Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/02/22 in Posts

  1. As of today, I've been on this network for 18 years. I've been controlling and visiting ARTCCs and FIRs around the world, actively for this entire period, and I do not recognize this at all. Bull. At least not in any of the major ARTCCs. This might have been the case for you in one situation, but most ARTCCs and FIRs pride them selves in keeping scenario files up to date. Are there ARTCCs with limited staff and the ability to fix scenarios? Yup, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. Yes, a lot scenarios include errors that you are responsible to fix. Why? Because we have documentation that you're supposed to read and know, to know the routine situations. On this network, we get non-conformant situations in almost every single session, so we drill in what things you need to look at to ensure it is correct, every time. I don't expect a new S1, S2 or S3 student to know everything by heart - I don't know everything off the top of my head either, but I expect them to know when something is wrong, and where to go to look it up. I have never, in 18 years, experienced this. Most ARTCCs/FIRs don't do syllabus training in that way. I expect you to show up to a session prepared, having already read the materials so I don't have to read it to you. If you haven't done so, then that is an entirely other conversation. Yeah, a lot of this network lives on teenage mentors. Why? Because we don't have anyone else. By your statement, I assume you're of an older generation, and to be frank: people over 25-30 don't want to deal with training, so if you don't want to deal with teenage mentors, do something about it - suck it up, then come help us and contribute as a mentor yourself, I'm sure nearly every single subdivision on this network would greatly appreciate extra help - I know we sure as heck would. Bull. Are there people that do this? Absolutely. The ZNY TS usually have people talking about 18-20 hours a day, 7 days a week, since we have members from all over the world. But do I expect people to? Not at all. Not even close. Out of the 250+ active members and visitors in ZNY, only a small handful are actively on TS daily. There is about a quarter of the members that show up semi regularly, but most people just show up when they control, then hang around for a few minutes, before disconnecting. There is absolutely zero requirement to do so. Are there mom jokes when people hang around for hours at a time? For sure. But if there are things like homophobic references or other discriminating or offensive talk, I expect you, and anyone else who would be a part of such a conversation to report it, immediately to either the ARTCC/FIR staff or to a VATSIM SUP. ABSOLUTELY NOT. With the current GRP it is really difficult to pull someones cert after they have been certified for a position, but it does happen if people do not meet our standards or do not follow policy. I cannot emphasize enough how false this statement is, and this goes for the entire network as far as I have seen. You clearly haven't been around on this network for long, so I understand that you might think this, but it's absolutely wrong. VATSIM centrally, has been trying to standardize a training process for ages, especially with the latest version of the GCAP policy. The big problem is that Air Traffic Control is done very differently around the world, not just on VATSIM, but real world as well. Procedures, scopes, you name it, nothing is the same from one country to the other, hell, even in the US it varies from ARTCC to ARTCC. People have been complaining that it's too hard to become a controller in the beginning of this thread too. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you strongly here. You're talking about trying to make things easier, for a job that in the real world takes 2-4 years for you to get on a scope depending on your facility. If you want to become a controller quick, there are plenty of smaller, less complex ARTCCs in the US that will get you up to C1, very quickly, but if you want to control ZNY, ZLA, ZBW or ZTL, I'm sorry, these are insanely complex facilities that you need to work top down, something a controller, real world, would never, ever do. vZNY is fortunate enough that we now have a significant number of real world ZNY, N90 and PHL controllers as our members as well, controllers that have worked their sectors for years, yet they struggle when combining it all from a center position, when you need to cover not only ZNY Area A34, but also the entire area A, and B, C, D, E and F. Oh, and on top of that, you also need to cover the TRACON that have a 70% washout rate. We have made huge strides in making things simpler. Trying to move people up faster. The problem is that it is a lot of materials to memorize for most ARTCCs, and that just comes with practice.
