Question

[David Kluempers]

To be honest I don't really care for the new policy of fast tracking IVAO controllers since it places additional burdens on an already overworked staff who are currently committed to handling the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] schedule for over 500 academy students. But we will do our best to handle the policy.

 

I have only been at the VATUSA HQ for a short time and I have been told time and again that RW controllers must go through the Academy.

While it would be great to fast track RW controllers I think the others have addressed the reasons we don't do it adquately. Setting up a program for verification would be nice but it take time and people to do that. For now the safest and easiest policy it require the Academy.

 

For a RW controller it should be a breeze. The majority of complaints I am seeing is that the schedule is not convenient. The schedule is not convenient for any number of people not just RW controllers. We are working on trying to alleviate that problem with some new options but our biggest bottleneck, as always, is staffing.

 

I remain open to alternatives that won't add more work to people already putting in substantial time to help out.

[David Kluempers]

Applogies for the bad grammer and spelling on the previous post. I was doing over lunch at work and got side tracked by a problem that came up. Anyway the following is how it was supposed to read.

 

To be honest I don't really care for the new policy of fast tracking IVAO controllers since it places additional burdens on an already overworked staff that is currently committed to handling the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] schedule for over 500 academy students. But we will do our best to handle the policy.

 

I have only been at the VATUSA HQ for a short time and I have been told time and again that RW controllers must go through the Academy. While it would be great to fast track RW controllers I think the others have addressed the reasons we don't do it adequately. Setting up a program for verification would be nice but it takes time and people to do that. For now the safest and easiest policy is to require the Academy.

 

For a RW controller it should be a breeze. The majority of complaints I am seeing is that the schedule is not convenient. The schedule is not convenient for any number of people not just RW controllers. We are working on trying to alleviate that problem with some new options but our biggest bottleneck, as always, is staffing.

 

I remain open to alternatives that won't add more work to people already putting in substantial time to help out.

[Ernie Alston 812154]

I didn't read it that way....Unfortunately, there is a bit of disconnect on the rules. Until that can be fixed, SOP stands. While I don't doubt you're an excellent controller, the academy will certainly make sure you understand our software, especially how the voice comms work. Configuaration of the software and its proper use will make your transistion to virtual controlling that much easier.

 

Would seem to me one way to get Vatusa back in full compliance with the CoC and maintain the integrity of

the Academy at the same time would be to have a designated unrestricted area for all S1's.

 

Pick a small area with a TWR and s small control area which is hardly every used or visited (perhapos an remote

area such Alaska or Hawaii ?).

 

Academy students looking for some additional practice would also be able to go into this unrestricted area

any time they wish. To brush up on what they learned prior to their OTS's etc.

 

If an S1 wants to work in an ARTCC beyond the unrestricted area, then they would of course need to

graduate from the Academy.

 

A designated area would seem to also be a good place to have VA's send their new Vatsim pilots as well. As a practice place to get comfortable with squawkbox etc (create some canned flight plans and tutorials in this area for the newbie pilots to follow).

 

As long as everyone knows about this designated area, that it is an area where you will encounter many novices it should be fine. Some pilots can choose to enter it and give students some practice. Other pilots can choose to avoid it, if they do not want to deal with any beginners.

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston.

[Richard Green 810012]

Actually Ernie, the easiest way to do it is to avoid the issue all together.

 

Controllers learn as OBS offline and get their S1 when done.

[Bo Gercke 845743]

And since I made the above post, I've found out why we no longer waive RL controllers. We no longer have a way of verifying it and in a cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ic case of a few bad apples spoiling the bunch, some members were caught lying about the fact. For that reason, everyone, even real world controllers, has to submit to the testing procedures to advance. Sorry Darrin.

 

Sorry George. I disagree with this. Any controller has a pink card, most controllers at least have their CTO's, and with the new CTO's the FAA is putting out, they can't really be forged. I mean, anything is possible, but for a C3 rating, someone would be wasting their time to try to forge a new FAA CTO. But, again, the pink card with the controller's name on it can't be verified?

 

I haven't had the plesure of going through the academy, but, it's no about the control, and the art of doing what i do, the issues I had were with the software, and all of the prgrams that went together (at the time), and how they all interfaced, and how I set them up, etc. etc. But yes, the tests ARE a joke, for us.

 

Unfortunately there are no tests for pilots to be pilots, or for a newbie to start at LAX, in a 777, and take to the skies. I wouldn't be talking about an issue that I've never personally seen, either... Anyone else see the disconnect?

