New thread about realism vs. fun

[Nathan Sleyster 878239]

There sure are a lot of different standards between the ARTCC's. I remember one S1 (at the time) telling me that their ARTCC was the "guinea pig" of the VATUSA world because they allowed S1's to get on voice/tower from day one. This was at the same time that another ARTCC was making students take multiple tests and OTS's just to get on GND. In my mind, that's not consistency. However, I don't remember vatsim ever advertising consistency.

 

I really hope the new training academy solves these types of problems. It seems like that's what it was designed for.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Let's see... Fred and Bryan... I thought we already had a basic set of tests administered from the VATUSA Certification Center?? What about those?

 

Jeff, Those tests don't do a whole lot. 20 question open-book tests, and that's supposed to make sure all controllers are at the same level? You've got to be kidding.

 

Like I said, we need a comprehensive system of qualifications in place. We need to make sure that in practice (not just on some written test), that these controllers are equal across VATUSA. I'm sure the approach certified controller I spoke of earlier did quite well on the written test (he would have had to, or he wouldn't have the rating). That doesn't mean a thing.

[Rey Lopez 883899]

yeah ahem last i recall the center one still uses are very OLD neodd-sweven or whatev...vatusa instructors do not teach the same as one another and some in the same artcc's dont either...i agree we need to have a syallbus like that just like that so that one CTR+ knows just as much as the next CTR+ same for the INS and every position...but then again it seams like nobody can agree in here...or listen

[Nathan Sleyster 878239]

I'm sorry, Rey...what did you say?

[Rey Lopez 883899]

I'm sorry, Rey...what did you say?

 

Nathan, this is a forum not one of our voiceservers

[Joey Vargo 878034]

First, if I recall, didn't VATUSA recently started a program that was similar to an academy? Or has this not been finalized yet? If it is around, could anyone please provide a link so I could view this? Wasn't able to find anything, unless I just missed it (getting kind of tired).

 

Secondly, not trying to act as though I have the "golden idea," but just wanted to toss this out, in hopes that it may spurr new thoughts/ideas from others. If this follows the VATUSA academy, then I apologize. Anyone that comes out of the real world CTI program is sent to the FAA's Oklahoma City for further training before heading off to their [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned facility, whether it be a Terminal or En Route facility. In the idea of balancing out the ARTCC's, could we not try to in a way mimic something similar to this. Ask for a group of Instructors to volunteer to work at this training program. Work with the new students at a real facility (if OKC lacks the traffic on VATSIM, perhaps pick another airport) on the network, and certify them up through, say, Tower or Approach. Once they complete this and head to their ARTCC of choice, all they have to do is learn the local ops and they are good to go. By having everyone go through the same training basics, it may eliminate some of the range that others have mentioned. This won't eliminate the staff's of ARTCC's, as incoming students still will need checked out on local positions on procedures.

 

Regardless of someone's background (i.e. school), everyone goes to OKC and is put through the same tests, so that all students are put on the same page. This could be applied the same way to VATSIM, as we have people of all different experience levels and backgrounds.

 

Again, if this is a repeat of anything, I do apologize. Just hoping for some feedback, and hopefully it will stirr up some more discussion.

 

Thanks,

Joey V

[Kevin Noe 895858]

I agree we need to have a syallbus like that just like that so that one CTR+ knows just as much as the next CTR+ same for the INS and every position..

 

It would be nice for everyone to teach the same stuff and know the same stuff but this is never going to happen. Every person teachs how to control different. There are going to be huge gaps in what people know and dont know. I mean take chicago for example. All of our INS's are CTI grads or students. Most of us are pushing tin for a living or going to within the next few years. I my self love to teach poeple how to control. But the way i control is how i teach it. So its going to be different from most other poeple. Like i am showing even them UND guys little tricks on controlling from time to time. But there is no way to uniform a system of poeple that are on here for fun.

[Lance Williams]

I agree we need to have a syallbus like that just like that so that one CTR+ knows just as much as the next CTR+ same for the INS and every position..

