Nav Can Whisky Tango Fox over

[tsgarp]

ATC would be the perfect place to replace people with AI

[IJNShiroyuki]

Navcan is a giant third party gov't fat,bloated, inefficient entity.

For the LAST TIME, NAVCANADA has NOTHING to do with the government. In 1996, the government sold Transport's ATC services to NAVCANADA. You sound like an uninformed airline passenger who thinks Air Canada is still owned and operated by the federal government. If the AC pilots go on strike, make sure to tell people that the greedy pilots are just over-paid government employees looking for more!

The senior trainers at Navcan have a little scam-esque scheme where they will train someone to near completion and then fail them, quite often on arbitrary (but legally-protectable) reasons, which means they pocket both sweet training hours bonuses AND future overtime "because there aren't enough controllers".

That might have been true in the past, but people want time off with their families now instead of unlimited O/T. We are paid well enough now that lifestyle is the overriding concern instead of making more money. And as was often NOT the case in the past, those who came up just short and get CT'd are often re-coursed. At my tower, many of the controllers were CT'd elsewhere before being sent here, and all are successful and excellent controllers.

My class was less than 10% if you count off the street only. There were a couple experienced nav employees that made it.

I was told the following class was 0%.

Perhaps the nav employee can give an accurate number for say the past 5 years... I'm Not going to claim to know all the numbers. I'm just going by what I saw as well as what other controllers have told me.

I'm speaking as a Tower controller here. Of the class before me (6 people), I believe 5 ended up getting their licenses (split between YYZ and the smaller Ontario regional towers). It might even be 6 for 6 but I can't remember one of the people. On my course, 60% of us got a license. The course after me had a similar pass rate. FSS is higher than that, and IFR is lower than that. But to make a blanket statement making it sound like a system-wide 0-10% success rate is the norm, you're misinformed.

There are over 400 students in training right now which I believe is an all-time record, with soon to be be 400+ with the addition of CAE. Management is finally seeing the need to do something, and things like CAE are just one change among many to better streamline hiring and training and ultimately create more successful controllers.

Did you make it through your first Tower?

I know a yyz course where there was a 0% success rate. First one CT’d was a licensed controller from USA. In fact I’ve never heard of anyone passing the Pearson course OTS.

Sounds like they are gate keeping their career like doctors college and US pilot with 1500 hour rule.
And this is purely a nav canada self inflicted problem. either pay more, have better taining program, or fk off and change some class B back to class G

[IJNShiroyuki]

ATC would be the perfect place to replace people with AI

So NavCan can provide a even worse service while still charging the same?
AI should be the enemy of all working class human, ATCs are people too, and replacing them with AI benefits no one but NavCan exec

[CpnCrunch]

ATC would be the perfect place to replace people with AI

So NavCan can provide a even worse service while still charging the same?
AI should be the enemy of all working class human, ATCs are people too, and replacing them with AI benefits no one but NavCan exec

Not sure about AI, but I think there are certainly tools that could help the controllers to be more efficient. How is CPDLC working?

Looking at flightradar24 right now, there isn't really much going on at YVR, other than a bunch of planes on the ground and 3 lined up on final, one jet just taken off, and about 4 other aircraft in total in the terminal and tower airspace. Yes, I know it doesn't show all the VFR traffic, but VFR traffic is pretty routinely denied access these days anyway.

Surely there must be some scope to simplify the airspace, make more of it class E, and rely more on ADS-B for traffic avoidance. Spending a little bit of money on ADS-B out, for example, might reduce the workload on the controllers and allow a reduction in class C airspace.

[‘Bob’]

ATC would be the perfect place to replace people with AI

So NavCan can provide a even worse service while still charging the same?
AI should be the enemy of all working class human, ATCs are people too, and replacing them with AI benefits no one but NavCan exec

If you can be replaced by AI you don’t deserve an income.

Automation has been eliminating jobs for centuries. Yet people still find work and quality of life has markedly improved since we had to hand write books and gin our own cotton.

