Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/27/21 in all areas

  1. You may be increasing access to Air Traffic Control positions for VATSIM members, but this fails to fulfil the second part "whilst maintaining a standard of quality Air Traffic Control service that VATSIM has become known". If controllers are allowed to continue controlling after showing they do not want to maintain the "standard of quality Air Traffic Control service that VATSIM has become known." then we are not upholding the purpose of the document that lets them do that. This is truly all about quantity over quality.
    14 points
  2. And you think this is a BAD THING??? If the controller doesn't care to keep up with changes, then why the heck would we keep him around? If you kept insisting that 2+2=5 after spending years doing my taxes, I sure as heck would not keep you as my accountant just to "connect an accountant to a tax payer"? If we're going to have this kind of standard, we're going to end up in IVAOs "no ARTCC" levels at some point - i.e. controllers who don't even know what a runway is and I for one, don't think I want to stand for - or be associated with that sinking ship. Matt - your comments come acr
    12 points
  3. Be honest, when was the last time someone tried to set an activity policy that had to be intervened by the BoG? Most ARTCC policies have to go through Division approval, and no Division would allow that through. We have a management structure in place for situations just like this, and they work 99% of the time. The 1% fringe case can be handled case-by-case by the BoG and doesn't need to be codified into policy. This is red tape for the sake of red tape. Not what VATSIM is about. VATSIM is about a mutual love of aviation, not LARPing the bureaucracy of the FAA.
    12 points
  4. This is the crux of the issue. An incompetent controller who refuses to improve will drive away competent controllers. @Matt In the examples you provided, two of them refused to comply with the standards or re-train themselves in order to comply with standards. In the follow-up, you asked "So you would prefer to fly on unicom than fly with a controller who's not perfect?" No one is demanding perfection here, what we want is competence that simulates reality which is vastly different from perfection. I would rather fly with no ATC than be vectored in circles by an incompetent controll
    10 points
  5. Here's a crazy idea. Remove the policy from GCAP altogether and let each subdivision create their own activity policy as they see fit. If a controller is unhappy with an activity policy at a particular subdivision, they can move to a subdivision with a more lenient policy. One size fits all policies like this are not the solution with a global network like VATSIM.
    10 points
  6. Dear Members, We are lately experiencing various cases (positive and negative) with Eurocontrol, and are have now decided to start a "Potential Project" in order to determine the future of Eurocontrol. In order to do such we need your feedback! Please follow this survey link and fill it out (will take 5-10 minutes of your time): https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XD3NZJD NOTE: This survey will NOT determine the immediate future of Eurocontrol, it will give us an idea of which direction to point our work to. Many thanks for your cooperation and fairness! Regards
    9 points
  7. GCAP is the perfect opportunity as far as I'm concerned to "reclaim" what a C3 should signify and to set some baseline standards for attaining the rating. The problem that it needs to fix is that the C3 rating is so inconsistent across the network in what it signifies and represents. Anecdotally speaking, there are places on the network where they are given out with almost no requirements, and others where there are multiple stringent measures in place to ensure that the rating is seen as a proper achievement. The policy does a good job in places of trying to set some sort of a standard,
    8 points
  8. Hi All, Firstly I'd like to say that GCAP is a big step forward from GRP and brings some exciting new possibilities. I know a policy like this takes a lot of time to create and you will never be able to please anyone - my thanks/thoughts go out to those involved with this project, however I'd like to throw my two cents in regardless. Most of GCAP seems to remove a lot of red tape from GRP which is naturally a good thing since the VATSIM world is extremely varied and a one size fits all approach will never work, however the visiting controllers endorsement does seem a little bit too presc
    8 points
  9. Huh, cool! Give me a minute, and I'll connect as SY_APP or CTR, since no SUP will remove me, we'll see how that goes. As for the rest of the statement: I'm sorry, but I completely disagree and I base that opinion on my own experience not controlling for that amount of time then coming back, but also on being on senior staff for ZNY for 10 years in total, and seeing what happens when most people rejoin. It's not 2 out of 10 that are not proficient, it's 8/10. And those two? Yeah, sorry, they need to waste an hour to do a checkout, but we do that to ensure that we don't end up with a bunch
    8 points
  10. Hi Matt, My question is, why are the BoG are taking a hard line stance at this while the majority of people who control on the network are against it? Would you be able to give us some insight on: What actual number of active membership does this actually affect? At the core of this policy, why are we lowering the standards for controlling hours? I understand this has been addressed on another section but my guess is that it only affects a small subset of membership, and that it is scattered throughout the network. This seems like a "micro management" policy. Each division and su
    8 points
  11. I thought this was a public review/input period. Apparently my legitimate suggestion is being dismissed by the Marketing and Communications VP. What amazing communication skills. My suggestion nowhere said "if you don't like it, leave". It suggested allowing subdivisions the latitude to determine their own activity requirements, and allows all controllers the freedom of choice.
    8 points
  12. Your entire statement just proves, that you prefer low quality, all-around-annoying incompetent ATC, rather than single departure of this kind of person, who is refusing to improve, lol. Because of the decisions as per above, you save a single, incompetent departure from the network, making tons of people dedicated to the network going off, because they are driven nuts by these kind of people.
    7 points
  13. Having given this a bit of thought, I believe the 50% rule must return, in a clear and direct way, unless the sub-divisions get the power to remove someone from being a home controller. As it stands right now, what is stopping someone from doing all their training in sub-division A, but doing all their controlling in sub-division B? Imagine sub-division B is the place at which someone really wants to control. But their training queues are long, extending into many months. A person would be visiting country A, doing all their training there, as it is really fast with virtually no queu
    7 points
  14. Writing policy by implication is the wrong idea. If you want something to be in policy, write it down. Gray area has no room here.
    7 points
  15. Thank you Matt for all of your explanations and I truly appreciate you taking the time to answer several questions for VATUSA staff last evening. Many of my thoughts have been echoed by previous posts, so I will aim to keep this direct and to the point. Also, please note that any disgust or disapproval is aimed at this policy, not at anyone in particular. Playing to the lowest common denominator doesn't work. While some people, like Matt himself had referenced, might be able to get on the bike after not riding after a long while and with little failure, the fact is that this skill se
    7 points
  16. I'm not sure how Don comes into play. He had to be checked out to work SMO at all, and SMO is smack in the middle of really busy, fun, and complicated airspace. It took weeks to build to that, anyway, and the debate in general over how visitors and new transfers are restricted has to do with getting them to traffic sooner. It's going to take 4 weeks to build steady traffic if you control regularly (and are even good enough people want to come back) or less than a single week to check out for and run wild on more than a single airport, and in the process the educators have an opportunity to edu
    6 points
  17. Speaking from a division where we were known in the past for "rating tourism" I can tell you that this 100 hour requirement before transferring will make an effect. We had several members from multiple divisions notably from VATEUD and VATUK in the past come here get training in the small quiet places and then transfer out after 50 hours and 90 days have passed. Some quiet vACCs would love to train more people so they get activity I think these quiet vACCs need to be recognized. Not everyone is VATEUD or VATUK in terms of activity, if a vACC wants to retain it's member then this is one way to
    6 points
  18. Great thoughts, Matthew. I wish to uniquely develop them one step further and include my recommendation for network currency requirements. In them, I also build in an incentive for our members to control and accelerate through training while paying respect and courtesy to members that have already put in the time and effort to want to be here. General Requirement: 3-6 hours in 6 months, LOA anytime and perpetually renewable (removal prevention). Required GRP check if a member returns to service after 6 months or upon the end of the LOA. Division controls the hours, but it must fall between a
    6 points
  19. After all else fails, downgrades are the cleanest and easiest way to establish a baseline of competency upon which a controller can improve. So long as opportunity and help exist to be able to afford a student the opportunity to earn back their proficiency, the educational construct of this network is in tact. It’s when there is an unequal opportunity for success that is present that there’s a breakdown in our system. If after showing the student various ways in which they can get back on the right track they fail to accept their end of the bargain, then their dismissal is not only acceptable
