ZOA is looking for a Training Administrator!

The Training Administrator is responsible for ensuring the success of the ZOA training program. We're looking for a knowledgeable, professional, energetic and dedicated person for this role.

Duties and Responsibilities:

• Oversees and actively develops training program
• Understands and appropriately integrates VATSIM, VATUSA and ZOA policies into the training program
• Manages training staff, including recruiting and hiring mentors and instructors
• Reports directly to the ZOA Air Traffic Manager and VATUSA Training Director
• Maintains and implements training materials and documents
• Tracks the progress of student controllers
• Quickly and accurately responds to training-related inquiries from students, mentors and instructors
• Serves as a senior staff member assisting with making decisions for the ARTCC

Required Qualifications:

• Be an active member of the VATSIM network in good standing with no previous derogatory marks
• Currently hold a rating of Controller (C1) or higher
• Have held a rating of I1 for at least 30 days at any given time prior to hiring date
• Capable of working well in a team-oriented environment
• Strong knowledge of the United States Airspace and Air Traffic Control systems
• Excellent written and oral communication skills

Preferred Qualifications:

• Current I1 rating or higher
• Instructor/Mentor experience
• Previous or current ARTCC senior staff experience
• Supervisory or management experience in virtual or real world
• Real world aviation experience

Please include the following in your application:

• Letter of Intent
• Resume (please include real world management experience if applicable)
• Letter of Recommendation from a current or previous ARTCC/VATUSA staff member (not required but highly encouraged)

Please note this position requires a significant commitment to ZOA and VATSIM. Role and responsibilities may change as needed.

Please submit your application to [email protected]

Applications must be received by 23:59 PST Monday, December 24, 2018.

Quote from: Ryan Parry on September 15, 2018, 02:26:54 PM

Yes it is. My understanding is that it isn't always practiced, but per AIM 5-3-3....

Quote

a. The following reports should be made to
ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC
request:
       1. At all times.
          (a) When vacating any previously assigned
          altitude or flight level for a newly assigned altitude or
          flight level.

Hot damn, I win a prize, I knew somebody would make this always-made-but-never-correct claim.

If you want to claim it's required, you'll have to find a law or regulation to that effect.  The AIM is advisory, not regulatory, as is indicated by its middle initial.  The FAA also worded this very carefully in the AIM: "a. The following reports should be made to" -- The word SHOULD is explicit and intentional.

Pursuant to the FAA Plain Language initiative, should is used when something is NOT mandatory, but is recommended.

Also recommended reading: Words of Authority: "May vs. Should" —the neglected siblings of "Must vs. Shall," by the FAA

My understanding is that it isn't always practiced

Quote from: Ryan Parry on September 06, 2018, 11:20:25 PM

I tried to get ZOA setup with VATSTAR but it fell apart because we don't meet some of the requirements they've set for a few check rides.

Untrue.  It fell apart when I stopped receiving responses to emails about setting up a time to meet & discuss.  Let's get back in touch & try again to get it moving.

I see the email you sent me after this post, the response that is included in that chain is nowhere to be found in my inbox. Strange. I will get back to you privately.

So i understand that you guys are striving for perfection but are you striving to be real controllers or be the best vatsim controllers? Last I checked you are a real controller, when does the line get drawn between a game and real life? In my real plane most of the time one person will be talking while the other is performing the request. On vatsim its just me having to talk, pan my camera around, hope that vpilot is working correct, hope my sim doesn't freeze, adjusting my autopilot, etc... The real FAA did these studies with real airplanes and real pilots. We cannot treat vatsim pilots as real pilots or even these planes as real planes, this has been proven time and time again. You still have to account for the fact that this is a simulation that is not 100% accurate and that the pilots you are working with learned to fly this airplane by watching a video on youtube.

You're constantly trying to push the "they're not real pilots", "you can't work them like they have certificates", etc, narrative in nearly every single thread on this forum. The OP has video evidence you're wrong. We know they're not real pilots, we know we are not all real controllers either. A large majority of the people flying FNO's are the same people every week, and yet some of these ARTCC's like ZMP are able to to run great FNO's without a loss of separation, much less without putting multiple aircraft nose to nose in the final box.

Sorry if it seems blunt, but your desire to constantly push this gets really old.

If you look on the HUBB9 chart, TYR is a transition, so filing HUBB9 TYR should've been perfectly fine. The world low doesn't show all of the fixes, there is thousands, probably even millions of fixes in the United States. The world low is only going to show you the ones that are relevant some how, such as being on an airway.

Another tip, on SkyVector when you punch in your origin and destination you will see in the bottom right, just above where you write the route, a link that says "routes". If you click it you will get a drop down with routes that have been filed in the RW. The heart will mean a commonly cleared route, the green leaf means it is the most efficient. If you look up this city pair, HUBB9 TYR is the preferred route (GARL6 TYR is for Jets below 17000 as noted on the chart). I think you know you can look these up on Flightaware as well, and sure enough HUBB9 TYR is what has been filed and cleared by ATC if you want to verify what SkyVector says.

