Why isnt VATSIM free for all?

[Richard Jenkins]

The Dutchvacc has introduced the 'delivery test' a while ago (in 2015 I believe). After a new controller did the VatEUD test and they had enough observing hours (20 hours), they could take the delivery test. I thought this was 15 questions which should be answered in 10 minutes and are specific for the Dutch area and for delivery controllers only: you get some routes and you have to check if they are correct or not, you get a few squawks and some general questions. I failed the test unfortunately. Probably because of the 40 seconds each question. If you p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the test, you can start your delivery sessions yourself (you will need a mentor once you want to go to ground, but you can start without mentor if you p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]) and if you don't p[Mod - Happy Thoughts], you'll have to wait for a mentor.

 

 

Thank you, Thimo. Just a point of clarification - Am I correct in understanding you only have 40 seconds to answer each question?

[Thimo Koolen]

The Dutchvacc has introduced the 'delivery test' a while ago (in 2015 I believe). After a new controller did the VatEUD test and they had enough observing hours (20 hours), they could take the delivery test. I thought this was 15 questions which should be answered in 10 minutes and are specific for the Dutch area and for delivery controllers only: you get some routes and you have to check if they are correct or not, you get a few squawks and some general questions. I failed the test unfortunately. Probably because of the 40 seconds each question. If you p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the test, you can start your delivery sessions yourself (you will need a mentor once you want to go to ground, but you can start without mentor if you p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]) and if you don't p[Mod - Happy Thoughts], you'll have to wait for a mentor.

 

 

Thank you, Thimo. Just a point of clarification - Am I correct in understanding you only have 40 seconds to answer each question?

 

If I recall correctly (it has been since January), there were 15 questions and 10 minutes, so that equals an average of 40 seconds for each question.

 

It's a useful test to get good people started with delivery sooner (and reducing the list of people needing a mentor a little).

 

EDIT: If I'm correct: 15 questions, 10 minutes, 12 or more correct to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts].

[Richard Jenkins]

The Dutchvacc has introduced the 'delivery test' a while ago (in 2015 I believe). After a new controller did the VatEUD test and they had enough observing hours (20 hours), they could take the delivery test. I thought this was 15 questions which should be answered in 10 minutes and are specific for the Dutch area and for delivery controllers only: you get some routes and you have to check if they are correct or not, you get a few squawks and some general questions. I failed the test unfortunately. Probably because of the 40 seconds each question. If you p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the test, you can start your delivery sessions yourself (you will need a mentor once you want to go to ground, but you can start without mentor if you p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]) and if you don't p[Mod - Happy Thoughts], you'll have to wait for a mentor.

 

 

Thank you, Thimo. Just a point of clarification - Am I correct in understanding you only have 40 seconds to answer each question?

 

If I recall correctly (it has been since January), there were 15 questions and 10 minutes, so that equals an average of 40 seconds for each question.

 

It's a useful test to get good people started with delivery sooner (and reducing the list of people needing a mentor a little).

 

EDIT: If I'm correct: 15 questions, 10 minutes, 12 or more correct to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts].

 

Thank you for the clarification.

[Jackson Harding]

As the member of the EC who raised this at the most recent meeting let me state for the record that my view is that any sort of recertification training is against the GRP. It is simply not allowed. If you were a staff member in my Region and you introduced this you would no longer be a staff member by close of business same day.

 

Neither of the divisions in Oceania do this, see any need to do this, or have ever done this. The world keeps turning, the network continues, and most importantly every one continues to have fun.

 

Fun.

 

Fun.

 

Fun.

 

It's a game people.

 

I have a real life PPL with CSU, retracts, night VFR, and an instrument rating. My son has a CPL with a bucket load of ratings (the two coolest of which are floatplanes and meatbombing). We both undergo recurrency training on a regular basis. In my real life job I undergo recurrency training on a regular basis. There lives are at risk, it is required. I am all for it.

