VATUSA Forums

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Wade Williams on February 19, 2010, 04:17:43 PM

Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Wade Williams on February 19, 2010, 04:17:43 PM
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?
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Robert Prescott on February 19, 2010, 05:32:52 PM
Quote from: Wade Williams
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.

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

Wade you nailed it with "PILOTS", in my observations of IVAO vs VATSIM, IVAO has many more pilots than ATC, while on VATSIM we tend to have a larger presence of ATC. After being on this network for going on 5 years the biggest thing I have seen is the intimidation of pilots, not necessarily on purpose, but it does happen. Some ATC attempt to tutor pilots when needed and traffic permitting, others have been blatantly rude and obnoxious to the very people that make ATC possible on this network. While I have not flown on IVAO, I can speak to the pilot experience on our network specifically when he hears the guy providing ATC dress down other pilots.

IMHO ATC on VATSIM has taken precedent over pilots. We tend to forget that without the pilots we as controllers would have nothing to do. We can ask for a certain level of appropriate piloting knowledge, but pilots do not go through nearly as much training as ATC. Many pilots on this network learn by doing, so when one makes a mistake he may not know better and may be embarrassed to admit it.

We need to be much more Pilot friendly. As Andrew P. has said in the past we have to be customer service oriented, VATSIM to its ARTCC's and ARTCC's to the pilots who fly.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Kyle Gallagher on February 19, 2010, 05:35:44 PM
Quote from: Wade Williams
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?

Well, this point goes back to the age-old question of whether we should focus on quality or quantity. I personally am a Big fan of the long ATC training, because it leans heavily towards quality. My belief is that 1 very good Tower controller who knows how to push tin is MUCH better than 2 who got "free certs" after short lessons, and cannot handle event-traffic. Fact of the matter is, most hard-core, good pilots will be attrcted my quality much quicker than seeing controllers on who they know simply can't handle it. If I fly in to an event where it is mass chaos and the controllers can't handle it, do you think I want to fly-in next time? No. This is because quality will attract more better pilots over the long-run than just shoving new students right up to center and not being able to handle traffic.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Timothy Boger on February 19, 2010, 05:42:43 PM
First question on my mind would be, where are you getting your information? I can't find IVAO stats anywhere on their website and the last time their ServInfo updated was 1/19.

In any case, yes, IVAO might beat us in Europe...but what about the rest of the world? From my limited knowledge of IVAO, the USA Division is far stronger in terms of controller+pilot numbers.

I suppose the best answer I could give you about IVAO's success in Europe is that it's busy...traffic is self-perpetuating if you know what I mean. They get more traffic because there's more traffic to fly around. This is similar to why FNO is so popular and why whenever an airport gets a blizzard they get slammed with traffic.  Anything for a higher risk of slamming virtual metal into other virtual metal, eh? Or in Denver's case, virtual metal into virtual ground  
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Luke Kolin on February 19, 2010, 06:13:58 PM
Quote from: Timothy Boger
First question on my mind would be, where are you getting your information? I can't find IVAO stats anywhere on their website and the last time their ServInfo updated was 1/19.

Wrong IVAO.  try ivao.aero.

This is a great discussion. It's so rare to see VATSIM types discussing pilots.

Cheers!

Luke
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Robert Prescott on February 19, 2010, 06:32:45 PM
Quote from: Timothy Boger
First question on my mind would be, where are you getting your information? I can't find IVAO stats anywhere on their website and the last time their ServInfo updated was 1/19.

IVAO-AERO hasa small app much like VATSpy and Servinfo. "Eye on IVAO". They consistently have 200-300 more clients connected than VATSIM.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Luke Kolin on February 19, 2010, 06:34:26 PM
Quote from: Robert Prescott
IMHO ATC on VATSIM has taken precedent over pilots. We tend to forget that without the pilots we as controllers would have nothing to do.

This.

Cheers!

Luke
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Richard Jenkins on February 19, 2010, 06:35:04 PM
Quote from: Robert Prescott
IVAO-AERO hasa small app much like VATSpy and Servinfo. "Eye on IVAO". They consistently have 200-300 more clients connected than VATSIM.

Depends on time of day. Europe prime time? Yes, we lag behind. North and South America prime time they lag behind.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Richard Jenkins on February 19, 2010, 07:10:00 PM
IMO we don't produce enough controllers. We have this huge training apparatus and bureaucracy to support these kinds of promotions? Doesn't really seem efficient to me...but then that brings us to the quantity versus quality debate.

Code: [Select]
notepad    dateadded
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/20/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/20/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/20/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Student TO Student 2    2/20/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/19/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Student TO Student 2    2/19/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/19/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Controller TO Instructor    2/19/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/19/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Student 2 TO Senior Student    2/19/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Controller TO Senior Controller    2/18/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/18/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/18/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student 2    2/18/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Controller TO Instructor    2/17/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/17/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/17/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/17/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/17/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Student 2 TO Senior Student    2/17/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Senior Student TO Controller    2/17/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Student TO Student 2    2/17/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/17/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Student TO Student 2    2/16/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Student TO Student 2    2/16/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/16/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Student TO Student 2    2/16/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/16/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Senior Student TO Controller    2/16/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/16/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Senior Student TO Controller    2/16/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Student TO Student 2    2/16/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Student TO Student 2    2/15/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student 2    2/15/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Senior Student TO Controller    2/15/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/15/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Student 2 TO Senior Student    2/15/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Senior Student TO Controller    2/15/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Senior Controller TO Instructor    2/15/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/15/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Student 2 TO Senior Student    2/15/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Student 2 TO Senior Student    2/14/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-S CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/14/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/14/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/14/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Senior Student TO Controller    2/14/10
AUTOMATED PROCCESS OF USA-N CAUSED UPGRADE FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/14/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/14/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Senior Student TO Controller    2/13/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Senior Student TO Controller    2/13/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/13/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Student TO Student 2    2/13/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Pilot/Observer TO Student    2/13/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Student TO Student 2    2/13/10
AUTOMATIC NOTICE: UPGRADED FROM Instructor TO Senior Instructor    2/13/10


Yep, that's it for one week. A typical week. 56 promotions....25 new students for all of VATSIM. In the same week 814 people joined VATSIM.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Bryan Wollenberg on February 19, 2010, 07:49:41 PM
Quote from: Richard Jenkins
Yep, that's it for one week. A typical week. 56 promotions....25 new students for all of VATSIM. In the same week 814 people joined VATSIM.

But...814 people did not necessarily join VATSIM to become controllers.  It's apples to oranges.  What if only 5 of those people have any intention of controlling?  You can't really take a week anyway, as only the most ambitious people would pull off becoming a S1 within a week of joining the network.  Using the full 814, if say 2500 people joined to become controllers in a month and only 100 of them became S1's or higher by the end of the month, that would be a huge problem.

Would be great to see some stats on actual promotion statistics vs. number of controllers.  I have no doubt we're not promoting enough controllers, but it would be nice to see some stats pointing to why.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Luke Kolin on February 19, 2010, 08:02:57 PM
Quote from: Bryan Wollenberg
You can't really take a week anyway, as only the most ambitious people would pull off becoming a S1 within a week of joining the network.  Using the full 814, if say 2500 people joined to become controllers in a month and only 100 of them became S1's or higher by the end of the month, that would be a huge problem.