 

Why can we not create some sort of policy for the academy to expedite real world controllers? Verify there certificate - search it on the FAA site, get some sort of quick "test" in place for them to go through to prove there ability

 

You don't even need to go to the website. Not sure one exists, anyway. Have them send a copy of their Pink Card, or CTO, or certificate of completion of ATC A1 school, or whatever the certificate is at OKC, to Mike, or one of the other FAA guys, and verify it that way. Put it on the controller to verify it. Have them scan it, and send it. If they won't than, that's on them.

 

Darrin, I am curious to know where you control, and for how long you've been controlling. You do seem to be packing a lot of "entitlement" attitude. Perhaps you're new to the profession. If not, my apologies. I had a little bit of the "entitelment" thing too when I was a "new" controller. But, I still am new, compared to some of the other guys around here. So, relax, and try to work something out. Just my .02.

 

Good flight!

[Nate Johns]

I realize Mr. Doubleday mentioned this previously, but I figured I'd try and expand a little...

 

There's an easy solution now to verify if people are (presently anyway) air traffic controllers in the US. This may not be flawless, as it IS the FAA we're talking about but...

 

http://employees.faa.gov

 

Click on "Employee Directory" on the left.

 

Search for name.

 

Itt'l tell you the person's job title, and even the physical address of their facility. Now... I personally believe it is rather a security breach to have all these names and locations published in this manner, but that is another issue. For now though, maybe take advantage of it as a method to verify someone's employement / job title as an ATCS with the FAA.

 

~Nate

 

PS - More RW Controller VATSIM Members = Kick @$$, let's try and accomodate them to the maximum extent practical.

Edited March 3, 2007 at 06:57 PM by Guest

[Nate Johns]

Oh yah... and for anyone with (or claiming to have) a FAA CTO (at any time in the past) certificate... you can search the FAA's Airman Certification database at:

 

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/interactive_airmen_inquiry/

 

I dont think Center ATCS' have this... but, it's another step.

 

Again, this is just for the US... no idea about other countries.

 

~Nate

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

That covers the FAA; what about the rest of the world? Can they be similarly easy to verify?

[Brandon Grchan 925585]

....

Edited March 10, 2007 at 06:12 AM by Guest

[Brandon Grchan 925585]

That covers the FAA; what about the rest of the world? Can they be similarly easy to verify?

 

So your saying because other countries dont have this information easily available, we shouldnt be able to give the people who can CLEARLY prove that they are benefits?

[Darrin Jones 983985]

Just so everyone knows,

 

I did as Richard suggested, contacted VATUSA3. basically the responce is ...

 

Policy is policy so you have to do it.

 

But VATUSA has a policy that requires everyone except ICAO controllers to go through the Academy.

 

discriminatory as far as I see it.

 

But I was also told that if I write the staff of the Academy I can see if they will offer up thier own free time to help individually. There again wasting thier time and mine when I can prove my FAA rating, but yet ICAO controllers do not have to go through the academy.

 

Man this sounds like the FAA and thier imposition. If you want to chase away more volunteers then continue this course of action.

 

 

Additionally why are newbie Pilots restricted until they take some sort of cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]room training??

 

While we have certainly given regions and divisions quite a bit of authority, all such authority is subject to oversight by the Board of Governors. The Code of Conduct only prevents _OBS from providing ATC meaning that S1s were always contemplated as being permitted to control certain positions. This has also historically been the case. This is further made clear from Code of Conduct Paragraph C(6) limitation stating that a local division or region may restrict certain positions. Nowhere does it state that all positions may be restricted from members holding a valid rating (i.e. S1s)

 

Since my rating on vatsim is a S1, IMHO reading the above statement I should be allowed to train at an ARTCC without going through the academy since the policy of VATUSA restricts me from using the rating that I currently posses.

 

 

VATSIM Code of Regulations wrote:

ARTICLE I. MEMBERSHIP

§1.01 Membership

 

G. Ratings: Upon acceptance by VATSIM.net of a membership application, a member will be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned a rating of Pilot/Observer. If a member wishes to provide air traffic control services, he or she must contact the region to which they have been [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned for details on training, testing and promotion to the appropriate rating. Notwithstanding any rules adopted by the VATSIM.net Board of Governors (as created herein by Article II.) to the contrary, VATSIM.net will employ the following ratings system, listed highest to lowest:

 

1. Administrator (ADM)

2. Supervisor (SUP)

3. Senior Instructor (I3)

4. Instructor (I)

5. Senior Controller (C3)

6. Controller (C1)

7. Senior Student (S3)

8. Student (S1)

9. Pilot/Observer (OBS)

 

Only members of the VATSIM Board of Governors (as created by Article II. hereunder), Founders of VATSIM.net (as designated in Article IV. hereunder) or other individuals designated by vote of the Board of Governors may hold an Administrator rating.

 

H. Advancement: Members of VATSIM.net are encouraged to apply and test for advancement of their rating. The rules and requirements for application, testing and advancement are to be determined and adopted by the various divisional directors, regional directors and ARTCC/FIR chiefs, subject to the general guidelines adopted by the VATSIM.net Board of Governors and its Vice President of Training. [Emphasis added]

 

 

Can someone show me where this policy of Everyone Except ICAO controllers must complete the academy prior to training at an ARTCC has been adopted and approved by the VATSIM BOG.

 

I do not believe that the BOG would approve something that would detract from someone FUN when there are times that the Pilots would prefer to have available ATC. But because of this VATUSA Rule I am personnally being restricted from all positions even though I have the proper rating issued by VATSIM to work certain posistions, and should not be restricted at all times.

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

Reminds me that I took the AH-1G AQC (1974) at Rucker, lot of fun in the morning fog. Fired during it more rockets than the VATUSA member count

 

 

That's what I hear Mike. I suspect not much has changed. Between Hanchey, Lowes and Cairns, the sky is full of rotary wing and a few fixed wing through out the day. Not the place for a faint at heart student

[Alan Hensley 950569]

We probably p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed each other at the Daleville gate going to or from Cairns AAF

Edited March 10, 2007 at 04:03 PM by Guest

[Alan Hensley 950569]

Darrin, what exactly is your point? Until they change these rules, they are the rules. Your first post was on Feb 20th. It is now March 10th. I "swallowed my pride" and completed their academy in LESS than a week, you could have done the same.

[Paul Heaney 879309]

Darrin, it's been a really long time since I've seen ANYONE whine as much as you are. Accept the rules and go with them, if your a RW Controller, you'll fly through the hoops and won't be wasting much of your "Valuable" time. Time to get off that high horse and start acting mature, instead of crying that VATSIM isn't bending to your will.

 

Everyone here has jumped those hoops and paid our dues, did the FAA let you get on the scope your first time there? No, VATSIM strives for realism, and although it's not perfect, you won't get on the scope here first time either.

 

Instead of talking smack, start showing us what a great controller you are.

 

If not, move on, and let us have some peace.

[Timothy Boger 942264]

Actually Ernie, the easiest way to do it is to avoid the issue all together.

 

Controllers learn as OBS offline and get their S1 when done.

 

I agree wholeheartedly, and I've been telling the Academy this for a long time.

[Jeff Jones 913898]

Darrin,

 

I understand your point completely and I sympothize with you. I think Alan had already conveyed this point but I feel it is worth mentioning again, between your first post on this topic Feb 20th and now you could have already completed the academy and been on your way. (RL commitments allowing) Again, I completely understand your point but with the amount of time it has taken to complain about the policy that is "holding you back" you probably could have already graduated from the academy and it would all be behind you.

 

I think you will make a great controller and possibly contribute greatly to the online community. I would hate to see you throw it all away over a simple policy. Just keep your focus, let things happen, and everything will work out. As my friend Alan said, just get it done. Good luck to you!

 

Jeff Jones

ZID Training Administrator

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

I was staying at the large new BOQ, 4 other compatriots went through OV-1D AQC at the same time, I believe they flew out of OZR regularly.

 

We probably p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed each other at the Daleville gate going to or from Cairns AAF

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

That covers the FAA; what about the rest of the world? Can they be similarly easy to verify?

 

So your saying because other countries dont have this information easily available, we shouldnt be able to give the people who can CLEARLY prove that they are benefits?

 

I don't think I 'said' anything; I asked a question. This comes up a lot in my world, i.e., VATSIM Pilot Training Development where we get material sent in that is 100% USA. Looked good to the dude who wrote it up but because it is USA only, it applies to a minority of the people who use VATSIM. The material is incomplete without a global view.

