A Strong Case for a Mandatory P1 for Pilots

[Kirk Christie]

And this is exactly why the network is dying. Refusal to change and adapt brings on a slow and very painful death.

 

Thats a very broad statement... is their factual evidence that the network is dying?

 

CTP is over booked in hours, a few years ago it used to take weeks for this to book out.

Local events in my area are seeing m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive increases in member participation.

In the training department post christmas we are currently overloaded with [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment requests.

The quartly reports posted by my region suggest that network participation is increasing.

 

So I would be intrested to know what made you come to this conclusion.

[Ryan Geckler]

And this is exactly why the network is dying. Refusal to change and adapt brings on a slow and very painful death.

 

Thats a very broad statement... is their factual evidence that the network is dying?

 

CTP is over booked in hours, a few years ago it used to take weeks for this to book out.

Local events in my area are seeing m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive increases in member participation.

In the training department post christmas we are currently overloaded with [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment requests.

The quartly reports posted by my region suggest that network participation is increasing.

 

So I would be intrested to know what made you come to this conclusion.

 

Controllers are your problem - not the pilots.

 

It's increasingly harder to train new controllers as your older, experienced controllers leave out of frustration.

[Josh Glottmann]

CTP is over booked in hours, a few years ago it used to take weeks for this to book out.

There are obviously different factors pulling here. Steam and some good PR boosted our pilot numbers.

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

Watching this thread with interest. I'm of the same mind as Ernesto. I don't think controllers will see enough of a difference if mandatory testing is put in to place.

 

Having said that, I don't have a problem with the concept of testing before letting newcomers fly. I don't have a problem with it because I don't think it will make a difference.

 

Someone made reference to the "unread and the unknowledgable" benefiting from such a mandatory P1 or entry test. I disagree. They are "unread" because they chose to be "unread". The tools are already in place in the form of the PRC, CoC, and CoR. Links to them right on the home page, yet they were promptly skipped over so they could come straight to the forums and post their first question about "Who do I call for clearance"? They are "unknowledgable" because they chose to be "unread".

 

A mandatory test to gain entry to the "inner sanctum" of VATSIM online flight will only serve to bring out cellphones and tablets as test-takers search the web for the answer to question two. Information retention will be minimal I feel and if retained at all will simply move the question from "who do I call" to "How do I call".

 

Also, I'm curious, the reputations of the Founders as unmoving stone walls has been bandied about a bit in this thread. Are any of them "listening"?

 

I was also struck by the analogy comparing such an entry test to a driver's license exam. Every day I see people speeding, despite taking that test. Every day I see people parking in a red zone at school to pick up their kids and blocking crosswalks, despite that test. Every so often, as recent as two weeks ago, I still see people p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing a school bus with the stop sign out and red lights flashing. The test got them a license, but it cannot force adherence. An entry test will get a new pilot the "license", but will not enforce adherence.

 

Now, having said all that, I'm of the opinion that, even though I think having the mandatory test for entry will do absolutely no good in giving us better equipped beginning pilots, let's go ahead and have one. Why, if I don't think it will help? Because we owe it to those who took the tests, sat in front of their "scope", and learned how to control on VATSIM. It's their opinion that it will help so let's give it to them. They deserve it because, honestly, flying with a dwindling controller base due to burn out and frustration is not my idea of a fun hobby. I had no "online" controller years ago when I first installed SubLogic's Airline Transport Pilot. Then it was a game, but for a pilot, the controllers make this a simulation and that is what I have always believed it is.

 

Someone said something to me once about science had proved Bigfoot, Sasquatch, or Yeti did not exist. My reply was...go ahead, take your shots..."You can never prove something does not exist...you can only prove it does". We will never be able to prove a pretest or mandatory P1 will not help unless we try it. We can only prove it can't, equally as well by having it.

 

Randy

Edited February 14, 2017 at 12:08 AM by Guest

[Kirk Christie]

We are actually having older controllers return to the network after a period of absence. Maybe its a divisional issue?