[Old fella]

ATC would be the perfect place to replace people with AI

So NavCan can provide a even worse service while still charging the same?
AI should be the enemy of all working class human, ATCs are people too, and replacing them with AI benefits no one but NavCan exec

If you can be replaced by AI you don’t deserve an income.

Automation has been eliminating jobs for centuries. Yet people still find work and quality of life has markedly improved since we had to hand write books and gin our own cotton.

.

Donald Trump doesn’t think so(automation) as he has and still tells the Rust Belt he will get your jobs back from the foreigners who took them from you. Was in parts of upstate NY last year, decrepit area some of it was.

[rookiepilot]

ATC would be the perfect place to replace people with AI

So NavCan can provide a even worse service while still charging the same?
AI should be the enemy of all working class human, ATCs are people too, and replacing them with AI benefits no one but NavCan exec

If you can be replaced by AI you don’t deserve an income.

Why do you deserve an income when retired?

That hasn’t always been a thing. Far from it.

[DanWEC]

Donald Trump doesn’t think so(automation) as he has and still tells the Rust Belt he will get your jobs back from the foreigners who took them from you.

Believe every word that man says, it's all truth and nothing but!

[co-joe]

Anyone who doesn't support our ATC in this fully is out to lunch. Navcanada needs to pull their corporate heads out of their asses, and deal with staffing shortages properly. These people work their asses off for us, they keep us safe, they help us when we're in trouble, and they do a seriously skilled job that requires training, hard work, and a continued focus on safety just like our jobs do. I stand behind controllers 100% in their need to be properly supported, and compensated for the job they do, and if that means them walking off the job, I'll join them on the picket line.

[khedrei]

No my 10% pass rate quote is what I saw in 4 classes and also what the instructors and other controllers told me. Perhaps it's better now?

I was a bit bitter at first, but I'm over it now and have long moved on.

My point was mainly that if Nav had a different approach to training instead of "you need to be here at this point or else" they would probably have a better success rate. I do not believe that anyone should be pushed through without meeting the standard. But if they could double or triple the success rate by simply giving a few more months. Or watching for improvement and as long as it's being made, keep going, things would be different. Learning isn't a straight line up. They even tell us that, but then they don't practice it by expecting a straight line upwards.

Imagine telling a pilot if they don't solo by 20 hours they will never be a pilot. I probably could have been a good controller. I just needed more time. Training should have some individual component to it, like most other industries.

Also, you claim that protecting overtime by CTing trainees used to happen, but no anymore.... forgive me if font believe it. The fact that you acknowledge it was a thing tells me you can't really know that it never happens anymore.

Which 4 classes are you referring to? Are you including people laid off because of Covid? Airports has a bunch of new/newer licenses.

As for protecting OT - I'm not acknowledging it was a thing, I just can't claim to know what happened before my time. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. The rumours are there, but are they fact? Or are they hearsay perpetuated by trainees who didn't make it? In specialty, there's standards that have to be met in evals and written exams, and a training team can't arbitrarily ignore double-fails just to keep someone going. The line has to be somewhere. In OJT, I've never seen someone CT'd without performance-based issues that couldn't be resolved.

2017-2018 ish

I was also told in not so many words that "you have to fit in in the specialty. If you don't, if people don't like you, you won't get in. Before signing someone off we make sure the group is ok and we get the 'nod'. We won't qualify someone who doesn't fit in." Not completely exact words but most of those words were used. Thats much different than "if you meet the standard, you're in".
So there you go. There is a way things are said, and there is a way things are done.

You're also missing my point. I don't think instructors should arbitrarily give more time to someone in the sim. But having a deadline is clearly not working. I'm saying people don't learn that way. The whole program needs to be revamped. Everyone learns at different rates. If you get more time on the floor, you should get more time in the sim. Hell, half the day was just sitting around anyway. Terrible use of resources. Time could have been used for sim but no.... im saying if progress is being made, they shouldn't care if it takes a year longer. If the success rate goes up to 50% or better it would be cheaper and better to take that extra year than what they are doing now. I know there has to be a line, but I'd bet you would find most people won't hit it if they did things differently.

