Jump to content

You're browsing the 2004-2023 VATSIM Forums archive. All content is preserved in a read-only fashion.
For the latest forum posts, please visit https://forum.vatsim.net.

Need to find something? Use the Google search below.

Aircraft Requirements for Pilot Ratings


Danny Rice
 Share

Recommended Posts

Danny Rice
Posted
Posted

Why are the VATSIM Pilot rating aircraft requirements more restrictive that those of the FAA?  I am looking to take the P2 IFR check ride and wish to use a more modern aircraft, DA40, however, the VATSIM requirements limit the aircraft type to aircraft with older prop technology (fixed pitch).  I have checked the FAA PTS requirements for the IFR check ride and there does not appear to be a limitation on aircraft other than the requirement to have the necessary equipment for IFR flight.  The PTS even indicates the possibility of having to perform RNAV and/or GPS approaches if the CFI decides that is necessary.  Please consider updating the VATSIM Pilot rating aircraft requirement to match those of the current FAA PTS.

 

Regards,

 

Danny

Danny Rice

US Army Ret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lars Bergmann
Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Danny Rice said:

Please consider updating the VATSIM Pilot rating aircraft requirement to match those of the current FAA PTS.

Why would VATSIM follow the rules set by one national aviation authority? Mind you, I'm not trying to argue that the rating requirements shouldn't be changed, I'm just saying that "but in America" is a weak argument for an international network.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danny Rice
Posted
Posted

So, are you saying that other countries require aircraft used for IFR checkrides be limited to fixed pitch as VATSIM limits them?  My point is that the VATSIM aircraft limitation do not appear to be in line with the current licensing authority requirements, and, are certainly not in line with current technology.  

Danny Rice

US Army Ret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lars Bergmann
Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Danny Rice said:

So, are you saying that other countries require aircraft used for IFR checkrides be limited to fixed pitch as VATSIM limits them?

No, I am not saying that, as I am not in a position to comment on every country's requirements. Under FAA and EASA rules you are not limited to fixed-pitch props.

18 minutes ago, Danny Rice said:

[...] are certainly not in line with current technology.  

I agree.

20 minutes ago, Danny Rice said:

My point is that the VATSIM aircraft limitation do not appear to be in line with the current licensing authority requirements [...]

This is the point of your argument that I don't like. You were (and are) arguing that because something is done a certain way in the US it should be done like that on the network. This approach has, in my opinion, plagued our network for a long time and is not a good starting point for coming up with rules for an international network.

Again, I am not arguing that the rules shouldn't be changed, I am just arguing that the reason for the change should be more comprehensive than "because that is what the FAA does".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andreas Fuchs
Posted
Posted (edited)

I did not design these exam rules, but I guess that the idea behind it was that candidates should start off with relatively simple aircraft in order to lay a good foundation for the rest of their training and checking environment. VATSIM is not following FAA-rules, VATSIM is following global rules and needs to find a suitable compromise.

Edited by Andreas Fuchs
typing error
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danny Rice
Posted
Posted

Ok, so which "global" rules place a restriction on the type of aircraft that can be used for IFR checkrides?  I fully understand that VATSIM needs to accommodate the world and I appreciate the difficulties that presents.   My issue is with the imposition of requirements on flight training that are not realistic.  The idea that VATSIM needs to impose use of "simple" aircraft to lay a good foundation for training is somewhat understandable, but, by the time a pilot is ready to attempt IFR qualification they should be well beyond foundational skills. 

Danny Rice

US Army Ret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alistair Thomson
Posted
Posted (edited)

This topic is being discussed within the Pilot Training Department, and the issue has a lot to do with the difference between real-world type certification and the VATSIM environment where no type certification is required to fly. It is of course quite possible in the real world for a complex-type-rated pilot to use a complex type for acquiring an IR, because the IR course and tests will focus, not on type-rating skills, but on instrument flying.

If a VATSIM PPL wants to gain a VATSIM IR, they can do that without requiring to upgrade type-rating skills and the global VATSIM course specification for IR, importantly, would not require that. But if a complex type were chosen by the pilot, it might be necessary for the IR course to teach and test type-rating certification as well as IR, much as the vPPL teaches simple aircraft handlng. This would lead to several "grades" of IR course, which wouldn't allow a "simple" pilot to choose an ATO and its course globally. With the current situation, as Andreas has indicated, there is a natural progression, globally, from vPPL to vIR.

