Jump to content

Thimo Koolen

Members
  • Content Count

    259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Thimo Koolen last won the day on May 4 2020

Thimo Koolen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About Thimo Koolen

  • Birthday 12/22/1997

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @Matthew Bartels (or anyone of the BOG), could you answer the example scenario mentioned in the opening post? We are having the exact same problem.
  2. The maths aren't fair for smaller countries anyway, so you're correct on that. I would suggest something like "a maximum of 3 airports or xx% of controllable aerodromes / TMAs, whichever is larger" to make it more fair for those smaller countries. Also: I've heard the calculation is as follows: all controllable aerodrome sectors (irrelevant are the amount of DEL/GND/TWR positions, it's the aeorodromes that count) + all controllable TMA's for these airports. And then 25% of that. However, an aerodrome that is considered major, means that the relevant TMA/APP sector is automatically
  3. In the latest draft it's no longer called restricted minor but restricted airspace / aerodrome. But the meaning is basically the same.
  4. I believe VatEUD was aiming for a six month transition period and that sounds pretty fair. Changes are definitely not done immediately and take time (again, all volunteers).
  5. Then, that's: - Not a restriction, but actually something less restricting - A problem with the global policy A global policy should allow for divisional variations, because not every region is the same. Allowing local regions (America) to implement this, should be fine and this should definitely not be in a global policy.
  6. These hours are finally something that I agree of in this policy. It's unfortunate that people are leaving for a different (sub-)division to get quicker training and then try to get back. While mentors usually don't spend 100+ hours training someone, it doesn't need to be equal. I completely agree that students should put in more hours than they have received training.
  7. Why has this even a place in a global policy? This is one of those things that happen only in America (and maybe like 1 or 2 other places in the world). Doesn't need to be in this policy, and should be more in a divisional / regional policy.
  8. Plenty of examples where you rather have a lower quality of controllers to please the few that don't even want to improve themselves. Sorry, but we might actually be better off without those unwilling to train on a network that is focussed on training and education. And again, I get extreme artificial inflation of controller numbers again. Sorry, but this really seems like a prank show to me.
  9. Wait, the fast track program doesn't exist outside of VatEUD? I thought it was global across the whole of Vatsim. From the VatEUD policy:
  10. Another example that the policy is based on assumptions, rather than facts. Would love to see some data from this @Matthew Bartels Am I suddenly in a prank show? If someone leaves because of a downgrade, then that's though luck for them, we move on. If they leave because of a downgrade, they never really intent to learn and better themselves. And they only care about a rating. Instead, let's please them by having them keep their rating and confuse everyone else instead by suspending some privileges. In another topic you said it isn't about artificially inflating
  11. And everything here seems to imply that sub-division staff just wants to remove people from their rosters. That they are waiting to a year and one day to finally remove someone. Obviously I can't speak to everyone, but it would be weird if that was the case somewhere. We put training resources in our students, we would want them to be active. The minimum activity requirement is a big stick we can use if someone really lacks the competence and isn't actively trying to get better. And barely getting online doesn't help that. Say there's a requirement of two hours a month. It's not like we imm
  12. Let's start of by saying that I can understand that rating downgrades are not fun for anyone and I can agree that this should be avoided when possible. However, by suspending some or all controlling privileges just makes things immensely confusing. This is basically saying (as I interpret it, otherwise the paragraph is not written clear and concise) "Hey, you're an S3, but missing competences. We don't like downgrading you to S2, so we are removing privilage X, Y and Z that are part of the S3 rating. So technically you're an S2, but you're shown as an S3". See? This only increases confusion
  13. It doesn't mention an extension of the solo endorsement phase. But to be in line with what they are trying to achieve with this policy (removing obstructions to controlling): having a set limit (that is already really short, especially for busy, major airfield solo endorsements!!) is an obstruction to controlling, especially if someone isn't able to control like twice a week. And with a very low bar of activity (one hour in a year), a maximum solo phase length doesn't make sense. Well, of course it does, but I don't really think there should be a maximum in a policy, but rather be
  14. Yes, that would be great. It's a public review for a reason, and so far I've almost always seen "no, no, no, no and another no". What's the point of a review if all suggestions are shot away by the BoG. It already was annoying with the closed review that most suggestions that we as training staff posted (or concerns, for that matter) were never answered or changed.
  15. Title of section 2 mentions definitions(1) and abbreviations(2). However, when I'm reading through this section, I only come across definitions and have encountered zero abbreviations. So half of the section is missing. (Obviously this is satire, but really, you might just change the name to definitions)
×
×
  • Create New...