Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/28/21 in all areas

  1. Hey Everyone. I have waited for a while in order to get a view of all the opinions on this. And so I want to add my own thoughts as a division director of a division that has one FIR that has a language requirement that is enforced. Specifically our Montreal FIR. As you all may know, Canada IRL has two official national languages. English and French. In Quebec French is the dominant language, so much so in order to preserve the Quebec culture there is varying laws dictating how and when English may be used. Now, back to VATSIM. I have a Division where there is 6 FIRs which are predominantly English speaking and 1 FIR where there is a requirement for the controller to speak French to a level of being able to control. The FIR can provide training in English and some if not all of the documentation is both in French and English. In other words, the FIR has gone to every length to accomodate the visiting controller short of one thing. They must be able to control in French as there is a large number of pilots that ONLY want to converse in french. Then fly within the Montreal Airspace and not outside it. And IRL this is also applicable. I have and will continue to support Montreals language requirement. While CoR dictates that all controllers must be capable of controlling in English (again which aligns with RW), I see no reason why we need to inflict those same rules on Pilots. I would rather pilots focus their time on being able to fly and follow instructions properly than learning a new language! At the end of the day there is a WEALTH of places where a controller looking for a new challenge can go control, in a language they are comfortable with. There is no reason to inflict uncomfortable situations on pilots just to satisfy either a visiting controller or a "quantity first" style argument. When there really, to my view thus far, is no empiracle data that supports that this actually is a real issue. One thing that always sticks in my head about the Montreal FIR was a while back, they were in need of help from the training perspective. My Divisional Training Director took the time to learn French sufficiently to be able to adequately control in the language and thus, then be able to train controllers in that FIR. To me THAT was the right and most supportive thing to do. And kudos to him for doing so, for myself, I am lucky that all the staff in Montreal speak English so well and are willing to hold their meetings in English when I decide to turn up 😉 I'll admit, in the initial reviews of GCAP this one slipped past me as I was overly focused on other areas. However with the benefit of reading so many impassioned responses about this. I have to agree this is something that is important to many areas and I am unsure there is real tangiable benefit in dictating a path in a high level policy. Beyond, of course, it's up to the local division with RVP oversight. I think David has put this nicely. This is not something that should be dictated by GCAP. This should be left at the discretion of the RVP's. I think they are smart enough and know their respective area's well enough to make informed decisions with their divisions on what is best for each area. Phil
    12 points
  2. This is an example of parts of the BoG being completely out of touch with the sub-divisions. It is not reasonable to say to me, as a sub-division leader that when a visitor wants to branch out beyond the confines of their home facility that I need to tell my instructors to prioritize them over an OBS who hasn't even touched the scope. VATSIM is and always has been a hobby of specialization, from what I can tell the goal of this community is to have an accurate simulation of ATC around the world. When VATSIM comes to it's membership and says "We want to break down borders and let it all go" it's makes us think that VATSIM wants to be more like IVAO where there is significantly less oversight of controller training and standards. I am not gonna sit here and say there needs to be no restriction because some accountability is useful, but 14 days? From a network wide policy, this reaches too far. I personally thought 90 days was fine as a division wide policy, that prevents people from sitting too long and waiting and also gives the divisions the latitude to shorten that time for their sub-divisions. It makes no sense to me that a visitor from another region can come to my facility and demand a comp check within 14 days of joining, when I have OBS-S3s who have been waiting months to steal a precious second with my instructors because they are so off the wall busy. Yes I am going to stick by Comp checks need to happen, but this huge oversight from the BOG is absurd to me and needs to reevaluated. Even from not my perspective, if say I a VATUSA controller, visited VATUK and then demanded they evaluate me to the minimum standard within 14 days, are the 40 OBSes that have been waiting a year for a intro session going to be happy? Of course not. I'd be livid, and I'm sure they would be too. My official proposal is restore it back to 90 days and put language to allow divisions latitude to shorten. This document is trying to do the job of too many division staff members at once. Let your divisions make policies that are most beneficial to them. The bestest regards, Shane
    9 points
  3. You get all of this for free, completely from dozens of hours of donated time from people who work full time jobs in IT. Could you not be grateful for that? You are one of hundreds of people every year who don't manage to get a slot, and it's attitudes like this that make it worse. You are not entitled to this network any more than anyone else.
