A thought

[Kevin Kan]

Just some thoughts after reading some posts in the General section. It wasn't on the same topic so I kept it out of there.

I highly doubt this idea would ever get off the ground, and it's only a thought I'm throwing around here.

 

When a new person joins, they always have to go through DEL, GND, TWR, DEP, APP, CTR in that order.

If the new person had a desire to go right into DEP, I don't see anything wrong with that. Of course they have to be trained in DEL (because every plane needs a clearance to do anything almost).

 

This new fictitious person gets trained on DEL and DEP only. When a pilot is ready to go, this controller could give a clearance, then say call me back airborne (with restrictions if he needs any), then identify them and continue from there.

 

A APP person could just clear a plane for an approach and handoff to unicom. Sometimes the approach controller position also covers departure out of their area. This might require some position restrictions but every ARTCC is different.

 

A CTR position might not work out that well, depending on how the airport airspace is laid out, they could be the dep/app person also requiring them to know other positions also.

 

Could help keep more new people interested. The scheme doesn't work with the layout VATSIM has now, but it's only a thought.

[Christopher Pippin 937894]

That's said and fine in the FAA because there are others to fill those positions below, but per vatsim CoC, controllers must give full service to the pilots operating within their airspace. If I was tower I HAVE to give DEL, GND and TWR services to my field if no other controller is on in that positions. Same goes for APP/DEP. No way to train someone just DEL and DEP/APP. They have to know the whole shebang.

[Matthew Bonnett 1053110]

That's said and fine in the FAA because there are others to fill those positions below, but per vatsim CoC, controllers must give full service to the pilots operating within their airspace. If I was tower I HAVE to give DEL, GND and TWR services to my field if no other controller is on in that positions. Same goes for APP/DEP. No way to train someone just DEL and DEP/APP. They have to know the whole shebang.

 

That may be true and I'm purely talking theorheticals here, but really how required are positions like GRD and DEL at an airfield with little traffic? I remember getting ready to pushback at ORD with only TWR services on and just a few other pilots doing the same and it basically came down to us, the pilots, separating ourselves and it was first-come-first-serve at the rwy as aircraft lined up. THEN TWR took over to clear takeoffs and handle DEP and handoff to CTR.

 

Though on the other side of the coin, positions such as DEL and GRD don't have much to learn about in the first place.

[Alan Hensley 950569]

That's said and fine in the FAA because there are others to fill those positions below, but per vatsim CoC, controllers must give full service to the pilots operating within their airspace. If I was tower I HAVE to give DEL, GND and TWR services to my field if no other controller is on in that positions. Same goes for APP/DEP. No way to train someone just DEL and DEP/APP. They have to know the whole shebang.

 

I may be misunderstanding this but, to my knowledge there is no requirement to give FULL services to pilots. Many times I treat some airports as uncontrolled even if they are have approach/departure and tower controllers in the RW. In fact, I have seen controllers not give tower and below services to even Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airports. I was under the understanding it was up to the controller to decide. I have not read anything in the CoC stating controllers were required to give full service.

 

Again, I might be totally misunderstanding the point. If so, my apologies.

[Justin A. Martin]

Alan,

 

You are correct, to some extent. The CoC and CoR prevents from denying service into ANY airport, but it says nothing about treating facilities uncontrolled in an attempt of realism. I'm under the understanding that we can close TWRs at our discretion, however if we decide to close an airport, we are required to give services into that airport by request.

 

On to the original topic. I don't think this would work, quite honestly. One VATSIM-ism that I love are the steps to get up in the ARTCC. You start with the easiest postion (DEL) and work your way up to some harder ones. By the time you get to the top (CTR) you have a good understanding of the ARTCC and the general procedures for radar and local control.

 

My $0.02...

 

Justin

[J Jason Vodnansky 810003]

Ah yes, the infamous GRP...