 

It would be nice for everyone to teach the same stuff and know the same stuff but this is never going to happen. Every person teachs how to control different. There are going to be huge gaps in what people know and dont know. I mean take chicago for example. All of our INS's are CTI grads or students. Most of us are pushing tin for a living or going to within the next few years. I my self love to teach poeple how to control. But the way i control is how i teach it. So its going to be different from most other poeple. Like i am showing even them UND guys little tricks on controlling from time to time. But there is no way to uniform a system of poeple that are on here for fun.

 

One little thing I keep learning over and over again. "Never say Never!"

 

Why can't their be "one" syllabus? That's the easy part. Obviously individual training is going to be unique, but it can be structured around a designed syllabus and learning system if it works.

Edited March 31, 2006 at 02:51 PM by Guest

[Josh Hjemvick 811983]

Alright, page 3.

 

I'll keep it short, so as to not get anyone's feathers ruffled.

 

A comprehensive training syllabus that each of the facilities will need to follow must come out of the VATUSA training academy. Bottom line. It must be comprehensive to the broad / generic topics that are addressed within .65, including non-radar procedures. The facilities must then be encourage to develop a training program that enhances the already comprehensive training syllabus from the academy, to be tailored to local procedures, etc. If there is no incentive to the under staffed facilities to improve their training programs, then yes, they will forever remain understaffed, not being able to put their best people in the positions that they need to be when the traffic comes.

[Lance Williams]

I have to agree with you there Josh and I can't imagine anything coming out wouldn't allow for the individualization of material to each facilities needs.

[Paul Biderman]

In general, I don't think anyone would object to VATUSA publishing a set of basic standards that each rating should be able to demonstrate knowledge in.

 

It's when they start telling me that S1s can't work anything but Podunk Delivery for 6 months before being eligable for promotion that I'd have a problem.

[Josh Hjemvick 811983]

In general, I don't think anyone would object to VATUSA publishing a set of basic standards that each rating should be able to demonstrate knowledge in.

 

It's when they start telling me that S1s can't work anything but Podunk Delivery for 6 months before being eligable for promotion that I'd have a problem.

 

Fair enough Paul, in that case I can also agree that it can be a bit of an overload.

 

But would something such as S3 or below can only work local positions, or Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C tracons until they achieve the required facility certifications before they move up in the world? Is that really that restrictive? Perhaps to the smaller facilities (less than 20-30 people).

[Dan Everette]

I think that a standard would be extremely beneficial for VATUSA as a whole. Nothing more than basic lists of skill sets for each position (DEL/GND/TWR/APP/CTR) which are required to be satisfactorily demonstrated prior to being allowed to work the position solo. Skill sets would be based upon basic items which are necessary for success at a position, within any facility, such as a TWR controller knowing how to handle VFR traffic, a CTR controller knowing how to issue a hold, etc.

 

As has been previously stated, there are some who enjoy making the time plugged in (on either side of the scope) as realistic as possible. There are those who are the other side of the spectrum, and of course those that fall into both categories depending upon their particular desire at the time. However, I think controllers should be able to accommodate both types of pilots, at least to a certain extent.

 

There was a reference as to how you teach someone skills will affect what they know. I think this statement is being a bit ambiguous. With respect to teaching minimums, this is wholly inaccurate. Case in point, you take 100 instructors and give them a list of minimum requirements that their students will need to be able to demonstrate. You will end up with 100 different ways the material is taught, but the end result is that all 100 students will know and be able to demonstrate those minimum requirements. Where the above statement does hold merit is that those 100 students will probably have 100 different levels of knowledge ABOVE that of the minimums, depending upon the instructor. Someone brought up a concept similar to the PTS standards for flying, which is spot-on to this concept.

 

Also, the idea of “Extreme ARTCC’sâ€

[Paul Biderman]

All good points. But there are some flaws in the general arguments.

 

The fact of the matter is, VATUSA can't really release a set of ratings based standards becuase the ratings are applied to all of VATSIM.

 

What may be considered a "standard" skill level in VATUSA, may be too restrictive compared to the way people in say VATEUR control (not saying that's true, just making my point), or not restrictive enough compared to the way people in say VATUK or OZPAC may control (again, just making a point).

 

It's typical of Americans (in general) to think their way is best, and therefore the rest of the world should follow 100% in line with what America does. This attitude seems to be reflected in the way VATUSA controllers view ratings in VATSIM and how skill levels would be reflected by them.

