Transferring Within/Between Divisions

[Andreas Fuchs]

That would be the problem of said "tourist". He knew before he travelled.

Overall, I am positive that nearly all candidates will embrace this, because they will still climb the ladder quite a bit quicker, compared to waiting for 6 to 9 months before starting training at their original facility. Is everyone else here so pessimistic as well? What's going on?

[Matthew Bartels]

The logic here is simple. For example, if you want to control in the UK you wait your turn in the queue. If you just want to control faster and don't really care where, then you transfer someplace that has little to no queue. You get to control and everyone is happy.

What this policy is stopping is the person who's too important to wait their turn in the queue and instead transfers somewhere to "cut the line" and transfers back out after completing the rating training. That is 1000% a selfish practice and helps nobody other than the controller themself. The training division / sub-division loses with absolutely no return on their training investment. The students who legitimately want to control that airspace lose as they could have received those training resources first. The receiving division loses because now they have to do a competency check on them which utilizes scarce training resources that can be dedicated to their students. The students further lose because they've been waiting their turn patiently, yet you cut infront of them and ultimately the pilots lose because there is less staffing in the place you transferred from because you had no intent to work that area and because you usurped the training resources there other controllers were not trained.

End result. If you're looking to do this. You need to think long and hard about if it's worth it, because It's likely that you're not granted a waiver if the people that can grant them know what you did.

[Jeremy Peterson]

7 minutes ago, Matthew Bartels said:

you cut infront of them

When do transfers get priority over home controllers? Maybe I'm rusty since I haven't been a mentor in more than a year but I'm scratching my head at this part.

As a whole, I understand the problem this is trying to address; however, I don't think this solution is properly calibrated. The solution presented here--dis-incentivizing transfers--is akin to closing all the exits off a highway tollway (that way there's "value" received by the owner of the tollway when someone uses it) when there's a ton of construction and standstill traffic and making all the electronic signs read:

THE MOST RESPONSIBLE THING
TO DO IS TO WAIT IN TRAFFIC
UNTIL YOU REACH YOUR DESTI-
NATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE.

I don't see how this is an appropriate solution (hint: traffic jams = training lines/queues, the tollway = training progression at a facility, drivers = students, electronic signs = policy, closing all the exits = transfer restrictions). Start with why there's a delay in the first place.

[Andreas Fuchs]

11 hours ago, Jeremy Peterson said:

Start with why there's a delay in the first place.

We all know that VATSIM is mostly under-crewed on the training side, that's a fact. What can we do? Increase the pay, the number of off-days? Obviously not. That's why I wrote that VATSIM needs to find a way to use its limited human resources in a more efficient way.

One concept is to put not just one candidate into basic training, but 3, 4 or 5. Talking about what VATSIM is, how the processes work, how you work DEL and GND, can be done in bulk. The actual training sessions on the network have to be one-on-one, of course. But even during these live training sessions you can have other trainees listen and watch to learn. This will then most likely result in them learning faster when it will be their turn to perform live training on the network.

[Dhruv Kalra]

11 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

We all know that VATSIM is mostly under-crewed on the training side, that's a fact. What can we do? Increase the pay, the number of off-days? Obviously not. That's why I wrote that VATSIM needs to find a way to use its limited human resources in a more efficient way.

One concept is to put not just one candidate into basic training, but 3, 4 or 5. Talking about what VATSIM is, how the processes work, how you work DEL and GND, can be done in bulk. The actual training sessions on the network have to be one-on-one, of course. But even during these live training sessions you can have other trainees listen and watch to learn. This will then most likely result in them learning faster when it will be their turn to perform live training on the network.

My vARTCC already does this for all ratings through S2. Minimum of 2 students if not more per training session.

[Andreas Fuchs]

9 hours ago, Dhruv Kalra said:

My vARTCC already does this for all ratings through S2. Minimum of 2 students if not more per training session.

Excellent! I know of other facilities who never heard and never even thought about this. I hope they will have a look at it.

[Phil Dowling]

On 7/24/2021 at 5:46 PM, Kolby Dunning said:

Hypothetically, by these policies:

9.01(d)A Transfer controller must control at their current ATS Rating for 100 hours prior to
transferring to another Sub-Division or Division.

