ARTCC Consolidation

[Wesley Miles]

let us know the next time you decide to fly an airliner so they can stop you. whats realistic about having unlicensed and underage members flying airliners? we've made concessions to that "realism" and then some.

 

if we want to play the "realism" card, why stop there? the next time someone gets a conflict on the scopes, lets pull them and have a full on investigation and possibly "fire" them for having too many deals.

Ernesto, this isn't against you personally, and I hope you understand I have a great amount of respect for you, as I do for just about everyone in this thread. Perhaps your post was lighthearted in nature, but it is just one of many that I feel need to be addressed.

 

I'm growing tired of the argument "Well if you want to pull the 'realism' card...", which is usually followed by a dramatic statement such as the one you gave. Obviously it's not realistic to give a 15-year old a joystick and say they can fly a 737 around the US... (or even me, for that matter). That's part of the "simulation", where anyone can get online and enjoy this hobby we love of simulating real-world aviation. However, just because this network may have some features that are not realistic, doesn't mean we should adopt further practice which deviates even farther from realism and closer to "arcade"-- as someone put it earlier-- when it's not (in many opinions) a necessary change.

 

Additionally, I see a trend developing of people seeming to point fingers at us real-world monsters, accusing us of trying to poison the network with our evil over-realistic zeal (now who's being dramatic right?-- but that's honestly how it appears, maybe over dramatized ever-so-slightly). I'm going out on a limb here to say most of us understand that a line has to be drawn and a modified realism adopted for the sake of keeping this hobby alive, but I don't like feeling like the outcast because I opt for as realistic of a simulation as feasible, modified only where needed/applicable for the health of the network; that's why I joined VATSIM in the first place-- to simulate virtual air traffic.

 

That being said, some folks here need to realize that they simply aren't part of every decision or test done on this network. Involving everyone in every decision would guarantee nothing gets done.

While this is unfortunate, I agree. There's an understandable method behind not making certain things public until the right time. But on the same note, I'm certainly glad to hear it was intended to open to the public for discussion at SOME POINT. As it was stated, when people want facts and are not given them, they will create them. This is a big change that would effect all VATUSA controllers and, as such, it's only appropriate to receive feedback from everyone prior to making a decision.

[Andrew Wolcott 814793]

Let's not go down the facetious road, it does nothing for your cause.

 

I've read the thread in full, what I get from it is that people are mainly expressing dislike because this is unrealistic and there is potential for this change to be brought upon them without their consent.

 

This is unfortunate but this has mainly been the same since before any of us were members of VATSIM. We knew what we were signing up for.

 

Find the silent majority and show your management and the Founders that they are not in support of the effects of these changes, then I'll agree that it would not be in the best interests of VATSIM to continue looking at this policy. Until then the current arguments are based only on the opinions of a sprinkling of vocal controllers, (nothing new there - happens in VATUK as well) who make [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ertions on behalf of others (such as the pilots) without any hard evidence to back it up.

 

To succeed on either side, you need real facts. Not emotions or [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umptions!

 

Callum,

 

Open you eyes. Read the other threads so many of us have posted in. The main reason we have a problem with this proposal is that once again the founders believe they know what's best to serve PILOTS on this network, and damn the controllers.

 

Sure, we give reasons for why we do not agree with the proposal, such as realism, confusion, etc... But the fact remains that this is yet again something that is wholly pilot centric, limited to a handful of people of the controlling side, and the negative aspects such as a system to oversee the training and administration of the "super centers" has not be thoroughly thought out.

 

Honestly you say it best,

Find the silent majority and show your management and the Founders that they are not in support of the effects of these changes, then I'll agree that it would not be in the best interests of VATSIM to continue looking at this policy. Until then the current arguments are based only on the opinions of a sprinkling of vocal controllers, (nothing new there - happens in VATUK as well) who make [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ertions on behalf of others (such as the pilots) without any hard evidence to back it up.

 

To succeed on either side, you need real facts. Not emotions or [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umptions!

 

The founders seem not to care about either the real facts nor emotions of the controllers. All they seem to care about it making the pilots happy.

 

When you see it from our angle you would perhaps agree, what with the terrible pilot quality overall and a seemingly large population of pilots on this network that seem to feel the controllers are there solely to serve the pilots, and that we should thanking our lucky stars that they are flying in our [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned airspace.

