Jump to content

Kyle Ramsey 810181

Members
  • Content Count

    2178
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kyle Ramsey 810181

  1. I had the pleasure of working with Bev while developing the PRC and writing a dozen articles or so for it. I later got to serve with him on the BoG and when he retired from the BoG I took over as VP PT and helped fulfill his vision of how the ratings would lay out. The VATSIM Pilot Ratings will remain a big part of his legacy in VATSIM and has touched tens of thousands of members.

     

    In the summer of 2008 I was working (was doing consulting) east of where he lived and had to drive to St Louis to catch an airliner the next day early. I stopped by his house and we went out to dinner and ate some good Mexican food, then back to his house, sat on his back porch, had another beer and enjoyed a fat cigar with him, talking about life, wives, children, flying, golf, and VATSIM. I count that evening as one of the most enjoyable and mystical evenings with a wonderful friend.

     

    I am floored at his p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing. Too soon.

  2. The P1 is fully automated, go take it and let me know if you didn't learn something you didn't know. Pilots are used to being evaluated, this is just another one of those, and if you know your stuff it isn't difficult. The P1 is far more about how to be successful on VATSIM than technical flying stuff anyway and I have had multi-year members tell me they learned something they didn't know when they took it.

     

    There were plenty of rw pilots who developed the ratings, and plenty of non rated dedicated folks too.

  3. Welcome to VATSIM, Chris.

     

    The OP suggested a P1 is all one needs and should be made mandatory; I notice you haven't gotten one yet. I can recommend Rob's organization, VATSTAR as a great place to get that rating and others as well that will put you on track to ne very good at talking to ATC. VATSTAR has both online learning and humans if you need one. you can also get the P1 at the Pilot Training Academy fully automated, and there is a full Pilot Resource Center with numerous articles that are helpful to first time pilots on VATSIM.

  4. The best explanation I can offer is it is an adaptation to our sim software. With the sim transponder in STBY nobody knows if the pilot meant to do that on purpose or if he made a mistake. So that starts ATC to calling SUPs to try to sort it out. If the guy is VFR why is it a problem to just put in a VFR code and be done with it; no ambiguity, no problems.

     

    SUPs don't go looking for these, they respond to calls from ATC. If ATC doesn't call then there is no problem; if they do then there might be if the pilot refuses to cooperate when given an instruction to put in a VFR code, because at that point they are now violating the part that says they must comply with ATC and Supervisor instructions.

     

    Airspace is not a place for ambiguity and using a VFR code when one is VFR eliminates any. Why is that so hard? For the pilot he can't see the radar return in any regard so its not messing with his experience in any way.

  5. I see the internet lawyers are out in force.

     

    The clients all have a transponder and pilots should/shall/must use it. Supervisors aren't going to go hunting for these but when they are brought up by ATC the Supervisor is expected to address the issue as a violation of CoC and so is the pilot. No member, including supervisors, are empowered to decide which CoC/CoR rules they will not enforce today.

     

    VATSIM is designed to join ATC members with pilot members and while we do try to emulate many RW situations there are also VATSIM online adaptations that deviate from the RW. This is one of them. If you aren't here to be a members of this larger community and interact with it, why are you here?

  6. What if we don't have the human resources to give personal instruction? I mention it because we don't. Should we then just throw up our hands and quit training altogether? When I first join SATCO (pre-VATSIM) all training was by CBT and recorded files (and we didn't have voice comms at all).

     

    What evidence does this pilot have that feedback isn't acted on? What happens in the background isn't published.

     

    If the quiz answers can't be found in the material that would suggest the material is deficient, not the quiz.

     

    In the end a quiz won't ensure proficiency, only practice will do that. The student will likely make mistakes during that practice and CoC demands pilots be tolerant of that learning curve just as controllers must tolerate pilots lack of proficiency during their learning curve.

  7. As is so often the case there is more here than is seen in this post. I don't fault the OP, it probably looks that way to him and he uses language in imprecise ways that folks who have been around VATSIM for a while will infer differently. All that happened was this new CID was flagged as a duplicate to an older one.

     

    When this occurs and the member says they haven't had an account before we are left with a few options, one is to ask for an official government ID and we do two things there; ask that any personal information beyond the name be hidden, and we don't keep a copy of it. As was the case here once the ID was provided, the discrepancy was cleared up and the account reinstated.

     

    Way too often the duplicate account turns out to be a real duplicate so no, we think this very simple procedure provides us with the proof we need to ensure an individual isn't gaining a duplicate account.

     

    And to be clear no account involved was ever banned, the system just detected a possible duplicate of an existing account and if it had been the member would have been directed and [Mod - Happy Thoughts]isted to re-establish their original account. This is the most common duplicate reason; member has been gone for a while, can't recall their old account so they make a new one. Membership detects that and helps them get their old account stood up again.

     

    This is everyday business in VATSIM, nothing to see, move along.

  8. And yet only one of those groups requires any sort of knowledge. Sounds fair.

     

    Not even a remotely true statement. A pilot that lacks knowledge and becomes disruptive is removed by calling a Sup. Both groups require knowledge. The argument is that some facilities place an undue burden on the knowledge required by a controller at such a high level it becomes difficult to impossible to gain ratings. I hear all the time about how many controllers are leaving the network. Well news flash, they have been leaving since Day 1, except under the current program they aren't replaced faster than they are leaving, so facilities are training themselves out of business. Raising the bar high also increases the burden placed on the very limited human resources available to provide the training.

