Integrity of the Network

[Chris McGee]

I might have. No worries man

[Bob Carmona]

As in my original post if someone is able to learn with VATSIM and grow that's great but the focus is not on making any facilities training that which is a stepping stone to the real thing. Some here want that ultra realistic 100% accurate training environment to which the founders have said was not the design, intent, or purpose of VATSIM.

Why is that when a facility has detailed SOP's and training documents, they are deemed ultra realistic, FAA, militants? I have made several of these documents that I am sure some of these people would deem "ultra realistic". But you know what, I/we don't make them "know" it. Hell, I don't even "know" them and I wrote them! We teach our students how to use and reference them and that is all we expect to them to know. If I ask a student a question from them, they do not have to snap back the answer from memory. They do however have to answer that question by looking it up if they don't know it. Yes, if they don't/won't/can't even do that, they FAIL.

To the critics of failing a student seeking major endorsement for a single conflict or a descent below MVA, I say this. As a pilot on this network, after a 3-4 or more hour flight, I have never had any fun being descended into a mountain or ran into another plane. That's just me though...

[Richard Jenkins]

Why is that when a facility has detailed SOP's and training documents, they are deemed ultra realistic, FAA, militants? I have made several of these documents that I am sure some of these people would deem "ultra realistic". But you know what, I/we don't make them "know" it. Hell, I don't even "know" them and I wrote them! We teach our students how to use and reference them and that is all we expect to them to know. If I ask a student a question from them, they do not have to snap back the answer from memory. They do however have to answer that question by looking it up if they don't know it. Yes, if they don't/won't/can't even do that, they FAIL.

To the critics of failing a student seeking major endorsement for a single conflict or a descent below MVA, I say this. As a pilot on this network, after a 3-4 or more hour flight, I have never had any fun being descended into a mountain or ran into another plane. That's just me though...

I think that is the crux of the matter. The difference between "knowing" and "reference"...people have different interpretations of those meanings. Some places are creating very detailed instruments and expecting the student to "know" exactly what it says. Where others are creating "references" for the student to find information. There needs to be some sort of method for giving the student "the need to know" stuff out of those. I don't think it's reasonable to hand a student a couple hundred pages and tell them they need to study it for the test. Maybe a study guide of some sort?

As for the zero error OTS...First, doesn't it really depend on the type of error? Was it within the control of the student? Second, if a student does 99 things right during the test and does 1 wrong and fails, what message does that send? Is there a mechanism available to counsel the student about the error as to what went wrong and why, so that it doesn't happen again and then move on?


Rich

[Mike Cassel]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]As for the zero error OTS...First, doesn't it really depend on the type of error? Was it within the control of the student? Second, if a student does 99 things right during the test and does 1 wrong and fails, what message does that send? Is there a mechanism available to counsel the student about the error as to what went wrong and why, so that it doesn't happen again and then move on?[/quote]

I think this post represents the crux of the misunderstanding.

First, the only "zero-error" OTSes I'm aware of are for the most severe types of errors in ATC - letting two planes get too close or letting a plane get too close to terrain or another controller's airspace. Every other single type of error that I'm aware of is not an automatic failure - while sufficiently many other errors can cause a failure, those are not a zero-error situation.

Second, all "zero-error" OTSes of course take into account pilot mistakes - all such errors need to be primarily the fault of the controller. As far as I'm aware, facilities with that policy do not fail someone if the conflict situation was primarily caused by a pilot mistake. As long as the student recognizes the problem in a reasonable amount of time and takes steps to deconflict the problem after it occurs, the controller isn't even charged with an error of any kind, much less an "automatic failure".

The comment about "what went wrong and why" is perhaps the most troublesome. ATC is not a simple knowledge game, where if you memorize all the rules you can become a good controller. Everyone taking an OTS knows the rules. The trouble is in being a good enough controller to follow them - that takes practice, experience, and some talent. If someone commits a "deal", it frequently isn't the kind of thing that can just be talked about and moved on from. It's usually an indicator instead that the combination of skills required to work the position just hasn't been fully developed yet.


