Jump to content

You're browsing the 2004-2023 VATSIM Forums archive. All content is preserved in a read-only fashion.
For the latest forum posts, please visit https://forum.vatsim.net.

Need to find something? Use the Google search below.

VATEUD C3 Rating Policy released


David Kirchner
 Share

Recommended Posts

David Kirchner
Posted
Posted (edited)

Hello everyone,

I am pleased to inform you that VATEUD has released its C3 (Senior Controller) Rating Policy. We restarted holding C3 exams 2 months ago, and with finalizing the C3 Rating Policy we are now set up to handle C3 recommendations and exams throughout the division.

All requirements and proceedings are described in the policy. In case there are any questions left, do not hesitate to contact your local ATC Training staff or the VATEUD ATC department ([email protected]). 

Thank you to all who worked on the restart of VATEUD's C3 program!

You can find the policy here: https://www.vateud.net/atc-training/c3-rating/

Edited by David Kirchner
  • Like 2

David Kirchner                                     VATEUD Logo
ATC Training Department Director
unnamed.png.7ea1021ee91ff68552c5250e96e78a5f.png [email protected]
unnamed.png.7ea1021ee91ff68552c5250e96e78a5f.png [email protected]

   
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ira Robinson
Posted
Posted (edited)

I am sure a lot of time and work went into putting this together, so the last thing I want to do is rain on anyone's parade, but is this new C3 Rating Policy VATSIM-wide?  Is it going to be?   There has never been any requirement that a C3 position must be tested for.  Quite the contrary.  In fact the GRP is very specific when it says,

"  A Senior Controller (C3) rating may be awarded to a controller already certified to provide the six (6) standard VATSIM controller services described above AND who also provides other services NOT related to a control role covered by the ratings for DEL, GND, TWR, APP, DEP or CTR. The rating of Senior Controller (C3) may be awarded by any VATSIM Division to give recognition of seniority, performance or any additional role beyond that of a normal Controller (C1) as determined by the local Region/Division."

In fact the GRP specifically lacks any ATC competencies  for the C3 rating.  How is it that VATEUD can now create policy to the contrary?  In addition, historically, the C3 has been awarded to our most senior controllers who, for one reason or another, have served VATSIM above and beyond just controlling, as it is specified in the GRP (copied above).   So how does changing this rating to a tested position square with the comparison of those who may have been awarded the rating prior to this new policy?  Does this make them "more worthy"? 

Finally, does this signify a change in the thought process of the Board, allowing the Divisions to  dance to a different tune as they see fit?  It is a given that the Divisions have always had the ability to interpret GRP with a little bit of wiggle room as they seek to train our membership.  This step however, is not a small interpretation of what equals an OTS exam.  This policy creates a diagram for issuing an already active  rating within VATSIM, yet it seems to be only for the members of VATEUD.  How can the board allow a single Division to develop policy that is so far and away different from anything that has been and continues to be, policy?

So I just thought I might ask...?

Edited by Ira Robinson
  • Like 1

__________

Ira Robinson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Kirchner
Posted
Posted (edited)

Hello Ira,

this is a divisional policy and thus only valid for VATEUD. In fact it is only an adjustement of the criteria mentioned in the divisional policy which was created years ago. In VATEUD CPTs for C3 ratings have been mandatory for many years.

Of course VATEUD cannot create policies which are valid outside of VATEUD, but it can certainly create a policy which defines criteria for specific ratings, including the C3 rating - as long as these rules are not in contradiction to the GRP or any other VATSIM.NET rules. The new VATEUD C3 policy makes it a bit more transparent to our members what we count as seniority, performance or any additional role beyond that of a normal Controller. You quoted it here: The rating of Senior Controller (C3) may be awarded by any VATSIM Division to give recognition of seniority, performance or any additional role beyond that of a normal Controller (C1) as determined by the local Region/Division.

Edit: I forgot one answer, sorry. Existing C3 ratings are not affected by this policy. The policy affects C3 requests from VATEUD vACCs which have been sent to VATEUD after the release of the policy.

I hope that answers your questions!

Edited by David Kirchner
  • Like 3

David Kirchner                                     VATEUD Logo
ATC Training Department Director
unnamed.png.7ea1021ee91ff68552c5250e96e78a5f.png [email protected]
unnamed.png.7ea1021ee91ff68552c5250e96e78a5f.png [email protected]

   
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ira Robinson
Posted
Posted

Thank you yes, it does address my questions, but not my concern that it is possible to receive, earn?,  a rating in one Division but not another. For all of the reasons you mention it has always been fine that the Divisions have had the ability to create a little wiggle room into the training program as long as the defined basic standards were met.  An OTS for example is a subjective exam in any Division.  But an OTS for an S2 is an OTS for an S2 anywhere.  

The requirements that have been created for the C3 rating are only for a controller in VATEUD.  To my knowledge there is no other Division  offering that rating, and certainly not testing for it.  How do you reconcile creating a testing program for what has historically been an honorary position.   How does the EC and the Board reconcile allowing one Division to get so far off the training track that you were allowed to write your own program for this rating?  And how will those same governing bodies react when the next Division does something similar but does not incorporate any of the requirements from your program into a new one.  How about if VATXXX just decides to start  giving them out?   