[cdnavater]

No my 10% pass rate quote is what I saw in 4 classes and also what the instructors and other controllers told me. Perhaps it's better now?

I was a bit bitter at first, but I'm over it now and have long moved on.

My point was mainly that if Nav had a different approach to training instead of "you need to be here at this point or else" they would probably have a better success rate. I do not believe that anyone should be pushed through without meeting the standard. But if they could double or triple the success rate by simply giving a few more months. Or watching for improvement and as long as it's being made, keep going, things would be different. Learning isn't a straight line up. They even tell us that, but then they don't practice it by expecting a straight line upwards.

Imagine telling a pilot if they don't solo by 20 hours they will never be a pilot. I probably could have been a good controller. I just needed more time. Training should have some individual component to it, like most other industries.

Also, you claim that protecting overtime by CTing trainees used to happen, but no anymore.... forgive me if font believe it. The fact that you acknowledge it was a thing tells me you can't really know that it never happens anymore.

Which 4 classes are you referring to? Are you including people laid off because of Covid? Airports has a bunch of new/newer licenses.

As for protecting OT - I'm not acknowledging it was a thing, I just can't claim to know what happened before my time. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. The rumours are there, but are they fact? Or are they hearsay perpetuated by trainees who didn't make it? In specialty, there's standards that have to be met in evals and written exams, and a training team can't arbitrarily ignore double-fails just to keep someone going. The line has to be somewhere. In OJT, I've never seen someone CT'd without performance-based issues that couldn't be resolved.

2017-2018 ish

I was also told in not so many words that "you have to fit in in the specialty. If you don't, if people don't like you, you won't get in. Before signing someone off we make sure the group is ok and we get the 'nod'. We won't qualify someone who doesn't fit in." Not completely exact words but most of those words were used. Thats much different than "if you meet the standard, you're in".
So there you go. There is a way things are said, and there is a way things are done.

You're also missing my point. I don't think instructors should arbitrarily give more time to someone in the sim. But having a deadline is clearly not working. I'm saying people don't learn that way. The whole program needs to be revamped. Everyone learns at different rates. If you get more time on the floor, you should get more time in the sim. Hell, half the day was just sitting around anyway. Terrible use of resources. Time could have been used for sim but no.... im saying if progress is being made, they shouldn't care if it takes a year longer. If the success rate goes up to 50% or better it would be cheaper and better to take that extra year than what they are doing now. I know there has to be a line, but I'd bet you would find most people won't hit it if they did things differently.

That’s a very unrealistic expectation, a type rating has a minimum amount of training and Jazz goes above what is required by 9 IPT(Integrated procedures training) seesions prior to 10 SIM sessions, previously 9 and then a PPC.
Should we just keep the training going indefinitely because people learn at a different pace? Training is a cost, it’s a sunk cost if they don’t make the grade but at some point you have to cut your losses, if you don’t meet the standard by a certain threshold, a little more training, sure but another year, come on! They’re paying your wages for another year not to mention the training resources cost money too!
Not disputing any of the other stuff as I have no idea but extending training should be minimal, if you can’t get it in the allotted time, you will be problematic going forward as well, future issues with adapting or recurrent training can be predicted fairly well at this point.

[khedrei]

Which 4 classes are you referring to? Are you including people laid off because of Covid? Airports has a bunch of new/newer licenses.

As for protecting OT - I'm not acknowledging it was a thing, I just can't claim to know what happened before my time. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. The rumours are there, but are they fact? Or are they hearsay perpetuated by trainees who didn't make it? In specialty, there's standards that have to be met in evals and written exams, and a training team can't arbitrarily ignore double-fails just to keep someone going. The line has to be somewhere. In OJT, I've never seen someone CT'd without performance-based issues that couldn't be resolved.

