Vatsim needs more controllers...

[Michael Flemming Hansen]

1 hour ago, Robert Shearman Jr said:

No lives are at stake, so, who cares how unrealistic it is.

That is maybe a bit too much on the nose if what I meant, but essentially, yes. The reason why the training for both pilots and controllers is so strict in real life, is because just the tiniest mistake can bring a lot of people lives at stake, very very fast. That is not the case here. At all, actually and it needs to factor in. A lot.

 

1 hour ago, Robert Shearman Jr said:

I'm doing it because flying into a busy event where the sequence is as tight as possible is FUN.

I get that and I can certainly see why it is fun. 

 

1 hour ago, Robert Shearman Jr said:

And why do facilities get bad feedback when they host an event that all goes to chaos because they can't handle the workload?

Then you could let that be the barrier. In order to control at an event, you would need to perform well in a stressfull situation either in Sweatbox or live training, depending. But in the majority of the VATSIM online time, things aren't that hectic. Usually, far from it. 

 

1 hour ago, Robert Shearman Jr said:

Flying into a well-managed, busy event is my idea of fun.  And now, so is controlling in it

I can also understand and recognise that. I don't know if I would find it fun, because I haven't tried it yet and as I see things, there will a very long time before that happens. My point still remains, though. Events like these are not the baseline VATSIM network. It does not represent how things ordinarily are. 

Reverse the situation for pilots. In this manner, we should actually demand that pilots certify at least 500 hours of offline flying, training procedures, engine flameouts, engine fire, cabin depressurisation and similar events and train them well enough, that they can do them by hand. Checklists should be mandatory to use always and actually, you should only be allowed to fly if you have a first officer. We don't and I am quite confident that the main reason is, that if VATSIM decided to do so, it would very quickly become a very quiet place. 

[Michael Flemming Hansen]

37 minutes ago, Dustin Rider said:

As Robert said above, giving a turboprop a jet-only SID puts two very different performing aircraft on a natural collision course when the inexperienced and insufficiently-trained tower controller doesn't recognise the impending doom--and yes, I am also aware that we're talking pixels here, but would you really like to be shoved up the tailpipe of the King Air that departed in front of you?

Because I am well familiar with EKCH, I would probably ask the controller if he could give me a jet designated SID. 
Again, I am trying to look realistically at things here and I can only say something about EKCH where I have most of my experience.
I think I probably have amounted around 200-300 (or more) takeoffs and landings at Kastrup and the only times I have noticed turboprop or prop traffic around Kastrup, was during training sessions where the instructor had "hired" some people to come fly GA aircrafts around and I usually have a VATSpy or VATPrism window open, to keep some situational awareness. 

Even if we say that it does matter because there could be the occasional GA aircraft around the airport, this is something that is easily looked up. You can have the plates ready on a tablet or you can even make a little list. I think it is 6-8 jet SID's and 2-4 prop SID's out from EKCH. It is not something that demands very specific training. 

What I am saying is that the chance of having a new controller (under the general S2 training regime) that isn't familiar with the specifics of the SID's and STAR's and have GA traffic around, is very unlikely. At least, it is my experience around Kastrup. 

[Michael Flemming Hansen]

2 hours ago, Ken Doyen said:

I would love to get unrestricted climb to FL270 or 280 every time but it's not always doable. 

Your climb is essentially unrestricted when you go to unicom. That was my point. If there is a controller above, he/she will control your climb. But that was not my example. 

[Alistair Thomson]

26 minutes ago, Michael Flemming Hansen said:

No, I don't. I really don't. To me, it seems to be much too bureaucratic, too convoluted and way too strict solely for the purpose of that. Getting everything (except the other half of the equation, the pilots, as close to reality as possible). 
And I used to teach high school physics in Denmark. Talk about bureaucracy and convoluted rules.