 

I'm not a real world controller, so I don't know this for certain, but I doubt the rest of the world's air traffic controllers (real world) are trained strictly by the FAA 7110.65. I expect most nations have their own docomeents and their own training programs and standards.

 

Long story short, VATUSA can't state "this is what an S3/C1/C3 etc. should know". The best we can do is say "this is what an S3/C1/C3 in VATUSA should know".

 

Now, that argument aside, let's discuss what VATSIM is, or at least seems to be.

 

It's a hobbyist environment that by nature of the skills required to enjoy the hobby, has an educational component. It's NOT an educational environment that by the nature of the software used, happens to have a hobbyist component.

 

This is clearly demonstrated by the number of younger VATSIM members on our roster who enjoy the benefits VATSIM provides them.

 

If it were an educational environment with a hobbyist component, it would be used exclusively in educating students, and the general membership base would be older.

 

If you want an educational network, start FATSIM (FAA Air Traffic Simulation) and sell it to the FAA as an alternative learning environment they can integrate into their training programs, and then you can make it so "realistic" that the casual hobbyist wouldn't be interested, and therefore wouldn't interfere with your "fun".

 

I'm sure the FAA would love to develop an environment where it's students can learn ATC without having real lives hanging in the balance, if they don't already have such an environment.

 

When VATSIM as a whole becomes so regimented, restricted, and policy driven, that it drives away the casual hobbyist, VATSIM as an entity has failed.

 

That's my 0.34587354735 cents. I'm out of change now.

[Dan Everette]

All good points. But there are some flaws in the general arguments.

 

What may be considered a "standard" skill level in VATUSA, may be too restrictive compared to the way people in say VATEUR control (not saying that's true, just making my point), or not restrictive enough compared to the way people in say VATUK or OZPAC may control (again, just making a point).

 

It's typical of Americans (in general) to think their way is best, and therefore the rest of the world should follow 100% in line with what America does. This attitude seems to be reflected in the way VATUSA controllers view ratings in VATSIM and how skill levels would be reflected by them.

 

I'm not a real world controller, so I don't know this for certain, but I doubt the rest of the world's air traffic controllers (real world) are trained strictly by the FAA 7110.65. I expect most nations have their own docomeents and their own training programs and standards.

 

Long story short, VATUSA can't state "this is what an S3/C1/C3 etc. should know". The best we can do is say "this is what an S3/C1/C3 in VATUSA should know".

 

Perhaps I'm missing your point. No, I know I am, because I'm a bit lost here.

 

I'm not advocating that standards be set for S3/C1/C3, and I never said that. I'm advocating that minimum standards be put in place for positions (i.e. DEL/GND/TWR....). With the exception of one rule, those two items (controller rating & position) are mutually exclusive.

 

I see no problem with VATUSA saying: Our (meaning controllers within this region) controllers will be required to demonstrate the following minimum requirements prior to plugging into an XYZ position on their own, without an instructor/mentor. I'm not talking about complicated items, very basic things, such as a DEL controller knows the components of an IFR clearance. If a facility wishes to take it beyond that, great, if not, at least I know that anywhere in VATUSA, I can contact a DEL controller and have a reasonable expectation of service standards.

 

 

It's a hobbyist environment that by nature of the skills required to enjoy the hobby, has an educational component. It's NOT an educational environment that by the nature of the software used, happens to have a hobbyist component.

 

If it were an educational environment with a hobbyist component, it would be used exclusively in educating students, and the general membership base would be older.

 

Paul, I'm sorry, but I feel your 100% incorrect on this. Laying a blanket statement like this is in and of itself flawed. You need to define the scope of "educational". Are we teaching people to be real world pilots or controllers, not specifically. However, I feel it's the approach the INDIVIDUAL member takes which defines the VATSIM environment for them. Also, I don't see how you link being used exclusively in educating students, and an older membership base to the rest of your argument.

 

Personally, I take VATSIM as an educational environment, with a hobbyist component. Call me crazy, or naive (and I'll be the first to admit, that I'm -Forrest Gump Accent- not a smart man), but I've always taken my time on this network as an educational experience first. What has done for me? Well, I can say with absolute certainty that is has saved me literally thousands of dollars in the pursuit of my Private, Instrument and Commercial ratings. Already feeling comfortable with procedures, working with ATC etc has saved me a lot of time in the real world training environment (only having to tweak some of the differences between real world and VATSIM).