 

We don't know what percentage of controllers are leaving the network over frustration, does any one actually do any research on this?, that's an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption, there could be a number of reasons people leave, work, family, new hobby, grown out of it.

 

We don't have any requirement for a rated controller to sit any remedial training before they return to the network. They can have 2 to 10 years off and log back in and control as if they never left.

 

How do you know your controllers are not trying to come back but are deterred by the requirements to re cert in some areas? Given that re-certification is not actually permitted under the COR and GRP. viewtopic.php?p=509652#p509652

 

Maybe controller attitude is the problem.

[Matthew Bartels]

A mandatory test to gain entry to the "inner sanctum" of VATSIM online flight will only serve to bring out cellphones and tablets as test-takers search the web for the answer to question two.

 

Exactly! This is what we want them to do! If they pull out the cellphone and tablet to find the answer, I don't care how, they at least looked for an answer. It proves that you want to be part of the network bad enough to put in a minimal amount of extra effort to join. If you are going to choose to be unread, then it's going to be too much effort to pull out the cellphone to look for the answer.

 

If they retain nothing, and they post looking for the answer, we can tell them that they already answered such a question and to have a look at the PRC.

 

More so, it's instilling in the new user at signup that this is more than just a log on and fly network. It sets an expectation of learning during the journey.

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

Matthew,

 

I agreed we need to have the mandatory test...even if I do not believe it will accomplish the desired result. I agree we need it because the controllers go through so much just to control that they deserve to have something that initially "forces" new comers to experience just a small part of what those dedicated people go through...a very small part.

 

have a look at the PRC

 

Don't we already tell them that...even without the test in place? If not, that should always be our first answer. If we want them to read, let's force them to read.

 

We, as a group, are too helpful, too friendly sometimes. We tell them the answer instead of telling them where to find the answer. Not because the founders said we had to be, but because it is the nature of the human species to help...in general. Same thing applies to aircraft, or pilot clients, or controller clients. Rarely do I see a genuine question posed that could not be found with a little reading. Reading of the manual that came with the PMDG, or the install instructions that come with vPilot, or the PRC, or, or, or... Nope, easier to post the question in the forums and some kind soul will answer, because to not answer means we are not being friendly or helpful. Or aren't we?

 

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life.

 

Randy

[Dhruv Kalra]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life.

 

Randy

Thank you.

[Josh Glottmann]

We don't have any requirement for a rated controller to sit any remedial training before they return to the network. They can have 2 to 10 years off and log back in and control as if they never left.

Still something I will never get.

 

How do you know your controllers are not trying to come back but are deterred by the requirements to re cert in some areas?

I don't think this is an issue anywhere. Sure, there are some here and there that might not like having to be re-certified, but if they are as competent as you guys [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume they are, then it should be really easy to re-cert them.

Edited February 14, 2017 at 08:32 AM by Guest

[Kirk Christie]

We don't have any requirement for a rated controller to sit any remedial training before they return to the network. They can have 2 to 10 years off and log back in and control as if they never left.

Still something I will never get.

 

 

Whats not to get? Its not permitted so we don't do it. You do realise that the VATSIM higher ups have employed a team to inviestigate this right?

 

Ive incounted pilots that could be considered new, filed the ML-SY route for their SY-ML flight. It doesn"t frustrate me, I work out how i can fit that pilot into my traffic and send them on their way, I would spend more time trying to get a pilot to change their route than the trouble its worth.

 

Sometimes a subtle little comment about why they cant get a particular SID or STAR or their requested altitude, is enough to get them to go find out why.

 

I remember my first flight on the network, I remember how the controller was. I see some controllers tear strips off nee pilots via voice and text, and think to my self if that was my first encounter I would never have come back.

 

This is a learning environment ever one is here to learn. If it means from scratch then so be it, if you dont have the patients to deal with that then I thinl you are on the wrong network.

