8.02 Activity Requirements for Minor Fields

[Matthew Wurzbach]

On 7/22/2021 at 2:06 PM, Ryan Parry said:

I don't think that means you should lose all of your progress and ratings and have to go through more training to get back at it.

I'm just quoting you Ryan because you're the one who said it most recently, but I would agree with one exception. Memory is sort of like muscle mass. You can lose it slowly, but it also comes back quickly with a little training once you've had a certain level of strength in the past. There seems to be a perception that people's ratings or endorsements should be taken away after a certain length of time has elapsed. I'm not in favor of that as it creates a burden on the controller and training departments to recertify these individuals.

In most aviation (and non-aviation) professions, the remedy for an absence from working in the profession is not to completely recertify them, but to provide a small bit of currency training to get the person back to proficiency. It's why the FAA concepts of a flight review and instrument proficiency check exist. Ditto for recurrent training for airline pilots. Pilots don't lose their pilot certifications or endorsements when they don't fly enough, they just lose the right to exercise the privileges granted until they can demonstrate they have the ability to do so again.

From a VATSIM perspective, I would say that controllers who let currency lapse should not be stripped of any ratings or endorsements, but rather just required to do live training with a mentor or instructor who grants them their controlling privileges back when they demonstrate they have the required proficiency again. For someone who has only been gone a year or two this probably would take no more than a couple hours. If someone has been gone for ten years, it would (and should) obviously take quite a bit more time. This leaves the timeframe up to the discretion of the mentor/instructor involved so that the training can be as short or long as necessary to get the individual up to speed.

Edited July 23, 2021 at 07:18 PM by Matthew Wurzbach

[Anthony Santanastaso]

2 hours ago, Matthew Wurzbach said:

From a VATSIM perspective, I would say that controllers who let currency lapse should not be stripped of any ratings or endorsements, but rather just required to do live training with a mentor or instructor who grants them their controlling privileges back when they demonstrate they have the required proficiency again. For someone who has only been gone a year or two this probably would take no more than a couple hours. If someone has been gone for ten years, it would (and should) obviously take quite a bit more time. This leaves the timeframe up to the discretion of the mentor/instructor involved so that the training can be as short or long as necessary to get the individual up to speed.

Great thoughts, Matthew. I wish to uniquely develop them one step further and include my recommendation for network currency requirements. In them, I also build in an incentive for our members to control and accelerate through training while paying respect and courtesy to members that have already put in the time and effort to want to be here.

General Requirement:  3-6 hours in 6 months, LOA anytime and perpetually renewable (removal prevention). Required GRP check if a member returns to service after 6 months or upon the end of the LOA. Division controls the hours, but it must fall between a minimum of 3 and maximum of 6. I firmly believe that training hours count as much as online controlling hours, so it can be a mixture of both.

Up to 1 year forgiveness after removal (no matter what previous rating was earned); full certs back, GRP check required. This means if you forget to request an LOA, and wind up being removed, you can come back with all of your ratings and certifications, no matter your previous rating level, so long as you attend a GRP check to make sure you're current on procedures and existing standards.

Edge Cases: Fast track members who had previously been rated as an S3 and above and pass a GRP check, upon which they get all certs back, anytime after removal. For example, the C1 who leaves for 4 years because of their RW life comes back, passes a GRP check, and is immediately back to business on VATSIM without starting from scratch.

But, the S1 or S2 who leaves after 4 years (or anytime after the forgiveness period) needs to start their training over and earn back their certifications (as the procedure is currently after a period of time).

This provides an incentive to accelerate their learning, work towards their S3 and beyond, and receive an added benefit for doing so. Not to mention that, as far as ATC coverage goes, an S3 and C1 provide greater exposure for pilots. VATSIM rewards the individuals who put in the time by acknowledging their time is valuable and important.

A relaxed rope on higher levels might assist with retention, especially if those members are not 1) forced to always adhere to the 3-6 in 6, and 2) take comfort that they can return whenever life becomes manageable to work traffic again. Additionally, it inherently encourages the beginners to be more active so as to better learn the skills required to work traffic through regular repetition and participation.

