Nav Can Whisky Tango Fox over

[cdnavater]

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.

Where is this, I’ll put this on my airline to avoid list!
Worst I’ve seen at Jazz is maybe 5 extra IPTs depending on the situation and then again 5 extra SIMS depending on the situation, basically if you fail two sessions per phase, the third failure triggers the training review board and a plan to continue the training. When they come back from the TRB sometimes they are paired up with another pilot back from the TRB or a pilot who lost their partner and are close to where they failed candidate left off. The TRB is quite busy so if it’s been a while since they last trained they get a refresher session to get them back in, same thing for SIM.
Worst I’ve seen is TRB in phase 1, eventually make it through and then another trip to the TRB in phase 2, I can’t think of any who’ve made more than two trips to the TRB before making it through. So doing the math, that scenario would require an extra 6-8 total extra sessions combined with phase 1 and 2, if they are getting 10 extra per phase, they would not be successful in the Jazz world, I seriously doubt AC would do that either.
So who is doing this as it does raise some questions and I would think Transport Canada would be taking a close look at this too. I know they are not happy with the amount of failures we’ve been experiencing.
I honestly fear for the future of this profession, we are NOT getting the best and the brightest entering the profession anymore, it’s a different level of skill new pilots come in with and not in a good way, some I question whether or not they should do something else

[IJNShiroyuki]

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.

Where is this, I’ll put this on my airline to avoid list!
Worst I’ve seen at Jazz is maybe 5 extra IPTs depending on the situation and then again 5 extra SIMS depending on the situation, basically if you fail two sessions per phase, the third failure triggers the training review board and a plan to continue the training. When they come back from the TRB sometimes they are paired up with another pilot back from the TRB or a pilot who lost their partner and are close to where they failed candidate left off. The TRB is quite busy so if it’s been a while since they last trained they get a refresher session to get them back in, same thing for SIM.
Worst I’ve seen is TRB in phase 1, eventually make it through and then another trip to the TRB in phase 2, I can’t think of any who’ve made more than two trips to the TRB before making it through. So doing the math, that scenario would require an extra 6-8 total extra sessions combined with phase 1 and 2, if they are getting 10 extra per phase, they would not be successful in the Jazz world, I seriously doubt AC would do that either.
So who is doing this as it does raise some questions and I would think Transport Canada would be taking a close look at this too. I know they are not happy with the amount of failures we’ve been experiencing.
I honestly fear for the future of this profession, we are NOT getting the best and the brightest entering the profession anymore, it’s a different level of skill new pilots come in with and not in a good way, some I question whether or not they should do something else

right, paying 58K and you want the best and brightest.

[cdnavater]

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.

Where is this, I’ll put this on my airline to avoid list!
Worst I’ve seen at Jazz is maybe 5 extra IPTs depending on the situation and then again 5 extra SIMS depending on the situation, basically if you fail two sessions per phase, the third failure triggers the training review board and a plan to continue the training. When they come back from the TRB sometimes they are paired up with another pilot back from the TRB or a pilot who lost their partner and are close to where they failed candidate left off. The TRB is quite busy so if it’s been a while since they last trained they get a refresher session to get them back in, same thing for SIM.
Worst I’ve seen is TRB in phase 1, eventually make it through and then another trip to the TRB in phase 2, I can’t think of any who’ve made more than two trips to the TRB before making it through. So doing the math, that scenario would require an extra 6-8 total extra sessions combined with phase 1 and 2, if they are getting 10 extra per phase, they would not be successful in the Jazz world, I seriously doubt AC would do that either.
So who is doing this as it does raise some questions and I would think Transport Canada would be taking a close look at this too. I know they are not happy with the amount of failures we’ve been experiencing.
I honestly fear for the future of this profession, we are NOT getting the best and the brightest entering the profession anymore, it’s a different level of skill new pilots come in with and not in a good way, some I question whether or not they should do something else

right, paying 58K and you want the best and brightest.

No argument here, I know why, too bad the airlines don’t seem to care, 20 extra sessions, how much does that cost? Sheesh

[‘Bob’]

Depends on what their sim capacity is and what the direct costs of operation are. The sims and staff are fixed costs unless there is overtime involved. Staff travel costs are minimal on their own planes.