I get the impression that you disagree with beaurocracy! And rules, which you seem to equate with beauraucracy. I think that means that you disagree with the rules constructed to normalize an education system, and the means to ensure that these rules are applied. I may be wrong here, but it's possible that you would accept as standard the rules which YOU would prefer to be in place. Unless you prefer no rules? 

If you prefer anarchy, there's nothing to be said. If you want a say in rule-making, that's excellent, but then you must firstly engage with the mechanisms VATSIM has in place to  consider these rules, then you must subscribe to the rules which have been set after your input is made. I'm certain that this work had already been done within the Danish education system, with which I have great respect having worked with many Danish educational collaborators. You clearly disagree, and that is for you to address.

My point here is that you surely cannot believe that the same care has not been taken in formulating the rules by which VATSIM works. Even if you disagree with them.

DIssent is helpful, even necessary, but it has to be constructive, which is really a no-brainer. Stating that the rules are wrong or that there is too much beaurocracy isn't very productive.

You talk about the "other half" not getting as close as possible to reality, so you have clearly missed the efforts currently underway within VATSIM to improve the skills of pilots. Or do you know about these initiatives, but have decided that they don't meet your needs?

[Michael Flemming Hansen]

51 minutes ago, Dustin Rider said:

I was under the impression that VATSIM became the popular network it is precisely because we are striving for some higher degree of realism than a simulator's built-in ATC can provide.

Oh, well I can tell you, if that is the bar, then VATSIM is shooting way over the goalpost here or have grossly succeeded. VATSIM is vastly superior to even a relatively advanced and well functional offline ATC like Pilot2ATC (except for the coverage, of course). 

But allow me to be completely honest. I am not sticking with VATSIM because the heightened realism or the well trained controllers (not saying anything bad about them, specifically). If I had to rank the networks overall, in what I feel I get from them, I would put them in this order: POSCON, IVAO and VATSIM. 
The reason why I am sticking with VATSIM, for now, is mainly because of hardware/software limitations. I generally find x/vPilot to be superior to Ivao's solution, but find POSCON's solution superior to both (generally speaking). The issue with POSCON is that I get constantly soft-disconnects that seems to be rooted in my router, for some reason. 

Speaking about realism, ironically enough, one of the things I really enjoy about POSCON (when I can be on the network) is that there is no text, at all. They have a built-in solution for ATC CDPLC comms (I would have preferred a Hoppie solution, but I guess thet wanted to keep it in-house) where you get a squawk right from the getgo, whether there is ATC online or not. Then when you are online, you monitor the relevant offline frequencies for the different airports and a guard frequency. Just like when you enter a controlled area on VATSIM and the controller writes a PM to contact him/her, the controller contacts you on the guard frequency and ask you to contact him/her on the relevant frequency. But I digress here. 

The main reason why I am still mainly on VATSIM and not IVAO, is that I really dislike the text Unicom solution, that there is a much better integration with xPlane and xPilot, than with the IVAO Aurora (or whatever it is called) and that the software just seems to work better. Not because I find the VATSIM philosophy better or superior. I honestly don't. 

[Michael Flemming Hansen]

36 minutes ago, Alistair Thomson said:

I'm certain that this work had already been done within the Danish education system, with which I have great respect having worked with many Danish educational collaborators. You clearly disagree, and that is for you to address.

And so I shall, while trying not to make this a thread about the Danish educational system. I am not for anarchy and I am not against rules, but in my opinion, the rules needs to make logical sense (to me, because, who else). 
So, the Danish elementary school system is made such that the entire public school system has a general law defining the overall purpose of the schools. I don't disagree with that. 
Then we have rules in placing defining the overall purpose for the different subjects, mainly stating in overall terms, what the different subject are suppose to end out with having taught the children. That is also really good. 
But then comes my issue. On top of all this, we have class/age specific goals (A literal translation would be Common Goals) specifically designating what the students are suppose to know at every class-step. And I mean, really specific. Furthermore, in the language education (I taught Danish, Physics/Chemistry, Music and Biology) there are several cultural canons in place, designating specific titles that the teacher MUST have used during the education. 

