New Vatsim Rating

[Vincenzo Rimola]

Very very disappointed for new rating. I studied one year in my division to become P1 and now I am P0.

They explaneid to me that every new vatsim user with a little exam online will take my rating.

So I studied for what?

This is not a good politic and i do not talk about new ratings. It's better going to take a real ppl than continue here.

Very sorry.

[Tomas Hansson]

I think you are confusing P-ratings (Pilot Ratings) with S-ratings (Controller Ratings). The divisions teach and issue controller ratings so if you were issued an S1 (or S2) those are still on your account. The original P1 was a self-study rating that our students at VATSTAR completed in 30 minutes or less.

(Edit: If you really mean that the division took one year to teach you the P1 rating then they either grossly misunderstood what the P1 rating was all about or you took a very, very long time to finish it!)

Edited August 20, 2020 at 01:33 PM by Tomas Hansson

[Matthew Bartels]

Remember that pilot ratings are completely optional. You can still fly on VATSIM and in events with a P0. The new pilot ratings are meant to challenge you to pursue further knowledge of the content above what was contained in the legacy P1 rating. The knowledge needed for that rating was the equivalent of today's P0.

[Tom Szczypinski]

I understand that some people may feel like their rating has been "downgraded", however this is not the case.

The new ratings are based on the FAA pilot training procedures. Please note that they have been simplified for simulation purposes, however they are much more in-depth than the old ratings. See the breakdown below to see what each rating is based on, and what aircraft are permitted.

• P0 - New rating to ensure that new members are familiar with the network. 
• P1 - Based on the Private Pilots License (PPL), conducted in a non-complex single engine piston aircraft.
• P2 - Based on the Instrument Rating (IR), also conducted in a non-complex single engine piston aircraft.
• P3 - Based on the Commercial Multi-Engine Licence (CMEL), conducted in multi-engine piston driven aircraft.
• P4 - Based on the Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL), conducted in a multi-engine turboprop or turbo-jet driven aircraft.

 

As you can see above, the ratings have been improved to contain much more information and more structure and relevance to real world ratings. Because of this, we have had to convert the existing ratings to the new ratings using the process below;

• If you held no pilot rating, you were automatically be given the new P0 rating,
• If you held a P1, your rating was transferred to the equivalent new rating. In this case, the P0 rating,
• If you held a P2 or P3, your rating was transferred to the equivalent new rating. In this case, the P1 rating,
• If you held a P4 or P5, your rating was transferred to the equivalent new rating. In this case, the P2 rating,
• If you held a P5, your rating may have been transferred to the new P3 rating, dependant on the ATO you trained with.

This is based on the competencies associated with the existing ratings, and with the examination standards and expectations associated with the new ratings. The old P1 contained information about the network and basics of flight; the same information the P0 now contains.

 

While this may seem like a "downgrade" or a waste of time for you, it isn't. The rating has been converted to the new equivalent, and thanks to this and the MCS all members across the network now have a standardised pilot rating system. Examiner reports have also been standardised and make sure that all ATOs examine on the same criteria.

Putting all of that aside, it's not a waste of time for you as the knowledge you have gained by training for the P1 rating has not been lost and you can still use it on the network. 

 

I hope that this clarifies things slightly for you.

Edited August 20, 2020 at 02:59 PM by Tom Szczypinski

[Vincenzo Rimola]

3 hours ago, Tomas Hansson said:

I think you are confusing P-ratings (Pilot Ratings) with S-ratings (Controller Ratings). The divisions teach and issue controller ratings so if you were issued an S1 (or S2) those are still on your account. The original P1 was a self-study rating that our students at VATSTAR completed in 30 minutes or less.

(Edit: If you really mean that the division took one year to teach you the P1 rating then they either grossly misunderstood what the P1 rating was all about or you took a very, very long time to finish it!)

confused? what does mean S2 and P1? explain me because i can't understand. I talked about P1.

P1 rating in 30 minutes maybe in divisions where you can take P4 in 8 months. In my division are too much serious and to arrive to P4 3 years (before new ratings). Not just me if you think this.

 

1 hour ago, Tom Szczypinski said:

I understand that some people may feel like their rating has been "downgraded", however this is not the case.

The new ratings are based on the FAA pilot training procedures. Please note that they have been simplified for simulation purposes, however they are much more in-depth than the old ratings. See the breakdown below to see what each rating is based on, and what aircraft are permitted.