 

If you want an educational network, start FATSIM (FAA Air Traffic Simulation) and sell it to the FAA as an alternative learning environment they can integrate into their training programs, and then you can make it so "realistic" that the casual hobbyist wouldn't be interested, and therefore wouldn't interfere with your "fun".

 

When VATSIM as a whole becomes so regimented, restricted, and policy driven, that it drives away the casual hobbyist, VATSIM as an entity has failed.

 

That's my 0.34587354735 cents. I'm out of change now.

 

I'm NOT saying, make it ultra-realistic at all. I'm saying having minimum standards, so that when you fly into ABC_APP's airspace, you can be reasonably [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ured that he has some minimal knowledge, and won't fly you into XYZ Mountain. For APP, demonstrate you can issue and approach clearance would be an item as a basic skill set.

 

We're not talking rocket science here, just providing a very basic level of knowledge required by controllers at a given position, VATUSA-wide.

[Paul Biderman]

Sorry, I should have been clearer Dan. I wasn't really responding to your comments directly, but to the general direction of comments I've heard in this "debate" over the years.

 

VATSIM is certainly whatever you make of it. If you use it for educational purposes, wonderful. If you're in it for the hobby aspect, you should be allowed to enjoy that aspect without having to study like crazy and put in countless worthless hours staring at blank scopes in order to enjoy it.

 

I'd have no objection to the very basic requirements you stated....DEL guys know the components of an IFR clearance....TWR guys understand metar, etc......

 

My only question is, isn't that what ARTCC training programs are for? I doubt you'd find any training program in VATUSA or anywhere on VATSIM that allows people to work positions untrained.

 

If the ARTCCs aren't training people correctly, address that on a case by case basis.

 

Also, this network is ratings based as well as position based. They go hand in hand at every step of your training. You can't really say a new S1 can only work positions A, B, and C because they don't encounter those same restrictions in other regions or divisions.

 

What's to stop S1s from going to where they find the most relaxed training in VATSIM, gain their ratings, then attempt to transfer to the most restrictive facilities?

 

Standards have to be applied accross the board to positions and ratings, or they're useless.

[Todd Cox 814690]

Excellent conversation so far. There are four "food for thought" items that I would like to share with all of you. My comments are based on real world ATC experiences, and the relation of those experiences to our simulated world.

 

1. To what level do you train a controller? Do you train them to "your standard", the facility standard, or the traffic standard? FAA Order 3120.4 is a good resource to review as you discuss this issue to get an idea of what the basic ATC "proficiency" standards are. The link is: http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/TRN/TRN.pdf

 

2. STANDARDS. Every ATC facility in the world always faces two problems: Teaching technique, and teaching to the level of traffic. For example, in Appendix 2 of FAA Order 3120.4, under "Control Judgement" it states, "Good control judgment is applied. Issues control instructions or restrictions that are correct. Carefully plans procedures prior to issuing instructions to provide a safe, expeditious traffic flow." Where you get into problems is an instructor's definition of "Control Judgment". Instructors/Mentors are different based upon their "own" comfort level. What are you the instructor willing to accept or not accept.

 

Teaching to the level of traffic deals with the type and complexity of operations you work on a daily basis. Do I as an intructor withhold a person's recommendation for qualification because they have not seen a Presidential movement operation yet, or do I discuss the issues with them, knowing that during such an event, there will be than enough Sups and the like helping out. The point is not every controller while training is going to see everything, and controllers learn more on their own than under instruction. For me, I would train to the level to where the controller had a good knowledge level of the "BASICS" and understood what they could or could not do...knowing that ultimately they would develop their "own techniques" when working with traffic, within the guidelines of the 7110.65 and facility SOP's. If I have a weak controller, then I may spend more time with them. But the ultimate question is always going to be the same whether it is a strong or weak controller: "Is this person safe?"

 

3. FACILITIES: Yes, real world facilities are very prideful and there are some good competitions, but all facility standards are based on basic doctrine. It is not the facility that can make thing difficult. It is the individuals in the facilities whose comfort levels are different in regards to when and how they will sign a person off. All the facility cares about is, "Is this person safe and do they meet the basics for controlling on that position, in accordance with facility SOP's and the 7110.65?"

