Thought on Restricted.

[Flynn Wright]

I think that having a Restricted Aerodrome is a smart thought, as there is phraseology for military towers, that just aren't used in the civilian world. But too many endorsements can create confusion, and personally, I think the restricted tower course should be restricted to VSOAs. The Event Endorsement seems like too much, and personally if a Controller isn't trained to control events from day dot, there is something wrong. Controllers should be trained to the highest standard. Radio Controllers should just be Oceanic Controllers, in the way you just get the endorsement when getting an oceanic endorsement. The only difference is you have a radar service. Visiting Controllers should be pushed up to 5, for variety reasons if you ask me. I fully agree with the Currency & Quality Control Guideline, because the controller needs to be current, or there could be issues on the network.

Good Job Guys!

[Justin Blakey]

12 minutes ago, Flynn Wright said:

if a Controller isn't trained to control events from day dot, there is something wrong.

I must disagree. Sweatbox does a good job of teaching fundamentals but doesn't do a good job of preparing students for what they'll see on the live network. I have often seen "mic fright" in students and blunderous mistakes made early on as a result of controlling a position on the live network for the first time. There is a lot of value in practicing on-network in lower traffic scenarios to really learn the position and then coming back for a full certification. From what I've seen as a mentor, a student controlling a major position during an event after having previously only done Sweatbox would be a disaster.

[1341101]

13 minutes ago, Flynn Wright said:

I think that having a Restricted Aerodrome is a smart thought, as there is phraseology for military towers, that just aren't used in the civilian world. But too many endorsements can create confusion, and personally, I think the restricted tower course should be restricted to VSOAs. The Event Endorsement seems like too much, and personally if a Controller isn't trained to control events from day dot, there is something wrong. Controllers should be trained to the highest standard. Radio Controllers should just be Oceanic Controllers, in the way you just get the endorsement when getting an oceanic endorsement. The only difference is you have a radar service. Visiting Controllers should be pushed up to 5, for variety reasons if you ask me. I fully agree with the Currency & Quality Control Guideline, because the controller needs to be current, or there could be issues on the network.

Good Job Guys!

You put a lot of feedback here, and I agree with a lot here, in particular, regarding what you said about the events endorsement. VATSIM has been known for standing out among all other networks, due to the way we handle realism and the quality of our controllers. Our controllers are very experienced and are trained in a very advanced manner when providing the control service. Just like in real life, our controllers have to be prepared and be able to control under challenging and busy conditions. If a controller is able to do that, then they will be more than able to handle a normal situation. VATSIM's reasoning within this new policy is that controllers simply do not have any interest in controlling busy events and because of this, they do not gain enough experience with controlling with a lot of traffic and fail CPTs. I'm sorry, but, in my view, a good controller is somebody who is always willing to learn and who is always willing to gain new experience. Events are a good place to do so, as that is where the real ATC skillset comes to play. You can learn a lot from such events and that's where your skills and experience are built from. Controllers who choose not to do so and thus fail, are in my opinion, lazy people who aren't willing to learn or to gain experience. I don't think we should be making it easier for them because our strong training structures are what makes up our great controllers today. We have to think about quality, not quantity. 

[1341101]

4 minutes ago, Justin Blakey said:

I must disagree. Sweatbox does a good job of teaching fundamentals but doesn't do a good job of preparing students for what they'll see on the live network. I have often seen "mic fright" in students and blunderous mistakes made early on as a result of controlling a position on the live network for the first time. There is a lot of value in practicing on-network in lower traffic scenarios to really learn the position and then coming back for a full certification. From what I've seen as a mentor, a student controlling a major position during an event after having previously only done Sweatbox would be a disaster.

In my view, this is also why solo validations are very useful before a practical. Solo validations allow the student to experience what the position is like on the real network and if you have quite a bit of experience on your solo validation before you jump into an event (which by the way, is also a very good way to learn new skills), you can definitely learn a lot and gain a lot of useful experience. 