I think what Richard is suggesting is that if we have around 800 people join VATSIM in a given week, one would expect to have a higher number either become controllers or get promoted, folks who joined in weeks past. Based on the statistics I keep, controllers are at best 20% of the membership, and C1 or above is much lower.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I have no doubt we're not promoting enough controllers, but it would be nice to see some stats pointing to why.[/quote]

I suspect it boils down to the level of effort and commitment required versus the enjoyment one gets out of controlling a particular position. It may be worthwhile for hardcore ATC enthusiasts, but perhaps not to the VATSIM population at large. I wonder what our pilot numbers would be if we required people to take a test on SB (or FSINN!) before they could fly, and locked them out for a week if they failed the test.

Cheers!

Luke
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Richard Jenkins on February 19, 2010, 08:04:04 PM
Quote from: Bryan Wollenberg
But...814 people did not necessarily join VATSIM to become controllers.  It's apples to oranges.  What if only 5 of those people have any intention of controlling?  You can't really take a week anyway, as only the most ambitious people would pull off becoming a S1 within a week of joining the network.  Using the full 814, if say 2500 people joined to become controllers in a month and only 100 of them became S1's or higher by the end of the month, that would be a huge problem.

Would be great to see some stats on actual promotion statistics vs. number of controllers.  I have no doubt we're not promoting enough controllers, but it would be nice to see some stats pointing to why.

Correct. It was meant to demonstarte the amount of energy and time we're spending on the controller side compared to the pilot side. We average 800-1000 new members every week and of those very few become controllers. Why? Have my ideas. It would be interesting to see how many students make it to C1.

Bryan, later tonight I'll work up some numbers. Do we want to see the number of new students that progressed to C1 or higher within the last year? Maybe put a 90 day lag in it?
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Luke Kolin on February 19, 2010, 08:11:01 PM
Quote from: Richard Jenkins
Bryan, later tonight I'll work up some numbers. Do we want to see the number of new students that progressed to C1 or higher within the last year? Maybe put a 90 day lag in it?

I'd love to see numbers in that time frame, and compare them to what I see in the ServInfo feed.

Cheers!

Luke
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Brian Pryor on February 19, 2010, 08:36:40 PM
Quote from: Wade Williams
Because IVAO has killer software?

Because IVAO has better documentation?

If it's charts and such that point is moot, as far as documentation on how to get up to speed and flying or controlling both sides have about the same from the searches i've found.

As has been pointed out, overall VATSIM I think has the most coverage outside of Europe.

If you do some research you'll find IVAO and now IVAO-Aero had and I imagine still have "drama" and "infighting" it's just not public. VATSIM hasn't had a meltdown yet with the CEO running away with the "keys" to the domain name for example hence the new 'Aero' side of things
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Bryan Wollenberg on February 19, 2010, 09:00:29 PM
Quote from: Richard Jenkins
Bryan, later tonight I'll work up some numbers. Do we want to see the number of new students that progressed to C1 or higher within the last year? Maybe put a 90 day lag in it?

That would be great!  It would definitely be nice to see some hard core numbers to see what's going on.  



[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Luke)--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE (Luke)[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I wonder what our pilot numbers would be if we required people to take a test on SB (or FSINN!) before they could fly, and locked them out for a week if they failed the test.[/quote]

While I have no doubt the testing and rigorous programs in some places are a factor, I'm honestly not sure we would see an overwhelming increase in controllers if we opened controlling up to everybody, without any knowledge or testing.  If you remember back to The Zone, where it was one big free-for-all, you definitely had people who wanted to be the controller, but far more people wanted to fly.  I have no doubt any cross-section of the population would show the same thing.  If you asked 100 people if they would rather fly a plane or sit behind a radar scope in a dark room all day, what do you think the answer is going to be?
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Wade Williams on February 19, 2010, 09:17:51 PM
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]IMO we don't produce enough controllers. We have this huge training apparatus and bureaucracy to support these kinds of promotions? Doesn't really seem efficient to me...but then that brings us to the quantity versus quality debate.[/quote]

Hmm...could be.  Then again...

At this moment, we have about 200 more pilots online than IVAO.  Our East Coast is lit up like a Christmas tree in terms of ATC.

But:

So we're in the middle of our most popular weekly event, with TONS of ATC coverage, and yet we've only got 200 more pilots while they're in a slow period.

My point in all this is that I don't know that it's the ATC coverage that makes the difference.  I certainly support your desire for more ATC - after all, without ATC, pilots would quickly decide to fly offline, on IVAO or the zone.

I just wonder what it is that is drawing pilots to IVAO.  

Don't misunderstand me - I don't think VATSIM is going down the tubes...I just wonder what else we can do.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Luke Kolin on February 19, 2010, 10:08:47 PM
Quote from: Bryan Wollenberg
While I have no doubt the testing and rigorous programs in some places are a factor, I'm honestly not sure we would see an overwhelming increase in controllers if we opened controlling up to everybody, without any knowledge or testing.

I'm not suggesting we open controlling up to everybody. It's not an either-or debate. I will suggest, however, that the level of qualification required increases exponentially up the scale. I love and appreciate having a great Center controller handle 30 aircraft at once in a busy sector, and I want those controllers to be well-trained. However, I'd gladly sacrifice a fair bit of quality in my Ground and Tower guys if it means getting them in front of a scope and driving live traffic that much quicker. I'd also suggest that I'd take a less-qualified CTR or APP at lower traffic times rather than having them man an empty tower scope. Plenty of organizations let the lower-level folks have a taste of more important duties at non-peak times.

The point I am attempting to suggest is that VATSIM appears quite comfortable in letting airspace remain empty rather than having a less-qualified controller attempt to serve it. I'm suggesting that at least from this pilot's view, that doesn't appear to be a good trade-off at all levels. Generally, the lower you go, the less sense it makes.

Wade makes a good point. What got me hooked on VATSIM flying way back when was a bunch of Sunday night online events some folks at Delta Virtual started putting on. Every Sunday night we'd fly around and had very little ATC around (this was 2002-2003). I remember a flight from SAN to PDX where we had a little bit of ATC around LAX and certainly nothing north of SFO, and we were busy giving each other PIREPs on our way in, since none of us had flown into the airport before and had no charts to speak of. Great fun!

Online flying is wonderful because you interact with other human beings. Whether they are controllers or other pilots doesn't make as much of a difference as one thinks. Flying into crowded airspace with a great controller is wonderful. Flying into less crowded airspace with a bunch of pilots and feeling your way through without mashing into each other? Wonderful too. That might be what IVAO offers. It's something that based on my own circumstances would interest me a great deal.

Cheers!

Luke
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Jeff Thomas on February 19, 2010, 10:33:35 PM
Three problems.

1) We make it too hard to become an app or center controller.  Staff it and they will come.  No staff=no pilots.
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 (http://www.vatsim.net/prc)
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Bryan Wollenberg on February 19, 2010, 10:34:39 PM
Quote from: Luke Kolin
However, I'd gladly sacrifice a fair bit of quality in my Ground and Tower guys if it means getting them in front of a scope and driving live traffic that much quicker.

