Hello Nicholas,

Can you be more specific? There are different exams for different regions and divisions.

I want to add that though Shane's original point is strictly about being a better controller by utilizing proper phraseology (and you will be a better controller by doing so, if for no other reason than you'll free up your own time to focus), being professional over voice instills confidence in pilots flying and by virtue of that should increase their own enjoyment.

The lesson here is be concise because it's good for you, good for the pilot, and good for the network. You'll learn a lot and become a better controller. You can still be accomodating, and should try to be, but accommodating isn't the same as giving a TED Talk over frequency. You can, and should, be brief.

Please join me in welcoming Chris Carstens as ZLA's newest Facility Engineer! Chris has been a hard working mentor for ZLA and we're excited to welcome him to a staff position.

The biggest limitation that the Pilot ATO program faces is not the decentralized aspect of it.  It's the fact that none of it is mandatory in any way, shape, or form.  Only 350 VATSIM pilots **worldwide** on the network hold the P4 rating.  Anything we do to further pilot education about IFR traffic metering is going to be a drop in the bucket until that changes.

Totally agree. Forgive my pessimism, what I was driving at was more along the lines of "what does a new pilot on the network get as far as training, and what sort of outreach does the network do to existing pilots?"

Quote from: Robert Shearman Jr on March 19, 2018, 04:21:20 PM

Quote from: Matthew Kramer on March 19, 2018, 02:59:27 PM

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but what are some actionable steps we can take to start educating pilots on the network? Is VATSIM currently reworking training programs or is it still a hodgepodge of 3rd parties with the ability to assign pilot ratings?

what exactly are pilots lacking in understanding that the Pilot Training organizations can help with?

Although this has never seemed to be a big deal with the network (and a little off subject), preflight planning is fairly important. I'm not talking about clicking a few buttons and having simBrief spit out whatever fuel load either, I am talking about know what you're planning in simbrief/ PFPX and the decision making that goes into preflight planning.

When they get to the runway we use time to create MIT when we have successive departures to the same airport that has a high arrival demand. It's fairly involved, but it was something worth trying.

I've seen the gate holds work at ZLA pretty well. Next event I plan to monitor the ground controllers a little more closely to see what sort of pilot friction (if any) there is. I know we got one or two negative feedback reports recently, but I suspect it was more about traffic over saturation for a single controller. We should work on formalizing some of these programs.

As for flight planning, I agree there, too. Not just fuel, but also what a good route looks like. Robert and I discussed it a bit during a VATSAR event we had at ZLA on Sunday.

This is a great discussion.

I've seen TMU work well on multiple occasions here out west, and the only thing I'd like to add to that is a small wishlist.

1) As Nick said earlier in the thread, pilot outreach. It would be great to work with the organizations offering pilot ratings on the network information and education on how a virtual TMU might function during a high traffic even. During CalScream we use slots, and Cross the Pond does something similar, slot wise. It would behoove us to make prominent the concept of traffic management as an increase in realism and a net benefit to pilots.

2) The FAA uses software that puts all aircraft inbound to an airport (or an airspace) on a cool timeline that makes it easier on TMU and lets those controllers see immediately where aircraft are bunching up. It would be cool to have some sort of VATSIM approximation of this for events.