Finally, in response to the 99 things right - all policies are administered with some human touches. Zero-errors is an aspirational goal, and in my view a good one. But I personally have "not seen" a guy go .1 mile into a higher MVA on what was otherwise a truly kick-ass OTS. If an OTS was truly oversaturated with traffic and despite any controller's best efforts a conflict was inevitable, that's taken into consideration. But on the whole I think that asking someone to control for an hour, maybe an hour 15 on the position they want to work without nearly crashing someone's plane is not an unreasonable objective.

[Richard Jenkins]

I think this post represents the crux of the misunderstanding.

First, the only "zero-error" OTSes I'm aware of are for the most severe types of errors in ATC - letting two planes get too close or letting a plane get too close to terrain or another controller's airspace. Every other single type of error that I'm aware of is not an automatic failure - while sufficiently many other errors can cause a failure, those are not a zero-error situation.

Second, all "zero-error" OTSes of course take into account pilot mistakes - all such errors need to be primarily the fault of the controller. As far as I'm aware, facilities with that policy do not fail someone if the conflict situation was primarily caused by a pilot mistake. As long as the student recognizes the problem in a reasonable amount of time and takes steps to deconflict the problem after it occurs, the controller isn't even charged with an error of any kind, much less an "automatic failure".

The comment about "what went wrong and why" is perhaps the most troublesome. ATC is not a simple knowledge game, where if you memorize all the rules you can become a good controller. Everyone taking an OTS knows the rules. The trouble is in being a good enough controller to follow them - that takes practice, experience, and some talent. If someone commits a "deal", it frequently isn't the kind of thing that can just be talked about and moved on from. It's usually an indicator instead that the combination of skills required to work the position just hasn't been fully developed yet.


Finally, in response to the 99 things right - all policies are administered with some human touches. Zero-errors is an aspirational goal, and in my view a good one. But I personally have "not seen" a guy go .1 mile into a higher MVA on what was otherwise a truly kick-ass OTS. If an OTS was truly oversaturated with traffic and despite any controller's best efforts a conflict was inevitable, that's taken into consideration. But on the whole I think that asking someone to control for an hour, maybe an hour 15 on the position they want to work without nearly crashing someone's plane is not an unreasonable objective.

Perhaps it's OTS standards are all over the place within VATSIM? Is that good or bad? Does it allow for diversity giving the student the ability to pick the level of realism that is suitable for them? I think I could argue it from bothsides.

[David Jedrejcic]

Perhaps it's OTS standards are all over the place within VATSIM? Is that good or bad? Does it allow for diversity giving the student the ability to pick the level of realism that is suitable for them? I think I could argue it from bothsides.

I don't know if I would say the standards are "all over the place", but certainly there are differences in the way things are run from ARTCC to ARTCC, and obviously from Division to Division.  I think that's perfectly fine, not "good or bad".  Although I see the benefit of having a GRP that dictates at least a minimal amount of conformity across VATSIM, I also think it's acceptable for different ARTCCs to have slightly different ways of operating, training, etc.  VATUSA would be a little more bland IMHO if every ARTCC had to administer every OTS in the same exact manner as every other ARTCC.  If a student joins an ARTCC and finds it to be not enough realism, they can pretty quickly get the scoop from their colleagues and find out where to go in order to get as real as they want to.  If they find themselves in a very regimented program and wish to have a little more fun and a little less studying, I'm sure they will find where they need to go as well.  Both kinds of programs have merit, and I support the ARTCC being able to dictate what kind of facility they will sponsor (within reason).  I, myself, am not a huge fan of the ultra-realism point of view, but some folks are - and they have places they can flourish.  Thankfully, I can also find an ARTCC that suits my somewhat more relaxed needs, and everybody has somewhere to call home.