    8 points
  2. Kevin, I'll do my best to provide my perspective. I can't speak to Tim's experience, don't know what facility he's talking about, and I don't know when (leaders change, people change/move on, culture changes (albeit somewhat slowly)). But I can tell you that between the facilities that I've controlled at, and visiting all VATUSA Teamspeak servers during my five years as a Division Director, and having had to deal with complaints that would have come from behavior like that, I never saw any such requirements or any such behavior. That said, I'm not naïve enough to think some folks/facilities might have been on their better/best behavior when the boss was around. And I'm also not going to say that on occasion there isn't behavior that rivals 8th grade behavior, but in my experience it happens only on occasion and is not the rule. Heck, I'm guilty of it on occasion too. But it's certainly not normal. Just trying to be completely honest. The training I've participated in and witnessed has been top notch. The facilities I've trained with have always updated their tools, files, and ensure the most realistic procedures (as reasonable for VATSIM, of course). I've never been "read to". Frankly, the instructors and mentors that I had the pleasure to work with (as a student and then as a peer mentor or instructor) expected you to read and come prepared so they could maximize the effectiveness of training time. No facility that I know of has ever expected/demanded you to hang out needlessly in a Teamspeak. No facility that I know of has ever trained to a high standard and then had no expectations after certification. Quite the opposite, most facilities that I have been associated with or aware of treat certification as a license to learn, gain experience, and really get good. Again, I'm not saying Tim's wrong, or that he didn't experience what he describes. I do not, however, appreciate him representing his experience as something all students can expect at all facilities across the globe. I'd also say that there is a chain of command and personal choice that are also tools that any individual can use. Questionable behavior or poor tools/process? Bring it up to the facility staff. Or to the staff's leadership (for example, in the USA, a facility reports into a regional staff, which reports into the Division Director, who reports into a VATSIM Vice President for the Region). Then it can be dealt with. Or, alternatively, one can simply transfer to another facility. Sorry, long post, but you asked.... 🙂
    6 points
  3. Hi Jack, The self deprecation here is only going to keep you into a limited mindset that will make it harder to learn and feel comfortable on this network. I promise it's not nearly as bad as you may think 🙂 I suggest you go into your aircraft of choice and do some repeat flights on the same route to practice all of these things you're struggling with. Either do this offline, or during a quiet time, so that ATC is able to help you. Avoid London for this if you can. Something that helps me when learning a new aircraft is to follow a streamer VOD alongside or a proper tutorial alongside my own flight. This gives me points of reference for major steps in flying the aircraft. Good luck with your VATSIM journey!
    5 points
  4. Dear Members, There has been much discussion in various mediums recently about issues on our network relating to pilots using aircraft that they are unable to properly operate which in turn causes disruption on the network. The VATSIM Board of Governors has been monitoring this, and while this is not a new problem, it has been exacerbated recently by the release of some amazing new aircraft simulations. This post is to address this issue. In 2010, I bought my first PMDG product - the MD-11 for FSX. It was a complicated product, and even as an ATPL rated pilot, I flew it offline for a couple of months before connecting to the network with it. I have purchased numerous products since, and for each one, I mastered the systems offline before connecting to the network. As PMDG, Leonardo, Fenix, and other manufacturers bring their newest and most advanced products to the MSFS 2020 platform, it is important to remind all of our users that VATSIM is an environment for virtual pilots and virtual controllers to come together to simulate the real world of aviation. The absolute prerequisite to this is that pilots must know how to fly and property control their aircraft before connecting to the network. For these advanced aircraft, this is not limited to knowing how to fly a heading, an airspeed, and an altitude. If a pilot connects to the network using a simulated aircraft with advanced automation, they MUST also know how to use that automation. In