Jump to content

Recommended Posts

..If these guys start creating all sorts of problems for the higher controllers, I think (unfortunately) we're

going to see the opposite of what this policy is trying to create. If a Socal controller, for example, is

constantly being bothered with these guys' mistakes, s/he probably isn't going to be so likely to plug in

and control anymore.

 

Bryan,

 

How is this any different than for that Socal conttroller that if he is not staffing that position ?

 

Example:

 

A pilot files a IFR flight plan using a non-standard or non-preferred routing.

 

Scenario 1:

 

XYZ_TWR is staffed by an new S1, and that pilot gets a clearance 'as filed'. Then somewhere along the line

the approach controller will have to amend it to comply with local procedures. This is additonal work for the

Approach controller we understand this.

 

Because in Scenario 1, now I (the APP controller) get yelled at by the pilot for "forcing him to change a cleared route". It will be frustrating for pilots to be cleared and then be re-cleared 5 minutes later after takeoff because it wasn't done properly the first time.

Jim Johnson

VP - Membership (VATGOV12)

j.johnson(at)vatsim.net

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Because in Scenario 1, now I (the APP controller) get yelled at by the pilot for "forcing him to change a cleared route". It will be frustrating for pilots to be cleared and then be re-cleared 5 minutes later after takeoff because it wasn't done properly the first time.

 

I think that's probably a bit overstated.

 

My experience has been the pilots tend to be more flexible than the controllers.

 

But it may be something to hear from the pilots about over a period of time to see how they feel about it.

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston

Albuquerque ARTCC

Vatsim Supervisor.

alcsig1b.png
Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me explain why I'm not understanding thus far.

 

How I see it:

 

To me, the C1 C3 S1 etc. are all meaningless by themselves.

As I explained before, that would be true if we were starting afresh and only had to look forward and not take the historical ratings into consideration.

 

The historical ratings are a significant amount of previous work over many years and we are not going to dump that.

 

Roland

Well, my opinion is that we shouldn't get so steeped in tradition that we become afraid of a little change.

 

Just my opinion though. I think that it is what the ratings indicate that should matter, not the process that went into formulating the ratings themselves in the first place. And if you were a major contribution to formulating those ratings, then I realize why you might be attached to them, and I'm not trying to diminish your contribution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, my opinion is that we shouldn't get so steeped in tradition that we become afraid of a little change.

 

Just my opinion though. I think that it is what the ratings indicate that should matter, not the process that went into formulating the ratings themselves in the first place. And if you were a major contribution to formulating those ratings, then I realize why you might be attached to them, and I'm not trying to diminish your contribution.

I don't believe anyone posting here has expressed a fear of change Stephen, but we are all concerned about the workload involved; and quite rightly so.

 

One extreme course of action is to adjust all of the existing ratings with no regard for competency, but that defeats the whole purpose of standardization. A person with a rating from 2001-2007 will get a new rating with no guarantee that they posses proper competency. The result would cause ratings to have even less meaning than they do now and would be a sure-fire way to shoot ATC standards in the foot.

 

The other extreme course of action is to treat each existing controller individually and either adjust their rating where appropriate or re-[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ess them. This is a tremendous amount of work and I very much doubt that we have the resources to service it.

 

The EC took all of the issues into consideration and produced a model that we are going to use. There is still a lot of work to be done in mapping old ratings to the new, and that is one of the reasons why the change requires a 6-month lead-in period.

 

Roland Collins

VP Regions

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the real world, where you have a minor airport in close proximity to a major airport there are simple guidelines about how this will work. A pilot planning to use the minor airport can simply look up the operational procedures either on-line or in a readily available docomeent.

 

VATSIM controllers can do the same since they are not at a fixed location and may wish to operate at the minor airport; and that's the point being made.

 

As I said before, it is about creating suitable local resources for pilots and controllers. In many instances the real world ones can be used or adapted for on-line hobby use.

 

A scheme that works well is to produce a docomeent for the whole TMA. This will reflect the major/minor [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignments and detail all of the TMA operational procedures.

 

The spirit of the location grading is that designated major locations should be kept to a minimum; generally being only locations with high traffic volumes.