 

In VATSIM, this has expanded to give the view that the facility is the one that is making things hard for qualifications based on very strict standards. A lot of the facility standards on VATSIM are based on "technique", which is based on the experience levels of particular individuals. If I am doing an OTS on a person who is working ground control , do I evaluate them on the understanding of the basics of the positon and the rules, to where I am comfortable with them doing it by themselves, or do I gig them everytime they say something or do something that is not exactly the way I would say or do it?

 

4. Training Academy. The ideas presented by Joey have been discussed. The problem within VATSIM is it is great to talk about standards, however, the first time the standard intrudes on what is perceived as facility turf, we then get issues right? In a perfect VATSIM world, my idea of a good working relationship between facilites and the Training Academy would be to have the following:

 

a. Basic training for a person for DEL, with minimal intro to Ground and Tower. My reasoning is if a person is training DEL at your facility, don't they start to pick up ground and local procedures and phraseology.

 

b. Person p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es all tests and becomes a Tower rated controller. They then get nominated to go back to the VTA to get a basic intro to radar, vectors, control instructions, ASRC differences, etc... that are the basics used by every facility when working approach. It could be a very short course to where, upon graduation, they go back to their facility and start to learn their airspace, etc... in order to become qualified on approach.

 

c. Same theories apply to Center, FSS, etc.... In other words, a person goes back, just like real world, to get a basic intro, then return to their parent facility to get started and hopefully qualified.

 

In summary, you have to look at these issues from its very basic form. Many of you who control on VATSIM have gained their experiences without benefit of real world experiences. Even real world controllers who work on VATSIM know that there are limitations as to what can truly be taught. All of these levels of experience equate to facility directives and training regimens that are designed for ultimate realism, but, may not be realistic at all because of the individual's perception of how it should be, vice what it should be.

 

FAAO 7110.65

This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control services. Controllers are required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational responsibilities and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations that are not covered by it.

[Josh Hjemvick 811983]

My only question is, isn't that what ARTCC training programs are for? I doubt you'd find any training program in VATUSA or anywhere on VATSIM that allows people to work positions untrained.

 

If the ARTCCs aren't training people correctly, address that on a case by case basis.

 

So who is allowed to call ARTCCs out on their training standards? In my experience it certainly can not be a controller, senior controller, or an instructor from another facility. As what happens is whoever you notify in the staff of the facility in question, the staff gets defensive and will not listen to any critique. Hence, not fixing the problem.

 

Until staff members of facilities can get over their egos and actually be open minded about training, nothing will be done about it. Especially if the suggestions are warm natured, and are warrented.

 

What's to stop S1s from going to where they find the most relaxed training in VATSIM, gain their ratings, then attempt to transfer to the most restrictive facilities?

 

Standards have to be applied accross the board to positions and ratings, or they're useless.

 

Once again, you point out a very huge issue when it comes to VATUSA. I won't state any names, but on numerous occasions in the past, students that couldnt hack it at Facility X, transfer elsewhere, are able to hack it there, spend their time, then they get selected for a staff position at VATUSA, or even worse VATUSA Training. Before the jaws drop, the situation I outlined here occured many years ago, and is not part of the current regime of VATUSA.

 

There must be some backbone somewhere within VATUSA. Otherwise you are going to continue to see this as an issue. VATUSA must step down at some point and make it a point that weak training standards at the facility level is not okay.

 

By doing the above, VATUSA can secure the integrity of our rating system, otherwise yes, I agree Paul, they are useless.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Great posts all around guys! Good to see some constructive discussions here for a change.

 

 

I doubt you'd find any training program in VATUSA or anywhere on VATSIM that allows people to work positions untrained.

 

Paul, as I already said in my original post, that's incorrect. There are S1's on Approach, S3's on Center, and other controllers certified to work wherever with little or no training before being allowed to work those positions. In my original post, I gave you one example. I could give dozens.

 

I'd have no objection to the very basic requirements you stated....DEL guys know the components of an IFR clearance....TWR guys understand metar, etc...... My only question is, isn't that what ARTCC training programs are for?

 

Exactly right, but unfortunately, those things aren't being taught at every ARTCC.