9.01(e)A Transfer Controller who has utilized live training resources shall be subject to the time
frame in 9.01(d) of 200 hours.

 

What would happen if a transfer controller did 2 training sessions, did not enjoy the program and wanted to go somewhere else? By 9.01e they would need to commit 200 hours prior to being able to transfer to another sub-division. 9.01f does state that the requirements can be waived in 'exceptional circumstances', but this happens often enough where I personally wouldn't consider it one.

 

9.01d seems a bit high for me, but I understand how other sub-divisions could benefit. 9.01e is the part that concerns me.

 

Being in a 'smaller' FIR, we have had the issue of rating tourists in the past. Although, this has only happened once or twice in the two years I've been in Winnipeg. Most of our controllers come from different FIRs in Canada seeking shorter training queues, but end up staying with us and visiting other places instead of leaving immediately after finishing their C1. I think the 200 hour requirement will push away more controllers who are trying to legitimately transfer than the time saved with rating tourists.

@Kolby Dunning

To your point around the controller that did not complete the program.  This is why this exists:

Quote

9.01(f) The time requirements specified in 9.01(d) and (e) may be waived in exceptional circumstances by the Sub-Division Director, Division Director, or Regional Vice President from which the controller is transferring.

I think it fair to say that in most cases, a reasonable request from a student who wasn't having fun is not going to get denied.  If Nate, for example, was happy for a student to move who was not having any fun, then he would be free to waive the hours requirement.  Keeping in mind it's Nate's Sub-Div resources that are being "squandered" if you want to take the negative view of it 🙂

 

Personally.  I am a big fan of this part of the policy.  For way too long, Divisions/Sub-Divisions around all of VATSIM have invested significant volunteer time into training students, only in some cases, for those students to take that time and move elsewhere with it.  While I agree that members can enjoy this hobby in any way they wish, there is a common courtesy element that is sometimes fundamentally ignored.  If we want to keep attracting volunteer resources to invest this kind of time, we need to build healthy, active facilities.  We are not going to achieve that by investing significant time training folks just for them to walk away to somewhere else.  That creates frustration and annoyance for those performing the time investment.

While there are many that disagree with that POV, I will stand by it every day of the week.  After 24 years in this hobby I have seen it hold true day in and out.  Investment needs return.  Doesn't matter if it is $$$ or time.  It seems like it is one of those rules of life, while it may not make tangible sense.  It just is :). We can sit here and argue the toss about whether it's "reasonable" or "fair" in this millennial world where everything should be given for free with no expectation of return.   However, that doesn't change the fact that the "rule" hasn't changed and folks who invest significant time in volunteering to train folks, expect to see some return on that investment.

VATSIM, IMO would be blithering idiots if they failed to see that and understand that and thus, protect it.  But I think VATSIM, in this instance, has done a great job of putting 9.01(f) in place to give the management of the Sub-Div or Div the ability to override the requirement in those outlier instances where, as you rightly point out Kolby, it might be needed.

 

To give you one last example of my point Kolby, directly aiming at your particular soft spot ;).  What if you had designed and put all the incredible work you put into the VATCAN website and then no one used it because they all transferred off to VATUSA.  Would that not frustrate you?

 

Thanks for the great discussion guys!

Phil

[Jonathan Halverson]

2 minutes ago, Philip Dowling said:

@Kolby Dunning

To your point around the controller that did not complete the program.  This is why this exists:

I think it fair to say that in most cases, a reasonable request from a student who wasn't having fun is not going to get denied.  If Nate, for example, was happy for a student to move who was not having any fun, then he would be free to waive the hours requirement.  Keeping in mind it's Nate's Sub-Div resources that are being "squandered" if you want to take the negative view of it 🙂

 

Personally.  I am a big fan of this part of the policy.  For way too long, Divisions/Sub-Divisions around all of VATSIM have invested significant volunteer time into training students, only in some cases, for those students to take that time and move elsewhere with it.  While I agree that members can enjoy this hobby in any way they wish, there is a common courtesy element that is sometimes fundamentally ignored.  If we want to keep attracting volunteer resources to invest this kind of time, we need to build healthy, active facilities.  We are not going to achieve that by investing significant time training folks just for them to walk away to somewhere else.  That creates frustration and annoyance for those performing the time investment.