The process for becoming a Ground/Tower controller is actually unbelievably simple, which is why I question if lowering the standards would actually see a drastic increase in controllers.  

I would love to see more controllers online, but I'm not sure if lower standards is the key to doing it.  Reducing the hoops one must jump through is definitely along the right track; as we can see with the GRP (Version 2) we aimed at doing just that.  One written test, one practical test per rating.  In some places, there used to be 1/2 a dozen or more written tests alone for some ratings.  

What will be interesting to see is if controller promotions are up following the release of the GRP.  It's probably way too early to see any trends, but in theory, we should see an increase in promotions, and a decrease in time-in-rating between promotions.  If we don't see that, there are probably other factors at play.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Alex Bailey on February 19, 2010, 10:48:22 PM
Quote from: Jeff Thomas
Three problems.

1) We make it too hard to become an app or center controller.  Staff it and they will come.  No staff=no pilots.
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 (http://www.vatsim.net/prc)

Pilot training is on its way, but currently there are plenty of organizations providing training until we can get the VATSIM program off the ground.  
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: J Jason Vodnansky on February 19, 2010, 10:50:37 PM
Quote from: Bryan Wollenberg
The process for becoming a Ground/Tower controller is actually unbelievably simple, which is why I question if lowering the standards would actually see a drastic increase in controllers.  

I would love to see more controllers online, but I'm not sure if lower standards is the key to doing it.  Reducing the hoops one must jump through is definitely along the right track; as we can see with the GRP (Version 2) we aimed at doing just that.  One written test, one practical test per rating.  In some places, there used to be 1/2 a dozen or more written tests alone for some ratings.  

What will be interesting to see is if controller promotions are up following the release of the GRP.  It's probably way too early to see any trends, but in theory, we should see an increase in promotions, and a decrease in time-in-rating between promotions.  If we don't see that, there are probably other factors at play.


It has been my experience that the junior most controllers ONLY want the prime positions.  Many are simply not willing to look at a scope for more than 30 minutes if it is empty.  I can't tell you how often controllers get on, ready to take ORD_TWR, only to find it already staffed, and instead of opening up MDW_TWR, or ANY other facility, they log off.

Of course, then they complain they can never get on...

JV
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Wade Williams on February 19, 2010, 11:25:23 PM
[!--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 (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.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Richard Jenkins on February 20, 2010, 12:38:05 AM
Quote from: Bryan Wollenberg
That would be great!  It would definitely be nice to see some hard core numbers to see what's going on.  





While I have no doubt the testing and rigorous programs in some places are a factor, I'm honestly not sure we would see an overwhelming increase in controllers if we opened controlling up to everybody, without any knowledge or testing.  If you remember back to The Zone, where it was one big free-for-all, you definitely had people who wanted to be the controller, but far more people wanted to fly.  I have no doubt any cross-section of the population would show the same thing.  If you asked 100 people if they would rather fly a plane or sit behind a radar scope in a dark room all day, what do you think the answer is going to be?

Okay...here we go.

Members achieving a rating of S1 or higher.

Time Period = 11/1/08 to 10/31/09 registration dates

Code: [Select]
VATSIM                   VATUSA  Total ATC                Active Last 30 Days

S-1 = 42.0%            37.1%             (96)                          (47)
S-2 = 42.6%            51.4%             (133)                        (75)
S-3 = 10.9%              8.5%             (22)                         (18)
C-1 = 3.8%                1.5%            (4)                          (4)
I1   = 0.6%                1.5%            (4)                          (4)
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Jeremy Bucholz on February 20, 2010, 01:43:13 AM
Quote from: Richard Jenkins
Okay...here we go.

Members achieving a rating of S1 or higher.

Time Period = 11/1/08 to 10/31/09 registration dates

Code: [Select]
VATSIM                   VATUSA  Total ATC                Active Last 30 Days

S-1 = 42.0%            37.1%             (96)                          (47)
S-2 = 42.6%            51.4%             (133)                        (75)
S-3 = 10.9%              8.5%             (22)                         (18)
C-1 = 3.8%                1.5%            (4)                          (4)
I1   = 0.6%                1.5%            (4)                          (4)


Seems like a brick wall hits once a student hits S-2.   If there's 133 that achieve S-2, 75 that retain activity, but only 22 make S-3....seems as if something is stopping these students.  Does this show that we need to change our ways?  Maybe, maybe not.  There could be many reasons these numbers are like this both our cause and the students cause.

1.  The student doesn't try to go any further.
2.  There's not enough instruction staff.
3.  Students don't schedule or make their scheduled times with their instructors.
4.  The training program is too difficult.
5.  There's no traffic.

and so on.....

What does this show us?  IMO, absolutely nothing.  Unless we did a VATUSA wide poll and EVERY student participated, we will never know the true answers, and we all know that's not going to happen.  My theory, it's up to the ATMs to keep track of their students and if they find that they aren't progressing, find out why.  If they don't, then they as the ATM are failing their students.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Bryan Wollenberg on February 20, 2010, 02:04:27 AM
Thanks for those stats Richard!

I wanted to see those for a couple reasons.  One, because they're darned interesting and I'm a statistical type of guy.  But secondly, those numbers differ drastically from the numbers I have, and what I have been reporting in my Region Reports.  I only have access to the numbers in CERT, of course, but here is what I show:

VATUSA:

S1 - 15%
S2 - 44%
S3 - 17%
C1+* - 24%

* Includes C1 through ADM since all I1's and I3's are C1/C3, most SUPs are C1/C3, and most ADMs are C1/C3.


Those numbers look fairly well distributed.  The only one that really concerns me is S3.  As others have mentioned, there seems to be a major dropoff between S2 and S3, which corresponds with going from tower to approach.  

However, what I find remarkable is that overall 25% of VATUSA members are controllers!!  That is MUCH higher than I would imagine.  In fact, the majority of VATSIM regions hover around 7% that are controllers.  If my numbers aren't lying, VATUSA is doing a remarkable job of controller recruitment, when compared to the rest of VATSIM.  How many are still active, I haven't a clue.  The lowest division in VATNA is around 14%, which is equal to Europe, and double any other region.  VATCAR sits around 21%.

Now where we do see a dip is from 2008 - present.  About 8% of VATUSA members who signed up 1/1/08 or later are controllers.  Still about double or more the rest of the world, but low nonetheless.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Michael Hodge Jr on February 20, 2010, 02:14:32 AM
Andrew may have to chime in, but when we last ran the numbers (July), IIRC, our retention rate from S1-C1 was only around 12%. It may even be slightly less. I know this was an issue we were going to be discussing in depth at the next Training Department meeting.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Jeremy Bucholz on February 20, 2010, 02:27:51 AM
Hmmmm, just found something quite interesting.  Now, it's been quite awhile (1 year) since I've taken a hard look at the GRP and LCTP procedures.  When I was on the VATUSA staff, the primary intent (as written) of the LCTP was to limit students from controlling on their own at MAJOR airports ( Class B ).  Under certain circumstances, approved by VATUSA, ARTCC's could limit other airports by showing cause of need.  So, my question is, why are some ARTCCs limiting controllers from working Class D airports under the LCTP?  Aren't we taking this a little too far?
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Bryan Wollenberg on February 20, 2010, 02:35:49 AM
Good question Jeremy.