 

If the ARTCCs aren't training people correctly, address that on a case by case basis.

 

Address what? Without a set of standards, how are we to say they are training people correctly or not?

 

 

 

1. To what level do you train a controller? Do you train them to "your standard", the facility standard, or the traffic standard?

 

You get a Training Committee together and decide what standard you train them to. That would basically entail getting a bunch of iNS level and higher controllers together and figuring out what a student absolutely must know for Tower, Approach, etc.

 

Teaching to the level of traffic deals with the type and complexity of operations you work on a daily basis. Do I as an intructor withhold a person's recommendation for qualification because they have not seen a Presidential movement operation yet, or do I discuss the issues with them, knowing that during such an event, there will be than enough Sups and the like helping out. The point is not every controller while training is going to see everything, and controllers learn more on their own than under instruction. For me, I would train to the level to where the controller had a good knowledge level of the "BASICS" and understood what they could or could not do...knowing that ultimately they would develop their "own techniques" when working with traffic, within the guidelines of the 7110.65 and facility SOP's. If I have a weak controller, then I may spend more time with them. But the ultimate question is always going to be the same whether it is a strong or weak controller: "Is this person safe?"

 

Once a person has demonstrated the basics, and local policy/procedures, figuring out if they're certifiable isn't that difficult. Either they can work the traffic or they can't. The INS teams already do that on a daily basis.

 

...or do I gig them everytime they say something or do something that is not exactly the way I would say or do it?

 

I think you're trying to mix technique with phraseology, and we both know that doesn't work. While there is plenty technique while controlling (i.e. x number of ways of getting the Aircraft from Point A to Point B properly and safely), and every controller will develop their own controlling technique, there is only one way to say something, and that way is clearly defined in the .65.

 

 

4. Training Academy. The ideas presented by Joey have been discussed. The problem within VATSIM is it is great to talk about standards, however, the first time the standard intrudes on what is perceived as facility turf, we then get issues right? In a perfect VATSIM world, my idea of a good working relationship between facilites and the Training Academy would be to have the following: ...

 

Todd, you're making things way too difficult with sending them back to the academy, etc. etc. There's no need for it. If you go back and look at some of the previous posts, we're talking about a training syllabus to be used universally at the ARTCC/facility level. We're not talking about sending these guys back to the Training Academy every time we want to teach them something new.

 

 

Todd, allow me summarize a couple things again, if I may:

 

1) Training between facilities is not consistent. When we get transfers from one facility to another, the receiving facility will often have to spend time (re)teaching the controller basic ATC procedures, where they really should just be teaching the local airspace and procedures. This happens because controllers aren't even getting a defined minimal amount of training from various ARTCC's.

 

2) As I mentioned in my original post, there are controllers working various positions (certified by their Training Depts.) who don't even understand the basics of the position they're working. This is obviously a problem.

 

A comprehensive syllabus distributed on a VATUSA level, with a set of criteria that a controller MUST possess before working a given position would solve both issues.

[Ernie Alston 812154]

Well even though we don't currently have a specific syllabus or written set of training standards.

 

We have had for years a Vatusa training reference, and some have followed it somewhat closesly some not at all.

 

So even if we do have a written set of standards you still have 2 additional items to deal with.

 

1) How to measure the student has achieved the standard (a written test and one short OTS has never really cut it).

 

2) Who is held responsible if the student is promoted and is found to not be up to the written standard ?

 

You can have a written standard, but that in itself will not prevent students who are not ready from being

promoted too quickly. Because even a written standard will be interpreted differently by different staff members, etc.

 

So in reality for this to have any chance to work, its not the students that first and foremost have to be held

to the standard it is the staff, mentors, and Instructors that have to be.

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston

Albuquerque ARTCC.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Good questions Ernie.

 

We have had for years a Vatusa training reference, and some have followed it somewhat closesly some not at all.

 

Yep. A reference and set of standards that MUST be met are obviously two different things. A reference, or guideline, is just that.

 

 

1) How to measure the student has achieved the standard (a written test and one short OTS has never really cut it).

 

I have never personally had the problem of the OTS not cutting it. I can usually tell in the first 15-20 minutes of an OTS whether a student is ready or not. Why does the OTS not cut it?