 

This is just a game. In a game where the only thing that gets hurt is your pride recurrency is not required, apart from perhaps the most complex of airspace. Interestingly enough this is all GRP allows for.

 

If you want to do it to the absolute perfect real life way, go and do it in real life.

 

Jackson Harding

[Norman Blackburn]

This is just a game. In a game where the only thing that gets hurt is your pride recurrency is not required,

 

Bravo!!!

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi,

 

well chosen words. Maybe a bit "harsh", but as a real world ATPL I do sympathize with most of it.

 

I personally would not go down the route to completely waive the "re-familiarization process", but it shall be done within a short time frame. Basically ANY current ATCO for a certain sector will be able to guide returning members back to proficiency, we do not need to waste the time of mentors for this, if they are not available or are more urgently needed for new members joining the ranks.

 

Could this be an approach acceptable to the EC?

[Johnny Coughlan]

This is just a game. In a game where the only thing that gets hurt is your pride recurrency is not required,

 

Might be a little off topic but this has bugged me for a few years.

 

I understand what is being discussed in this topic an have experienced it myself in a way.

 

My issue is that I doubt there is any part of the Vatsim 'globle' that doesn't fall under a vACC or VATeud/VATUSA/VATuk style 'ownership' of that individual airspace, yet at anyone time outside of a huge network event there is only about 5/10/15 percent ATC coverage? and that would be really down to a Center being online offering a top down service, yet once your attached to an area you're kind of trapped there.

 

I recently enquired about a visiting status rating in an area(not mentioning as it wouldn't be fair), nothing fancy just a small airport that doesn't even get manned by local ATC's but just something different and to experience something new outside of my local area. I've been enquiring about this for a while and have not really got anything back of substance.

 

While I understand about major popular airports there are hundreds if not thousands around our virtual globe that don't even get touched.

 

For ATCs with experience and the will to learn and expand you have to jump through a lot of hoops just to experience something new, I wonder if there is room to relax some the rules on this matter?.

 

Vatsim may be free and pilots may be free to fly anywhere they want but ATCs are far from free once they want to experience something new outside of their local FIR/ARTCC and while I know your allowed to get visiting in other areas that is very easily said than done in practice.

 

This may be just a game/hobby but the politics and bureaucracy is real.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

some areas on VATSIM have open skies agreements between facilities that allow their controllers to roam around those areas, least thats the gist of what i got from it.

 

would be nice to see more areas adopt similar agreements, especially VATUSA, VATCAN, etc.. leave major airports or complex areas out of the agreements if you have to, but open it up for more of those other fields that get little attention to have a chance to get some of that attention

[Johnny Coughlan]

some areas on VATSIM have open skies agreements between facilities that allow their controllers to roam around those areas, least thats the gist of what i got from it.

 

would be nice to see more areas adopt similar agreements, especially VATUSA, VATCAN, etc.. leave major airports or complex areas out of the agreements if you have to, but open it up for more of those other fields that get little attention to have a chance to get some of that attention

 

I understand and some areas do, majority don't.

 

Like I said I completely understand and expect major busy airports to be exempt but I find the situation to be a kin to pilots only being alowed to fly in one piece of airspace untill they learn another's local flying rules and practices, that would never happen.

 

And a lot comes down to politics, discrimination and bureaucracy , there is no denying that.

 

XYZ Area sees XYZ Controller apply and either one of the 3 things I already will come into play, bureaucracy being the main culprit, the theory of being 'open' is there, the practice is not.

[Tom Knudsen]

Hi guys..

 

Thanks for this topic. First of all: If you have problems with your local VACC, the Division is your SPOC. Please use the way to find solutions shortly. In your case, Tom, please drop me an email to [email protected].