But the debate continues. :)

Edited by Alistair Thomson

Alistair Thomson

===

Definition: a gentleman is a flying instructor in a Piper Cherokee who can change tanks without getting his face slapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andreas Fuchs
Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Danny Rice said:

Ok, so which "global" rules place a restriction on the type of aircraft that can be used for IFR checkrides?  I fully understand that VATSIM needs to accommodate the world and I appreciate the difficulties that presents.   My issue is with the imposition of requirements on flight training that are not realistic.  The idea that VATSIM needs to impose use of "simple" aircraft to lay a good foundation for training is somewhat understandable, but, by the time a pilot is ready to attempt IFR qualification they should be well beyond foundational skills. 

In the real world you do not go from being a pedestrian to proficiently flying aircraft under instrument rules within a few weeks or months. In our simulated world we attempt to do exactly this. Check the emphasis that I put the previous 2 sentences on. So, I see it as a positive thing to teach people how to fly a C172 in all sorts of circumstances, preferably with steam-gauges. My first steps in realworld aviation were done by flying gliders for 30 hours at the age of 15. This was, in retrospect, one of the best ways to learn how to correctly operate an aircraft: you need to keep the "thread on the canopy in the middle" (=avoid side-slipping by actually using rudder pedals in every single turn), you constantly need to assess the situation (=will I make it back to the airfield? where are suitable fields/areas to land on in case I have to land outside of an airfield? etc.) and you learn a lot about teamwork. I don't think that we need to have our virtual students go through this, but a C172 is a simple enough aircraft where you cannot simply pull yourself out of a hairy situation like a DA42 with a beautiful glass cockpit.

"Global rules": that was the point I was trying to make! There are lots of global rules, I meant in a geographical way. As a non-native speaker I probably used the wrong words to describe this, as you understand this to mean "unified rules in the world", right? Every continent and every country has its own little variations in rules, apart from our wonderful ICAO rulebooks. FAA, EASA, UK CAA etc. all have their own things to make things stricter or less strict.

In the end the pilot training team at VATSIM had to take a decision on what to do and what to write down. What you found on their website is what they came up with. Yes, give them feedback that you do not like it, preferably with some good reasons. But until this might get changed, these are the rules.I really, really hate to tell people to "take it or leave it", trust me. But in this case I have to agree that this is the frame-set that has been laid out and I invite you to embrace it. Is it so hard to fly a C172 instead of your DA40? When you master the course/exam with a C172, you'll be operating your DA40 like a champ.

This is my humble opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danny Rice
Posted
Posted

The aircraft used for a specific checkride should be left up to the pilot, with the assumption that the aircraft selected has the required instruments/capabilities to satisfy the checkride requirements.  Responsibility for proficiency with the aircraft systems rests with the pilot.  I don't see VATSIM having an obligation to provide type-rating training or testing, they don't worry about type-rating at the moment.  Anyone flies any aircraft they want on VATSIM whether they actually know how or not.  

Anyway, as stated, the debate continues.   Yes, the rules are the rules.  That also goes with one doesn't actually have to obtain a rating on VATSIM to fly at any rating level one chooses.  Just unfortunate VATSIM has chosen to place such a seemingly necessary complication in the pilot rating scheme.

Oh well, moving on.

Danny Rice

US Army Ret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andreas Fuchs
Posted
Posted

A last one, then I'll be quiet 🙂

37 minutes ago, Danny Rice said:

The aircraft used for a specific checkride should be left up to the pilot

what if the examiners are not familiar with that aircraft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danny Rice
Posted
Posted

That might be somewhat of an issue.  However, I don't think the differences would be so great that a CFI couldn't deal with it.  One is not allowed to use AP functions, so, it is stick and rudder flight.  The startup checklist would be available, so the CFI would know if it was being followed during preflight.  I am not sure what would be of significance in evaluation of the checkride parameters for the different aircraft.  Perhaps I am just not knowledgeable enough to understand if it would actually be a significant problem or not.

  • Like 1

Danny Rice

US Army Ret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alistair Thomson
Posted
Posted

What about an IR candidate who mis-manages an IR procedure? How does the examiner know if the issue was due to type issues or to IR issues? Or are you happy that a Fail is issued irrespective? Just exploring scenarios here.