    6 points
  4. This decision is incredibly silly and further goes to show how Anglocentric this community can be. Any discussion had with divisions such as VATJPN, VATKOR, VATPRC etc?
    6 points
  5. Pilot error is a common occurrence in the real world. What is important is not perfection, the absence of error: what is important is the ability to detect and recover from error without developing an undesired aircraft state. It sounds like you are already good at detecting error. Well done! Your path to improvement is identifying threats sooner, before those threats cause the errors in the first place. You could also possibly work a little on remaining calm, as you identified- trust the process. They say experience is what you get just after you'd needed it, so keep practising! Making those mistakes might suck, but its a part of the learning process. Welcome to VATSIM!
    6 points
  6. Hello all, Attached to this post you will find the VATSIM Europe, Middle East and Africa Region quarterly region report for Q3 2021. On behalf of the Regional staff team, thank you to all the staff members, mentors and other volunteers within the region that help and contribute towards VATSIM and the Region! Should you have any questions about the report, don't hesitate to contact us at any time! 🛩️ EMEA Q3 '21 Report.docx (1).pdf
    5 points
  7. Honestly, how is that "back-seat moderating"? Please, do explain it to me. Is there a problem with what she said? You pointing out the obvious that it is someone's opinion is not required as we are in a discussion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Lastly, you pointing to a news article to apply as a Network Supervisor makes ZERO contribution to this thread and its primary discussion. A1 - Members shall, at all times, be courteous and respectful to one another.
    4 points
  8. Care to back that up with an argument? Again, like I said a maximum of 8 to 10 hours in 3 months. So if your division feels they only need one hour every three months that's entirely up to you. Just because the maximum is 10 doesn't mean that all divisions must enforce a 10 hour activity requirement. Hence the word maximum. This affords other divisions more flexibility. I fail to see the issue with this.
    4 points
  9. I submit that this kind of frustration surrounding the free-for-all booking process is exactly why it was primarily switched to a time-release lottery system...
    4 points
  10. Hey Andrew I agree. I think for clarity tho, we should really ensure we point out we are talking about the scope of ENDORSEMENTS here. Not ratings 🙂. So we can most certainly, if someone fails to read up on significant changes to a major or restricted minor and then makes a mess only, drop that endorsement until they have self educated or been guided. But the same cannot apply to a rating. There is another pathway to address that. Just for clarity <VBG> Phil
    4 points
  11. This, a simple "moodle" exam with 10 questions and a simple pass rate + plus a tickbox to confirm the controller has read the procedure change won't do it at all... You need to get the controller to put this into practice... Depending on the procedure you may not need 30 sweatbox sessions but also group seminars may be possible to do so.. That is efficient.
    4 points
  12. Let me tell you something from us real world pilots: we don't make mistakes "almost every time we fly", but we definitely "make mistakes every single time we perform a flight"! This is not a joke. We are just humans, we are not meant to fly. Mistakes happen and from the moment that you accept this fact, your nervousness and your goal of performing "that perfect flight" should change. "That perfect flight" is that flight where you recognized all the mistakes that you made and corrected them in time. This is the secret. Go for it! I have been flying for a living since 1998 and every single flight is a learning experience, it never stops.