 

The fact is this. This thread has posts contributed to it from a number of high quality, long time VATSIM controllers who through their experiences on the network have found these things to be the facts. After all one of the definitions of the word fact is "a truth known by actual experience or observation."

 

The fact that the founders ignore the calls of some of the longest running, most experienced and well qualified members is beyond the comprehension to those of us who contribute our "emotions and [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umptions." Either word in that quote couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

The facts don't lie, and this proposal is just more evidence of what we've been saying and only helps to solidify our position.

[Kyle Rodgers 910155]

Well said Wesley.

[Andrew Wolcott 814793]

As I am not involved in this project (I don't even know if it exists at all!) whatsoever - in fact, this is the first time that I heard or read about it - I would suggest to just make a test. Pick an area of the USA and combine a few ARTCCs to make up a "super-center" that can be manned by all C1-rated ATCOs of the ARTCCs that are part of this "super-center". This way you make sure that ATCOs know about the procedures, more or less and you can also come up with direct feedback. Communication is the most important thing in connection with such a project.

 

Umm.. that was done, by the founder who proposed this in the first place, without the knowledge, notification, heads-up or consent from the ARTCCs involved.

 

Go read the entire thread, seriously. Unless I've misunderstood your idea of making a test, it seems like you may have missed that this was being tested, by a founder, on his own, with no one but himself and maybe one or two others knowing about.

 

The ARTCC Staff were NOT involved.

[Brian Pryor 810138]

It sounds like the tests involved were to see how many people would be "impacted" by that particular center so that they could gather data to decide if it warranted further testing and/or feedback.

 

As it's been stated before, -some- staff members consider their ARTCC's to be the kingdom and if you don't kiss the ring of the don before you tread in his turf you get a lot of flack for it. Is that the case here? I leave that for the m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es to decide.

[Harold Rutila 974112]

BP, you and your kingdoms...

 

This barely involved Gary. The person who invented it won't even come forward and say why he wants to implement it. That's all I'm saying.

[Callum McLoughlin]

Open you eyes. Read the other threads so many of us have posted in. The main reason we have a problem with this proposal is that once again the founders believe they know what's best to serve PILOTS on this network, and damn the controllers. Sure, we give reasons for why we do not agree with the proposal, such as realism, confusion, etc... But the fact remains that this is yet again something that is wholly pilot centric, limited to a handful of people of the controlling side, and the negative aspects such as a system to oversee the training and administration of the "super centers" has not be thoroughly thought out.

 

My ears and eyes are open. Most importantly, so is my mind . What do you want as a controller? Personally, I want lots of aircraft who are capable of following instructions. What brings more pilots out? Well, it's lots of air traffic control. That is why people who want to fly sign up to VATSIM for in the first place. An amazing service is a bonus, nothing more.

 

Time and time again I get the impression that controllers (and especially their managers) see themselves as superior to pilots, that they know best, their needs are most important and most of all that every policy should be made to protect only their interests.

 

There have been many policies brought in to address the huge variance in ATC training, from those who hand out ratings like toffees and those who won't hand them out until the student has p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed an examination and testing programme that is ridiculously over the top. There is no campaign against controllers, but there has been an effort to stamp out ATC elitism and extremism. It (and is) damaging the network with a small group demanding ultra-realism which feeds the egos of the few and drives away the many.

 

The idea of a super centre has been misrepresented beyond all recognition now. What it is and what you'd think it would be from reading this thread are two different things entirely.

 

If you want to know how difficult to manage it will be, ask Pedro Diogo and Mike Sweeney. Unlike our "expert opinions" in here from ATMs, these two VATEUD members have actually ran one of these entities and will be able to tell you exactly what is difficult, what is easy and what they think is possible based on their first hand experience.

 

Too often in VATSIM we get these "expert opinions" from people who frankly haven't got a clue what they're talking about. They clutch at straws and find facts to match their personal opinion rather than letting the facts determine their opinion. It happens elsewhere too. It's immature, destructive and long term it's all of us who will suffer. They simply do not know what damage they cause.

 

So, as somebody who is division level staff in a division which a super centre from a neighbouring division, I'll put down on record that implementing this will be as difficult as you make it. The issue here is the people, not the concept.

 

The founders seem not to care about either the real facts nor emotions of the controllers. All they seem to care about it making the pilots happy.

 

Actually, they care about protecting the best interests of the network. This may conflict with your own interests, but as I've gathered from this thread and others like it, you all feel so hard done by because you aren't given free reign to build your little empires and recreate ultra-realistic ATC training programmes.

