New S1 Rating

[Ann-Christin Schnarre]

Currently the trainee needs to have an S1 rating for an online training.

But by the definition he would be able to control any minors on the ground with the S1 rating.

Additionally there are a lot of people in my VACC that have started training at some point (and hold an S1 rating) but have never archieved an S2 rating.

They could theoretically log on to any minor ground station as far as I understand.

[Lars Bergmann]

Yup, we have in the past years given the S1 rating to any potential controller in their first lesson, no training required. There are a lot of S1 "controllers" in our Sub-Division who have never shown proficiency in controlling, well, anything. Some of them have received no training whatsoever, since they decided to not show up for any training past the very first lesson. Is there some plan in place for how to handle these cases?

[Thimo Koolen]

As long as they're not on the VACC controller roster, that should be fine. I remember something being discussed during the closed review for training staff.

[Matthew Bartels]

^ This is correct. If you issued the S1 for training purposes only they don’t have the ability to log on if they’re not on the controller roster. 

[1341101]

1 hour ago, Matthew Bartels said:

^ This is correct. If you issued the S1 for training purposes only they don’t have the ability to log on if they’re not on the controller roster. 

So, this should be explicitly defined in the GCAP, as with many other definitions within the GCAP.

[Chriss Klosowski]

2 hours ago, 1341101 said:

So, this should be explicitly defined in the GCAP, as with many other definitions within the GCAP.

This is technically outlined in 5.01.

A VATSIM Member is authorized to operate an Air Traffic Control Position only when they are listed on a controlling or visiting roster for a Division or Sub-Division and possess the appropriate Air Traffic Rating and Endorsement for the specific control position.

Edited July 21, 2021 at 08:48 PM by Chriss Klosowski

[1341101]

10 minutes ago, Chriss Klosowski said:

This is technically outlined in 5.01.

A VATSIM Member is authorized to operate an Air Traffic Control Position only when they are listed on a controlling or visiting roster for a Division or Sub-Division and possess the appropriate Air Traffic Rating and Endorsement for the specific control position.

Yes, but this is still very vague in my view. This is public review, I think one way to improve it is to make vague details more thorough.

[Rob Nabieszko]

16 hours ago, Chriss Klosowski said:

This is technically outlined in 5.01.

A VATSIM Member is authorized to operate an Air Traffic Control Position only when they are listed on a controlling or visiting roster for a Division or Sub-Division and possess the appropriate Air Traffic Rating and Endorsement for the specific control position.

But the catch 22 is how can I issue them an S1 if I cant get them on the network for a practical exam now?

It seems like we need a new S0 rating to give to candidates in training for the S1 to allow them to log time on the network.

[Matthew Bartels]

Sweatbox

[Erik Quinn]

On 7/21/2021 at 1:00 PM, Matthew Bartels said:

^ This is correct. If you issued the S1 for training purposes only they don’t have the ability to log on if they’re not on the controller roster. 

However, a problem appears when this controller transfers or visits a different facility.

When my facility receives a controller with an S1 rating, I will have no way to tell whether they were issued it "for training purposes only", or if they earned the actual certification. This is why I'd love to see the practice of granting an S1 rating to a non-certified trainee stop... It adds pointless ambiguity when an S1 shows up on my doorstep whether they're a "real" or "fake" S1.

I would love for GCAP 7.05(c) to be removed, in order to establish consistency for the S1 rating. Granting an S1 should either:
- "imply no competencies" (as it does in currently active policy), or
- "imply a certification for minor ground" (as the draft GCAP does).

But allowing it to sometimes mean one and sometimes mean the other is pointless convolution of something that should be simple.

Edited July 22, 2021 at 10:07 PM by Erik Quinn

[Mateusz Zymla]

16 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

Sweatbox

Does it mean, Sweatbox will be released below S3?

[Kirk Christie]

.....

Edited July 23, 2021 at 08:51 AM by Kirk Christie

[1341101]

3 minutes ago, Kirk Christie said:

The new policy doesnt allow any one below S3 to visit.

False.

Quote

6.05(j)(vi) A long-tenured controller holding an ATS Rating of S2 may, with approval of their  
Home Division Director, obtain a Visiting Controller Endorsement at only one Sub-Division  
within their Home Division

 

[Lars Bergmann]

6 hours ago, Mateusz Zymla said:

Does it mean, Sweatbox will be released below S3?

Funnily enought you can use Sweatbox to start sessions if you don't hold an S3+ rating (yet) by just setting rating to S3. Sweatbox will allow you to connect with that rating. I don't know how far down it works, it does work for S2.