 

Will do for future reference Florian, thank you for that

 

I agree that we should have as few barriers as possible. Resident controllers should not be restricted once they are authorized to control. However, I also agree that VATSIM is about quality rather than just quantity. We have higher expectations on VATSIM, a least from what I’ve seen, and that is a huge appeal to the network. However, long delays for a competency/refresher check, frankly, are inappropriate. But this highlights a VATSIM-wide shortage of mentors and instructors, something that needs to be addressed on the network level and not just on the local vACC/Division level. From our experience, the biggest reason for long waits for mentoring and training is the lack of mentors and instructors. The demand is certainly there.

 

Been away studying, seems there are several houndred pages I need to catch up on before getting back to controlling on VATSIM. But gladly I have now gotten [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned an mentor and will start this wednesday doing the "simulated" training in ES.

Basically I am at least one step closer to be able to log on VATSIM as an C1 rated controller.

 

But I could not agree more with Mahmoud, realism has gotten the priority over accessability and versatile ATC coverage. It seems to be as a returning ATC that the bar is now much higher, technology has improved and the ATC knowledge of the free is greater. Problem is that the knowledge of the few is the knowledge that now restrict.

 

The knowledge of the few is those that make the LOA, LOP and do all the mentoring etc. This is good, this is a quality stamp for the VACC, addition for the experienced pilots and so forth, but sadly it has its downside too. An versatile ATC coverage even with a huge gap in the experience is arguable better for coverage than dedicated high level ATC provided for 1-3 positions..

 

High level ATC normally choose 1 or 3 positions they know, positions they have contributed to earning "golden mic" awards, fly-ins etc. Positions they know get most of the traffic and therefore provides more fun whilst sitting ATC.

Understandable but is it ok to say this is the right way?

 

In many cases there is an "un-seen" competition between VACCS and Divisions. Who staffed the regions the most, who controlled the aiport the most and for the longest period of time and so on.

 

So basically the quality is winning over quantity and quantity is still only messured in position time, not coverage.

 

This brings me back to my initially thought, why make an controller wait for months just to get OTS, simulated exersices, mentor training etc. Just to get back to controlling as an rated ATC for one perticular airport of choice? Why not ask that controller if he or she could start controlling as Ground, Tower to both learn local procedures and flow before he or she bark on the CTR position. It must be more efficient and damn more important for an VACC to have several airports staffed at any given time, than having 10 ATC waiting in line to staff one major airport while they are waiting to be mentored for that perticular task.

 

 

So basically you smack two flies with one hit, get more poisitons staffed for better coverage and free mentors to new recurites.

 

As the member of the EC who raised this at the most recent meeting let me state for the record that my view is that any sort of recertification training is against the GRP. It is simply not allowed. If you were a staff member in my Region and you introduced this you would no longer be a staff member by close of business same day....

...

 

Fun.

 

Fun.

 

Fun.

 

It's a game people.

 

 

Thank you pointing this out Jackson, I truly mean that!

 

We might ask ourself this:

Why do local VACCs have more to say when it comes to allowing returning ATC being able to logon than divisions do on

 

Well as long as solo validation is not removed from the GRP as indicated in https://www.vatsim.net/sites/default/files/minutes/Formal%20meeting%20minutes%20VATSIM%20EC%20Regular%20Meeting%20Q1%202016.pdf

Divisions cannot demand that local VACC should remove solo validations.

 

Well VATSIM politics are way over my paygrade sort of speak, but as an returning ATC I do want to have the ability to start controlling when I feel like it, this is why I also ask the question "why isnt VATSIM free for all" even though I see the reason for ATC to read up on local procedures in order to catch up.

 

I have now waited way less than many others have, must say I have been very fortunate that an opening suddenly presented itself. It allowed me now to get a compancy test ("an simulated test in ES to see if I need training or not" still not able to log onto the network itself). But I am glad because this means I am one step closer to be able to controll on VATSIM.