• P0 - New rating to ensure that new members are familiar with the network. 
• P1 - Based on the Private Pilots License (PPL), conducted in a non-complex single engine piston aircraft.
• P2 - Based on the Instrument Rating (IR), also conducted in a non-complex single engine piston aircraft.
• P3 - Based on the Commercial Multi-Engine Licence (CMEL), conducted in multi-engine piston driven aircraft.
• P4 - Based on the Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL), conducted in a multi-engine turboprop or turbo-jet driven aircraft.

 

As you can see above, the ratings have been improved to contain much more information and more structure and relevance to real world ratings. Because of this, we have had to convert the existing ratings to the new ratings using the process below;

• If you held no pilot rating, you were automatically be given the new P0 rating,
• If you held a P1, your rating was transferred to the equivalent new rating. In this case, the P0 rating,
• If you held a P2 or P3, your rating was transferred to the equivalent new rating. In this case, the P1 rating,
• If you held a P4 or P5, your rating was transferred to the equivalent new rating. In this case, the P2 rating,
• If you held a P5, your rating may have been transferred to the new P3 rating, dependant on the ATO you trained with.

This is based on the competencies associated with the existing ratings, and with the examination standards and expectations associated with the new ratings. The old P1 contained information about the network and basics of flight; the same information the P0 now contains.

 

While this may seem like a "downgrade" or a waste of time for you, it isn't. The rating has been converted to the new equivalent, and thanks to this and the MCS all members across the network now have a standardised pilot rating system. Examiner reports have also been standardised and make sure that all ATOs examine on the same criteria.

Putting all of that aside, it's not a waste of time for you as the knowledge you have gained by training for the P1 rating has not been lost and you can still use it on the network. 

 

I hope that this clarifies things slightly for you.

yes i know but i'm not agree. this is for real pilot not  for simulators.  But these are the rules? ok. I just say it's not correct to be downgraded to p0.

If you want this, do this. Can I  be disagree? Of course I'll not spend many years of my life for a virtual rating.

Cheers.

Edited August 20, 2020 at 04:10 PM by Vincenzo Rimola

[Robert Shearman Jr]

The previous P1 rating was meant to cover:

• how do I connect to VATSIM as a pilot?
• what am I allowed to do and not allowed to do while connected?
• how to I determine what controllers are online?
• how do I fly without being a disruption to controllers or to other pilots?
• how do I file a flightplan?
• how do I make sure my scenery is updated, and what do I do if it isn't?
• ... and so forth.

If there is an ATO that was making people study for one year to achieve that, then your complaint is with that ATO, not with the people who conceived the rating system.  As Tomas mentioned, it was something which was very easily achievable with a 60-90 minute multiple-choice test.

[Vincenzo Rimola]

14 minutes ago, Robert Shearman Jr said:

The previous P1 rating was meant to cover:

• how do I connect to VATSIM as a pilot?
• what am I allowed to do and not allowed to do while connected?
• how to I determine what controllers are online?
• how do I fly without being a disruption to controllers or to other pilots?
• how do I file a flightplan?
• how do I make sure my scenery is updated, and what do I do if it isn't?
• ... and so forth.

If there is an ATO that was making people study for one year to achieve that, then your complaint is with that ATO, not with the people who conceived the rating system.  As Tomas mentioned, it was something which was very easily achievable with a 60-90 minute multiple-choice test.

Well, i studied airspaces, vmc, imc and many others more traffic patterns and go on with C172. I do not know.

For us what you wrote is before you start to study

cheers.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Then your Pilot Training Organization made a mistake - what they taught you was more like P2 or P3. Talk to them and see if they can reach an agreement to get all of your P1-scorers a better rating.

[Vincenzo Rimola]

I'll try.

Cheers

[Diego Vasquez]

On 8/20/2020 at 10:55 AM, Tom Szczypinski said:

• P0 - New rating to ensure that new members are familiar with the network. 
• P1 - Based on the Private Pilots License (PPL), conducted in a non-complex single engine piston aircraft.

Dear Tom and Robert:

I agree the new Pilot ratings are more detailed more specific and I applaud wanting to map to IRL skill levels.

However If the above P0/P1 descriptions above are accurate, then I should have stayed at least at P1 - I completed a written exam and a flight test both from a certified and well respected VATSIM provider and I assure you: they were not measuring just "familiar with the network" level.

 

Edited August 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM by Diego Vasquez

[Tom Szczypinski]

36 minutes ago, Diego Vasquez said:

Dear Tom and Robert:

I agree the new Pilot ratings are more detailed more specific and I applaud wanting to map to IRL skill levels.

