Jump to content

Erik Quinn

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I know ZTL does something unique in this regard-- they have a program for C1s who do NOT have the ATL/A80 major endorsements to get certified for ATL_CTR without top-down. Basically, ATL_APP has to be open for them to be able to work center. It works great, and is a brilliant way to bolster their staffing especially during events. Obviously doesn't help with a RW controller with an OBS rating, but it shows a current program where a huge operational advantage is realized without requiring that top-down link. If you could think up a way it could work, I'm sure VATUSA and many subdivisions w
  2. Maybe it will be infrequent. But all I know is I can recall a few cases of grumpy people "wanting out right away", and telling them "you have to log a gazillion hours first" would result in malicious compliance. They'll sit on position in order to earn the right to leave, and will make my facility look bad intentionally. And even without any negativity, forcing them to log a lot of hours can hurt them if they are practicing incorrectly. Mistakes are easy to correct, but correcting established habits-- less so. If the intent is to avoid the instant transfer out, then maybe try a time
  3. But in this scenario, it's BOTH FACILITIES who lose, because the controller probably was not trained to the full level of competency. Which is why the way to handle this is with GRP checks when they transfer back in. If they pass, then great, I just received a free controller that I didn't have to train! If they fail, I can create a training plan to address the specific things that weren't up to code. But the rating factory facilities will always have this problem. Forcing them to log 200 hours when all they want is to leave is WAY more likely to cause them to give up on controlling, and
  4. Absolutely... If you are restricting an airfield, you're doing so because "it's more complex than the rest of the minors". So you should always be doing the CPT on minor airports when it comes to rating promotions. After that promotion is when training on the restricted/major endorsements should be started.
  5. True... But in this case, the global policy says (paraphrased) "VAs and divisions/subdivisions can collaboratively create ramp control positions". This is not a restriction, it's a statement of the obvious. So the explanation of "you can only enforce a restriction if it's in global policy" doesn't apply, as this is not a restriction at all. All it is is an encouragement for ATC facilities to make more agreements like this with VAs. --- Dan's issue (with which I agree) is about the phrasing of "VAs in agreement with the division or subdivision are authorized to create ramp control pos
  6. Okay, that sounds much better. I would have considered application of the special local procedures on sweatbox and assessing whether or not they understand and apply them correctly to qualify as a "practical assessment". Based on your response, this does not qualify as one, which is a relief. So I would ask that we please add it to the definitions in Section 2 to remove the gray area, and make it clear what exactly is disallowed. Because it sounds like we CAN conduct live/network training, multiple sessions if needed, and withhold the cert if we determine performance to be inadequate
  7. @Manuel Manigault The potential concern would be... What about the rare (but inevitable) case where the controller clearly does not understand and demonstrates a complete inability to apply the procedures we reviewed together? Aspen is a perfect example. If they repeatedly put aircraft into mountains and other traffic etc, are we allowed to withhold the endorsement? That's the logical thing to do, but it sounds like this wouldn't be allowed...
  8. So... For a restricted field, I can't practice anything with the trainee then? At all? If I'm not allowed to give them the chance to practice on sweatbox with the things that caused the field to be designed as "restricted", how could I possibly determine whether they should be certified for that restricted field? Or am I supposed to certify them for it regardless-- meaning I can force them to listen to me teach something, and once I'm done talking, they're checked out?
  9. However, a problem appears when this controller transfers or visits a different facility. When my facility receives a controller with an S1 rating, I will have no way to tell whether they were issued it "for training purposes only", or if they earned the actual certification. This is why I'd love to see the practice of granting an S1 rating to a non-certified trainee stop... It adds pointless ambiguity when an S1 shows up on my doorstep whether they're a "real" or "fake" S1. I would love for GCAP 7.05(c) to be removed, in order to establish consistency for the S1 rating. Granting an
  10. Well this answers my question-- yes, this stems from errors in basic math. Let's review your example: Division (having two subdivisions): 100 towers, allowed 33 majors (33%) Subdivision A: 50 towers, major+restricted = up to 12 towers (25% --> 12.5 airports, rounded down) Subdivision B: 50 towers, major+restricted = up to 12 towers (25% --> 12.5 airports, rounded down) Together, subdivisions A and B can only have 24 major fields. Their parent division is allowed "up to 33", but are "full" once they reach 24 airports (24%). The notion that "those 33 towers get spread out int
  11. Matt, Rather than debating the "leave it to the subdivision" topic, would you please answer the question of the original post of this thread? It is an extremely important distinction that needs clarification.
  12. I think Matt's concern is more one of frequency of controlling rather than quantity of controlling. So extend the period for which they're allowed to go AWOL, but not the amount of controlling they need to do to get caught back up... As many have said, even one hour a month is extremely lenient. Just about everywhere I've been in VATUSA requires 2 hours per month. My facility requires 3 hours per month (which I believe is a few-way tie for the highest in the division). I could have them pull the stats for me, but the number of controllers who work more than zero but less than three hours
  13. I'm glad somebody else noticed this, because no, it is definitionally impossible to get any more than 25% total (division level) if each portion of the whole (subdivision) is restricted to 25%. You got close by rounding up, but I am certain they will not allow rounding up like that-- if we at the subdivision level are limited to 25%, then 15 airports x 25% = 3.75 = 3 airports (20%). To round up to 4 airports would be 26.7%, in excess of our allowance. Unless they're just really bad at basic math, all I can assume is that they meant subdivisions 33% restricted+major, and no more than
  14. Completely agree. We get MANY controllers with existing ratings who do not hold the competencies required of that rating. The process of getting them fixed up is usually pretty quick, and is something they appreciate. This performance verification is a necessary process, and as written, this policy would directly forbid it, thereby completely eliminating a subdivision's ability to maintain any level of quality control. This would be a severe mistake with lasting consequences... The subdivisions need to have the right to put controllers through these competency checks if quality of service
  15. Section 7.0.7.b says training for a restricted position can include "simulated and live training" but cannot include a "practical examination". To ensure clarity, the term "practical examination" should be very clearly defined in Section 2. I find "practical examination" to be pretty vague... Is the intent that in consideration of granting an endorsement for a restricted airport cannot include an on-network OTS with a broadcast? Does it mean you can't do any sort of official "top-to-bottom assessment" of whether they can fulfill the expected duties? The latter is what happens during
×
×
  • Create New...