For all controllers who will be controlling the East Coast

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

I see that point, however I tend to favor Ruth's view that the PRC is the right place for a new pilot FAQ. The source of the Q&A's may come from a forum but the "One Stop Shopping" concept gives us one place to edit when things change instead of two (or more). After a couple of years with info in two places we would have divergent instructions and potentially worse off than we are now.

 

Thank you for your commitment toward new pilot integration. It is that you guys care that makes this network so great.

[Dan Everette]

Just an idea here...

 

The problem is actually ironic in nature (though I'm too tired to laugh right now). The pilots that continuously make the same mistakes which are covered in the PRC are those that fall into one of the following categories:

 

A) Don't know how to read/comprehend the English language (though not sure how they got through the registration process).

B) Think this is the Zone Mk II, where there are no rules.

C) Think they know it all and don't need to ask questions/perform self-research (especially on the intricacies of VATSIM flight)

 

and my favorite, and probably the most prevalent:

 

D) Those that just connect to the network, whose only focus is self-pleasure (those that just want to fly what they want, when they want, how they want) with no regard to the fact that their actions will actually negatively impact other users. (OK, that didn't sound right, have to excuse me, been up for 33 hours).

 

Unfortunately, all of the above collapse into one of two distinct user groups on this network. Those that visit the forusm and ask questions (or search to see if their question has been asked/answered before) and those that will never visit the VATSIM forums.

 

We can throw the PRC around like it's the latest aviation buzzword, but the vast majority of those that ARE the issue/problem, will never see it, nor know it exists. This user group will not only persist, but will continue to grow as VATSIM's popularity grows unless some level of baseline testing is implemented, before a user is even allowed to connect to the network. I'm not talking about asking what the final approach fix is on XYZ approach, but a test which forces the pilot/user to demonstrate they understand the fundamentals (such as where/where not to connect, whether you should listen or not before opening your mouth on a new freq, etc etc). Until there is a definitive, interactive gate that new users have to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] through BEFORE logging on, this problem will persist, and we can argue about it in numerous threads to come.

 

Personally, I applaud and have a lot of respect for pilots that come to the forums and ask questions, even if they're dumb (yes, there is such a thing as a dumb question). That in and of itself demonstrates that these pilots at least have the intelligence and determination to find out what is right and what is wrong, rather than just [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming and going on their merry way causing other pilots and controllers to drive McNeil's stock up in their consumption of Tylenol.

 

OK, I'm rambling and I apologize. To my idea. As VATSIM has given the impression of an unwillingness to implement any level of pilot quality control on the network, the only way to get the word out is to shove it down user's throats. How about making the last line of the MOTD when connecting something like: Questions? www.vatsim.net/PRC

 

Also, perhaps twice a year (or if daring, once a quarter) an e-mail to the membership highlighting a section of the PRC that Mike Bevington and his team have put together. Granted a lot of the target audience still won't read it, but it gets the word out better than just continuing to link to the PRC in the forums, which the pilots that need to read it, never visit.

 

Of course, I have no idea why I'm writing this, as it won't be read by those that need to read it...

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

I still have not seen any upward trend in pilot incompetence, and I still see no need for entry restrictions. There will always be a few bad pilots. The gamers have short attention spans and quickly move on. The pilots who simply aren't very bright will get confused and bored and move on as well. VATSIM is really only attractive over the long term to those who like to follow the RW rules and procedures, so it is self-regulating.

 

I had a 767 zooming about Heathrow in the middle of the night a few days ago. Apparently he wanted to try landings and take-offs, but without any of the other stuff, like taxi, cruise, climb, descent, etc. He even put himself on my taxiway and tried to drive through me. I have all crash detection set off, though, so I just continued my taxi. Visually it was a bit disconcerting to see a jet flitting about like a moth, but no real harm done, and it did not stress me unduly. I just pretend he doesn't exist, and that works.

[ARIEL MAISONET 811274]

For controllers to **control** … they need to take one step at a time and earn ratings to control the next position in line and obviously this takes time.

 

I know VATSIM wants to have a huge amount of members (pilots), because then why we would need controllers if we don’t have pilots?, however a certain test should be given to new pilots as we do to controllers.

 

I know it may sound hard and probably I will be the target for the next few posting, but I’ve been always thinking that pilots should have rating too.

 

I mean, we won’t be that hard as we are for controllers, but look this scenario; everybody knows that Atlanta is busy often and we always have traffic. This had happen to me many times.

 

Is a beautiful Friday night I am controlling Center alone, I have several pilots calling for clearance and many others arriving and/or over flying the airspace; suddenly a 13 years old boy (and age does not matter, is just a mere example) call me that he wants to depart IFR on his new 747 no FP on the window; I ask for a FP; he send a FP saying departing Direct to KRDU. I tell him that he can’t depart directly out of KATL he needs ATL5 and a Gate or any Rnav Departure, he say I am on GATE 15; what is Rnav?.

 

I have at least 10 other pilots asking for clearance as I said… I tell him that a gate is a fix on the airspace, he says “OKâ€

[Michael Smith]

For controllers to **control** … they need to take one step at a time and earn ratings to control the next position in line and obviously this takes time.

 

I know VATSIM wants to have a huge amount of members (pilots), because then why we would need controllers if we don’t have pilots?, however a certain test should be given to new pilots as we do to controllers.