LCTP airports do not exist anymore.  The only airports that are off-limits are those listed in the ecurrent version of the GRP.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Jeremy Bucholz on February 20, 2010, 02:40:47 AM
Quote from: Bryan Wollenberg
Good question Jeremy.

LCTP airports do not exist anymore.  The only airports that are off-limits are those listed in the ecurrent version of the GRP.


Hmmm, yup, just looked at the new GRP, sections 5, 6, & the Appendix.  Guess someone needs to tell these ARTCC's to change their policies.  

One of the biggest problems I could see is the average student not paying attention to the new policy changes and just going off what the ARTCC's are telling them.  Maybe we have been limiting these students in their quest to, and this is the most important part, PLAY as an air traffic controller.  We do have to remember that this is a hobby, not real life.  We do have to remember that if you have a "deal" on VATSIM, nothing is going to come out of it.  Did you know, and Bryan can back me up on this one, that even the FAA is going "lax" on deals.  Now, if you have a deal, all you have to do is file a report in a program we call ATSAP and you can pretty much so wash your hands of it.  It's not an excuse to have a deal, but the blame game has gone out the window and now leaning more towards safety research.  Why are we more difficult on VATSIM?

Now, I don't fully agree that we should make it quote-unquote easier for controllers to achieve ratings, but we do have to draw the line between necessary and ridiculous.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Tommy Rogers on February 20, 2010, 06:55:13 AM
Quote from: Jeremy Bucholz
Hmmm, yup, just looked at the new GRP, sections 5, 6, & the Appendix.  Guess someone needs to tell these ARTCC's to change their policies.  

One of the biggest problems I could see is the average student not paying attention to the new policy changes and just going off what the ARTCC's are telling them.  Maybe we have been limiting these students in their quest to, and this is the most important part, PLAY as an air traffic controller.  We do have to remember that this is a hobby, not real life.  We do have to remember that if you have a "deal" on VATSIM, nothing is going to come out of it.  Did you know, and Bryan can back me up on this one, that even the FAA is going "lax" on deals.  Now, if you have a deal, all you have to do is file a report in a program we call ATSAP and you can pretty much so wash your hands of it.  It's not an excuse to have a deal, but the blame game has gone out the window and now leaning more towards safety research.  Why are we more difficult on VATSIM?

Now, I don't fully agree that we should make it quote-unquote easier for controllers to achieve ratings, but we do have to draw the line between necessary and ridiculous.

I agree, I love comming to VATSIM to relax after a hard day and enjoy myself.  I love that we aim to be "As real as it gets" but we also have to remember the above.  Sometimes we can train controllers in the basics of the position and then experience and perfection will come after years of doing it.  Even when I became a Center rated controller, I didn't know everything and my skill improve every single day that I control.  I feel that we need to find a balance between real and fun..if we make it so hard it won't be fun to the majority and they will stop doing their training and find another hobby.  My 0.02 anyways.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Jeff Thomas on February 20, 2010, 08:22:41 AM
Quote from: Alex Bailey
Pilot training is on its way, but currently there are plenty of organizations providing training until we can get the VATSIM program off the ground.  
If I had a nickel for all the times I've heard that one.  

The PRC was supposed to be Phase I of the project and we were successful in implementing it with little issue.  However, that was what, 5 or 6 years ago?
I know you are new to this area, and hopefully your passion doesn't waver like so many in the past.  Good luck, and I mean that sincerely.

@Wade,
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]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.[/quote]
You continue to fall into the trap that this is some kind of "career" where continuous improvement is needed and that ALL controllers should be the same little robot and be perfect.  This is a GAME.  Let people have fun, and WHO CARES if they screw it up?  

We seem to be so worried about staffing a position with an "unqualified" person that we have constipated ourselves from the enjoyment of the GAME.  Thus, we don't have enough controllers, and thus do not attract pilots.  

Used to be the pilots and controllers worked together.  I could give hints as to where I needed to be to the controller, and the controller could give me guidance on how to fly the plane better.  Now, we seem to sacrifice that bond and enjoyment in the name of "as real as it gets...."

I used to never care about my rating, and still pretty much don't.  However, now there are "position police" who run around looking at your rating and making sure you are "allowed" to staff a position with little care to whether or not you are capable.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Scott DeWoody on February 20, 2010, 09:31:38 AM
Quote from: Tommy Rogers
I agree, I love comming to VATSIM to relax after a hard day and enjoy myself.  I love that we aim to be "As real as it gets" but we also have to remember the above.  Sometimes we can train controllers in the basics of the position and then experience and perfection will come after years of doing it.  Even when I became a Center rated controller, I didn't know everything and my skill improve every single day that I control.  I feel that we need to find a balance between real and fun..if we make it so hard it won't be fun to the majority and they will stop doing their training and find another hobby.  My 0.02 anyways.

I've said that all along, that I come here after to work, to unwind, have a little fun, either control or fly.  I appreciate the "realism" aspect of this hobby, but I DON'T have to keep telling myself that this is a HOBBY, I know that.  The realism part I see is bringing up a chart, flying the SID/STAR, and hopefully it's current, I subscribe to Navigraph, so I have the latest AIRAC all the time, and that's about as real as I'm concerned with as far as flying, that and the addon aircraft and scenery and such.  But I've said before, I think some, feel this is a stepping stone, or training platform for people to come to on their way to becoming r/w ATC or pilots.  Where I see this as educational, and maybe even an advantage over someone who has never done any of this before, I don't see it as a training platform.  I think someone else said this also, that we as controllers need to remember, that without pilots, we have no job.  I've always told my students, treat the pilots like you would want to be treated, remembering, everyone has a starting point, and from the beginning it's about learning to get better.  

Right on Tommy!
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Richard Jenkins on February 20, 2010, 12:05:16 PM
Bryan,

Remember I'm only looking at members who joined between November 2008 and October 2009. Not the full VATUSA population. I believe that is why our numbers differ.

I actually think there may be some good news in those numbers. Previous to GRP back in 2004, 2005, 2006..etc. VATUSA was producing huge amounts of S1's. Problem was hardly any of them every actually connected to the network. So, while on paper, things looked incredible but in reality the books were cooked much like Enron.

I would venture to say our actual "throughput" has improved. Yes, while the actual number of S1's have decreased the retention and throughput has increased just as dramatically.

Good job to the instructors and mentors on that one....  

IMO the simple fact is pilots fly where there is ATC. No ATC...no pilots. Yes, the ATC has to bite the bullet and start manning places that are empty now. This is how it all started back in the late 90's. Chicago was the place, you couldn't get a position there some nights it was so packed with controllers. Then some of us started branching out and laying claim to other parts of the sky. Yes, there was no traffic. I spent many a night on LAX_CTR watching nothing. Incredible to think that now. CTR is the key. I have seen it over and over all these years. When CTR starts going up on a regular basis, pilots show. Having every tower manned within 600 miles does nothing.