While there are many that disagree with that POV, I will stand by it every day of the week.  After 24 years in this hobby I have seen it hold true day in and out.  Investment needs return.  Doesn't matter if it is $$$ or time.  It seems like it is one of those rules of life, while it may not make tangible sense.  It just is :). We can sit here and argue the toss about whether it's "reasonable" or "fair" in this millennial world where everything should be given for free with no expectation of return.   However, that doesn't change the fact that the "rule" hasn't changed and folks who invest significant time in volunteering to train folks, expect to see some return on that investment.

VATSIM, IMO would be blithering idiots if they failed to see that and understand that and thus, protect it.  But I think VATSIM, in this instance, has done a great job of putting 9.01(f) in place to give the management of the Sub-Div or Div the ability to override the requirement in those outlier instances where, as you rightly point out Kolby, it might be needed.

 

To give you one last example of my point Kolby, directly aiming at your particular soft spot ;).  What if you had designed and put all the incredible work you put into the VATCAN website and then no one used it because they all transferred off to VATUSA.  Would that not frustrate you?

 

Thanks for the great discussion guys!

Phil

I agree with the intent of this policy and don't really have any opinion either way about the specific hour requirements or what have you, but a request from a student to transfer because they didn't like the program or didn't want to wait doesn't seem like "exceptional circumstances" and flies completely in the face of the whole point of the policy in the first place. 

[Phil Dowling]

Hey Jonathan

Perhaps you are right in that it is not "exceptional".  However it is certainly understandable.

 

Phil

[Liesel Downes]

On 7/27/2021 at 6:18 AM, Dhruv Kalra said:

One concept is to put not just one candidate into basic training, but 3, 4 or 5. Talking about what VATSIM is, how the processes work, how you work DEL and GND, can be done in bulk. The actual training sessions on the network have to be one-on-one, of course. But even during these live training sessions you can have other trainees listen and watch to learn. This will then most likely result in them learning faster when it will be their turn to perform live training on the network.

The prime example of a division that is a victim of outbound rating tourism, the UK, already does this to the point where I think two dozen students attend a seminar together and then proceed to one to one mentoring to get an S1. Even when doing bulk training like this, the UK still currently has a 7-9 month rating time made worse by England ending all COVID restrictions.

[August Walentin]

On 7/24/2021 at 11:18 AM, Andreas Fuchs said:

Hi Kolby,

how often do you or your instructors invest several hours into a single candidate, just to see him become inactive after a few weeks or months? At least overhere in our region this happens a lot and probably only one out of ten ATCO-trainees stay for more than 6 to 12 months, before disappearing, making all the training become lost time. Let's say, one instructor needs to spend 6 hours of practical training for one student advancing from zero to DEL/GND/TWR. With the above statistics  in mind, 9 times 6 hours (=36 hours) could be lost, maybe even more!

Looking at the bigger picture, if someone just wants to come to a place to get a rating and then go to a place that they originally wanted to control at (but there may be a backlog of training, increased training demands etc.), then you also lose your invested time and effort. At least have them control for a couple of months to donate time as well to promote your own facility/VACC. That's just fair, because your team has donated dozens of hours to train new arrivals.

 

The biggest issue of VATSIM is the scarcity of human resources (because we are a volunteer organization in a very specialized niche) and also the fact that we are not very good at efficiently managing them. That's something where we need to improve.

This is similar to what my country has but it's a bit trickier for mine because we have no Training Assistant and lack of active mentors. Then it's also that the training takes time because they train you immediately in my division from OBS to S2 whilst just having S1 as a intermediate rating. Then considering that not so many control in the FIR which I am in. Maybe we get Center 1 - 3 times a week on average!

I can totally agree with most of what you said. It's good that it requires all these hours because else it's really a waste of time and effort considering it could have been taken on another student which would have more dedication! 