 

Graduated Controller Ratings

A VATSIM rating is part of a graduated scheme where a person cannot get a higher

rating without having first completed the requirements for the lower rating/s. Graduated

ratings are essential within the VATSIM on-line environment since on-line ATC must

provide a "top-down" service and cover for any missing positions beneath them; this

applies to all positions from CTR down.

 

So, we MUST cover for any missing positions below that controller.

 

We used to be able to get a student onto Clearance delivery, and get him/her working within a few hours. What did they have to know, other that CRAFT, and the departure fixes for a given facility, which of course, could be printed out.

 

NOW, in order to get online, a student must observe for 20 hours (according to latest VATUSA TS meeting). That student also MUST know about Clearance, Ground and Tower. Which, is now , far more involved since we demand such an extreme level of realism.

 

So, in short, while the INTENT of the GRP, seems to be in the right place. In reality, it has only made it more difficult to get the students on the scope. Add that to the fact, that if you ask 10 different people a question about the GRP, you STILL get 10 different answers! Mind you it has been over 16 months since GRP came out.

 

So, how successful has GRP been in its implementation? How many more students are on the scope now, as compared to before?

 

Regards,

J. Jason Vodnansky

vZAU ATM

[Dan Everette]

NOW, in order to get online, a student must observe for 20 hours (according to latest VATUSA TS meeting). That student also MUST know about Clearance, Ground and Tower. Which, is now , far more involved since we demand such an extreme level of realism.

 

RJ, you around? Want to know one of the reasons it's taking so long to get people controlling?

 

Who came up with that 20 hours? Dennis Whitley?

[Kevin Kan]

I was thinking along the lines of Alan and Matthew. How important is GND and TWR really? As he said, it's not too hard for a pilot to self-navigate around airports. That's pretty much what all pilots do at uncontrolled airfields. Same with takeoff.

 

 

The CoC, CoR, GRP etc are all just words people can vote to change, if we find a better way to get someone controlling at a spot they feel like they really want, why not?

I hope this 20 hours J. Jason mentioned isn't going to stay. That's a minimum of 40 sessions (30min MAX/session) to get 20 hours. That's rough riddled with boredom.

[Gary Millsaps 830104]

Who came up with that 20 hours? Dennis Whitley?

 

Ahhh..rumor control once again...gotta love it.

 

The source of the 20 hours observing time is a recommended guidelines docomeent posted by one of the chief authors of the EC published Global Ratings Policy. It describes a procedural methodology - currently used in one (if not more) VATSIM regions - as a means of compliance with the established requirements of the GRP. Please note the keyword there - guideline.

 

For those in VATUSA, in a careful reading of the policy and implementation plans we concurrently developed, there is no mention of any minimally required number of observing hours at any level of rating certification. The consensus developed through all of the discussions that took place as the VATUSA GRP implementation plans were developed was that an established minimal number of hours at any point within the process did not fit within the framework of our approach and was deemed to be detrimental to the overall goal(s) outlined by the EC GRP itself. If anyone took away from the recent Training Services meeting that such a minimal number of hours at any level of the ratings process was being mandated, implemented, or otherwise made the "rule of the day" around VATUSA, I'm here to inform you such is NOT the case and I apologize to anyone if that was not clearly delineated for you.

 

In short, my predecessor had nothing to do with it...

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

just my .02 then im staying outta these GRP subjects

 

Just some thoughts after reading some posts in the General section. It wasn't on the same topic so I kept it out of there.

I highly doubt this idea would ever get off the ground, and it's only a thought I'm throwing around here.

 

When a new person joins, they always have to go through DEL, GND, TWR, DEP, APP, CTR in that order.

If the new person had a desire to go right into DEP, I don't see anything wrong with that. Of course they have to be trained in DEL (because every plane needs a clearance to do anything almost).