 

Jackson Harding 820457 wrote:

This is just a game. In a game where the only thing that gets hurt is your pride recurrency is not required,

 

It is, but we like to pretend its real and local VACCs make a huge contribution to this notion. We should rather ask the question:

 

Is it realistic to staff a position for 1-2 hours

Is it realistic to have only 1 staffed position

 

I do belive its not just the GRP that needs an evaluation, but then again this is way over my head, I am just glad to see movement in my own case, so basically this thread did do wonders for me.

 

Lets hope it can help many more!

[Mathias Johnsen 839996]

I have now waited way less than many others have, must say I have been very fortunate that an opening suddenly presented itself. It allowed me now to get a compancy test ("an simulated test in ES to see if I need training or not" still not able to log onto the network itself). But I am glad because this means I am one step closer to be able to controll on VATSIM.

 

Just to clarify, I decided that I could take one more student since one of my students is not so active. Then the Training [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istant [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned me you, as you were the next refresh on our list.

 

Also we will do a simulated session just to teach you euroscope, and have a look at some traffic and how you handle it with euroscope! After that we will probably run a quick session online, and if everything is "thumbs up", then you're good to go

[Tom Knudsen]

I must admit that the sweatbox session after trying that, is actually a good idea for re-freshing ATC.

Have no problem with such sessions or even such type of OTS training. Think it would be an good idea for returning ATC to practice new LOA and LOPs even though I am against the (10h, 6months) restriction idea.

 

Retrosepectiv I can see after only one session, that the only major difference now and then, is the LOA, scope and all the neat additional software/app/plugins ATCs are using.. Even though there are small changes, I see the learning curve is now way higher than it used to be, or even need to be. (mostly applicable to old ATC or returning ATC)

 

An example is: Whilst there are no restrictions of using VRC (except for that there are no effectiv new sector files out) there are no understanding that anyone would want to use any other clients but Euroscope. Even tough those are still valid softwares in VATSIM.

 

Arguements for not using Euroscope:

 

1. Mentoring is not offered to those using other clients than Euroscope?

- That said I have not checked this, so therefore it cannot be validated.

 

2. Makes handover difficult

- This is true! Euroscope makes this task more efficient in the interface, especially between ATCs

 

3. Increased workload

- and (i.e. VRC) will cause problems for your fellow controllers.

 

4. VATSCA do not update sector files for any other clients than Euroscope

 

Just to mention a few valid points based upon feedbacks.

 

 

Anyway, back to buisness now, but hopefully these arguements will stand as a docomeented feedback for the evaluation of the GRP down the line.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

1. this would correct all over VATSIM, certain regions have preferences for VRC or Euroscope. they do not all have the capability to provide training or files for both. for example, while widely used in Europe, youll be hard to find an ARTCC in the US that can provide training for using Euroscope. you can use it on your own, but they dont often have anyone available to train people to use it, so you have to figure it out yourself. instead, VRC, vSTARS, and vERAM are used in the US.

[Tom Knudsen]

So basically we can narrow it down to the scope being regional fitted or suited if you will.

That makes sense to me, but then again it boils down to where you will be sitting ATC and you'd could say that

if you want to sit ATC in i.e. Scandinavia, you must use Euroscope, you want to sit ATC in the states, you want to be using VRC or any other scope that are in use.

 

Got it.

[Hanspeter Rutschmann 85334]

Arguements for not using Euroscope:

1. Mentoring is not offered to those using other clients than Euroscope?

 

Let me get that right: You're argueing for using a software BECAUSE it is not used/supported in your vACC?

[Tom Knudsen]

No sir, just saying that some lack of options are restricted in the vacc. I am using Euroscope and quite content with that now, I did use VRC and ASRC before that. But I do argue that if I wanted to (for nostalgic reasons) use VRC or ASRC (with updated sector files done) I should be able to reagardless of them not playing well with Euroscope.

 

Of course not a huge factor, but again its an issue based upon a principal, it if is approved by VATSIM, it should be approved by vaccs and therefore part of the mentoring tool case. It should be up to the controller to select which tools he or she want to use.

[Hanspeter Rutschmann 85334]

Ahaa - ok, now this makes sense to me.