     

     

    I'm sorry, I don't care how good a Heathrow director controller you may be - you're not equipped to jump in and work final approach at a place like JFK or LAX without some serious transitional training. It's a noble cause, but why can't the specific requirements for certification be left up to the regions as long as they're loosely based around the GRP construct?

     

    You are confusing GRP with TVCP, whole different discussion. I content GRP does exactly what you suggest; GRP provides a basic requirements list, divisions and facilities are free to customize that list to their world and largely they do that very thing.

     

    For the record I don't think a C1 from UK can jump on BOS_CTR without some pretty good transitional training (or LAX to JFK either). I just happen to think most of the burden to do the learning should be placed on the incoming controller, not on the local training staff, to minimize the impact on the local staff to train those already in their pipeline. A good controller who understands controlling principles should be able to learn the ropes in a new place with self study and a little practice. In order to do that good materials should be available to the incoming transferee.

     

    About two years ago the BoG asked the EC to review GRP and make upgrades. The answer that came back, after consulting with their divisions, was it's fine, nothing needs to be changed. When I talk to people the VATSIM world over they all tell me they are 100% GRP compliant, but those other guys over there, not so much. When I talk to the other guys over there, they tell me the same thing. Can they both be right? Are they both wrong?

  9. For events, id hope users would use common sense and know what their limits are, IE if you know event traffic is beyond you, dont put yourself in an event slot thats pretty much what i avoided doing until i felt comfortable enough on a position

    Unfortunately, very few student controllers have your self-restraint.

     

    Or pilots...

     

    Yet both of them are bound by the CoC that says they shall be.

  10. The real judgement call happens in the results of such actions. If you can answer a SUP or ATC call and adjust your flight based on their input such that it is transparent if you are at the keyboard or at the fair on your phone, I don't see much to get excited about. No impact. If all you can do is answer a call but can't respond positively to ATC commands to climb, descend, turn, slow down, etc., and your flight continues to disrupt others and at that point technically ignore ATC commands, then that's a problem and responding to text or voice alone won't save you from being disconnected and potentially suspended.

     

    Focus on the impact.

  11. I'm torn on the languages to be honest. As a rw pilot I get English is the main aviation language. Except it isn't so much anymore as in China they are quite OK with nobody speaking English there. That may be a moving target going forward, or it may be in the end we recognize having a single language for all aviation really does promote a higher degree of safety for everyone.

     

    On the other hand the model of a hobby in my mind is to meet all new members at their local level. Web sites should be local language, procedures, pilot training, also local. If I go take flying lessons in Germany it wouldn't surprise me that my instructor would most likely give instruction in German to a guy who's never going to fly beyond the borders of Germany, even if both of them also spoke English. In Israel all VFR material is in Hebrew in the rw but they are pretty worldly and if a non Hebrew speaker showed up I think they could accommodate them, although I don't know where they'd find charts not in Hebrew. As a local pilot decided he or she wanted to be less local and stretch their wings, go do some of that fun CTP stuff, then they would then have to step up their game and get on board for English.

     

    To be successful anything we put in a new member's way needs to not be a barrier to them getting on the network relatively quickly, that is kind of the gold standard we need to meet. A P1 test in only English does not p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] that test.

     

    And a mandatory P1 won't stop bad pilots. It is guys like yourself, Andreas, who are the thin line of supervisors who to me are the real answer to that. A great supervisor who is available to answer a .wallop is in my mind the first and last line of defense.

  12. Great, here's a list to get started, but I suspect you're missing a dozen or more other languages too:

     

    CoC

    CoR

    UA

    PRC

    All test questions (which requires making sure the context, not just the words, are correct for that language and location)

    All P1 material in the Academy

     

    Then we need a CERT rewrite to accommodate this new system.

     

    And, do keep in mind, this is unlikely to solve the OP's list of issues so get ready to do the same for all the other ratings, not that this will solve the OP either but it would be cool to have all the ratings in 20-30 languages.

  13. It is in the welcome email with a link. What else can we do to point it out to people?
    Make people go through the Pilot Resource Center and ask them 10 basic questions before issuing them a VATSIM ID.

     

    As I said previously there are both technical and cultural reasons that this won't work today. My personal vision is all new folks will have either a P1 or a S1 in hand prior to getting a CID, but we have to wait on the tech to catch up. However, as I also previously said, this will solve a small portion of the 'new pilot' issues, others we need to use our Supervisor staff to help them out and resolve real time issues anyone may be having with a new member.

  14. Practically every newbie I've met, even those who have read the CoC, welcome email and more, have zero knowledge of the pilot rating program. If we want more existing members to get P1s, we need more members to know that it exists in the first place.

     

    It is in the welcome email with a link. What else can we do to point it out to people?

  15. A forum poll would represent an extreme minority of VATSIM users and won't move me at all.

     

    Pilot training is discussed all the time within the BoG, even making P1's mandatory. Too many other tech and cultural roadblocks remain in place to make it a player at this time.

     

    Why don't we start by having everyone already in VATSIM get a P1, and beyond, then when new guys show up it looks odd to not have one. Maybe if the demand is high enough the ATOs will build through those tech and cultural issues.

     

    Divya Patel in the last BoG meeting announced we had broken through 10,000 pilot ratings issued, so only 90,000 to go.

×
×
  • Create New...