Overall ATC and PIlot levels

[Kyle Sipples 932159]

I have just returned to Vatsim after a several year absence. I've been reading through the forums, and it is nice to see some positive changes in my absence. I left due to a substantial decrease in leisure time, and not because of dissatisfaction - but the changes are welcomed nonetheless.

 

My question is this: Is there any way to find out how pilot and ATC participation levels have increased or decreased form year to year? I've searched quite a bit to find an answer - to no avail. The only thing I can find is what somebody's hunch is, and a statement that these figures have been "discussed." I ask this question because I have perceived a difference since I last actively participated in VATSIM, and I was just curious to know if these anecdotal observations matched reality. It's also relevant to me in deciding whether or not to resume controlling, and if so, where that would take place.

 

As far as encouraging the participation of controllers, when I left I was a C1. I was very disappointed to see that, at least according to my ARTCC's website, there is no accommodation for the fact that I had formerly been a controller. In order to resume controlling, I must start at the very beginning.

 

While I am not asking for any special treatment as far as proficiency is concerned, such a rigid rule has deflated any interest I had in returning as a controller. It seems to me that a much more logical procedure would be to allow for either (a) a proficiency checkup that tracks your training accordingly, or (b) a set re-orientation procedure for former controllers. While I appreciate rules that discourage absences, the rule that I am facing has completely discouraging a return to controlling in an ARTCC that could use another controller on its roster. We are all volunteers with real lives. Sometimes real life gets in the way - and for very good reasons.

 

In any event, it's a testament to VATSIM and its volunteer members that it is still around and still a fantastic service after so many years. Only a small percentage of volunteer Internet operations achieve that level of success.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

to get back on the scopes should only be proficiency checks, its not complete retraining.

 

if they are requiring retraining where you have to take the tests and OTS's again, run it by VATUSA

[Bradley Grafelman]

As far as encouraging the participation of controllers, when I left I was a C1. I was very disappointed to see that, at least according to my ARTCC's website, there is no accommodation for the fact that I had formerly been a controller. In order to resume controlling, I must start at the very beginning.

Your home ARTCC likely just removed you from their roster once you were deemed inactive. However, neither they nor anyone else (except, perhaps, in extreme/abnormal situations) have the power to remove your previously earned ratings; you can use this page, for example, to lookup information on your VATSIM certificate. It does indeed show that you are a C1 [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned to VATUSA division.

 

It seems to me that a much more logical procedure would be to allow for either (a) a proficiency checkup that tracks your training accordingly, or (b) a set re-orientation procedure for former controllers.

For the most part, it's up to individual ARTCCs how to handle this. However, I think you'll find that this process is already in place - a refresher and/or checkout on GND/TWR/APP, plus perhaps a more in-depth proficiency check on special / "major" airspaces and/or CTR.

[Kyle Sipples 932159]

Here is the policy:

[C]ontrollers with certs that have already been removed from the roster [for not controlling for 60 consecutive minutes during the previous calendar month] may re-join the ARTCC, and retain their certs, within 6 MONTHS of being removed. Controllers that do not make the request to rejoin within this time frame will be PERMANENTLY deleted from our database, and must start new, if re-joining afterwards.

 

I did notice that Richard Jenkins believed that such a policy was not fair when he posted the open letter to the community from the founders back in 2008. Apparently, though, this was a matter of opinion and not the precursor to an actual policy. (For Richard's quote, see page 5 of that thread.)

[Bradley Grafelman]

Where is that posted, and to which thread are you referring?

[Kyle Sipples 932159]

Where is that posted, and to which thread are you referring?

 

[Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming that you are asking about Richard's comment, it is posted here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=35019&start=60

 

I don't see where the posts are numbered, but it's roughly half way down the page.

[Bradley Grafelman]

From that same thread:

 

1. There will be an immediate moratorium put into effect on all downgrades of ATC ratings.

 

The Founders believe that once a member achieves a given ATC rating, the only way to lose that rating is through a disciplinary proceeding under Article VI. of the VATSIM Code of Regulations (under the authority of and through procedures established by the Conflict Resolution Department) or to correct an error (under the authority of and through the procedures established by the Membership Department). No other basis may be used by any other staff members to perform downgrades.

 

The BOG has already begun the process to amend the Code of Regulations to better protect a member’s rating’s achievements from abusive staff who use downgrades as a means of achieving personal agendas.

 

TL;DR: ATC rating downgrades must stem from disciplinary proceeding findings or to correct a technical error (i.e. the rating upgrade should never have been done in the first place).

 

EDIT: Even if downgrades for inactivity were the current policy... again, using the above link, you can see that hasn't been done for your account:

 

(The "Controller" text equates to C1.)

Edited September 22, 2014 at 04:02 PM by Guest

[Kyle Sipples 932159]

I am still a C1 as far as VATSIM is concerned. It's just that my ARTCC, though implementation of its own policy, is treating me as if I haven't yet obtained an S1 rating.

[Bradley Grafelman]

To be fair, I am still a C1 on as far as VATSIM is concerned. It's just that my ARTCC is treating me as if I haven't yet obtained an S1 rating.

I guess it depends on the amount of work you're expected to do to control again, but... to me, that seems fair. Newly trained students are aware of the current SOPs, LOAs, preferred routes, procedures (SIDs/STARs/IAPS), etc. that might have changed since you left.