Now understood (even if not fully agreed with your opinion - it may simply be a matter of OPS resources to keep data up to date for any available software and every airac.)

 

Thanks for your elaboration.

[Johnny Coughlan]

Of course not a huge factor, but again its an issue based upon a principal, it if is approved by VATSIM, it should be approved by vaccs and therefore part of the mentoring tool case. It should be up to the controller to select which tools he or she want to use.

 

Why should a vACC who use Euroscope because it closely resembles their own country's real life ATC system offer training/support on a client(VRC) that is primarily based on a U.S. System?.

 

Remember staff and mentors offer their personal free time to help members which means they've to dedicate time to studying and familiarizing themselves with the software they train their members on, if the vACC chooses to dedicate their time and resources to one ATC client so they can offer a better service for 99% of their members who will choose that ATC client then what is the issue?.

 

This 'principle' ethos doesn't hold any weight in my opinion, if a person leaves for a period of time and things have changed when they come back then adapt to the changes.

 

We've enough nostalgia on this network as it is what with the voice codec etc, why choose to be awkward to your fellow ATCs using a different client?, I'm sure I could find a copy of Pro Controller lying around somewhere but why I would use it? because we've moved on, people clinging onto the past are not good for any organisation.

[Thimo Koolen]

And if you want to use a different controller software, you probably can go ahead, but you'll have to take care of the sector files yourself. It takes a lot of time to update or even create these things, so I'm actually glad Vaccs only offer 1 software, so they can use the free time to improve their sector, have more mentors and better controllers etc.

[1275389]

And in all honesty, Euroscope sectorfiles can easily be made to work with VRC. I've done it, takes less than an hour.

[Thimo Koolen]

In that case, it's even easier for the user if he wants to use VRC, but I still consider it the users task to make (and maintain) the other sector files and not the mentor/staff's valuable time. And training shall be given in the main controller software, in this case Euroscope.

[Tom Knudsen]

Why should a vACC who use Euroscope because it closely resembles their own country's real life ATC system offer training/support on a client(VRC) that is primarily based on a U.S. System?.

 

Remember staff and mentors offer their personal free time to help members which means they've to dedicate time to studying and familiarizing themselves with the software they train their members on, if the vACC chooses to dedicate their time and resources to one ATC client so they can offer a better service for 99% of their members who will choose that ATC client then what is the issue?.

 

Code of Conduct says and I quote :

 

"To log onto the VATSIM.net network, pilots must have downloaded and installed approved pilot client software and controllers must have downloaded and installed approved controller client software. Approved software is listed and a download link is provided on the VATSIM.net website. Each of these programs comes with operating instructions. In addition, there are many tutorials that have been developed which instruct in the use of these programs. Since flying and providing ATC are extremely intense activities, a person should become familiar in the basic use of these programs prior to logging on to the VATSIM.net network."

 

Approved Air Traffic Controller clients are as of now :

 

VRC (Virtual Radar Client)

ASRC V1.2

SPARC

Euroscope

vSTARS

vERAM

 

So if I interpret this rule correctly, it is the reponsibility of the VACCs to advocate and provide updated info for these softwares for its members.

It is therefore information to all, not the selected few.

 

An Official VACC must provide, through their website, the necessary information for virtual Pilots and ATCs to operate within its airspace. This should include:

 

Other downloads (e.g. sector files, POF-files, scenery information, etc)

 

So it is my understanding that Vaccs should maintain sectorfiles and provide mentoring for the software clients want to use.

Basically it is the VATEUDs responsibility if the local VACC cannot fulfill their responsibilites.

 

And in all honesty, Euroscope sectorfiles can easily be made to work with VRC. I've done it, takes less than an hour.

 

That is the spirit, cudos to you sir!

 

In that case, it's even easier for the user if he wants to use VRC, but I still consider it the users task to make (and maintain) the other sector files and not the mentor/staff's valuable time. And training shall be given in the main controller software, in this case Euroscope.

