Daniel Hawton Posted March 8, 2012 at 12:14 AM Posted March 8, 2012 at 12:14 AM If controllers really want to control approach or Center, they will stick around and do the training from delivery on up! If they don't, then they really didn't want it to begin with. The current system weeds out the ones that are not going to stick around, whether they start out at delivery or center. I am willing to bet if you ask the pilots, the majority of them would say they want a top down controller, not get to FL240 and then told they are on there own, just because somebody is to lazy to go through the training process. I know I worked hard to get my C1 and would really dislike it if all of a sudden a newbie gets to start his/her training on Center! I think you completely missed the point. And I mean completely. This will allow a controller to control exactly what they want. There are a number of controllers who only want to work a cab, only want to work terminal radar (app/dep) and a number of controllers who only want to work enroute. Those that only want to control enroute would be more likely to stick around because they aren't forced to work a cab first. FAA doesn't do it, there really is no reason other than the "top-down" requirement that we should have to do it either. I would definitely have controlled more often and wasted less resources if I had skipped directly to terminal radar. Has nothing to do with laziness, but rather to do with network enjoyment. IE, I came on here to do terminal radar. I do cab real world, I'll do it here to help but I would prefer to do terminal radar. I could've saved my ARTCC well over 70 hours of training time if all they had to do was teach me terminal radar. Believe it or not, most pilots want to talk to controllers during critical phase of flights... and that is definitely NOT while cruising. It's rather boring to check in, travel along and check out. The fun stuff is where the automatic pilot is off, descending below 10k, being vectored to final and cleared for an approach. That is where the ATC is most useful and fun. The airborne? Outside of events not really. In fact, the few times I work radar I clear aircraft direct all the way across my airspace because I know separation isn't going to be an issue. Even on the busiest of Fridays. It may not work well for ZMA, ZTL, ZLA, and ZNY on most Fridays but most of the time separation enroute isn't an issue. What is an issue is usually on final where ATC is more valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benton Wilmes Posted March 8, 2012 at 12:16 AM Posted March 8, 2012 at 12:16 AM If controllers really want to control approach or Center, they will stick around and do the training from delivery on up! If they don't, then they really didn't want it to begin with. The current system weeds out the ones that are not going to stick around, whether they start out at delivery or center. I am willing to bet if you ask the pilots, the majority of them would say they want a top down controller, not get to FL240 and then told they are on there own, just because somebody is to lazy to go through the training process. I know I worked hard to get my C1 and would really dislike it if all of a sudden a newbie gets to start his/her training on Center! This is just because we have all grown up with the way the current system is designed. In essence, when you get certified on Center right now, you can become the equivalent of a FAA CPC (Certified Professional Controller) since it is the last thing you can train on at your facility. As it is right now, you are either a S1, S2 or S3 until you get checked out on Center and you become a C1 (aka a CPC) since you are no longer a student. Why not keep the same scheme except have each level represent a step completed in the training process. As an example, lets say a student wants to start at Center and work their way down: They would start training on Center as a S1 and once certified, become a S2. When they are ready, they would start training on APP/DEP and become a S3 after being certified. They would then move down to TWR/GND/DEL and after p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing that OTS, would become a C1 and be fully certified in the entire ARTCC. It's the exact same philosophy used at most ATC facilities around the world. We just have to get away from the notion that Center is the ultimate goal rather than receiving that C1 rating. Ratings would actually have more of a meaning and use than positions for a change... There is an art . . . to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. Benton Wilmes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Bartlett 1106450 Posted March 8, 2012 at 12:18 AM Posted March 8, 2012 at 12:18 AM No I did not miss the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Bartels Posted March 8, 2012 at 01:24 AM Posted March 8, 2012 at 01:24 AM Big surprise here, but I'm happy with the status quo and am not in favor of this new development either. However I'm more likely to buy off on this instead. In my opinion, there should only be two splits. Terminal and En-Route. Similar to what William suggested, a terminal track would start at CD and work up to APP/DEP. Thus providing traditional top down service. An enroute track would start with CD as well specializing on the uncontrolled field clearance. They would then train on enroute. Once checked off, they could work arrivals into any airport EXCEPT the major airports TRACON. They would have to cut them to unicom at the TRACON boundry.They could however issue clearances and work departures once they climb above a certain altitude. Otherwise, what's the incentive to roll terminal? Again, would rather leave it as is. You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. Forever and always "Just the events guy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Hawton Posted March 8, 2012 at 01:53 AM Posted March 8, 2012 at 01:53 AM An enroute track would start with CD as well specializing on the uncontrolled field clearance. They would then train on enroute. Once checked off, they could work arrivals into any airport EXCEPT the major airports TRACON. They would have to cut them to unicom at the TRACON boundry.They could however issue clearances and work departures once they climb above a certain altitude. Why not allow it to be uncontrolled like the rest? Otherwise, what's the incentive to roll terminal? Not everyone wants to be enroute. I don't, for instance. I'd take app/dep all day long whether it's an up/down cab/terminal radar facility or a TRACON. This is far better than the mega center idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Bartels Posted March 8, 2012 at 02:07 AM Posted March 8, 2012 at 02:07 AM because then he would be vectoring for approaches at the major sooner than a a terminal guy. Regardless of controlled vs uncontrolled you still set them up on an iap. Regardless of how you start your career you should have the same goal to become cpc. This reserves the "fun stuff" of the major for those that wish to grind it out on terminal. You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. Forever and always "Just the events guy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Hawton Posted March 8, 2012 at 02:22 AM Posted March 8, 2012 at 02:22 AM because then he would be vectoring for approaches at the major sooner than a a terminal guy. Regardless of controlled vs uncontrolled you still set them up on an iap. Regardless of how you start your career you should have the same goal to become cpc. This reserves the "fun stuff" of the major for those that wish to grind it out on terminal. Not necessary. Center IAPs work a bit differently than terminal radar handles them. Not much, but they have different rules on what they can do. And if you stuck to the original, unedited, then it's not necessarily true that people would be vectoring for approaches at the major quicker. If they jump straight to terminal radar, they can get there quickly as enroute has a bunch of other things they deal with versus what approach does. In the end, picking a facility could prove beneficial. I'd pick terminal radar over anything any day. I know many others that would, and I know many others that would just stick to enroute. Whether or not vectoring at a "major" for an IAP comes sooner than later isn't really that big of an issue as more people would still be on enroute chilling, and probably more on terminal radar spots because they didn't lose interest after sitting on ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts