Jump to content

Bryan Wollenberg 810243

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Bryan Wollenberg 810243

  • Birthday 01/19/1979
  1. On what? The technology? That's for the Founders and potential developers to work out. Dhruv, the surveys I mainly speak of, are those such as the AVSIM survey, and other 3rd party surveys. The higher-ups haven't really conducted any formal surveys on the issue, as far as I'm aware. The "Staff it and they will come" system absolutely works. I could give you countless examples in ZLA, as could many of your ZLA converts who went to ZMP. I have no idea why it didn't work in ZMP. Perhaps people just plain don't want to fly there. That's a sad reality too. I like ZMP. I like Hawa
  2. That has already been done in several places, albeit without the super technology that would make it really cool.
  3. By the way, I also absolutely like the idea of allowing controllers to start on Center. Certainly is a whole new can of worms, particularly with the top-down requirements, but possibly doable? Who knows?
  4. I agree, Andrew, and why nobody has addressed pilot quality for years absolutely boggles the mind. It IS a numbers game, and to an extent, that's very unfortunate. I have been (and continue to be) an advocate for mandatory training, testing, etc. of pilots. Unfortunately, that's up to the Founders to resolve. Correct, but this isn't a discussion regarding the rest of the world. 27% of ARTCCs are on that list. Not saying that's a bad thing at all. In fact, it's quite impressive. But 73% of ARTCCs are not on that list. There isn't another Division that comes anywhere close to ha
  5. That's EXACTLY what those numbers show me. There are 6 ARTCCs out of 22 that are regularly staffed. Anything in between I would guess is just a switch to UNICOM a lot of the time. Thanks for bringing that up, John.
  6. Thinking of ways to attract more pilots to the network is hardly damning the controllers. When there is a lack of ATC coverage, pilots go offline. When pilots go offline, controllers can sit around staring at their empty scopes all day. That's really what it comes down to. And of course it works the other way as well. If controllers decide to leave because things get so ridiculous, then the pilots leave as well. It's all a matter of finding a happy medium. Do you think we are at that medium now, or should we possibly try to come up with new ideas to attract more pilots, which in
  7. What happens if the trial is a failure? When's the last time we had a "trial" of anything on the ATC-side of this network? It's either we have it or we don't. Actually, there have been a few trials of different ATC positions over time, the latest being the ASEA_FSS just a few month ago. Another example was the was the trial to see how the "super centre" would work in VATPAC. They do happen, the participants and local staff are invited to comment on the success or failure of the trial. And don't forget all the trials with the ratings and off-peak stuff that has been happening in Eur
  8. Daniel, I have tried thus far to keep training (of any kind) away from the Regional level. It's something that really should be accomplished at the Division level, but if you want me to look into creating some sort of program for the Region, I'll be happy to do that. I'm not one to bloat the Region with all sorts of staff and programs, but that might have to change, obviously on the controller side of things as well. Rich, I did get your PM. Will get back to you on that this evening. Just on my way out the door to work. Just for your info, so you don't get things confused, I'm n
  9. Not telling you that at all. I guess you must have misread something again. I'm not telling the ARTCCs to run training programs, but if you want a Division-lead pilot training program, who do you think is going to be involved? We already have the VAs getting involved with their own ATOs. Finding an independent group of pilots to run such a program might prove to be difficult. All really doesn't matter anyway. Optional pilot training isn't going to fix the problem pilots in the first place.
  10. There are people in place in Europe now who are trying to get rid of that practice. Of course it's not officially permitted, but it happens, and has been happening for years. As a recent example, we (VATUSA) was absolutely blasted because a busy student controller denied a pilot's request to take off on the opposite runway as to what was in use. It was noted how this happens in VATUSA all the time, how the controllers are not accommodating, etc. etc. To make a long story short, I did 3 random test flights in Europe, at completely random non-busy, non-major airports. Two of the c
  11. You just happened to pick a slow night. I could just happen to pick a day when there was no ATC online and say, "Look, VATUSA never has any staffing!" Start looking every night and taking the averages. From what I have seen, the average around midnight and later is anywhere from 20-30 aircraft, with 3 ARTCCs online. In the daytime hours prior to any real staffing (off-peak), the average is around 60-70 aircraft, with 5 towers, 1 approach, and 2 grounds online. That's from a little over a week of looking at random off-peak times. That's a lot of pilots who could potentially be receiv
  12. The number is higher than you think...quite a bit higher than you think.
  13. Huh? My numbers show people who quite obviously want to progress to C1 (or they would still be S3's or such). I'm not missing anything. The "REAL" causes have been addressed in other threads. I'm not saying the pilot quality, and all the other BS aren't affecting C1 retention, because they certainly are. If you show me anywhere in this thread I've said that, I'll eat my shoe. Why the "real" causes aren't being addressed in general is well beyond my paygrade. I've supported pilot exams, CoC/CoR exams, etc. for the last 10 years. They aren't being addressed in this thread
  14. I think the small inconvenience might pay off in the form of better coverage and higher pilot activity. Is it really a big deal to change the wording in some policy somewhere? Maybe that's half the problem...we have become so entranced with policy and docomeentation, that even changing wording in a policy somewhere becomes a major inconvenience. Don't get me wrong...that's from the top all the way down. I'm not going to single anyone out, as I'm just as guilty. I understood the same, and because of that, I can't really support the proposal as it stands...at least not now. W
  15. Sure! In your facility, only 4 of the 20 C1+ rated controllers have taken 6 months or less, and that does not count the time to go from OBS -> S1. Adding that in would elminate 2 of those people. Would you like me to continue with other facilities, or is that good enough? Of course that doesn't mean those people were actually trained at your facility, but the 6 month figure is nowhere near being realistic.
  • Create New...