 

I know it may sound hard and probably I will be the target for the next few posting, but I’ve been always thinking that pilots should have rating too.

 

I mean, we won’t be that hard as we are for controllers, but look this scenario; everybody knows that Atlanta is busy often and we always have traffic. This had happen to me many times.

 

Is a beautiful Friday night I am controlling Center alone, I have several pilots calling for clearance and many others arriving and/or over flying the airspace; suddenly a 13 years old boy (and age does not matter, is just a mere example) call me that he wants to depart IFR on his new 747 no FP on the window; I ask for a FP; he send a FP saying departing Direct to KRDU. I tell him that he can’t depart directly out of KATL he needs ATL5 and a Gate or any Rnav Departure, he say I am on GATE 15; what is Rnav?.

 

I have at least 10 other pilots asking for clearance as I said… I tell him that a gate is a fix on the airspace, he says “OKâ€

[Paul Byrne]

I still have not seen any upward trend in pilot incompetence...

I have.

 

Anthony, as a pilot you will probably only have to deal directly with 1-3 pilots who may be close to you on the ground/in the air etc. You're perception of this is limited. As a contoller, I and many others deal directly with multiple pilots all the time. Our view of the network and its membership can be much broader and ask most of us, there seems to be an upward trend, maybe not in specific pilot incompetence, but with the amount of pilots signing on who don't have and don't want a clue of how to participate correctly on the network.

 

Cheers!

Paul.

[Gary Millsaps 830104]

I have.

 

Anthony, as a pilot you will probably only have to deal directly with 1-3 pilots who may be close to you on the ground/in the air etc. You're perception of this is limited. As a contoller, I and many others deal directly with multiple pilots all the time. Our view of the network and its membership can be much broader and ask most of us, there seems to be an upward trend, maybe not in specific pilot incompetence, but with the amount of pilots signing on who don't have and don't want a clue of how to participate correctly on the network.

Cheers!

Paul.

 

AMEN!!!

[Derek Morrison 897429]

I don't have the same amount of experience as my distinguished ZBW colleagues above, but here's my two cents.

 

I believe new VATSIM pilots should be told the following:

 

1. Yes, we have fun...but this isn't a game

2. You will eventually run into problems if you only use the default FS GPS

3. We are all here to sharpen our skills and enjoy ourselves...but hey, at least put in an effort to improve

4. No, we aren't real air traffic controllers (at least while on VATSIM), but please heed our instructions and prepare for your flight as if we were all professionals

 

Too often I see on ServInfo a flight plan saying something like "KJFK DIRECT EBBR". I can't imagine the poor soul on Gander Radio trying to explain oceanic reporting procedures to a pilot like that who might not even know what a fix is. In this case, the controller is unable to provide any services at all and the pilot is a hindrance on frequency. Nobody wins.

 

At KBOS, we almost always use a vector departure called the LOGAN4. It is included in the IFR clearance and the pilot is reminded of the procedure before takeoff. Too often does a pilot get to 500 feet and push direct in his GPS before contacting departure. Even pilots from virtual airlines (which will remain nameless) and during an event take the liberty of establishing themselves on a route of their choice. KBOS isn't the most elegantly designed of airports and I ask that pilots have enough courtesy to check the Airport Diagram...which rarely happens.

 

Of course I want more pilots to join VATSIM so we can be a little busier and make it more challenging and realistic for everybody. What I don't want is a bunch of kids who just installed flight sim to land in the gr[Mod - Happy Thoughts] in the middle of the airport and cross active runways left and right. If you were a fresh new student pilot in the real world, would you try flying a 747 on your first day without reading any charts or researching proper flying procedures? You need to start simple and work your way up. Pilots need to be more responsible and qualified...but I don't have the answer on how to do it.

[Levi Duroy 981416]

any testing that is similar to VA testing does wonders.Most VA's also have testing that can raise a pilot's rank.These tests are great for VATSIM.And possibly renewing a certification every two years could help to lessen problems.But then with that,We would need a study guide and extra staff.

[Kevin Tsai 1029796]

I was thinking that maybe we could use ranks for pilots based on the number of hours that they had flown in total on VATSIM.

 

Is my idea good?

[ARIEL MAISONET 811274]

I was thinking that maybe we could use ranks for pilots based on the number of hours that they had flown in total on VATSIM.

 

Is my idea good?

 

To me in part is a good idea, but probably we’d need additional ways of test them, because I know of few kids that have many hours flying, because simply they log in and start flying online on remote areas or even on controlled areas, but frankly they ignore the real procedures.

 

Being honest even we (real world pilots) ignore ALL the procedures, so imagine somebody that has never fly in his life, him on control .

 

So as I said before I think what we need (in addition to flying hours) is to restrict major airports to new pilots. Well I need to make a clarification here; if the pilot is new, but is a real world pilot, he should knows!!, so we only need to make a short check ride to this pilot to allow him to fly major airports. But as for the rest, is time people that we improve pilots skills to fly busier airports, as I said like Atlanta.

[Wayne Conrad 989233]

I was thinking that maybe we could use ranks for pilots based on the number of hours that they had flown in total on VATSIM.

There's a saying in IT when deciding to hire someone: "Does he have ten years experience, or one year of experience repeated 10 times?" You can't tell someone's experience and competency from total hours alone.