 

There are going to be some areas where it is necessary to designate more than one location as being major. The Bay area immediately comes to mind but there will be others.

 

I mean no disrespect when I make the following comments about new controllers but, FWIW, I find these seem to be divided into two different categories; those that have a fleeting interest and will be off doing something else next week, and those that are more committed to FS. The latter group is further divided into two; those that are cautious and will self-regulate, and those that have BRS (Blind Rush Syndrome). The BRS are often a pain at first but, ironically, these tend to have a competitive streak that will eventually take them to a higher level of performance. That’s just my observation, and I see a similar situation on the roads too.

 

My point in mentioning this is that having well-written easily-understood local resource docomeents addresses all groups by helping and encouraging the timid and regulating the rash.

 

I believe that we have teased out most of the issues. Staff should now start to focus on the implementation, developing resources, formulating local rules etc. Divisional staff will find that there are going to be many decisions that must be made in relation to training, airspace, rules etc.

 

If I can be of any further [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istance to VATUSA, or any other Region/Division, then please feel free to contact me.

 

Roland Collins

VP Regions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ross and Jim, thanks for putting words into my mouth. Couldn't have said it better myself in all honesty!

 

Ernie, I'm really unsure why you're so against making these guys at least show some sort of competence at the local level. Okay, I actually am sure. I remember your idea you discussed with me a while ago, where anybody should be able to work any position at any time they want without any sort of training whatsoever.

 

But that kind of idea just doesn't work. What you're left with is complete Zone-like chaos, where each little airport is controlled by someone different, with none of those airports having any clue what the other is doing, or what procedures are required at the others or in general.

 

RJ, thanks for the clarification!

Bryan Wollenberg

ZLA!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie, I'm really unsure why you're so against making these guys at least show some sort of competence at the local level.

 

I'm not against it at all.

 

Put an instructor or mentor next to every student on their first day and I'm all for it.

 

The problem is as has been mentioned countless times, is that we have had too many instances

where 'weeks' have gone by before a new controller was able to actually participate on this

network.

 

That is simply un-acceptable to me, and clearly I am not the only one who finds this 'un-acceptable'.

 

And this not a new problem, it has been going on for 'years'.

 

Okay, I actually am sure. I remember your idea you discussed with me a while ago, where anybody should be able to work any position at any time they want without any sort of training whatsoever.

 

1) This is not my idea *at all*.

 

2) What does it have to do with the policy being discussed now ?

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston

Albuquerque ARTCC

Vatsim Supervisor.

alcsig1b.png
Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the 13 pages of this topic, I think I have a good understanding of the spirit of these changes. Although I tend to agree with Martins philosophy about a 4 level model, I understand the problems on a global scale.

 

One thing that concerns me however is that Rowland mentioned:

 

Learning can actually be done whist still an OBS; that’s really the main reason why we have OBS.

 

Perhaps I've missed something, but AFAIK the CoR prohibits PILOT/OBS (as well as the ATC software) from controlling, as it should be. So how does the new wanna-be controller gain experience with this method? Sure observing is something most all successful VATSIM controllers have done, my concern is the "Fast Tracker".

 

As a Mentor for ZLA, I (as well as the entire training staff) can tell you, 70% of the new sign ups we work have studied the local procedures, LOA's and SOP's but don't quite understand the 7110.65 and phraseology procedures, not even to mention the effective use of aliases.

 

Agreed, their working in a 'minor' tower position, but what are they really learning? If their phraseology is "Ten-Four good buddy, you can take-off now", they are learning BAD HABITS that will take twice as long for a mentor/instructor to correct should they choose to 'get the endorsement' to work major TWR/APP/CTR.

 

I know this is just a hobby, where no-body's getting paid or killed, but we do strive for realism, and my fear is not of losing traffic (which is possible), but the time to "re-train" these people when they decide to apply for more serious work.

 

I understand the motivation to get more controllers online, I just don't see how you can just have them take a open-book written exam, have them join a division, contact the ATM to get operating initials, and SHAZAM, their Tower Certified.

Edited by Guest

Gerry Hattendorf

ZLA Webmaster

VATSIM Supervisor

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) This is not my idea *at all*.

2) What does it have to do with the policy being discussed now ?

