6.05(h)(i) Solo endorsements for S1

[Cedric Mohler]

I don't understand why a solo endorsement for S1 is not included in the policy, while the S1 rating is a full rating in the new policy. It has fixed competencies and requires a full practical and theoretical test (what exactly is up to the division). However the trainee should be able to use a solo validation to further deepen his understanding of Vatsim and everything involved, especially in the beginning, when everything is new and the only way to get routine is by regularly doing it. I think not many sub divisions have the mentor capacity to provide multiple online trainings to these controllers, when they could be using a solo endorsement to practice on their own.

[Todd Blanchette]

Cedric, I'm not sure what you mean: 6.05(h)(i) A Solo Endorsement allows for a S1 or higher controller training for their next ATS rating to operate a control position one rating above their current rating for up to 90 days.

This clearly states that S1 is included.

Cheers!

[Cedric Mohler]

My point is, that there is no solo endorsement for the step from OBS to S1. It only applies to controllers already holding the S1 for the next step.

[Ben Stevenson]

3 minutes ago, Cedric Mohler said:

My point is, that there is no solo endorsement for the step from OBS to S1. It only applies to controllers already holding the S1 for the next step.

Well yeah, OBS rated can't control.

 

Section 3.01

"Any VATSIM member with an Observer Rating may observe Air Traffic Control Operations but may not provide any Air Traffic Services."

 

If they can't provide services, what do they need a solo rating for?

Edited July 21, 2021 at 05:38 PM by Ben Stevenson

[Cedric Mohler]

If people can control GND and DEL with S1, there will be training towards it and there should be a possibility for a solo endorsement with that. I know this is currently a technical limitation, but this should really be possible.

[Todd Blanchette]

1 minute ago, Cedric Mohler said:

If people can control GND and DEL with S1, there will be training towards it and there should be a possibility for a solo endorsement with that. I know this is currently a technical limitation, but this should really be possible.

Cedric, I think there's a disconnect between what you believe is allowable. An OBS can't control ATC, period. No requirement for a solo. An S1, covering training from clearance delivery to ground and tower, can get a solo. Where's the issue?

[Cedric Mohler]

My point is, that since in the new policy the S1 rating comes with inherent privileges

Quote

5.02 ATS Ratings required for Control Positions:
5.02(a) The following list defines the ATS Rating required for each control position.
5.02(a)(i) Developmental (S1) – Ramp Control, Clearance Delivery, Ground Metering, Ground
Control, and Radio Operator.

there will be training towards the S1 rating. It would be a shame, if we have to give the S1 rating to start training online because OBS can not log on as ATC. So essentially my feedback boils down to this: If S1 can control stuff, there should be a way to properly train towards this, and this should include the possibility to give a solo endorsement before the member is upgraded to S1.

[Chriss Klosowski]

How exactly does your home facility process the S1 rating? I don't see the point in giving controlling privilege's to OBS rated members. You already have Sweatbox around to play with for the initial bit of the training. Once the sweatbox phase is completed you send the request for the S1 rating and then continue the practical online. Unless it's done completely differently from where I've observed the most on how it is done.

[Cedric Mohler]

Yes this is how it is done now, but right now a controller with a S1 Rating can not control GND and DEL with no further training. The new policy allows this, so it is only logical to enable a similar training period pre S1.

[Chriss Klosowski]

6 minutes ago, Cedric Mohler said:

Yes this is how it is done now, but right now a controller with a S1 Rating can not control GND and DEL with no further training. The new policy allows this, so it is only logical to enable a similar training period pre S1.

I believe that this may answer your question. As long as they aren't on the facilities controlling roster they aren't allowed to operate any position for the rating.

[Cedric Mohler]

So how and when is a controller added to the roster? When I want him to control GND/DEL without mentor I have to add him to the roster. Then I cannot remove him easily (for good reasons I think). The policy has no provision for a solo endorsement for that situation.

[Matthew Wurzbach]

IMO, there has to be some bar to be reached before you can control on the network. That bar is obtaining your S1. How facilities implement that differs, but that's how VATSIM has always looked at it and that doesn't need to change. In a way, the S1 is already kind of your "solo" cert since you're a developmental controller by definition. (This is for another thread, but I disagree with the concept of solos as they are implemented currently and in the GCAP and hope they change anyway.)

[Rob Nabieszko]

This is probably the biggest technical hurdle of the GCAP.

The GCAP states that in order to receive an S1 rating, a written and practical test must be conducted. So how do we train for that test? How can we even conduct the test? The new student cannot log on to the network with an OBS rating, but they can't be given an S1 until they finish a practical test on the network that they are not allowed to log into.

It's a huge hole and I'm not sure how we can practically plug it the way the GCAP is currently written. There needs to be some sort of "initial training rating" that the S1 used to be. Now the S1 is going to be a fully trained rating allowing unhindered control of all minor GND/DEL positions. What rating do students have before that?