 

i see alot wrong with that IMO, #1 being that many of us who have been around for the last 10+ years have gone through all the paces learning proper procedure, etc.. everybody wants to "push tin", sure, thats a given, but then wheres the incentive if you were to jump straight through the "ranks".

 

This new fictitious person gets trained on DEL and DEP only. When a pilot is ready to go, this controller could give a clearance, then say call me back airborne (with restrictions if he needs any), then identify them and continue from there.

 

this is how minor fields are handled. however, pilots online in cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B or C airports, even if you were to refuse, expect full service from the controllers above. also local ARTCC procedures, etc.. determine what fields are cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ified as uncontrolled and which are fully covered. if an ARTCC were to decide that ALL airports in its airspace are to be covered, pretty sure they can do it. same if they were to decide that all airports would be uncontrolled with no tower was on. would it be fair to the pilots tho? i think not. remember theyre here to have just as much fun as the rest of us. its not exactly fun to fly into uncontrolled airports.

 

A APP person could just clear a plane for an approach and handoff to unicom. Sometimes the approach controller position also covers departure out of their area. This might require some position restrictions but every ARTCC is different.

 

see above

 

A CTR position might not work out that well, depending on how the airport airspace is laid out, they could be the dep/app person also requiring them to know other positions also.

 

Could help keep more new people interested. The scheme doesn't work with the layout VATSIM has now, but it's only a thought.

 

thats the point of going through the ranks IMO. learn all the positions, theyre there for a reason. each position teaches you something new. if someone is here just cause they want to work radar and thats it, great, earn it.

 

personally i dont remember having to wait that long when i first started many years ago to start training on delivery. i fully understand both sides of the argument. minor fields get covered and new guys get some online time while theyre in the queue. but you need to create a need for those minor fields aswell, sure theyre covered, every now and then someone will fly in, but the majority of online pilots only fly into the majors as far as i know. i say get those new controllers trained and cleared on delivery at the majors and let them start working, stop worrying so much about the minor airports, if a controller wants to cover them, great, if not so be it. i sometimes feel like covering a minor airport, so ill do it even if im certified at the majors

 

thats just my .02 there now off to watch some soaps

[Alex Bailey 969331]

positions such as DEL and GRD don't have much to learn about in the first place.

 

That's a common misconception on the network, and is completely wrong. DEL is one of the most important positions in the ATC environment, and should be treated as such.

[Matthew Bartels]

Alex, I completely agree with you there. A good DEL controller makes everyone's life above him that much easier. It's a thankless position, but I can tell you the quality of my experience online is that much more when I have pilots on valid routes which may not have been had there not been a DEL on!

 

As for jumping straight up to DEP.... I'm really gonna keep my mouth shut.... There's nothing nice I can say about that idea....

[Benton Wilmes]

I completely agree with Kevin on this. Why do we HAVE to start people out in local if all they EVER want to control is the TRACON? Why CAN'T we shut down major airports (I've been told by VATSIM staff that we could)?

 

 

positions such as DEL and GRD don't have much to learn about in the first place.

 

That's a common misconception on the network, and is completely wrong. DEL is one of the most important positions in the ATC environment, and should be treated as such.

 

Another common misconception Alex is that DEL controllers actually learn everything they need to know while training as a DEL controller. I agree with you that it is an important position but in my experience as an instructor, students didn't become proficient in DEL until training on TWR at the very earliest (usually more like TRACON/CTR training). Simple reason is because they just don't understand the whole picture yet; they just don't see what the consequences are of what they do. We can tell them why not to do something but they won't ever completely understand why until they are working those higher up positions.

[Brad Littlejohn]

Another common misconception Alex is that DEL controllers actually learn everything they need to know while training as a DEL controller. I agree with you that it is an important position but in my experience as an instructor, students didn't become proficient in DEL until training on TWR at the very earliest (usually more like TRACON/CTR training). Simple reason is because they just don't understand the whole picture yet; they just don't see what the consequences are of what they do. We can tell them why not to do something but they won't ever completely understand why until they are working those higher up positions.