  • Like 1

Alistair Thomson

===

Definition: a gentleman is a flying instructor in a Piper Cherokee who can change tanks without getting his face slapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luke Kolin
Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

So, I see it as a positive thing to teach people how to fly a C172 in all sorts of circumstances, preferably with steam-gauges.

That's your opinion. It might even be correct. It doesn't matter.

I've said this is another post, but the beauty of the original ATO scheme was that it focused on the results, not the methodologies and allowed different organizations to approach the problem in different ways. As long as it was successful, VATSIM didn't care too much and people learned in the manner and on the platform of their choice. The end result was that we had a lot of Pilot Ratings handed out with comparatively less effort on VATSIM's part than if they did it all themselves.

VATSIM has had a continual challenge of insisting on a level of control that ended up requiring the organization to do much more of the work itself, which it has never had the resources and dedicated to accomplish successfully. The withering of ATOs is another good example.

Cheers!

... I spawn hundreds of children a day. They are daemons because they are easier to kill. The first four remain stubbornly alive despite my (and their) best efforts.

... Normal in my household makes you a member of a visible minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danny Rice
Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Alistair Thomson said:

What about an IR candidate who mis-manages an IR procedure? How does the examiner know if the issue was due to type issues or to IR issues? Or are you happy that a Fail is issued irrespective? Just exploring scenarios here.

I would be content with a fail in that case.  The purpose of the checkride is to determine if the pilot has the knowledge and skills to fly IFR.   If the pilot doesn't understand the aircraft and systems on the aircraft he selected for the checkride and subsequently messup an IR procedure it is on him/her. 

Danny Rice

US Army Ret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alistair Thomson
Posted
Posted (edited)

Is that not a bit like failing a history exam because your grammar is poor? Surely an instrument flying exam should be diagnostic of instrument flying skills?

Taking the type-rating skills out of the equation removes that problem.

Edited by Alistair Thomson

Alistair Thomson

===

Definition: a gentleman is a flying instructor in a Piper Cherokee who can change tanks without getting his face slapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danny Rice
Posted
Posted

It would not be first time someone failed an exam because they could not communicate well..........

Danny Rice

US Army Ret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alistair Thomson
Posted
Posted
On 7/8/2022 at 8:37 AM, Luke Kolin said:

VATSIM has had a continual challenge of insisting on a level of control that ended up requiring the organization to do much more of the work itself, which it has never had the resources and dedicated to accomplish successfully.

I think there may be similarities between the way VATSIM ratings are organised and the arrangements made by individual country Aviation Authorities.

Each country has its definitions of pilot ratings and authorises training organisations to confer ratings on those who have met the standard as specified by the Authority. Thus all ratings are harmonised nationally. Other countries are free to issue their own licenses based on the existing licenses of that country, probably with restrictions to account for differences in the legislation, but that license transfer is not automatic, and is not always even possible.

With VATSIM, all the world's our stage and our ratings are immediately transferable, so all of our ATO's need to be singing the same song, so that for example a P2 gained in a UK ATO will be fundamentally the same as one gained in the USA. By “fundamentally” I mean that the basics are always there: it is quite permissable, and appropriate, for any ATO to add to the basics in order to harmonize their offering with their own real world rating system.

So VATSIM has a centrally-devised set of rating descriptions and works with the ATOs to help them with the structure and content of their courses. I think that is fair, even essential, and that takes a lot of work and commitment. I think your comment about lack of dedication is very unfortunate and is actually completely misguided. Simon Kelsey and the ATOs are doing a spectacularly good job and should be complimented rather than castigated.

  • Like 1

Alistair Thomson

===

Definition: a gentleman is a flying instructor in a Piper Cherokee who can change tanks without getting his face slapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luke Kolin
Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Alistair Thomson said:

With VATSIM, all the world's our stage and our ratings are immediately transferable, so all of our ATO's need to be singing the same song, so that for example a P2 gained in a UK ATO will be fundamentally the same as one gained in the USA. By “fundamentally” I mean that the basics are always there

I think we are both in agreement, but you're then making a leap that is the crux of my difficulties with the current system. From a skills standpoint, a P2 anywhere in the VATSIM ecosystem should be teaching the same thing, and an ATO that receives a student with a P2 from another ATO should have confidence that the student has the same abilities that the P2 claims to validate.