    4 points
  13. Interesting take. I'll start by pointing out that this is my own view; I can't respond on behalf of the whole Board of Governors. I've been a member of VATSIM since 2006. In that time, the most enlightening position I held was as the lead for a division that was well renowned for churning out some of the best controllers on the network. It was also renowned for being notoriously impossible to progress in, as a controller. Some of us who hold these views, which some may find highly controversial, have witnessed first hand the dangers of going down the slippery slope of opening up the floodgates to elitisism. My base view is this: 1. There should be no activity requirements for controllers 2. Under no circumstances should a controller be permitted to be downgraded, once a rating is awarded. Huff and puff all you like at these two controversial principles. If there was nobody on VATSIM that held this view, there would be no pilots, and there would be no controllers. Fact. Similarly, if nobody held the opposing view, the network would be full of people who had no idea what they were doing, and the attractiveness and strength of the community would be lost. Our strength is by finding the middle ground that drives us forward. I would urge people to consider this fact before becoming offended because others may have a slightly different view. My view is simple: if someone has demonstrated their competency as per GRP (or GCAP), it is highly unlikely they would lose so much of their competency due to a lack of activity that they should in some way be restricted from controlling in the future. I strongly suspect that some of the root cause of these problems stem from people not being trained properly in the first place. My challenge is to fix the root cause of this problem, rather than to invent a bunch of get-out clauses later down the line: face the issues up front, and fix them! We hear enough horror stories of people waiting up to a year for basic training - if we could plow our resource into automating training at our entry-level ATC, and focussing our 1-2-1 on more intense levels (APP, CTR etc), we would have progressed a long way. Harder to do when you are worried about someone who hasn't logged in for 3 months!
    4 points
  14. To get down to brass tacks here, we are all hobbyists and dedicate the amount to controlling that we personally would like to dedicate. This discussion has shown that there are quite varied opinions on what constitutes enough to remain proficient. We all agree that major (busy) airports require more time than non-major or less busy airports. I will say my personal opinion is that a facility requiring 8 - 10 hours per quarter, or forcing recurrent sweatbox sessions every time there is a change for me to continue to have the “privilege” of working “your airspace” is absolutely ridiculous for a hobby. You would need to start paying me at that point. To be honest, I don’t know how you would retain a single hobbyist controller under such rules. To be blunt, this would be exactly such a practice from which GCAP looks to protect the individual controller. In some ways it also prevents sub-divisions and divisions from being their own worst enemy by stopping them from putting in overbearing requirements that would be harmful to them. Any number is going to be an “arbitrary” one, but the GCAP would be defining what the governing body of the network thinks is too much. This gets back to the quality vs quantity argument. Just as controller’s number one issue right now seems to be pilot quality, Pilots number one issue is lack of controllers. With training queues and times long, why are we looking for ways to cut controllers at the first opportunity? Why are we imposing such strict requirements on people who dedicate their time to providing a service on the network? This further reduces the amount of ATC available to everyone. As someone who flys on the network and wants quality ATC as well as a controller who takes pride in providing a good service, I can appreciate the work facilities do and concerns they have regarding these changes. However there absolutely comes a point where quality is absolutely overblown. When we reach that point, you’re absolutely right that I’m going to put quantity over overblown quality. We are a learning network, not a proficiency network. Mistakes are going to happen. Controllers are not going to do it right 100% of the time. Facilities are going to receive *gasp* the occasional piece of poor feedback. We need to remember that all of us are learning here, even the most seasoned professional. Even in the worst case scenario, say a controller majorly screws up and launches an airplane from a minor field directly into an airplane at the major field, that’s not the end of the world. Educate and move on. GCAP allows for people to learn and provides pathways to education if problems are observed. We absolutely can provide a realistic ATC simulation service without crazy requirements and not become IVAO or MS Zone controllers.
    3 points
  15. Folks, let's keep the conversation civil, productive and moving forward please. We're here to advance the goodness of the proposed policies, not testosterone levels.... 🙂
    3 points
  16. @Mateusz Zymlais correct. It's common in RW to "shoot the ILS" while under VFR in VMC in CAS if given ATC permission.