2017-2018 ish

I was also told in not so many words that "you have to fit in in the specialty. If you don't, if people don't like you, you won't get in. Before signing someone off we make sure the group is ok and we get the 'nod'. We won't qualify someone who doesn't fit in." Not completely exact words but most of those words were used. Thats much different than "if you meet the standard, you're in".
So there you go. There is a way things are said, and there is a way things are done.

You're also missing my point. I don't think instructors should arbitrarily give more time to someone in the sim. But having a deadline is clearly not working. I'm saying people don't learn that way. The whole program needs to be revamped. Everyone learns at different rates. If you get more time on the floor, you should get more time in the sim. Hell, half the day was just sitting around anyway. Terrible use of resources. Time could have been used for sim but no.... im saying if progress is being made, they shouldn't care if it takes a year longer. If the success rate goes up to 50% or better it would be cheaper and better to take that extra year than what they are doing now. I know there has to be a line, but I'd bet you would find most people won't hit it if they did things differently.

That’s a very unrealistic expectation, a type rating has a minimum amount of training and Jazz goes above what is required by 9 IPT(Integrated procedures training) seesions prior to 10 SIM sessions, previously 9 and then a PPC.
Should we just keep the training going indefinitely because people learn at a different pace? Training is a cost, it’s a sunk cost if they don’t make the grade but at some point you have to cut your losses, if you don’t meet the standard by a certain threshold, a little more training, sure but another year, come on! They’re paying your wages for another year not to mention the training resources cost money too!
Not disputing any of the other stuff as I have no idea but extending training should be minimal, if you can’t get it in the allotted time, you will be problematic going forward as well, future issues with adapting or recurrent training can be predicted fairly well at this point.

Like I already said, US controllers get over 3 years. For some reason NAV wants to do it in 2-2.5. So no, a year is not totally ridiculous. Yes, there has to be a line. In this case, no real extra time is given in sim and so any REAL amount of time would be a good start. they don't even have a method to determine if someone is ready they just send them even if they aren't ready. It's time, you go. In my case I passed all evals and written tests for the first 9 months. Then I hit a wall. I think I probably could have gotten over it with more time, but that's not how they do things there. I'm not arguing in favor of the extreme no limit to training. But somewhere in the middle might work better. I bet you if nav had a way to predict that a year of extra training produced 2x more controllers, they would spend the money. 45k per year in training salary plus other costs is nothing when you see that 90% ends up down the toilet anyway.

[cdnavater]

2017-2018 ish

I was also told in not so many words that "you have to fit in in the specialty. If you don't, if people don't like you, you won't get in. Before signing someone off we make sure the group is ok and we get the 'nod'. We won't qualify someone who doesn't fit in." Not completely exact words but most of those words were used. Thats much different than "if you meet the standard, you're in".
So there you go. There is a way things are said, and there is a way things are done.

You're also missing my point. I don't think instructors should arbitrarily give more time to someone in the sim. But having a deadline is clearly not working. I'm saying people don't learn that way. The whole program needs to be revamped. Everyone learns at different rates. If you get more time on the floor, you should get more time in the sim. Hell, half the day was just sitting around anyway. Terrible use of resources. Time could have been used for sim but no.... im saying if progress is being made, they shouldn't care if it takes a year longer. If the success rate goes up to 50% or better it would be cheaper and better to take that extra year than what they are doing now. I know there has to be a line, but I'd bet you would find most people won't hit it if they did things differently.

That’s a very unrealistic expectation, a type rating has a minimum amount of training and Jazz goes above what is required by 9 IPT(Integrated procedures training) seesions prior to 10 SIM sessions, previously 9 and then a PPC.
Should we just keep the training going indefinitely because people learn at a different pace? Training is a cost, it’s a sunk cost if they don’t make the grade but at some point you have to cut your losses, if you don’t meet the standard by a certain threshold, a little more training, sure but another year, come on! They’re paying your wages for another year not to mention the training resources cost money too!
Not disputing any of the other stuff as I have no idea but extending training should be minimal, if you can’t get it in the allotted time, you will be problematic going forward as well, future issues with adapting or recurrent training can be predicted fairly well at this point.