    6 points
  20. We all know that's way too logical of an idea for the BoG.
    6 points
  21. I read through this entire topic - and it appears the representative (sorry if this is not the correct phrasing) for the BoG is completely out of touch with what almost every person who controls on the network or manages an ARTCC in some form appears to be trying to get across. I am that pilot (the one who Matt initially proposed opinions from closer to the beginning of the topic). I am a pilot on the network - a pilot who has had a lot of amazing experiences. As someone who sometimes takes breaks, I myself struggle with coming back after a while. - add the responsibility of a controller,
    6 points
  22. I don't particularly have an issue with standards varying across the world - it doesn't make much sense training someone for extreme traffic levels if they're in a division/sub-division which gets very little traffic. In an ideal world everyone would be trained to the same high standards, but I think it's more worthwhile to train 3 students to the required standard in that area than 1 student to real world standards. It's also worth noting that a lot of people struggle to learn the practical aspects of controlling, in the real world very few people make it through the selection processes and t
    6 points
  23. The alleged problem that the GCAP is addressing is the fact that "sub-divisions have too strict activity requirements, and this is causing the problem that if somebody suddenly has a life-or-death situation outside of VATSIM and is unable to dedicate any time to VATSIM for a period of a couple of months, that when they get back, they lose interest because they lost their validations and have to get re-familiarised with how to control." In my view, this is a very irrational point of view. Like I said, the likelihood of that happening to a member is very very low and it's very easy to just
    6 points
  24. This ^ ...and this ^ Unfortunately, the standard of Visiting Controllers in some areas has been pretty poor. I haven't put in hours of observing, training, learning documents (and subsequently helping to produce them) for someone to come charging in and make a mockery of this because they hold the same rating as me (or lower!). I've seen people transfer out to beat my Division's queues to immediately come back and control at their new rating as a visitor with no requirement to check their knowledge or skill in the very different airspace that my Division has to elsewhere. The
    6 points
  25. I agree with everything Ben has said above. Another point is that if (I am going to use the UK as an example) we have visiting controllers always staffing positions such as Manchester and Gatwick it might not leave any room for our home members to control the positions. Also, having lots of visiting controllers may impact the training of the Divisions members as they will not be able to get onto the live network easily due to the amount of visitors constantly staffing up training aerodromes (The UK's visiting system currently does not allow the vast majority of visitors to control any tr
    6 points
  26. Hi all, after checking the new draft I've not found any specific rule about the language and like Lars and Todd say, I would like seriously to have an official answer / specific rule. Here at VATSIM Spain for the visitor controllers is a requirement to know basic spanish fraseology in order to give ATC service also in Spanish for local pilots. As far as I remember we have this rule since 2015 more or less. In the past we had a short period without it, and we had very very bad situations between ATCs and pilots. We have had during these years some meetings with VATSIM /VATEUD staff regardi
    6 points
  27. Let's start of by saying that I can understand that rating downgrades are not fun for anyone and I can agree that this should be avoided when possible. However, by suspending some or all controlling privileges just makes things immensely confusing. This is basically saying (as I interpret it, otherwise the paragraph is not written clear and concise) "Hey, you're an S3, but missing competences. We don't like downgrading you to S2, so we are removing privilage X, Y and Z that are part of the S3 rating. So technically you're an S2, but you're shown as an S3". See? This only increases confusion
    5 points
  28. [Citation Needed] So what you are saying is that you would rather have someone control a position they are not competent on, and provide bad service to pilots than force them into retraining. Cool. A lot of the GCAP now makes more sense, and the places where you have stated "the BoG doesn't care to inflate numbers" is complete and utter BS, when you look at this statement and the fact that the BoG doesn't want controllers removed for inactivity. The "educate" part of VATSIMs motto is a joke.
    5 points
  29. Citation needed. Can the BoG provide data that controllers who have been downgraded leave vs remediate? If not, this is all conjecture and should be thrown out.
