Fabulous!

Excellent job!

This statement below from FS9's Learning Center - Expanding Your Hobby is what attracted me to VATSIM -- first as a pilot and then as a controller:

"There are also add-on avionics packages that simulate the latest display and navigation technology, and specialized scenery areas that make the Flight Simulator world even more realistic.  A few add-ons even enable Flight Simulator pilots to fly together in a radar-controlled environment over the internet - with real people acting as Air Traffic Controllers. "

When I read that four years ago, I was extremely excited.  I have zero real world piloting experience, but a heavy appetite for learning about all things aviation.  I saw VATSIM as an advancement in my flight simulating experience -- not the beginning of my flight simulation experience.  I thought I would really need to be up on my piloting skills to even think about signing onto the network.  After being an online pilot for a year and a half, I decided to become a controller in order to learn more about managing airspace.  This was right at the time that the academy closed down.  

I have only been with ZDC since I started as a controller.  I have noticed several trends:  

1.  Looking at our roster, there are only three controllers who are still active who were with ZDC when I started.  

2. The average age of our roster has skewed younger.   As an adult, one thing that pleased me about VATSIM was the wide variety of ages in the community.  I was happy to see that there were people in my age group on the network.  I think we lose something as a community when the overall age group range skews too much in one direction or the other.  The wide variety in ages is the key to balance on the network if the expectations are properly managed.

3. There has been heavy attrition amongst controllers who work their way up through GND, TWR, Major TRACON, CTR and leave shortly after obtaining CTR certification.  This tells me that after  putting in all of their hard work, their expectations of the network were not met and they sought there entertainment elsewhere.  It also may be a symptom of real life obligations crowding out time for VATSIM, or it may be a symptom of VATSIM burn out.  

4. Pilot ages in the U.S.  have appeared to skew younger as well.   I think we lose something as a community when this age group range skews too much in one direction or the other as well.  The wide variety in ages is the key to balance on the network if the expectations are properly managed.

5.  The absence of online presence from upper management, and a growing struggle between the proper balance between ARTCC autonomy and standardization across ARTCC's.  This creates a disconnect between management and the controller/pilot population.  As a result, the expectations of VATSIM have not been properly managed, and a disturbing malaise has been allowed to set in.

I think the "Off Peak Cert" topic in the VATSIM forum quickly became sidetracked into an issue about traffic at minor fields.  I don't think minor field traffic is the issue at all.  I have two class C fields that receive an average of 30+ operations a week.  These fields are not regularly staffed, but I am certain they would see an increase in traffic if staffed regularly.  It is a good environment for those who want to control and not put in the extra time required to learn the major fields.  I think this is an issue of controller and pilot expectations not being met.  Upper management needs to determine the expectation of the pilot/controller population and either adjust to the pilot/controller population or recalibrate the pilot/controller population's expectations.  

Congratulations Bill!

Stating this doesn't fix the problem. The statement above is the problem. (What I mean is not that you stating it is the problem, but instead that you have described the issue.) Whether you want to open source the client development or take it all in house (as IVAO appears to have done), either would probably be better than the situation VATSIM has now. It combines the worst of closed source development (lack of collaboration) with the worst of open source development (individual developers who come and go). I'm not going to beat the open source drum again here, but something needs to change.

Right now VATSIM has exactly one pilot client under active development, and it doesn't work with the most popular simulator. The two for FS are in "perpetual beta", one is officially abandoned and the other requires one to "read the please install sticky references by the read me sticky referenced by announcement in the forum which says that features that don't work aren't part of the procedure and you didn't need them anyways". What a mess.

We need to fix the issue you describe above, not accept it. If you don't want to open source stuff, then get the license transferred to VATSIM and create an in-house technology department. But either way, do something different than you do now.



Does it matter? I looked through the introduction to the PRC and within about 30 seconds my eyes glazed over. Then I noticed that the basic stuff had "introduction to Conflict Resolution" and was quoting dreary bits from the CofC, CofR and CofWhatever and it became comical. The best way to encourage people to participate on VATSIM is to get them to fly, with others, and have a great time. The introduction section of PRC should have the bare minimum to get them there, and the next step before the advanced stuff is for them to actually connect and fly a flight. You're not allowed to read further until you actually fly!

Right now as it stands, irresponsible people won't read it anyways. Responsible folks spend days or weeks learning it all, worried they'll do something wrong and aren't getting exposed to the network.



That's the problem with every younger generation.  What's really cool about progress is that increasingly, we can give it to people sooner, simpler and with fewer restrictions.



Great point. Reality is a continuum. We shall never meet the expectations of everyone. We need to recognize that we provide reality in a libertarian fashion; you are free to develop your own higher level of realism provided it does not negatively affect others.



It's great that this is being discussed.

Luke

Luke, I agree with your first statement 100%. The pilot clients' interaction with FSX is the major problem.  It appears to me that traffic levels were fine until FSX came out.  The pilot clients initially could not work with FSX.  As a result, those that wanted to use FSX could not fly on VATSIM and traffic levels dropped.  Later, FSInn could be used (I believe in beta format), but I do not remember ever seeing a finished product of either pilot client for FSX.  For new pilots, the installation of the pilot client and/or maintenance of the pilot client could seem very intimidating.

Best wishes Cornell.

I am very impressed by the response to this crisis.  Great work Andrew!