Visiting controllers hard restrictions reducing event staffing

[Vincent Eliezer De Guzman]

I think Section 6.05(j)(vii) is unnecessarily burdensome on controllers who want to gain experience and fun controlling at visiting fields. I don't visit other subdivisions for the sake of burdening the ARTCC/FIR and like some have said, local subdivisions could set limits when they think there are too many visitors and not enough focus is placed on home controllers. Additionally, having this rule would also result in me violating the rule, as I visit 2 ARTCCs and am interested in visiting a third because of the community. 

[Collin Koldoff]

I think I should clear up my point on this thread.

I do not believe there should be no restrictions to visiting.  I am a mentor and I have seen the burdens of a long training queue.

I do however believe that a solid restriction is doing no good for the network.

It should be up the division and/or sub-divisions to decide whether or not you can visit X facilities or even start visiting X facilities within Y days in a rolling period.

At the very least this restriction should be based on a time frame.  Similar to the current transfer system requiring 90 days form your last rating, why not make it that you can only start visiting 1 facility every 90/120/150/180 days.  
 

I know some great controllers who visit 4+ ARTCCs and have done so for years.  They are C1+ and have absolutely no burden on the training staff and are there to help staff the airspace and assist during events.  These are the controllers who sound more professional on frequency than the majority of controllers out there.  If you have been visiting an ARTCC and have no intent/need for more training, why not mix it up and add another one to your list provided it is done in a safe manner without hindering the progression of others.

 

I should mention.  I am a C1, I started visiting my first ARTCC about a month ago and I am not the kind of person to hop around and honestly the 3 sub-division limit will probably not affect me.  The problem I have is when neighboring ARTCCs can not get the staffing they need to provide quality service and quality separation when supporting an event in the ARTCC I am staffing.

[Harry Sugden]

Should visiting Gander/Shanwick Oceanic (and perhaps other similar positions) count towards this hard number of visiting locations? Lots of people only control for CTP each year, but how would they get an endorsement to do this if they already visit 3 other places?

[Andre Almeida]

9 minutes ago, Harry Sugden said:

Should visiting Gander/Shanwick Oceanic (and perhaps other similar positions) count towards this hard number of visiting locations? Lots of people only control for CTP each year, but how would they get an endorsement to do this if they already visit 3 other places?

I believe not.

Quote

6.05(j)(viii)CAOC, Oceanic Control Areas, and Virtual Airline Ramp Controller positions do not count towards the limit specified in 6.04(j)(vii)

So Oceanic, Eurocontrol, and similar, will not count towards the limit.

[1341101]

2 hours ago, Harry Sugden said:

Should visiting Gander/Shanwick Oceanic (and perhaps other similar positions) count towards this hard number of visiting locations? Lots of people only control for CTP each year, but how would they get an endorsement to do this if they already visit 3 other places?

 

1 hour ago, Andre Almeida said:

I believe not.

So Oceanic, Eurocontrol, and similar, will not count towards the limit.

Correct. Eurocontrol and Oceanic will NOT count towards the 3-place limit. 

[Andreas Fuchs]

What about: visiting controller positions are limited to 3 (three) if INDIVIDUAL training by a mentor/coach is required to do so.

This would be a limiting factor, while allowing current ATCOs with more than 3 VC entries to keep them. They don't need training on these positions. Furthermore, it would allow some vARTCCs and vACCs to attract more VCs by only providing self-learning material (documents and tutorial videos) and possibly a small written exam at the end. To control any station from DEL up to TWR, you only need to know about local and regional specialities, to put it into a simplified form.

[Matthew Wurzbach]

Easy fix to this: a controller can only visit 3 facilities UNLESS the facility is notified that the controller already has 3 visitor endorsements (and how many they have total) and approves the request to visit. This is the best of both worlds. Busy facilities with long training queues can turn away serial visitors, but small facilities who need visitors can "accept all comers".

Edited July 22, 2021 at 02:31 AM by Matthew Wurzbach

[Lars Bergmann]

4 hours ago, Matthew Wurzbach said:

Easy fix to this: a controller can only visit 3 facilities UNLESS the facility is notified that the controller already has 3 visitor endorsements (and how many they have total) and approves the request to visit. This is the best of both worlds. Busy facilities with long training queues can turn away serial visitors, but small facilities who need visitors can "accept all comers".

So what you're saying is all I have to do is not to inform the fourth place? 😉 IMO there should be a centralized database keeping track of all endorsements. That would absolve the Sub-Divisions and Divisions from each having to program a system to keep track of these things + rosters etc. Create a centralized system, give those with administrative functions within the Divisions/Sub-Divisions access, done.

Edited July 22, 2021 at 06:44 AM by Lars Bergmann

[Matthew Bartels]

9 hours ago, Lars Bergmann said:

So what you're saying is all I have to do is not to inform the fourth place? 😉 IMO there should be a centralized database keeping track of all endorsements. That would absolve the Sub-Divisions and Divisions from each having to program a system to keep track of these things + rosters etc. Create a centralized system, give those with administrative functions within the Divisions/Sub-Divisions access, done.

This is being done.