I also feel OJT is not the end of the world as we know it. You want pilots? Well, they need someone to play with! Simple as that.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Wade Williams on February 20, 2010, 01:18:48 PM
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]You continue to fall into the trap that this is some kind of "career" where continuous improvement is needed and that ALL controllers should be the same little robot and be perfect. This is a GAME. Let people have fun, and WHO CARES if they screw it up?[/quote]

Jeff,

Then why do we need ratings at all? Why don't we just let whomever wants to get on whatever position they want?

Personally, it would drive me away.  If I can't fly under competent control, I might as well fly offline.

But again, I don't think we have solid evidence that constant staffing by "fun-having" (or even "no-fun serious") controllers would dramatically increase pilot count.

I think controller staffing is a part of the equation, but not the only one.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: J Jason Vodnansky on February 20, 2010, 01:39:58 PM
Quote from: Wade Williams
Jeff,

Then why do we need ratings at all? Why don't we just let whomever wants to get on whatever position they want?

Personally, it would drive me away.  If I can't fly under competent control, I might as well fly offline.

But again, I don't think we have solid evidence that constant staffing by "fun-having" (or even "no-fun serious") controllers would dramatically increase pilot count.

I think controller staffing is a part of the equation, but not the only one.


What is "competent control"?  How does one get "competent" when pilots demand perfection, and complain about every little error a controller makes?

How real is too real?

One could also ask, is it fair to expect controllers to behave like real world controllers, and train controllers to that level, when Joe Pilot, can buy FlightSim, log onto the network, and fulfill his/her dreams of flying a 747 without any training requirement whatsoever?

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?
JV
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Wade Williams on February 20, 2010, 01:58:29 PM
[!--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?
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Nicholas Taylor on February 20, 2010, 02:26:11 PM
Quote from: Wade Williams
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?

1. Update the outdated and nearly impossible to install [correctly] pilot software. You have to be a computer wiz to get it just right.
2. Update PRC/voluntary pilot ratings (on the way). The PRC now is extremely long and very daunting for the new guy.
3. This falls in line with number 2, but make the initial call-up/sign in procedure less intimidating.
4. Everyone learns differently, so if just reading the PRC and going through the ratings to-be doesn't just work; maybe it's possible to have a team of experienced members who are willing to sit down 1 on 1 with someone to help them out.
5. Go to IVAO and see what they do differently [better] than VATSIM and attempt to implement or "try out" those ideas. Kind of like what Peter the Great did in the 1680's. He traveled west to Europe and saw how they were so successful, came back to Russia, implemented the ideas, etc. and Russia became a great place to live during the next 200 years or so.

Just some ideas, what do you think?
Nick
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Jeremy Bucholz on February 20, 2010, 02:31:33 PM
Quote from: Wade Williams
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?

That's kind of a moot point isn't it?  The only way to attract more pilots is to show a presence.  How many pilots did we have flying when we had FNO's or major VATUSA scale events?  The problem I see is we have the ability to staff a multitude of positions, but because WE at VATUSA suddenly decided one day that we are going to make FAA style training programs that limit people with no aviation background from getting on a position and doing something that they'd probably never be able to do.  Yes, you are correct, we can't just let someone sign on to CTR the first time they ever work traffic, but we shouldn't stop someone if their phraseology isn't 100% perfect or they don't understand wake turbulence separation.  I think someone in here said it best, at some point people made VATSIM a stepping stone to their career, and that's when we went down hill.  No offense to those CTI students here, but (and I've seen this in the real world also) until you work real live traffic, you have no place to act like you know what you're doing and do it better than everyone else.  In the last year, we've washed out 5 CTI grads, and our traffic is down 50%.  Sure they may know the book word for word, but the don't have the capacity or common sense to think ahead.  So, let's not make it so difficult for the average person to get certified in a virtual environment.  If we do that, you'll see more staffing and finally, more pilots.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Wade Williams on February 20, 2010, 02:46:39 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Bucholz
That's kind of a moot point isn't it?  The only way to attract more pilots is to show a presence.

I don't think it's a moot point at all and I don't think that controller coverage is the ONLY way to attract more pilots.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Yes, you are correct, we can't just let someone sign on to CTR the first time they ever work traffic, but we shouldn't stop someone if their phraseology isn't 100% perfect or they don't understand wake turbulence separation.[/quote]

In my view, that's not the problem at all.  While many ARTCC's stress correct phraseology and other detailed aspects of controlling like Wake Turbulence, that's not what prevents them from getting certified.  Management of traffic (or lack thereof) is what stops it.  That only comes through lots of training and practice.

I recently flew into one of the more casual ARTCC's.  The Center controller was completely overwhelmed by 4 aircraft, with lots of lovely phrases like "give me a right turn to two-seventy-five" and "if would please, drop down to 3,000 feet." That wasn't a big deal though, the big deal was that with 4 aircraft, he crashed one into a mountain (solid IMC).  When the pilot complained, the controller responded.  "Sorry about that, I was too busy with the other aircraft."

But, maybe my perspective is skewed.  Maybe there are ARTCC's failing people on OTS's for the phrase "you are."  I certainly haven't experienced them though.  Every student I've seen that fails to advance fails to do so because he fails to effectively manage his traffic.

I think Nick has some excellent suggestions as a starting point of things we can do to improve the pilot experience without focusing on controller staffing.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Jeremy Bucholz on February 20, 2010, 03:46:02 PM
Ok, so ar you saying that because of that incident that person shouldn't be allowed to control?  If so, I challenge your logic with this.  You may be an experienced pilot and be here for the realism feel, but it's not just the pilots who come on to get the same feeling, the controllers do as well.  For example, I was working a departure sector during a fly-out.  All of the pilots filed for the classic DP which states fly runway heading and expect radar vectors to the first fix.  50% of the pilots came off and since they turned their AP on, started turning to the first fix.  I quickly got them back on runway heading and that was the end of it.  I didn't scold them, I didn't even educate them, most of them understood immediately why I was doing it.  But this is supposed to be a fun and casual environment where we can enjoy aviation.  If you are saying that the controller shouldn't be working the position, then those pilots shouldn't have been flying their airplane.  It goes both ways.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Gary Millsaps on February 20, 2010, 05:55:45 PM
Wade, if it were so simple as that...let me illustrate and please note this is NOT a slam nor is it a bash of Nick's ideas...just a starting point for context...

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]1. Update the outdated and nearly impossible to install [correctly] pilot software. You have to be a computer wiz to get it just right.[/quote]
As explored in several other forums ad threads, this is pretty much out of our (VATSIM's) hands.The pilot clients are the product of individual freelance efforts. They are neither spoonsored by nor controlled by VATSIM. The methodology by which any client connects to VATSIM is a controlled and negotiated product.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]2. Update PRC/voluntary pilot ratings (on the way). The PRC now is extremely long and very daunting for the new guy.[/quote]
As noted, in the works and will be available at some point in the future.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]3. This falls in line with number 2, but make the initial call-up/sign in procedure less intimidating.[/quote]
What could be simpler than the existing CID & Password system? In the case of both pilot and controller signup, one only has to go to the application screen and fill in a few blanks, wait for an email and voila!...logon.
 
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]4. Everyone learns differently, so if just reading the PRC and going through the ratings to-be doesn't just work; maybe it's possible to have a team of experienced members who are willing to sit down 1 on 1 with someone to help them out.[/quote]
We have trouble mustering and maintaining manning levels to provide nowhere close to 1-on-1 training for the 5-15% of population that makes up the controller force on VATSIM...where would the individuals needed to provide such support to the other 90% or so (pilots) come from?