[Harold Rutila]

The GRP, when looked at from one perspective, is written such that it appears every competency must be passed on an evaluation. David Klain admits this in a reply to me on the VATSIM Forums, as that was something I had asked about. I think the situations of the OTS will take into account any errors. Like Mike said, if a guy is working a major TRACON OTS with a hot frequency throughout most of the event, then he's not going to be busted (by me at least) on minor phraseology bluffs, a missed traffic pointout here and there, or a missed ILS interception or two. Again, it all depends on the situation. I think we as ARTCC leaders are able to handle the responsibility of disseminating that information to ARTCC staff. I don't, however, think there should be OTSs that are failed due to one error despite a GRP interpretation that may allow for it.

[Daniel Hawton]

For me , age is a disability I can never become an FAA ATC because i've got less than 30 days till i'm 30 (I believe the cutoff is appointment  by age 30).

I've come to accept that VATSIM will be the closest thing to working as an air traffic controller. I only have myself to blame for not pursuing the career earlier but that's beside the point.

You are missing a whole other side of ATC Brian.  There are several ways to become an Air Traffic Controller outside of the FAA.  Attend a school, get your CTO (Certified Tower Operator) license and apply at a contract tower.  Majority of them have zero age limits.  A CTO is an FAA license, you have to have it 90% of the time to get hired at Contract Towers but a small number will train you to the point of being able to earn your CTO (less likely).  With a CTO, you can get a job almost anywhere.  Contract Towers are hiring.  Plus, there are contract towers in Afghan that are hiring and pay very well (triple digits to start, plus they pay for you to come home on holidays etc etc).  You also have military.  Every branch has ATC.  If you really want to do it, find an alternative.  The FAA is most definitely NOT the only way to become a real world Air Traffic Controller.

[Andrew Wolcott]

Boy I didn't think I'd return back to the forums, but some good friends ushered me back in this direction. I, too, left VATSIM for many of the reasons stated in this thread, although my view wasn't as popular back when I chose to make the decision. Everything said in this thread is entirely the reason why I resigned the Division Director position, and my dissent lead to my dismissal from the pilot training staff. I really feel bad for Gary, because as a former staff member I know exactly how it feels to not be considered as part of the solution to many problems. The BoG and Founders ARE out of touch with this organization and will continue to be until they actually listen to the constituency.

I would caution those applying the carte blanche principle to this debate. I can promise you that the entire BoG is not corrupt or out of touch, and I'm afraid Kyle Ramsey's remarks are being applied out of context. Kyle's experiences make him a valuable asset to VATSIM, and I would encourage everyone who has issues with VATSIM to speak with him because he WILL support a valid opinion that is supported by evidence. I worked with him for quite some time and I stand nothing to gain by the public praise, so take that for what it's worth.

Hopefully the upper management will recognize that David Klain's advice of "If you don't like it, then leave" is actually being taken. You've lost people who once had a passion for this hobby and for this organization. You are NOTHING without your volunteers, and this is something to think about as you see those of us who have left and those who are currently packing their bags. You're losing your playground.

[Insert all of AJ's post here, as he said it better than I could.]

- Alex

Alex,

You and I have a mutual friend who was once the ATM of ZTL during SATCO days and a founding member of this network. Those of us posting in this forum are not the only ones who don't like the direction this network is going.....

To continue on:

As one who started back when this thing was called SATCO (I hear some 15 year old kid in the background saying, "What's SATCO???") I can say VATSIM as a whole has changed. Personally for me the change is a negative. I remember times on SATCO, using ProController mind you, when events would draw 300 pilots during the course of 4-5 hours. These pilots were taught Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Some of you old heads remember having "TURN THEN TYPE!" listed in your controller info. The big difference back then is that the pilots were really keen about learning how to do things as closely as possible to real world procedures. Controllers were the same. As others have put it, we all took pride in bettering our understanding and craved anything that would increase it.

