Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/24/21 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.
    8 points
  2. 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 do it in my opinion. Controllers need to think thoroughly before pressing the "transfer" button. Am I going to stay here for a prolonged period of time? Am I going to contribute significantly to this vACC? Am I just here for the rating? There are several factors in the back as well. I think everyone would agree here that wasting people's time especially during mentoring someone whether it is a new controller that will then leave or a controller that just transferred in for a specific rating and then leave. We had an issue as well where in the past during this period people were not trained to the standard that was required this has been changed since I've come in. But that is another story for another day. We recently combated the "rating tourism" issue since I've come on board and things have gone down a bit with these sort of members. This will make the member think twice before transferring. Like Collin mentioned above my mentors and instructors are proud of the students that they train and see them progress throughout their division/sub-divisions ranks. I'd rather see this then a student I've trained pretend to contribute to our little community and then transfer out after 50 hours and 90 days have passed. If we take into account the C1-rated members in the Emirates vACC I think you'd be all shocked. The only C1-rated members that we have within the vACC are the staff members themselves and part of the divisional staff including myself. We had lot's of C1s back in the day but those were people that would come in specifically for the rating only and then leave after 50 hours and 90 days. I'd rather want member retention then someone that leaves especially in a vACC in the Emirates vACC where we really need C1 rated controllers for events that require the capacity such as Cross the Land etc... At the moment we have lot's of committed S1, S2 and S3 controllers in the ranks that have contributed their time to the community, division and sub-divisions. We value these members truly and thank them for their participation in staff-up, events and so forth.
    5 points
  3. 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 educate. That's a win for everyone, pilots, students, instructors, since you get someone who can work more areas with higher quality.
    4 points
  4. No. Instructing really isn’t that enjoyable. There is a lot of time and effort invested in each student to ensure that they are able to provide ATC on the network. Instructors do this selfless job because they want to contribute and make VATSIM, but more so their local facility a better place. It is the ultimate insult to an instructor and their time to leave immediately after getting your rating. This is why we are making that controller who used the time of the instructor have to contribute back to the community they trained in, before they are allowed to transfer out. As with most things in this policy, there is an allowance for a waiver to be granted. In this case the waiver has to be granted by the subdivision, division, or RVP who is losing the controller.
    4 points
  5. 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
  6. Great, so I check someone out to S1/2/3 on Fargo, they never see a single airplane in the wild for 3 weeks, and they leave. Or we use those 3 weeks to finish their major cert on MSP. Which is a better use of my students’/instructors’ time? The powers that be really need to stop counting meaningless hours spent staring at nothing as “productive”. Empty stats are just that - empty. You’re creating the illusion of access when it’s not actually propped up by meaningful pilot/controller interaction.
    3 points
  7. Interesting... This is a very outcome oriented goal as opposed to process oriented...just an observation. There's a role of course for both types of goal setting, however this metric of "success" you are measuring this is not entirely in the control of the instructor/sub-division. The students' personal motivation to progress or control in a certain subdivision plays a larger role. Their desire to "contribute back to the community they trained in" is a result of the culture of the sub-division that allows this to happen. Of course instructing is not enjoyable if you pin your success on the voluntary participation of hobbyists who can stop at any time. It's not a job for the instructors/mentors, but nor is it for the students and controllers at large. Mandatory hours doesn't guarantee a contribution to the community, instead, a community that fosters the satisfaction of the controllers and students at large plays a bigger role in this. To quote Kolby again: "I think that forcing a student to control a fairly significant amount of time somewhere where they don’t want to control anymore will burn them out and turn them off from controlling in general." I think a question should also be: "What things can be done to encourage controller retention?" or "how can we convince this 'rating tourist' that it's better to stick around and control here?". Seems this policy is a starting point, but IMO it will fall short if that's where it ends.
    3 points
  8. Hello all, Attached to this post you will find the VATSIM Europe, Middle East and Africa Region quarterly region report for Q2 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_Q2_21_Report.docx (1).pdf
    3 points
  9. 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 across like VATSIM 1. Has a severe lack of controllers online, and 2. Has no competition and won't in the future. It's becoming very clear that the BoG is interested in getting numbers, no matter if someone is an S1 forever, rather than keep their C1s around who is VATSIMs biggest issue - C1 retention.
    3 points
  10. 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 controller 10 out of 10 times. As a controller, I would in fact not log on if I know I'm going to have to fix and undo the errors of another controller who refuses to follow procedures or make an effort to do things the right way. It is not worth the effort and frustration I would have to put in when the other person refuses to put in any effort of their own.