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]5. Go to IVAO and see what they do differently [better] than VATSIM and attempt to implement or "try out" those ideas.[/quote]
Good sentiment but I believe if one looked at their system close enough one would find many of the same problems VATSIM experiences. This is aside from the fact that the fundamental approaches to the hobby are different between the two networks.

Okay, now let's look at the what should be focused on. First off (and this isn't new information), this is a hobby. Any amount of time anyone puts into it is their own choice and what they get out of it should reflect what they put into it - no more nor less. Before the days of "open" membership in VATSIM, one had to be rather dedicated to the pursuit of VATSIM-flying to obtain and keep an ISP-issued email in order to join and access the network. This naturally led to a "filtration" if-you-will of the populace to those whose passion and interest in the hobby were high thus, the dedicated ones reflected the bulk of the population of VATSIM. Of course this population was smaller than it is today but the percentile of activity was much higher among that group. Today, things are much different. The VATSIM population has grown dramatically. As it has grown so to has the dynamics of the population changed. There no longer needs to be a measured level of dedication or "deep" desire to pursue this hobby to join in the fun. I'm not judging the good or bad of this, just making the observation.

This variant level of dedication exhibits itself in many ways as we are all aware. For example, it was noted above that the PRC is a long and daunting document. Is it really? or are new pilots just in too much of a hurry to read through even the most basic parts of it to figure out what they should do? Another apt example on the controller side...I worked Boston Approach recently, good night moderate traffic; a relatively new non-MAJOR S-3 working TWR...with 7 aircraft in the queue, awaiting anything from clearance to taxi to takeoff instructions. He left that position to open a Class C APP; within minutes he closed that position and moved to another Class C APP airport. It wasn't 20 minutes later he abandoned that position as well. Meanwhile the traffic level at Boston had moderately risen. So you see, a different dynamic is at work here when traffic is there and just because it is not the highest level a controller might hold, they will leave the position and traffic to "chase" nothing elsewhere. I do not mean to paint with a broad brush, just identifying characteristics we now see more and more prevalently across the network. Everyone wants it sooner, simpler and with no restrictions.

Also related in several posts is this concept of "as real as it gets." Great slogan...even makes a great chant...I personally would love to see this stricken from any VATSIM-related documents at all. As Jeremy posted, there is nothing remotely "real" about VATSIM or any online flying/controlling environment at all. "As real as it gets" is not scoping much less talking to any actual flying aircraft for the better part of the first 1-2 years (based on the facility and position) of a controller's career and that's after any schooling. Real is having to memorize and be able to fill out a blank drawing of your airspace area with all boundaries, navaids, fixes, MVA values, etc... correctly identified from memory - the list is long, again depending on position. Spitting back 7110.65 references and quoting spirited real-world SOPs and LoAs is just so much faldora. Demanding pilots follow this or that because the real world does it; or unduly limiting controller promotions is all bunkus. I'm waiting on the first controller to refuse me in my B707/A a VOR-to-VOR route clearance one day.  

With all these paradigms in place and noting these historical differences, we would be remiss in not exploring that ever-repeated concept of "enjoyment of the hobby." This directly touches on the ideals of reality vs. gaming-mode. Many make strong pronouncements about their preference for "experienced controllers" and "realistic handling" - this from both sides - pilots and controllers alike. Others couldn't care less and still others just want to get online and fly or control making it more a social-connection experience. A network organization like VATSIM must establish its rules and guidelines and provide such services so as to meet the needs of the central majority of its users - those in the center bulk of the bell curve. I believe there is a failing in ensuring those on the fringes of the curve understand they are more than welcome to pursue their level of realism, intensity, etc. as long as it is in cooperation with those around them and does not in any way degrade the enjoyment of others using the network.

So where does this all leaves us?

VATSIM's product offerings do a pretty good job of covering the view from 30k feet. I believe improvement in the delivery of those products is where the greatest improvement is needed.

Richard's numbers and the quick review he provided regarding controller advancements is encouraging. The GRP appears to be slowly doing its work and making an impact - as it was intended to do. Of course, there is always room for improvement. As Richard also noted, there is nothing wrong with OJT. It makes no sense to hold a controller to always prompting for the correct ATIS from a pilot or hitting the approach gate perfectly every time before he receives a basic rating. So with the new competencies now a standard, I think better training of the INS/Mentors in their interpretation may be needed.

There has been alot of discussion about retaining INS and keeping them engaged. From Richard's numbers I'd like to see if the controller promotion rates are keeping some kind of pace with the influx rate for new members. After all, if the rate of advancement is not keeping pace then the queue facing new arrivals will only grow ever-longer. This is already evident in some areas of the network. We all know there is no "magic bullet" for this so we must try carefully considered new ideas. These should be developed in concert with the facility and divisional/regional management but we also should understand some ideas that show the greatest promise may be counter to the thoughts and ideas of any group at any level of the organization. In these cases, we should not be afraid to engage in valid discussion, negotiate openly and be willing to make compromises. It's the only way one can get buy-in within an all-volunteer organization. We all should not be afraid to take a chance once in a while.

In direct application within VATUSA, I believe it is important that work be completed to re-establish some form of management structure at division level; one that can be an advocate and supporter of both the facilities, managers and staff and can bring the same measure of support for the regional and higher levels of VATSIM management. Whomever occupies whatever seats must be appropriately vetted and every effort must be made to ensure those individuals understand the breadth and the limitations of their spheres of influence and that they are willing to extend themselves to bridge the differences.

I'm sure I missed something in this too long post but I'd like to re-emphasize none of it is meant as a bash or slam on anyone, their thoughts, opinions or posts.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Nicholas Taylor on February 20, 2010, 06:14:13 PM
Quote from: Gary Millsaps
As explored in several other forums ad threads, this is pretty much out of our (VATSIM's) hands.The pilot clients are the product of individual freelance efforts. They are neither spoonsored by nor controlled by VATSIM. The methodology by which any client connects to VATSIM is a controlled and negotiated product.

This is a topic that's been debated about to great lengths in to VATSIM Pilot forums. I would love to share my thoughts, but this is not the place.

Quote from: Gary Millsaps
As noted, in the works and will be available at some point in the future.

I am very glad to hear we are making progress on the pilot ratings, it's a great step in the right direction for VATSIM.

Quote from: Gary Millsaps
What could be simpler than the existing CID & Password system? In the case of both pilot and controller signup, one only has to go to the application screen and fill in a few blanks, wait for an email and voila!...logon.

Might be a misunderstanding, but I didn't mean sign up, but rather sign in. A lot of people I talk to, forum posts I read, indicate that a lot of new members are very intimidated by the whole process of actually signing in to the network and making that first bit of communication with ATC. I have no idea how to fix that, maybe it's not even a VATSIM problem.

Quote from: Gary Millsaps
We have trouble mustering and maintaining manning levels to provide nowhere close to 1-on-1 training for the 5-15% of population that makes up the controller force on VATSIM...where would the individuals needed to provide such support to the other 90% or so (pilots) come from?