Now, the reason why I have an issue with this is that the education for becoming a teacher in Denmark puts great emphasis in making goals for the individual students and doing their very best to fulfil those goals. There is also an underlying demand that the education should be suited to the individual students. But this conflicts with the specific goals because they put all students on the same level or expect them to be there. These are the rules I don't like.
The bureaucracy enters in the form that the teacher has do document that these goals have been put into the planning (which. I kid you not, is just copy-pasting them in the plan) for the classes. 
What I would have liked to happen was that these Common Goals got scrapped and then let the teachers do what they do best. Set individual goals for the students, with the final goal of fulfilling the final goals mentioned in the law/paragraphs for the different subjects.
The issue is basically the same at high school level. Only at University level, it seems that the individual teachers/lecturers gets to set their own goals for the courses they teach. 

As for VATSIM, I have no doubt that there has been put great care and consideration into making the rules for the network and I really do get why they have chosen to aim for a much reality as possible. Like it said, it is admirable. I wouldn't disagree with that, if I didn't felt it somehow came in the way of training and retaining enough controllers. You might argue that then we are only left with the best of the best. But what value does that have, if there are so few controllers that the individual airports only gets manned at very specific hours at very specific days. 
And if VATSIM truly wanted to aim for the highest realism and really justify the realism demanded, then they would have to seek fullworld 24/7 coverage at every major airport, at every level. 
Even if that was the goal and it was set, it would never happen with the amount of retained controllers we have now. 

I would love to spend my mornings/noons getting proficient in being a S2 controller at Kastrup where the load is usually quite low and at the same time perform a service for the people flying there. The only issue is that I can't. I first have to go through some rigorous training session in order to be let loose. Personally, I don't mind all the reading. I'm a nerd, I love to read technical stuff. But specifically spending 5 hours observing someone controlling when I don't feel that I get anything from it.. Well, it quickly becomes 5 very long hours. I would much rather spend that time sitting as a DEL/Apron controller and 1: helping out and 2: getting proficient while I also keep an eye out what the Twr is doing. 

./Michael

Edited October 7, 2022 at 01:34 AM by Michael Flemming Hansen

[Ken Doyen]

1 hour ago, Michael Flemming Hansen said:

Oh, well I can tell you, if that is the bar, then VATSIM is shooting way over the goalpost here or have grossly succeeded. VATSIM is vastly superior to even a relatively advanced and well functional offline ATC like Pilot2ATC (except for the coverage, of course). 

But allow me to be completely honest. I am not sticking with VATSIM because the heightened realism or the well trained controllers (not saying anything bad about them, specifically). If I had to rank the networks overall, in what I feel I get from them, I would put them in this order: POSCON, IVAO and VATSIM. 
The reason why I am sticking with VATSIM, for now, is mainly because of hardware/software limitations. I generally find x/vPilot to be superior to Ivao's solution, but find POSCON's solution superior to both (generally speaking). The issue with POSCON is that I get constantly soft-disconnects that seems to be rooted in my router, for some reason. 

Speaking about realism, ironically enough, one of the things I really enjoy about POSCON (when I can be on the network) is that there is no text, at all. They have a built-in solution for ATC CDPLC comms (I would have preferred a Hoppie solution, but I guess thet wanted to keep it in-house) where you get a squawk right from the getgo, whether there is ATC online or not. Then when you are online, you monitor the relevant offline frequencies for the different airports and a guard frequency. Just like when you enter a controlled area on VATSIM and the controller writes a PM to contact him/her, the controller contacts you on the guard frequency and ask you to contact him/her on the relevant frequency. But I digress here. 

The main reason why I am still mainly on VATSIM and not IVAO, is that I really dislike the text Unicom solution, that there is a much better integration with xPlane and xPilot, than with the IVAO Aurora (or whatever it is called) and that the software just seems to work better. Not because I find the VATSIM philosophy better or superior. I honestly don't. 