Edited July 23, 2021 at 03:08 PM by Lars Bergmann

[Mateusz Zymla]

3 minutes ago, Lars Bergmann said:

Funnily enought you can use Sweatbox to start sessions if you don't hold an S3+ rating (yet) by just setting rating to S3. Sweatbox will allow you to connect with that rating. I don't know how far down it works, it does work for S2.

No way... And I learnt that after 12 years on the vatsim. 😂 

[Matthew Bartels]

6 minutes ago, Lars Bergmann said:

Funnily enought you can use Sweatbox to start sessions if you don't hold an S3+ rating (yet) by just setting rating to S3. Sweatbox will allow you to connect with that rating. I don't know how far down it works, it does work for S2.

All the way. An OBS can connect as an S1

[Mateusz Zymla]

1 minute ago, Matthew Bartels said:

All the way. An OBS can connect as an S1

So S2 can train new guy, by simply changing their ratings? Nice... 😂 

[Matthew Bartels]

Not sure what's funny about that. An S2 would be perfectly capable of mentoring an S1 on Clearance and Ground if given a bit of training on how to be a mentor. More mentors, more training bandwidth.

[Mateusz Zymla]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Bartels said:

Not sure what's funny about that. An S2 would be perfectly capable of mentoring an S1 on Clearance and Ground if given a bit of training on how to be a mentor. More mentors, more training bandwidth.

Of course, I always criticized limiting sweatbox to S3+. Funny is, that I've no clue about mentioned trick till this day. 

[Lars Bergmann]

25 minutes ago, Matthew Bartels said:

Not sure what's funny about that. An S2 would be perfectly capable of mentoring an S1 on Clearance and Ground if given a bit of training on how to be a mentor. More mentors, more training bandwidth.

It is still quite weird that in order to do that (on Sweatbox) you have to set your rating to S3 (as Sweatbox won't let you start sessions with a lower rating). But I guess we have gotten a bit off-topic, haven't we 😄

[Rob Nabieszko]

On 7/22/2021 at 11:32 AM, Matthew Bartels said:

Sweatbox

Not sufficient for issuing the S1 rating as detailed in GCAP. Students need to get on the network for practice and their practical exam. There is waaaay too much material going into S1 now to just run 3 sweatbox sessions and say "Here is your rating: go nuts".

[Rick Rump]

Practical examinations for S1 online are only good for determining how a student can handle "bad pilots"/weird situations. Unless you get a lot of traffic you can never test to the level that you can on Sweatbox. I purposefully simulate "bad pilots"/weird situations in sweatbox sessions and major delivery/ground OTSes just for that reason. Really have not noticed any issues with the controllers who went up this way.

[Erik Quinn]

No offense, but half the planet has been issuing S1 ratings without touching the network. Works fine for us, and it can absolutely work fine for anyone else.

The notion that someone trying to get minor ground couldn't possibly be cut loose without seeing "how they handle bad pilots" is, frankly, bananas. If they can issue the clearances and taxi instructions correctly, and hold up under a reasonable workload, then cert them. Unless at a major, they won't see enough workload to validate the concern. And like I said, dozens of divisions, including VATUSA, have lived without network evaluations for an OBS-S1 promotion since the inception of the VATSIM network (as far as I'm aware).

 

Edited July 26, 2021 at 07:32 PM by Erik Quinn

[Rob Nabieszko]

18 hours ago, Erik Quinn said:

No offense, but half the planet has been issuing S1 ratings without touching the network. Works fine for us, and it can absolutely work fine for anyone else.

 

So half of the world does not think that sweatbox is sufficient on its own for evaluating students and wants to do the tests online.

I still don't think sweatbox can ever replace real world experience, and I think forcing half the world that agrees to use only sweatbox for controller evaluations is just going to dilute the quality of controlling on this network. I want to see this network continue to thrive, and I don't think watering down the training is the way to do it.

 

Why even have solo endorsements worked into GCAP at all if sweatbox is sufficient for training and evaluation? You come out of the sweatbox a fully formed controller.

 

We also lose out on additional controlling hours by not allowing training on the network itself. All the training for S1 gets done in the dark room of the sweatbox, instead of on the network where we could get lots more hours of service to pilots with on-the-job training instead of hiding the students away. I mean, heck, we can't even use the audio system in the sweatbox. It's a small thing, but the AFV system sounds different and reacts differently then TeamSpeak and other mediums. I really miss being able to separate pilot communication from myself as an instructor offering advice and instruction. (We keep getting told 'it's coming'...)

 

I begin to wonder if maybe GCAP is being rushed out a little too soon? Maybe we need to let the infrastructure and development team get caught up so that we have the technical capabilities to implement GCAP the way it should be, rather than forcing the round peg into the square hole.

Edited July 27, 2021 at 01:34 PM by Rob Nabieszko