7.07(b) - Limitations on training for "Restricted" airports

[Erik Quinn]

Section 7.0.7.b says training for a restricted position can include "simulated and live training" but cannot include a "practical examination".

To ensure clarity, the term "practical examination" should be very clearly defined in Section 2.

I find "practical examination" to be pretty vague... Is the intent that in consideration of granting an endorsement for a restricted airport cannot include an on-network OTS with a broadcast? Does it mean you can't do any sort of official "top-to-bottom assessment" of whether they can fulfill the expected duties? The latter is what happens during "simulated and live training"... If trying to outlaw a "practical examination", the document will need to more clearly establish what exactly is or isn't one of those.

 

[Rick Rump]

Erik,

I can agree that a definition here is necessary. The spirit here is that there is no OTS examination conducted for a restricted minor field. I have read it as that you may give them a familiarization scenario via simulated or live training, and/or a written exam to test SOP knowledge.

[Matthew Wurzbach]

The whole idea is impossible to enforce anyway. I can give someone an exam as training without the official title extremely easily. This is the sort of thing that needs to just be dealt with at the sub-division level. I get the idea of the GCAP is to allow more people to control, but that's already accomplished with minor facilities.

[1341101]

4 hours ago, Matthew Wurzbach said:

This is the sort of thing that needs to just be dealt with at the sub-division level.

Just as most of us have been saying about pretty much everything that GCAP enforces.

[Matthew Bartels]

8 hours ago, 1341101 said:

Just as most of us have been saying about pretty much everything that GCAP enforces.

Apologize for being blunt here. Leaving this to the sub-divisions is what was done pre GRP. They took that power and ran with it. It was impossible to certify places. Facilities were exclusive only to the  point that you had to know the right people and be liked by them to get in or get training. Not everyone could become a controller.

Your predecessors ruined that. What I'm hearing from a lot of the heartburn, not the actual suggestions, is that you want to be more restrictive or are going to look for ways to get around things. This is exactly why there is a current global policy.

So no, sub-divisions are not going to be given free reign here. We are looking for suggestions as to how we can make this policy work. However just let my kingdom decide isn't a tenable suggestion.

[1341101]

1 minute ago, Matthew Bartels said:

It was impossible to certify places. Facilities were exclusive only to the  point that you had to know the right people and be liked by them to get in or get training. Your predecessors ruined that.

So that's another issue here that we've already discussed a lot of times before. A lot of places that closed out or put limits on visiting did it for a reason - mainly, due to a high queue for local controllers. If local sub-divisions/divisions were so restrictive and abused it completely, then why hasn't' region staff dealt with it, or the BoG (very close to region staff basically)? As I said, you're punishing everyone for something that was only abused by a small number of people. If sub-divisions/divisions create restrictions that are too absurd, the BoG or region staff should deal with it accordingly. Maybe this is something that should be outlined within the GCAP?

[1341101]

Take this as an example 

Quote

7.08(f) A Division is responsible for review and approval of a Sub-Division’s Major Endorsement  
Program (including the rubric). In cases where a division has no Sub-Divisions, the Region is  
responsible for review and approval of a Division’s Major Endorsement Program.  

So... why not do the same but for strict restrictions such as the ones which were put in place in GCAP as a result of abuse in restrictions? Do a chain of approvals and if after the approval there's still an issue, it goes higher,

[Rob Nabieszko]

3 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

Apologize for being blunt here. Leaving this to the sub-divisions is what was done pre GRP. They took that power and ran with it. It was impossible to certify places. Facilities were exclusive only to the  point that you had to know the right people and be liked by them to get in or get training. Not everyone could become a controller.

Your predecessors ruined that. What I'm hearing from a lot of the heartburn, not the actual suggestions, is that you want to be more restrictive or are going to look for ways to get around things. This is exactly why there is a current global policy.

So no, sub-divisions are not going to be given free reign here. We are looking for suggestions as to how we can make this policy work. However just let my kingdom decide isn't a tenable suggestion.

Pre-GRP was a very long time ago. The subdivisions have created systems that are still very workable in most cases. Nepotism isn't dead, but it's been reduced by many more transparent subdivisions.

