Rating training is a critical phase in the professional development of Air Traffic Safety Electronics Personnel (ATSEP). It represents the specialized training required to ensure personnel are competent to manage specific systems or equipment in their operational environment. This stage of training bridges the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical, hands-on expertise, enabling ATSEP personnel to perform their roles effectively and safely within complex air traffic management (ATM) systems.
In regulatory frameworks such as ICAO Doc 10057 and EU Regulation 2017/373 (EASA Easy Access Rules), rating training is presented as an indispensable element of ATSEP training, albeit with nuanced differences in structure and focus. This article delves into the definition and purpose of rating training, explores its treatment in these two significant regulatory frameworks, and compares their approaches to highlight similarities and differences.
Rating training is the phase in ATSEP development where personnel are trained to operate, maintain, and manage specific systems, equipment, or tools in a live operational setting. Unlike basic and qualification training, which provide general and specialized knowledge respectively, rating training focuses on a system- or equipment-specific curriculum. The goal is to prepare ATSEP personnel for the unique demands of their role within a particular operational unit.
Typically, rating training involves a combination of theoretical instruction, hands-on practice, and on-the-job training. It is often accompanied by performance assessments and competency evaluations to ensure that personnel meet the required operational standards. This phase is essential for ATSEP personnel to gain operational certification or licensing for their designated systems or equipment.
The ICAO Doc 10057 framework, which outlines the training requirements for ATSEP personnel, positions rating training within the unit training phase. Unit training follows basic and qualification training, marking the final stage of ATSEP education before personnel are certified for operational duties.
In ICAO's framework, rating training is described as the process of equipping ATSEP personnel with the competencies necessary to manage specific systems or equipment within their assigned operational environment. It includes:
The emphasis in ICAO's approach is on preparing personnel for their roles within the context of their operational environment. By focusing on unit-specific requirements, ICAO ensures that rating training aligns closely with the operational demands of air traffic safety and electronics systems at individual units.
Under EU Regulation 2017/373 and the associated EASA Easy Access Rules, rating training is categorized as System and Equipment Rating Training. This phase is distinct from both basic and qualification training, forming a dedicated module focused on system- and equipment-specific competencies.
The EASA framework emphasizes the certification of ATSEP personnel to operate or maintain particular systems. The components of this phase typically include:
EASA's approach leans heavily on ensuring compliance with regulatory and safety requirements. By certifying personnel for specific systems, the framework underscores the importance of standardization and operational readiness across the European aviation landscape.
While both ICAO and EASA frameworks recognize the importance of rating training in ATSEP education, their approaches reflect differing priorities and operational philosophies.
Scope of Training:
ICAO's rating training is embedded within the unit training phase, focusing on preparing personnel for the specific demands of their operational environment. It includes broader unit-specific assessments, which may incorporate a variety of systems used within that unit.
EASA’s System and Equipment Rating Training narrows the focus to individual systems or equipment, certifying personnel for specific operational roles.
Focus on Certification:
ICAO prioritizes operational readiness within a specific unit or context, tailoring training to the unit's needs.
EASA emphasizes regulatory compliance and standardization, ensuring personnel are certified to operate specific systems according to uniform European standards.
Practical Implementation:
Both frameworks integrate hands-on practice and competency evaluations, but ICAO places a stronger emphasis on on-the-job training (OJT), providing a supervised, real-world learning experience.
EASA often incorporates simulated environments in addition to real-world practice, particularly in the context of European training infrastructures.
Assessment Methods:
ICAO’s assessments are broader and unit-specific, designed to validate overall readiness for operational deployment within the unit.
EASA’s evaluations are system-specific and tied closely to certification, ensuring personnel meet regulatory standards for their designated systems.
Flexibility vs. Standardization:
The key difference between ICAO and EASA approaches to rating training lies in their underlying philosophies: ICAO prioritizes flexibility to accommodate the diverse operational contexts of ATSEP personnel worldwide, while EASA emphasizes standardization to ensure uniformity across the European aviation system. Let’s explore these distinctions in greater detail.
ICAO’s training framework, as outlined in Doc 10057, is designed to cater to a broad spectrum of operational environments. Air traffic management systems, airport sizes, and technological infrastructures vary significantly across the globe, and ICAO acknowledges that a “one-size-fits-all” approach would not be practical for rating training.
As such, ICAO embeds rating training within the unit training phase, allowing training programs to adapt to the specific needs of individual operational units. For example:
This flexibility empowers training providers to customize the curriculum and assessments, ensuring that ATSEP personnel are equipped to handle the exact systems and equipment they will encounter in their roles. However, this adaptability also requires significant coordination to ensure that training quality remains consistent and meets the required safety standards across varying contexts.
In contrast, EASA places a strong emphasis on standardization to harmonize training practices and certifications across the European Union. The European aviation ecosystem relies on highly interconnected systems, with ATSEP personnel often interacting with equipment and procedures that span multiple countries or air traffic regions. As a result, a standardized approach ensures:
For example, if a particular radar system is used in multiple European airports, the System and Equipment Rating Training for that system will follow a consistent curriculum. This ensures that personnel certified to operate or maintain the system in one country can do so effectively in another without additional training.
The difference between flexibility and standardization reflects the distinct contexts in which ICAO and EASA operate:
For training providers and organizations, these differences mean that:
While flexibility allows ICAO to address diverse global needs, it can lead to inconsistencies in training quality if not carefully managed. On the other hand, EASA’s standardization enhances reliability and interoperability but may limit adaptability in unique or localized operational contexts.
Rating training is a cornerstone of ATSEP education, providing personnel with the specialized skills and knowledge required to manage specific systems or equipment in operational settings. While both ICAO Doc 10057 and EU Regulation 2017/373 emphasize the importance of this phase, their approaches reflect distinct priorities: ICAO focuses on flexibility and unit-specific readiness, while EASA prioritizes standardization and regulatory compliance.
Understanding these differences is essential for organizations and training providers operating in international or European contexts. By aligning training programs with the appropriate framework, stakeholders can ensure that ATSEP personnel are not only operationally competent but also compliant with the relevant standards. Ultimately, both frameworks aim to uphold the safety, efficiency, and reliability of air traffic management systems—a shared goal that underscores the critical role of rating training in global aviation.
In the context of rating training, simulation plays a vital role, particularly in preparing ATSEP personnel to manage degraded modes of operation—situations where systems fail or operate below optimal performance. Within SkyRadar’s SkySMC, students can practice recognizing and troubleshooting degraded applications in a controlled, safe environment. The platform enables instructors to insert multiple faults into the system, requiring students to diagnose and resolve issues using the correct tools and procedures. By simulating real-world challenges, SkySMC ensures ATSEP trainees gain critical hands-on experience that would be impractical or unsafe to replicate in an operational setting. Moreover, SkySMC tracks learning progress and outcomes, providing instructors with detailed insights into each student’s level of qualification. This ensures that ATSEP personnel are not only competent but also confident in their ability to address complex scenarios, enhancing operational safety and reliability.
Stay tuned to be always the first to learn about new use cases and training solutions.
Or simply talk to us to discuss your project.