 

When you see it from our angle you would perhaps agree, what with the terrible pilot quality overall and a seemingly large population of pilots on this network that seem to feel the controllers are there solely to serve the pilots, and that we should thanking our lucky stars that they are flying in our [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned airspace.

 

I'm working on pilot quality in my own area. VATUSA isn't interested in pursuing it's own pilot training programme. Perhaps your real anger should be about that. How is anybody supposed to know anything if nobody helps to show them the right way and the wrong way?

 

The fact is this. This thread has posts contributed to it from a number of high quality, long time VATSIM controllers who through their experiences on the network have found these things to be the facts. After all one of the definitions of the word fact is "a truth known by actual experience or observation."

 

The fact that the founders ignore the calls of some of the longest running, most experienced and well qualified members is beyond the comprehension to those of us who contribute our "emotions and [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umptions." Either word in that quote couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

The facts don't lie, and this proposal is just more evidence of what we've been saying and only helps to solidify our position.

 

If the rest of the world was resisting super-centres then I may be inclined to agree with you. Myself and Andreas have actual "hands on" experience of these super centres both from a pilot, controller and staff point of view. Most of you don't!

[Kevin Rush 1212482]

 

If the rest of the world was resisting super-centres then I may be inclined to agree with you. Myself and Andreas have actual "hands on" experience of these super centres both from a pilot, controller and staff point of view. Most of you don't!

 

Regardless of your experience in this, what happens if there is so much resistance from the m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es that you wind up with fewer controllers? For some reason a lot of people don't seem to like this idea and are having a hard time getting on board with it. This may be the greatest thing to come down since sliced bread but, if so, somebody is not selling it right.

 

I said this earlier in this thread; there is a need to somehow make controlling just as attractive as flying. It's a 50-50 deal for the network to thrive. How to do that, I don't know but I am sure that there are others here who have been around awhile that have ideas. This is the most important part: One thing is for certain . . . The more burdensome this becomes and the more FUN that is taken out of it, the fewer people you will have to show up and particpate, and that hurts everybody, controllers and pilots alike and will hurt VATSIM's image.

[Callum McLoughlin]

Regardless of your experience in this, what happens if there is so much resistance from the m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es that you wind up with fewer controllers? For some reason a lot of people don't seem to like this idea and are having a hard time getting on board with it. This may be the greatest thing to come down since sliced bread but, if so, somebody is not selling it right.

 

VATUK went through that as well. Lots of melodrama and people saying it's changed and they were going to leave. Some did, but we have a more active division now. I'm not involved with selling this super centre idea, but by the look and sound of it this plan has been snookered on purpose. I think it's no accident this thread was posted.

[Matthew Bartels]

Those damn ATC elitiests. It's just too damn hard to speak with proper phraseology or apply proper seperation procedures in order to create a simulation atmosphere for the pilots.

 

It's too hard to chase bushy eyed OBS and make them force them into a lesson they didn't have the ownness to schedule.

 

It's uber realistic and you should be banned from the network if you keep a pilot above MVA so he dosent kill himself.

 

We should just be able to fling dots across the screen as monkeys do poo and chime out with a well rehersed See'Ya!

[Daniel Hawton]

The idea of a super centre has been misrepresented beyond all recognition now. What it is and what you'd think it would be from reading this thread are two different things entirely.

 

Sorry, but having an enroute center in places with generally staffed is not really beneficial. This idea can/should be implemented where staffing is an issue. But I can name areas on this side of the globe that haven't been touched. Why? Why is this being targeted where ATC staffing during peak times is not an issue?

 

Actually, they care about protecting the best interests of the network. This may conflict with your own interests, but as I've gathered from this thread and others like it, you all feel so hard done by because you aren't given free reign to build your little empires and recreate ultra-realistic ATC training programmes.

 

Melodramatic example of anyone who wants anything realistic being an "ultra-realistic". Again, what benefit does it provide to have nothing but an enroute service? Would it not be better to find out why we have a problem retaining C1s so that we can have top down services to be actually MORE ATC? As it is, people don't stick around on their connections, now they have a reason to be gone longer.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

The main reason we have a problem with this proposal is that once again the founders believe they know what's best to serve PILOTS on this network, and damn the controllers.

