of the senior instructor in the sub-division/division. They may fail so badly that them being a solo is an issue. The "if applicable" carries the connotation that you must return them to solo. Maybe we should just remove that.

May I suggest for timeframes: "Placed in the exam queue within 14 days from the later of failure of the exam or completion of necessary remedial training".

One thing about exams, if the fail is for a reason, then some time remediating it on their own should at least be required. There should be no "Okay we will try again tomorrow", there needs to be a cool down period.

I know of one controller who failed his C1 OTS and has been waiting months to get it again due to staff prioritizing other exams/not enough staff training at C1.

[Andreas Fuchs]

28 minutes ago, Rick Rump said:

The return to solo status should be at the prerogative of the senior instructor in the sub-division/division. They may fail so badly that them being a solo is an issue.

Since when do we schedule CPTs for trainees who are not ready yet? In such a case the one who allowed the person to sit the exam made a mistake.

[Rick Rump]

2 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Since when do we schedule CPTs for trainees who are not ready yet? In such a case the one who allowed the person to sit the exam made a mistake.

Sometimes you mis-judge a student's abilities? Sometimes they mess up THAT bad. There can be reasons for why it happens, but I agree, generally this should not happen.

[Andreas Fuchs]

I haven't seen this here, yet. Yes, people fail their CPTs for valid or less valid reasons (but that's another story!), but this does not automatically mean that they're unfit to continue their solo-status.

[Liesel Downes]

8 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

I haven't seen this here, yet. Yes, people fail their CPTs for valid or less valid reasons (but that's another story!), but this does not automatically mean that they're unfit to continue their solo-status.

I think you've misunderstood what they're asking for - which is for the instructor to not be forced to send someone back to a solo if it really was that bad of a result. I think in most cases returning to a solo is what people would do however...