Edited February 14, 2017 at 02:58 AM by Guest

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

I don't think this is an issue anywhere. Sure, there are some here and there that might not like having to be re-certified, but if they are as competent as you guys [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume they are, then it should be really easy to re-cert them

 

now thats a very bold statement there Josh and i can [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ure you its wrong. I for one am one of those controllers that tried to get back after a few years away. while i was fine doing the refreshers, actually trying to fit a session to do so took more work and patience then I had, and that was after trying at ZMA and ZJX, ZJX's schedule was more in line with mine, but even then it simply didnt work out as far as scheduling, ZJX was more then helpful in trying to get me back though.

 

can pretty much be sure I am not the only one in that same boat of controllers that have tried to come back, simply our time is much more limited then before and scheduling is often what turns them away, not the re-certification itself

 

so does it happen, by my own experience, absolutely it happens.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Amazing; the subtle and not so subtle disrespect for the owners of this network is beyond the pale. I am nuts to even get into this, there really isn't a win for me in this. But this comes up at just about every town hall meeting I attend so I'll tell you what I tell them.

 

Most of the things that are suggested here can't be done on the current FSD platform. There is a new one in the works and it will have some of these features built into it and allow us to expand into some of these ideas, like a more tailored indoc process that ensures a new member gets some key basic information before they get a CID and can log in.

 

One thing it won't do though is deliver content, accurately, in all the languages that may show up. Even with the whizzy translators found online today. Everyone in this thread speaks and reads English, some better than others. But if you aren't an English speaker can you p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] our test? As an example I took a basic question in English and ran it through the translator, into Chinese (a growing area of VATSIM); please, tell me what the correct answer is:

 

從下面的列表中，選擇正確的位置登錄到網絡：

一個。 跑道

b。 滑行道

C。 斜坡

d。 最後方法

 

So we need a more mature FSD platform to even be able to manage such an endeavor, then we need these question banks validated for a couple of dozen languages and cultures, and air regulation systems (they don't habla FAA in China nor should they need to), before we could even start to do this.

 

And it won't really solve the problem as others have suggested. It may be a minor hurdle for some to get over but for any net savvy individual a simple test won't be hard at all. And if my intent is to be a troll nothing you throw at me test wise, should I be intent on causing mischief, will prevent me from getting through your little hoops and I'm on my way to disrupting someone's fun.

 

The answer to trolls, and really even those who aren't trolls but don't know what they are doing, is Supervisors. If you have lots of years of VATSIM experience, pilot or controller, and a relatively good record, go sign up, we need more of them. But supervisors are tasked with dealing with trolls and also offering help to pilots who just don't know where to start or where to go to get help, or that they have stepped into something that is way over their head.

 

Now if you really want to get a Founder riled up, tell them pilots should be required to get trained because controllers are required to get trained. They will very quickly tell you that it was divisions and ARTCCs/vACC/FIRs that have insisted on the depths of ATC training that exists today, and they will point out that what is going on today is also completely unsustainable, you are losing controllers faster than you can train and replace them given the hurdles you put in front of them. The Founders would like to see much less difficulty in getting people on the scopes, not more.

 

And recerts? you can't get the certs done on the first p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] in a timely manner, and you want to put up further barriers and further clog up your training resources with a recert when a guy has been off the scopes for a few months? Some mature parts of VATSIM have existed quite successfully for years without recerts for any length of time gone, there's a lesson in there for those of you still clinging to it.

 

Another point to reflect on using ATC training is ATC members account for less than 10% of the people who log on the network. And we fail nearly every day at moving them through the ATC ranks and getting them on the scopes. How in the heck would we get the other +90% through mandatory pilot training? The scale up is way beyond our capabilities, unless a whole lot more of you start joining or opening ATOs and become instructors. Some of you English speakers will know the story of the Little Red Hen; everyone wants to eat the cake but few want to do the work and help make it.

 

Get a pilot rating, or three. When the pilot ratings were first laid out we understood the hurdles we faced since they would be voluntary. My greatest ambition on pilot ratings is that every VATSIM pilot would get one or more and that anyone without one would stand out like a sore thumb, and it would be culturally unacceptable for a pilot to be flying around without one. But, so many are just too good to be bothered by getting a rating themselves, those are for new guys, not them. Imagine a VATSIM where it would be unthinkable to show up without a pilot rating and be working to improve one's game by getting other ratings.

