Definition of "leadership/personal development training course"

[1341101]

The term "leadership/personal development training course" is used within Appendix B within the C3 rating requirement. At first, I was very confused as to what this actually meant - if this is some sort of leadership skills course that you have to take outside of VATSIM or if this is something that is provided by VATSIM. Later, from what I understood based on Phil Hutchinson's definition, this "Usually means mentoring/examining within your home division, and being a source of knowledge for less experienced controllers, that sort of thing". I understand this and I know that divisions have similar requirements for C3 but the term "leadership/personal development training course" is very vague in my opinion and doesn't at all represent the fact that the member had assisted with mentoring/examining within the division and should hence, in my view, be re-worded into a more specific and/or more understandable term.

[Matthew Bartels]

We're literally asking that some sort of formal leadership training be incorporated into the requirements for this rating. Be it a module created by the division or a free leadership and personal development course that you can find online. We just feel that it's important that if you're going for our topmost controller rating that you expand your knowledge as a leader on the network.

[1341101]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Bartels said:

We're literally asking that some sort of formal leadership training be incorporated into the requirements for this rating. Be it a module created by the division or a free leadership and personal development course that you can find online. We just feel that it's important that if you're going for our topmost controller rating that you expand your knowledge as a leader on the network.

So this is how it should be outlined in GCAP then - something along the lines of "...must include a completion of a leadership / personal development training course offered by the division, or a free leadership and personal development course than can be found online. "

Because the way it's written now is very vague and confusing and it got a lot of others confused as well.

Edited July 21, 2021 at 03:42 AM by 1341101

[Alexandra Robison]

36 minutes ago, Matthew Bartels said:

We're literally asking that some sort of formal leadership training be incorporated into the requirements for this rating. Be it a module created by the division or a free leadership and personal development course that you can find online. We just feel that it's important that if you're going for our topmost controller rating that you expand your knowledge as a leader on the network.

Since when is a C3 a management position? Why are requiring leadership/management training for a non-management position?

[Matthew Bartels]

C3 is a Senior Controller. No it's not management but at that level you are a leader and a role model in our community regardless of if you think you are or not. Improving a real world tangible skill as a part of that can't be a bad thing.

[Johnny Coughlan]

3 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

C3 is a Senior Controller. No it's not management but at that level you are a leader and a role model in our community regardless of if you think you are or not. Improving a real world tangible skill as a part of that can't be a bad thing.

There is no ‘real’ difference between a C1/C3 if we’re speaking candidly, we used to have a ‘roaming controller endorsement’(VATEUD) as a C3 but that’s long gone.

I’m all for people aiming for a C3 but when it brings nothing tangible to the table there is no real point.

Having a rating based on ‘role model’ status is a bit vain In fairness, there are plenty of S2/S3/C1’s that put the time and effort into mentoring/doc creation/division and vACC administration duties etc etc, then when they want to become a C3, they’re to complete a leadership course?.

Recently(Jan 2021) I applied to visit a certain area on the network(as a C3), I was replied with “..your application has been received and will be reviewed”, I was not replied to and subsequent follow ups ignored.

When you’re hit with walls like this(not the first time) it really makes all the effort, time and dedication over the years seem somewhat fruitless.

Edited July 21, 2021 at 08:16 AM by Johnny Coughlan

[Harry Sugden]

Not sure a 'course' is necessarily the right thing to mandate, as completing a course doesn't necessarily mean that the person has contributed to the community. This is what I really think the C3 should be about - I was really sad when the UK lost its mandatory mentoring requirement to obtain a C3, especially since area mentors are few and far between. This, to me, is what a contribution back to the community really looks like, because we're all here to be able to control at the end of the day.

Either way, I'll be glad to see the back of the ability for Divisions to issue C3s for undefined 'exceptional contributions' - a system very much open to corruption, even if the C3 doesn't get you anything special!

[Matthew Wurzbach]

Here's a thought: add C2 and turn the C ratings into something interesting instead of just dragging out a rank system that doesn't have any tangible meaning to anyone.

C2 and C3 could be based on controlling hours, endorsements, mentoring, or all kinds of things. It would be nice for an S1/S2/S3 to be able to look at a controller's rating and identify their level of knowledge, skill, or mentorship. That would be a useful tool as opposed to the current C3 which is just a badge that people wear to feel special with no benefit to the community.

Edited July 22, 2021 at 04:38 AM by Matthew Wurzbach

[Matthew Bartels]

C2 rating doesn't exist in the FSD anymore so unfortunately we can't add it.

[Cathal Boyce]

GCAP is the perfect opportunity as far as I'm concerned to "reclaim" what a C3 should signify and to set some baseline standards for attaining the rating. The problem that it needs to fix is that the C3 rating is so inconsistent across the network in what it signifies and represents. Anecdotally speaking, there are places on the network where they are given out with almost no requirements, and others where there are multiple stringent measures in place to ensure that the rating is seen as a proper achievement.

The policy does a good job in places of trying to set some sort of a standard, but as it stands, the C3 requirements couldn't be further from that. I've already stated that I don't agree that a course like this is needed, let alone mandatory. My reasoning for this is that leadership is not shown or learnt by completing an eLearning course, it's shown by committing to your vACC, putting in countless hours working more than the average member and helping everybody out.

