[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Put another way, a controller can have perfect phraseology, perfect procedure, etc. But when a pilot doesn't understand how to fly direct to a fix in the flightplan, and instead turns to intercept a line from the airport to the first fix, what is the point of all of this training?

thoughts?[/quote]

We've been through all that.  A pilot training versus controller training debate is something we've all seen before.

Let me see if I can get the discussion back on track.

Pretend we didn't have any controllers on this network at all.  

How would you attract more pilots?

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]1) We make it too hard to become an app or center controller. Staff it and they will come. No staff=no pilots.[/quote]

Jeff,

I'm not so sure.  As I was pointing out, IVAO was only a few hundred pilots below us with only 3 ATC online, in one of their slow periods, when we were staffed to the hilt with an event going on.  

Additionally, I'm not sure that making it easier to become an approach or center controller is the answer.  The reason approach or center is difficult for students is not because you have to learn some new phraseology, but rather because you have to manage traffic.  I can remember my first night training as a center controller, and I got absolutely overwhelmed by 4 aircraft.  Still today on a busy night in ZLA on Socal I have to constantly remind myself to use the lessons I've learned in my training or my picture goes to crap in about 2 minutes.  And I still have more to learn.  

In short, what they need to know to avoid getting overwhelmed and providing poor service can only be obtained through disciplined training.

The bigger problem with easing the path into approach or center though is that controllers who are given an easy path by and large don't ever improve.  They develop a sense of entitlement.  I saw that at an ARTCC with extremely lax standards that hired someone with real-world experience as a TA. When told they weren't doing it right, the existing controllers got indignant, made lots of "do you know how long I've been a C1"-type speeches and many of them resigned.

If it were possible to make it easy to become an approach / center controller and have them continue to improve, I'd be all for it.  But past experience says that's only possible with a few dedicated individuals.  The majority are done improving the minute they get their ticket.

 
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]2) The pilot software is a bit daunting to non-computer types.
3) There is no training available for pilots, and the pat answer is always http://www.vatsim.net/prc[/quote]

This is probably an area where continued improvement would pay benefits.

Again, the focus on this discussion is what can we do to attract and retain pilots.  ATC coverage plays a big part of that, but I don't think it's the total solution.

Sorry to interrupt the discussion on politics, but it occurred to me while reading all the gnashing of teeth is that what we ought to be discussing is why we have trouble attracting *PILOTS* to VATSIM.

Looking at IVAO, they're consistently a few hundred users ahead of us (or more) during their respective peak time.

Why is that?

Because IVAO doesn't have difficult ATC certification processes and people don't mind just having a random person handing out something that somewhat approximates an ATC instruction?

Because IVAO doesn't have vast levels of bureaucracy and in-fighting?

Because IVAO has killer software?

Because IVAO has better documentation?

I honestly don't know the answer.

I've only seen their X-plane software, and I don't think its much different from ours.  From what I've read of their ATC client, it certainly seems like it's probably equal to VRC and behind Euroscope.

I do know they have some of the same difficulties retaining developers.  For a while there, their entire pilot client was in some question when some of the key people quit developing.

One thing I think that plays a big part is IVAO's concentration in Europe.  You get a lot of airplanes flying together in a relatively small area and you get a better traffic experience.  Additionally, the more concentrated the traffic, the more concentrated the ATC coverage.  While IVAO has 90% of their traffic concentrated in Europe, VATSIM has its traffic and controllers spread across both North America and Europe.

So what is it that attracts people to IVAO?  About the only thing I've heard is "a family feel."

Are there folks who have significant experience with IVAO that can comment?  What can we do to make VATSIM better and more attractive to pilots?