 

I just ask that you reflect on some of these things, I won't be responding to a barrage of challenges, there is no win for me in that.

[Matthew Bartels]

 

Now if you really want to get a Founder riled up, tell them pilots should be required to get trained because controllers are required to get trained. They will very quickly tell you that it was divisions and ARTCCs/vACC/FIRs that have insisted on the depths of ATC training that exists today, and they will point out that what is going on today is also completely unsustainable, you are losing controllers faster than you can train and replace them given the hurdles you put in front of them. The Founders would like to see much less difficulty in getting people on the scopes, not more.

 

 

Kyle, I understand you won't be responding so I pose this question to the BoG and founders to reflect upon as well.

 

Why are we losing controllers faster than we can train and replace them? It's easy to sit behind the crutch of we can't replace them because training standards "may" be too stringent. However, no matter what the training standards are, you need to have experienced controllers who are able to serve in the mentor and instructor role to certify new controllers. We are beyond critical staffing levels here.

 

So the question we need to be asking is why are these experienced controllers leaving? I'm willing to bet that real life, new hobby, etc, makes up a fraction of these people that leave. The majority do because even though they love controlling, it's just not fun for them anymore because of the very things you mentioned. Those that go the extra mile to mentor and train get burnt out because they put so much time into new students to only see one out of every 10 if they're lucky pursue it all the way to C1.

 

I guess the real question we need to see answered by the founders is what is the ultimate long term direction of VATSIM?

 

Are we looking to create an environment which is fun and, at the same time, educational and a realistic simulation of procedures followed by pilots and air traffic controllers everyday around the world? Or is the long term direction of VATSIM to be an open skies free for all where anyone may jump into a cockpit or on a radar scope and play airplane?

[Jonathan Fong]

... As an example I took a basic question in English and ran it through the translator, into Chinese (a growing area of VATSIM); please, tell me what the correct answer is:

 

從下面的列表中，選擇正確的位置登錄到網絡：

一個。 跑道

b。 滑行道

C。 斜坡

d。 最後方法

As a native Chinese speaker, C (Ramp). The translation could be refined (and Option D doesn't make sense), but the hurdles you mentioned aren't unsurmountable.

[Josh Glottmann]

And just a random thought... perhaps we should make the COC available in other languages (and also the quiz that is being proposed)? It just occurred to me now that for members who speak little to no English, the COC may be very hard to understand. Google translate doesn't handle aviation-speak that well. [Click]

Piggy-backing on what Jon said, I think that any exams created could be translated into a native tongue. Sure, we can't cover every language out there, but we can cover most. VATSIM is such a diverse community that stretches the entire globe, I would think there are a handful of people out there who could help translate such exams into different languages.

[Sean Harrison]

I'd like to support what Kyle has said in regards ATC training. I understand that there are always going to be geographical differences, but I can't understand why a C1 in one region can't control in another region. I recently volunteered to put in some hours controlling at a US ARTCC, but no way could I p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] their entrance exam. Only reason it bothers me, is that they are missing out on controllers, which means pilots miss out on services. I know they are happy with their standards for ATC, but I honestly think some places have almost real world expectations.

 

There is always standards required, but sometimes setting too high a standard has impacts rather than benefits.

 

If we all helped each other we might make it a more enjoyable experience. I've heard controllers talking to pilots like they were misbehaving children. Whilst having high standards is admirable, people still need to be able to enjoy what we have. If we had the standards expected by some, then we may have a very small community.

[Dace Nicmane]

I was also struck by the analogy comparing such an entry test to a driver's license exam. Every day I see people speeding, despite taking that test. Every day I see people parking in a red zone at school to pick up their kids and blocking crosswalks, despite that test. Every so often, as recent as two weeks ago, I still see people p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing a school bus with the stop sign out and red lights flashing. The test got them a license, but it cannot force adherence.

Now imagine what it would be like without any tests at all. That's the state we're currently at.

