Jump to content

Collin Koldoff

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Collin Koldoff

  • Birthday 12/30/2002
  1. You may be increasing access to Air Traffic Control positions for VATSIM members, but this fails to fulfil the second part "whilst maintaining a standard of quality Air Traffic Control service that VATSIM has become known". If controllers are allowed to continue controlling after showing they do not want to maintain the "standard of quality Air Traffic Control service that VATSIM has become known." then we are not upholding the purpose of the document that lets them do that. This is truly all about quantity over quality.
  2. A mentor can very easily control the rates in the sweatbox and create imperfect pilots. What you are telling me is that in a single CPT you can generate intense traffic situations similar to situations that are uncommon but are necessary to test a student on using people that are not controllable in their actions?
  3. Yes, ZBW does not announce OTS's as other sub-divisions may. It puts an unnecessary stress on the controller that is not present during day to day controlling. The thing that changes between sessions is the controllers self review based on feedback in training reports. I do not believe in CPT's. The only time I think on the network training should be used is during high traffic periods or during center training which is often too intense for an instructor to run a session in the sweatbox. You can not test a student on the network with random traffic that is often minimal the sam
  4. GCAP says that it is mandated by global policy. Where is this global policy that mandates it? Based on the interpretation that we have been told to use this means that every student must go through the solo process for all ATS training
  5. As a mentor, I am not and will not be comfortable sending a controller off to control if they are not ready for their full certification. Anything can happen on the network and if I do not feel like they are able to handle anything that happens I will not certify them and they shouldn't get a solo. My students usually do not have to wait long between training session. At most 1 week unless there are exceptional circumstances where I or my student is not available for over a week.
  6. You can not govern all of ATC training and sub divisions the same way. Ex. VATUSA does not work the same as VATUK. If facilities are having issues then deal with them directly. You are trying to eliminate the problem by enforcing rules which effectively lowers the quality of services and reduce the standard for training. I have not seen any issues in VATUSA in the last 3 years where you had to know people just to get training and if there were issues why weren't they dealt with directly. The only reason I have seen people getting rejected training is when they are not up the task and
  7. If the mentor is a good mentor they will be able to simulate the “wacky things we have seen pilots try to do” at the right time to test even more randomness. Here is a scenario I put my student in the other day. Aircraft in position on the runway waiting for take off clearance Aircraft on a 3 mile final told to continue In a normal circumstance this would work out. The way I was able to add test the student was add an aircraft requesting VFR into the pattern to see which transmission they prioritize next. This scenario is something that I believe should be tested in the pr
  8. While it might sound like a good idea, and I am not going to critique the idea by its self. The server limitations are massive for adding another rating like this. The VATSIM servers, every atc client, every vatsim map, every pilot client, every division/sub-division website/roster, the vatsim api, etc. would all have to be updated to reflect this change and it would all have to be released at the same time. Frankly there are too many parts to add a new rating and there are much more important things that I would rather see done for the network than allow S1 student to train on
  9. Sorry, I probably should have stated what I think it should say. "Guided Instruction", "Guided Training" or "Live training with training staff" are just a few that I think would better explain than "Live Training Resource"
  10. I think we need to ultimately talk about why VATSIM regulations are in place instead of giving the Divisions the right to choose their own currency policy. Setting a max currency instead of a min currency restriction seems backwards to me. I could stand by VATSIM saying a Division's policy must enforce AT LEAST 1 hour of controlling every 12 months. This puts it up to the division to enforce more strict policies if they feel the need to do so. You can not create a policy that governs all of VATSIM and expect every division and sub-division to be treated the same My last p
  11. Controlling is not just reading SOPs after being away and you remember how to control. The act of vectoring and sequencing is something that is not easy to put down then pick back up 10 months later with just a review of SOPs. I am going to give an example from my home ARTCC that I think is a great system. My home ARTCC requires 60 minutes every 30 days. If the last controlled for 60 minutes was: 1-6 months, the controller must email the ATM with intent to return and familiarize with SOP/LOA changes 6-12 months, the controller must complete an informal re-certification session
  12. I know this is just an interpretation of it, but when I first read "Live training resource" I assumed it meant either sweatbox, the live network or both being used to train a student live. The sweatbox and the network can be used as a "Live training resource" by definition of the terms. I do not believe that an instructor/mentor should be labeled as just a resource in this context.
  13. I think I should clear up my point on this thread. I do not believe there should be no restrictions to visiting. I am a mentor and I have seen the burdens of a long training queue. I do however believe that a solid restriction is doing no good for the network. It should be up the division and/or sub-divisions to decide whether or not you can visit X facilities or even start visiting X facilities within Y days in a rolling period. At the very least this restriction should be based on a time frame. Similar to the current transfer system requiring 90 days form your last rati
  14. What you are actually doing is the opposite of this. By limiting the number of facilities you are visiting you incentivize visiting facilities with more controllers already in it leaving the smaller facilities behind. Would you rather visit an facility that is more popular and has more controllers or an facility that is less popular and has less controllers?
  15. And I understand where you are coming from. My ARTCC stopped accepting visitor applications during COVID due to the influx of students. However that should be at the discretion of the division and/or the ARTCC/FIR. I do not believe that Vatsim should be governing the maximum facilities you can visit for all divisions which differ widely across the world.
×
×
  • Create New...