    3 points
  17. Keeping a pilot's license current has nothing to do with flying hours, so I'm not sure where you are getting this information from. In the preceding 90 days it is a minimum of either three take-offs and landings, a flight test, or a demonstration of competence to a flight instructor. Then on top of that you are required to annually renew your instrument rating (if you have one) with a flight test/sim check as well as undergo a 6-monthly check if you are operating turbine-engine aircraft above a certain MTOW. All this is irrelevant anyway, because we are talking about controlling, not flying, which require different skill sets. If you want to use the real world as an analog, controllers in the real world are required to maintain a minimum of 8 to 16 hours per month of controlling time to stay current, depending on the positions they operate. Yes. We have attempted to do so in the past but it has been denied for one reason or another. Now to the point, controllers cannot be expected to remain competent on a position with just 3 hours in three months. The traffic levels in some divisions and subdivisions simply do not allow it, as in some places you may only see one aircraft in that three hours. Divisions and subdivisions should be given more flexibility to decide what an appropriate number of hours is to be considered current. To keep these requirements within reasonable limits, the maximum should be set at 8 to 10 hours in 3 months for major facilities so you don't have people setting ridiculous 50 hour activity requirements.
    3 points
  18. In which case both a minimum and a maximum needs to be set. If you leave these out this will simply encourage rating mill divisions to process trainees as quickly as possible. By this rule, someone could in theory go from being an OBS to C1 in four days which I would not put past certain divisions to allow. I understand that the maximum is there to prevent divisions from setting unreasonable maximum hour requirements, however not every place has the same level of traffic as VATUSA. For example, if you had a person training on Addis Ababa, they would need a lot more hours on the network to gain the same level of exposure as someone would on New York. This maximum needs to be revised upwards to between 100 to 150 hours to accommodate divisions with different traffic levels and allow divisions and subdivisions more flexibility to set the hour requirements as they see fit. In addition, to stop rating mill divisions, I propose a minimum of 25 to 50 hours to be set.
    3 points
  19. After our recent VATMENA Divisional Meeting we strongly disagree with this. Why 36 hours? This seems like this number was pulled out randomly. This in our opinion should be increased to 72 hours depending on the rating that they are going for. S1-S2 = 24 hours minimum S3 = 48 hours minimum C1 = 72 hours minimum The higher the rating you go the more crucial you need to show you understand the theory. Having a much lower hour cooldown period allows people who don't want to put effort to "speedrun" through the exams. We currently have this set and we can clearly see who puts the effort in and who doesn't.
    3 points
  20. I'm going to bring this back up after our recent VATMENA Divisional Meeting which we discussed several parts of the GCAP. We all agreed that visiting controllers should be subjected to a competency check and if necessary provided training. The wording here allows a controller from a division/region with lower training standards to be added as a visitor simply by reading some documents. Will this be corrected/revised in future editions? In addition, would 7.03 be applicable to visitors as well? Since the Division sets the standards for the Core Comptencies.