I should close by saying that I read and clearly understand the reason you are doing what you are.  And I commend you and your staff for  the steps you are taking by bringing this to the membership in a clear and concise way.  So maybe my issue isn't so much with what you have done, but with the fact that you were allowed to do it.  Now if you tell me this was done in concert with the other Divisions and that the powers that be made sure that a C3 is a C3 is a C3, then I will quietly go hide in a corner and do nothing but give clearances for the next month.  Because otherwise you and I can meet for a liquid refreshment in a year and argue if my C3 is worth the same as yours.  😉

And finally, David, thank you for your willingness to discuss this. Many in your position wouldn't have discussed the merits and told me to just live with it, after all, it doesn't directly affect me anyway.  And kudos to your staff for putting together such a comprehensive document in the first place.  I wish you the best of luck implementing this, and who knows, maybe I will have to transfer Divisions and have a go!    lol

Regards, 

Ira Robinson

 

__________

Ira Robinson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Board of Governors
Simon Kelsey
Posted
Posted (edited)

Ira,

I'm a bit perplexed. 

As David says, the GRP says:

The rating of Senior Controller (C3) may be awarded by any VATSIM Division to give recognition of seniority, performance or any additional role beyond that of a normal Controller (C1) as determined by the local Region/Division."

(Emphasis mine)

How "seniority" or "performance" is determined is (specifically) up to the divsion. As it should be. If you could point to me where the GRP says that divisions must not test for the C3 rating I'd be curious? What exactly is it within the GRP that you think VATEUD are not in compliance with?

Any division can offer and award C3 ratings in accordance with the above. If they choose not to, surely that is a question for that division rather than questioning why another division is awarding ratings which they are perfectly entitled to do?

How would you propose objectively determining "performance" for the purposes of the above, if not through some form of test? How are other divisons demonstrating their compliance with that requirement?

Edited by Simon Kelsey
  • Like 2

Vice President, Pilot Training

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ira Robinson
Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Simon Kelsey said:

How "seniority" or "performance" is determined is (specifically) up to the divsion. As it should be. If you could point to me where the GRP says that divisions must not test for the C3 rating I'd be curious? What exactly is it within the GRP that you think VATEUD are not in compliance with?

I do not think that this program is not in compliance with the GRP.  (is that a sentence?)  One could argue that it stretches the intent perhaps, but not that it isn't in compliance.  If I said otherwise than I misspoke. 

 

6 hours ago, Simon Kelsey said:

Any division can offer and award C3 ratings in accordance with the above. If they choose not to, surely that is a question for that division rather than questioning why another division is awarding ratings which they are perfectly entitled to do?

True.  The Division is well within its power to create the policy that they have in order to begin awarding the C3 rating.  The fact that no other Division has shouldn't matter.  The fact that VATEUD is ahead of the curve here should be cause for celebration, not consternation.    However, I choose to view this from the other direction if you will.  If every other rating in VATSIM must meet a certain standard, regardless of your GRP quote, above, because there is and will always be some wiggle room built into a certification program, then why is this rating being treated any differently?  

VATSIM lays out the minimum standards for each rating, except the C3.  A Division's ability to write from scratch a procedure for earning a rating (C3) should be equal across the board. It should not be specific to one Division, and one Division only.

The actions of, or lack of actions of, another Division should not be considered here, especially since we are talking about the highest rating a controller can earn. It is special and it should be special,  and it should require that everyone, regardless of Division should have to meet the same qualification.

7 hours ago, Simon Kelsey said:

How would you propose objectively determining "performance" for the purposes of the above, if not through some form of test? How are other divisons demonstrating their compliance with that requirement?

Oh no you don't  lol    I am not going to second guess the process that has been put in place here.  I know the boys must have work very hard on it and that there were compromises all around.  So I will pass on that.  I will simply say once again, that I think this is a policy that should have been implemented VATSIM - Division-wide or not at all.

I hope you are a little less perplexed now.  My apologies of I am tripping over my thoughts and not making myself understood. 

 

 

__________

Ira Robinson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Callum McLoughlin
Posted
Posted

The divergence of ATC training standards across VATSIM undermines the point of a global policy, which was implemented to fix this very issue about 15 (or so) years ago.

I don’t think this is the fault of an individual division, each is charged solely with offering the best it can for its own members. I’d say instead this is a historic failure of the Executive Committee that has, for as long as I can member, done nothing of any value or notice. If not the reason, it is certainly one in support of the current move to abolish it all together.

Lets see what the new governance structure can do rather than pick at individual policies. You really are wasting your well intentioned efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick Marinov
Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi all,

To give some behind the scenes information on how this has come to exist in the past months: sadly, for a long time, EUD had not been issuing C3 ratings in any way or form. There were no division examiners, nor the desire from previous training staff (afaik) to resume the programme or consult with vACCs on how the division and the TD should proceed.

