Academy....what was the point??

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

The academy should most certainly NOT be where most of a controllers training takes place. The academy only covers BASIC things like elementary phraseology and understanding. More specific phraseology, understanding, procedures, policies, etc etc etc MUST by necessity come from the ARTCC.

 

To echo what Ross mentioned, yes, you and Robert Henry are correct...I shouldn't say it is the majority of a student's training, as each ARTCC has its own system. It is still my opinion, however, that it should, in general, be a main part of the student's Local Control training.

 

http://www.vatusa.org/training/acdout.html

http://train.vatusa.org/academydocs/Standard_Operating_Procedures_for_Students.pdf

 

That is the curriculum outline of the Academy, and the procedure for how Academy training is carried out. It is very comprehensive, and there is a test after each "cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]."

 

Now, maybe I'm old style or something, but I've trained dozens of students and managed an ARTCC training system, and I remember the Local Control training consisting primarily of the stuff the Academy now teaches. Once we got over that hump of training, the next part was simply teaching the procedures and policies, and practical skills at our facility. That was usually easier than the initial part of the training, and (depending on the student's ability) required more practical [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment than written [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment. That is my background, and what I'm used to. I've seen it work, and we have a lot of quality controllers at my location. This is only pertaining to stuff covered by the Academy, and Local Control training. Radar and on-up is on another scope.

 

I guess it's just a difference in training style. I'm not saying that you can't test and review people, or that you can't have your own curriculum that you test on.

 

Regarding updated tests, let's say that the graduate comes to the ARTCC and takes the unadjusted (open book) ARTCC written tests (which are maybe too specific to the 7110.65.), and then fails the test. What then?

 

This would be a separate issue. This can happen whether a test is revised or not, but you might find someone doesn't seem as prepared as they should be. It should be addressed on a per-student basis, and addressed with his instructor(s) from the Academy. Either a) he needed more attention at the Academy, or b) he had a bad spell, or something else. We always have to deal with students who struggle...perhaps remedial training, or a re-enrollment in an Academy cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] could be done. As you can probably guess (maybe rolling your eyes, too ), I would also say that a practical-exam could just as easily expose a floundering student just as much as (or moreso than) a written exam; I find practical exams far more efficient, though.

 

Explain to me how there are two types of students still around, since the VATUSA Policy/proceedure as follows:

 

Darrin, there are still S-1s who have been a part of VATUSA since before 17 April 2006. They are exempt from the Academy (although they can apply and attend, if they wish). My facility still has four such students.

 

I didn't mean to be argumentative or anything. I have a feeling we're just going to continue disagreeing on the point, though . Nothing new to add from me.

[Nick Comber 959257]

The academy should most certainly NOT be where most of a controllers training takes place. The academy only covers BASIC things like elementary phraseology and understanding. More specific phraseology, understanding, procedures, policies, etc etc etc MUST by necessity come from the ARTCC.

 

Watch it mate, I've got a pint in my hand.

[Scott Johnston 890281]

Robert's right.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Hmmm, this one is getting to be a bit overdone, so we'll close it now. Should more issues arise, I expect the parties will start a new thread.