    3 points
  21. For the first time ever in CTP, to increase efficiency and reduce separation, tracks containing ‘half degree waypoints’ will be used. For those unfamiliar, this post contains all you need to fly them during Cross the Pond, to ensure both you and the controllers have a smooth and enjoyable experience! What are half degree waypoints? “Traditional” coordinates are given in full degrees of latitude and longitude. For example 45N030W (4530N), which denotes 45 degrees north, 30 degrees west, the northern coordinate depicted in grey on the diagram below. This CTP some tracks will contain coordinates of half degrees of latitude and full degrees of longitude. An example can be seen in the figure below, in red: How should half degree waypoints be filed? The route string will be given to you in the correct format, ready to be copy and pasted into your favourite flight planning tool. They will consist of 4 figures describing latitude in degrees and minutes followed by “N” (North) or “S” (South), followed by 5 figures describing longitude in degrees and minutes, followed by “E” (East) or “W” (West). Make up the correct number of figures, where necessary, by insertion of zeros: 4430N03000W. How are these coordinates introduced into the FMS? First of all, please note that not all Airbus and/or Boeing addons support the format outlined below. High fidelity addons (e.g. FSLabs, Toliss, PMDG) support them. It is important that you test before flying. Below we will explain how to input half degree coordinates into Boeing and Airbus FMS only, as they are by far the most commonly flown manufacturers. If you are flying an aircraft that is neither Boeing nor Airbus, please consult the documentation provided with your addon on how to input these coordinates. Inputting half degree coordinates into Airbus FMS: Several formats exist to input half degree coordinates into an Airbus FMS. However, we will only showcase one in this briefing. The coordinates are introduced in the: xxxx.xN/yyyyy.yW format, as outlined below: Inputting half degree coordinates into Boeing FMS: The format to be used for Boeing aircraft is slightly different: Nxxxx.xWyyyyy.y, as shown below: How to insert them in the ARINC 424 format? If neither of the formats mentioned previously work in your aircraft, then give the ARINC 424 format a try. Even if you haven’t heard of it yet, you will most likely have used it on your previous journeys across the pond. For the half degree coordinates we will be using, Nxxyy is the appropriate format to use. (e.g. N4430). The figure below shows four different ARINC 424 formats, with the bottom right being the one used to input half degree coordinates. Please note that you should never use the ARINC format for ATC communications, use the full format instead! What if I can’t use either of them? Please try your hardest to do so. Your AIRAC will most certainly include the ARINC format. If you are unfamiliar with inputting these coordinates into your FMS we suggest you try it before the CTP, to ensure there will be no hiccups on the big day. If experience issues, seek for help on the VATSIM forums or Discord on how to do it for your specific addon. If you get cleared on a route with these waypoints and you cannot fly them, advise ATC ASAP.
    3 points
  22. Hi Jens, There hasn't been a breach on VATSIM's end (That I know of) but I'm sure we'd have received a lot more comments on it if such a thing had occurred. Are you using the same password for VATSIM as on another site which has been breached? That would also alert apple's system. You can look at https://haveibeenpwned.com/ to see if your email is in a leak, and also using https://haveibeenpwned.com/Passwords to see if your password has been leaked somewhere. Matt
    3 points
  23. Sounds like you did a good job in recovering the sitaution - but as Josh says, the reason that you found yourself in this situation in the first place is that you departed with significantly less than the minimum legally required amount of fuel. In EU-OPS land this consists of: Taxi fuel (including fuel for startup/APU usage if this is significant) Trip fuel (takeoff to touchdown) Contingency fuel (not less than 5% of the trip fuel or 5 minutes, whichever is greater) Alternate fuel (from your destination to your planned alternate) Final reserve fuel (30 minutes at 1500ft above the destination at the planned landing weight). Additional fuel (if required for, e.g. ETOPS) Extra fuel as required by the Commander The total of the above is the minimum you should load for any flight - everything up to and including "additional fuel" is non-negotiable. The last line, "Extra fuel required by the Commander", might be 0 if you are not expecting any delay but could be lots in the event of widespread bad weather etc! In terms of your in flight fuel management - again there are rules around this and "it seems alright" is not one of them! In summary, as Josh says, in most cases if you are touching down at your destination with any less than the final reserve fuel of 30 minutes + your alternate fuel, you are in a low fuel situation; there are some circumstances where you can elect to "commit" to your destination and burn in to your alternate fuel (for instance, if the destination has at least two independent runways available and the conditions are such that a safe landing with any plausible single failure of ground or airborne equipment could be made - e.g. a downgrade from CAT II/III to CAT I), but this should not be the norm! If at any point it is apparent that a landing with less than 30 minutes of fuel may be made then a "PAN" call should be made to ATC stating the fuel remaining in minutes. As soon as it becomes apparent that the aircraft will land with less than 30 minutes of fuel remaining then a "MAYDAY" must be declared. In any event, clearly the aim must be to avoid getting in to this situation in the first instance and an early decision to divert may pay dividends, especially where there is widespread disruption with many aircraft all trying to divert at once!