The trouble with global policy, especially when it is very prescriptive and not just a framework, is that it doesn't fit every case. Giving some leeway to the subdivisions within set limits will make the GCAP much more practical and likely to be supported and followed, instead of searching for workarounds.

I know I am definitely not looking for free reign. Just looking for ways to ensure the final policy is workable and pragmatic, so that I can follow it.

 

[Collin Koldoff]

2 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

Apologize for being blunt here. Leaving this to the sub-divisions is what was done pre GRP. They took that power and ran with it. It was impossible to certify places. Facilities were exclusive only to the  point that you had to know the right people and be liked by them to get in or get training. Not everyone could become a controller.

You can not govern all of ATC training and sub divisions the same way.  Ex. VATUSA does not work the same as VATUK.  If facilities are having issues then deal with them directly.  You are trying to eliminate the problem by enforcing rules which effectively lowers the quality of services and reduce the standard for training.

I have not seen any issues in VATUSA in the last 3 years where you had to know people just to get training and if there were issues why weren't they dealt with directly.
The only reason I have seen people getting rejected training is when they are not up the task and showing no progress over multiple training sessions with multiple mentors.

[1341101]

1 hour ago, Collin Koldoff said:

You can not govern all of ATC training and sub divisions the same way.  Ex. VATUSA does not work the same as VATUK.  If facilities are having issues then deal with them directly.  You are trying to eliminate the problem by enforcing rules which effectively lowers the quality of services and reduce the standard for training.

I have not seen any issues in VATUSA in the last 3 years where you had to know people just to get training and if there were issues why weren't they dealt with directly.
The only reason I have seen people getting rejected training is when they are not up the task and showing no progress over multiple training sessions with multiple mentors.

This. VATSIM's sub-divisions are NOT the same and you should NOT be generalising all of them into the same model because they are different and placing restrictions under this influence will benefit one, but will harm a lot of others.

[Erik Quinn]

2 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

Apologize for being blunt here. Leaving this to the sub-divisions is what was done pre GRP. They took that power and ran with it. It was impossible to certify places. Facilities were exclusive only to the  point that you had to know the right people and be liked by them to get in or get training. Not everyone could become a controller.

Your predecessors ruined that. What I'm hearing from a lot of the heartburn, not the actual suggestions, is that you want to be more restrictive or are going to look for ways to get around things. This is exactly why there is a current global policy.

So no, sub-divisions are not going to be given free reign here. We are looking for suggestions as to how we can make this policy work. However just let my kingdom decide isn't a tenable suggestion.

Matt,

Rather than debating the "leave it to the subdivision" topic, would you please answer the question of the original post of this thread? It is an extremely important distinction that needs clarification.

[Manuel Manigault]

That’s the way I took it during our discussions:  Minor = ratings alone.  Restricted = a theoretical session.  Major = theoretical and OTS.

[Erik Quinn]

2 hours ago, Manuel Manigault said:

That’s the way I took it during our discussions:  Minor = ratings alone.  Restricted = a theoretical session.  Major = theoretical and OTS.

So... For a restricted field, I can't practice anything with the trainee then? At all?

If I'm not allowed to give them the chance to practice on sweatbox with the things that caused the field to be designed as "restricted", how could I possibly determine whether they should be certified for that restricted field?

Or am I supposed to certify them for it regardless-- meaning I can force them to listen to me teach something, and once I'm done talking, they're checked out?

[Manuel Manigault]

14 hours ago, Erik Quinn said:

So... For a restricted field, I can't practice anything with the trainee then? At all?

If I'm not allowed to give them the chance to practice on sweatbox with the things that caused the field to be designed as "restricted", how could I possibly determine whether they should be certified for that restricted field?

Or am I supposed to certify them for it regardless-- meaning I can force them to listen to me teach something, and once I'm done talking, they're checked out?

For Restricted, you would be allowed to have a theoretical session including a Sweatbox session to show concepts and allow the student to practice.  The student would not be graded on the practice (i.e. pass/fail).  The endorsement signifies that the informational session took place.

