Ability to restrict visiting controllers to minor airports/airspace only

[Luka Stevens]

I propose the ability to restrict visiting controllers to minor airports/airspace only due to the high demand for training at (some) majors. While this will certainly not help all subdivisions or solve all issues I'm sure it will help with easing the training of visiting controllers and give a balance between local and visiting controllers. 

Currently there is no way to restrict visiting controllers to apply for training at major airports/airspace. 

 

[Rick Rump]

They can apply for the training at a major, but you control the flow at the major. If they languish on the vine for a year because your home controllers are taking up the major training, then so be it. Major training/cert is a right, not a privilege, in my opinion.

[Thimo Koolen]

But if visitors open up, for example 50 visitors apply for the major. Then that will block home controllers for a long time from getting trained, as they join the queue after that.

[Phil Dowling]

48 minutes ago, Rick Rump said:

but you control the flow at the major

 

I think the answer is within Ricks answer 🙂

 

Phil

[Matthew Bartels]

Within reason, yes. I don’t think its right to shut off your major airports completely and indefinitely to visitors. Surely there can be something that allows for visitors to still be trained within a reasonable timeframe whilst still giving most of your time to home controllers.

[Thimo Koolen]

I had the following idea, which in my opinion is the fairest for everyone: it allows for visitors to also control on major airfields, but still gives the main priority to home controllers.

The idea entails the following. There are two waiting lists (for the major endorsement): one for home controllers and one for visiting controllers.

The idea follows the following guidelines:

- Training is on a first come, first serve basis. So the people the longest on a given list, are first;

- There's a ratio between home and visiting controllers. I suggest something like 1 in 5, but that can be discussed of course;

- Visiting controllers will never have training earlier than a home controller joining the queue at the same date or before;

- If there's a visiting controller in between two home controller's joining dates, that visiting controller gets training;

- Now there's 5 home controllers before the next visiting controller can receive training.

 

So in the above, simplified example: Home controllers A, B and C get training at a major. Another spot opens up. Now visitor F gets training, because they joined at the same time as C. Home controller D and visitor G joined at the same time. However, since there's a ratio of 1 visitor in 5 home controllers, the home controllers D and E receive training first. After three more, visitor G receives training, and so on. So priority is still within the home controllers (5 for every visitor), which will increase the amount of mentors/instructors (because, let's be honest, there's barely gonna be visitors becoming a mentor, and (sub-)divisions need them, it's a neccesity). And while priority is still within home controllers, it also gives visiting controllers a chance of controlling the major.

(Sub-)divisions need mentors/instructors so there is a need for priority of home controllers, which are more likely to become a mentor. I think this would be the fairest for everyone. The ratio is obviously something that can be adjusted or discussed, but I honestly feel that 1 in 5 is a pretty good trade off.

[Anastasios Petros Stefopou]

Visiting another airspace would be to control where the (most) traffic goes so shutting down majors for visitors wont help a lot, just in case there is an influx of controllers or no trainer availability. The schedule can be shared and any waiting times, then the visitor will decide either wait for the turn or visit elsewhere and come back once there is a free spot.