almost every case, violating an ATC clearance and blaming it on your autopilot doing something you didn’t expect is a pilot problem, not a simulation problem. In a recent Facebook post, a VATSIM member and good friend of mine reminded us all what the “R” in “IFR” means. I would add that we all know what the “SIM” in “VATSIM” means. As I said in a post when I became President of the network, we are an educational network dedicated to members who want to simulate real world aviation. Connecting to the network to learn how to fly your aircraft is simply not why VATSIM exists. You cannot play in our sandbox if you don’t know how to use your shovel. Follow the Rules, respect the Simulation. The VATSIM Board of Governors is currently working on updates to our Code of Conduct to codify a stricter requirement for pilot competency on the network. Additionally, a pilot feedback program is in the final stages of development that will assist controllers in providing meaningful advice and education to pilots through our Pilot Training Department. In the meantime, network Supervisors and Administrators will be continuing to work hard to assist members. Please make note that if you connect to the network and are unable to adequately control your aircraft, you will be removed from the network and asked to either increase your skill level with your chosen aircraft offline before reconnecting, or connect to the network with a less advanced aircraft that you can adequately pilot without causing disruption to other members of the network. Ignoring these requests may require us to remove your ability to connect to the network for a period of time. As members of this amazing community, at all times I would ask you to please respect the enjoyment of everyone connected to the network. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to e-mail me president(at)vatsim.net Tim Barber, VATSIM President
    2 points
  5. All the software is now in public beta and can be downloaded from https://github.com/daveblackuk/VSR Please join the discord for feedback and comments https://discord.gg/dD79AWg8cv thanks /DB
    1 point
  6. Hi Andreas, Tested now with swift - same result. As soon as there is one aircraft nearby and if it is moving, the frames are going down massively. So this is not related to the pilot client. Next trials: Reinstall P3D client and eliminate AI models step by step. Rgds Reinhard
    1 point
  7. The easiest way to change that tab is to scroll your map over to where you're interested, right-click, and select "XXXX Details" where XXXX is the FIR code. Ensure you have "Show FIR/ARTCC Boundaries" turned on so you can see all of them, even if not staffed, on the map
    1 point
  8. Hi All, Some very sound advice. I really do appreciate it. I won't fly out of Birmingham today. Following up on a previous comment how do I join VATSIM UK? Many thanks again for your help and advice
    1 point
  9. Cross the Land: Eastbound 2022 Airport Voting Results The voting period has closed earlier this morning and we are delighted to announce the results for this upcoming edition of Cross the Land happening on the 3rd of September 2022. Event Airports:Departures: Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas - LEMD Hannover - EDDV Luxembourg - ELLX Nice Côte d'Azur - LFMN Salzburg - LOWS Václav Havel Prague - LKPR Arrivals: Cairo International - HECA Hamad International - OTHH King Khalid International - OERK Imam Khomeini International - OIIE Due to their contributions over the last few years (we can't host CTL without their help) we have decided to award Istanbul - LTFM a special participant status. This means, that although they have not been selected through the voting process, they will be hosting departures and arrivals for pilots interested in shorter flights. The results of the voting stage can be found publicaly on our GitHub repository which can be found here: https://github.com/amosngSP/CTL_STV/blob/main/22E/README.md Note: Muscat has pulled their application for the event. After running the voting system again Imam Khomeini Airport has been selected as the final arrival airport in the Middle East. Keep yourselves updated over the next few weeks through our social media platforms. We will be releasing the slot bookings on the 14th of August 2022. This edition we will also be bringing another confirmation system where pilots will be required to confirm their booking 24-hours before the event. Bookings that are not confirmed will be released for other members to book. More information regarding this will be released as we get towards the booking stage. Make sure to follow our twitter @vatsimctl and join us on our very own dedicated Community Discord Server for Cross the Land!