Edited July 23, 2021 at 09:45 PM by Anthony Santanastaso

[Gunnar Lindahl]

Gosh, 6 pages already. It's great to hear people care!

Someone asked why such a global safeguard needs to exist in the first place. I can answer that - it's because we want to pursue the principle of being an accessible network for people from all walks of life. Setting a monthly activity requirement, in my view, threatens to unnecessarily put off people who may serve overseas, or have seasonal work requirements, for example. I'm firmly of the belief myself that setting a quarterly requirement is an absolute minimum in terms of time frame to be fair to everyone. 

For the record, I'm pretty sure the original draft had a far more stringent "maximum requirement" than the 1 hour per year and I seem to remember it was me suggesting this lower threshold, so you may bite my head off about it instead of Matt's. Reading the comments here there is clearly some passionate opposition, which is the whole point of having a public review. So I put it to you: I will advocate passionately against monthly activity requirements because I genuinely believe that time period to be too short. If we had a quarterly or six monthly safeguard, what would be the right number? Bare in mind this is the most restrictive safeguard - facilities could choose to be less restrictive if they chose.

[Jeremy Peterson]

4 minutes ago, Gunnar Lindahl said:

Gosh, 6 pages already. It's great to hear people care!

Someone asked why such a global safeguard needs to exist in the first place. I can answer that - it's because we want to pursue the principle of being an accessible network for people from all walks of life. Setting a monthly activity requirement, in my view, threatens to unnecessarily put off people who may serve overseas, or have seasonal work requirements, for example. I'm firmly of the belief myself that setting a quarterly requirement is an absolute minimum in terms of time frame to be fair to everyone. 

For the record, I'm pretty sure the original draft had a far more stringent "maximum requirement" than the 1 hour per year and I seem to remember it was me suggesting this lower threshold, so you may bite my head off about it instead of Matt's. Reading the comments here there is clearly some passionate opposition, which is the whole point of having a public review. So I put it to you: I will advocate passionately against monthly activity requirements because I genuinely believe that time period to be too short. If we had a quarterly or six monthly safeguard, what would be the right number? Bare in mind this is the most restrictive safeguard - facilities could choose to be less restrictive if they chose.

3 hours in 3 months is the settled ideal for those with whom I've discussed this.

Edited July 24, 2021 at 11:16 PM by Jeremy Peterson
grammar

[Gunnar Lindahl]

Thanks Jeremy. Any advances on 3 hrs in 3 months?

[Karl Mathias Moberg]

Gunnar, I understand your viewpoint about making it accessible to people, I do. However, as people have been stating for the past 5 pages: this hobby is something that is easy to forget how to do. I've been here a while; years longer than many of my members in my ARTCC have been alive in fact. I've been controlling for a significant amount of time, and would say that at this point, I'm fairly competent and experienced. However - I did not control for a year and a half, but kept flying on the network actively. When I came back, sure, I knew a lot of things still, but a lot of things had slipped, forgotten and techniques were gone, and this was after controlling center and approach for 6-7 years straight.

If we end up with no restrictions or a 1 hour in 12 months period, I firmly believe we will end up in a place where we don't VATSIM to be. We will be where we see IVAO is now in certain places, controllers who have no idea what they are doing, and end up on "flightsim bests weekly" videos being laughed at, because they don't remember phraseology. An S1 or S2 who gets their rating, controls a minor field with minimal traffic to no traffic once a year will lose that experience. 

We've been discussing this topic to death* in the VATUSA discord, with Matt Bartels, and we (almost every single VATUSA staff member) agree that 3 hours in 3 months, or 6 in 6 months is a good middle ground. Personally, I would even say 3 hours in 6 months is OK. Going beyond 6 months though, I see as a significant problem for the network that I spend multiple hours a day helping to run.

 

* = I'm not kidding here - there have been over 3500 messages in the USA Discord about the GCAP in 3 days. 