This is likely part of why large airlines don’t have bonds even though pilots jump ship. Their actual costs for training are far less than a 703/704/705 lite operation that is paying market rates to rent a simulator and get crews to and from it or doing on-wing training.

Which is why I wonder about Nav Canada’s cost and what they actually use. Like Vatsim pretty much as all of the features (like X-Plane does for Level D sims which is why it’s often used). The expense would be a console, and training staff. No expensive full-motion like airplane simulators have that candidates break and requires a massive building to house.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Which is why I wonder about Nav Canada’s cost and what they actually use. Like Vatsim pretty much as all of the features (like X-Plane does for Level D sims which is why it’s often used). The expense would be a console, and training staff.

Here are some reasonable numbers to take someone from day 1 to licensed as an IFR controller. Lets assume it only takes 2 years and all of the trainers are on the lowest salary band. All of the numbers below are taken right from the CBA's which are easily available on the Government of Canada Negotech website, so I'm not divulging any secrets.

Trainee salary: $54,710 X 2 years = $109,420
Trainer salary (6 months Basic SIM): $133,974/year X 3 instructors X 6 months / 10 students per class: $20,096 per student
Trainer salary (6 months Specialty SIM): $133,974/year X 3 instructors X 6 months / 10 students per class: $20,096 per student
Trainer salary (OJT): $133,974 X 1 year = $133,974
OJT Premium: $14.93 X 8 hours per shift X 200 shifts = $23,888
OTS (People who run the SIMs): $90,000/year X 10 OTS X 12 months (Basic and Specialty SIM) / 10 students per class: $90,000 per student
Admin Staff (At least 3 people): $60,000 X 3 people X 2 years / 10 students per class = $36,000 per student

Total = $433,474 just for salary alone. Add in pensions and benefits for everyone above, the cost of the simulators themselves, any overtime required, evening and weekend premiums, and it climbs rapidly. I'm sure I forgot some expense lines as well. As most of the trainers will be near the top end of the payscale, you can also add another 45% on top of my quoted Trainer salaries which takes it over $500,000 in salary alone.

It's easy to see how it can all add up to almost $1,000,000 to take an IFR trainee from day 1 to fully licensed.

[Turboprops]

Where is this, I’ll put this on my airline to avoid list!

I was told by a Jazz instructor during my sim training, some GGN pilots needed 10 extra sims when they came over. Unless he’s bullshitting me, the airline you want to avoid would include your own airline.

[cdnavater]

Where is this, I’ll put this on my airline to avoid list!

I was told by a Jazz instructor during my sim training, some GGN pilots needed 10 extra sims when they came over. Unless he’s bullshitting me, the airline you want to avoid would include your own airline.

Seems like bullshit, there was a transportability of a PPC program that required, I believe 6 sessions so if someone needed a couple extra it could end up 10 but keep in mind their SOPs were not the same and some had more difficulty adapting to the Jazz SOPs then others.
We definitely held the standard and continue to which is why we have such a high failure rate, that won’t change until we pay more to attract more experienced pilots!

[CaptDukeNukem]

I rarely agree with Cdnavater lol. But I’m with him on this one….. 10 extra sims is not a thing. Maybe 10 total. Like mentioned above.

As much as I dislike jazz, their training program was solid.

[goingnowherefast]

What was going on in the YUL FIR Tuesday afternoon?

It didn't sound like a controller staffing thing, but certainly was a WTF moment. Anyone with more details?

[Braun]

What was going on in the YUL FIR Tuesday afternoon?

It didn't sound like a controller staffing thing, but certainly was a WTF moment. Anyone with more details?

We had an equipment failure. Basically all our flight data and flight progress strips went down. It also had an impact on our main flight data processing system. Not a fun situation.

[pelmet]

Automation is the inevitable solution and is already on the horizon. Towers without people/Cry all you want about loss of jobs but if humans can't get the jobs done due to vacation, computers eventually will. Will the computers be able to do all positions? Perhaps not initially, but redundant controllers will be moved to places with shortages to end the shortages. Perhaps no layoffs will be required, but there may be less hiring required in the future.

[nvcatc]

Automation is the inevitable solution and is already on the horizon. Towers without people/Cry all you want about loss of jobs but if humans can't get the jobs done due to vacation, computers eventually will. Will the computers be able to do all positions? Perhaps not initially, but redundant controllers will be moved to places with shortages to end the shortages. Perhaps no layoffs will be required, but there may be less hiring required in the future.

It’s funny you posted this sentiment with the comment right above yours stating that the computer programs just failed and made for a shit show in YUL.

We’re a long way off from not needing human controllers.

[Arnie Pye]

with all of the variables involved, I never thought I'd see a self driving car and yet here we are...

How hard is it to automate a voice generator that checks a radar distance between two aircraft, reads out the wind and reads "clear to land" 500x per day?

If the word "go around" or "missed approach" are heard or a radar track is noted doing 200 kgs half way down the runway at 500 feet, "check you're in the missed. Follow the published missed and go over to approach control on 132.75"

I don't think it would be as hard as you think.

[cdnavater]

with all of the variables involved, I never thought I'd see a self driving car and yet here we are...

How hard is it to automate a voice generator that checks a radar distance between two aircraft, reads out the wind and reads "clear to land" 500x per day?

If the word "go around" or "missed approach" are heard or a radar track is noted doing 200 kgs half way down the runway at 500 feet, "check you're in the missed. Follow the published missed and go over to approach control on 132.75"

I don't think it would be as hard as you think.

I think the point being made is, computers fail

[goingnowherefast]

Computers and even AI are great at supporting the human. But only a human can look at a bunch of data and go WFT! That's not right. xxxx go-around!
What's better than 1 human is that 1 human being crosschecked by a 2nd human. We have first officers in the flight deck and AMEs have dual sign-outs.

Computers are great, but all computers follow this principle: garbage in, garbage out. AI, or not.

[pelmet]

with all of the variables involved, I never thought I'd see a self driving car and yet here we are...

How hard is it to automate a voice generator that checks a radar distance between two aircraft, reads out the wind and reads "clear to land" 500x per day?

If the word "go around" or "missed approach" are heard or a radar track is noted doing 200 kgs half way down the runway at 500 feet, "check you're in the missed. Follow the published missed and go over to approach control on 132.75"

I don't think it would be as hard as you think.

I think the point being made is, computers fail

Here is the remote tower by Saab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqv8EECMXJM

[CaptDukeNukem]

with all of the variables involved, I never thought I'd see a self driving car and yet here we are...

How hard is it to automate a voice generator that checks a radar distance between two aircraft, reads out the wind and reads "clear to land" 500x per day?

If the word "go around" or "missed approach" are heard or a radar track is noted doing 200 kgs half way down the runway at 500 feet, "check you're in the missed. Follow the published missed and go over to approach control on 132.75"

I don't think it would be as hard as you think.

I think the point being made is, computers fail

Here is the remote tower by Saab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqv8EECMXJM

Okay…. A remote tower that is being staffed from a “remote” ATC location is different that an AI computer running the show. This type of tower could have some applications around the world and I’m not against the idea.

But I fail to see the point of this video in the current threads context

[cdnavater]

I think the point being made is, computers fail

Here is the remote tower by Saab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqv8EECMXJM

Okay…. A remote tower that is being staffed from a “remote” ATC location is different that an AI computer running the show. This type of tower could have some applications around the world and I’m not against the idea.

But I fail to see the point of this video in the current threads context

Ft. Mac tower was remotely operated years ago, not sure of todays status.
Edit; strange, I was pretty certain that years ago cymm tower was operated via camera(remotely), can’t find anything about it so, I conclude that I imagined it

[DHC-1 Jockey]

NavCanada just signed an agreement with the service provider that will be setting up the first remote site in Canada. Kingston is going to to be the first "hub" to test remote FSS and Tower applications.

No word on which FSS and Towers will become remote first.

https://www.navcanada.ca/en/news/news-r ... ive--.aspx

[pelmet]

I think the point being made is, computers fail

Here is the remote tower by Saab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqv8EECMXJM

Okay…. A remote tower that is being staffed from a “remote” ATC location is different that an AI computer running the show. This type of tower could have some applications around the world and I’m not against the idea.

But I fail to see the point of this video in the current threads context

Ideally, it will require less staff and the employee shortage that is causing so many delays will slowly go away.

[goingnowherefast]

"Ideally", key word there. If they can get away with running at 70% staffing levels, they will. 70% of 10,000 or 70% of 500, it's still short staffed.