    1 point
  10. They're going to see whatever their VMR files tell vPilot to use for a B744 with a fictional callsign prefix. Since most people aren't going to have a VMR rule for your fictional prefix, they'll get the default model, which is the CRJ or Airbus unless the user changed it. But as I said, if you just want to see a generic B744, and you have such a model installed, you can have a VMR rule that specifies the B744 type code, with no callsign prefix specified, and have it use that generic model. If you don't have a generic B744 installed, you can have a VMR rule that specifies the B744 type code, no callsign prefix, and it lists all of your B744 models that have airline textures, and vPilot will choose one at random. Then you'll see the right a/c type, but the wrong livery. Some people think this should be the default behavior, but I very much disagree. I never want to see the wrong airline. I would much rather see the right airline on the wrong a/c type. And if the right airline isn't available, I want to see either a generic unpainted model that is the right a/c type, and then fall back to the default model if I don't have a generic model. I want it to be obvious when I don't have a match, so that I know I need to install more models. Also, when I'm taxiing at an airport and ATC tells me to give way to the American 737, I definitely don't want to look out the window and see a Southwest 737 (if I don't have the American 737 installed.) I'd much rather see an American A320. These proposed changes would make things work better in that way ... you'll see the correct livery more often, and you'll see a similar aircraft type more often, and it'll fall back to your default model much less often.
    1 point
  11. Excellent post Karl. If I can add to the above, I'm currently training real world with an ANSP and even their sim scenarios are not 100% perfect on 100% of the sim runs. But we're expected to deal with it. If an aircraft has an unusually slow rate of climb - deal with it and learn/use ways to ensure/maintain separation. Sweatbox scenarios are there for a reason - they're there to teach the methods of controlling, not how to control that scenario. Almost every scenario will have more than one way to resolve it - or should have, as different people will always bring different ideas to the table. If a scenario file is out of date - does that mean the person controlling is also? if aircraft types/airlines are incorrect - does it actually matter to learning the techniques? No. If something's out of date, elaborating on this and highlighting it to the Division training team would help an individual and others...
    1 point
  12. You're describing the VATSIM Top-Down system of ATC. So if there are no controllers covering Delivery or Ground at an airfield, but there is a Tower controller logged in, then that Tower controller will also cover Ground and Delivery, wherever possible, if workload isn't too great. Your pilot client will show what controllers are on, and you will see from that info what they will be controlling (if they can). Take a look at topdown.dottycomma.com for a more detailed look at the Top-Down system.
    1 point
  13. Hey Ross! So glad we a great VATSIM client that's so easy to use! I'd like to ask about a volume control feature. It would be really great and convenient to be able to control COM1/2 volume controls so that turning one down and another up helps us to distinguish which freq. is being used, especially during busy fly-in events. Not to compare vPilot but, when I was flying during OSH, I could adjust both COM volumes in Pilotedge. This would turn out to be a great feature! Of course, unsure whether vPilot would currently be able to support this feature but it would be exceedingly popular. Thanks again for your time and energy towards the community. Yours, Fred Myers - DAL4364
    1 point
  14. Don't see an issue at all if you need to change - ATC have the ability to change that remark in the FP. Call up the controller via either method, if it's on text, you may advise them that you are /t or /r at this time.
    1 point
  15. Hey I posted a thread previously about this feature of life, I think you did a better explanation. They implemented it xpilot and it's very good. Hope to see it on Vpilot, it would make a difference.
    1 point
  16. I was the controller for that stream you're referencing and I love to see threads like this asking for clarification on things you've seen out on the network. Great learning experience for everyone 🙂
    1 point
  17. All good points. Yeah, I wish we had coverage for all facilities all, or at least most, of the day. Many variables seeking a delicate balance. More quantity can be gained by reducing our quality standards, but then again we pride ourselves on our quality standards. Given a choice, we, as a network, have given the nod to quality over quantity. Nothing is perfect, there are "VATSIM-isms", but we'd rather have fewer folks on that are interested in a quality simulation vs. more folks on that are looking to "play" and care less about quality. Really good points, though. Our facilities, in general, are still trying to catch up with pent up demand from the pandemic. We rely on our instructors and mentors as the backbone of our training and certification arm, but the pent-up demand has been burning out a lot of folks. Very delicate balances around a lot of variables. That said, I really appreciate your well-reasoned input and suggestions, and hope that our folks at various facilities are listening and are willing to self-reflect and course correct as prudent. Thank you, stick with it, look to fly in as many events as you can where more staffing is "more-or-less-guaranteed", and my best wishes for continued tailwinds! (side note: I earned most of my ratings in the 90s also! 🙂 )
    1 point
  18. Great questions, Richard. Awesome to see new VATSIM pilots this concerned about making sure they understand what they're instructed to do -- and why.