    5 points
  30. I promise you this isn’t about artificially inflating numbers. This is about letting someone who earned a rating come back with no significant hoops they need to jump through to control again. We’re really not interested in mandating an activity requirement. If a division or sub division did not want to have an activity requirement we would fully support that. We’re in essence now allowing activity requirements which really hasn’t been acknowledged by global before. The point is they can’t be excessive and we’re already discussing revisions. Something to the tune of 6 hours with
    5 points
  31. And everything here seems to imply that sub-division staff just wants to remove people from their rosters. That they are waiting to a year and one day to finally remove someone. Obviously I can't speak to everyone, but it would be weird if that was the case somewhere. We put training resources in our students, we would want them to be active. The minimum activity requirement is a big stick we can use if someone really lacks the competence and isn't actively trying to get better. And barely getting online doesn't help that. Say there's a requirement of two hours a month. It's not like we imm
    5 points
  32. I guess we'll have to agree on disagreeing on this one. I can't see a point in wasting hours of training for situations that will not happen to the majority of controllers. Many places have enormously long training queues, are we going to delay everyone even more by spending hours teaching something that will not be needed? And let's just assume everything is being taught properly, and everyone worldwide learns how to do all types of parallel runway operations during their S3 training. If someone then stays for 3 years in their sub-division which has not a single airport with p
    5 points
  33. And how would I go about learning parallel runway operations in a country that doesn't have an airport with parallel runways? There are a few specific procedures that need to be taken into account when controlling parallel runways, it isn't just saying 03L and 03R instead of only saying 03. And then there are airports where you can have aircraft approaching in parallel without any sort of restriction, as the runways are far enough away from each other to allow it, whilst other airports have them too close to each other, so specific separation on final is needed. If a sub-division has
    5 points
  34. It matters because your home facility is not just where you live, but where you TRAIN. Your home facility invests dozens and dozens of man-hours in training you. You should be required to return that investment in kind. Yes, most people do treat it that way, but training is such a limited resource. If I spend my time teaching someone, I would like our subdivision to benefit. Yes, go visit elsewhere and learn, but don't forget who taught you most of what you learned about controlling. I always thought the 50/50 rule was perfectly fair and reasonable. If you want to spend more time controll
    5 points
  35. Change "live training resources" to "live training" everywhere and then define live training above it as: "Live training is defined as formal, live instruction from another person acting as a mentor or instructor for any length of time and in any setting. Live training does not include self-paced, computer-based training; written examinations; policy documentation; or other self-guided learning not requiring the live presence of a mentor or instructor."
    5 points
  36. You said it right there. This is a hobby. Hobbies take up time. This is also a hobby that requires knowledge. Sure, you may be someone who retains information okay, but not everyone is. That’s okay, but allowing me to log in once a year for an hour. I can do that at like 2am on Christmas and have NO traffic and I am still active. I do this for 3 years then decide to come back. Based on this policy, I should be good to go to control and have no issues at all. Controllers are held to a lot higher standard than pilots in terms of our training, but this policy is going to push that standard down t
    5 points
  37. So writing an email for 2 minutes is that big of an issue apparently, if you can't meet 1-3 hours per 3 months? As I said before, controllers should also be responsible enough to know that if they've been away for a long time, that when they go back they have to do a familiarisation. An LoA just makes it a lot easier for both parties.
    5 points
  38. Matt, you know that 2 hours a week isn't a requirement anywhere and you are blowing that out of proportion. On the other hand, I have seen C3s on the network, and have been for 15 years, completely forget how to work en-route radar after returning after 2 years. 1 hour a year is way too low and honestly, this restriction should absolutely not be included in the final copy of the policy as it is red tape just to add red tape.
    5 points
  39. C3 is a Senior Controller. No it's not management but at that level you are a leader and a role model in our community regardless of if you think you are or not. Improving a real world tangible skill as a part of that can't be a bad thing.
    5 points
  40. Teachable moment right here: whenever the automation does something you don't expect, your first reaction should be to turn it off, drop to a lower level of automation. For the purpose of this, there are only 3 levels of automation: FMS (LNAV/VNAV) Autopilot (HDG/ALT) Hand-flying If the FMS does strange things, switch to HDG (which is why you should always set the heading bug to your current heading after each turn: this way, switching to HDG will keep the aircraft on its current course). Then turn the HDG bug where you need the aircraft to go. Then, and only then, start
    5 points
  41. IMO the blanket "one hour per 12 months" is atrociously low. Why are we restricting subdivisions from implementing more strict activity requirements if desired? Having someone log in on HMN_DEL for 1 hour every 12 months at 2AM does not keep your skills up.