 

The current BOG idea might not be. However, the idea of working any position anywhere without any sort of approval or training, is an idea you discussed with me quite a few months ago. It has to do with the current policy, in that the idea of working "minor" positions anywhere in the world without any sort of training is exactly what's being proposed. That's why I said, I'm not surprised you agree that no training is perfectly fine.

 

Now you're saying there should be training first. In any event, fair to say we're in agreement? It would be great to have mandatory local training before turning someone loose anywhere?

 

Put an instructor or mentor next to every student on their first day and I'm all for it.

 

Great! So why don't we do it? Why not make that part of the policy?

 

The problem is as has been mentioned countless times, is that we have had too many instances

where 'weeks' have gone by before a new controller was able to actually participate on this

network.

 

That is simply un-acceptable to me, and clearly I am not the only one who finds this 'un-acceptable'.

 

And this not a new problem, it has been going on for 'years'.

 

Right on Ernie! I agree with you 100%. It IS completely unacceptable. In my opinion, the total process of first signing up on the VATSIM site, to being [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned a division, taking the ATC test, taking the local test (if applicable), and having the first session with a INS/Mentor should take no longer than a week. Give a couple days for the general tests, Division/ARTCC [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignments and such, and at the ARTCC level, it should only take 24-72 hours to get initials, and have a session with a Mentor/INS. That makes 1 week (5 days) total the absolute maximum. Does that sound fair?

 

If weeks are going by, that ATM should be replaced. Understood we are all volunteers and all have lives, but weeks to answer an e-mail? Come on. So because of these few ATM's and their training staffs who take weeks to respond to people, why punish everybody? Single them out, and let people control in their ARTCC's without any sort of training until they can get their act together. I'm willing to bet you would see changes real fast.

 

If an ARTCC can get a new student a session within 24-72 hours or so, wouldn't it be fair to allow that ARTCC a policy of "get training before you control"?

 

This is going to be a great policy, and like I said, I think we could easily see 5-10 people at a time working these "minor positions" in our airspace. Is that a bad thing? No way! But let's get them some training so that these 5-10 people know what they're doing, and help our team out as a whole rather than hinder what we're trying to do.

 

...I just don't see how you can just have them take a open-book written exam, have them join a division, contact the ATM to get operating initials, and SHAZAM, their Tower Certified.

 

I completely agree. It makes no sense at all. That's why local training (not some open-book written test) should be mandatory.

Bryan Wollenberg

ZLA!

Link to post
Share on other sites
After reading the 13 pages of this topic, I think I have a good understanding of the spirit of these changes. Although I tend to agree with Martins philosophy about a 4 level model, I understand the problems on a global scale.

 

One thing that concerns me however is that Rowland mentioned:

 

Learning can actually be done whist still an OBS; that’s really the main reason why we have OBS.

 

Perhaps I've missed something, but AFAIK the CoR prohibits PILOT/OBS (as well as the ATC software) from controlling, as it should be. So how does the new wanna-be controller gain experience with this method? Sure observing is something most all successful VATSIM controllers have done, my concern is the "Fast Tracker".

 

As a Mentor for ZLA, I (as well as the entire training staff) can tell you, 70% of the new sign ups we work have studied the local procedures, LOA's and SOP's but don't quite understand the 7110.65 and phraseology procedures, not even to mention the effective use of aliases.

 

Agreed, their working in a 'minor' tower position, but what are they really learning? If their phraseology is "Ten-Four good buddy, you can take-off now", they are learning BAD HABITS that will take twice as long for a mentor/instructor to correct should they choose to 'get the endorsement' to work major TWR/APP/CTR.

 

 

After Reading this thread I think it is a good time to point out something.

 

The Learning while still an OBS is fine and dandy, but what about all the technical things, as pointed out by Gerry above pilot/Observers can't actively control so they will be missing important things, and what about things like [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning sq codes or amending flight plans, if your working with ASRC you don't get that cool little box that you change things in then click the amend button. Your working with dot commands.... How can an Observer learn that they need to set a PRI freq, how to use the dot commands and such with out that practical instruction?

 

I know that I learn best from doing it and listening to it.