[Kirk Christie]

I was also struck by the analogy comparing such an entry test to a driver's license exam. Every day I see people speeding, despite taking that test. Every day I see people parking in a red zone at school to pick up their kids and blocking crosswalks, despite that test. Every so often, as recent as two weeks ago, I still see people p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing a school bus with the stop sign out and red lights flashing. The test got them a license, but it cannot force adherence.

Now imagine what it would be like without any tests at all. That's the state we're currently at.

 

 

Driving is different, people die.... you cant compare.

 

The only comparison you can make with driving vs this network is;

 

There are people that think they are better than the rest,

There are people that don't care about anyone else,

There are people that are not as good as the others,

There are people that think the rules don't apply to them.

 

A test doesn't stop these people from getting behind the wheel, and its usually something that is born long past the testing phase.

 

All we are talking about is peoples enjoyment, and frustration.

 

I get frustrated when im in first person shooters and I keep dieing, but that doesn't mean I march off to steam and ask them to train me how to shoot better....

 

Everyone has their grievances but no one wants to step up and offer [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istance, Help is not a dirty word.

 

I spoke to a pilot last night about the correct procedure to exit a hold if the exit instruction is given mid hold,

 

People should stop and think about when was the last time you helped some one on the network?

 

Controllers are not the high and mighty's, controllers are there for one sole purpose and that is, to provide a service to the pilots, without pilots you have nothing, so why not invest in the future of your hobby and offer help when and where it is needed, instead of 8+ pages of discussions.

 

Where has this thread got us, any closer to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]isting pilots? not likely, people have time to sit here and complain about whats wrong with the network, but don't have time to get out there and fix it, they just expect it to be all done for them.

 

I 100% agree with everything Kyle said in his post.

[Dace Nicmane]

It was Richard Walsh who brought up the analogy with driving. So when the against-the-test camp brings it up, it's a valid comparison, but when I rebut it and prove the opposite, then it's no longer valid, because "this is VATSIM, nobody dies"...? Oh well

[Richard Walsh]

It was Richard Walsh who brought up the analogy with driving. So when the against-the-test camp brings it up, it's a valid comparison, but when I rebut it and prove the opposite, then it's no longer valid, because "this is VATSIM, nobody dies"...? Oh well

Driving on the road you receive mandatory training. Taking a entrance exam requires no training. You proved nothing. A simple test isn't training . Drivers license there is a mandatory minimum training. People still don't obey the rules . What exactly have you proved?

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

I think my one and only contribution to this discussion is enough so I intend to politely bow out. The reason? Kyle's post. Reading that gave me the distinct feeling that this issue, and other sensitive topics that crop up here in the form of "Why Can't We..." posts, is much larger than what we see at the Pilot and Controller level and is just what this thread needed. Explains things that the most of the "nuts and bolts" people down at the pilot and controller level do not see, for whatever reason.

 

And that's really all I wanted to see, someone from the Founders or BoG stepping in to shed some light on a sensitive topic.

 

Every once in a while I go back to the Founders' Letter to the Community and reread it. It's dated, over eight years old, but it is well written and very explanatory. Pilot training is mentioned.

 

Second, participation (in the Pilot Training program) by VATSIM pilots will be voluntary. The Founders believe that the evolution and maturity of a program of this scale must be gradual and that forced participation at its outset would be a mistake. In order to have as many pilots as possible use the program, all pilots (both new and existing) will be urged to undertake the courses. We could also offer meaningful incentives for those agreeing to go through the program as well as take other steps to encourage voluntary participation. However, in order to see where we might want to take the Pilot Training Program, we must actually roll it out and start using it.

 

If you have never read it, and I suspect the majority of members have not, you can find it here... viewtopic.php?f=6&t=35019

 

Always be of good cheer and approach others with open hands...

 

Randy

[Jonathan Fong]

I think my one and only contribution to this discussion is enough so I intend to politely bow out. The reason? Kyle's post. Reading that gave me the distinct feeling that this issue, and other sensitive topics that crop up here in the form of "Why Can't We..." posts, is much larger than what we see at the Pilot and Controller level and is just what this thread needed. Explains things that the most of the "nuts and bolts" people down at the pilot and controller level do not see, for whatever reason.