Now-a-days it seems, I say it SEEMS, certain groups of individuals have their minds set on lowering the standard of training which so many of us years ago put so much pride into. The sad part is that the perception behind the decisions implementing the new changes is one of making things easier for pilots. But it really is not a perception. This is real. For a network that requires controllers to undergo training, but allows pilots to login without so much reading one single manual, or even taking an entry exam... Well... Fair and Balanced? I think not. So all of us who have put in so much time and effort to SIMULATE the ATC Environment, suffer for the benefit of the new generation of pilots, and in many cases, ATC'ers.

But lets face the reality... The whole thing, IMHO, is about membership numbers. VATSIM is/was losing members (supposedly). I personally believe this is due to a continued lack of realism on the part of many, and the continued justification and totalitarianism of many within the upper ranks. This is not to say each member of the upper ranks sees things this way. I can assure that at least one does not.

IMHO, many of the decisions being made are introduced by those who are now in the position of getting their way. These same individuals are the ones who did not like realism from the beginning. The same ones who got mad at those of us who worked hard to be the best we could be. Now, like children who were once bullied but grew-up to be wealthy, they themselves are doing things their way, as if out of spite. Could I be wrong about this? Absolutely. But when these individuals make the remarks that are too commonly quoted throughout these forums and elsewhere, it doesn't take a whole lot to see how many of these guys are acting like spoiled brats.

I think AJ summed up the feelings most of us 'relics' from days gone by are feeling. I personally think perhaps it is time for a division of individuals to split off from VATSIM and start a new organization which tailors to the realists. I mean, how ironic would that be? Years ago IVAO was founded by former SATCO/VATSIM members due to circumstances similar, albeit quite the opposite, of what we are experiencing now with VATSIM. Too much realism in IVAOs eyes (amongst other, more politcal reasons). Perhaps VATSIM is quickly becoming the new IVAO. Again, how ironic would that be?

I personally will not resign from VATSIM as I truly do love this community and try to give it as much as I can. VATSIM is about the best as it gets when it comes to online flying, and I do still have many enjoyable moments on the network and many folks whom I consider friends. If however, something better were to come along, well.........

So Alex, it's nice of you to share with us. From one old head to another, blue skies.

To everyone else who is singing a Peter Frampton song right now, tail winds to you.

"Do You Feel Like We Do.....Oh that's true"

Andrew

[Brian Pryor]

Andrew just some thoughts.

Fair and Balanced, that's a news slogan for Fox News, no where in VATSIM does it state we'll be fair and balanced in every aspect or any for the matter of fact.

Andrew I think you're off base with the leaders of this network being the bullied and taking it out on others. From day 1 VATSIM has been about inclusivity and not elitism or realism taking priority.

It's funny you mention the old days of SATCO with 300 members at a fly-in. Pilots back then were the same as now. In fact things were less realistic then on many fronts simply due to lack of the available material.

Now it's common for someone to fly an arrival as published, back then only a minority at best would spend the real money on publications with STARS/SIDS/Diagrams etc.

Sector files were basically big maps with VOR/NDBS/FIXES's and if you were lucky someone hard coded a diagram. Now we can add approaches, turn on/off all sorts of diagrams of all kinds, and get different radar modes.

Things have "advanced" a lot and at a good pace I think, for those that take it to the next level good for you, but remember the core focus of VATSIM has never been about "as real as it gets" as pointed out by David Klain in a post tonight. That's Microsofts slogan, just like Fox News uses Fair and Balanced. Neither are attributed to VATSIM.

(End Rant)

[Andrew Wolcott]

2nd: This thought has probably come up, but I don't think I've seen it said in this thread.  In order for someone to control any position on the network, they at the very least have to take a VATUSA exam, and go through some sort of training. The pilots on the other hand, have their free email account that they can register with, and done, they're on the network. What if we required the pilots to take a VATSIM exam, built around flying, with some ATC components in it, so they know what they're getting into, and maybe some sort of training program, ie: a moodle, atutor, etc... Sure it will take some work to get set up, but it would be for the good of the network. We're already half-way there with the pilot ratings, now lets go all the way and have these exams and training site. It could bring back the integrity of the network. Like I said, it's probably been brought up somewhere, but with all the new issues coming to light, maybe it's time for another look at the idea.