Edited July 24, 2021 at 11:23 PM by Karl Mathias Moberg

[Ben Lindsey]

34 minutes ago, Gunnar Lindahl said:

Setting a monthly activity requirement, in my view, threatens to unnecessarily put off people who may serve overseas, or have seasonal work requirements, for example. I'm firmly of the belief myself that setting a quarterly requirement is an absolute minimum in terms of time frame to be fair to everyone. 

As has been discussed plenty of times, in most places it's incredibly easy to request an LOA for the time you're gone if you fall under this category. Even if you forget, you can almost always be reinstated with no questions asked within a few months, and within a year after a GRP check.

34 minutes ago, Gunnar Lindahl said:

So I put it to you: I will advocate passionately against monthly activity requirements because I genuinely believe that time period to be too short. If we had a quarterly or six monthly safeguard, what would be the right number?

As Jeremy said, 3 hours in 3 months seems to be generally accepted as a compromise. That being said, while you may advocate against it and I understand the viewpoint, it doesn't change the fact that many people are advocating for monthly requirements. Frankly, if you're controlling only one hour a month, you're almost guaranteed to experience atrophy in your controlling ability.

The current system in place (let divisions/sub-divisions set their own requirement) doesn't seem to be causing any issues, so why change it? If a sub-division attempts to instate a ridiculous requirement (like the theoretical 2hrs/week that Matt mentioned earlier), then it's up to the division to rectify the situation. If the division won't fix it, then the Regional VP can take action to fix the situation.

I'm a strong believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I simply don't see what is "broken" about the current situation. If you really want to set a maximum through this policy, make it one or two hours a month. If a facility wants to set a less stringent requirement, that's well within their right.

While lowering the activity requirement will increase controller retention, at least slightly, that shouldn't be the number one concern. To be frank, the main thing that reducing activity requirements does is lower the overall standard of ATC. In this hobby, if you don't practice regularly, you're going to lose your ability to control. While few people only achieve the bare minimum, those that do are much harder to work with than the average controller who exceeds the minimum. The skill atrophy on people that only meet my facilities requirement of 2 hours a month is obvious. Cutting that down further will only reduce the standard, which should not be the goal of the network.

[Alexandra Robison]

37 minutes ago, Gunnar Lindahl said:

Thanks Jeremy. Any advances on 3 hrs in 3 months?

I'm fairly certain this is the acceptable standard that we have all spend time debating.

[Finn Hutter]

47 minutes ago, Gunnar Lindahl said:

Gosh, 6 pages already. It's great to hear people care!

Someone asked why such a global safeguard needs to exist in the first place. I can answer that - it's because we want to pursue the principle of being an accessible network for people from all walks of life. Setting a monthly activity requirement, in my view, threatens to unnecessarily put off people who may serve overseas, or have seasonal work requirements, for example. I'm firmly of the belief myself that setting a quarterly requirement is an absolute minimum in terms of time frame to be fair to everyone. 

For the record, I'm pretty sure the original draft had a far more stringent "maximum requirement" than the 1 hour per year and I seem to remember it was me suggesting this lower threshold, so you may bite my head off about it instead of Matt's. Reading the comments here there is clearly some passionate opposition, which is the whole point of having a public review. So I put it to you: I will advocate passionately against monthly activity requirements because I genuinely believe that time period to be too short. If we had a quarterly or six monthly safeguard, what would be the right number? Bare in mind this is the most restrictive safeguard - facilities could choose to be less restrictive if they chose.

Edit: I'll be honest, I wasn't going to bother responding to any of these threads because the attitude that VATGOV has given thus far has been "we're doing what we want, we'll act like we're listening, but then give you the same response and MAYBE compromise, but it's all a show". Please, by all means, prove me wrong.

I left VATSIM for ~6 years. If there was a lower controlling requirement, would I have actually stayed on? No, no I wouldn't have. I just got bored/exhausted of the hobby, and my life focus changed to something else. ZSE's requirements back in 2014 was 3 hours a month. Did I think this was a lot then? Not when I actually cared about the hobby. Once I fell out of WANTING to control, the controlling requirement didn't matter. I would have been a zombie on the roster until eventually getting kicked off a year later if the proposed 1 hour was moved forward, or anything similar to a 12 month period of time.