What you (and VATISM) are confusing is the what, with the how.

I would not expect proficiency with a particular piece of equipment to be part of any pilot rating. I expect the individuals to know how to demonstrate those skills on the airframe of choice. We can all agree that switching aircraft has challenges because it's a new piece of equipment. I would not want to make the Pilots' or ATOs' lives more complicating by arbitrarily requiring a given aircraft. If an ATO wants to teach VFR procedures using Concorde and is able to provide a consistent stream of well trained VFR pilots into the VATSIM ecosystem, who are we to judge? It reminds me of Lincoln's wondering what brand of whiskey General Grant preferred.

VATSIM has had two fundamental challenges for over two decades - a shortage of proficient controllers and pilots, and VATSIM is incapable on its own of training the numbers required. I don't think that's a particular controversial statement. Where Kyle got things right all those years ago is that he recognized this on the pilot side, and introduced ATOs outside of VATSIM that could provide the necessary instruction, testing and integration with VATSIM. And while the certifications themselves may have needed adjustment, I do not see that this fundamentally decentralized model did. And if it did, absolutely no one from PTO provided outreach to us. We've been searching for a replacement head of training for months, and our major difficulty is that all of the prospective applicants at the time had a caveat that they didn't want to deal with VATSIM.

😲

Bottom line - it's not what matters in the real world. All that matters is getting competent pilots into our unique and not-like-the-real-world ecosystem. Focusing on mirroring the real world despite its negative effects on our training volumes seems like a poor choice that just encourages people not to train.

2 hours ago, Alistair Thomson said:

I think your comment about lack of dedication is very unfortunate and is actually completely misguided. Simon Kelsey and the ATOs are doing a spectacularly good job and should be complimented rather than castigated.

I will respectfully suggest that being involved, you have a different perspective. No one consciously sets out to do a poor job, and I'm confident that everyone feels they are doing well, no matter what the results.

I have a simple question for you, which is the same question I posed in my previous posts on the matter - where are the ATO statistics? How many certifications are being granted, relative to before, and what is the makeup of ATOs? How many ATOs exist that are not existing ATC organizations? What percentage of certifications are being granted by VATSIM itself, relative to ATOs?

I've posted a few times about the changes, including another thread I just saw here. What's interesting to me is that I've never had a single person reach out or address the concerns. Ethan's response in that thread was striking - his role focused a great deal about interacting with entities outside of VATSIM, but chose not to participate in VATSIM's primary mechanism for doing so. 😕 

If your numbers are working for you and things have improved, great! I don't fly on VATSIM and our pilots do so less than before so if you're training more pilots then I guess things are working. The comments about pilot proficiency suggest otherwise, but that too is a biased signal that one can't read too much into. My own perspective is one of disappointment where we had a good system that integrated well with VATSIM and made hundreds of pilots a little bit better. Then one day it all got thrown out with little to no consideration, and we were back to the unofficial VATSIM relationship of "if you don't like it, leave don't be an ATO.

@Simon Kelsey - not sure if you're on the forums but would love to chat and hear your perspective.

Cheers!

Edited by Luke Kolin

... I spawn hundreds of children a day. They are daemons because they are easier to kill. The first four remain stubbornly alive despite my (and their) best efforts.

... Normal in my household makes you a member of a visible minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alistair Thomson
Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Luke Kolin said:

Bottom line - it's not what matters in the real world

Absolutely! And thanks for your considered reply. No doubt Simon will comment but my view of the situation we are facing (with apologies to anyone who thinks I'm out of order here) is that we actually are also concerned about a rigid mirroring of the real world licensing arrangements. The problem, of course, is that ATOs are still reeling from the change put in place a couple of years ago and when Simon was appointed I'm pretty sure that the feeling was that yet another drastic change would be a step too far. Legacy is an albatross sometimes.

However I DO know that the current PTD staff engaged with ATOs have a very different view of their role than previously, acting as support and encouragement rather than administrators with a red pen in their hands.

  • Like 1

Alistair Thomson

===

Definition: a gentleman is a flying instructor in a Piper Cherokee who can change tanks without getting his face slapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share