    1 point
  19. It's because some countries had a different unicom frequency, other than 122.80 as that frequency was an operational ATC frequency in that area, I am not sure if that is still the case now, but South Africa and Brazil wernt using 122.8 for Unicom, that line covers situations like that. It also allows a division to designate a different unicom frequency should they need to with out having to change the code of conduct.
    1 point
  20. Outside the US, you will come across conditional clearances every now and then. In some places ATC will ask you first whether you got the traffic in sight that you should line up up behind (e.g. "Speedbird 123, report Lufthansa A320 on short final in sight") . Only after replying (e.g. "Lufthansa A320 on short final in sight, Speedbird 123") will ATC give you a conditional clearance. In this example it would sound like "Speedbird 123, behind landing A320, lineup runway 25 and wait behind". A full readback is required. In some places will NOT ask you to report the traffic in sight, it all depends on local ATC rules (lawyer stuff...). Important is the fact the word "behind" is mentioned twice: as part of the description what to do and then again at the end of the instruction. You must read back "behind" two times as well. Note: conditional clearances can happen with traffic on the runway in front of you and with traffic still in the air, coming in to land on the runway that you are going to depart from. PS: Skybrary has a nice article about it, highlighting the risks and urging pilots to make accurate readbacks and identifying the plane in question without doubt. If in doubt, don't accept the clearance, ask ATC:https://skybrary.aero/articles/conditional-clearance
    1 point
  21. The phraseology examples you indicated above sound like they come from Europe, but since you linked an FAA diagram, I'll answer for the US and FAA-land. FAA phraseology is "[Callsign], runway [Runway] ('at [intersection]' if necessary), line up and wait." When you get such an instruction, you do exactly what it sounds like you're being instructed to do. You cross the hold short line and line up on the runway in the correct direction, then wait for further instructions. Examples: "AAL123, runway 15, line up and wait." (if you were at the end of the runway) "UAL123, runway 15 at B, line up and wait." (if you were waiting at intersection B) In the US, you will never get a conditional line up and wait instruction, it's not allowed in the US. You may sometimes get a line up and wait instruction while the previous departing aircraft has just been cleared for takeoff and you're entering the runway from behind them (same taxiway or taxiway further back), so they are on the runway about to begin their takeoff roll. This is not a conditional instruction since you are expected to execute it immediately. You're not waiting for something to happen, you should immediately cross the hold bars and line up on the runway and wait for further instructions. Example: You (DAL123) are short of the runway on A. SWA123 is lined up on the runway waiting for instructions. "SWA123, runway 15 cleared for takeoff" "Cleared for takeoff, SWA123" "DAL123, runway 15, line up and wait" "Runway 15, line up and wait, DAL123" You are expected to line up on runway 15, even if SWA is still on the runway. You would only get this instruction if you're already behind SWA. You will never get a LUAW instruction while an aircraft has been cleared to land on the same runway, but you may get a LUAW instruction with an aircraft on approach but not yet cleared to land. That would sound like this: "JBU123, runway 15, line up and wait, traffic on a 3 mile final." You should immediately start moving across the hold bars and line up on the runway since the controller is trying to get you out before the next plane lands. You should expect a takeoff clearance pretty soon since the traffic is only about 1-1.5 minutes out from the runway. You would probably also hear the controller issue a landing clearance to the traffic behind you, but only after you've been cleared for takeoff
    1 point