As a former DATM, I want to see my roster active. I want to know what the numbers actually represent. I want to be able to look at my website dashboard, and go "okay if I was to do an event, who would ACTUALLY be around?" If you add 200 people who control 1 hour in 12 months, or just stop controlling and don't say anything to anyone and they are wasting away for 12 months, how am I supposed to do this?

How is a DATM supposed to effectively manage their roster, which is a large portion of their job description, if a 12 month timeframe is presented? I honestly think 6 is significantly too far as well, because now NOBODY has any idea what an active roster looks like. The names on your roster now mean exactly nothing, and we have to go through extra effort to split the "real" number from the padded number. No thanks.

 

When I returned, it took me about a month (maybe a bit longer) to get fully certified up to Centre. In that timeframe, I gained certifications. I got Minor tower, then Major tower, then approach, then center. I sat down for a major tower checkout and thought I would do just fine. I remembered quite a lot, but I got absolutely DESTROYED. My phraseology was crap. I didn't remember instructions that are important to give to people. I couldn't do a clearance without stumbling over myself and sounding stupid. I ended up doing a handful of sessions to get back up to speed. Once I got back into the swing of things, I was doing well, but I still NEEDED those sessions to regain that knowledge.

If I stopped controlling for 6 months to a year, or did the absolute bare minimum, I would not know what I need to in order to provide quality service. Further to that, there are already a LOT of people on rosters (ZSE has a handful of these people) that log in middle of the night or early morning hours at some random airport like MFR ground to get their minimum controller hours. What quality does that controller bring to being on my roster? Nothing. Half the time if I loaded up, the guy isn't even there because he knows he won't get traffic (and yes, I've reported them to supervisors when caught, but most of the time they go unchecked).

 

What does a controller who controls at some small airport on delivery or ground, with nobody on above them, for that minimum X in X months do for the network? Wouldn't you find that it DEGRADES the network? The guy likely isn't even there, and if he IS there, he is providing sub-par service on a ground position when he is rated to work Approach or Center, and should be at a primary facility.

I don't have access to staff chat to see the discussions there, but honestly as a regular VATSIM member the controller requirement discussion seems to just be one giant circlejerk of "we want to make VATSIM more marketable by saying we have larger numbers". Fake numbers mean nothing.

Edited July 24, 2021 at 11:59 PM by Skylar Hutter

[Matthew Kramer]

I approve LOA's multiple times a week. It takes 2 clicks and 30 seconds on our website. 

Where is the evidence that controllers are being removed so quickly from rosters that it is having a negative impact? If such a place exists, has that place been contacted about why that is the case? Moreover, I do not see the problem this part of GCAP is trying to solve, and nobody has really shown it. If there must be some maximum level, 3 hours in 3 months seems acceptable. 

[Finn Hutter]

1 hour ago, Matthew Kramer said:

I approve LOA's multiple times a week. It takes 2 clicks and 30 seconds on our website. 

Where is the evidence that controllers are being removed so quickly from rosters that it is having a negative impact? If such a place exists, has that place been contacted about why that is the case? Moreover, I do not see the problem this part of GCAP is trying to solve, and nobody has really shown it. If there must be some maximum level, 3 hours in 3 months seems acceptable. 

bUt WhAt AbOuT rOgUe DiViSiOnS - hint, they won't follow policy if they are ROGUE.

Edited July 25, 2021 at 01:56 AM by Skylar Hutter

[Anthony Santanastaso]

On 7/23/2021 at 4:33 PM, Anthony Santanastaso said:

Great thoughts, Matthew. I wish to uniquely develop them one step further and include my recommendation for network currency requirements. In them, I also build in an incentive for our members to control and accelerate through training while paying respect and courtesy to members that have already put in the time and effort to want to be here.

General Requirement:  3-6 hours in 6 months, LOA anytime and perpetually renewable (removal prevention). Required GRP check if a member returns to service after 6 months or upon the end of the LOA. Division controls the hours, but it must fall between a minimum of 3 and maximum of 6. I firmly believe that training hours count as much as online controlling hours, so it can be a mixture of both.