After a new team stepped in, this was on their to-do list even before I became division director. Since then, we have had multiple meetings where ideas were shared and ultimately, opinions clashed. All vACC TDs in the division were asked for feedback as to what they think would work best, as ultimately, they would forward members for that rating.W

Ira, you are correct that many compromises have been made to allow for more than one route to be taken and the final version of the C3 programme is vastly different than some initial ideas. What we did not want to happen is to make the additional requirements too restrictive, so one had to be on staff for example, as we know that is not something that is appealing to all.

However, it was decided for the practical check to be left in place to assure that the quality over quantity principle is followed throughout the permanent controller ratings in VATEUD. Sadly, when some are awarded their ratings, bad habits develop, I myself may be an example of that with certain RT for example. During the exam itself, the examiners would not be looking for perfection, however, would be reasonably expecting quality from the provided service to pilots to assure, as mentioned before, that standards have not slipped and we are awarding the highest rating to those who keep themselves current on the network.

Where the differences in C3 programmes and requirements across the world are concerned, I think we have to take into consideration the vast differences across regions. Some are blessed with members and activity, others, for one reason or another, are not so lucky. It is natural that some differences will exist where a global policy has not been published. If, however, with the new staff structure at .net, the decision to review GRP is made, we will be keen to put feedback in.

Edited by Nick Marinov
  • Like 4

NICK MARINOV
Assistant to the Vice President
Europe, Middle East and Africa
Supervisor Team Leader

 

## [email protected]
Facebook Twitter Instagram
VATSIM Logo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirk Christie
Posted
Posted

https://vatpac.org/controllers/atc-training/senior-controller/

This VATPAC one has been in place for several years, basically the test is doing more advanced ATC procedures, like working Terminal Flow Management systems, advanced non radar separation standards, and possibly the requirement to be oceanic endorsed, (dont quote me on that one).

Kirk Christie - VATPAC C3

VATPAC Undercover ATC Agent

Worldflight Perth 737-800 Crew Member

956763

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Board of Governors
Simon Kelsey
Posted
Posted

 

22 hours ago, Ira Robinson said:

However, I choose to view this from the other direction if you will.  If every other rating in VATSIM must meet a certain standard, regardless of your GRP quote, above, because there is and will always be some wiggle room built into a certification program, then why is this rating being treated any differently?  

Because as you correctly point out the C3 'rating' doesn't actually allow you do do anything that a C1 cannot already do. Anybody who is interested in obtaining a C3 is already 'fully trained' -- they are able to to operate essentially any position they wish. So from an competency point of view, all C3s are trained in the same competencies -- i.e. C1. We can argue about whether a C1 in ZNY is trained to an equivalent level of competency as a C1 in a vACC with one airport that gets a dozen flights a month, but that's another question.

My own inference from the way the C3 requirements are written in policy is that it is intended really as means of recognising those C1s who are particularly experienced, demonstrate high levels of performance and/or fulfil other staff or local administrative functions that don't fall under the Instructor or Supervisor ratings. Essentially, I would view it more as a 'job' than a 'qualification'. All airline pilots hold the same licence (save frozen vs unfrozen ATPL), however many stripes they have, but whilst the role of the Captain is generically defined, beyond the minimum regulatory requirements of holding an unfrozen ATPL the specifics of how potential new Captains are selected and trained is basically up to each airline to determine based on their own requirements.

Because the definition of 'experienced' or local need in terms of staff etc is going to be very relative ('experienced' in VATUSA might be very different to 'experienced' in a smaller division for instance), I think provided that divisions set out their requirements clearly, as VATEUD have done, and whoever is responsible for ATC training on the BoG approves these requirements, I think it is much better to leave it open and have flexibility to ensure it works for local divisions rather than this desire to micromanage everything at a global level.

Vice President, Pilot Training

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ira Robinson
Posted
Posted

Gentlemen, you have me at a disadvantage.  You speak of  issues and problems that go back many years, or you speak of a new governance structure and perhaps the decision to review GRP which are new to me, having heard of them only briefly as they are described in the published minutes of meetings.  Clearly you have insights into policy that I don't have.

I do appreciate the history lesson, and i do appreciate that each of you have taken the time to try to convince me that this is a "Good Thing".   I assure you, I see the positives in this and I am a believer that if the Regional Staff are behind this it is a project that can work for the good of the membership,  regardless of whether or not we have new governance in place.

But, and you knew there had to be at least one,  I don't feel that I am wasting my efforts. We are having a discussion regarding a policy that has been in place for years apparently, that someone found in a drawer, dusted off, and asked whatever happened to?  Something that someone thought was a good idea years ago that may be an even better idea now.  All you ask of me is to wait and see if the  apparently forth-coming reorganization will have a place for this; which now that I know what was put into reviving this policy is more than fair.

Still and all, being the impatient sort, I still wish that all of the Regions would have been able to come together on this and not have to wait for the next major reorganization to put this on the  list of things to do.  

__________

Ira Robinson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share