Edited July 23, 2021 at 05:30 PM by Manuel Manigault

[Andre Almeida]

And how many of those informational sessions can be held before the Trainee receives the endorsement? Or is it 1 session and the endorsement must be given, regardless of the Trainees performance?

[Manuel Manigault]

I imagine it would be one session in most cases.  The airport has just enough complexity that an ARTCC would feel the need to walk a student through the airspace first, but it doesn't have the traffic levels and complexity to make it a major field.  Aspen Airport (KASE) comes to mind.  It is a somewhat busy one runway airport in a box canyon with high MVA's.  The airport has opposing ops (one way in and one way out in opposite direction).  During busy events, you have to hold aircraft.  The phraseology is unique because of the high MVAs and possibility for excessive tailwinds.

Edited July 24, 2021 at 12:46 AM by Manuel Manigault

[Erik Quinn]

@Manuel Manigault The potential concern would be... What about the rare (but inevitable) case where the controller clearly does not understand and demonstrates a complete inability to apply the procedures we reviewed together?

Aspen is a perfect example. If they repeatedly put aircraft into mountains and other traffic etc, are we allowed to withhold the endorsement? That's the logical thing to do, but it sounds like this wouldn't be allowed...

[Matthew Bartels]

You would be able to withhold. The GCAP states a limited amount of training. It is intentionally vague here to allow for variance. It means it can be more than 1 session, but it can’t be the same amount required for a major.

We’re trusting sub-divisons will make the right call here.

[Erik Quinn]

7 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

You would be able to withhold. The GCAP states a limited amount of training. It is intentionally vague here to allow for variance. It means it can be more than 1 session, but it can’t be the same amount required for a major.

We’re trusting sub-divisons will make the right call here.

Okay, that sounds much better.

I would have considered application of the special local procedures on sweatbox and assessing whether or not they understand and apply them correctly to qualify as a "practical assessment". Based on your response, this does not qualify as one, which is a relief.

So I would ask that we please add it to the definitions in Section 2 to remove the gray area, and make it clear what exactly is disallowed. Because it sounds like we CAN conduct live/network training, multiple sessions if needed, and withhold the cert if we determine performance to be inadequate-- and the only restrictions are to use limited training time and no "full-blown" OTSs. That all makes sense and it very much agreeable, it just needs to be made much clearer.

I propose to add to Section 2:

"Practical Examination - A large scale, complete and thorough inspection of controller competency for a given position, conducted on the live network, the results of which determine whether a certification is to be awarded."

[Martijn Rammeloo]

And this all implies that you cannot get a higher rating at a restricted airfield? Because a CPT would be needed to achieve that.

Martijn

 

[Erik Quinn]

1 hour ago, Martijn Rammeloo said:

And this all implies that you cannot get a higher rating at a restricted airfield? Because a CPT would be needed to achieve that.

Martijn

 

Absolutely... If you are restricting an airfield, you're doing so because "it's more complex than the rest of the minors". So you should always be doing the CPT on minor airports when it comes to rating promotions.

After that promotion is when training on the restricted/major endorsements should be started.

[Matthew Bartels]

^bingo. By doing this, you also can have people controlling more positions while waiting for endorsement training.

[Andre Almeida]

To make sure I understood correctly, CPTs must always be held on minors, they can no longer be held on either restricted or major airports? Even if the sub-division would prefer to do it on their major, they're not allowed?

Edited July 24, 2021 at 04:25 PM by Andre Almeida

[Dhruv Kalra]

6 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

^bingo. By doing this, you also can have people controlling more positions while waiting for endorsement training.

Great, so I check someone out to S1/2/3 on Fargo, they never see a single airplane in the wild for 3 weeks, and they leave. Or we use those 3 weeks to finish their major cert on MSP. Which is a better use of my students’/instructors’ time?

The powers that be really need to stop counting meaningless hours spent staring at nothing as “productive”. Empty stats are just that - empty. You’re creating the illusion of access when it’s not actually propped up by meaningful pilot/controller interaction.

Edited July 24, 2021 at 08:44 PM by Dhruv Kalra

[Matthew Bartels]

@Dhruv Kalra Let me tell you a little story about Don Fiveash.