Up to 1 year forgiveness after removal (no matter what previous rating was earned); full certs back, GRP check required. This means if you forget to request an LOA, and wind up being removed, you can come back with all of your ratings and certifications, no matter your previous rating level, so long as you attend a GRP check to make sure you're current on procedures and existing standards.

Edge Cases: Fast track members who had previously been rated as an S3 and above and pass a GRP check, upon which they get all certs back, anytime after removal. For example, the C1 who leaves for 4 years because of their RW life comes back, passes a GRP check, and is immediately back to business on VATSIM without starting from scratch.

But, the S1 or S2 who leaves after 4 years (or anytime after the forgiveness period) needs to start their training over and earn back their certifications (as the procedure is currently after a period of time).

This provides an incentive to accelerate their learning, work towards their S3 and beyond, and receive an added benefit for doing so. Not to mention that, as far as ATC coverage goes, an S3 and C1 provide greater exposure for pilots. VATSIM rewards the individuals who put in the time by acknowledging their time is valuable and important.

A relaxed rope on higher levels might assist with retention, especially if those members are not 1) forced to always adhere to the 3-6 in 6, and 2) take comfort that they can return whenever life becomes manageable to work traffic again. Additionally, it inherently encourages the beginners to be more active so as to better learn the skills required to work traffic through regular repetition and participation.

Was this post missed?

[Matthew Bartels]

1 hour ago, Anthony Santanastaso said:

Was this post missed?

Just because we didn’t respond to it doesn’t mean it wasn’t read. You are putting forth some valid thoughts that are being taken into account.

[Gunnar Lindahl]

7 hours ago, Skylar Hutter said:

Edit: I'll be honest, I wasn't going to bother responding to any of these threads because the attitude that VATGOV has given thus far has been "we're doing what we want, we'll act like we're listening, but then give you the same response and MAYBE compromise, but it's all a show". Please, by all means, prove me wrong.

I left VATSIM for ~6 years. If there was a lower controlling requirement, would I have actually stayed on? No, no I wouldn't have. I just got bored/exhausted of the hobby, and my life focus changed to something else. ZSE's requirements back in 2014 was 3 hours a month. Did I think this was a lot then? Not when I actually cared about the hobby. Once I fell out of WANTING to control, the controlling requirement didn't matter. I would have been a zombie on the roster until eventually getting kicked off a year later if the proposed 1 hour was moved forward, or anything similar to a 12 month period of time.

As a former DATM, I want to see my roster active. I want to know what the numbers actually represent. I want to be able to look at my website dashboard, and go "okay if I was to do an event, who would ACTUALLY be around?" If you add 200 people who control 1 hour in 12 months, or just stop controlling and don't say anything to anyone and they are wasting away for 12 months, how am I supposed to do this?

How is a DATM supposed to effectively manage their roster, which is a large portion of their job description, if a 12 month timeframe is presented? I honestly think 6 is significantly too far as well, because now NOBODY has any idea what an active roster looks like. The names on your roster now mean exactly nothing, and we have to go through extra effort to split the "real" number from the padded number. No thanks.

 

When I returned, it took me about a month (maybe a bit longer) to get fully certified up to Centre. In that timeframe, I gained certifications. I got Minor tower, then Major tower, then approach, then center. I sat down for a major tower checkout and thought I would do just fine. I remembered quite a lot, but I got absolutely DESTROYED. My phraseology was crap. I didn't remember instructions that are important to give to people. I couldn't do a clearance without stumbling over myself and sounding stupid. I ended up doing a handful of sessions to get back up to speed. Once I got back into the swing of things, I was doing well, but I still NEEDED those sessions to regain that knowledge.

If I stopped controlling for 6 months to a year, or did the absolute bare minimum, I would not know what I need to in order to provide quality service. Further to that, there are already a LOT of people on rosters (ZSE has a handful of these people) that log in middle of the night or early morning hours at some random airport like MFR ground to get their minimum controller hours. What quality does that controller bring to being on my roster? Nothing. Half the time if I loaded up, the guy isn't even there because he knows he won't get traffic (and yes, I've reported them to supervisors when caught, but most of the time they go unchecked).

