Real World Controller, Instructors/Mentors/Controlling

[Brad Littlejohn]

On 7/22/2021 at 6:28 PM, Thomas Hawke said:

As a Real World Controller (RWC), I know more than a few, that would be willing to come in at least to train on the positions they work.  I would like to see the "I" ratings to include that possibility, and or to bring in real world controllers to help train on positions they know and work.

My other idea is to allow RWC, to bypass certain certifications.  For example:   A RWC,  that is certified on Center, could work Center, for events, or RWC certified on a Tower, could work that tower. etc.

I know the "Top Down Model"  is a VATSIM idea, but it's one that could be fixed.

If an S1, is working a ground position and there is no controllers above  them, they say, change to unicom or advisory freq approved.    If a RWC, was rated as a C1, but not any position below them, and no other controllers online,  they could still say,  "No other controllers online, change to Unicom or advisory freq. approved.

You would encourage more  Real World Controllers to come work in VATUSA / VATSIM, you would get a higher quality of controlling, and training.  Making a RWC, center certified controller, start back at the bottom,  DEL / GND / TWR / MINOR / MAJOR / APP / then CTR.   is a poor business model, and why most RWC don't  come to VATSIM / VATUSA.

One thing we've always had, at least back in the early VATSIM and SATCO days, is that any real-world controller automagically received the rating of C1 here on the network. That would allow them to bypass all of the training to get to that particular level. Now, what happens for the particular sector/FIR they would control in is a different issue, but globally on the network, all real-world controllers started here as a C1 ranked controller.

BL.

 

[Dhruv Kalra]

1 hour ago, Thomas Hawke said:

Let me be clear.   The reason you don't get real world controllers is because the "Top Down Service" is flawed.   I could list several ways in which it fails. I don't know if you really want me to do that, in this forum.

I believe that everyone here wants to make VATSIM better.

Please answer this question.

Are you willing to take input from Real World Controllers?

 

I’m a real world controller™. I was a VATSIM controller long before I got into the FAA. Do I agree with top down being flawed? Only partially.

The top down model is borne out of necessity otherwise you’d have a bunch of center only guys staffed treating every core 30 field as one in, one out. Where’s there any semblance of enjoyment in that for the pilots?

FAA/ICAO/insert Aviation governing authority here-isms absolutely have their place on VATSIM, but the reality is that the staffing and aircraft density doesn’t lend itself well to treating the entire vNAS as “terminal facilities are all ATC0, so treat it as such”.

[Thomas Hawke]

You quoted this one post, but did you apparently didn't read the original post nor my subsequent responses.  Since you quoted only this one, let's stick with this quote for the moment.

Partial failure is still a failure.  One that should be addressed.

If you had real input from more real world controllers, you would get a better product. 

However the question I asked in this post was directed at the Board of Governors who responded earlier in this thread.

My question for the "BOG" still stands unanswered.
 

[Martijn Rammeloo]

Perhaps you could elaborate a bit about your solution for the top-down situation?

Martijn

 

[Thomas Hawke]

That would be a whole other post. The discussion here is Real World Controllers.

 

[Martijn Rammeloo]

1 hour ago, Thomas Hawke said:

That would be a whole other post. The discussion here is Real World Controllers.

 

Then, what is your point exactly? I am sure that any VACC would be glad to accept RW controllers as a member. Dutch VACC has some, and they are worth their weight in gold. Save for waiting lists, fast tracking RW controllers is a valid option, at least in Europe.

You mentioned top-down in your OP, and you keep referring to it, even pointing it out as the reason RW controllers don't join. As this is one of the more fundamental VATSIMisms, I am still curious about your ideas regarding this topic.

Martijn

 

[William Teale]

Strictly speaking, fast tracking RW controllers is a requirement of the visitors and transfer controllers policy, although in practice this does not seem to be observed.

[Greg Barber]

@Thomas Hawke

If a real world controller approached me about becoming an instructor I wouldn't hesitate.  As one of the other training directors said above, we simple can never have enough quality instructors.

I really don't see what the problem is here.  If you want to instruct, why can't you?