However If the above P0/P1 descriptions above are accurate, then I should have stayed at least at P1 - I completed a written exam and a flight test both from a certified and well respected VATSIM provider and I assure you: they were not measuring just "familiar with the network" level.

 

Hi Diego,

Those are loose definitions. If you would like to see what the new course entails have a look at the new Membership Certification Standards here. As you'll see, the understanding required is much deeper than what was required on the network to gain a P1 under the old system. Things like, for example, steep turns or stall recovery were not part of the requirements for an old P1.

The PTD looked at what VATSIM expected ATOs to teach their students for a rating globally, and then had a look at what the new ratings will require ATOs to teach. The old P1 was the closest match with the new P0, and as such anyone with a P1 rating was converted to P0.

Hope that shines a light on this situation.

Edited August 22, 2020 at 12:38 PM by Tom Szczypinski
Typo

[Diego Vasquez]

29 minutes ago, Tom Szczypinski said:

The old P1 was the closest match with the new P0, and as such anyone with a P1 rating was converted to P0.

I disagree with that, but I will elaborate on something else:

Don't get me wrong, change is part of life and you (meaning the people flying the VATSIM plane) should do whatever you think you should do to take VATSIM to new heights. But as with everything else, you can control your decisions but not how people react to them.

The community, may, based on this action:

1. Old guys like me will have little or no encouragement to fill again the requirements for what we believe already achieved.

2. Old and new guys may perceive diminished reputation for the VATSIM P-ratings (which is opposite to what you want to achieve), when they start to realize that their achievements can be erased at any time in the future by committee.

In fact, this already started happening: Look at various postings around the subject, when trying to sweeten the pill some of you have written on the lines of "... we understand why this may be perceived as ..."

My two cents.

 

 

 

[Robert Shearman Jr]

For what it's worth, I agree that there were both pros and cons to the way the pilot ratings were restructured.  The new system isn't bad but it's not the way I would have done it.  But, I haven't been directly involved in VATSIM PTD for about a year and a half, so, it was out of my hands entirely, and it is what it is.  I had P1-P5, now I have P1-P2.  I will at some point seek to acquire the new P3 and P4 but I agree that a "downgrade" felt very off-putting, regardless of the explanation.  At the end of the day, it's still the case that I can do any type of civilian flight I want on VATSIM, ratings or no, so I just don't worry about it too much. 

[Eric HeBert]

I am pleased with the new system. It is more realistic to what I would be doing in real if my health did not preclude me from getting an FAA medical. So call it role playing or an extension of the flight simulation experience. I know some want to treat this as a game and some want to treat this as a simulation. For the former I say the rating system is STRICTLY VOLUNTARY! For the latter I say come to vatstar.com and join in on the fun!

[Mike Sweeney]

[Unrelated to downgrade concerns]
It appears the P1 Private Pilot License MCS (Aug 9) includes:

Quote

PPL.VIII.A.K2
When it is acceptable to deviate from an IFR clearance due to radio failure or loss of communications.

.... relevance for a VFR private pilot?

Quote

Discontinuance
The member has 14 calendar days to finish the remainder of the discontinued examination with an approved examiner. If the discontinued exam is not completed in this time window, the examination must be completely redone.

versus

Quote

To avoid having to retake the entire practical examination, a member has 90 days from the date of a first failure or Discontinuance to pass the practical examination.

...  14 or 90 days?

Quote

MCS framework
.... required minimum elements to include in the Plan of Action (POA)

Hopefully, ATOs will clearly understand indications that the MCS is a framework, with discretion and ample latitude for how it is used.
Otherwise ...
even after reducing the FAA's 101 page ACS to 21 page MCS, the Member Certification Standards may appear excessive and over-the-top ... for VATSIM.

To reduce bloat, if a section includes multiple line items [Intentionally Left Blank], consider removing those line items, or the entire section.
... if useful to MCS owners, for consideration.

Edited August 23, 2020 at 07:48 PM by Mike Sweeney

[Andrew Ogden]

Quote

.... relevance for a VFR private pilot?

Examining the first page of the MCS:

Each Task in the MCS is coded according to a scheme that includes four elements. For example: PPL.I.A.K1
● PPL = Applicable MCS (Private Pilot License - Airplane Single Engine Land)
● I = Area of Operation (Preflight Preparation)
● A = Task (Pilot Qualifications and Aircraft Airworthiness)
● K1 = Task Element Knowledge (General limitations of VFR flight)

The IFR clearance clause has been determined to fall under the PPL. I believe this has been derived from the FAA definitions.