[Greg Barber]

Sorry I missed these two paragraphs when I had my first read as I was focused on the bits that replace GRP and not on these significant changes to the Visiting and Transfer Controller Policy.

I have to agree with the OP here.  Requiring 200hours before transferring is a ridiculous requirement.  I get that sub-divisions who do the training want some return for their work but why does this requirement have to affect genuine requests for region transfers?  We already have a requirement to "consildate your rating" so if a Subdivision/Division feels this hasn't happened then deny the transfer.

We have included a third paragraph stating that this requirement can be waived "in exceptional circumstances".  How exceptional are excpetional circumstances?  Shouldn't it be up to the departing division to decide if the controller has "consolidated their rating"?

I fear that such demanding requirements are contradictory to what the rest of this document aims to achieve, and that is to increase access to ATC.

Consider a scenario where someone who has their S2 and 40hours from VATPAC physically moves to the UK and wants to become a VATUK member.  They should be allowed to, not restricted by red-tape about how pissed off the VATPAC training department is that they only got 40hours out of the 4 hours they put into training them.

Keep the old language.  Remove stupid restrictions on allowing people to control because training directors don't like it.  And before anyone starts flaming....I"M A TRAINING DIRECTOR and I think this part of the policy is rubbish and has been generated by selfish people who don't have the best interests of VATSIM at heart, they only care about about their own interests or their home facility's interests. 

PS:  200hours at 2 hours per week will take 2 years to complete.  If I was faced with this requirement, I would simply stop controlling.  I don't think that's what anyone wants.  It's a hobby, not a job.

Edited September 5, 2021 at 12:38 AM by Greg Barber

[Matthew Bartels]

14 hours ago, Greg Barber said:

Sorry I missed these two paragraphs when I had my first read as I was focused on the bits that replace GRP and not on these significant changes to the Visiting and Transfer Controller Policy.

I have to agree with the OP here.  Requiring 200hours before transferring is a ridiculous requirement.  I get that sub-divisions who do the training want some return for their work but why does this requirement have to affect genuine requests for region transfers?  We already have a requirement to "consildate your rating" so if a Subdivision/Division feels this hasn't happened then deny the transfer.

We have included a third paragraph stating that this requirement can be waived "in exceptional circumstances".  How exceptional are excpetional circumstances?  Shouldn't it be up to the departing division to decide if the controller has "consolidated their rating"?

I fear that such demanding requirements are contradictory to what the rest of this document aims to achieve, and that is to increase access to ATC.

Consider a scenario where someone who has their S2 and 40hours from VATPAC physically moves to the UK and wants to become a VATUK member.  They should be allowed to, not restricted by red-tape about how pissed off the VATPAC training department is that they only got 40hours out of the 4 hours they put into training them.

Keep the old language.  Remove stupid restrictions on allowing people to control because training directors don't like it.  And before anyone starts flaming....I"M A TRAINING DIRECTOR and I think this part of the policy is rubbish and has been generated by selfish people who don't have the best interests of VATSIM at heart, they only care about about their own interests or their home facility's interests. 

PS:  200hours at 2 hours per week will take 2 years to complete.  If I was faced with this requirement, I would simply stop controlling.  I don't think that's what anyone wants.  It's a hobby, not a job.

Greg,

The language here is actually a lot more relaxed than the current GRP.  In the current GRP you have to wait 90 days or get a waiver from a division or region director. This language puts the waiver ability in the hands of the place that invested the resources as well as provides a path for escalation. If I have a legitimate waiver reason, and the place that trained me is being petty, then I take it to the DD who will have a discussion with the subdivision as well as override that petty decision.

In the current GRP, I have to wait 90 days to transfer unless i get a waiver. During that time I could contribute 0 hours to the subdivision after getting a rating. I could just as easily stop controlling faced with that requirement. 

The way this is worded, it allows for transfer far earlier than the 90 days even if all of your appeals are denied, which in itself is highly unlikely. In such a case, you’re right, I could just quit;  but also I could just grin and bear it and put in 4,5,10 hours a day and knock out that requirement in less than a month. 