 

 

As a comparison I can observe an listen to a Chemist in the lab all day, but to say ok go work on this 'minor' experiment with out me knowing how the periodic table works or any of the theory behind it I am liable to either kill myself or seriously mess something up, that mess will cause more work to fix and do again then the teaching my how to do it right....

 

 

 

 

( Disclaimer: Sometimes in this forum I feel I need to make sure that all reading my post realize that I am just trying to help with things. I realize that the EC has decided on this issue but feel I need clarification, and perhaps they over looked some small detail that will be important so.... I am just trying to understand how this will work

 

Cheers,

Andrew Rogers

Senior Controller -HCF

Link to post
Share on other sites

The current BOG idea might not be. However, the idea of working any position anywhere without any sort of approval or training, is an idea you discussed with me quite a few months ago.

 

According to my logs you and I have not had a conversation about anything outside of this forum since August of 2004.

 

Over the last few years the idea I have proposed to Vatusa/Vatna (and this includes Todd Cox, Jeff Turner, and Matt Temple to name a few) has been to create a separate training area where a new student could work live traffic and practice with no restrictions. This area would be staffed by instructors and we'd also encourage new pilots to start in this same area. In my discussion with Matt, I proposed Honolulu be this designated area. This would have allowed the local facilities to maintain their policies and given the new students a place to work and practice live traffic without any restrictions.

 

Perhaps that was the idea you heard ?

 

But there didn't really seem to be any serious interest in this division in designating a live training area (it was an old idea done in ZAU a long time ago), or any live area a new student could work and 'practice' without restrictions. The real interest appeared to be making sure no student worked any position at all without some trainining and certification first. This was without regard to the fact this almost always meant some students were left un-able to control waiting for Instructor availability.

 

Now you're saying there should be training first. In any event, fair to say we're in agreement?

 

I agree there 'should' be training on the first day. If that controller was working a position

and an instructor was right next to him, he would be getting instruction and at the same time getting

a good initial Vatsim experience. Most facilities now have positions a new student can work 'supervised'.

 

But preventing a student from working any position unsupervised until first recieving instruction often results in a bad

initial Vatsim experience because of the time many of the students have had to wait to receive that instruction.

 

Ernie wrote:

Put an instructor or mentor next to every student on their first day and I'm all for it.

Great! So why don't we do it? Why not make that part of the policy?

 

It doesn't need to part of the policy.

 

The students can work a minor XYZ_TWR on day 1, the local facility is free to put an instructor/mentor next to them on that same day 1.

 

This policy prevents the student from being un-able to work a position, it does not prevent the local facility from providing the student with instruction and training.

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston

Albuquerque ARTCC

Vatsim Supervisor.

alcsig1b.png
Link to post
Share on other sites
The students can work a minor XYZ_TWR on day 1, the local facility is free to put an instructor/mentor next to them on that same day 1.

 

This policy prevents the student from being un-able to work a position, it does not prevent the local facility from providing the student with instruction and training.

 

Ernie,

 

is that really the case? To my understanding by receiving S1 rating the trainee has been signed off to be competent on TWR (on minor positions only if a minor/major distinction is in effect). IMHO he cannot be oblieged to control under supervison only - he has the right to control on his own.

 

One may correct me if I´m wrong here.

best regards,

 

Martin Georg

3500.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
The students can work a minor XYZ_TWR on day 1, the local facility is free to put an instructor/mentor next to them on that same day 1.

 

This policy prevents the student from being un-able to work a position, it does not prevent the local facility from providing the student with instruction and training.

 

is that really the case? To my understanding by receiving S1 rating the trainee has been signed off to be competent on TWR (on minor positions only if a minor/major distinction is in effect). IMHO he cannot be oblieged to control under supervison only - he has the right to control on his own.

 

All,

 

This is but one of the chief points of contention regarding the new policy. Clarification on this point has been asked for in numerous postings both in this discussion and to some degree in the ongoing discussion in the Controller Forum. Many interpretations have been offered, but to date, no definitive answer has been forthcoming.

 

Roland has alluded that in order for the policy to have as open and non-confining applicability as possible, this and several other implementation specifics are for the respective Regions/Divisions to determine for themselves and yet, it seems in the next breath, there are postings that appear to restrict the Region/Divisions' implementation schema such that it is a mandatory requirement that a S1 be "given the mic & keys" - sub-divisional training notwithstanding.