    3 points
  11. If a candidate is blessed with more than just 2 brain cells, they will find the local AIP that offers some advice for phraseology. The rest will be done with Google Translator, YouTube videos and the local staff. I do, however, sympathize with the fact that it would be a huge task to learn Japanese phrases, for example. The takeaway from this discussion is, IMO, that this is not a black&white topic, but that it does contain a number of shades of grey.
    2 points
  12. Simply put you can’t. “Ratings tourist” is a nice name here. The true identity of these people are those that want to control in a place that has a very long training queue. To jump the line, they transfer somewhere where they can get trained fast and once they get the rating, the transfer back to the place they really wanted to be, allowing an accelerated training program now that they have the rating, thus leaving the previous place in the dust.
    2 points
  13. As I wrote, at VATSIM we are wasting too many human resources, we are not managing them efficiently. As we have a very limited number of mentors, we need to use them wisely. That's where this policy is trying to make a point. Controller retention has always been a difficult subject and many things have been tried to improve it. It did not work.
    2 points
  14. The GCAP committee is not consisting of only one person. There are several people behind the scenes that are discussing points from everything that has been discussed on the forums here. Mentioning that every point get's "dismissed" is not the way to go just because someone is debating points being made on the forum. Remember that everyone has their own opinion and that a middle ground needs to be found in order to settle on the final decision on XYZ clause of the new policy. You've seen so far only one person respond to all of the members questions/complains/suggestions from the Board of Governors during this public discussion. Doesn't mean that thing's get "dismissed" from your end that we aren't discussing it behind the scenes. I understand that this whole completely new policy is the hot topic right now which will affect different aspects of the network in terms of air traffic controllers training and so forth. But do we really need to say that things are getting dismissed? Just because it is primarily one person responding to multiple hundreds of posts? I think that words can also be easily manipulated when things are written on text. Perhaps potentially a town-hall meeting would be beneficial with this sort of public discussion as it would potentially be easier understood verbally?
    2 points
  15. Why has this even a place in a global policy? This is one of those things that happen only in America (and maybe like 1 or 2 other places in the world). Doesn't need to be in this policy, and should be more in a divisional / regional policy.
    2 points
  16. In the case of EURM ("Maastricht" control position) I have to say that I have my reservations that it cannot be restricted anymore. It's a very intense piece of airspace with at least 8 busy or even very busy airports within or adjacent to its borders that make it quite a bit special and demanding. If we allow someone new to control it with the expectation that the candidate will do so with at least good quality, then more training will be required and we simply do not have the resources for that at VACC EUC. The other sectors are also demanding, but in a different way and are more compatible with coaches being able to release new joiners after one or two training sessions. Summary: within VACC EUC, the EURM-sector is a special sector itself and controlling it well, builds on the experience that one gains by controlling one or more of the other EURx stations for a while. That's what we owe to the fact that we do not have the manpower to provide enough training for EURM only, if it is the first sector of someone.
    2 points
  17. 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 minimum of 3 and maximum of 6. I firmly believe that training hours count as much as online controlling hours, so it can be a mixture of both. Up to 1 year forgiveness after removal (no matter what previous rating was earned); full certs back, GRP check required. This means if you forget to request an LOA, and wind up being removed, you can come back with all of your ratings and certifications, no matter your previous rating level, so long as you attend a GRP check to make sure you're current on procedures and existing standards. Edge Cases: Fast track members who had previously been rated as an S3 and above and pass a GRP check, upon which they get all certs back, anytime after removal. For example, the C1 who leaves for 4 years because of their RW life comes back, passes a GRP check, and is immediately back to business on VATSIM without starting from scratch. But, the S1 or S2 who leaves after 4 years (or anytime after the forgiveness period) needs to start their training over and earn back their certifications (as the procedure is currently after a period of time). This provides an incentive to accelerate their learning, work towards their S3 and beyond, and receive an added benefit for doing so. Not to mention that, as far as ATC coverage goes, an S3 and C1 provide greater exposure for pilots. VATSIM rewards the individuals who put in the time by acknowledging their time is valuable and important. A relaxed rope on higher levels might assist with retention, especially if those members are not 1) forced to always adhere to the 3-6 in 6, and 2) take comfort that they can return whenever life becomes manageable to work traffic again. Additionally, it inherently encourages the beginners to be more active so as to better learn the skills required to work traffic through regular repetition and participation.