 

2) Who is held responsible if the student is promoted and is found to not be up to the written standard ?

 

The Instructors are held accountable by the TA's, who are ultimately held responsible by the VATUSA Training Director.

 

Because even a written standard will be interpreted differently by different staff members, etc.

 

Absolutely right, so we need to leave as little room for interpretation as possible. It needs to be as black and white as we can make it.

 

So in reality for this to have any chance to work, its not the students that first and foremost have to be held

to the standard it is the staff, mentors, and Instructors that have to be.

 

Exactly! They should be held accountable in the first place. When we have S1's working Approach positions without a clue how to work Approach, I don't fault the student. I fault the Training Dept. for allowing that person to get by without training.

[Fred Clausen]

Bryan,

 

You're speaking my language The problem people seem to think that there are "issues" with controllers in certain places is that each staff has laid out a set of priorities for each position. For instance, I may run a facility and decide that the ability to issue a profile descent is a priority for center controllers, while another facility with profile descents may not think its important so they gloss over it. Thats not the most perfect example, but it does serve its prupose. That is a huge reason there is this apparent dispartiy in controllers capabilities.

 

I'm not saying that the dispartiy is the sole cause, or that the dispartiy is an excuse. VATUSA needs to give us a black and white docomeent that explains either on a per rating basis, or a per position basis what needs to be in that controller's skill set. However, I don't think that will be enough. Why don't we also bring in an outsider observer, an INS from another facility (or, with the academy forthcoming, VATUSA), to also observe an OTS? That INS could give feedback, and also perhaps be one of the approval's necessary for a promotion. If there are in fact undeserved promotions happening in high numbers as people think, the above two steps would cure the problem.

[Todd Cox 814690]

Bryan,

 

My post was not inferring "what I want". It is mean't to entice thinking about training on VATSIM from a different perspective. So let me clarify a couple of points that you mentioned.

 

1. To what level do you train a controller? Do you train them to "your standard", the facility standard, or the traffic standard?

 

This is has nothing to do with that TA's or facilites. This deals with the individual person who is training. Sure it is easy to have the TA's get together and come up with a standard. But ultimately, it is the instructor or mentor who may understand the standard, but may have a "different interpretation" as to what the standard means in the context of their *comfort level*.

 

Once a person has demonstrated the basics, and local policy/procedures, figuring out if they're certifiable isn't that difficult. Either they can work the traffic or they can't. The INS teams already do that on a daily basis.

 

Again, who decides if a person has "met the basics"? I am not talking about when a TA sits down and listens to a person for qualification. I am talking about the instructor or mentor who makes the recommendation to the TA. How I as a trainer view a person who has met the basics of the position, based on a standard, may be different for another person based on the same standard.

 

I think you're trying to mix technique with phraseology, and we both know that doesn't work. While there is plenty technique while controlling (i.e. x number of ways of getting the Aircraft from Point A to Point B properly and safely), and every controller will develop their own controlling technique, there is only one way to say something, and that way is clearly defined in the .65.

 

Again, I was not speaking about control. I was speaking about problems that are encountered when a person views a technique as the gospel, especially if they have a trainee. My comment specifically deals with understanding the differences between teaching technique and teaching basics. Some people feel that if you do not do it *exactly* they way they do it, then you don't meet the criteria. I have seen it in real life where a person may be safe, but because they do not issue an instruction or provide a vector the exact same way their instructor does, they get hammered for it.

 

Todd, you're making things way too difficult with sending them back to the academy, etc. etc. There's no need for it. If you go back and look at some of the previous posts, we're talking about a training syllabus to be used universally at the ARTCC/facility level. We're not talking about sending these guys back to the Training Academy every time we want to teach them something new.

 

You misunderstood my point regarding "sending them back to the academy to teach them something new". My comment about the academy presents a scenario of providing a service that could [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist facilities by affording a training tool that prepares them for their next level of control, just as is done real world.

 

The FAA uses a training standard for basic ATC, but each FAA facility has differences in their training programs because of the complexities and differences at their facilities. When you go from Approach to Center, things change. So here's the question:

 

If given the opportunity, what would you as a ATM want to do?