 

There is now main controller software on vatsim, there are main controller sofware(s) in prural.

Voluntaring for a staff position is by own choice, the member that do so (thank god) does this with the intent of doing volunatry work. And if this work applies to them updating

sector files for all the "alternative" client software, then they need to do this or walk away.

 

It is the reponsebility of the VACC to maintain updated sector files, not the ATC member. If the VACC do not do this, they are breaking rule $2.1 and are applicable to have their status revoked by VATEUD

 

 

§ 2.4 - VACC Status

 

A VACC may be rendered unofficial by the unanimous decision of VATEUD Director, Deputy Director, Membership Manager, ATC Department Lead and Pilots Department Lead. A VACC may loose its official status when one or more of the criteria outlined in § 2.1 are not met for a period of more than 3 consecutive months.

 

 

So we should all ask our selves this "Do we need to revise the rules to specifiy what software that is used pr. vACC and or are there to many already approved by VATSIM?

This is of course way over my head and most likely never to be discussed based upon this thread, but for what it is worth it is my opinion and feeling on the matter.

 

I believe ATC Software boils down to what is realisic to you as a controlling member of VATSIM.

 

Experienced members want realism no doubt about it. But as it may be cool in the eyes of the few, it can be terrifying in the eyes of the rest.

Learning curves should have an gentile rate of climb and realism should be implemented adjacent to this curve. So therefore the right client software to that member

is the correct software to use for mentoring in my eyes.

 

Realistic scopes and local realistic procedures is way cool (at least I think so), but for us it is fun and something to aim for.

In real life it serves an purpose, lives are dependant by it. Pilots in the real life dies if local procedures or directions from ATC are followed.

So therefore it is implemented and used, knowledge levels equally neccesary.

 

VATSIM is as real as it gets in the sense it is an platform with applied realism in an virtual environement provided by people of all ages, thank god for that.

 

 

Code of Conduct says further, and this is important to remember.

 

Remember, the primary goals of VATSIM are to educate, to provide a realistic simulation of flying and air traffic control and, most importantly, to provide a fun environment for everyone to enjoy our hobby.

 

Realistic simulation will always be in the eyes of the beholder. But as long as we ATC provide the best possible realism they know how, both pilots and fellow ATC will have lots of fun regardless of the software or planes used on VATSIM.

 

Why should a vACC who use Euroscope because it closely resembles their own country's real life ATC system offer training/support on a client(VRC)

 

VRC is an approved software by VATSIM and in this case VATEUD, and if this software is realistc in the eyes of that member, nobody should deny them the right to use it or even deny them training/mentoring or even sector files for it.

 

 

Thats my opinion anway, I am just an simple aviation geek with lot of strange opinions

[1275389]

By all means use what you want to control, but there is an expectance of software here.

You can't expect someone in the US to train on Euroscope, nor can you expect someone in VATEUD to train on vSTARS/vERAM. That's simply not logical.

 

My interpretation was that there had to be one supported client. Anything else is left at the discretion of the user. Use VRC in Europe, just don't expect a mentor to be knowledgable on the software, nor have supported sector files.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Tom you are misinterpreting the majority of your quoted policy

 

It is neither in the policy nor feasible for all to train on all ATC clients nor is it feasible for those in charge of a region, acc, artcc etc.. To be able to provide you with it all. As josh mentioned, some of these are heavily region specific so would be utter nonsense to have such requirement. You use what the facility recommends as thats what they can train you in and provide the files, end of story. You are again free to use anything, but you are pretty much on your own to do so

[Don Desfosse]

Tom, you are indeed misinterpreting that policy. That policy is aimed at the users to ensure they are using an approved client. It says nothing to which must be supported, and certainly does not mandate that they all be supported. If your VACC supports Euroscope, good on them. They cannot restrict you from using VRC, but they certainly have no responsibility to set up sector files nor support any other client in any way.