I hate to be a downer, but GCAP needs a major rethink at the starting end on what the actual steps are to get the student to the S1 rating because the rules as published here will never allow the issuance of an S1 without violating the rules in some way: Either logging on to train as an unrated controller, or issuing an S1 rating without the practical test.

 

It's not about whether or not I put them on a roster or not. I can't give them an S1 without doing a practical test first, but they are not allowed to log in to control on the roster.

 

I would love for someone on the GCAP committee to explain to me step-by-step how a totally new VATSIM member clicks on "Become a Controller" in my FIR to how they have an S1 rating because there is no logical set of steps that works here.

Edited July 22, 2021 at 03:40 AM by Rob Nabieszko

[Matthew Wurzbach]

Unless I'm missing something, a practical test doesn't have to be on the network. A large number of practical tests are done in a virtual environment.

[Lars Bergmann]

Correct, you can connect to (and control on) Sweatbox as an OBS.

[Rob Nabieszko]

7 hours ago, Matthew Wurzbach said:

Unless I'm missing something, a practical test doesn't have to be on the network. A large number of practical tests are done in a virtual environment.

Thank you for pointing that out. This is a new change that is not currently allowed on GRP.

 

However, I still think this is a huge hole. Sweatbox scenarios do not provide an appropriate means of testing controller skills, as no sweatbox session can truly simulate the random, wacky things we have seen pilots try to do.

 

We need a training rating (perhaps S0?) to allow candidates training for S1 to train, practice, and get tested on the network.

 

It also creates a hole for those divisions that choose to bypass the S1, as we do not have any rating for controllers in training. Again, for this to work, we need a rating for unrated controllers in training.

[Lars Bergmann]

18 minutes ago, Rob Nabieszko said:

Thank you for pointing that out. This is a new change that is not currently allowed on GRP.

Where in the GRP did you find that? In my opinion the GRP imposed/imposes no such restrictions.

Edited July 22, 2021 at 12:28 PM by Lars Bergmann

[Rob Nabieszko]

1 hour ago, Lars Bergmann said:

Where in the GRP did you find that? In my opinion the GRP imposed/imposes no such restrictions.

Now that you sent me searching it was actually a Division policy. I have been doing this too long obviously. All the policies are running together...

[Collin Koldoff]

2 hours ago, Rob Nabieszko said:

However, I still think this is a huge hole. Sweatbox scenarios do not provide an appropriate means of testing controller skills, as no sweatbox session can truly simulate the random, wacky things we have seen pilots try to do.

If the mentor is a good mentor they will be able to simulate the “wacky things we have seen pilots try to do” at the right time to test even more randomness.

Here is a scenario I put my student in the other day.

Aircraft in position on the runway waiting for take off clearance
Aircraft on a 3 mile final told to continue
In a normal circumstance this would work out.
The way I was able to add test the student was add an aircraft requesting VFR into the pattern to see which transmission they prioritize next.

This scenario is something that I believe should be tested in the practical test and it would be very difficult to make it happen on the network

[1341101]

49 minutes ago, Rob Nabieszko said:

Now that you sent me searching it was actually a Division policy. I have been doing this too long obviously. All the policies are running together...

Well, either way, GCAP doesn't allow for divisional policies to overrule a lot of the matters that are related to what is described in GCAP. Even if it's not in GCAP, divisions and sub-divisions are supposed to work around GCAP and nothing else, unless otherwise defined in GCAP.

[Andre Almeida]

8 minutes ago, Collin Koldoff said:

If the mentor is a good mentor they will be able to simulate the “wacky things we have seen pilots try to do” at the right time to test even more randomness.

But there are things you can't simulate and test on a sweatbox. You can't test how a shy controller will react once they control a frequency on which more then their mentor is listening in. There's a difference between speaking on TeamSpeak with your mentor only, and speaking on a frequency with 5 or 10 aircraft.

It might also be difficult to simulate how a controller would react to a very stubborn, and wrong, pilot. I've seen controllers forget their manners, and start arguing with the pilot on frequency, and being all but educated. If a mentor is around when that happens it can very quickly be shutdown and corrected. If not, then the issue will continue. Obviously a situation to check this one might not arise during sessions on the network, but sometimes they do.

In my opinion it's not only about knowing the correct phraseology for a clearance.

[Rob Nabieszko]

On 7/22/2021 at 10:45 AM, Andre Almeida said:

 

In my opinion it's not only about knowing the correct phraseology for a clearance.

Exactly. This is not just a technical role. Interpersonal skills are huge and are not easily tested by an instructor that you are now familiar and comfortable with.

There needs to be a way to get on-network training prior to issuing the S1.