Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/26/21 in all areas

  1. Not sufficient for issuing the S1 rating as detailed in GCAP. Students need to get on the network for practice and their practical exam. There is waaaay too much material going into S1 now to just run 3 sweatbox sessions and say "Here is your rating: go nuts".
    2 points
  2. The logic here is simple. For example, if you want to control in the UK you wait your turn in the queue. If you just want to control faster and don't really care where, then you transfer someplace that has little to no queue. You get to control and everyone is happy. What this policy is stopping is the person who's too important to wait their turn in the queue and instead transfers somewhere to "cut the line" and transfers back out after completing the rating training. That is 1000% a selfish practice and helps nobody other than the controller themself. The training division / sub-division loses with absolutely no return on their training investment. The students who legitimately want to control that airspace lose as they could have received those training resources first. The receiving division loses because now they have to do a competency check on them which utilizes scarce training resources that can be dedicated to their students. The students further lose because they've been waiting their turn patiently, yet you cut infront of them and ultimately the pilots lose because there is less staffing in the place you transferred from because you had no intent to work that area and because you usurped the training resources there other controllers were not trained. End result. If you're looking to do this. You need to think long and hard about if it's worth it, because It's likely that you're not granted a waiver if the people that can grant them know what you did.
    2 points
  3. This is false. It's there. Rating 6. We just don't use it. Same thing with I2. Rating 9. It's there.
    2 points
  4. No offense, but half the planet has been issuing S1 ratings without touching the network. Works fine for us, and it can absolutely work fine for anyone else. The notion that someone trying to get minor ground couldn't possibly be cut loose without seeing "how they handle bad pilots" is, frankly, bananas. If they can issue the clearances and taxi instructions correctly, and hold up under a reasonable workload, then cert them. Unless at a major, they won't see enough workload to validate the concern. And like I said, dozens of divisions, including VATUSA, have lived without network evaluations for an OBS-S1 promotion since the inception of the VATSIM network (as far as I'm aware).
    1 point
  5. Of course, hence my explanation in the sentence following that quote. But I think "airport/airspace owner" would work well! As long as it doesn't say "division", that resolves Dan's concern.
    1 point
  6. Hey Michael, please open a ticet with your Membership Regional Team at https://support.vatsim.net! Cheers,
    1 point
  7. How about "iii. Demonstrates ability to correctly set up, interpret, and use relevant controller software and tools" or "ATC client" or whatever. No need to be overly specific.
    1 point
  8. Would you all just be fine with: "Utilizes prescribed phraseology"?
    1 point
  9. Practical examinations for S1 online are only good for determining how a student can handle "bad pilots"/weird situations. Unless you get a lot of traffic you can never test to the level that you can on Sweatbox. I purposefully simulate "bad pilots"/weird situations in sweatbox sessions and major delivery/ground OTSes just for that reason. Really have not noticed any issues with the controllers who went up this way.
    1 point
  10. Not everywhere has sub-divisions. I think the better language is "VAs in agreement with the airport/airspace owner" or something like that.
    1 point
  11. We all know that VATSIM is mostly under-crewed on the training side, that's a fact. What can we do? Increase the pay, the number of off-days? Obviously not. That's why I wrote that VATSIM needs to find a way to use its limited human resources in a more efficient way. One concept is to put not just one candidate into basic training, but 3, 4 or 5. Talking about what VATSIM is, how the processes work, how you work DEL and GND, can be done in bulk. The actual training sessions on the network have to be one-on-one, of course. But even during these live training sessions you can have other trainees listen and watch to learn. This will then most likely result in them learning faster when it will be their turn to perform live training on the network.
    1 point
  12. Exactly. This is not just a technical role. Interpersonal skills are huge and are not easily tested by an instructor that you are now familiar and comfortable with. There needs to be a way to get on-network training prior to issuing the S1.