@Matthew BartelsI really like the idea of wanting to promote leadership qualities for the C3s, but I'm not convinced an online course is the way to go. In VATEUD, there are requirements that have to be fulfilled before you can be put forward for the CPT. The thing that EUD does well here is that there are various avenues which people can go down in order to be put forward. However, my main point is not the fact that I disagree with the idea of the course, it's that the eligibility criteria need to be standardised to some extent. Otherwise, the rating continues to lack substance across VATSIM.

In VATEUD, C3 candidates can use ATC experience coupled with mentoring sessions, staff time or other factors to become eligible and receive a recommendation. In this sense, it is accessible to almost everybody who deserves it and doesn't exclude anybody as there are multiple streams you can go down to qualify.

If people do feel that if the course will be mandatory regardless, a compromise with some other standardisation would be appreciated. 

I would propose the network adopts a policy whereby controllers can get their C3 through multiple avenues. This would include (at minimum):

• Documented time spent mentoring or
• Time spent fulfilling staff duties or
• Time spent contributing to your vACC in other ways (documentation etc.) and
• A minimum amount of controlling time.

Why does C3 need to have these criteria when other ratings don't? The other ratings are all defined by examinable criteria, the C3 is not. In the same way that GCAP defines (in detail) criteria for the other ratings, this advanced rating needs to have some criteria set out in my opinion so that over time, the C3 rating can become a solid, well-recognised and respected rating. Some things are best left up to Divisions to regulate, but for a recognised rating on the network, I do feel that a standard network-wide approach is the best option.

[Gunnar Lindahl]

I'd be very much in favour of a facility including mentoring hours if that's what the facility needs when it comes to C3s. The GACP would allow for this.

[Ron Yan]

On 7/22/2021 at 7:43 PM, Cathal Boyce said:

it is accessible to almost everybody who deserves it and doesn't exclude anybody as there are multiple streams you can go down to qualify.

(just using your quote Cathal, not directing the question to you specifically)

What safeguards will there be to maintain accessibility to this rating? Of the four examples that Cathal mentions, apart from controlling hours, the ability to participate in those activities are entirely at the discretion of divisional leadership. 

[Alexandra Robison]

On 7/22/2021 at 10:33 AM, Matthew Bartels said:

C2 rating doesn't exist in the FSD anymore so unfortunately we can't add it.

This is false. It's there. Rating 6. We just don't use it. Same thing with I2. Rating 9. It's there.

[Thimo Koolen]

On 7/25/2021 at 1:15 PM, Gunnar Lindahl said:

I'd be very much in favour of a facility including mentoring hours if that's what the facility needs when it comes to C3s. The GACP would allow for this.

Since with this draft, the leadership / personal development course is still in it, I would like to discuss the option that was mentioned above by Cathal (with Gunnar seeming to be in favour of the idea). The VatEUD policy on the C3 is pretty good and makes it a respectable rating, which is exactly the goal.

[Gunnar Lindahl]

The C3 rating should be utilised by a facility to entice senior members to be rewarded for the most valuable contribution they can make to that facility - 99% of the time that includes either training/mentoring and/or staff contribution to the facility.

[Rick Rump]

I think we could also have options here:

Must demonstrate or complete one of the following:

1) Service of at least X years as an instructional staff member;

2) Service of at least Y years as a Division/Sub-Division staff member;

3) Completion of Z hours of controlling and a leadership/professional development course.

Let the Divisions decide which of these they would want to utilize.

[Martijn Rammeloo]

I am still really interested in some examples of leadership / development courses.

Thirty years as an officer in the air force have taught me their value. But also that not all courses are equally useful.

Martijn

 

Edited October 6, 2021 at 04:07 AM by Martijn Rammeloo

[Thimo Koolen]

On 10/2/2021 at 1:34 AM, Gunnar Lindahl said:

The C3 rating should be utilised by a facility to entice senior members to be rewarded for the most valuable contribution they can make to that facility - 99% of the time that includes either training/mentoring and/or staff contribution to the facility.

Agree on that, but that's not leadership / personal development courses as outlined in the GCAP (without examples, that is).

 

I really like the requirements VatEUD currently has for the C3 rating:

Edited October 5, 2021 at 05:09 PM by Thimo Koolen

[Liesel Downes]

I agree that the VATEUD requirements create a fair and accessible rating for everyone who wants to obtain it, although, it can also be true that corruption could lead to gatekeeping of the requirements. Swings and roundabouts really... I'm sure if that occurs it will be a whole other story in itself.

I earned my C3 through being the other person essentially building up Gander Oceanic from rock bottom, but I wouldn't say I'm brilliant at being an air traffic controller. Just not my cup of tea anymore 😛. Do we think that exceptional controlling ability should come into this too, or is the C3 going to be all encompassing? 

[Lars Bergmann]

VATEUD's C3 policy requires that a candidate pass a CPT in addition to the other requirements Thimo posted. The whole policy is available at https://vateud.net/atc/policies

[Liesel Downes]

8 hours ago, Lars Bergmann said:

VATEUD's C3 policy requires that a candidate pass a CPT in addition to the other requirements Thimo posted. The whole policy is available at https://vateud.net/atc/policies

Having read the CPT requirements I think those are also entirely fair and should be a component of representing 'seniority'.