Nobody flies on Poscon, IVAO, or PE.  Poscon & IVAO never have controllers.  I doubt Poscon would even agree to this.  Apples to oranges here.   I would love to see a PE controller handle the level of traffic that Vatsim does, top down, by themselves, & do it for free.  We all want more controllers but it really isn't that easy.  I've seen many start on ground & work their way up.  I have no idea how controllers are able to do it.  It's just not that easy. 

[Raul Ferraz]

5 hours ago, Michael Flemming Hansen said:

The main reason why I am still mainly on VATSIM and not IVAO, is that I really dislike the text Unicom solution, that there is a much better integration with xPlane and xPilot, than with the IVAO Aurora (or whatever it is called) and that the software just seems to work better. Not because I find the VATSIM philosophy better or superior. I honestly don't. 

oh boy, then  you are close to leaving us, so sad.

[Raul Ferraz]

5 hours ago, Michael Flemming Hansen said:

The reason why the training for both pilots and controllers is so strict in real life, is because just the tiniest mistake can bring a lot of people lives at stake, very very fast. That is not the case here. At all, actually and it needs to factor in. A lot.

Man, if I were you, I'd never hop on a plane again IRL... you obviously have no idea how many mistakes happen per minute in real life. The entire aviation personnel would be dead according to your statement.

[Raul Ferraz]

5 hours ago, Michael Flemming Hansen said:

Again, I am trying to look realistically at things here and I can only say something about EKCH where I have most of my experience.

Finding it very amusing that you are at the same time advocating for free-for-all-up-to-tower, but then you keep mentioning EKCH because that's where you have experience.

I'd heavily recommend that you go through the entire training until the end of C1, and then see if you still believe in what you are trying to advocate. Spoiler alert, most of the C1+ rated people commenting here are already advising you that you are wrong.

[Andreas Fuchs]

I am repeating myself, but VATSIM's main issue is the waste of human resources in the early stages of ATC training. In the mid to long run it is very disappointing for ATC-mentors/coaches when they see that they invest dozens of hours of their free time just to have a big part of their students drop out without a word. We need to become more efficient in the early stages of ATC training. Once our trainees have made it up to TWR or APP, they know what they are in for and will continue with motivation (=worth investing more training by humans) or they will have dropped out already. I am convinced that we are losing a lot of talented and motivated ATC-trainees, because they are not prepared to wait 3, 6 or even 12 months to begin their basic training for DEL/GND. This is where VATSIM needs to act and get these people trained and online within a much shorter timeframe. Otherwise we will not be able to retain them.

[Ken Doyen]

1 hour ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

I am repeating myself, but VATSIM's main issue is the waste of human resources in the early stages of ATC training. In the mid to long run it is very disappointing for ATC-mentors/coaches when they see that they invest dozens of hours of their free time just to have a big part of their students drop out without a word. We need to become more efficient in the early stages of ATC training. Once our trainees have made it up to TWR or APP, they know what they are in for and will continue with motivation (=worth investing more training by humans) or they will have dropped out already. I am convinced that we are losing a lot of talented and motivated ATC-trainees, because they are not prepared to wait 3, 6 or even 12 months to begin their basic training for DEL/GND. This is where VATSIM needs to act and get these people trained and online within a much shorter timeframe. Otherwise we will not be able to retain them.

Not disagreeing with you.  Where the community is partly to blame is they're not open minded to other ARTCC's.  They get it in they're head there's only 1 or 2 places to control & don't even consider other ARTCC's.  I can't blame Vatsim if a gazillion ppl sign up at 1 ARTCC while others have none.  Just like the pilot side ppl have it in their heads there's only a couple of major class bravo airports to fly to & don't even consider the charlies or deltas. 

[Michael Flemming Hansen]

4 hours ago, Raul Ferraz said:

Finding it very amusing that you are at the same time advocating for free-for-all-up-to-tower, but then you keep mentioning EKCH because that's where you have experience.