[Chriss Klosowski]

17 hours ago, 1341101 said:

You put a lot of feedback here, and I agree with a lot here, in particular, regarding what you said about the events endorsement. VATSIM has been known for standing out among all other networks, due to the way we handle realism and the quality of our controllers. Our controllers are very experienced and are trained in a very advanced manner when providing the control service. Just like in real life, our controllers have to be prepared and be able to control under challenging and busy conditions. If a controller is able to do that, then they will be more than able to handle a normal situation. VATSIM's reasoning within this new policy is that controllers simply do not have any interest in controlling busy events and because of this, they do not gain enough experience with controlling with a lot of traffic and fail CPTs. I'm sorry, but, in my view, a good controller is somebody who is always willing to learn and who is always willing to gain new experience. Events are a good place to do so, as that is where the real ATC skillset comes to play. You can learn a lot from such events and that's where your skills and experience are built from. Controllers who choose not to do so and thus fail, are in my opinion, lazy people who aren't willing to learn or to gain experience. I don't think we should be making it easier for them because our strong training structures are what makes up our great controllers today. We have to think about quality, not quantity. 

You make some significant points but have to disagree here. We cannot always balance out quantity and quality altogether. This is something that will always arise anywhere no matter the situation. You got to remember that we are doing this as a hobby and we aren't doing this as our full-time job in the real world. Training controllers under challenging and busy conditions that replicate event level traffic is just unrealistic really.

Event's in certain vACCs/Divisions happens from time to time and in some others may happen almost every-day or weekly. If you had several members with limited time frames working busy 9-5 job's that have family on the side, work related issues or even students who are busy with their course work and such but are willing to invest whatever time they have available to attain their ATC rating then they need to be put in with flexibility.

If you're going to train everyone at a challenging event traffic level then what is the point if your training airport doesn't get the same traffic as you were trained for? Certain events get 200+ aircraft and certain events get less than 5 aircraft.. You need to understand as well that you won't get event level traffic every day and you need a mix of different traffic levels to put each different scenario into play. If you're trained for event level traffic sure you'll be able to nail down every concept but what about varying traffic levels? When you're trained on a high traffic level it will become like a pattern and that will then be hard wired into your cycle when you control. Flexibility needs to be added on that you won't always get "event-level" traffic. 

You can also have "good controllers" who are always "willing to learn" that do not control events. I'm a prime example recently, I have lowered my controlling activity significantly due to certain circumstances but control from time to time and always learn with me colleagues that control along side me. Does that make me a bad controller? I can also call up a mentor/instructor for a refresher session on sweatbox to get my skills sharpened a lot more.

Calling people "lazy" is just wrong in my opinion. You can have several controllers who are quick to learn and put the concepts they have absorbed quickly and push it out into their craft with not as much hours as somebody who has held the rating for XYZ amount of months/years. It is quite easy to notice who are the people who are "lazy" when it comes to the theoretical examinations in my experience as an ex-INS in my vACC when students fail the exams 3-4 times and then get a full 100% on the 4th attempt. 

Like I mentioned at the top of this reply we cannot balance quantity and quality both at the same time thus is something that will always be imbalanced. This is a hobby and you do not want a student to be worn-out by constant training after school/work or whenever a student has the free-time to do so. It needs to be flexible. 

17 hours ago, Justin Blakey said:

I must disagree. Sweatbox does a good job of teaching fundamentals but doesn't do a good job of preparing students for what they'll see on the live network. I have often seen "mic fright" in students and blunderous mistakes made early on as a result of controlling a position on the live network for the first time. There is a lot of value in practicing on-network in lower traffic scenarios to really learn the position and then coming back for a full certification. From what I've seen as a mentor, a student controlling a major position during an event after having previously only done Sweatbox would be a disaster.

Sweatbox is fantastic to see if the student has understood the theory material and is able to push it out in a simulated practical environment. But you need to remember the simulated server is controlled by the INS/mentor and all the reaction times of the instructions given by the student is unrealistic. You may have the student give a final turn for the ILS and the aircraft reads-back and starts turning mere seconds after the instruction was given out. Whereas on the network it would take the average pilot a few seconds for them to do so. Not every pilot is the same.

Practicing on the network with a solo-validation during lower traffic scenario's like Justin mentioned really makes the student understand and learn the position even more before the practical examination. Doesn't matter how many sweatbox scenarios you do, low traffic, average traffic, or high traffic levels what comes on the network is a totally different dimension in a way.

Edited July 21, 2021 at 08:58 PM by Chriss Klosowski