 

Thinking of ways to attract more pilots to the network is hardly damning the controllers. When there is a lack of ATC coverage, pilots go offline. When pilots go offline, controllers can sit around staring at their empty scopes all day.

 

That's really what it comes down to. And of course it works the other way as well. If controllers decide to leave because things get so ridiculous, then the pilots leave as well.

 

It's all a matter of finding a happy medium. Do you think we are at that medium now, or should we possibly try to come up with new ideas to attract more pilots, which in turn means more traffic for the controllers? Judging by all the surveys I've looked at, we're nowhere near that happy medium. There are A LOT of pilots flying offline due to the lack of ATC coverage.

[John Muenster 1149119]

There's a simple reason as to why super centers aren't necessary, while I do feel the other reasons brought up have merit, take a look at this:

 

Top 20 Iron Mic Winners (CTR scoring)
From: 2012-02-27 00:00:01    /    Until: 2012-03-04 23:59:59
============================================================
#     ID   ARTCC/FIR name                    Uptime    Up %
--   ----   ----------------------------   ---------   -----
1   LCCC   Nicosia                         92:56:47   55.3%
2   KZHU   Houston                         75:42:06   45.1%
3   KZSE   Seattle                         63:27:33   37.8%
4   KZLA   Los Angeles                     62:44:09   37.3%
5   KZMP   Minneapolis                     53:51:53   32.1%
6   KZTL   Atlanta                         53:49:09   32.0%
7   KZJX   Jacksonville                    53:03:32   31.6%
8   SVZM   Maiquetia                       48:34:01   28.9%
9   LOVV   Wien                            44:28:09   26.5%
10   UUWV   Moscow                          43:31:43   25.9%
11   SKED   Bogota                          39:52:56   23.7%
12   URRV   Rostov                          36:56:04   22.0%
13   EGTT   London                          36:52:13   21.9%
14   EDGG   Langen Radar                    32:33:04   19.4%
15   USCC   Chelyabinsk                     31:10:04   18.6%
16   PHZH   Honolulu                        30:26:18   18.1%
17   ESAA   Sweden (Suecia) Low             29:56:53   17.8%
18   EVRR   Riga                            29:11:18   17.4%
19   MUFH   Havana                         28:59:57   17.3%
20   CZEG   Edmonton                        28:24:08   16.9%

 

6 of the top 10 in last weeks Iron Mic were VATUSA ARTCCs. Sure that's just one week, but the top 20 is consistently full of VATUSA ARTCCs. Look at Golden Mics from the last two years, most of the ARTCCs make the top 50 for the year (all but 2 in 2010). The simple fact is that as a pilot there is a good chance you will have ATC coverage even without super centers.

[Andrew Doubleday]

Ah... So THAT would be why the ZMP TeamSpeak server is now known as the "VATSIM Kingdom of Minneapolis." Funny, I thought our controllers were primarily happy with the higher level of realism, detailed training, and quality put into the place. But I guess all of that would still define us or places similar to ZMP as a "kingdom" anyhow... Well, if that's the case, I'd say ZMP's got a fairly happy kingdom in the scheme of things.

 

Although some of you may feel that this "leak" was a disservice, I still stand by my opinion that it was needed actually. It brought attention to the foundational flaws ruining this division. The system is just broken... and it has been for a very, very long time.

 

I'll take it with the lack of any sort of visible feedback on the three main issues I highlighted and provided detail as to how I would begin to approach and fix things that either, A - I've got the problems our division faces and order of priority for addressing said problems fairly well highlighted there or, B - Nobody cares once again. The bottom line by the original poster (aka leaker) was to draw attention to these foundational issues in hope that something can change for the better here... Sure it got a bit "sensational" at times, but that was honestly the point of it. Otherwise we'd wake up tomorrow morning (hypothetically speaking) and this would be policy dropped in out of no where... And if it isn't this one, it would have been something else that likely would have frustrated people pretty significantly.

 

So, call our theories and opinions (the ones in this thread coming from the long-time, front-line, quality ATC here) conspiracies or whatever else you wish but their really are some fundamental issues that aren't being addressed in the proper orders here to consider this "super-center" implementation.

 

 

Regards,

[Richard Gerrish]

Regardless of your experience in this, what happens if there is so much resistance from the m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es that you wind up with fewer controllers? For some reason a lot of people don't seem to like this idea and are having a hard time getting on board with it. This may be the greatest thing to come down since sliced bread but, if so, somebody is not selling it right.