 

To make it 'easy' to verify USA controllers is great; where is the similar easy verification for those who are not in the FAA system, which represents a majority of the controllers on VASTIM. VATSIM has to write rules that cover their entire world, not just the USA.

[Brandon Grchan 925585]

Darrin, it's been a really long time since I've seen ANYONE whine as much as you are.

 

Kettle. Pot. Black.

[Darrin Jones 983985]

Alan and the rest of the crew......

 

 

I have several points....

 

1 ) Academy cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es are scheduled at a time when I am scheduled to do this in RL. I do not set the rl schedule, only work what the impositional FAA tells me to.

 

2) According to Vatusa3 Everyone Except ICAO controllers must go through the Academy, Very Bias and restricting Policy. Another word what is good for the goose is not good for the Gander.

 

3) Must take Academy cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts].... Have several ARTCC Instructors willing to teach the SIMULATION SOFTWARE, but I have been told that it can not be done because it is not the ACADEMY.

 

4) I am not Affraid or scared of taking the so called required test, but can not take them Until I attend the Academy.

 

5)

While we have certainly given regions and divisions quite a bit of authority, all such authority is subject to oversight by the Board of Governors. The Code of Conduct only prevents _OBS from providing ATC meaning that S1s were always contemplated as being permitted to control certain positions. This has also historically been the case. This is further made clear from Code of Conduct Paragraph C(6) limitation stating that a local division or region may restrict certain positions. Nowhere does it state that all positions may be restricted from members holding a valid rating (i.e. S1s). Which leads us to...

 

The current VATUSA rules don't exactly fall within these guidelines. They are flawed but not flawed beyond repair.

 

The rules need to be changed so that they are inline with VATSIM.

 

6)

 

Just talk to VATUSA3 explain you are RW, and I sure he would allow you to just take the tests, if you are in fact RW then it shouldn't be a problem.

 

If time truly is an issue perhaps another region might work better for you that doesn't require an Academy.

 

 

Done rsponse was You must go to academy.

 

Furthermore Richard, Why are you telling me to go somewhere else? Is it not part of your Job to promote growth with-in the community, and not be detrimental to the growth of the community.

 

but hey I am used to Policy is Policy just deal with it.

 

With responces like this you are turning away those that might otherwise volunteer thier time here.

[Alan Hensley 950569]

Darrin. I do honestly understand. I was asked if I would consider being on a screening board with the specific goal to verify through various means that one claiming to be RW was in fact who he or she says. So maybe there is something in the works. I believe you work with Aaron? I believe he is aware of this also. So maybe we can get some news to you soon. If you don't hear something fairly soon, drop me an email. I am the TA for Memphis so you can get my email address there. I don't want you going anywhere. Gosh knows we need all the RW controllers we can get to help train the ones who want to actually learn how to do this correctly. There are not too many of us helping and another would be VERY welcome.

[Paul Heaney 879309]

Kettle. Pot. Black.

 

Yeah well you shouldn't be calling any Pot Black, you've done enough of that, your VATSIM Career. Nice attempt at digging up an old issue which has been beaten to death. Take a chill pill and move on.

 

SEE YA!

[Stephen Keskitalo 977981]

I don't believe that the Academy should ever be an obstacle to certification; the Academy should exist only to educate those lacking the requisite ATC knowledge. If someone claims they're knowledgeable, then they should be allowed to prove it. That said, I can't see why Darrin can't be permitted to just take the necessary tests and be certified.

 

In the case of those who claim to be real-world controllers, but prove through testing that they're not, they can be severely punished for their attempted deception. This will discourage any potential applicants from wasting a test-givers time.

 

So the choices might be:

A) Go through the Academy and graduate S3.

B) Skip the academy and take any necessary tests for certification if one claims prior knowledge. If by the test results, the prior knowledge is shown to be missing, then maybe a ban of appropriate duration (month +), a mark on the applicants record, and a requirement to then go through the Academy after the ban is lifted would discourage the ignorant from taking option B.

 

These are just my thoughts on this and I don't claim that this could be the only solution, but maybe a possible solution. Maybe this is an entirely unrealistic solution because I don't know a lot of what goes on behind the scenes.

[Richard Green 810012]

I will say I am VERY disappointed in VATUSA3's comments about forcing someone who has RW experience to go through the whole Academ, if we let IVAO controllers to fast track.

 

I am sure it is something I will being up with the new VATUSA1, as I am a member who has no issues emailing "the boss".