    3 points
  24. I had the following idea, which in my opinion is the fairest for everyone: it allows for visitors to also control on major airfields, but still gives the main priority to home controllers. The idea entails the following. There are two waiting lists (for the major endorsement): one for home controllers and one for visiting controllers. The idea follows the following guidelines: - Training is on a first come, first serve basis. So the people the longest on a given list, are first; - There's a ratio between home and visiting controllers. I suggest something like 1 in 5, but that can be discussed of course; - Visiting controllers will never have training earlier than a home controller joining the queue at the same date or before; - If there's a visiting controller in between two home controller's joining dates, that visiting controller gets training; - Now there's 5 home controllers before the next visiting controller can receive training. So in the above, simplified example: Home controllers A, B and C get training at a major. Another spot opens up. Now visitor F gets training, because they joined at the same time as C. Home controller D and visitor G joined at the same time. However, since there's a ratio of 1 visitor in 5 home controllers, the home controllers D and E receive training first. After three more, visitor G receives training, and so on. So priority is still within the home controllers (5 for every visitor), which will increase the amount of mentors/instructors (because, let's be honest, there's barely gonna be visitors becoming a mentor, and (sub-)divisions need them, it's a neccesity). And while priority is still within home controllers, it also gives visiting controllers a chance of controlling the major. (Sub-)divisions need mentors/instructors so there is a need for priority of home controllers, which are more likely to become a mentor. I think this would be the fairest for everyone. The ratio is obviously something that can be adjusted or discussed, but I honestly feel that 1 in 5 is a pretty good trade off.
    3 points
  25. Then what is the point of this review? Finding typos?
    3 points
  26. Flying long haul on a computer is, naturally, a whole different experience by itself. I've done my share of long and ultra long haul (17 hours was the longest, I believe) in a myriad of aircraft and continents. I would add a couple of notes. If I'm not in front of my computer, I'll disconnect. There's no reason to leave the VATSIM connection open when you're going out of the house and won't be able to respond to controllers or other traffic. Now, my biggest advantage to flying long haul is that I work from home. So, it's actually quite entertaining to wake up, get a flight going, work through the day and land the bird in a different continent at the end of the day. It actually helps me to "end the day". I might get no ATC for that specific flight, but it's still entertaining. Flight Sims can offer different experiences to different individuals and that's the best part about them. Some might be doing GA, short haul, long haul, whatever... lots going on.
    3 points
  27. Put your Google Chrome window into full screen. That's just ChromeOS lol
    2 points
  28. 7.09(f)(ii) The candidate shall be eligible for another attempt at a practical examination not more than 14 days from completion of remedial training. Just like with comp tests, 14 day periods are only feasible when all planets align... Even without an examination backlog (yeah, right...), you depend on some examiners, as well as the candidate. These people all have commitments, both real-life as well as VATSIM, and one can hardly expect them to cancel everything because of this clause. I frankly don't understand the rush. All parties involved have the same interest: a successful exam as soon as practically possible. Martijn
    2 points
  29. Dear community, I have the pleasure of taking over the directorship from Samy who was a legend in his position in EuroControl. It is thanks to him we are where we stand and it comforts me to have been a member of staff under counsel. No doubt these are big shoes to fill and will try my uttermost to fulfill this position. You are missed Samy! Moving forward, it has been decided and approved by the Division to announce the split sectors of Maastricht EUC: EURM bandbox position been cancelled as each station is now open independently. EURM_E_CTR to cover EDWW-A, EDMM, LOVV & LKAA frequency 135.450 EURM_W_CTR to cover EHAA, EBBU, EDWW-B, EDGG & LSAS frequency 135.750 This has been agreed to become effective from AIRAC 2112. I'd like to thank all the vACC's Directors for a swift change and to the Division for accepting this update. Stay tuned... Blue skies to all!
