Jump to content

Matthew Kramer

Members
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. VATUSA uses solos extensively already. My point is to ensure training departments have the capacity to do what’s best for the student. Creating extra sessions, I.e. proficient to solo level then proficient to cert level, is cumbersome and not needed, and creates the very barriers elsewhere the BoG is apparently trying to address. Sometimes a student comes to a session entirely unprepared and goes nowhere, sometimes they come back the next time and are ready to go. Making someone who is at 90-100% come back to “prove” it is needless, but letting someone who is at 70-80% practice on their
  2. Maybe this is addressed so I'll apologize if it's off topic, but I want to ensure that using solos for some positions doesn't mean using them for all positions. Likewise, that having solos for some positions doesn't mean a student has to have a solo first. There is not much use in a minor ground solo, and there's likewise no use in a major tower solo if the student demonstrates competency during the session. Giving divisions the ability to use solos is crucial. Mandating they use a solo in some capacity is fine if not overbearing, but mandating all positions have a solo period would be r
  3. I approve LOA's multiple times a week. It takes 2 clicks and 30 seconds on our website. Where is the evidence that controllers are being removed so quickly from rosters that it is having a negative impact? If such a place exists, has that place been contacted about why that is the case? Moreover, I do not see the problem this part of GCAP is trying to solve, and nobody has really shown it. If there must be some maximum level, 3 hours in 3 months seems acceptable.
  4. I'm not sure how Don comes into play. He had to be checked out to work SMO at all, and SMO is smack in the middle of really busy, fun, and complicated airspace. It took weeks to build to that, anyway, and the debate in general over how visitors and new transfers are restricted has to do with getting them to traffic sooner. It's going to take 4 weeks to build steady traffic if you control regularly (and are even good enough people want to come back) or less than a single week to check out for and run wild on more than a single airport, and in the process the educators have an opportunity to edu
  5. Hi Phil, my broader point is that every area is different and experience has already shown that even controllers from Seattle have trouble in Los Angeles. I understand the intent, but the fact is that an individual facility needs the ability to verify the standards are being met prior to letting a controller loose. It's great in theory to say any S3 should be able to open SOP and keep a cheat sheet available to work any towered airport, but the reality is that many do not actually do that, and even our less-trafficked airports in my area can create headaches with LOA and SOP is not followed. O
  6. I've addressed the VC/Transfer comp checks in a different thread, but the math on this is still clouded so I'd like to stay on topic. The current "top-down" system extends "major" designation to overlying airspace. LAX_CTR is "Major" by virtue of having 3 "major airports" within it. We control the whole ARTCC and thus a controller needs major endorsements to work it (in addition to their C1). Likewise, overlying approach facilities need major endorsements (and S3) because the airports are major. However, because we have "Combined" TRACONs, there are several terminal facilities that can be work
  7. These two sections are complete non-starters. Not all divisions and sub-divisions are the same, and nor are their training departments. We've had to refer more than a few controllers back to their home facilities this year due to not meeting current GRP standards. Complex airspace and airports with detailed and complicated SOPs and letters of agreement exist even in the "minor" realm, and poor controlling at that level creates misery for controllers working airspace above them and further bad experiences for pilots as they are issued in-air reroutes, vectors, or otherwise delayed. This i
  8. Personal responsibility is great to think about in a vacuum, but literally two decades of this network existing have shown us people often do not have an accurate idea of their own controlling ability, and many simply do not care. The impetus is now on a facility to dedicate more time and resource to monitoring and feedback, and risks creating a poor experience both its own more active controllers and for the pilots on the network. Not all ATC service is created equal, and I am extremely baffled at how this is being pitched as a "pro network" move when the result will be an inaccurate num
  9. I issue a solo if it’s going to help someone learn, but this narrow view of students is disrespectful to the time and knowledge it actually takes to do this and disrespectful to the people who teach here. There are going to be barriers, otherwise it wouldn’t be VATSIM it would be FS Multiplayer and bad role play. If a controller doesn’t meet standards they should be trained until they can. Sometimes it means they need to have an opportunity to work the position more, other times it means they need to work with an instructor until they can get to proficiency. Either way, solo mandates eit
  10. In all of this, where is the problem this is actually trying to solve? Inactivity policies have hardly been barriers to C1 retention, and artificially inflating “activity” numbers in this way is counterproductive at best and detrimental to moral and quality at worst. It’s a total non-starter. A minimum inactivity policy such that nobody can leave someone active on a roster until the end of time makes sense. A hard maximum does not. If a division starts to impose draconian activity policies it can be addressed on an individual level. Matt I appreciate your dedication to explaining th
  11. Want to be clear here that the way to calculate “33%” for a division and “25%” for a sub-division is by taking all the controllable airports (i.e. with a control tower) plus all TRACON areas (combined and split). Airports are designated as major or minor (or restricted) and the overlying airspace is thusly also major but doesn’t count against the total. Is that correct? For example, KLAS is a major airport, and the L30 TRACON above it equals “2” but only KLAS is “major” and thus there is only “1” major. KSAN, KMYF, KSDM, KCRQ, KSEE etc are 5+, SOCAL SAN is
  12. I’m sorry Matt, but one hour per year is just unworkable, and flies in the face of the “Educate” portion of VATSIM’s motto. Maybe you are able to hop back into Boston without issue, but you are a unique circumstance and divisions and sub-divisions with flexibility can easily work with that for known quantities. As Alexandra said, there is also the “events” portion of this new document which covers the circumstance you’ve laid out. Nothing about the as-written required hour requires anyone work any traffic at all, and honestly if someone can’t be bothered to control even a little w
  13. On the other hand, my facility receives tons of Visiting Requests that just totally suck up our training resources. Folks who are “serial” visitors and end up taking up slots and time before quickly moving on to some other facility with no real way to enforce the “50%” rule. Not to mention our rotating list of C1 visitors is far and away less dense than our S1-S3 crew who often camp out on the only popular airports our home controllers can learn at.
  14. I frankly thought our facility’s 30min in 120 day policy was extremely generous. 1 hour where you don’t even have to have talked to an airplane every 12 months is a complete nonstarter for ZLA.
  15. This is known and intentional for the time being.
×
×
  • Create New...