 

VATUK went through that as well. Lots of melodrama and people saying it's changed and they were going to leave. Some did, but we have a more active division now. I'm not involved with selling this super centre idea, but by the look and sound of it this plan has been snookered on purpose. I think it's no accident this thread was posted.

You might be onto something there. Interesting enough we've got a convention at work that is about the various reasons for change and why do many are against it whether it's for the better or not. The long and the short of it is most people just don't want to learn/relearn something new.

 

The entertainment industry was very anti LED up until a few years ago. Now you can't go to a concert or show that isn't using them in one way or another for both lighting and video, and this is forcing LIghting designers and video designers to rethink how we interact and work together. Pilot quality has gone down in the USA in the last couple years. Artcc's that were once so busy that we could guarantee than friday and Saturday evening we could book a training session and see just about every situation the controller needs to be aware of how to handle to be Grp compliant. Now it's a [Mod - lovely stuff]s shoot on whether we have traffic or not. Part of the reason is pilot quality, as has been pointed out many times there's only do many bad pilots some controllers can deal with before they're burnt out. The same goes for students and mentors there's only so much spoon feeding that one can do before it's clear that the student can't or won't stand on their own two feet. With the lower controller numbers due to poor pilots and [Mod - lovely stuff] for up coming controllers the number of hours artccs are staffing drop and so too does the pilot numbers. Controllers are not there to fly the plane for the pilot, but a quick hi try this trick or take a look at this site or that and you may well make the difference between a pilot that stays and becomes a good pilot in time vs a pain in the rear. Morale of the poorly formatted block of text 1) don't post on your cell phone 2) take time out to be a good citizen like so many want pilots to be and point the new pilot to the resources they're missing or drop a quick tip. 3) keep an open mind on new ideas as they may have more merit for the virtual community then one might think

Things are slow to change around here from what I've seen but at the end of the day we all enjoy a hobby that we don't pay to use, we're not forced to buy custom software to participate and of the founders want they can pull the plug at their leisure. A founder brought an idea to may help increase a bit of coverage and maybe entice controllers that don't want to run a top down facility a chance to run an enroute position that would in many ways mimic what center controllers do in the real world all day on high center positions(to my knowledge BW or one of the other rw centers can correct me I hope). The boundaries might not lube up to exactly what is run rw and it might take a bit of work interartcc wise or management on the division level but till it gets to that point lets try to change things that will come to fruition in the near term and worry about the long term as it comes about. Again sry fit the block of text but there's only so much one can do

[Brian Pryor 810138]

There's a simple reason as to why super centers aren't necessary, while I do feel the other reasons brought up have merit, take a look at this:

 

Top 20 Iron Mic Winners (CTR scoring)
From: 2012-02-27 00:00:01    /    Until: 2012-03-04 23:59:59
============================================================
#     ID   ARTCC/FIR name                    Uptime    Up %
--   ----   ----------------------------   ---------   -----
1   LCCC   Nicosia                         92:56:47   55.3%
2   KZHU   Houston                         75:42:06   45.1%
3   KZSE   Seattle                         63:27:33   37.8%
4   KZLA   Los Angeles                     62:44:09   37.3%
5   KZMP   Minneapolis                     53:51:53   32.1%
6   KZTL   Atlanta                         53:49:09   32.0%
7   KZJX   Jacksonville                    53:03:32   31.6%
8   SVZM   Maiquetia                       48:34:01   28.9%
9   LOVV   Wien                            44:28:09   26.5%
10   UUWV   Moscow                          43:31:43   25.9%
11   SKED   Bogota                          39:52:56   23.7%
12   URRV   Rostov                          36:56:04   22.0%
13   EGTT   London                          36:52:13   21.9%
14   EDGG   Langen Radar                    32:33:04   19.4%
15   USCC   Chelyabinsk                     31:10:04   18.6%
16   PHZH   Honolulu                        30:26:18   18.1%
17   ESAA   Sweden (Suecia) Low             29:56:53   17.8%
18   EVRR   Riga                            29:11:18   17.4%
19   MUFH   Havana                         28:59:57   17.3%
20   CZEG   Edmonton                        28:24:08   16.9%

 

6 of the top 10 in last weeks Iron Mic were VATUSA ARTCCs. Sure that's just one week, but the top 20 is consistently full of VATUSA ARTCCs. Look at Golden Mics from the last two years, most of the ARTCCs make the top 50 for the year (all but 2 in 2010). The simple fact is that as a pilot there is a good chance you will have ATC coverage even without super centers.