    2 points
  30. No, if you are in IMC, you cannot see anything. How would perform a visual maneuver while flying in clouds? Seriously, how often do we have to repeat this? As Don mentioned: please do not confuse IMC with IFR and do not confuse VMC with VFR. These are two different things.
    2 points
  31. I am wondering if the pilot in question asked for circling on a specific instrument approach that does not allow it -- as some do not have circling minima published -- and was told in that case that canceling IFR and performing a VFR pattern entry was his only option to land on his runway of choice. Would that make sense for this scenario?
    2 points
  32. 8.08(c) states that a competency check has to be within 14 days after the request is made. I understand that the goal of this is to prioritise the competency check ahead of any other requests that require the utilisation of live training resources. However, I know of a lot of sub-divisions that aren't always able to schedule something like this within a matter of 2 weeks, if you get where I'm coming from. What happens if the competency check isn't done 14 days after the first competency check request? I'm not seeing much point in having such a restriction, at least not such a strict restriction of just 2 weeks. It's something that is very easy to miss - both intentionally and unintentionally and if such a limit is placed, it should probably be at least 28 days, to allow for more leniency. The point about prioritising a student ahead of any other requests has already been made.
    2 points
  33. I guess it takes a certain degree of emotional maturity to understand how this works.
    2 points
  34. No offence to you in particular (I applaud you responding to so many things), but I'd almost think that all discussions regarding the GCAP are hostile to those trying to involve their genuine feedback and concerns. They are people too, not some lower class of citizen below the BOG.
    2 points
  35. Huh, since when is a circling-manoeuver a VFR-procedure?
    2 points
  36. Phil, First of all, my concern is with visitors, not transfers. Dutch VACC 'owns' one of the busiest aerodromes on the network and most of our members speak English rather well, so I guess it is safe to assume that quite a few controllers will want to visit us. The number of actual requests in the past few years validates this assumption... The root cause doesn't need a lot of analysis: there is nothing 'broken' that can be fixed. Our subdivision is simply very small, and run by a small group (staff/mentors) of very dedicated volunteers. These are real human beings however, with real lives, real jobs etc. We can argue for hours how many comp checks it will take to clog the system, but I don't think that is very productive. At some point it will inevitably happen, and of course I am not talking about 1 or 2 visitor. What about 10 on day 1? And to make myself perfectly clear: I am not trying to 'butcher' anything at all. I am just trying to argue a rule that is based on false assumptions. A system that is flawed by design. There is no 'one glove fits all'. You may have noted I have also tried to make suggestions to improve this clause. A change to 28 days seems very reasonable to me, but I am sure other subdivisions will have trouble meeting even that requirement. Who am I to judge that, without fully understanding their situation? Hence, the 'as soon as reasonable' suggestion. Why not leave the details to the (sub)division? The intention of the rule is quite clear, let the sub(divisions) work out the details to the best of their (different) abilities. Cheers, Martijn
    2 points
  37. Why should divisions have to provide additional training for people who want to control elsewhere with priority? This makes no sense. The words "with priority" need to be removed.
    2 points
  38. To add to this, why should I waste time and resources on a controller who flunked a check elsewhere, who is going to contribute nothing to my division in return? This point is ridiculous and it needs to be removed.
    2 points
  39. I've said it before and I'll say it again. By asking VATSIM to allow the activity requirement to be more than 3 hours, you are asking them to impose stricter requirements than is required to maintain a real world pilots license. This is unreasonable and unnecessary for virtual air traffic control. Furthermore, if a controller does not review and make themselves familiar with local procedures before logging onto the network, they are in breach of C1 and C2 of the Code of Conduct. You should be reporting them to a supervisor or referring them to the DCRM. Lastly, if the entire controller cohort of a division is unaware of a major airspace change, then I suggest that the procedures used to implement the airspace change are at fault and must be reviewed. VATPAC implemented a major airspace change for AIRAC 2110. We provided multiple NOTAMs and announcements. We have had zero issues with compliance or understanding.