    2 points
  18. [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.
    2 points
  19. Is it just me, or does that seem like an awfully high hour requirement for a transfer? I've been here eight+ years now and only have 1200 hours controlling in total.
    1 point
  20. 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 to other members. They see an S3, but he's not allowed to do certain things that are tied to the rating. We're making things more difficult than it needs to be. Yeah, a downgrade sucks, but if it's necessary because someone isn't capable of all of his/her current rating competencies and privileges, then maybe they need that downgrade, until they are competent. Don't be silly and remove a few privileges. It doesn't make sense.
    1 point
  21. 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 think this was a lot then? Not when I actually cared about the hobby. Once I fell out of WANTING to control, the controlling requirement didn't matter. I would have been a zombie on the roster until eventually getting kicked off a year later if the proposed 1 hour was moved forward, or anything similar to a 12 month period of time. As a former DATM, I want to see my roster active. I want to know what the numbers actually represent. I want to be able to look at my website dashboard, and go "okay if I was to do an event, who would ACTUALLY be around?" If you add 200 people who control 1 hour in 12 months, or just stop controlling and don't say anything to anyone and they are wasting away for 12 months, how am I supposed to do this? How is a DATM supposed to effectively manage their roster, which is a large portion of their job description, if a 12 month timeframe is presented? I honestly think 6 is significantly too far as well, because now NOBODY has any idea what an active roster looks like. The names on your roster now mean exactly nothing, and we have to go through extra effort to split the "real" number from the padded number. No thanks. When I returned, it took me about a month (maybe a bit longer) to get fully certified up to Centre. In that timeframe, I gained certifications. I got Minor tower, then Major tower, then approach, then center. I sat down for a major tower checkout and thought I would do just fine. I remembered quite a lot, but I got absolutely DESTROYED. My phraseology was crap. I didn't remember instructions that are important to give to people. I couldn't do a clearance without stumbling over myself and sounding stupid. I ended up doing a handful of sessions to get back up to speed. Once I got back into the swing of things, I was doing well, but I still NEEDED those sessions to regain that knowledge. If I stopped controlling for 6 months to a year, or did the absolute bare minimum, I would not know what I need to in order to provide quality service. Further to that, there are already a LOT of people on rosters (ZSE has a handful of these people) that log in middle of the night or early morning hours at some random airport like MFR ground to get their minimum controller hours. What quality does that controller bring to being on my roster? Nothing. Half the time if I loaded up, the guy isn't even there because he knows he won't get traffic (and yes, I've reported them to supervisors when caught, but most of the time they go unchecked). What does a controller who controls at some small airport on delivery or ground, with nobody on above them, for that minimum X in X months do for the network? Wouldn't you find that it DEGRADES the network? The guy likely isn't even there, and if he IS there, he is providing sub-par service on a ground position when he is rated to work Approach or Center, and should be at a primary facility. I don't have access to staff chat to see the discussions there, but honestly as a regular VATSIM member the controller requirement discussion seems to just be one giant circlejerk of "we want to make VATSIM more marketable by saying we have larger numbers". Fake numbers mean nothing.
    1 point
  22. 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.
    1 point
  23. There will be a transition period when the final document becomes policy. 6 months does sound fair, but we’re not even close to that point yet. We’re still reviewing the initial comments and making tweaks there.
    1 point
  24. What will be the length of the transition period for all parties involved, after setting the new policy in stone? Changing local policies, documentation, IT systems etc, takes time... Cheers, Martijn
    1 point
  25. @Dhruv Kalra Let me tell you a little story about Don Fiveash.
    1 point
  26. Hypothetically, by these policies: 9.01(d)A Transfer controller must control at their current ATS Rating for 100 hours prior to transferring to another Sub-Division or Division. 9.01(e)A Transfer Controller who has utilized live training resources shall be subject to the time frame in 9.01(d) of 200 hours. What would happen if a transfer controller did 2 training sessions, did not enjoy the program and wanted to go somewhere else? By 9.01e they would need to commit 200 hours prior to being able to transfer to another sub-division. 9.01f does state that the requirements can be waived in 'exceptional circumstances', but this happens often enough where I personally wouldn't consider it one. 9.01d seems a bit high for me, but I understand how other sub-divisions could benefit. 9.01e is the part that concerns me. Being in a 'smaller' FIR, we have had the issue of rating tourists in the past. Although, this has only happened once or twice in the two years I've been in Winnipeg. Most of our controllers come from different FIRs in Canada seeking shorter training queues, but end up staying with us and visiting other places instead of leaving immediately after finishing their C1. I think the 200 hour requirement will push away more controllers who are trying to legitimately transfer than the time saved with rating tourists.