 

 

One might also conclude that since there are pockets of airspace that are staffed that the super center would fill the holes surrounding these facilities (when they are not on) and thus provide seamless enroute coverage. A better experience for the pilots as a whole.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

One might also conclude that since there are pockets of airspace that are staffed that the super center would fill the holes surrounding these facilities (when they are not on) and thus provide seamless enroute coverage. A better experience for the pilots as a whole.

 

That's EXACTLY what those numbers show me. There are 6 ARTCCs out of 22 that are regularly staffed. Anything in between I would guess is just a switch to UNICOM a lot of the time.

 

Thanks for bringing that up, John.

[Brandon Grchan 925585]

There's a simple reason as to why super centers aren't necessary, while I do feel the other reasons brought up have merit, take a look at this:

 

Top 20 Iron Mic Winners (CTR scoring)
From: 2012-02-27 00:00:01    /    Until: 2012-03-04 23:59:59
============================================================
#     ID   ARTCC/FIR name                    Uptime    Up %
--   ----   ----------------------------   ---------   -----
1   KDXY   Dixie FSS                         92:56:47   55.3%
2   KMDZ  Midwest FSS                   75:42:06   45.1%
3   N90Z   N90 FSS                          63:27:33   37.8%
4   KZLA   Los Angeles                     62:44:09   37.3%
5   KZMP   Minneapolis                     53:51:53   32.1%
6   KZTL   Atlanta                         53:49:09   32.0%
7   KZJX   Jacksonville                    53:03:32   31.6%
8   SVZM   Maiquetia                       48:34:01   28.9%
9   LOVV   Wien                            44:28:09   26.5%
10   UUWV   Moscow                          43:31:43   25.9%
11   SKED   Bogota                          39:52:56   23.7%
12   URRV   Rostov                          36:56:04   22.0%
13   EGTT   London                          36:52:13   21.9%
14   EDGG   Langen Radar                    32:33:04   19.4%
15   USCC   Chelyabinsk                     31:10:04   18.6%
16   PHZH   Honolulu                        30:26:18   18.1%
17   ESAA   Sweden (Suecia) Low             29:56:53   17.8%
18   EVRR   Riga                            29:11:18   17.4%
19   MUFH   Havana                         28:59:57   17.3%
20   CZEG   Edmonton                        28:24:08   16.9%

 

 

 

Cant believe you guys don't think that this looks good.

[Jeff Thomas]

I apologize if this has already been brought up.

 

Most ARTCCs (in the US anyway) have gone nuts with the qualifications it takes to become a CTR level controller. What in the world is it going to take to become a Super Center controller? Give blood?

 

You want to increase the coverage at the CTR level? Don't make it so miserable to become a CTR controller.

[Ryan Geckler]

You want to increase the coverage at the CTR level? Don't make it so miserable to become a CTR controller.

 

You want to know how to do this? Implement real pilot training. Teach pilots how to hold an altitude, hold an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned speed, fly a heading, execute an approach.. that'll make it less miserable.

 

We aren't looking for FAA PTS-level flying here.. (and I don't know why people keep saying that) Just make sure that the pilots have the basics and it'll be much, much, much better.

[Brandon Grchan 925585]

I apologize if this has already been brought up.

 

Most ARTCCs (in the US anyway) have gone nuts with the qualifications it takes to become a CTR level controller. What in the world is it going to take to become a Super Center controller? Give blood?

 

You want to increase the coverage at the CTR level? Don't make it so miserable to become a CTR controller.

 

You obviously aren't familiar with the already lack in quality of the average center controller. In fact, one can surmise that based upon the already not so good service that the average ARTCC fully rated controller provides, that making it easier for controllers that already don't have the proper amount of motivation to learn the basics properly is not going to help.

 

 

Just to re affirm this I had a controller at ORD today tell me and multiple other aircraft inbound to "call tower at the marker" for an approach that has no outer marker. I'll take 122.8 any day versus someone who cant tell their [Mod - Happy Thoughts] from their face.

[Daniel Hawton]

One might also conclude that since there are pockets of airspace that are staffed that the super center would fill the holes surrounding these facilities (when they are not on) and thus provide seamless enroute coverage. A better experience for the pilots as a whole.