As a pilot, not a controller. Maybe there are more VFR flights online when I am not. I don't know. It doesn't change my point, though. 

[Michael Flemming Hansen]

4 hours ago, Raul Ferraz said:

so sad.

No, not really. Just a fact. But congratulations on unlocking "rude and condescending comments lvl. 1". 

[Michael Flemming Hansen]

22 minutes ago, Ken Doyen said:

Where the community is partly to blame is they're not open minded to other ARTCC's.

I would definitely consider other ARTCC's if my S2 cert. could be easily transfered between the different ARTCC's. But as VATSIM training is structured right now, in order to control at Kastrup I need to train at Kastrup and get my certification at Kastrup. There is a more wide collaboration between the different Scandinavian ARTCC's, meaning that if I get a certain certification (MAE - Major Aerodrome Endorsement) I should be able to control at all the major airports within VATSCA, but it is still quite limited. 

If I could get my certification in any part of the world and still have the ability to control tower at Kastrup, I could get on the network much faster. But right now I am still in my pre-training and earning my observation time. 

[Michael Flemming Hansen]

34 minutes ago, Ken Doyen said:

Just like the pilot side ppl have it in their heads there's only a couple of major class bravo airports to fly to & don't even consider the charlies or deltas. 

One of the things I really like about the Delta VA I am a member of, is that they have tours around in the US, visiting the capitals, where I also get to land at vastly smaller airports. I do have to admit, though, that some of these runways are so short that it feels like I can see the end of the runway before my wheels have even touched down (in an A321). 

Edited October 7, 2022 at 10:56 AM by Michael Flemming Hansen

[Andreas Fuchs]

22 minutes ago, Michael Flemming Hansen said:

If I could get my certification in any part of the world and still have the ability to control tower at Kastrup, I could get on the network much faster. But right now I am still in my pre-training and earning my observation time. 

Playing devil's advocate: who would train you, knowing that you will be leaving after a short while? We call this "rating tourism". We should make access to basic ratings much easier/quicker, but restrict them to small and less complex or busy airfields for people to learn. Then they can move up. I know that this is done in some places.

[Lauri Uusitalo]

Very entertaining thread. But something seems at odds, if it does not matter which SID, altitude or whatnot is given by DEL, then why does it matter to have ATC at all? I thought ATC job was to control the traffic and controlling is usually based on some rules. And many of these rules/procedures are local, because of different reasons. I agree that making DEL/GND/TWR ratings too difficult to obtain may be an issue, but I do not see the issue in having local and "must learn" rules. It partly makes it interesting to fly different locations.

[Richard McDonald Woods]

2 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

I am repeating myself, but VATSIM's main issue is the waste of human resources in the early stages of ATC training. In the mid to long run it is very disappointing for ATC-mentors/coaches when they see that they invest dozens of hours of their free time just to have a big part of their students drop out without a word. We need to become more efficient in the early stages of ATC training. Once our trainees have made it up to TWR or APP, they know what they are in for and will continue with motivation (=worth investing more training by humans) or they will have dropped out already. I am convinced that we are losing a lot of talented and motivated ATC-trainees, because they are not prepared to wait 3, 6 or even 12 months to begin their basic training for DEL/GND. This is where VATSIM needs to act and get these people trained and online within a much shorter timeframe. Otherwise we will not be able to retain them.

Hi Andreas!

Much as I had expected, this forum subject has developed into the usual long-winded discussion without any practical suggestions about how to get sufficient controllers throughout Vatsim.

I know that the only way we will get to an agreed way forward will be a practical discussion at Board of Directors level, together with all members who have a determination to agree to practical solutions.

My belief is that we should have a voluntary and comprehensive aviation academy based on online, self-study processes to ensure that all those completing the courses understand the fundamentals required. For controllers, this would entail teaching everything that is common to worldwide ATC practice, and only then involve tutors to teach the top-ups to practical local implementation. For pilots, common ground and flight school courses could be provided to ensure a much higher level of expertise than currently. I know from practical experience that these are very achievable. Only solutions like these will reduce the significant workloads we expect from our overworked tutors.

I hope that what I write will not now be 'bombed' by responses from the start that I just don't understand the problems in implementing such a proposal or its advisability. The only alternative is despair! How can we get the Board of Directors interested in starting to implement the workload-reduction measures we all so desperately need?   

Regards, Richard

Edited October 7, 2022 at 11:36 AM by Richard McDonald Woods
Despair

[Alistair Thomson]

1 hour ago, Richard McDonald Woods said:

For pilots, common ground and flight school courses could be provided to ensure a much higher level of expertise than currently

That is already starting to happen. We now have a centralized Moodle online learning environment and a number of specifically-aimed courses for global consumption are under development. In addition, the PLC will be hosting focussed courses designed to enhance the knowledge and understanding of pilots on the network, extending the repertoire of learning materials already in place there.

And if it were decided to provide similar "global" learning materials for controllers, that Moodle environment might be the place to host that material. I'm sure that the BoG is following this (long and rather long-winded) discussion so you can be sure that the points made here are being examined.

[Ryan Geckler]

1 hour ago, Richard McDonald Woods said:

I hope that what I write will not now be 'bombed' by responses from the start that I just don't understand the problems in implementing such a proposal or its advisability. The only alternative is despair! How can we get the Board of Directors interested in starting to implement the workload-reduction measures we all so desperately need?

Put a proposal together. Nothing is stopping you from being the change you so desperately want to see.

 

VATUSA has their Academy up and running now, which is addressing these issues by doing a lot of the leg work without taking up in-person hours from our instructors and mentors.

[Alex Ying]

5 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

I am repeating myself, but VATSIM's main issue is the waste of human resources in the early stages of ATC training. In the mid to long run it is very disappointing for ATC-mentors/coaches when they see that they invest dozens of hours of their free time just to have a big part of their students drop out without a word. We need to become more efficient in the early stages of ATC training. Once our trainees have made it up to TWR or APP, they know what they are in for and will continue with motivation (=worth investing more training by humans) or they will have dropped out already. I am convinced that we are losing a lot of talented and motivated ATC-trainees, because they are not prepared to wait 3, 6 or even 12 months to begin their basic training for DEL/GND. This is where VATSIM needs to act and get these people trained and online within a much shorter timeframe. Otherwise we will not be able to retain them.

If new students are really waiting 3, 6, 12 months to even start clearance/ground/tower/general cab training, then I agree that's a pretty significant problem. I can't speak for anything outside the US, but OBS->S1 training times (where in the US we use S1 for DEL/GND certs most places) are measured in low-single digit weeks in many places. I've heard anecdotally that European training times are much longer, but won't speak on that without any experience myself.

 

As a more general statement, Clearance Delivery is one of the most critical positions despite being the "lowest" position in the top-down hierarchy. It's not just issuing the correct SID and initial altitude (those are important though!), but issuing preferred or valid routes are really important too. Others have already covered the SID and altitude issue, but putting planes on the correct route is extremely important also because the failure to do that significantly increases workload on everyone down the line. I'd argue that it doubles or even triples the workload for a particular plane if there's a bad route. Example:

• JFK to BWI
  • Preferred route is [SID] RBV Q430 COPES Q75 MXE V378 NUGGY TRISH3 at or below FL200
  • Pilot files and is cleared on [SID] PARKE J6 LRP TRISH3 with cruise of FL280 because the DEL controller wasn't diligent or lacked the training/local knowledge to recognize the problem.
  • If you don't have any local knowledge, it's not at all obvious why the second route might be a problem, it's still entering Potomac TRACON in the right place right? No, there's multiple problems that cause issues for multiple controllers down the line depending on when the mistakes get caught:
    • PARKE is not a valid exit for JFK. It is for EWR and LGA but not JFK. The reason is that it would send planes directly through multiple other arrival or departure corridors for JFK itself and also EWR, LGA, and the busy satellite airports like TEB. Either the GND or TWR controllers catch it, stop the plane and issue a revised and corrected clearance (extra work) or:
    • It's not caught on the ground and the plane is in the air and now the DEP controller has to issue delay vectors while they put the plane back on the valid route, or go coordinate with the CTR controller to put them on vectors until CTR can get issue them the revised routing and give them time to reprogram the computer
    • The incorrect cruise altitude has been issued to the pilot. Most times this is not an issue, just issue FL200 and tell them that that will be their final altitude, but if you get a grumpy pilot, now you have to explain why they're stuck 8000 ft below their previously cleared altitude due to airspace constraints, and you may be very busy if working top-down on CTR.