DL

I like this idea and have discussed it with many others. Just as we have Ratings and Major Facility certs for controllers, we should have Flight Rules for Pilots. New to the network? Guess what.. you're not allowed to operate at a Class Bravo (Major) Airport until you earn your VFR. Next step is IFR Training. IFR Training teaches you how to fly sids, stars and ILS approaches at a minimum. Now you can fly VFR on the network.

Of course a new pilot client would have to be written that would boot a newbie off the network if they connected at a Major Airport, unless selecting the "Observer" mode, which would disable your Voice OUT comms and Text out on the radio, and somehow through FSUIPC would prevent your aircraft from moving about. But again, the whole connecting with a callsign thing is something I totally disagree with. The architecture of VATSIM needs to be revamped. No more filing flightplans through the pilot client, you must prefile, just as in the real world. Controllers should be able to change an aircrafts callsign just as they are able to do in the real world. Pilots login only selecting their multiplayer aircraft make/model and livery. Flightplans are correlated to squawk codes issued automatically by the system when the flight plan is filed, using a beacon allocation program......

I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on. I know some of you are drooling......

Andrew

[Andrew Wolcott]

Andrew just some thoughts.

Brian,

Just some thoughtful replies to your thoughts  

Fair and Balanced, that's a news slogan for Fox News, no where in VATSIM does it state we'll be fair and balanced in every aspect or any for the matter of fact.

I don't watch Fox news so I wouldn't have thought of that off the top of my head. I think however I detect some humor from you with this?

Andrew I think you're off base with the leaders of this network being the bullied and taking it out on others. From day 1 VATSIM has been about inclusivity and not elitism or realism taking priority.

Perhaps I am off base with the majority. However, there are those out there that will, and have, done things to purposely spite those who enjoy realism. If you do not agree, then I agree to disagree.

It's funny you mention the old days of SATCO with 300 members at a fly-in. Pilots back then were the same as now. In fact things were less realistic then on many fronts simply due to lack of the available material.

I don't think this is funny at all. Pilots back then were not the same as they are today. Back then pilots didn't have the resources available to them, nor did they have many fancy FMS or GPS programs, or advanced panels with these features. In fact, if you recall, SquawkBox had a built-in FMS that allowed for lateral navigation, and functioned much like VasFMC functions. The Nav/Fix data was updated regularly. The difference between pilots back then and now is that they craved charts. If you were able to find charts. Perhaps you forget about programs such as Georges Lorschs's Final Approach? People used to design charts themselves and share them with others. These things were prized possessions, and when found, pilots jumped at the chance to use them. Everyone was hungry for this stuff.

Now it's common for someone to fly an arrival as published, back then only a minority at best would spend the real money on publications with STARS/SIDS/Diagrams etc.

I agree to an extent. With the advent of flightaware, any yahoo can search for a route. In fact, even with simroutes people can find a route. Sure they can file it. But more often than not (more so with RNAV DPs and STARs) they do not check to ensure all of the waypoints have been loaded correctly. Many simply download a Default GPS Flightplan file and load it up. They then file the route, but do not fly it correctly. Pilots back in the day at least tried to do things that would ensure compliance with a file routing. Yeah you saw a lot of GPS Direct and things of that nature, but ATC was expecting it because that is what was filed. These days you get yahoos that don't file correctly, and thus don't do what you were expecting.

Sector files were basically big maps with VOR/NDBS/FIXES's and if you were lucky someone hard coded a diagram. Now we can add approaches, turn on/off all sorts of diagrams of all kinds, and get different radar modes.

This is true. But again, I remember going out and buying a book written by a former A80 Tracon controller. In this book were diagrams of the Tracon maps. It took me a lot of time, but I hand coded to the best of my ability these lines to give an accurate representation of what the Tracon Airspace layout was. When I released it, controllers went GaGa over it. You would have thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now, these days, even some controllers treat this stuff with indifference. Maybe that's because they never went without? I don't really know...