If VATPAC is getting 40 hours out of someone they put 4 hours into becoming an S2, then I would say that’s a pretty good return on investment. However, that’s not the case in large swaths of VATSIM. The training time put into students far exceeds what they get back. You can invert your example here, 40 instructor hours (Prep, Conducting Training, Evaluation, etc) to get that S2 their rating. Then they control 4 or less hours prior to transferring somewhere else. 

[Ben Lindsey]

4 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

Greg,

The language here is actually a lot more relaxed than the current GRP.  In the current GRP you have to wait 90 days or get a waiver from a division or region director. This language puts the waiver ability in the hands of the place that invested the resources as well as provides a path for escalation. If I have a legitimate waiver reason, and the place that trained me is being petty, then I take it to the DD who will have a discussion with the subdivision as well as override that petty decision.

In the current GRP, I have to wait 90 days to transfer unless i get a waiver. During that time I could contribute 0 hours to the subdivision after getting a rating. I could just as easily stop controlling faced with that requirement. 

The way this is worded, it allows for transfer far earlier than the 90 days even if all of your appeals are denied, which in itself is highly unlikely. In such a case, you’re right, I could just quit;  but also I could just grin and bear it and put in 4,5,10 hours a day and knock out that requirement in less than a month. 

If VATPAC is getting 40 hours out of someone they put 4 hours into becoming an S2, then I would say that’s a pretty good return on investment. However, that’s not the case in large swaths of VATSIM. The training time put into students far exceeds what they get back. You can invert your example here, 40 instructor hours (Prep, Conducting Training, Evaluation, etc) to get that S2 their rating. Then they control 4 or less hours prior to transferring somewhere else. 

It's inconceivable to say that these restrictions are more relaxed than the current GRP. Per your own words, you're "lucky to be able to control 1 hour every few months" but now you're also suggesting that it's reasonable to expect people to put in upwards of 4 hours per day in order to be able to transfer within two months of using live training resources. If they want to transfer within 3 months, they would need to put in over two hours per day.

If you put in your "1 hour every few months" (let's say 1 hour every three months, for a total of 4 per year), that would take you 50 years in order to be eligible for a transfer. Even if you don't use live training resources, it would still take you 25 years to be able to transfer. I hope you really like controlling where you are currently...

I'm all for attempting to increase efficiency of training resource usage, but if someone really wants to transfer, making them sit on positions they don't want to control for 200 hours isn't helping anyone. If I don't like the airspace I have to control in, I'm much more likely to stop controlling than put nearly 200 more hours into the airspace I wish to get away from. Even if I don't use training resources, 100 hours is still a massive amount of time before being able to transfer.

The current transfer requirements instituted in §1.3 and 1.4 of the TVCP (50 hours to consolidate + 90 days) are perfectly reasonable. I could see a slightly lower hour requirement (25 hours or so) being added for transfer controllers not receiving a rating change, but 100-200 hours is ludicrous and will likely cause more controllers to quit rather than put in the multiple hours per day required if they want to transfer within a few months.

 

Edited September 5, 2021 at 07:47 PM by Ben Lindsey

[Filippo Genoni 1533729]

Here I have to agree to everyone who says 200hours are too much

I took my S1 on February, I control like 3-4 times a week and now I have around 120 hours. So If the policy was already active in February, I had to control more than a year to transfer. Now I took my S1 with live training resources in 7 sweat box sessions, so It’s around 8 hours a mentor spent on me, not 200

Edited September 18, 2021 at 09:28 AM by Filippo Genoni

[Phil Dowling]

On 9/18/2021 at 5:27 AM, Filippo Genoni said:

Here I have to agree to everyone who says 200hours are too much

I took my S1 on February, I control like 3-4 times a week and now I have around 120 hours. So If the policy was already active in February, I had to control more than a year to transfer. Now I took my S1 with live training resources in 7 sweat box sessions, so It’s around 8 hours a mentor spent on me, not 200

Fillippo. 

So in your example.  I can possibly get behind that.  As you are talking about a single rating and only 8 hours of instructor time expended.  So in that case, should you then wish to transfer somewhere then the division could look at waiving the requirement given the low hours used in training.  Which is why that possibility exists.

