2019 was a significant year in the lifespan of Lektor. We were faced with a number of big and small things, and most of them for the first time. Learning how to deal with these new things along with running the operations simultaneously presented its challenges, but in the end of the year we were able to keep things on the green.
Aristotle described three rhetoric appeals, which are proofs of the art of language, i.e. rhetoric. These appeals prove the worth of a speaker and they make an educator. Instructor, coach, or teacher in aviation realm has actually a safety role. What the learner learns, needs to be correct and it has to be internalized effectively. In aviation, you do not learn to pass the exam, but you learn to keep flying public safe. Teacher’s skill in rhetoric, is therefore really a safety tool.
In aviation, the frontline professionals are usually considered the creators of safety to the industry. It is the pilots, the technicians, the air traffic control officers (ATCOs), etc. who are the safety network for flying public. They are the ones whose skills, abilities and often unseen actions ensure that people and goods get to their destinations in time and safely. Their jobs are mystified in their complexness, difficulty and stressfulness. But, consider this - all of these professionals were trained by someone. They have all attended someone’s class to become the safety superheroes they are. It is worth taking a moment to uncover what sort of people are developing the professionals taking care of your aviation safety needs.
In recent years ATM training has opened up to competition more and more. It has been a positive change as it has exposed old, big monolith training organisations to the impacts of market forces and made them realize how inefficient training has been. Air navigation service providers, the customers, have also woken to see how much resources they have been pouring into the services of these training organisations, who, in their monopoly positions, did not need to really care about how they conducted training pedagogically. As long as new ATCOs popped out from the end of the line, it was good enough. As long as current ATCOs went and sat through their annual refreshers, it was good enough.
The whole idea of competing in ATM training market has brought about new industrial phenomena and possibilities for customers looking for training provider partners. Service providers can now shop for schools to find the most appropriate partner to fulfill their training needs. They can openly express infidelity to their trusted long term partners they have been together with before, because it is OK to express free love today. They can organize calls for tender, CFTs, to find partner for themselves and make training organisations perform furious mating dances in hope to hook up with them.
The curious thing in these competitions is to look at the criteria, which are defined for the grounds of awarding the contract. The list is usually quite exhaustive and includes items such as quality of training facilities, simulators, classrooms, and technical arrangements, accommodation options for students, training cost, training quality and so on. The competitors are ranked based on how they scored in each of the criteria, with weighed value given to the scores. Then the scores are checked and the highest score wins.
The process sounds quite statistical and clear, but it is far from it. Which element is the most important to the customer and gets the biggest weight? How does one then evaluate what the score for any of the reviewed element is? It is relatively easy with quantitative items, like how many simulator positions, or classrooms are available, and what is the offered cost of training. It is, however, very complex and subjective to make decisions when it comes to qualitative elements of the competition, such as quality of the facilities or quality of training.
Even more fascinating is to see the explanations given by the customer about what were the criteria that actually did tip the decision the way it did. Sadly, the cost of training too often ends up as the main factor of the decision. Getting the price low can make the customer look away from quality. Getting the highest score on quality of training is by no means key to winning the contract. Important thing is that in the end all the boxes are ticked and all regulation are met. ‘What’ is important. ‘How’ is secondary. ‘How much’ matters most, because it is the simplest to quantify and express to the board of directors.
The training organisations, who try to get the contract, of course know this and they run their numbers too trying to find ways to get their own costs and overhead down. They know that their chances of success are slim if they are not able to do this and so they cut down from somewhere. It can be from number of training days, number of instructors, level of administration, scope of development work for the training, etc. There can be concrete and harmful elements, whose removal actually is beneficial, but the fact remains - something must always be taken away.
The question now becomes, how does the removed element affect the quality of training and how does it affect the customers’ decision to buy that training. In other words, does the offered low price product bring the expected value to the customer? Is the customer still getting what it wants according to the criteria which were defined in the call for tender? What is the leftover quality in the provided product?