    4 points
  42. Edit: I'll be honest, I wasn't going to bother responding to any of these threads because the attitude that VATGOV has given thus far has been "we're doing what we want, we'll act like we're listening, but then give you the same response and MAYBE compromise, but it's all a show". Please, by all means, prove me wrong. I left VATSIM for ~6 years. If there was a lower controlling requirement, would I have actually stayed on? No, no I wouldn't have. I just got bored/exhausted of the hobby, and my life focus changed to something else. ZSE's requirements back in 2014 was 3 hours a month. Did I
    4 points
  43. All members of the Board have been intimately involved in the preparation for this public review. Matt has done a great job in leading the charge. I think you will find the draft was only posted publicly a few days ago - I'm not sure what engagement we would expect from the rest of the group until the community has had a bit of time to offer their comments, given that we have already commented extensively prior to the public review. It's certainly my intention to return to this topic and engage in the conversation over the coming week.
    4 points
  44. It is very high and for good reason. The training staffs invest significant amounts of time training people for their area and we want to make sure their work isn’t in vain. The requirements ensure that those places see the return on their time investment as opposed to someone coming in to skip a training queue somewhere and then immediately transferring out after getting their rating.
    4 points
  45. Yes. Alternatively, you could provide some sort of aggregate data like "we've had 10 cases of requests to downgrade ratings in Q1 & Q2. Of those, 2 were disgruntled and left the network (with documentation supporting their actual reason for leaving), 1 was granted a downgrade, 3 were given warnings and are in the process of remedial training with their respective divisions while keeping the rating, and the remaining 4 left the network due to unknown reasons." No data or purely anecdotal data should not be represented in policy decisions nor should they inform any reasoning behind thos
    4 points
  46. Back on track: The intent of this policy isn't 100% bad, but it needs more flexibility in my opinion. I would word the policy thusly: "8.02(a)A controller is considered active provided they have completed the activity requirements of their sub-division. The sub-division policy must be no less strict than division policy. Division policy must require at least one ATC session within the rostered division or sub-division of at least 1 hour duration within the preceding 12 calendar months, an observer who is actively seeking training, or a VATSIM Staff Member at any level performing duties
    4 points
  47. According to my current vACC policies, visitors are required to know the standard phraseology in English and in the local language, however they don't need to be fluent in it. Due to this, most of the training can be done in English. For example: although German is a non-ICAO language, in Germany it's used for local VFR. If I wanted to visit this vACC, I'd try to learn as much as I can the standard german phraseology for that situation. At the end, I'd like to help and motivate new pilots and never create uncomfortable situations for them. But why could these happen? Due to my hypothetica
    4 points
  48. I'm gonna tell you guys a little story about a guy named Don Fiveash. Some of you who have been around here a long time may remember the name, but for those that haven't, it's a good story, especially when it relates to the perception of "more busy and popular airports". Posted from the ATM at the time in ZLA, in 2006: https://forums.laartcc.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5624 Don (FH) Fiveash was a great friend to ZLA who passed away over the weekend of May 13, 2006. His contribution to the Los Angeles ARTCC in the areas of pilot training, controller training, and VFR awareness was
    4 points
  49. Hello, I'm here to announce the resignation of Ali Badreldeen as both the Middle East & North Africa Division and the Kuwait vACC Operation(s) Director effective immediately. Ali joined the respective teams back in the end of 2020 in order to establish the Kuwait vACC, Ali later joined the Divisional team to improve it's operational structures in sector files and much more. We thank Ali for his work and wish him the best of luck in the future.
    4 points
  50. Dear all, Pedro Rodrigues had resigned as the director of the the Portugal vACC. After having successfully passed the interviews, it is my pleasure to announce that Bernardo Reis will be taking over his position. Bernardo has been a long standing staff member in the vACC and is bringing a lot of background experience within the vACC with him to the role. Please join me in thanking Pedro for his service to the network and congratulating Bernardo on his new position!
    4 points
×
×
  • Create New...