Jump to content

Ralph Pollak

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. But it is still a radar, and they are still data blocks, so it is correct to say radar data blocks. Perhaps you could just call them data blocks, but that is less precise. Also, in the US we also use ground radar, called ASDE-X
  2. Oh, you're right. Well, that solves that problem, at least for me.
  3. The way I am reading it is that you may not require practical training for a restricted airfield endorsement. You could do practical training on a restricted airfield, as long as it is not for the purpose of obtaining a restricted airfield endorsement.
  4. If it is amended to include things like phraseology, along with administrative procedures, then I would read it as allowing any type of training, especially because it specifically mentions using live training to obtain the visiting controller endorsement. Also, I would heartily agree that it needs more clarification. "General local administrative procedures" does not mean basic phraseology to me.
  5. That doesn't sound like it's in line with the GCAP. Along with that, I'm not certain I see the need for that. At least in our ARTCC, the minor airports are not that complex, so it is not a big deal to switch airports. If it's different in yours, that's fine, but it's an example of why this should not be globally mandated
  6. The S1 and S2 are both the second rating one can achieve, if the division decides to bypass S1. Ensuring separation is included in the Departure description In some places, the tower controller does manage separation between airborne aircraft, as well as separation between aircraft using runways. I'm not sure what you mean about the ground thing.
  7. I don't think solo endorsements have a place in our training flow. If the controller was ready to perform on the network, their last session would've been an OTS. OTSs aren't just a test, they're still a learning experience. There must be a point where you define that the controller is good enough to control on the network, and I think that for us, that's the OTS. For other facilities, it's a different spot. Also, learning doesn't stop once the controller achieves their rating. I still ask questions long after I've passed the OTS.
  8. They can practice what they have learned after they do their OTS and obtain their rating. Anecdotally, if I had been allowed to work on the network after my second to last training session, it would not have made an appreciable difference. As it was, I treated it as: I will work on the network once I have completed my training. Additionally, it is extremely infrequent that anything like what comes up in an OTS is present on the network. It's also not like I couldn't control, I had my S1. I also don't see any "unreasonable strain." The student's opportunity to practice has been their previous
  9. All enroute sectors are restricted, but are not counted in the 25%.
  10. In ZBW, we don't use solos. The OTS is essentially just another training session, so it's at most like a week extra. It just seems silly to update a division-wide list and go through a whole thing because you're planning on the next session being an OTS. It's not a big thing. I think it would be better to be optional.
  11. That makes sense. It's like my US example. I could work some random airport in ZDV right now just fine, but I could not work somewhere in Europe or Canada.
  12. That would be great, but the current wording is "Divisions and Sub-Divisions are mandated to utilize Solo and Visiting Controller Endorsements by global policy," which offers no flexibility, unless the division sets the length of the solo endorsement to be zero days, which seems like a very convoluted work-around
  13. I'd agree with Cedric here. For an area that skips straight to S2, there's no way to use a solo endorsement. The only way to allow them to sign on the network as _TWR is by giving them an S1, but by giving them S1 the ACC is required by the GCAP to allow them to control ground positions, and is unable to revoke that at the end of the solo endorsement.
  14. That sounds like an exception for something like the ACE team in the US, which is only utilized in exceptional circumstances. I think what Collin is talking about is the difficulty of finding controllers for all of the events that happen. Even with FNOs every two weeks, we have to find staffing frequently, which can get difficult, because controllers don't want to be working events every week supporting our neighboring ARTCCs.
  15. It does sound like the perfect use for restricted airspace. The training requirements for a restricted endorsement are that the controller "must complete a familiarization course." That sounds like reading up on unique military operations, before being issued the endorsement and being allowed to control all of the military airports. I think that the language being vague is fine, because I don't believe that this document is meant to be read by students and controllers usually, but rather by staff in setting up their training programs.
×
×
  • Create New...