 

a. Take a person and start them through the process of learning Enroute procedures, changes in ASRC, changes in phraseology, changes in separation standards, which means that not only do you now introduce basics, but also have to teach facility specifics......

 

or

 

b. Have them go to the academy to learn the basic Enroute rules, phraseology, ASRC setup, and then return them to their facility knowing that they are armed with new knowledge of the position they are working along with a basic understanding of what is required, thus shortening their training time?

 

Training between facilities is not consistent. When we get transfers from one facility to another, the receiving facility will often have to spend time (re)teaching the controller basic ATC procedures, where they really should just be teaching the local airspace and procedures.

 

My question is what specific basics are having to be re-taught? Are the ATC procedures being re-taught based on the 7110.65, or are they facility specific procedures that do not transfer from one facility to another?

 

 

To summarize Bryan, everthing comment you mentioned is exactly what I have mentioned in my points in the original posting, but from a different perspective. If the problem is inconsistency and controllers not knowing their basics, is it a standardization problem, or a problem resulting from a combination of mixing standardization with techniques?

 

I agree that there needs to be a standard, but in order to apply a standard, sometimes you need background. That is why I posted the FAA link. It gives an excellent point of reference for all of you will commenting in this discussion thread. If all of you are looking for realism, that docomeent could help to form the basis of a mentor/instructor standard on VATSIM.

 

 

Good post.

 

Regards,

[Ernie Alston 812154]

]

I have never personally had the problem of the OTS not cutting it. I can usually tell in the first 15-20 minutes of

an OTS whether a student is ready or not. Why does the OTS not cut it?

 

For one reason the OTS depends on traffic.

 

And not every area can draw traffic for an OTS very well.

 

But even still with a fair amount of traffic during an OTS you still can't cover every scenario anyway.

 

He may p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the OTS with flying colors get his S3 then the next day a pilot requests a dme Arc approach and he draws a complete blank because that scenario may not have been covered on his OTS.

 

You'd basically have to already have some idea the student is capable of p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing the OTS (ie from previous observations training etc) before even giving it because the OTS isn't that reliable a test by itself IMO.

 

The Instructors are held accountable by the TA's, who are ultimately held responsible by the VATUSA Training Director.

 

In theory yes , but in actual practice that has never really been the case. You've already cited examples of this.

 

So how would it be different this time ?

 

Exactly! They should be held accountable in the first place. When we have S1's working Approach positions

without a clue how to work Approach

 

Of course currently the only global position limit is on CTR, so it one should not be surprised at this occurence.

 

An S1 working approach without a clue is a matter of Instruction and experience, or rather lack thereof.

 

But having a global restriction on S1's with the S1's getting all their training from their ARTCC, doesn't

work for everyone either. Because an APP controller with 20 hours at ANC_APP doesn't have the same experience as an LAX_APP controller with the same 20 hours.

 

Making a good controller is not just training, it is experience, and experience comes from working traffic.

 

So if we say S1's cannot work APP anywhere in Vatusa. What happens to that guy in Anchorage ? Its going to

take him a lot longer to get up to speed because he is working far less traffic in his area than say ZLA,ZTL,ZNY or ZAU.

 

IMO it would be far better for that student to work ANC_APP and make some mistakes, etc or whatever but gain some valuable experience with the few aircraft he does get. Than it is by having limited hours requirement at ANC_DEL, or ANC_GND where he will be lucky to work any planes at all and has zero experience.

 

or.....

 

Have all the students get the same experience traffic wise by recieving their initial training in the same area

(ie an Academy). Then its up to that training area to ensure all students that leave the training area have

the same level of training 'and' experience.

 

But until all the students can have the same experience it seems better to let each ARTCC Chief decide the

best balance of training/experience considering the ARTCC's staffing and traffic situation.

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston

Albuquerque ARTCC.

[Ross Carlson]

For one reason the OTS depends on traffic.

 

And not every area can draw traffic for an OTS very well.

 

But even still with a fair amount of traffic during an OTS you still can't cover every scenario anyway.

 

Just a side note here .... the release of the public sweatbox training environment should help level the playing field with regards to traffic for an OTS. We have ACSim which can generate very realistic traffic for CTR and APP OTSes. I will soon be releasing TWRTrainer, which can generate very realistic traffic for DEL/GND/TWR OTSes.