 

In other words, the C1 rating means one has learned the general skills/phraseology all the way up through center. The local certifications mean one has learned how to apply those skills/phraseology to a specific piece of airspace. Why is it unreasonable to acknowledge that you could have retained the former but need to demonstrate the latter?

Edited September 22, 2014 at 04:53 PM by Guest

[Kyle Sipples 932159]

To be fair, I am still a C1 on as far as VATSIM is concerned. It's just that my ARTCC is treating me as if I haven't yet obtained an S1 rating.

I guess it depends on the amount of work you're expected to do to control again, but... to me, that seems fair. Newly trained students are aware of the current SOPs, LOAs, preferred routes, procedures (SIDs/STARs/IAPS), etc. that might have changed since you left.

 

In other words, the C1 rating means you learned the general skills/phraseology all the way up through center. The local certifications means you learned how to apply those skills/phraseology to a specific piece of airspace. Why is it unreasonable to acknowledge that you could have retained the former but need to demonstrate the latter?

A) It is establishes two arbitrary standards based solely on the type of content;

B) The policy does not acknowledge that I "could" have failed to retain knowledge. It presumes that I have no retention whatsoever. In other words, guilty with no investigation. Respectfully, that is a very inaccurate presumption. I suspect that I am no different from the majority in that regard.

 

Again, I understand the need for a proficiency check. I don't, however, understand the need to re-establish proficiency by forcing an experienced controller to start from square one.

Edited September 22, 2014 at 04:33 PM by Guest

[Kyle Sipples 932159]

I guess it depends on the amount of work you're expected to do to control again, but... to me, that seems fair.

Since the policy states that I have been permanently deleted from their database, and must start anew, I can only [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that the amount of work I am expected to do in order to control again is the same amount a brand new student would have to do.

 

I'm not looking to challenge the policy. That's up to those in positions of authority. I'm just pointing this example out as an example of a policy that led to the loss of a controller who wished to return. I can accept that consequence, though.

[Bradley Grafelman]

Since the policy states that I have been permanently deleted from their database, and must start anew, I can only [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that the amount of work I am expected to do in order to control again is the same amount a brand new student would have to do.

I can't speak on behalf of that ARTCC (I'm guessing ZOB?), but as Ernesto already pointed out, if it seems like what they're asking is more than proficiency checks to verify that you're up to speed (or can get there based on the content of the checks) on the airspace-specific parts of the controller knowledge (e.g. things outside of the general knowledge it takes to be considered a C1), then you can either discuss with either/both the ARTCC staff and the VATUSA staff why it appears to you that they're ignoring the policy.

 

EDIT: Then again, if you're willing to give up so easily, then perhaps it's not worth trying to pursue this any further.

 

I'm not looking to challenge the policy. That's up to those in positions of authority. I'm just pointing this example out as an example of a policy that led to the loss of a controller who wished to return. I can accept that consequence, though.

And just to be clear... you're referring to an ARTCC-specific policy; not a VATSIM or VATUSA policy. (Perhaps I was the only one who was confused about this point earlier in the thread.)

[Kyle Sipples 932159]

I just looked at the VATUSA policy. This ARTCC's policy is definitely in direct conflict with VATUSA policy. VATUSA policy states that controllers who have had an absence in excess of one year may be required to undergo the same certification process required of visiting controllers to again control at that facility.

 

I think that the VATUSA policy is fair.

[Callum McLoughlin]

What's the difference between a rating downgrade and preventing people from using it to its full capacity? Seems against the spirit of the no downgrade policy to me.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Make contact with the ARTCC you want to rejoin and talk to them. I suspect you will find a few quick proficiency checks will have you back on the scopes quickly, unless in that you and they discover a gap, then once that is filled you will be on your way. Everyone is different but if your retention is high this will be a quick and easy exercise.

 

If you run into something that looks unreasonable please contact the DD Don Desfosse and he will look into it for you and ensure the ARTCC policy is in line with the VATUSA policy and if not he will have it corrected.

[Kyle Sipples 932159]

I think I will do just that once I get the software re-installed. Thanks, everyone, for your advice.

[Don Desfosse]

Kyle (Sipples),

 

Kyle (Ramsey) and the others are absolutely correct. You can and will not be downgraded from your rating; you continue to hold a C1. As you may imagine, there are wide variations in our volunteer controller population with respect to ability to retain. And your competency and proficiency also varies depending on how long you've been away (6 months or less generally one retains mostly everything, 6 months to a year generally one retains still quite a bit, and after a year one generally gets rusty pretty quickly). Since you haven't controlled in 8.5 years, it makes sense to work with the local instructional staff to get up to speed on airspace changes, SOPs, LOAs, etc.

 

What you will find is that, regardless of what is written (which is essentially to protect the facility in the event you come back as a bumbling idiot which, based on time you've invested in researching the regulations and the possibilities, as well as the conversation on this thread, I highly doubt ), if you contact the Air Traffic Manager (formerly known as Chief), and for ZOB that is Mike Scott, at [email protected], and let him know that you've been a controller there in the past, but it's been 8.5 years, and you want to become active again by catching up on changes in airspace, SOPs, LOAs, etc., you and he can work on a plan to simply check your competency, fill in any gaps, and get your authorization to control back quickly. Reading a website is one thing, talking to the boss and establishing a plan is always best.

 

As Kyle said, if you encounter any issues, contact me straightaway and we'll get them straightened out.