The customer has an expectancy of how the training will pan out and that expectancy is based on their previous experiences. They know what has traditionally worked with their previous training provider and these expectations are projected to the new tender. After all, customers need a reliable product that they are sure it works.
The training providers can read all these expectations from the CFT, and try to match that in their offer. The customer gets what it wants, but in the process it muffles evolution. Training providers keep doing what they have been doing because that is what customer wants. The efficiency of resources has improved generally in the ATM training market, thanks to open competition, but surprisingly the quality of training has not seen the same boost in pedagogical sense.
The innovations and modern methods implemented in educational environments in other industries and in public domain have not been welcomed in ATM training world. ATM training quality is lagging behind the progress that is happening elsewhere. Enhanced technical skillsets and competencies modern ATCOs need in their work certainly requires that quality of training should keep up with the demands of the profession. Not to mention the fact that the trainees that enter the programs today, are not even millenials anymore. They are the next generation Z, and the ATM industry knows ridiculously little about them. Let alone understands what quality is for them in their education.
Training organisations are starting to have a little clue about the new breed of trainees, because they have good visibility to them from early on. They, therefore theoretically, could start making changes that would cater for the needs the trainees of today, but this does not happen nearly with the pace required. It is not totally the fault of actions by training organisations. There are some positive indications out in the marketplace of will to improve but even still the development is arrested.
Reason for this can be found on the pages of the calls for tender. The buyers of training define quality in the CFTs very much in traditional terms. They don’t want something new. They want what has worked before. And training organisations are offering them just that. This, unfortunately, only sustains tradition and status quo in ATM training.
If training falls behind in this development, it will have negative impact on the whole progress of aviation industry. A solution for this is to rethink benchmarking for ATM training. Traditionally, and still today, industry looks for best practices and innovations from within its own sphere. The attitude remains where only ATCOs know how to train ATCOs. No one from outside the industry is allowed any educated argument in the matter of ATM training. This is how industry’s own arrogance leads to traditionalists learning from other traditionalists, creating a loop with no way out. Unless there is courage by customers to ask different questions and demand higher quality, they will never receive anything new.
Dare to think big is a good advise. Why settle for benchmarking from within own industry, when there are thousands of elite educational institutes and models available outside. Traditional customers ask traditional questions when trying to find training providers for them. Remodeling those questions can open up the topic of what actually constitutes good quality training or what defines a high quality training organisation. Listening to, and learning from educational professionals during the tendering process is a valuable effort to get exactly, and even more from the training you are looking for. They can help formulate the problems and even evaluate the potential training providers in ways that can bring more value in the process.
To receive better quality in training, the customers first need to carefully define what exactly is the quality they want. The potential training providers jump hoops to get the contract, so it is a perfect opportunity for customers to ask for the moon. Only by asking for “crazy” things are training organisations forced to enhance their development processes and to find innovative solutions. Therefore it is largely on the customers to actually drive the development for the training quality. Training organisations do not develop unless they have to. It is not worth it for them. The only way they have to develop, is by customers demanding that.
Last week I was fortunate to join once again the ATCOs from all around Europe to play a few rounds of golf together at the European Controllers Golf Championship, the ECGC2018. The event is arranged annually by one of the participating teams, and it collects 200+ ATCOs every year. This is a highly social event despite its competitive aspect - it is, however a championship - held this time near Paris, at prestigious Le Golf National golf club.
A few ATCOs formed the organisation of ECGC already back in the 1980's, with the intent to meet their friend colleagues from other countries, who share the passion for the game of golf. It was supposed to be a small-time thing with a handful of controllers joining, but quite rapidly the event boomed as more and more ATCOs learned about the event and wanted to join. Today the ECGC can be described as an organisation with decades of tradition.
The tournament venue this year was one of the greatest golf courses in Europe, Le Golf National. This is a venue which will host the French Open this summer and later this year the Ryder Cup, and it is under grooming for these events already. This means that the course is extra difficult. Having a set of Sunday players on a course of this caliber creates an interesting situation. On the other hand they should enjoy playing on a course that you usually only see on TV Sports channels. The fairways are beautiful, the taller grass on the sidelines waving in the breeze, the design of the course and its rolling landscape absolutely gorgeous with many pretty ponds and lakes on the way. Even the weather was sunny and warm, only slightly windy now and then. In a nutshell, conditions were great for golf.