 

I for one, would like to hear it from the source. So, in light of their unanimous vote (6-0) for the policies, I encourage ALL of the Region Directors to join in the conversation and weigh-in with your thoughts and interpretations - after all, your votes put us here. The here-to-for silent Division Directors are encouraged to join the conversation as well.

 

If it is true that the Regions/Divisions do have the ability to implement both of these policies with variant levels of discretion (as Roland has inferred), I also urge those Directorships to engage with the sub-divisional units now in developing workable implementation schemes that allow for the least disruptive and most effective application of the policies' intent and direction.

 

Though the completion date for the policies' implementation is not until 12/31/2007, time is hastening. As things currently stand (and if they remain so), many processes and procedures will need to be "fleshed out", ie: creation of successful "major/minor" facilities selection criteria; new Divisional training/testing/certification schema; for some sub-divisional units, there will be an incredible amount of docomeentation needing to be produced to provide the localized information necessary for an S1 to have a chance at successfully controlling at a minor facility; this is only the beginning...

Gary Millsaps

VATUSA1

 

"I knew all the rules but the rules did not know me...

guaranteed."

Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't need to part of the policy.

 

The students can work a minor XYZ_TWR on day 1, the local facility is free to put an instructor/mentor next to them on that same day 1.

 

This policy prevents the student from being un-able to work a position, it does not prevent the local facility from providing the student with instruction and training.

 

I don't get it. If a student can work any minor position they want on Day 1 (without any instruction), how do you figure we can force them to have an INS/Mentor present during that session? That's completely contradictory. Can they refuse instruction? I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume so, if they don't need an ins/mentor there with them in the first place.

 

This is but one of the chief points of contention regarding the new policy. Clarification on this point has been asked for in numerous postings both in this discussion and to some degree in the ongoing discussion in the Controller Forum. Many interpretations have been offered, but to date, no definitive answer has been forthcoming.

 

I have heard two completely different things on this (from the BOG members), which I think is why I'm so confused. There should be one answer. Either these guys can be required (at the local level) to have training first, or they can't.

 

The question Gerry posed still stands unanswered. How can somebody take an open-book written test, and immediately be certified to work tower and below, presumably ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD? That goes for any rating really. If I wanted to, on Jan 1st, I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume I could go over to Europe or New Zealand or such, even though I have absolutely zero understanding of their policies, or what it is they do over there, and open a minor approach control facility, or tower, or what have you, without having to undergo any sort of training at their local level? It boggles the mind.

Bryan Wollenberg

ZLA!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the liaison person for BoG-EC. I have hosted the discussion on these changes and overseen their introduction. I can answer any question that you have and/or provide any clarification that is required.

 

These are global changes so they apply everywhere.

 

The VATSIM Global Standards for ATC Ratings policy is a course of action whereby Regional Directors have agreed to align their training departments to a common EC model in order to simplify and standardize ATC ratings and achieve a wider coverage of ATC without compromising local standards. It sets forth a training scheme that is appropriate for a hobby without overloading training departments. Differing standards is still the cause of significant problems that are harming VATSIM. The objective is to bring everyone UP to a common standard rather than taking the general standard down. If a person in a remote location is signed off as an S1 then he or she MUST have met the standard for a Local controller.

 

You will notice that there is absolutely no mention of any new rules here. The provision of ATC has always been the responsibility of Regional Directors; it is covered in CoR 3.05 (B)(9). It is the prerogative of RDs, either singularly or collectively to take such action as necessary to ensure the widest possible ATC coverage for pilots. In this case it is remarkable only in that it is a collective (EC) agreement.

 

Whilst the overall aim is to achieve more ATC and wider coverage, Regional Directors and Division Directors still have local rules at their disposal to ensure that the scheme is workable for their staff, controllers and pilots. The only ‘rule’ is that if graded locations are introduced then there should be no more than two tiers; minor and major. It is up to local division and sub-division staff to set forth their own scheme to achieve the standards, having due regard of the desire to keep things simple and impose as few restrictions as possible.

 

The Transfer & Visiting Controller policy is a course of action by Regional Directors to ensure proper recognition of prior learning (RPL) for controllers wishing to relocate or operate outside of their HOME base and has competency requirements to ensure ATC standards in the new facility are not severely compromised. The transfer component contains requirements designed to protect training departments from frivolous or repetitive transfers. This has been a source of concern in the past; largely brought about by “region shoppersâ€

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Roland, thanks again so much for your efforts here!! I think we all appreciate your explanations and clarifications.

 

Visiting controllers are required to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the same competency checks as local controllers.

 

So as I asked in my last post, does this cover both major and minor fields, or can a visiting controller work at a minor field without any "competency checks." I have heard 2 different answers on this, and would love to hear the official answer.

 

Thanks!!

Bryan Wollenberg

ZLA!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a visiting controller wants to operate at a major field then it is necessary for the visitor to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the same competency checks as a local person wishing to operate at that same major location. Keep in mind that it is really an *endorsement* for that particular major location and is not transferable to any other major location.

 

A minor location is a bit different since it doesn’t require *endorsement*. Within that sense a rating is more portable, but only within the jurisdiction of the authority that granted the rating. Once a controller goes outside that authority then he or she becomes a *visiting controller*, even for a minor location, and must p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the same competency checks as a local person at the place being visited.

 

For completeness on this. A major location does not introduce any new competencies since these are inherent in the particular ATS role in question. However, a major location is generally more complex and quite busy; that's why local staff designated it as major.

 

The designation of major and minor is not mandatory; some division will omit it altogether and have all locations designated as minor. However, there is provision for designating major locations for those jurisdictions that prefer it.

 

Roland

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roland, yes, thanks very much for the information. The list of simplified basic skills you listed really should answer most questions. Especially the last one regarding using correct phraseology for ALL local control instructions. Seems unlikely some one on their first day, unless they have a back ground in ATC, would be able to use the correct phraseology, much less the other things mentioned. So obviously there is still going to be training required before someone can even log on at a minor tower. Those basic skills could stand reviewing by all of us who are already controlling too. Thanks for the time and effort to post at the length you have.

 

Alan Hensley

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure why you believe this cannot be achieved Alan.

 

I started with SATCO at OKC. The training material then, as it is today, contains all of the instructions that you needed to know with proper phraseology throughout. I agree with the authors that if you expect proper phraseology then you present it right up front to an OBS while he or she is studying to become a controller.

 

We need to keep in mind that ATC Phraseology is not mandatory. It is used in communication to keep air time brief and avoid ambiguity. If all else fails ATC must go back to plain spoken English in order to get the message across. For pilots there is even less requirement to get exactly the right words; only a requirement to read back certain key items where the order is not critical as long as the controller is able to determine that the pilot has the correct instruction.

 

In real world controller [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment the following are the competencies in relation to phraseology.

 

Any score against each item is acceptable.

Not getting on the scoreboard is a fail [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment.

 

Using standard phraseology

a) Used standard phraseology in most relevant circomestances

 

Using non-standard phraseologies

a) Could improvise when standard phraseology was inadequate

b) Used appropriate and unambiguous nonstandard phraseology

c) Used accurate phraseology, but but may not always have been as brief as possible

 

Delivery

a) Delivery was clear, but there may have been some minor difficulties (e.g. hesitation or inappropriate inflections and/or emphasis)

 

On-line there are many situations where we have to make technological compromise or rationalize the airspace however, correct ATC phraseology is not something that we cannot achieve; it should be there right from the start with ATC who have studied and been listening to experienced controllers.

 

... much less the other things mentioned. So obviously there is still going to be training required before someone can even log on at a minor tower. Those basic skills could stand reviewing by all of us who are already controlling too.

It is a simplified list in order to keep it manageble.

 

The idea of competency-based training is that you are signed off when you are competent.

I am able to check all of the items in the list though:

 

  • A well-written test.
    A short interactive role-play session.

The written test is not only an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment tool but also acts as a filter; the interactive role-play session may only be undertaken after successfully completing the written test.

 

If a person can do all of the thing in the list, why would they need further training before being able to operate at a minor tower?