 

What does a controller who controls at some small airport on delivery or ground, with nobody on above them, for that minimum X in X months do for the network? Wouldn't you find that it DEGRADES the network? The guy likely isn't even there, and if he IS there, he is providing sub-par service on a ground position when he is rated to work Approach or Center, and should be at a primary facility.

I don't have access to staff chat to see the discussions there, but honestly as a regular VATSIM member the controller requirement discussion seems to just be one giant circlejerk of "we want to make VATSIM more marketable by saying we have larger numbers". Fake numbers mean nothing.

Hi Skylar

Given that I thought I'd already made it  clear in my very first post here that I was absolutely open to loosening the restriction in response to the feedback of you and many others, what more would you expect me to do to demonstrate that this isn't "all a show"?

I agree with the principle of what you're saying. I think there is a middle ground.

 

 

[Gunnar Lindahl]

7 hours ago, Skylar Hutter said:

I don't have access to staff chat to see the discussions there, but honestly as a regular VATSIM member the controller requirement discussion seems to just be one giant circlejerk of "we want to make VATSIM more marketable by saying we have larger numbers". Fake numbers mean nothing.

By the same token, if we don't have people advocating different points of view on the spectrum of "quality vs quantity", this entire conversation would be academic as VATSIM would have very few controllers.

[Anthony Santanastaso]

2 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

Just because we didn’t respond to it doesn’t mean it wasn’t read. You are putting forth some valid thoughts that are being taken into account.

Thank you, Matt.

[Zach Biesse-Fitton]

All,

Can you confirm that the new proposed requirement is 3 hours in 3 months?

So, your telling me that in my home country, I can go and fly 1 hour of circuits in a real plane to maintain my passenger carrying privelages, but if I do only 1 hour of VATSIM controlling in the last 3 months I can't "exercise the privelages" of my virtual air traffic control rating?

Sorry, what?

😅🙃

[Torben Andersen]

Section 8.02(a) states that you are active, if you control for at least 1 hour duration within the last 12 month.

Section 8.04(a) states that you need to do at least 1 controller session for a duration of at least 1 hour within a 3 month period to maintain a Major Airspace Endorsement.

If other proposals exists, I haven't seen them - I take it that the document in question is 1390915803_GCAPDraft.pdf.

However, in my opinion, even 3 hours in 3 month is not much - a typical session for me is 2-3 hours, so for me it is a matter of just having 1 or 2 sessions in order to fullfill the requirements. I see you are Director and Supervisor - I understand that a director position is/can be very hard work - but i dont quiet understand, how you can be a supervisor, if you hardly are on the air, so to speak (assuming you only controlled/supervised for 1 hour within a 3 month period. I hope I'm not offending you by having such an expectation. But what are your expectations to a supervisor? I think that would be interesting to know. Perhaps VATSIM should make such a poll.

regards

[Greg Barber]

Torben, I don't think Zach is talking about only himself but the absudity of a rule for a virtual environment that is more stringent than a real world requirement.  Zach is actually quite active.

This is the issue we are facing is that many here are considering their own experience and situation, rather than thinking globally.

[Torben Andersen]

Hi Greg

Thanks for the reply. I have no knowledge of Zach's hours on the network (being a Director as well as Supervisor I guess is, that he's fullfilling more than his share on the network.

Nevertheless, 3 hours in 3 months is not a very hard requirement do fullfill in order to stay proficient. And I don't think RW pilot requirements can be used as a guide here. What is the minimum Controller requirements? That would be a more logic comparison to make.

I fully understand that we do not have unlimited hours for our hobby. Many virtual airlines require 1 or more flights per months and unless you only do very short flights, you easily spend 3 hours per 3 months. So why would that be so hard to fullfill (assumuning one also flies online)? Sometimes you need to prioritize your time - 1 hour per month only is in my view not prioritizing ATC very high. And then perhaps flying more on the net would be better than also trying to do ATC. I know we all love to have ATC, but not for any cost. Controller proficiency is very important. In some parts of the World atc is scarce and so is the amount of traffic. But if you move into more congested areas like Frankfurt, London or even Copenhagen on a Monday evening, you really need more that 3 hours per 3 months in order to do your job well.