Like I already said, US controllers get over 3 years. For some reason NAV wants to do it in 2-2.5. So no, a year is not totally ridiculous. Yes, there has to be a line. In this case, no real extra time is given in sim and so any REAL amount of time would be a good start. they don't even have a method to determine if someone is ready they just send them even if they aren't ready. It's time, you go. In my case I passed all evals and written tests for the first 9 months. Then I hit a wall. I think I probably could have gotten over it with more time, but that's not how they do things there. I'm not arguing in favor of the extreme no limit to training. But somewhere in the middle might work better. I bet you if nav had a way to predict that a year of extra training produced 2x more controllers, they would spend the money. 45k per year in training salary plus other costs is nothing when you see that 90% ends up down the toilet anyway.

I can see your point if elsewhere the training is longer, I guess they would have to be presented a study showing in dollars and cents based on more than an approximation of how long it takes elsewhere.
I actually always assumed it was some training and then on the job shadowing to learn the ropes but they have standards right now that need to be met and don’t see the need to add additional training

[wordstwice]

Trainees very often DO get extra training and in some circumstances, a very large amount of extra training. Also, I’ve personally dealt with trainees who failed one area of ATC and have been given the opportunity to retrain at a slower unit and qualify. There are people at YYZ and YVR tower who fit in that category.

There are times extra training isn’t given and that’s usually because either the instructors see no chance of success or there’s other personality issues with the trainee. Trust me, we see some very entitled individuals come through the ATC training system with zero self awareness and a chip on their shoulders that only end up criticizing the training department when they fail.

Let me be very clear, at my unit we take training and student success extremely seriously and want nothing but 100% success rate. We are so critically short staffed that when we lose someone we usually do whatever we can to find a position for the individual if it suits them. Many times we are successful which I am proud of and some cases we aren’t and then we look for way to improve for next time.

This staffing situation is actually going to get a lot worse in the next 12-24 months and we cannot keep up with enough training to meet the shortfall. GDP’s, endless APREQs, and annoying procedures will be the norm thanks to the decisions made by our superiors. I feel the pain, I’ve also been in the cockpit waiting for flow times and it’s awful. I wish I worked in an ATS system that actually provided the service we are meant to provide. We are safe, we just aren’t efficient.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Like I already said, US controllers get over 3 years. For some reason NAV wants to do it in 2-2.5. So no, a year is not totally ridiculous. Yes, there has to be a line. In this case, no real extra time is given in sim and so any REAL amount of time would be a good start. they don't even have a method to determine if someone is ready they just send them even if they aren't ready. It's time, you go.

As I responded to you on the other thread, this is no different than the airline world. At the end of the set number of SIM runs, you're sent to go to your PPC. If you fail, maybe you're given a few extra SIM sessions and then you get one more chance. If you don't make the cut after the re-try, you're cut. There is simply no extra training capacity in the airline world to give a struggling pilot another 10 SIM sessions just to help them get through. Nav is no different. It's estimated to cost over $100,000 to train a new controller (From trainee salary and their benefits and pension, to OTS running the SIM's, to instructors in basic and specialty and instructors conducting OJT, etc). The company is fully within it's right to pull the plug on a $100,000+ investment if it doesn't feel the return will be there.

As you see in other responses to you, the universal consensus from pilots and ATC alike is that your suggestions to fix the system are both unreasonable and unfeasible. What happened to you 5 years ago is history. Move on and let those currently acting as ATC's try and give some realistic (and current) advice to those considering this profession.

[wordstwice]

DCH-1 jockey, With respect I am going to correct your figures..

$1.2 million to train an IFR controller trainee
$1.0 million to train a VFR controller trainee
$900K to train a FSS trainee

[DHC-1 Jockey]

DCH-1 jockey, With respect I am going to correct your figures..

