7.05(c) and solo endorsements

[Cedric Mohler]

7.05(c) allows to basically not use the S1 Rating for all purposes. Up until now trainees had to acquire the S1 rating before being able to log on onto the network as DEL/GND/TWR. With the new policy, OBS (so basically anyone) would have to be able to log on as TWR, so they can do online trainings/use their solo validation. Please make sure the log in process supports this, as giving an S1 rating for these purposes is no longer possible (as it would already grant the ability to control GND and DEL). Maybe it would also be a good idea to create a new step in between OBS and S1, so not just anyone can log on as ATC before starting training.

[Emma Pollak]

I'd agree with Cedric here. For an area that skips straight to S2, there's no way to use a solo endorsement. The only way to allow them to sign on the network as _TWR is by giving them an S1, but by giving them S1 the ACC is required by the GCAP to allow them to control ground positions, and is unable to revoke that at the end of the solo endorsement.

[Matthew Bartels]

Not necessarily. If you're skipping the S1 in such a case the controller still isn't released by your training department to control. We had some trouble in committee with this point as well. Some tweaking of the wording may be necessary here.  The key issue at hand here is why are we training a student all the way to Tower before we let them loose on the network?  If we can get them going and talking to airplanes with DEL and GND positions, why add in delay to get the tower certification too?

[1341101]

11 minutes ago, Matthew Bartels said:

Not necessarily. If you're skipping the S1 in such a case the controller still isn't released by your training department to control. We had some trouble in committee with this point as well. Some tweaking of the wording may be necessary here.  The key issue at hand here is why are we training a student all the way to Tower before we let them loose on the network?  If we can get them going and talking to airplanes with DEL and GND positions, why add in delay to get the tower certification too?

I think the best solution here is to add another clause to state that if you are taking the OBS->S2 route, that your S1 rating will only be valid for the purpose of the solo to make this obvious.

In some places, OBS->S2 is unavoidable due to the fact that some sub-divisions (and I know a few) literally have no GND or DEL positions in real life. My guess is that for others that do have GND positions, that those find it easier to train and examine straight for S2, although I disagree with this and I agree that whilst they wait to be TWR certified, that they should also be able to control DEL and GND. 

[Cedric Mohler]

Two more things I noticed with this:

First, if TWR and GND/DEL are combined, it might be a consideration, that the solo endorsement can be a combined 180 days, as it is for basically two ratings.

Second, it says that this is up to the division:

Quote

7.05(c) Award of the S1 rating may be bypassed by a division’s training program, however the
S2 candidate in such a case is still responsible for providing the services required by a S1
controller and testing must cover all competencies for both the S1 and S2 ATS Rating.

This should be up to the sub division. While a decision on the division level might make sense for divisions like VATUK, in more diverse places like VATEUD it is impossible for the division to decide this for all sub divisions. There might for example be places that don't have the traffic levels to warrant training them separately while others will not want to make use of this. Local training departments will know best how to handle this.

[1341101]

11 minutes ago, Cedric Mohler said:

Two more things I noticed with this:

First, if TWR and GND/DEL are combined, it might be a consideration, that the solo endorsement can be a combined 180 days, as it is for basically two ratings.

Second, it says that this is up to the division:

This should be up to the sub division. While a decision on the division level might make sense for divisions like VATUK, in more diverse places like VATEUD it is impossible for the division to decide this for all sub divisions. There might for example be places that don't have the traffic levels to warrant training them separately while others will not want to make use of this. Local training departments will know best how to handle this.

I believe what 7.05(c) is trying to say, is that the use of the S1 rating is optional and it is up to the division/sub-division to decide whether or not they would like to use it as a full rating, as it pretty much is now. 

[Cedric Mohler]

1 minute ago, 1341101 said:

believe what 7.05(c) is trying to say, is that the use of the S1 rating is optional and it is up to the division/sub-division to decide whether or not they would like to use it as a full rating, as it pretty much is now. 

It says it is up to the division, which it shouldn't be, it should be up to the sub division.

[1341101]

9 minutes ago, Cedric Mohler said:

It says it is up to the division, which it shouldn't be, it should be up to the sub division.

But the division can say it's up to the sub-division within their local policy.

But I do see what you mean with the wording, would be good to change that to be specific.

Edited July 21, 2021 at 08:45 AM by 1341101

[Cedric Mohler]

I feel it is much more a competency thing then it is a wording thing. I don't trust the division to make the right decision here (which would be to allow each sub division to decide), and sub divisions should be able to make all decisions that concern them without having to rely on the division making the right call. That might just be my opinion, but I think the policy should follow the principle of subsidiarity wherever possible.

[Rob Nabieszko]

On 7/21/2021 at 12:39 AM, Matthew Bartels said:

The key issue at hand here is why are we training a student all the way to Tower before we let them loose on the network?  If we can get them going and talking to airplanes with DEL and GND positions, why add in delay to get the tower certification too?

One of the biggest issues with this structure is that 85% of the learning will have to happen to get to DEL/GND anyways. You need to learn phraseology, weather, airport layout, flight plans, almost everything. And you need to learn to manage the traffic and the people. Only about 15% of the material to get to S2 would be taught at the S2 level. This is why combining the two in the past has been so practical. That initial learning curve is VERY steep.

But Solo Endorsements did allow us to get these DEL/GND controllers online while they began to practice the more nuanced skill of TWR controlling.

 

This is why I originally hoped that the S1 position would be a radio position. FSS (the new FSS), maybe Apron/Ramp, and possible even Clearance Delviery where people can get comfortable with the basics of talking on the radio and taking information without the responsibility of control. Just get used to talking on the radio, passing weather, etc. We could get people on to FSS pretty quick. But GND requires a lot more management skills. Its not a fast skill to teach/learn by itself. It takes time to get people competent on GND.