In my opinion the proposed requirement is on the lenient side, but I can accept that. Less, and I don't think you prioritize your atc job high enough. Others might disagree, but that the good thing on hearings - you can have your say and let BoG deside. 🙂

[Matthew Bartels]

In the new revision of GCAP which will be released to the public sometime next week there is indeed a change to the activity requirements. 

The Maximum Activity requirement that can be imposed is 6 hours in 6 months. For a Major / Restricted / Event Endorsement the Maximum that can be imposed to retain the endorsement is 3 hours in 3 months. 

Note that these are maximums that can be imposed. If a division / sub-division does not want to impose an activity requirement at all, that is well within their remit in GCAP.

[Greg Barber]

17 hours ago, Torben Andersen said:

Nevertheless, 3 hours in 3 months is not a very hard requirement do fullfill in order to stay proficient. And I don't think RW pilot requirements can be used as a guide here. What is the minimum Controller requirements? That would be a more logic comparison to make.

We are not talking about being proficient though, we are talking about minimum requirements to stay on a roster.

In this part of the world the mminimum RW requirement for a controller is about 2 hours per week, but they get well paid for it.  Again, this is hobby, not a job.

Thanks Matt for the clarification.  Just make sure it's perfectly clear that there is no minimum and the maximum a facility can ask is 6.

[Zach Biesse-Fitton]

Hi Torben,

Yes, Greg is correct. My concern is not that I will won't be able to achieve those limiting requirements, but that the limiting requirement for my virtual ATC rating is more restrictive than the requirements on my IRL pilot's licence. That's the part that doesn't add up to me.

Matt - thanks for the clarification. The way you have worded what the new draft will sound like in your post confuses me, with regards to maximum/minimum hours.

Instead, could you use the phrase "the maximum activity requirement that can be imposed must NOT be more limiting than requiring 6 hours in a period no less than 6 months"?

This makes it clearer to me that a division can set requirement as 1 hour in 12 month, if they so choose, but nobody can set a requirement "more limiting" than 6 hours in 6 months.

Does that make sense?

Can you also confirm if we as a division/sub-division choose not to impose an activity requirement. Do we have to have another way of asessing/deeming somebody as 'active'?

Thanks!

[Josh Nunn]

If the policy is requiring 6 hours every 6 months, can a facility require 1 hour every 1 month, or 2 hours every 2 months, since this is the same time commitment?

[Matthew Bartels]

9 hours ago, Josh Nunn said:

If the policy is requiring 6 hours every 6 months, can a facility require 1 hour every 1 month, or 2 hours every 2 months, since this is the same time commitment?

In short, no. 

What simple division of this maximum requirement (ie. 1 hour in 1 month is the same as 6 hours in 6 months) fails to take into account is the flexibility that is built into the requirement being no stricter than 6 hours of controlling within a 6 month period. 

The difference, and it is a profound one, is that if life happens and a controller fails to control that month, the controller can be culled from the roster if the requirement is 1 hour every month. Whereas 6 hours within a 6 month period allows life to happen and said controller who could not control at all for 5 months could get all 6 hours in month 6.  Note that this does not alleviate the controller of their responsibility to read up on changes prior to operating the position. 

Now, many of you who are in support of monthly or even bi-monthly activity requirements, counter with the “ease” of sending an email or requesting a leave of absence from the facility to avoid being culled from the roster. The concern that many on the BoG have around this process is that in a hobby network such as ours, life takes priority when it happens. The last thing on many people’s minds when ridiculously busy is to take an official leave of absence from their hobby. When life calms down and they are ready to come back, they find that they’ve been culled from the roster and thus no longer can control. It’s at that point where the lost controller may not want to bother with reapplication and recertification. We feel nobody wins in that situation.