 

 

Roland

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Roland, I never said it could not be done, I just feel it is something that takes at least a little time. I very much remember the times a sup or our training officer plugged in with me for an evaluation. Not giving correct phraseology was one of the things that we got marked off on. Saying things in plain language works but it does not excuse mutilating the phraseology. You get counted off for that and I have even seen first hand one even having to have remedial training due his phraseology errors. FAA supervisors tend to keep a hard line regarding it. I saw it and experienced it first hand sir. Those who are still with the FAA and have gotten an over the shoulder can give information on how it is now. But I suspect, knowing the FAA, it has not changed.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites
Those who are still with the FAA and have gotten an over the shoulder can give information on how it is now. But I suspect, knowing the FAA, it has not changed.

 

It hasn't changed a bit. Phraseology is most certainly a requirement, just as 5 miles for radar separation, 1000 feet for vertical separation, etc. is. We aren't allowed to pick and choose which parts of the .65 we follow...at least not that I'm aware. That would be awesome though...Mondays are CB-Style "10-4 Good Buddy" phraseology days, Tuesdays are 3.8 mile separation days. Wednesdays, we get to use 700 feet. It would be a blast!

 

A minor location is a bit different since it doesn’t require *endorsement*. Within that sense a rating is more portable, but only within the jurisdiction of the authority that granted the rating. Once a controller goes outside that authority then he or she becomes a *visiting controller*, even for a minor location, and must p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the same competency checks as a local person at the place being visited.

 

Okay, so one last question on this to make sure I get it (heck it's midnight, ha ha!). Who is the issuing authority? If for instance ZOA is the issuing authority, then a ZOA controller wishing to work a minor field in ZLA would have to get visiting controller status and p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] a local competency check before controlling. If VATUSA is the issuing authority, does that mean a ZOA controller could work any position in VATUSA without a competency check or becoming a visiting controller, but would need to get visiting controller status if working out of the states?

 

Thanks again Roland! Believe it or not, I think I'm almost clear on everything. As has been said already, we all appreciate the work you're doing.

Bryan Wollenberg

ZLA!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roland,

 

you are using a nice rethorical trick here : You are posting a list, and then without further discussion [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that this list is commonly agreed. But it´s already there where the differences start.

 

My understanding of someone being competent is not only when he is able to correctly reproduce some theoretical stuff, he competent when he´s able to apply his knowledge in practice in an appropriate way. Speking specifically of tower this includes such things like maintaning a flow of traffic, putting tasks in proper sequence, reacting to unforeseen situations. That´s all stuff you need to learn through practicing, and it can´t be checked before.

 

Roland, the ideas you are propagating are like the process of styding on an university: You need to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] an entry exam to be allowed to study. But your diploma is handed out to you afterwards. No one would suggest the idea to give out the diplomas based on the entry test .

 

The result of this will be that people will have less trust in our ratings, because the rating will not tell them that the member has proven his practical ability. The rating itself in longer terms will degrade to some kind of "entry ticket". IMHO that´s a bad development.

best regards,

 

Martin Georg

3500.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, so one last question on this to make sure I get it (heck it's midnight, ha ha!). Who is the issuing authority? If for instance ZOA is the issuing authority, then a ZOA controller wishing to work a minor field in ZLA would have to get visiting controller status and p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] a local competency check before controlling. If VATUSA is the issuing authority, does that mean a ZOA controller could work any position in VATUSA without a competency check or becoming a visiting controller, but would need to get visiting controller status if working out of the states?

Ordinarily it is a division since that is the basic unit of authority within VATSIM.

 

Your suppositions about how it would be if VATUSA were the issuing authority vs a sub-division being the issuing authority are NOT automatically true; it really depends on how VATUSA wants to structure itself and what policies and procedures VATUSA will put in place to facilitate it.

 

  • Does VATUSA want an intra-division visiting controller concept to operate within VATUSA?
    Is VATUSA happy to have a VATUSA controller free to operate anywhere within the VATUSA division?
    Will some VATUSA vARTCCs be able do one thing while others align to a different scheme?

I can’t answer any of these VATUSA questions for you Bryan.

 

I can however direct VATUSA to the global policy for visiting controllers since it, or something similar, should apply wherever VATUSA wishes to establish an internal concept of *visiting controller*.

 

If VATUSA decides to have an “intra-divisionâ€

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...