For a controller, any plane that's doing something unexpected or showing up somewhere where they're not supposed to be increases workload and reduces efficiency. Preventing that starts at Clearance Delivery which is why we often put more experienced people on DEL than GND or TWR during big events. Being able to rapid-fire issue clearances (PDC or voice) when you have all the preferred routes memorized from working the position a few dozen hours is an extremely valuable skill.

Edited October 7, 2022 at 03:05 PM by Alex Ying

[Andreas Fuchs]

3 hours ago, Alex Ying said:

If new students are really waiting 3, 6, 12 months to even start clearance/ground/tower/general cab training, then I agree that's a pretty significant problem.

In some parts of VACC Germany the waiting time is about 14 months. This is completely unacceptable and shows that the system is not fit for purpose. Haters will tell me that I prefer quantity over quality. I do not. But the basic training has to be done more efficiently in quite a few places.

3 hours ago, Alex Ying said:

As a more general statement, Clearance Delivery is one of the most critical positions despite being the "lowest" position in the top-down hierarchy.

Yes, I do agree with this. With the right learning material (documents, videos, interactive learning) this message can be transported to the candidates and if local procedures put emphasis on preferred routings then this should be part of the learning material and written tests for DEL at complex airports/airspace. I imagine that DEL/GND controllers with "basic training" are not allowed to control any of the large airports in NY-area (JFK, LGA, EWR), but will have to gain experience at small and medium airports, such as TEB, BUF etc.. When you get your PPL done on a C152, then you will only be allowed to fly C152s in the beginning, to bring up an analogy from the pilot side of things.

[Michael Flemming Hansen]

4 hours ago, Alex Ying said:

Preferred route is [SID] RBV Q430 COPES Q75 MXE V378 NUGGY TRISH3 at or below FL200

Question: I get the route, but why the altitude? I mean, sure, both PFPX and Simbrief has given my altitudes on short routes in the US where my TOD comes before my TOC and I had to select a lower cruise altitude, but in general, why uphold some altitude restriction on a route? I am not talking about separation altitude, which should always be upheld. 

Again, I would like to reiterate that my sole reason for suggestion DEL as an entry for fresh students is not because the work there, isolated speaking, is the simplest, but because it is the position you can man (on your own) where you have the least responsibility. You are only responsible for issuing clearances, as opposed to also being responsible for issuing taxi instructions and takeoff/landing clearances. 

I can also report that the waiting time for training in the Scandinavian VATSIM is around 6-12 months. 

My whole point here is that I think we should allow people to get their hands dirty in doing actual controlling much sooner than we do now and then just accept that more mistakes will be made, because that is the best way, if not the only way, to learn. I am not suggesting that we should throw a freshly trained S1 controller into the frenzy of DEL at a major event or high-volume traffic hours, but merely give them the opportunity to log on for themselves when the intensity is low and get the different procedures under their belt. 

On a sidenote, it is my experience that it is a lot more lenient to provide proper clearances in Europe than the US, because in Europe most of the SID's have a singular exitpoint and are runway specific. 

[Ryan Geckler]

37 minutes ago, Michael Flemming Hansen said:

Question: I get the route, but why the altitude?

Airspace around the New York area is incredibly dense and complex - that altitude separates you from other airports arriving and departing traffic.