Very good point, and a point well taken. Since controllers have much higher standards to conform with than pilots, one could infer that mentors and instructors fall under the same boat. While it may not be entirely possible or feasible, in a perfect world we could have a group of 100 or so experienced pilots just helping out fellow hobbyists. There should be no need to fill them to the gills with tests, or even a single test. That would be one of the best and easiest ways to give back to this great hobby.

Quote from: Gary Millsaps
Good sentiment but I believe if one looked at their system close enough one would find many of the same problems VATSIM experiences. This is aside from the fact that the fundamental approaches to the hobby are different between the two networks.

Regardless of similar problems or different fundamental approaches, there have got to be certain aspects of IVAO that perform more efficiently or work better than aspects of VATSIM and vice versa.

Also, no offense taken at all. Discussions and debates are meant to be just that. Not meant to be filled with disclaimers and apologies.  

-Nick
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Gary Millsaps on February 20, 2010, 06:23:51 PM
Quote from: Nicholas Taylor
Also, no offense taken at all. Discussions and debates are meant to be just that. Not meant to be filled with disclaimers and apologies.
Force of habit...my time as DD taught me well...
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Luke Kolin on February 20, 2010, 06:29:17 PM
Quote from: Gary Millsaps
As explored in several other forums ad threads, this is pretty much out of our (VATSIM's) hands.The pilot clients are the product of individual freelance efforts. They are neither spoonsored by nor controlled by VATSIM. The methodology by which any client connects to VATSIM is a controlled and negotiated product.

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.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]For example, it was noted above that the PRC is a long and daunting document. Is it really? or are new pilots just in too much of a hurry to read through even the most basic parts of it to figure out what they should do?[/quote]

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.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Everyone wants it sooner, simpler and with no restrictions.[/quote]

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.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I believe there is a failing in ensuring those on the fringes of the curve understand they are more than welcome to pursue their level of realism, intensity, etc. as long as it is in cooperation with those around them and does not in any way degrade the enjoyment of others using the network.[/quote]

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.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I'm sure I missed something in this too long post but I'd like to re-emphasize none of it is meant as a bash or slam on anyone, their thoughts, opinions or posts.[/quote]

It's great that this is being discussed.

Luke
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Arthur Heiser on February 20, 2010, 08:46:30 PM
IMO, if you want to strive for as much realism as possible, that's great! Just don't be a prick about it. If a fellow controller is doing this as pure hobby (they don't have any other motives such as CTI or becoming a r/w controller) don't bite their head off for screwing up something as insignificant as saying "you are" all the time. You have to allow for those that would like to enjoy this hobby just for the hobby of it to be able to get by with a less than perfect technique, all the while being able to handle traffic efficiently. I really enjoy seeing someone work a center with 30+ planes efficiently, and if they are not spot on phaseology wise, who cares? Probably one pilot, not even that, would notice these possible phraseology slips. (that one pilot would probably be a pilot/controller that actually knows what the proper phraseology would be). I have no statistics on this, but I would say from experience that a majority of pilots don't know correct from incorrect phraseology, and therefore, don't mind. I don't think anything I said answered any questions, but I just thought I'd put that out there.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Thomas King on February 20, 2010, 09:11:46 PM
Quote from: AJ Heiser
IMO, if you want to strive for as much realism as possible, that's great! Just don't be a prick about it.
Interesting the way you put that
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Cameron Negrete on February 20, 2010, 10:09:51 PM
I agree with what a few people have stated here.  The problem for the lack of pilots isn't atc.  Its pilot client, which is out of vatusa's hands, unless vatusa were to assemble some programmers to fix the problem.  Luke i 100% agree with you.  Sme with AJ Heiser.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Manuel Manigault on February 20, 2010, 11:00:25 PM
Quote from: Luke Kolin
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.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Andrew Doubleday on February 21, 2010, 07:26:57 AM
Quote from: Jeremy Bucholz
I think someone in here said it best, at some point people made VATSIM a stepping stone to their career, and that's when we went down hill.  No offense to those CTI students here, but (and I've seen this in the real world also) until you work real live traffic, you have no place to act like you know what you're doing and do it better than everyone else.  In the last year, we've washed out 5 CTI grads, and our traffic is down 50%.  Sure they may know the book word for word, but the don't have the capacity or common sense to think ahead.

Jeremy, I've been pondering your thoughts for about a day and I want to respond to this in a respectful manner being a CTI student myself...

Although I can somewhat understand how you could come to this conclusion, I don't think it's just or fair to blame the problems entirely on us at all. You appear to be classifying us, along with a few others here, as a bunch of ego-driven, short-sighted kids simply trying to dominate the network... and this, in turn, is driving away everyone from the network. I feel this is very deductive reasoning possibly caused by "a few" bad apples in the bunch...

I don't know exactly what experiences you've had with CTI students on VATSIM by any means and maybe it is possible that you have had the unfortunate experience of dealing with some foolish CTI students. I can certainly say that I have as well, but not all of us are this way by any means, Jeremy. You appear to be generalizing many of us into one category though which is definitely not the case. No disrespect at all, but you do not know many of us (and there are many CTI students scattered around this network). I can speak for those I know, for sure, that they are actually extremely "sound" and "well-rounded" individuals that know and understand the limitations and differences between VATSIM and the real world quite well, maybe even more so than you or others give us credit for...

I've had the fortunate experience of being able to meet and learn from many real world controllers I've met on the network. Not only have they taught me a lot of about controlling in general, but they've been kind enough to allow me (and others like me) the opportunity to tour facilities for many shifts to learn about the work environment (and in some cases, have the opportunity to do "hands on" work than just simply observing) and see, first hand, the differences between VATSIM, CTI, and the real world (and all three are very different from each other).

Make no mistake, I know for a fact that you are certainly correct, Jeremy, that many CTI students have absolutely no idea what they are getting into and end up falling flat on their faces in the real world (C90 has also washed out tons of CTI students under the same circumstances). I don't think that VATSIM is entirely responsible for that, however. That's individual foolishness that has caused this among many. As a lab assistant at my university, I've personally seen VATSIM controllers come into the labs with massive egos, thinking that they do know it all, and it's always been extremely foolish and unfortunate for them. However, I always did my best to try and set them straight while teaching in the labs, because at least I could respect the differences between VATSIM, CTI, and the real world.

I agree with AJ Heiser's comments as well. It's OK to be realistic about your controlling so long as you are respectful to others at the same time. My personal experiences on VATSIM have shown me that many look up to those of us with a lot of knowledge and passion towards the career (both on either the pilot side or controller side) and they want to learn as much as possible from us and others with real world experience. I think it's very unfair to classify us as problematic individuals causing all of the problems here. I feel like I'm doing something good for this community sharing what I know with others, and teaching them to be respectful about the differences in the real world. If it encourages someone to get into the career, that's amazing then and VATSIM should be proud of that fact for sparking an aviation interest with someone.

Hopefully any of the bad apples you may have dealt with, Jeremy, will read this and think twice... I truthfully do believe that many of us CTI students will end up being very successful in the career, however. I'm not trying to toot my own horn with this post, by any means either. I just would like people to know that there are many of us out there with a firm understanding and respect for the differences between VATSIM and the real world (although many of us do not have any real world experience yet). I Ask anyone to read this to not throw us all into a bad category for VATSIM...