 

That's EXACTLY what those numbers show me. There are 6 ARTCCs out of 22 that are regularly staffed. Anything in between I would guess is just a switch to UNICOM a lot of the time.

 

Thanks for bringing that up, John.

 

Yet I see many other areas of the world NOT represented on there... hrm... The US, alone represents 30% of that list.

[Daniel Hawton]

I apologize if this has already been brought up.

 

Most ARTCCs (in the US anyway) have gone nuts with the qualifications it takes to become a CTR level controller. What in the world is it going to take to become a Super Center controller? Give blood?

 

You want to increase the coverage at the CTR level? Don't make it so miserable to become a CTR controller.

 

It's not so miserable .. at least in many places. The worst part about trying to get C1 at least from what I've seen is that they actually have to request training. Guess it's too much work to do that, because a lot of people don't seem to be trying (and as such, the ARTCC gets slammed because they aren't promoting people to C1... and yet, no one can tell me outside of bashing the ARTCC how the ARTCC promotes people to C1 who aren't requesting training?).

[Andrew Wolcott 814793]

Thinking of ways to attract more pilots to the network is hardly damning the controllers. When there is a lack of ATC coverage, pilots go offline. When pilots go offline, controllers can sit around staring at their empty scopes all day.

 

Nothing wrong with attracting pilots, and the action in and of itself is not damning the controllers. However, how about not being so pilot centric? Or, in better terms, why is there no impetus to require training for the pilots?

 

It's one sided, and THAT is the reason controllers complain. "We have to do this, so why not the pilots?" When something like this proposal comes along Brian, we as controllers have the tendency to feel we are not as important as the pilot numbers. Okay, so this is an attempt to address retention of C1s. I'm not sure how that works in the long run honestly. But as I said, all I see in this proposal is a constant repeating of "pilots pilots pilots pilots pilots."

 

If it's supposed to be 50/50, then start barking up the pilot quality tree. The controllers are way more invested in this network (time wise) than any pilot. Because of that investment of time (training) we feel we should be listened to. Pilot quality affects controller retention, thus pilot quality needs to be addressed. The issue of worrying about providing services to pilots is not a good place to start when thinking in the context of controller retention.

 

In either scenario though, the membership numbers will hurt. Be it pilot attrition or controller attrition there is an inevitable loss. I just think it's time the founders, BoG and everyone else on down start accepting the need to address pilot quality from a training requirement standpoint.

 

I personally am tired of placating to pilots who present a selfish attitude and consider themselves to be our "customers."

 

That's really what it comes down to. And of course it works the other way as well. If controllers decide to leave because things get so ridiculous, then the pilots leave as well.

 

It's all a matter of finding a happy medium. Do you think we are at that medium now, or should we possibly try to come up with new ideas to attract more pilots, which in turn means more traffic for the controllers? Judging by all the surveys I've looked at, we're nowhere near that happy medium. There are A LOT of pilots flying offline due to the lack of ATC coverage.

 

Controllers would like to have more pilots, yes. But not at the expense of quality.

 

Ameritrol will not increase pilot quality, only quantity. If it weren't for competing with IVAO to see whose network has more numbers I seriously doubt we would be having this discussion.

 

Let's focus on quality and let the quantity be what it will be.

[Harold Rutila 974112]

The main reason we have a problem with this proposal is that once again the founders believe they know what's best to serve PILOTS on this network, and damn the controllers.

Thinking of ways to attract more pilots to the network is hardly damning the controllers.

Bryan,

 

There is simply no evidence to support the idea that pilots want more en-route coverage. Like I said, Denver Center, Minneapolis Center, Chicago Center -- whatever VATUSA center -- on VATSIM is what I like to call a breaks facilitator. Day to day duties and responsibilities include facilitating pilot bathroom and lunchtime/dinnertime (sometimes breakfast) breaks, the occasional satellite approach, calling SUPs for NORDOs about to enter a terminal environment, and handoffs. Once in a blue moon I'll have to change an altitude so that two targets don't lose separation. Pilots in past surveys (like circa 2006/2007) may say they want more ATC, but I would go out on a limb and say they want more terminal, not enroute, service. Thus, attracting more controllers to control top-down centers has a much bigger impact.

 

Instead of controlling high-altitude en-route centers to "fill in the pockets" between ARTCCs with little coverage, why wouldn't a super center controller just go train at the ARTCC that lacks coverage, especially if they already have a C1 rating?