$1.2 million to train an IFR controller trainee
$1.0 million to train a VFR controller trainee
$900K to train a FSS trainee

Sorry, I missed a zero.

[ant_321]

Like I already said, US controllers get over 3 years. For some reason NAV wants to do it in 2-2.5. So no, a year is not totally ridiculous. Yes, there has to be a line. In this case, no real extra time is given in sim and so any REAL amount of time would be a good start. they don't even have a method to determine if someone is ready they just send them even if they aren't ready. It's time, you go.

As I responded to you on the other thread, this is no different than the airline world. At the end of the set number of SIM runs, you're sent to go to your PPC. If you fail, maybe you're given a few extra SIM sessions and then you get one more chance. If you don't make the cut after the re-try, you're cut. There is simply no extra training capacity in the airline world to give a struggling pilot another 10 SIM sessions just to help them get through. Nav is no different. It's estimated to cost over $100,000 to train a new controller (From trainee salary and their benefits and pension, to OTS running the SIM's, to instructors in basic and specialty and instructors conducting OJT, etc). The company is fully within it's right to pull the plug on a $100,000+ investment if it doesn't feel the return will be there.

As you see in other responses to you, the universal consensus from pilots and ATC alike is that your suggestions to fix the system are both unreasonable and unfeasible. What happened to you 5 years ago is history. Move on and let those currently acting as ATC's try and give some realistic (and current) advice to those considering this profession.

That’s not the case in the airline world anymore. There are plenty of examples of individuals need an extra 10-20+ sessions and still keeping their job. I did seat support for someone who had over double the scheduled IPT/SIM sessions. I don’t like it but that’s the way things have gone.

[‘Bob’]

Most of us know that there is a lot of leeway in training and I have absolutely no doubt that Nav Canada is any different.

Absolutely rigid application of rules and differences in interpretation as well as the attitudes of the trainer and/or evaluator will make night and day differences in the same candidate.

20 years ago when pilots were a dime a dozen.. you had to play the game. You had to know all of your stuff, put on the brightest and most pleasing face, and your trainer/evaluator would still pull out some obscure information or tribal knowledge and present it as gospel and boy you’d better hang your head in shame for not knowing it even though you had more experience than they did at a previous operator and you knew it was BS.

You could tell almost right away that you weren’t going to be a good candidate and weren’t going to get anywhere at this place at certain times. They’d made their decision before you even set foot in the building.

But if you were one of the good old boys? Have an in? Friends with the CP? Exercising nepotism? Wow the failures and oversights and complete lack of accountability.

And no pilot here can tell me that they didn’t do a PPC failure item at least once in their career and still pass. The ACP “missed” it or said “you caught it and corrected it” so gave you a 2.

Today it’s moving forward. There is better guidance for ACPs and scoring. An instrument ride is more educational than evaluative. And phased PPCs are becoming a thing where you do your ride and find your weak points.. then have targeted training. Yeah there’s some project pilots but other than one or two, most have turned out to be great pilots.

And yes there are mistakes made. Most of which are caught in a two crew environment or avoided with SOPs or the ever present luck factor in aviation (it’s a great big sky). I’ve had ground controllers clear me across active runways with traffic on final numerous times which I caught and held short. Maybe the guy you CTd might have been better had he been given a chance?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

That’s not the case in the airline world anymore. There are plenty of examples of individuals need an extra 10-20+ sessions and still keeping their job. I did seat support for someone who had over double the scheduled IPT/SIM sessions. I don’t like it but that’s the way things have gone.

Wow I didn't realize that. If you need 20 extra sessions of IPT or SIM to get to the standard, that raises some questions.

[16SidedOffice]

I’ve had ground controllers clear me across active runways with traffic on final numerous times which I caught and held short.

It's pretty routine and legal to issues a crossing with traffic on final with a landing clearance. Too many variables to think that anything was out of place on that, as there are at least 2 sets of eyes watching in those cases. Maybe it was in error and maybe it wasn't but if you are uncomfortable with it for whatever reason, then deny the crossing as you did and hold short.