  22. Hello All, At the July 16 meeting of the VATSIM Board of Governors, updates to the VATSIM Code of Conduct were approved. These changes will come into effect at 0001z on August 1, 2022. We are always looking for ways to elevate the enjoyment of the network, and after input and consultation with our users, the Board of Governors has approved these changes with that intent. These are changes that are beneficial for both pilots and controllers alike, and will be supported with supportive educational content across the network. Through a continuous improvement process, additional tools are consistently being developed to further enhance everyone's VATSIM experience. As always, lots of resources for pilots are available at https://my.vatsim.net/learn, and free resources for flight planning and charts across the web, including for example Simbrief and Chartfox. Most of the changes were editorial in nature, clarifying and codifying current practice on the network. More meaningful changes were made around pilot preparation and conduct on the network as we continue moving towards an environment where pilots are expected to be more prepared when flying on VATSIM. The full text of the new Code of Conduct will be published shortly at https://vatsim.net/docs/policy/code-of-conduct. Below is a summary of some of the more meaningful changes: Use of voice communications on VATSIM: Pilot proficiency: Flying during events: Use of real-world weather:
    1 point
  23. Hi all, With very mixed feelings, I have informed the Regional Vice President that I will be stepping down as Division Director for VATEUD. Two years and 3 months ago, there was an agreement that I would take the position as acting division director to fill in the gap for which no people could be found and to offer the much-needed support to the division the role gives. During these years it has been a pleasure and an honour to serve the division and the network in this role. I don’t want to be my own judge, however, I feel like I can safely say that I am leaving the division in a better state than when I took it (not a perfect sate, of course, there has to be some work for my successor as well). Several vACCs have been reborn and the new local staff teams have done wonders for the communities of their countries. Web issues that we were facing beforehand are no more. The connectivity and communication within the division is better and local staff teams have more possibility to have direct contact with the EUD board and to hold them accountable, while also enabling the easy sharing of ideas, the creation of healthy debates and engagement from all corners of the continent. We have expanded several division teams to provide better services to the membership and are looking to implement new “features”, if I may call them that, to better assist the newcomers (I’m sure my successor will be sharing more about this in the near future). Last but not least, there is a draft of a new division policy in the final stages of review. While this has been paused due to debates, the new division director, who would be the one working with the new policy, alongside the division and vACC Staff, will have the opportunity to pick this up, iron out the last issues internal debates have raised, and implement the document. This would not have been possible without the help of all staff members within EUD. Particularly, I want to say thank you to the people who have sat on the EUD board during my tenure: @Mattia Torti, @David Kirchner, @Matan Budimir, @Miguel Frias, @Arturs Vasiļjevs, @Nestor Perez , and all the vACC directors, current and past. Joined by all the staff in VATEUD, this truly was a team effort and without you we wouldn’t have gotten where we are today: from keeping everything running and keeping the stress for me minimal, through assisting experienced and new members alike, to all the discussions and debates we have had (one topic in particular that I can remember, the debate for which lasted a whooping 5 hours!!!). With this, VATEUD is not simply the biggest division by member numbers, but also by member engagement and enthusiasm. I will still be around, however, in my region capacity – it’s not easy to get rid of me! But whenever I look back on the experience, the contacts, the achievements we have all build, it will be with a smile! I feel comfortable that there is a team (EUD and vACCs both) in the division that is passionate about VATEUD, about aviation and most importantly the network! Keep it up folks, this is what makes VATSIM great! Thank you! A vacancy will shortly be posted about my position, and I will stay until my successor is appointed and I can do a handover with them.