Quote

...  14 or 90 days?

Not sure where the confusion is. A member has 14 days from the cancellation of an in progress examination for whatever reason to finish the remainder of the practical test. A member has 90 days from examination failure to retake the areas of their examination that were marked unsatisfactory. This distinction is in the document 🙂

Edited August 24, 2020 at 05:49 AM by Andrew Ogden

[Mike Sweeney]

Quote

The IFR clearance clause has been determined to fall under the PPL. I believe this has been derived from the FAA definitions.

Nope. Not in FAA ACS for private pilot; irrelevant for practical examination for private pilot certificate:
"When it is acceptable to deviate from an IFR clearance due to radio failure or loss of communications."

Quote

Not sure where the confusion is.

Page 21 of MCS  ....

Quote

Discontinuance
The member has 14 calendar days to finish the remainder of the discontinued examination

Quote

Testing after Discontinuance or Unsatisfactory Performance
To avoid having to retake the entire practical examination, a member has 90 days from the date of a first failure or Discontinuance to pass the practical examination.

Edited August 24, 2020 at 10:42 AM by Mike Sweeney

[Calum Stevens]

I recently looked into getting my P1.... Nah. way way too involved. It's basically the same time as getting my actual PPL in real life. so why wouldn't I do that instead? Seems a bit mad to me. Couldn't vat sim have smaller increments?

[Mats Edvin Aaro]

50 minutes ago, Calum Stevens said:

I recently looked into getting my P1.... Nah. way way too involved. It's basically the same time as getting my actual PPL in real life. so why wouldn't I do that instead? Seems a bit mad to me. Couldn't vat sim have smaller increments?

I can tell you for sure that a real life PPL is a BIT more than that... 🙂 Though, the VATSIM P1 (PPL) rating is based on the real life requirements, but of course dumbed down a lot to fit the simulator community.

Pilot ratings are optional, so you don't need one to fly. If you want to engage and gain new knowledge in your flight simulator "career", then pilot ratings are for you. It has an educative purpose, but the fact that it doesn't fit for you specifically, doesn't mean it doesn't fit for other people. 🙂

[Luke Kolin]

The challenge I have is that while they mirror the real world, VATSIM does not. There are plenty of folks who have little interest or desire in VFR skills. Does one need to do a P2 before a P3 or a P4?

Cheers

Luke

[Tobias Dammers]

On 8/26/2020 at 1:56 PM, Calum Stevens said:

I recently looked into getting my P1.... Nah. way way too involved. It's basically the same time as getting my actual PPL in real life. so why wouldn't I do that instead? Seems a bit mad to me. Couldn't vat sim have smaller increments?

Note that all pilot ratings beyond P0 are basically vanity badges - unlike flying IRL, you don't need the equivalent of a PPL to fly a Cessna on Vatsim, you can get your P0 rating and cross the Atlantic in a 747 the same day. The only reason to get ratings P1 and up is to increase realism for yourself, and maybe to actually learn something in a structured and somewhat realistic way (rather than scraping all that knowledge together from all over the internet and hoping it is complete and accurate). If you're not interested in those things, just keep your P0 and happily keep doing what you've been doing all along. Nobody will ask for your rating, except maybe if you want to join a VA.

The P0 rating is absolutely trivial to achieve, and its main purpose, as I understand it, is to keep the amount of blatant and completely avoidable incompetency on the network to a minimum - i.e., it exists to avoid having people ruin the fun for everyone else by violating the most basic rules of the network just because they couldn't be bothered to read the introduction.

[Simon Kelsey]

On 8/26/2020 at 11:49 PM, Luke Kolin said:

The challenge I have is that while they mirror the real world, VATSIM does not. There are plenty of folks who have little interest or desire in VFR skills. Does one need to do a P2 before a P3 or a P4?

Yes, because you can't run before you know how to walk.

The ratings are incremental; each builds upon knowledge gained in the previous. If you don't understand the concepts that are covered in the P1, you either won't understand the concepts in the P2, P3 and P4 or those courses would have to be enormously long winded.

There are plenty of folks who have no interest or desire to control GND positions in ATC and would rather jump straight to doing CTR as well. I'm sure it would be possible to design a C1 syllabus that trained somebody adequately from ab-initio to do that task, but it'd have to cover an awful lot of ground.

Edited August 28, 2020 at 06:16 PM by Simon Kelsey

[Robert Shearman Jr]

... I see what you did there 😉