    1 point
  13. A SID that is defined in terms of RNAV waypoints rather than conventional navigation methods. In a conventional SID, instructions tell you things like "fly heading X", "until X DME ABC", "intercept radial 123 from VOR ABC", etc.: things that a conventionally equipped aircraft (one or two NAV radios, an ADF, and one or two DME's) can navigate. An RNAV SID basically just tells you the waypoints to fly to, and those waypoints are defined as geo coordinates (latitude & longitude) and part of your onboard FMS database. To fly an RNAV SID, your aircraft needs to be RNAV-capable, which includes having an FMS and an up-to-date nav database. Practically all modern airliners are RNAV-capable, and at least in Europe, even the majority of bizjets and IFR-certified GA aircraft are. As to how you fly it: in a modern airliner like the A320, it's pretty much exactly the same as a conventional SID, and you may even have flown a couple RNAV SIDs without realizing it: you program the SID into the FMC, and then you just follow the magenta line (or whatever color it is in the airbus). And at some point you'll turn on LNAV and let the aircraft follow the magenta line automatically. Whether that lines is defined from RNAV waypoints or from conventional navaids doesn't make much of a difference.
    1 point
  14. What type of discipline? Stop offering training? Don't let them control? That's a quick way to get someone to stop playing Vatsim altogether isn't it? Why would they want to 'help the community' of the training facility if they are even further penalized?
    1 point
  15. Meaning it's even less restrictive than my initial interpretation. Allright then - leaves even more flexibility to the divisions/sub-division.
    1 point
  16. Just call it aircraft data tags.
    1 point
  17. 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.
    1 point
  18. 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.
    1 point
  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 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
  20. 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 training airports for this reason). The UK currently is able to accept visiting controllers due to the amount of smaller aerodromes we have, however, VACC's such as VATEIR and the Dutch VACC may really struggle as they have very few training aerodromes. If the UK gets an extra 50 visitors from they, they will likely be spread across a few airports, but if VATEIR gets 50 new visitors then they will likely all want to control Dublin, leaving very little room for the home members to control and train.
    1 point
  21. Since when is a C3 a management position? Why are requiring leadership/management training for a non-management position?
    1 point
  22. Introducing the VATSIM Community Partnership Program VATSIM is proud to announce and open applications and initial members of our community partnership program! We realise that our community is what makes VATSIM the premier global online flight simulation network and wanted to create a program that celebrates the individuals who help us grow our community of flight simulator enthusiasts worldwide. Initially, we are opening this program to content creators who possess the qualities VATSIM looks for when promoting our community to their viewers and give them the tools they need to continue to promote VATSIM and inspire their viewers to join our community. We are happy to announce that our launch partners are Chewwy94, SlantAlphaAdventures, and LondonController. We are looking for other content creators to join the program as well! Content creators who are successfully admitted to the program will receive the following benefits: · Exclusive roles, colour, and channel access in the VATSIM Community Discord. · Access to VATSIM Community Partner logo for use on stream or other medium. · Guaranteed admittance on request to upcoming beta programs on VATSIM. · Guaranteed slots for major slot controlled VATSIM events, such as Cross the Pond, upon request. · Going live and/or new video messages automatically posted in the VATSIM Community discord server. · Official “VATSIM Partner” Group and role on the VATSIM Forums. · Direct line of communications with the VATSIM Marketing Team. Content creators who are interested in applying for consideration as a VATSIM Community partner may do so now at my.vatsim.net and clicking on the vacancies tab. The minimum requirements to join the program are as follows. · At least 50 concurrent viewers for live streaming or 250 daily views for recorded content. · At least 500 followers for live streaming or 2,500 followers for recorded content. · Must be actively creating content while connected to the VATSIM Network · Must use VATSIM as their primary network when creating flight simulator content online Note: Other networks may be used, we just ask that the primary network used is the VATSIM network. · Must have an account in good standing and not have received any suspensions within the last 6 months at time of application · Must display a positive attitude that is aligned with VATSIM’s core brand of Aviate, Educate, Communicate. Note: Excessive trolling or disrespectful behavior goes against VATSIM’s brand image, content creators that create trolling content, or content that can be perceived as rude or disrespectful to others will not be admitted to this program. VATSIM looks forward to hearing from you soon! VATSIM Community Partnership Annoucement.pdf
    1 point
  23. Not sure a 'course' is necessarily the right thing to mandate, as completing a course doesn't necessarily mean that the person has contributed to the community. This is what I really think the C3 should be about - I was really sad when the UK lost its mandatory mentoring requirement to obtain a C3, especially since area mentors are few and far between. This, to me, is what a contribution back to the community really looks like, because we're all here to be able to control at the end of the day. Either way, I'll be glad to see the back of the ability for Divisions to issue C3s for undefined 'exceptional contributions' - a system very much open to corruption, even if the C3 doesn't get you anything special!
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...