    1 point
  27. To be clear: I do not think that it is bad to start your training in another place, if your originally requested place of control has a huge queue. But I do expect such trainees to pay respect to the place where they received their training and contribute to their ATC roster for a while. This is the minimum that you should do. For this, the new policy is spot on, I think.
    1 point
  28. Then, that's: - Not a restriction, but actually something less restricting - A problem with the global policy A global policy should allow for divisional variations, because not every region is the same. Allowing local regions (America) to implement this, should be fine and this should definitely not be in a global policy.
    1 point
  29. In my experience, people are more receptive to something if you have written it first. Always indicate that your version is only a "draft" and you are looking for feedback.
    1 point
  30. ^bingo. By doing this, you also can have people controlling more positions while waiting for endorsement training.
    1 point
  31. The Mentor gets enjoyment when the student goes through training, does great on the network, and moves on to better ratings within the same sub-division.
    1 point
  32. Hi Kolby, how often do you or your instructors invest several hours into a single candidate, just to see him become inactive after a few weeks or months? At least overhere in our region this happens a lot and probably only one out of ten ATCO-trainees stay for more than 6 to 12 months, before disappearing, making all the training become lost time. Let's say, one instructor needs to spend 6 hours of practical training for one student advancing from zero to DEL/GND/TWR. With the above statistics in mind, 9 times 6 hours (=36 hours) could be lost, maybe even more! Looking at the bigger picture, if someone just wants to come to a place to get a rating and then go to a place that they originally wanted to control at (but there may be a backlog of training, increased training demands etc.), then you also lose your invested time and effort. At least have them control for a couple of months to donate time as well to promote your own facility/VACC. That's just fair, because your team has donated dozens of hours to train new arrivals. The biggest issue of VATSIM is the scarcity of human resources (because we are a volunteer organization in a very specialized niche) and also the fact that we are not very good at efficiently managing them. That's something where we need to improve.
    1 point
  33. Off-topic: Just a little, depending on the region and time frame. Peak sessions on PAC/EUR/USA are nicely staffed. I wouldn't make this problem that large enough, to be a drowning man clutching at a straw.
    1 point
  34. It seems that we now have a catch 22 where I can't get a new student on the network unless they pass a written AND practical test. While sweatbox has a place, I don't think it is enough to justify issuing a full S1 rating without network experience. Can we please add an S0 rating or something similar that allows me to get my student in training for S1 on the network and not stuck only with sweatbox.
    1 point
  35. Plenty of examples where you rather have a lower quality of controllers to please the few that don't even want to improve themselves. Sorry, but we might actually be better off without those unwilling to train on a network that is focussed on training and education. And again, I get extreme artificial inflation of controller numbers again. Sorry, but this really seems like a prank show to me.
    1 point
  36. 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 but necessary to maintain the integrity of our environment. And keep in mind - it is their will to leave a hobby in which they are not willing to put forth the necessary amount of effort. As far as I am concerned, the exit door shall always and forever remain open for them to waltz back in and give it another try. I welcome those students back with open arms, but I do not bend on my expectations. If the BoG is so focused on just letting people play around with no significant or appropriate consequence for doing it incorrectly, then why publish an appendix worth of baseline standards in the first place? You want to restrict rating changes, create counterproductive currency requirements, and remove simple benchmark assessments? Then I say let’s scrap all standards altogether and just let people play however which they feel like doing so. Just keep in mind, the dedicated staff and population that make this place a worthy environment for a majority of virtual aviators will find the exit door quick, leaving a void that I can only imagine will be filled with inexperienced, dispassionate hobbyists that cater to the “hang” versus an educational environment that introduces a relatable and engaging set of skills.
    1 point
  37. Not sure what's funny about that. An S2 would be perfectly capable of mentoring an S1 on Clearance and Ground if given a bit of training on how to be a mentor. More mentors, more training bandwidth.
    1 point
  38. ICAO DOC 9432 already approves exception to be made for itself, it's not really needed to point out, because "local variance" can be interpreted as ICAO standard then (because approved by that).
