Jump to content

David Solesvik

Members
  • Content Count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Solesvik

  1. In addition to what Jeremy said, I think you've also missed my point in the fact that what you mentioned was regulated in divisions and sub-divisions. They were able to set their own rules and regulations regarding remedial training, minimum hours, etc. And these local rules were, as many say here, quite stricter than GCAP. And my other point is, is that local divisions and sub-divisions, who were previously able to set their own rules as to how things should go in their division/sub-divisions, will not be able to override or place other restrictions when GCAP comes into effect.
  2. I disagree. I think the key point here is that we have seen many global regulations within GCAP that are quite lenient towards inactive controllers and the general quality of ATC. In my view, a lot of what has been discussed points to quantity being a more important factor within GCAP, than quality. It has been made clear that the goal of the policy is to loosen local restrictions that have been placed by divisions and sub-divisions. In this case, although the GRP is very vague in this sense, local regulations placed by divisions and sub-divisions regulate this quite fine. What GCAP does,
  3. I don't know about everyone else, but to me, the term "utilizes prescribed phraseology", as a whole without much further context seems a little vague.
  4. I see what you mean. I'm sure it's used in places like in the Australian oceanic stations, but we will have to stick to Euroscope for this one because we currently use and are still heavily developing a plugin called "vNAAATS" which replicates the real-life North Atlantic System used by Gander and Shanwick controllers. As this is a realistic tool that we have already spent so much time developing (I say we, mainly Andrew Ogden, our FIR Chief), there won't be much point in switching to another software that doesn't support vNAAATS.
  5. Actually, FSS can be a technical problem, as we have seen a lot more crashes and bugs due to the forced increased range on FSS, hence the reason for the use for CTR callsigns during CTP. Not sure if you know, but we've actually worked on a little something to try and fix this issue and there will be quite some updates at 2108 with our sector packages. But yeah, I personally see increased FSS range as more of an issue, the way it works right now on the network.
  6. Phil, I personally am not against solos and I think solos are quite crucial, at least in all of the places where I have mentored. I will never, ever be against solos. However, I also know that different places (such as ZBW) have different training procedures and I can understand that if a training program is structured in a way which does not include solos, it clearly works best for that sub-division. I'm a visiting controller at ZBW and I know that Boston has some really really great controllers, so those controllers must have gone through a really strong training program. What I am sayi
  7. And to answer my question described above, why is this something that cannot be optional for divisions and sub-divisions to use? I see absolutely no issues with local sub-divisions not using solos as part of their training program. It still works. GCAP just forces them to change their structure to something they don't want to use. In the end, how is this a pleasant experience for divisions and sub-divisions, as well as instructors and mentors who have to work around regulations they don't find useful? It's also not the best experience for pilots and if you mention staffing, well, we're s
  8. I disagree, I think we are successfully able to deploy daily or at least weekly ATC with a lot of successful staffing. Especially during events, where we experience a lot of ATC.
  9. @Matthew Bartels that’s 3 cases of controllers not willing to learn and educate. Which is a part of VATSIM’s slogan. Now, those are a few negative examples. But - how many examples have you seen of controllers being put in the same thing ultimatum but who are actually willing to learn and improve the skills? I can guarantee you that there are more than not. Everything else’s that needs to be said has already been said - VATSIM has always stood out because VATSIM’s mindset has always been quality>quantity. Trying to change that isn’t gonna make us a any better than all of those other ne
  10. I agree with the above and it’s one of the reasons why I asked. Another member pointed out in one other thread that a lot of the suggestions and discussions that we bring forward often get dismissed, so it makes me think, what is the point of public review if the big “hot” topics (solos, visiting, activity, etc.) will stay as they are, to much dislike for most of our members here? But hey, that’s just speculation so I wait to see what comes out of it.
  11. I suggest a rewording "Uses prescribed phraseology according to FAA or ICAO standards, or other appropriate jurisdictional phraseology variance with allowable local variances" or similar.
  12. I genuinely still don't understand why sub-divisions with their own training procedures and training steps can't just decide on whether or not they want to use solo validations. I don't understand why they have to be forced. Sub-divisions clearly know what is better for them and their students. Yes, perhaps in places without solos, students aren't able to control but we still need to focus on quality over quantity. In the end, the overall result that sub-divisions get is still more than fine. I see absolutely no issues with local sub-divisions not using solos as part of their training program.
  13. You clearly missed the point. The GCAP is a very important policy that will change the way VATSIM works from the ATC perspective, so what Rob meant, was that we are not getting much of a perspective from the other members of the BoG, as their opinion regarding the topics that are discussed here are very crucial. Hence the question.
  14. Not 100% sure on this one, probably CTR... @Matthew Bartels?
  15. 1. I believe not quite, since the changes will be very hard to implement on the technical side, but using things such as _I_FSS or other "mid" suffixes would probably resolve this. 2. Yes.
  16. Correct. The definition of FSS is changed within GCAP and FSS will now basically mean a FIS, as you described. Stations that were previously defined as FSS (special centres, such as ASIA_FSS, EURW_FSS, CZQX_FSS, etc.) will now be defined as CAOCs, as defined in the policy.
  17. Just another example of how for some reason, we are focusing away from the education part and instead of facilitating and focusing on the dedicated and passionate controllers, mentors and instructors who spend so much time in perfecting their quality of control, and are instead facilitating for the "controllers" who cannot be bothered to learn or train at all and want to leave and are trying to get them to say. For some reason we are facilitating those controllers and making life easier for them. I agree with everyone but Matt here - if someone isn't willing to learn because they can't realise
  18. Could you elaborate on this, I don't quite understand. Do you mean the VatSys ATC software that could work for oceanic control? SELCAL is a useful tool, both IRL and is simulated on VATSIM here as well in case oceanic controllers want to get in touch with the pilot, who may have their HF tuned down. Let me know!
  19. Okay, so how about "Shows an understanding of flight strips (if used) and radar data blocks, relevant to the delivery and ground controller"? This way people won't get confused as to which radar you're talking about.
  20. This is another example of an FAA thing that matters within the FAA but doesn't outside of it. Yet another example of why these things should be regulated on a local level and not a global level, because places are different and we have seen this, in particular with the FAA rules. The VFR clearances that you give out as DEL and GND vary depending on whether the aircraft is departing a class C or class D, or even a class B airport within the FAA, so airspace classification is something that is useful for S1s to know. However, in Europe and within pretty much most airspaces outside of the
  21. I made this low-quality diagram on Paint to show what I mean: https://prnt.sc/1ehdh8c
  22. What you mean by that, is potential S1s acting as "radio operators" for oceanic stations. If and when GCAP goes into effect, we do plan on potentially having a program for ratings lower than C1 (not sure if we are allowed to limit this above S1, preferably this should be limited to S3s who have a lot of experience with radar control and overall controlling on the network), where such controllers will be trained for the "radio operator" position. Actually, we asked for a similar thing before - for S3s to be able to help us out on Oceanic during CTP, as a lot of it is more documentation/paperwor
  23. This. VATSIM's sub-divisions are NOT the same and you should NOT be generalising all of them into the same model because they are different and placing restrictions under this influence will benefit one, but will harm a lot of others.
×
×
  • Create New...