Things have "advanced" a lot and at a good pace I think, for those that take it to the next level good for you, but remember the core focus of VATSIM has never been about "as real as it gets" as pointed out by David Klain in a post tonight. That's Microsofts slogan, just like Fox News uses Fair and Balanced. Neither are attributed to VATSIM.

Yes things have advanced. But only so many people have advanced with the advances. No, the core focus has never been "as real as it gets," and with as many slogans that you are able to identify perhaps you might consider a job as a Microsoft or Fox News spokesperson?   In all seriousness though, VATSIM doesn not have a true mission statement, at least not where I can find it. There is a broad scope description on the 'About Vatsim' page which contains some touchy-feely statements (some which I do agree with) but were written by (IMHO) a collective group of misguided ideologues. These people, as defined by Webster, are impractical idealist simply because you can't say you're simulating something, but then take away the realism. Simulation, as defined by Webster, is "the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another." Well you take do that by taking away the realism, because as Webster defines imitation, we are in fact using real world ATC as the "functioning system" which we "..follow as a pattern, model, or example."

(End Rant)

Same

[Romano Lara]

I like this idea and have discussed it with many others. Just as we have Ratings and Major Facility certs for controllers, we should have Flight Rules for Pilots. New to the network? Guess what.. you're not allowed to operate at a Class Bravo (Major) Airport until you earn your VFR. Next step is IFR Training. IFR Training teaches you how to fly sids, stars and ILS approaches at a minimum. Now you can fly VFR on the network.

Of course a new pilot client would have to be written that would boot a newbie off the network if they connected at a Major Airport, unless selecting the "Observer" mode, which would disable your Voice OUT comms and Text out on the radio, and somehow through FSUIPC would prevent your aircraft from moving about. But again, the whole connecting with a callsign thing is something I totally disagree with. The architecture of VATSIM needs to be revamped. No more filing flightplans through the pilot client, you must prefile, just as in the real world. Controllers should be able to change an aircrafts callsign just as they are able to do in the real world. Pilots login only selecting their multiplayer aircraft make/model and livery. Flightplans are correlated to squawk codes issued automatically by the system when the flight plan is filed, using a beacon allocation program......

I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on. I know some of you are drooling......

Andrew

I like your suggestions, Andrew.

But I don't think VATSIM has the current infrastructure to revamp the entire system to match the real world. Have you ever thought it would be really complicated for those who're going to work on it? If you demand a certain realism in this Division, there are others out there who has their own set of procedures in the real world. What you're suggesting is very specific to the United States, what seems realistic for USA may not be the same for Ethiopia. Get my logic?

That's why we can't just do something like what you've suggested. Only way to that is hand over your keys and start your own network that mimics a specific real world system. I wish it was that easy. But no... IMHO what we have currently is tailored to accommodate EVERYONE'S air traffic system. What we can do now at best is to elevate the level of realism in our facilities. By referring to the real world SOPs, using rw video maps, vectoring diagrams and so and so forth. We can never be realistic when it comes to the technological aspect of things.

But if I understand this thread correctly and the thread on the VATSIM forums, they (the founders and the BoG) don't want the kind of realism that exists right now. Hence why they wanted to abolish it or to 'dumb down' the system that exist.

[Matthew Bartels]

VATSIM's Mission Statement

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]VATSIM is an online community created for enthusiasts of flight simulation and air traffic control. One of the main goals of VATSIM is to create an environment which is fun and, at the same time, educational and a realistic simulation of procedures followed by pilots and air traffic controllers everyday around the world.To further these goals, members of VATSIM must comply with the following Code of Conduct. This Code sets forth how members are expected to conduct themselves.[/quote]

Emphasis mine

[Andrew Wolcott]

VATSIM's Mission Statement



Emphasis mine

I have read that as well, however, and I don't want to get too technical here, VATSIM does not have an official, labeled, Mission Statement. Therefore anything which is written can only be inferred as such.