Playing the field a recreational golfer, and actually enjoying the game, is a bit different story. Standing on a course on which you know the big names of golf have played and will play, gives you a sense of greatness. You feel you can do anything. Hit it straight and long down the fairway or curve beautifully around a little mound, lob graciously over a tree or cross the water and land the ball next to the pin for an easy putt in. This is something I call a Human Factors moment. You somehow forget your limitations as a golfer even though you are very well conscious of them. At times you even verbalise this and tell your playing partners how you think you can make it. Then you end up trying too much and fail - not always, but lot more often than not.
After hitting it in the water, losing the ball to the thick rough - which, by the way, looks really pretty from a far with wind waving the tall grass - or after digging a slice of ground as thick as Doc 4444 from underneath your ball, you immediately realise you did something stupid. -I never should have gone for it. -What on earth was I thinking. There was no way this was ever going to work. Disappointments occur and you do not enjoy playing anymore.
Chances of success were super slim, but still you went for it. You probably can even explain your thought process that lead you to the decision of trying to go for the big shot, but only after the error has already happened. After you can't take it back. After the shot has already been counted. Only then, you can tell what made you think it was a good idea at the time.
Making a mistake like this, in a friendly tournament like this is not really a big deal. What is the risk? What is there to lose? One golf ball for sure, and maybe a prize umbrella for the longest drive or nearest to the pin competitions. There is not going to be an investigation because of your ill judgement. You are not going to be suspended from playing the game until you prove yourself worthy of the sport again and your skills are reassessed. You can actually laugh about it.
Therefore you may make the same bad decision again and again on the golf course. -I am sure I can make it this time if I apply a bit more power. -The last time I was aligned poorly, so now I turn my shoulders that way and hips this way, squeeze the club a bit and it will be perfect. You try, and fail again. And you keep on doing this over and over again, often for almost all of the 18 holes.
ATCOs disallow this sort of thinking on their job. ATCO shall always know the limits of your skills, you never take a chance you know you only maybe can succeed at. You never take an unnecessary risk and the threshold of what is considered "unnecessary" should be quite low for an ATCO. And furthermore, you should be able to tell when things are getting close to what you can and cannot make. How can you tell when to start saying no to more traffic?
Dunning-Kruger effect argues that you need to be good at what you do, to be able to realistically assess your own abilities. If you are good at what you do, you can better assess how good you actually are at that thing you do. A low ability controller will struggle to make that judgement. He can easily fall into false sense of competence, or illusory superiority, and end up making that poor decision. Over and over again.
Us amateur golfers in an environment suited for black belt professionals did just that. We thought we were better than we actually are, and we ended up losing lots of golf balls. Our abilities may be appropriate to a community golf course with lots of open space and few hazards, but out in the ECGC2018 course, we could not handle it mentally. We kept on making those poor decisions time and time again. We were not good enough for the course.
As an ATCO, you can't afford to lose that ball, though. You need to be on top of your game and in control at all times. A good instructor can say something, and feedback on not just about the trainee's technical skills, but also about her thinking processes. It is not just about what the trainee demonstrates, but also how she thinks and makes decisions. Tapping into those internal processes is essential for a trainer to be able to help trainee grow to be an observant, competent and aware controller. Being able to know when to play safe and smart, and knowing when the course is just too tough for you.
We are so happy to finally hit the marketplace with this live website, and to be able to start telling the world about our product and our brand. LEKTOR has been working for some weeks now under its founders name (yours truly), but with this move we get the actual company name and logo to public awareness.
The website welcomes contact requests, as well as it allows visitors to leave a resume outlining their qualifications and work experience. We are looking forward to hearing from anyone interested in us, in our operation and maybe joining our pool of expertise.
Samuli Suokas, Founder