 

And that's really all I wanted to see, someone from the Founders or BoG stepping in to shed some light on a sensitive topic.

 

Every once in a while I go back to the Founders' Letter to the Community and reread it. It's dated, over eight years old, but it is well written and very explanatory. Pilot training is mentioned.

 

Second, participation (in the Pilot Training program) by VATSIM pilots will be voluntary. The Founders believe that the evolution and maturity of a program of this scale must be gradual and that forced participation at its outset would be a mistake. In order to have as many pilots as possible use the program, all pilots (both new and existing) will be urged to undertake the courses. We could also offer meaningful incentives for those agreeing to go through the program as well as take other steps to encourage voluntary participation. However, in order to see where we might want to take the Pilot Training Program, we must actually roll it out and start using it.

 

If you have never read it, and I suspect the majority of members have not, you can find it here... viewtopic.php?f=6&t=35019

 

Always be of good cheer and approach others with open hands...

 

Randy

 

Thank you very much to the link to the open letter. Some very good points are mentioned, and it has most certainly made me reconsider my point of view on this subject.

 

The fact is, the network as a whole is getting an influx of new pilots who, quite simply, don't know what they are doing. I am not talking about trolls whose only purpose is to try and disrupt normal operations on the network - those people can't be stopped anyways and would not be the target audience of any proposed entry test anyways. I'm talking about new pilots who are eager to fly - perhaps too eager - but don't know what to do.

 

I don't know about other members, but when I encounter such a pilot I always strive to provide as much help and constructive criticism as possible. What I have found is that most of these 'ignorant' (as in, not knowing what to do) members simply have not read the PRC or don't even have any knowledge of the Pilot Rating Program's existence. Once pointed in the right direction, though, 99% of them have been eager and willing to learn.

 

Therefore, we have a problem - that some, if not most, new members simply aren't learning what they need to in order to operate on the network (and I'm talking basic knowledge like understanding a clearance or knowing what a QNH/altimeter setting is). I think we can all agree that this is an issue.

 

The thing is, the proposed entry exam is not a perfect solution and none of its proponents claim for it to be. However, out of all the posts and members expressing their opposition to the idea, I haven't seen any alternative ideas. If a better alternative is proposed, then I will gladly stand behind it; however, from what I can see what many members want is change, and the opposition is refusing to provide any ways to provide change without such drastic measures as a mandatory P1 (of sorts).

[Luke Kolin]

Amazing; the subtle and not so subtle disrespect for the owners of this network is beyond the pale. I am nuts to even get into this, there really isn't a win for me in this.

 

Au contraire. The win is that you engage in the discussion, which is something that all of Founders and the majority of your peers on the BoG choose not to do. Respect is earned, and it's earned through honest discussion rather than skulking on Olympus throwing down the odd thunderbolt (which they don't even do anymore).

 

And criticism is not disrespect.

 

Most of the things that are suggested here can't be done on the current FSD platform. There is a new one in the works and it will have some of these features built into it and allow us to expand into some of these ideas, like a more tailored indoc process that ensures a new member gets some key basic information before they get a CID and can log in.

 

I have a number of concerns about this. The software side is easy - this shouldn't be the job of FSD. It's neither a web server nor a registration/user database and shouldn't be.

 

The bigger one is institutional. You have no VATGOV3. You have no VATGOV5. I'm an NDAd developer and I've seen no discussion or information about the FSD replacement project beyond your own private emails encouraging me to reach out to Kieran. (It sounds interesting but between simFDR, DVA, NBA and my family I neither have the time or the energy to dedicate.) You're in a situation where a decade and a half of one-off development efforts have left you with a fractured technical base, and this is more of the same.

 

 

Why is it that VATSIM technical development is so siloed and closed away? Do the people working on it feel that software gets better the fewer people that work on it? We need to open that up, even if it's not full open source but make people aware of what's going on, ask for ideas and contributions and feedback.