    1 point
  39. I was led to believe this was a place to give feedback, not to play devil's advocate. My feedback is this: 1) Bring in Real World Controllers and have them Teach and or Control positions they work in real life. 2) Allow Instructors to train people during events. In no way am I suggesting that anyone that isn't a real world controller simply pick where they want to begin. For beginners the progression of training is sound. Currently there are restrictions on who trains based on their certification level in VATSIM / VATUSA.
    1 point
  40. We all know that's way too logical of an idea for the BoG.
    1 point
  41. I suggest a rewording "Uses prescribed phraseology according to FAA or ICAO standards, or other appropriate jurisdictional phraseology variance with allowable local variances" or similar.
    1 point
  42. Wait, the fast track program doesn't exist outside of VatEUD? I thought it was global across the whole of Vatsim. From the VatEUD policy:
    1 point
  43. In the present (GRP) situation, the S1 truly is an entry rating. It alone does not convey any privileges except the privilege of learning. In the new version (GCAP), S1, as written, conveys privileges for DEL and GND. It is no longer just a ticket to learn, but also a ticket to already do something on the network without any further supervision. While we can respectfully disagree about whether or not students need exposure to real network pilots prior to being allowed to control alone on this network, I don't think that the possibility of doing so should be blocked off completely. If some divisions feel that their sweatbox training is strong enough to issue the S1 with no further restrictions, then please do so. However, I do not believe that this kind of training is sufficient, and I would like to continue to encourage our division to expose our students to real world situations before turning them loose on the network. I am not asking for everyone to be forced to do it this way. I just want it to be available to those who choose to do it.
    1 point
  44. 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, but as it stands, the C3 requirements couldn't be further from that. I've already stated that I don't agree that a course like this is needed, let alone mandatory. My reasoning for this is that leadership is not shown or learnt by completing an eLearning course, it's shown by committing to your vACC, putting in countless hours working more than the average member and helping everybody out. @Matthew BartelsI really like the idea of wanting to promote leadership qualities for the C3s, but I'm not convinced an online course is the way to go. In VATEUD, there are requirements that have to be fulfilled before you can be put forward for the CPT. The thing that EUD does well here is that there are various avenues which people can go down in order to be put forward. However, my main point is not the fact that I disagree with the idea of the course, it's that the eligibility criteria need to be standardised to some extent. Otherwise, the rating continues to lack substance across VATSIM. In VATEUD, C3 candidates can use ATC experience coupled with mentoring sessions, staff time or other factors to become eligible and receive a recommendation. In this sense, it is accessible to almost everybody who deserves it and doesn't exclude anybody as there are multiple streams you can go down to qualify. If people do feel that if the course will be mandatory regardless, a compromise with some other standardisation would be appreciated. I would propose the network adopts a policy whereby controllers can get their C3 through multiple avenues. This would include (at minimum): Documented time spent mentoring or Time spent fulfilling staff duties or Time spent contributing to your vACC in other ways (documentation etc.) and A minimum amount of controlling time. Why does C3 need to have these criteria when other ratings don't? The other ratings are all defined by examinable criteria, the C3 is not. In the same way that GCAP defines (in detail) criteria for the other ratings, this advanced rating needs to have some criteria set out in my opinion so that over time, the C3 rating can become a solid, well-recognised and respected rating. Some things are best left up to Divisions to regulate, but for a recognised rating on the network, I do feel that a standard network-wide approach is the best option.
    1 point
  45. I disagree. There is no substitute for dealing with real people. You can train in a sterile sweatbox all you want. How will they deal with the first time they have a newb that doesn't know how to turn on the transponder? Or a youtube fan that thinks they know the right way to file a flight plan that is completely wrong but starts arguing anyways. I am not as concerned about technical skills. Its the human interactions that are key to this network that can't really be trained in the sweatbox. And I don't think the S1 needs a scan level of an approach controller. But I have seen plenty of S1s that have no scan whatsoever. Ground controllers need some monitoring ability, even just for day-to-day ops. You can't issue a clearance and turn away and assume it goes to plan.
    1 point
  46. Love it. I've added it verbatim to the definitions section.
    1 point
  47. 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."
    1 point
  48. 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.
    1 point
  49. Hey Collin. See your point. We'd need to have a think around how to reword that. The intent, I believe, is really directed towards human assets (eg Instructor/mentor time). What if we changed "Live Training Resource" to "Guided Instruction". Would that be clearer? If you have any idea, put them out there 🙂 Phil
    1 point
  50. 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.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...