[Gunnar Lindahl]

On 7/29/2021 at 7:44 PM, Thomas Hawke said:

Let me be clear.   The reason you don't get real world controllers is because the "Top Down Service" is flawed.   I could list several ways in which it fails. I don't know if you really want me to do that, in this forum.

I believe that everyone here wants to make VATSIM better.

Please answer this question.

Are you willing to take input from Real World Controllers?

 

Hi Thomas,

A huge proportion of our member base are real-world pilots and controllers, so the answer to your question is: yes.

Now, what is your proposal?

[Thomas Hawke]

3 hours ago, Gunnar Lindahl said:

Hi Thomas,

A huge proportion of our member base are real-world pilots and controllers, so the answer to your question is: yes.

Now, what is your proposal?

I believe that VATSIM is at a turning point in growth and availability.  I see that you are experiencing "growing" pains in light of the explosion of people on the network and are having difficulty keeping up with it.

I am proposing that you bring real world controllers as consultants.  There are gaps in every aspect of VATSIM on how Air Traffic is taught, and applied. The decision making process, implementation, tools, everything. Real world controllers have had to go through the same process when traffic began to pick back up over the last few decades.

I am proposing you bring in real world controllers to help evaluate and implement real changes that would make your life and enjoyment of VATSIM so much better. 

I believe everyone here wants to have fun doing what we love, but I am hearing from so many people, in my facility and from a bunch of other facilities in VATUSA (mostly through DISCORD) that they are frustrated with so many aspects of what the realities that they face.

 

 

[Rick Rump]

5 hours ago, Thomas Hawke said:

I am proposing you bring in real world controllers to help evaluate and implement real changes that would make your life and enjoyment of VATSIM so much better. 

There are RL controllers on the review committee.

Though in general, any process can be improved and one way to do that is to have experts in both the process and continuous improvement taking a deep dive.

Edited August 1, 2021 at 07:55 PM by Rick Rump

[Magnus Meese]

8 hours ago, Thomas Hawke said:

I am proposing you bring in real world controllers to help evaluate and implement real changes that would make your life and enjoyment of VATSIM so much better. 

Consult on exactly what? Bring them in from where? Bring them in how? Do we pay them? They're not gonna come otherwise, so how do we pay them? Who sorts out taxes?

AS A CONTROLLER (note: it's not really necessary to write this every other minute, we all saw it the first time), I think you should stop thinking your job title makes you special. Sure as real controllers we can sometimes give valuable input here and there, but we're not gonna reshape the network ourself with our magical secret insight! And I have no idea how on earth you'll pull off recruiting a bunch of our colleagues to reshape VATSIM, most of them are already working more than they'd like with zero interest in doing it for free, because it's just a job. And I know plenty real™ controllers I would never in a million years want anywhere close to consulting or policy-making on VATSIM, sheesh.

Fast track policy for folks with a real license? Sure, but not for "training" or because real controllers are first class citizens. Only because if they really are serious about spending a significant amount of time online, and maybe even help train a few people, they will help a little alleviating an already flooded training queue and/or help on the activity front which is always welcome, whithout requiring more than a handfull sessions to get used to a whole bunch of VATSIMisms. And you give enroute folks too little credit, I know they mostly sit and think about what is gonna happen the next few hours, but I'm sure even they can learn what a runway is and roughly how to use it 😄 A top-down revamp/removal/special permit is not required, and not because of fear of change.

  

[Alistair Thomson]

14 hours ago, Gunnar Lindahl said:

A huge proportion of our member base are real-world pilots and controllers

14 hours ago, Gunnar Lindahl said:

Now, what is your proposal?

10 hours ago, Thomas Hawke said:

I am proposing that you bring real world controllers as consultants.

@ the OP: We already have RW controllers, taking part as normal (but experienced) members of VATSIM by providing ATC services, some of whom also fly. Some of these folks also contribute to VATSIM policy documents and if that isn't a definition of "consultant" then I don't know what is.

Are you envisaging a group of RW ATC experts who take no part in VATSIM activity except to advise? Do you see something wrong with RW controllers simply controlling on our network without the hubris of a consultancy?