VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:37:28 02/29/08 Fri
Author: Tupp
Subject: Re: How Some In Current ATC Workforce Think of CTI and Their Graduates
In reply to: Chris 's message, "Re: How Some In Current ATC Workforce Think of CTI and Their Graduates" on 08:23:17 02/29/08 Fri

I agree with pretty much everything that Chris said about CTI graduates. The FAA should set some standards for the CTI schools to meet, and as a result, produce a more standardized finished product from school to school. UND is a great school, but it doesn't assure your success. I work with a guy who came from a school that took a .65 class and had a runway painted on the floor, and that's it. And he is doing great in training here at ZKC.

A tranee getting washed out is almost always a failure of the training team, which includes, here at ZKC, the trainee, 2 OJTI's, and sometimes the supervisor. I have had 2 supervisors since starting here, and both of them were very involved in my progress and did everything they could to ensure my success. Granted, that is not always the case. "Almost always" above excludes the situations in which the trainee just doesn't put forth the effort to succeed. In the cases where trainees are given trainers who have a terrible attitude towards trainees, I see that as a failure of the FAA. If the FAA is interested in the success of trainees, these trainees should be assigned trainers who care about the success of their trainees, and supervisors are well aware of which controllers are good trainers. Good trainers believe that the success or failure of their trainees is a reflection of their abilities as a trainer.

I have another issue with the FAA's approach to the success of trainees. Let's say for instance that when John Q Tranee came to ZKC (level 11 facility), and didn't make it through all their d-side positions and washed out. Now, instead of sending him to a smaller, less complex facility, they send him to the streets without a job. As a result, now the FAA has to hire another person to take his place at ZKC. Which means spending more money on background checks, medical evaluations, and OKC training pay, and travel expenses, and now per diem, plus the money they'll spend training at the facility. On top of this, they still have to hire another person to take a job at the smaller facility where they could have sent him and helped improved their staffing crisis, which includes all the expenses above. All the while, John Q maybe didn't understand radar, but is a great tower controller. Even from my time at UND, there were people who were great at radar and not so good at tower, and visa versa. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Now obviously there needs to be a line drawn somewhere when the FAA has to say "Ok, this guy might not be controller material" but only after they can honestly say that they did everything thet THEY could to make him or her successful. When these situations happen, the FAA is only hurting their cause in my mind.

My .02

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.