However, if you had attained C1, I think we would be talking MANY more hours of time investment by an instructor and thus the 200 hr requirement would be more applicable.  

Keeping in mind all the points already said.  The instructors are volunteers and despite opinion to the contrary.  It's not always "fun and enjoyable" to be training folks in their spare time.  It may possibly be rewarding, however not when they see folks they have invested a lot of time into moving to other areas which do not benefit the division they were instructed in.  That is demoralising to the instructor.  There is always multiple angles on these things and while it is all very well to be thinking from the student angle, I think a little thought around the instructor angle is also warranted.  

The policy needs to be a guardrail with the potential for, in reasonable circumstances, for a division to waive the requirement, which I think it has achieved.  The use of the waiver would need to be assessed on a case by case basis.  

 

Phil

[Filippo Genoni 1533729]

21 hours ago, Philip Dowling said:

Fillippo. 

So in your example.  I can possibly get behind that.  As you are talking about a single rating and only 8 hours of instructor time expended.  So in that case, should you then wish to transfer somewhere then the division could look at waiving the requirement given the low hours used in training.  Which is why that possibility exists.

However, if you had attained C1, I think we would be talking MANY more hours of time investment by an instructor and thus the 200 hr requirement would be more applicable.  

Keeping in mind all the points already said.  The instructors are volunteers and despite opinion to the contrary.  It's not always "fun and enjoyable" to be training folks in their spare time.  It may possibly be rewarding, however not when they see folks they have invested a lot of time into moving to other areas which do not benefit the division they were instructed in.  That is demoralising to the instructor.  There is always multiple angles on these things and while it is all very well to be thinking from the student angle, I think a little thought around the instructor angle is also warranted.  

The policy needs to be a guardrail with the potential for, in reasonable circumstances, for a division to waive the requirement, which I think it has achieved.  The use of the waiver would need to be assessed on a case by case basis.  

 

Phil

And I have to agree with this, but we are here to have fun, no? If I’m a controller of a low-traffic sector I would soon get tired of doing 90% of sessions thinking “If I’m lucky I’ll have 2 airplanes on my frequency at the same time”. But I want to have some fun, like in the UK or in the Netherlands. But no, I can’t go there because I have to do 200 hours in a low-traffic sector doing boring sessions. I think that I would leave controlling soon because where’s the fun?

I agree that mentors spend time a lot of time on us, but 50 hours and 3 months are a good time requirement in my opinion. 

21 hours ago, Philip Dowling said:

It's not always "fun and enjoyable" to be training folks in their spare time.  It may possibly be rewarding, however not when they see folks they have invested a lot of time into moving to other areas which do not benefit the division they were instructed in.  That is demoralising to the instructor.  There is always multiple angles on these things and while it is all very well to be thinking from the student angle, I think a little thought around the instructor angle is also warranted.  

Mentors are crucial and I respect them and their amazing work, but a mentor, if is a mentor, means he likes to train students. If he feels demoralised or he isn’t having fun in what he does, he just have to resign from his position. Mentors are also here to have fun, and if the don’t have fun in what they do, no one forces them to continue 🙂

Filippo

[Matthew Bartels]

5 minutes ago, Filippo Genoni said:

Mentors are crucial and I respect them and their amazing work, but a mentor, if is a mentor, means he likes to train students. If he feels demoralised or he isn’t having fun in what he does, he just have to resign from his position. Mentors are also here to have fun, and if the don’t have fun in what they do, no one forces them to continue 🙂

Again, this isn’t always the case. Many instructors and mentors take on that responsibility to give back to the network. They want to see their divisions and sub-divisions succeed and have controllers online. Instructing is very rewarding when your students get certified and start controlling. It’s a necessary duty, and one that these volunteers are owed everything for taking on. While it is rewarding, it’s not really fun and can be immensely frustrating when a student doesn’t come to a session prepared.  

[Joshua Jenkins]

55 minutes ago, Matthew Bartels said:

While it is rewarding, it’s not really fun and can be immensely frustrating when a student doesn’t come to a session prepared.  

