Jump to content

Rob Nabieszko

Members
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. We all need to recognize that this is a hobby with a diverse set of students with varying experience and learning ability, let alone time to dedicate to the task at hand. Trying to force every student into the same box is going to end up pushing many students away if they don't fit into the box right away. I have dealt with many students over the years that barely need two words from me. They are RW controllers or pilots and know the system well. They self-study well. The minimal training is more than enough to get them on the network. Then there is the other side of the coin: S
  2. It's very technically challenging because in our new website we can't have students that aren't listed on the roster. All the systems are linked together and if they aren't listed as students, they can't make notes or be promoted. But the real issue is the requirement for a practical test prior to issuing the S1. Without a student rating (like an S0), we need an allowance for issuing an S1 without the practical test being passed. Then we can actually train to the S1 standard, and hold the practical test down the line when the student is fully trained on S1 and ready to actually be
  3. So to try and work around this logjam over not being able to get pre-S1s on the network, how about creating an allowance for a "Suspended S1" (or you could call it an "Unvalidated S1"). Basically, a Suspended S1 is not yet a fully rated S1 who is permitted on the network unsupervised. However, they still possess the S1 rating in the VATSIM system which allows them to connect as a controller under supervision for training. In such a case, we would not require the written and practical test to issue the "Suspended S1". Just to issue the full, unrestricted S1. This would basically
  4. So half of the world does not think that sweatbox is sufficient on its own for evaluating students and wants to do the tests online. I still don't think sweatbox can ever replace real world experience, and I think forcing half the world that agrees to use only sweatbox for controller evaluations is just going to dilute the quality of controlling on this network. I want to see this network continue to thrive, and I don't think watering down the training is the way to do it. Why even have solo endorsements worked into GCAP at all if sweatbox is sufficient for training and evalua
  5. 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.
  6. 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".
  7. YXU is all well and good. Its not complex. Its not about complexity. Its about dealing with people. Especially how to handle conflicts. You can read about it till you're blue in the face. But there is no substitute for real personalities.
  8. It hasn't been published yet, but Matt, as the GCAP and BOG representative has acknowedged some needed changes throughout this forum.
  9. Your point hits home. After 10 years, I am quite happily set in my ways. However, my post was much the "Devil's Advocate" post. They are the points of resistance you'll encounter from many people, not just me. As a Training Director, I am always happy to find ways to recruit new instructors. There are simply never enough. I will say this about the top-down system: I personally enjoy it. When it is quiet, performing all the roles helps increase the workload to a point that is satisfying. There is a certain logic behind it, and I like to provide the best service I can to as many pilo
  10. While I have disagreed with many things Matt Bartels has said in this GCAP Public Review, I still want to thank him for tirelessly responding to sooo many issues (complaints). My one question: Were you nominated to answer for the BOG as a whole? I know the BOG reviewed this. I know a whole committee designed this. Why are you the only one who seems to be the lone voice trying to explain and defend the reasoning for everything written here? Is this intentional to provide a unified voice from the BOG? I feel like a few other voices should step up and address some of the things here. At
  11. It's an interesting idea. I would certainly love to see more quality trainers. Here's the few issues that will likely stand in the way: 1) RW Controllers will still need some training. Not on doing the job. But on the technical side of things. How the audio system works. Login rules. That sorta stuff. Could we fast-track? Sure can. And have done for RW controllers. But some training is still needed. 2) Because the top-down hierarchy has existed for so long, everyone understands it and operates by it. Pilots choose where to fly based on it. If we have a select few controllers tha
  12. You included a consolidation period for transfers of 200 hours (9.01e). So you acknowledge that people should control their home division prior to leaving. I would like to plug the hole where you get trained in location X, but then visit location Y forever and never control X again. Forever a visitor in Y. Never complete the 200 hours in X.
  13. I am going to continue to poke the bear here with another one I would like to disagree with. Should "Airspace knowledge" be in the S1 rating or moved to the S2 rating? Since the S1 is all about DEL and GND, I don't think these controllers will benefit very much from learning airspace classifications. S2 is where control of airspace really begins, so this is probably where airspace should be taught. I am trying hard to move some things out of S1 because I feel like the knowledge requirement for S1 is extremely onerous at this point. There is so much to learn at this stage and
  14. In the present (GRP) situation, the S1 truly is an entry rating. It alone does not convey any privileges except the privilege of learning. In the new version (GCAP), S1, as written, conveys privileges for DEL and GND. It is no longer just a ticket to learn, but also a ticket to already do something on the network without any further supervision. While we can respectfully disagree about whether or not students need exposure to real network pilots prior to being allowed to control alone on this network, I don't think that the possibility of doing so should be blocked off complet
  15. Pre-GRP was a very long time ago. The subdivisions have created systems that are still very workable in most cases. Nepotism isn't dead, but it's been reduced by many more transparent subdivisions. The trouble with global policy, especially when it is very prescriptive and not just a framework, is that it doesn't fit every case. Giving some leeway to the subdivisions within set limits will make the GCAP much more practical and likely to be supported and followed, instead of searching for workarounds. I know I am definitely not looking for free reign. Just looking for ways to ensure t
×
×
  • Create New...