    2 points
  40. I would rather sweatbox the entirety of my vACC than see someone "read-up" on the new procedures, which literally anyone can do from the AIP or similar relevant sources and then get around 30 aircraft in their face on an event and don't know what to do. If you have enough coordination between people, all necessary practical re-training for new procedures can be done in 1-2 days regardless of vACC size, given that everyone can find 2 hours of their free time *just once* to study and practice.
    2 points
  41. We are concerned with the 14 day requirement as well in 8.08(c). It just isn't possible to do it in 14 days for facilities that have a training backlog. We have wait times of approximately 3-4 weeks to be assigned training from the time it is requested for our HOME controllers. Does this mean we will be expected to prioritize our mentor/instructor's time with visiting controllers vs. home controllers? Should we pull training staff away from home controllers because we need to get a visitor checkout done?
    2 points
  42. Dear VATSIM members, just letting you know that I added to my app, VatView, the option to view ATC bookings - thanks to VATBOOK API. VatView is a mobile app for Android that allows flight simulation enthusiasts to track ATC presence and flight information on the VATSIM network. VatView can be downloaded on Google play at: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details... Or on Apple's App store at: https://apps.apple.com/nz/app/vatview/id1562497035
    2 points
  43. I propose the ability to restrict visiting controllers to minor airports/airspace only due to the high demand for training at (some) majors. While this will certainly not help all subdivisions or solve all issues I'm sure it will help with easing the training of visiting controllers and give a balance between local and visiting controllers. Currently there is no way to restrict visiting controllers to apply for training at major airports/airspace.
    2 points
  44. While this is a fantastic idea and may be very helpful for a lot of newbies (so kudos to you for designing something like this), make sure you, or anyone else using this program for that matter, don't get too dependent on it. Not only is automation prone to bugs/glitches/failures, especially in the sim world, but automation can't always handle every situation that may be thrown at you as a pilot. The skill of being able to hand-fly, navigate, and communicate can never be overephasized.
    2 points
  45. Just because there wasn’t a change made that was discussed doesn’t mean the point wasn’t discussed before releasing the new draft and not making that change. I point you to numerous examples in the new draft where we did change things as a result of what came out of public discussions.
    2 points
  46. Out of curiosity - did you fly into EHAM, and got hit by the "prosheed direckt shuugol, after shuugol direckt sherra pappa yenkie, deshend flight leffel sheffen sherro, leffel bij shuugol" steamroller? Because normally, "vectors to final" is about as easy as it gets, and also extremely common, even when the STAR doesn't say so - whenever it gets remotely busy, controllers will typically vector you at least for base and final, because that's just so much more precise and efficient than making you fly the entire transition.
    2 points
  47. I don't know if these are the wishes of the community at large or the wishes of a vocal minority. I can imagine that many members would not be happy about hearing that due to them having been inactive for a year or two they might now have to join the back of a one year long queue for TWR-training, since they lost their rating. In addition to that losing your rating feels much worse than just being temporarily removed from the roster. I personally like the "remove from roster, do competency check for getting back on" approach much better.
    2 points
  48. Trust me, I tried many ways to get downgrading done. This one is a non-starter on the BoG.
    2 points
  49. It came down from 90 days. 90 days is too much in my opinion, but 30 days sounds like a solid middleground. Exams are planned around two weeks in advance, so are mentoring sessions. I'm not really keen on the "drop everything you have planned guys! We got a competency check!!!" thing that's put up on us. Just like in the first draft with the rating upgrade within 24 hours (that thankfully got extended), I think 14 days here needs to be extended too, or at least be used as a "soft deadline" in which subdivisions are expected to do it within 14 days if possible, but otherwise, as soon as possible.
    2 points
×
×
  • Create New...