 

The answer to trolls, and really even those who aren't trolls but don't know what they are doing, is Supervisors. If you have lots of years of VATSIM experience, pilot or controller, and a relatively good record, go sign up, we need more of them. But supervisors are tasked with dealing with trolls and also offering help to pilots who just don't know where to start or where to go to get help, or that they have stepped into something that is way over their head.

 

Agreed. Whatever happened to the effort for Pilots to become Supervisors? If that isn't still active (I've heard things back and forth over the years) then you're ensuring that your Supervisor community is artificially limited to whoever can go through the Controller training process. You had a great idea before. Make sure it's still active.

 

And while I may sound like a broken record, SUPs need to stop focusing on wasted bandwidth and start focusing on real problems. If someone's asleep on a long haul, kick the connection and move on. There's a reason why I can set my cruise control to 85 between Atlanta and Flomaton, Alabama every year and no cop pays a second glance - they're waiting for the dude going 95 or weaving in and out, exactly what they should be doing.

 

Bring in lots of Pilot Supervisors and have them focus on bad behavior.

 

They will very quickly tell you that it was divisions and ARTCCs/vACC/FIRs that have insisted on the depths of ATC training that exists today, and they will point out that what is going on today is also completely unsustainable, you are losing controllers faster than you can train and replace them given the hurdles you put in front of them. The Founders would like to see much less difficulty in getting people on the scopes, not more.

 

Now this is the kind of stuff that makes the Founders deserve criticism and disrespect. The structure of this organization is such that the only people who could enforce that are the Founders. But it's also such that they could do this today.

 

They really need to stop this p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive aggressive sniping from the sidelines and engage in some real leadership, or step aside. You could decide today, and within six months things will have settled down. In either direction - Controller and Pilot training is severely imbalanced and needs to be adjusted.

 

And recerts? you can't get the certs done on the first p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] in a timely manner, and you want to put up further barriers and further clog up your training resources with a recert when a guy has been off the scopes for a few months? Some mature parts of VATSIM have existed quite successfully for years without recerts for any length of time gone, there's a lesson in there for those of you still clinging to it.

 

The BoG/EC/Founders/Ad Hoc Pro Tem Committee on Important Stuff could eliminate recerts tomorrow.

 

I just ask that you reflect on some of these things, I won't be responding to a barrage of challenges, there is no win for me in that.

 

Why not?

 

I think the biggest issue you face is that the VATSIM leadership spends too much time admiring the problem instead of eliminating it. You seem to have an idea of what your initial problems are, so be a leader and go eliminate them. If you aren't authorized to do so, then you have identified the real problem and can go eliminate that.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

Breaking my own word to bow out, but for what I think is a good reason.

 

Ernesto has asked what we as members have done to help ease this and other problems.

 

Reading Kyle's post made me think about becoming a Supervisor once more. In a different thread he suggested the same.

 

Now Luke has questioned the "Pilot Only" becoming a Supervisor situation.

 

Whatever happened to the effort for Pilots to become Supervisors

 

So, I finally went to the Supervisor Application site and started my application process. I stopped almost immediately. Half way through the job description I met with a road block.

 

have a good knowledge of at least one controller client and one pilot client used on VATSIM

 

I have absolutely no knowledge of any of the controller clients other than I recognize their names and abbreviations. I would not call that "good" and so I exited out of the application process. Perhaps that job description is the place to start "fixing" the system and more people who can help "unread" and "unknowledgable" pilots become better VATSIM pilots. We're the ones who fly, not the controllers. It frees their time up and the ones who can help best are there to help.

 

the opposition is refusing to provide any ways to provide change without such drastic measures as a mandatory P1

 

More pilots as supervisors and active on the network to help errant pilots and free up controllers to control is the best alternative to mandatory P1 I can offer, Jonathon, but at least it's an alternative.

 

Randy

[Andreas Fuchs]

Just install VRC or Euroscope and use it to observe, this way you can get familar with it. If you get accepted as SUP you will receive theoretical and practical training where you can ask all the question. Don't get discouraged by this.