Jump to content

Martijn Rammeloo

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent


Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @Nestor Perez, is that the VATSIM development & tech discord? I must have missed that message then :-(. Martijn
  2. Then, what is your point exactly? I am sure that any VACC would be glad to accept RW controllers as a member. Dutch VACC has some, and they are worth their weight in gold. Save for waiting lists, fast tracking RW controllers is a valid option, at least in Europe. You mentioned top-down in your OP, and you keep referring to it, even pointing it out as the reason RW controllers don't join. As this is one of the more fundamental VATSIMisms, I am still curious about your ideas regarding this topic. Martijn
  3. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit about your solution for the top-down situation? Martijn
  4. @David Kirchner (I am moving this to this topic, as it concerns minor airfields only, not restricted airfields/airspace) In the original topic, you described a training flow on a major airfield. Nothing new there. However, what about the following flow: Training up to S2 CPT at minor airport --> practical exam to achieve S2 at minor airport --> Training up to S3 CPT at minor airport --> practical exam to achieve S3 at minor airport. I am calling this a 'minor-career'. Looking forward to your response! Martijn
  5. Aren't there any other (minor) airfields that CTR is supposed to provide provide top-down service for? Martijn
  6. I work professionaly with (Military) Aviation Requirements, and in that environment, changing local policies, systems etc. based on a draft would be unthinkable. It is asking for - major - trouble, as well as many non-compliancies, because the (sub-) divisions need their time anyway. Quality takes a lot of work. And time. Martijn Edit: 6 months, as mentioned by Thimo, seems fair. Unless you have to start translating all your documentation from scratch.
  7. What will be the length of the transition period for all parties involved, after setting the new policy in stone? Changing local policies, documentation, IT systems etc, takes time... Cheers, Martijn
  8. And this all implies that you cannot get a higher rating at a restricted airfield? Because a CPT would be needed to achieve that. Martijn
  9. Being able to converse in a foreign language, and being confident and fluent enough to upkeep your community culture in said language, are not the same...
  10. Thomas, 'Who controls airfield XXXX when YYY is offline' is the #1 question for new pilots. Therefore, a clear and consistent top-down model is paramount IMO. Framing this as a "we hate change attitude" is not really helpful IMO. Fasttracking, as described above, is the way to go. Since you'll need some training anyway (VATSIMisms...), learning the lower positions can't be a big problem. Martijn
  11. Still confused... Perhaps, training on a minor will be shorter than on a major, but it is obvious that 'enough is enough'. Nothing new there. However, my question is specifically about the examination part: are we allowed to certify a minor aerodrome student with a CPT, for example to obtain an S2 rating? Or is it 'just' training and he/she is good to go? Martijn
  12. Thanks, but I'm still a bit confused. I understand the training part, but the examination part is unclear to me. A specific example: is a S2 CPT allowed on a minor airfield? If yes, then why are practical examinations on restricted airfields not allowed, as per 7.07(b)? Martijn
  13. Paragraphs 7.08(b) and 7.07(b) describe the training requirements for both major and restricted aerodromes / airspace. However, paragraph 7.06(b), concerning minor aerodromes / airspace is rather vague. Is sweatbox training allowed? Practical examinations? Kind regards, Martijn
  • Create New...