It looks like HANUH is close to CLARE, but HANUH is an RNAV waypoint while CLARE is a fix. I'm guessing they wanted to route you via the RNAV waypoint like other traffic, but that is dependent on you being able to accept an RNAV waypoint. They should've removed CLARE if you accepted HANUH. Also, you can always ask why when you get an amendment and you can always refuse it if you don't want to do it for some reason.

Pilots -

On August 16, 2018 the San Francisco Class Bravo airspace under went a major rework. This means, the Class Bravo airspace you may see in your simulator will not match what you might find on a sectional. Additionally, you may receive instructions from NORCAL and San Francisco tower that don't make sense with the old Class B airspace. It is my hope that this post will help you all understand the changes, procedures, and how we plan to handle this going forward.

So what changed, exactly?
The entire class B airspace has been changed. They've created the Bravo to give back what is not needed, and take what is needed. Additionally, the Bravo is no longer based on radials and DME, but rather GPS waypoints. Each corner point of the new class Bravo airspace is a GPS waypoint that can be programmed into any FMS or GPS (you will need an AIRAC 1809 update for your FMS, or global FSX/P3D navdata update). The waypoints for each corner can be found on the San Francisco FLY chart, and they start with VPXXX

Some of these new waypoints have a name, such as VPOYS which is called Oyster Point, and some do not. So, if you say you're flying to Oyster Point, we expect that you are going to VPOYS. In the case of those without a name simply spell it out using the phonetic alphabet. Those with a name are located directly over the landmark they are named after. The FAA has told us there will be a full list and we will publish it when we can.

Does this affect the way I can transition the San Francisco Class B?
Yes. Previously, we'd issue instructions to fly to a landmark, follow a highway, etc. Now we have defined routes that will be assigned. These routes use GPS waypoints that can be programmed into any FMS or GPS (AIRAC 1809+). The routes are as follows...

Bayshore Transition 1,500 - 3,500


Pacifica Transition 1,500 - 3,500


Coastline Transition at or above 3,500


When transitioning the Bravo, please state the route and altitude you'd like. You may join these routes at a point, so you do not need to start at the most northern or southern point. For example, a KHAF aircraft may join at Pennisula High school (VPSCS) and transition north or south, but you need to specify you want to join at that point.

In addition to the new VFR transition routes, we've also got an ATC assigned Flyway called the Bay Flyway.


This is ATC assigned only (which means it requires a bravo clearance, and we can and will deny the request if traffic is too heavy in the bay), and ATC will assign the altitude. It is broken into a few different parts. If you're going north you can expect to get either the Northwest Bay Flyway, or Northeast Bay Flyway, and if you're going south you can expect the Southwest Bay Flyway or Southeast Bay Flyway. This flyway is located on the San Francisco FLY chart.

The other flyways are not ATC assigned and no ATC contact is needed to fly them. ATC is only required for the Bay Flyway.

Does this impact other area airports?
Yes, a little bit. The Oakland Class C airspace has been slightly modified. The San Jose Class C didn't change, however San Jose airport no longer sits under the Bravo, only a portion of the class C does. Livermore (LVK) is a lot closer to the Bravo, so pilots are encouraged to be prepared for that and plan around it. San Carlos (SQL) had a minor change as well but it isn't something I think most will notice.

What do I do if I have the old Bravo and want to fly in it? How can I get the new airspace?
Please mention it to the controller. We realize that not everybody will have the new airspace, but unless we know what you have we can't help you. Since the new airspace is the current, that is what we will be operating off of.

If you fly with Foreflight connected to your sim, you will be able to use the new airspace. Additionally, I am told that fsAerodata will update FSX and P3D native airspace to have the new Bravo (I have not tested that yet). I doing what I can to inform Lockheed Martin about the airspace so that they will include it in a future update of P3D. Last, I am reading around FSDeveloper trying to figure out how to create it myself so we can distribute it to everybody for free, so far it's been slow.

The GPS waypoints used to create the Bravo and the VFR Transitions routes are available to everybody through your 1809 AIRAC update provided by Navigraph ot Navdata Pro. To update FSX and P3D navigation you can use the FSX/P3D World Naviads Package (at the time of writing this it is still 1808, but will be 1809 soon).

If you have further questions please feel free to ask, we're happy to help! Email us at [email protected]

Quote from: Ryan Parry on August 01, 2018, 09:41:26 AM

I seriously hope banners like this do not become the norm.

Well now that just makes me want to see more of them! However, maybe with less optical illusion.

The optical illusion is what I was getting at. LOL

There are probably mixed opinions on if this matters, but I'll say it anyway... Don't forget to read your NOTAMs, sometimes there will be a published NOTAM indicating the arrival is for props only. We had one like that for years at SFO and we would reroute jet aircraft on VATSIM that were filed on it.