I'm not an instructor yet so I can't speak directly to that part. However, as a mentor, if you're mentoring people just for the sake of pushing as many people through the system as possible, you're doing it for the wrong reasons (in my opinion). While I won't deny it can be frustrating at times, I find mentoring has always been "fun" for me and I think it really should be for anyone who wants to be a mentor (or an instructor).

But to address the main topic, most of the "what-if" arguments I've seen against the 200 hour policy in this thread, they seem to be covered under the waiver clause. If someone legitimately is not enjoying their current FIR/ARTCC/division, then talk to the people in charge and explain your situation. I'm sure most of the time you will be able to get a waiver (again if you have a legitimate reason).

[Phil Dowling]

Hey Josh.
 

1 hour ago, Josh Jenk said:

But to address the main topic, most of the "what-if" arguments I've seen against the 200 hour policy in this thread, they seem to be covered under the waiver clause. If someone legitimately is not enjoying their current FIR/ARTCC/division, then talk to the people in charge and explain your situation. I'm sure most of the time you will be able to get a waiver (again if you have a legitimate reason).

I think you hit the nail on the head here 🙂

 

1 hour ago, Josh Jenk said:

I'm not an instructor yet so I can't speak directly to that part. However, as a mentor, if you're mentoring people just for the sake of pushing as many people through the system as possible, you're doing it for the wrong reasons (in my opinion). While I won't deny it can be frustrating at times, I find mentoring has always been "fun" for me and I think it really should be for anyone who wants to be a mentor (or an instructor).

I think on this there is varying mileage.  I have been instructing on and off for a lot of years.  Some days it's fun, most days it's not.  However I have consumed my fair share of instructor time and it's time to give back.  But for me, the very worst thing to see is someone expend my time only to then go elsewhere.  I think there is a sense of ownership amongst most mentors and instructors to their own home FIR/ARTCC and they are not in the business of instructing for VATSIM as a whole.  They are in the business of helping THEIR FIR and that is a lot of the motivation.  I think the idea here is protecting that motivation because VATSIM is a sum of all it's parts.  The folks motivated by their small chunk of VATSIM are ultimately feeding VATSIM as a whole.  If we lose that motivation then the whole begins to crumble.  Which is taking the example a little far, but you get what I mean.  

I don't think most instructors/mentors get into it to push numbers.  99% of the motivation I have ever seen is to help their fellow controllers AND their FIR/ARTCC.  

Which is why I fully support the 100/200hr rule.  With the built in caveat that exceptions can be made as necessary.

 

Phil

[Phil Dowling]

Filippo

3 hours ago, Filippo Genoni said:

And I have to agree with this, but we are here to have fun, no? If I’m a controller of a low-traffic sector I would soon get tired of doing 90% of sessions thinking “If I’m lucky I’ll have 2 airplanes on my frequency at the same time”. But I want to have some fun, like in the UK or in the Netherlands. But no, I can’t go there because I have to do 200 hours in a low-traffic sector doing boring sessions. I think that I would leave controlling soon because where’s the fun?

A couple of comments on this.  Firstly, if you are a controller in a low traffic sector.  Then you are there at your choice as that is where you chose to train.  So surely you knew this when selecting to train there right?

Secondly.  To your comment of "where's the fun".  Well there is also the argument of "if you staff it they will come" and while I know many question this philosophy.  I have seen it bear out way too many times to ignore it across the several years I have been involved with this hobby.  But to your point, I agree there needs to be a little fun in the mix.  So I don't think there is anything preventing you getting a visitors endorsement to somewhere a little busier yet still, spending a good chunk of time in that less busy airspace helping to build traffic by staffing it regularily.

The issue here is that there is many places in the world that are "dull" and "boring".  I remember days when the UK was dull and boring because I controlled there in those days.  Until we staffed it regularily and very quickly it became far less dull and boring.  However, it requires some dedication and faith in the fact that time investment = results.  Nothing in this hobby is an "instant gratification" proposition and those who think it is, seem to have the least fun.

So my suggestion to someone not having any fun because of a lack of traffic is this.  Go visit somewhere a little busier, get a little fun, but KEEP staffing that slow airspace, because when folks see people on there regularily....they will start to fly there.

 

Phil