Maybe the guy you CTd might have been better had he been given a chance?

Again, another huge maybe. Trainees are generally given LOTS of extra time once out of the school and in OJT, as long as they are progressing. Another chance here, another chance there, I hear that and it reminds me of each one of those recent scary incidents that we've all listened to from our neighbors down South.

[ads-b]

That’s not the case in the airline world anymore. There are plenty of examples of individuals need an extra 10-20+ sessions and still keeping their job. I did seat support for someone who had over double the scheduled IPT/SIM sessions. I don’t like it but that’s the way things have gone.

Wow I didn't realize that. If you need 20 extra sessions of IPT or SIM to get to the standard, that raises some questions.

Did you make it through your first training event with Nav Can?

Would you consider a second tower extra training?

And yes lots and lots of extra training taking place at airlines now. To be expected with lower experience coming on board.

[‘Bob’]

I’ve had ground controllers clear me across active runways with traffic on final numerous times which I caught and held short.

It's pretty routine and legal to issues a crossing with traffic on final with a landing clearance. Too many variables to think that anything was out of place on that, as there are at least 2 sets of eyes watching in those cases. Maybe it was in error and maybe it wasn't but if you are uncomfortable with it for whatever reason, then deny the crossing as you did and hold short.

Taxi instructions that involve crossing an active runway have to include a crossing instruction. In this case the controller confused which runway he wanted me to hold short of and the taxiway continued through it.

And when you are issued a backtrack instruction or takeoff clearance it includes the entire runway regardless if other runways cross it… unless a hold short instruction is issued. This has been a continuous problem at a certain airport where controller and even pilots assume that you need further clearance to enter the other runway when the declared distance includes it.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Did you make it through your first training event with Nav Can?

Yes and no... I made it through basic, but failed YYZ Tower complex simulator. I was one of those who were sent ab-initio to YYZ. I failed to meet the standards at one point during the YYZ Complex course. I was given one extra practice run and then a re-eval of the run. I made a mistake on that one too, and then was let go that afternoon. I have no hard feelings. It's just the way it is.

3 weeks later they called me and offered me a spot at another tower, because they saw that I had potential. I just wasn't ready for YYZ right off the bat with no experience. They admitted at the time that because YYZ was so short staffed that most new-hires were being sent to YYZ right away with hopes of some succeeding. Understandably, a lot didn't make it at YYZ first time around, but some did. It seems that they've changed their hiring practices and are having more success sending ab-initio's to smaller towers first to gain experience and then transferring to YYZ.

Would you consider a second tower extra training?

No, I wouldn't consider a second tower extra training. To continue the airline theme, that would be like failing your 777 PPC at Air Canada and then getting offered chance to re-do your training on an A220 because it's deemed "easier." I don't believe that would happen under normal circumstances. I was terminated from Nav after I failed my eval, and then re-hired as a new employee to go to my new tower. Once there, I didn't require any "extra training" above and beyond the training timeline goalposts. If anything, Nav gave me a second chance, where failing out of training at an airline would most likely result in me just being shown the door.

[Bonovox]

Most of the challenges with staffing in this thread are spot on. There have been many systemic failures in the past that have put us in this predicament. However, I do take issue with the assertion that controllers decide to "just not show up" on sunny weekends. There needs to be some context added to that statement. I work at one of the major 4 towers. Our unit needs 43 controllers to be at staff. Currently we have 26. 19 shifts per day need to be covered by 26 controllers. The math does not work. Many controllers in my unit are working 8 days on, 2 days off, with 12 hours shifts thrown in there. It's not a controller deciding not to show up for work, its a controller deciding they don't want to come into work on their regular day off. A system dependent on an aging workforce working copious amounts of overtime does not work. We are exhausted. At some point the money is no longer worth coming in on day 7 or 8 when you know you are 5 controllers short and will be working multiple combined positions. No thanks.