 

I really wouldn't call it a misconception at all.

 

If done right, those training at Delivery will learn about what goes on at those higher positions, because they are in charge of making sure that the departing traffic flows out of the proper places they need to go. On top of that, they get familiarized with local procedures and the departure flows out of that given airport using those procedures.

 

I'm not going to tell any instructor how to train their student, because that isn't my position, nor my call to. but if I were training a student at DEL, if anything, I would have them on their own, observe TWR, and see how it makes those higher positions' jobs easier, while thinking to themselves 'what clearance would I give this departure, or that departure'. That way they get that understanding, and make out to be a better controller at DEL, and start their way up.

 

As for just doing DEP, there are some TRACON facilities where the APP and DEP controllers are always combined for the lateral portions of their sector; KOMA is one of them; KSUX is another. With KSUX, it's the single position all around, so you would have no choice but to work both APP and DEP[1]. That just wouldn't fly (pun intended).

 

BL.

 

[1] going off of frequencies at AirNav.

[Ross Carlson]

I fly on VATSIM because I like interacting with human ATC. The interaction I receive from DEL, GND and TWR is a huge part of that. I actually find those phases of flight to be some of the most interesting. I would not enjoy a VATSIM that downplayed the importance of local control in this way. I would not enjoy flying into a major airport and having the APP controller ship me off to UNICOM for my landing.

[Garry Morris 920567]

I'll agree that DEL is very important, and mention that GND also plays a huge role in making sure that queuing aircraft are staggered to ensure a good outbound flow and a minimum of delays. Not to mention keeping the airport running smoothly.

 

Sure, GND is easy when there's two or three aircraft running around, but during huge events like the Superbowl, GND is an incredibly challenging position and a very huge reward when all the little airplanes are moving around in a perfectly choreographed sequence that will get everyone to their gates and runways with a minimum of fuss and delay.

 

Even after controlling almost 3 years, tower and ground are so much fun for me that I've felt no need or urge to head on up to approach.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

I'll agree that DEL is very important, and mention that GND also plays a huge role in making sure that queuing aircraft are staggered to ensure a good outbound flow and a minimum of delays. Not to mention keeping the airport running smoothly.

 

Sure, GND is easy when there's two or three aircraft running around, but during huge events like the Superbowl, GND is an incredibly challenging position and a very huge reward when all the little airplanes are moving around in a perfectly choreographed sequence that will get everyone to their gates and runways with a minimum of fuss and delay.

 

Even after controlling almost 3 years, tower and ground are so much fun for me that I've felt no need or urge to head on up to approach.

 

 

ask anyone in my ARTCC how hard it was for them to get me to staff radar again just cause i love tower and ground

 

folks may see a couple aircraft, sure anyone can do that. add 20+ aircraft on top of that and get them sequenced, with minimal delay, then tell me if you didnt have fun doing it these positions are so under appreciated

[Garry Morris 920567]

hehe, during TGIF last Friday, I had to cover all of PHX local (DEL, GND, and TWR) solo when a few folks had some conflicts come up and weren't able to staff it.

 

At one point I probably had 15-20 aircraft in all stages of movement, landing, taxiing, taking off, requesting clearances. After about 10 minutes of talking almost non-stop, with the push done, the last of the conga line of aircraft waiting at the hold short point roaring off the end of the primary departure runway, and everyone handled and going their merry ways, I had a number of people giving WTGs and big smilies in the text channel. One that stands out was "OMG THAT WAS SO COOL".

 

*That* is why I control. Being able to pull that kind of stuff off so that everyone is having a blast and seeing how much the pilots enjoy my giving them that service.

[Ross Carlson]

I'm with you Garry ... Tower is tons of fun when it's busy. The challenge of keeping all the aircraft moving smoothly with no incursions AND with keeping the runways occupied at all times, is where it's at for me.