    1 point
  24. The funny thing is, in vpilot, you can mouse click to get a controllers details, start a private message session with a controller, or display ATIS. These are all things you'd do during a low work volume time as a pilot. During the very busy time of departure and arrival, when mouse click comm tuning and transfer would be very beneficial, it's not seen as important. This calls back to the recent pilot indictment by the VATSIM president. The current state of VATSIM is so broken, there are no changes large enough that will meaningfully fix much of anything. All that is left are small things. Flying a multi crew aircraft, as a single pilot in a VATSIM event, during a busy departure, or arrival, and being able to change frequencies with a double mouse click, does more than you think. It gets the pilots head out of the cockpit, instead of trying to scroll over multiple small click spots. In the mean time, while focusing on furiously scrolling digits, the pilot is missing radio calls, or delaying acting on ATC instructions, in turn, causing issues for ATC, and other pilots. Something as simple as a double click to tune comm one, could actually have a positive impact on pilot performance, by reducing pilot workload at critical times, and improve the overall VATSIM experience for everyone. Or maybe the dev doesn't hold the opinion that there's any need to improve the VATSIM experience for the members?
    1 point
  25. Dear Ross. How can you explain the fact that I can connect to the network using the SWIFT, but I can't using the vPilot. It turns out that the problem is not in Ipv6, windows, security programs, but in the vPilot code.
    1 point
  26. ??? SHT is a long-standing callsign from the real world. It is "Shuttle" which is reserved for British Airways' domestic flights within the UK. There is nothing to be banned. Please make your research before spitting out accusations. There are other callsigns/registrations that are 100% legal to be used, because they also exist in the real world, such as D-ILDO, D-ICKS, G-AAYE etc...
    1 point
  27. Simply enter the ICAO code of the FIR you're looking for in the search field. This will change the FIR/ARTCC tab. Principally the same procedure how to change the airport tab.
    1 point
  28. Hi Don, A good guide would be as follows: APP: Approximately halfway along the STAR where there is a height restriction (ie Lorel1B star into EGSS at HAZEL) TWR: When establishing on the LOC GND: Having vacated the runway If a controller wants you on frequency any earlier they will send a "Contact Me" message, as some APP controllers will call you earlier than expected, especially into the busier airfields (EGLL & EGKK) in order to better manage the ensuring chaos. If you think you are heading towards someones airspace, call up the controller and they will advise if you need to speak to them or not. Don't [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume you will always get a "Contact Me" If you fly in the same areas you'll soon get to know which controllers you need to contact and which you can ignore. Hope this helps Shaun (EGLL APP Controller)
    1 point
  29. Your friend hit the nail on the head, I'm afraid. The VATSIM training path to controller is riddled with pot holes. -- Sweatbox training is done with out of date, broken, scenario files. The trainers in these sessions focus on the exceptions, and the "gotcha" situations, which is the complete opposite of how to train someone on a technical skill, instead of driving home the routine situations, and practicing those, -- You have to endure training session where a teenage mentor, reads verbatim from a syllabus to you. They understand the words, but not the meaning behind the words, because they have no real world experience to draw on. It's excruciating to be honest about it. -- The ARTCC's expect you to hang out in TeamSpeak, even when not controlling. Not everyone has the luxury of sitting in a voice chat for hours. Not to mention, when you get a bunch of teen to early 20's boys together, you end up having to listen to mom jokes, d**k jokes, and homophobic references, while you're in the TS voice chat. Think 8th grade all over again....LOL. -- During the training, it's not uncommon to have to "meet a standard," only to have your instructor say that once you're certified, you can pretty much control how you want. Unfortunately, there is no real incentive, nor desire for VATSIM to streamline the controller training process. All the power is with the individual ARTCC's, and they are kinda like the greek system at a university. Every controller has gone through the current "hazing" of sweatbox, and over the shoulder exams where you pile on the traffic, so nobody wants that system to stop and go away, just like every new frat brother can't wait for the next pledge class to come in. I was in TeamSpeak, in an ARTCC during a VATUSA event, that showed just how well a new approach to training could be done. Too long to type it out at this point in my post, but it was pretty eye opening.
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...