Sincere Regards,

AJ
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Jeremy Bucholz on February 21, 2010, 09:28:48 AM
Quote from: Andrew Doubleday
Jeremy, I've been pondering your thoughts for about a day and I want to respond to this in a respectful manner being a CTI student myself...

Although I can somewhat understand how you could come to this conclusion, I don't think it's just or fair to blame the problems entirely on us at all. You appear to be classifying us, along with a few others here, as a bunch of ego-driven, short-sighted kids simply trying to dominate the network... and this, in turn, is driving away everyone from the network. I feel this is very deductive reasoning possibly caused by "a few" bad apples in the bunch...

I don't know exactly what experiences you've had with CTI students on VATSIM by any means and maybe it is possible that you have had the unfortunate experience of dealing with some foolish CTI students. I can certainly say that I have as well, but not all of us are this way by any means, Jeremy. You appear to be generalizing many of us into one category though which is definitely not the case. No disrespect at all, but you do not know many of us (and there are many CTI students scattered around this network). I can speak for those I know, for sure, that they are actually extremely "sound" and "well-rounded" individuals that know and understand the limitations and differences between VATSIM and the real world quite well, maybe even more so than you or others give us credit for...

I've had the fortunate experience of being able to meet and learn from many real world controllers I've met on the network. Not only have they taught me a lot of about controlling in general, but they've been kind enough to allow me (and others like me) the opportunity to tour facilities for many shifts to learn about the work environment (and in some cases, have the opportunity to do "hands on" work than just simply observing) and see, first hand, the differences between VATSIM, CTI, and the real world (and all three are very different from each other).

Make no mistake, I know for a fact that you are certainly correct, Jeremy, that many CTI students have absolutely no idea what they are getting into and end up falling flat on their faces in the real world (C90 has also washed out tons of CTI students under the same circumstances). I don't think that VATSIM is entirely responsible for that, however. That's individual foolishness that has caused this among many. As a lab assistant at my university, I've personally seen VATSIM controllers come into the labs with massive egos, thinking that they do know it all, and it's always been extremely foolish and unfortunate for them. However, I always did my best to try and set them straight while teaching in the labs, because at least I could respect the differences between VATSIM, CTI, and the real world.

I agree with AJ Heiser's comments as well. It's OK to be realistic about your controlling so long as you are respectful to others at the same time. My personal experiences on VATSIM have shown me that many look up to those of us with a lot of knowledge and passion towards the career (both on either the pilot side or controller side) and they want to learn as much as possible from us and others with real world experience. I think it's very unfair to classify us as problematic individuals causing all of the problems here. I feel like I'm doing something good for this community sharing what I know with others, and teaching them to be respectful about the differences in the real world. If it encourages someone to get into the career, that's amazing then and VATSIM should be proud of that fact for sparking an aviation interest with someone.

Hopefully any of the bad apples you may have dealt with, Jeremy, will read this and think twice... I truthfully do believe that many of us CTI students will end up being very successful in the career, however. I'm not trying to toot my own horn with this post, by any means either. I just would like people to know that there are many of us out there with a firm understanding and respect for the differences between VATSIM and the real world (although many of us do not have any real world experience yet). I Ask anyone to read this to not throw us all into a bad category for VATSIM...



Sincere Regards,

AJ

AJ,

It was not my intent to have my post read as catigorizing certain individuals and posting the blame, I apologize if you took it that way.  I was only attempting to use an example.  Yes, you are correct there are many CTI students on here who are humble and do their best to provide realistic service with a freindly feel.  But as you said there are also those bad apples out there who do carry themselves higher than everyone else on the network.  In the real world we do have to act like that because pilots will attempt to take over your freq, some people bring this attitude to the network.

I have invited and taken many people from VATSIM up to my facility and let them get the sense of how things really work.  Many are surprised to find that even in a tower setting, it's not even close to VATSIM and I continue to offer out an invitation to anyone who wants to experience that.  Point is, one way that we can attract more pilots is to have that freindly atmosphere that some people (not just CTI students) have taken away from the network.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Andrew Doubleday on February 21, 2010, 09:49:01 AM
Quote from: Jeremy Bucholz
Point is, one way that we can attract more pilots is to have that freindly atmosphere that some people (not just CTI students) have taken away from the network.

I'm with you on that... I'll be the first to admit I've had my fair share of learning experiences with "customer service" on here too. It took me time to learn about that. I think the attitude issues are more prevalent amongst the younger controllers on the network than anything.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Julian Hoffman on February 22, 2010, 09:11:35 AM
Quote from: Wade Williams
Jeff,

Then why do we need ratings at all? Why don't we just let whomever wants to get on whatever position they want?

Personally, it would drive me away.  If I can't fly under competent control, I might as well fly offline.

But again, I don't think we have solid evidence that constant staffing by "fun-having" (or even "no-fun serious") controllers would dramatically increase pilot count.

I think controller staffing is a part of the equation, but not the only one.

I second this.  I think there's a really fine line we have to walk between being too restrictive, and being too lax, and from what I've observed, we do this fairly well.  As for ratings being too hard to obtain, as in instructor in an ARTCC which is NOT the most stringent of them all, I've found there are a couple types of students. We have those that have dedicated themselves at least SOMEWHAT, and these students, who show at least some interest and willingness to learn, with rare exception, make it to the highest levels.  But we also have those who feel that, since this is a hobby, they should immediately be an S3, C1, etc., and have had people transfer out because, after failing a test with a score of less than 50-60%, felt they were getting a "raw deal".

Now from my pilot side, logging 40+ hours a month on average minimum, I can't tell you how incredibly annoying it is to contact a center, and realize they are absolutely overwhelmed, and have very little idea of what they're supposed to be doing.  All of our ARTCCs try their best to train controllers to meet all competencies, and all have failings with individuals at one point or another, that's the nature of the beast.  But lowering our expectations?  Honestly, if as a pilot, I didn't want competent controllers, I WOULD go fly on the Zone, or IVAO (:-D), but I do want these things, as a pilot.  Our pilots are our end-users, and they want the best experience they can get, which doesn't result from us lowering our standards and having people incapable of handling traffic.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Arthur Heiser on February 22, 2010, 10:53:04 AM
Quote from: Julian Hoffman
Now from my pilot side, logging 40+ hours a month on average minimum, I can't tell you how incredibly annoying it is to contact a center, and realize they are absolutely overwhelmed, and have very little idea of what they're supposed to be doing.  All of our ARTCCs try their best to train controllers to meet all competencies, and all have failings with individuals at one point or another, that's the nature of the beast.  But lowering our expectations?  Honestly, if as a pilot, I didn't want competent controllers, I WOULD go fly on the Zone, or IVAO (:-D), but I do want these things, as a pilot.  Our pilots are our end-users, and they want the best experience they can get, which doesn't result from us lowering our standards and having people incapable of handling traffic.

I completely agree with this. Can't we say that probably more than 95% of pilots would rather have ATC than no ATC? What's the point of flying without ATC (besides flying in group flights and the like)? I mean, isn't that the whole point of VATSIM? To get the full experience?
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Scott DeWoody on February 22, 2010, 02:51:45 PM
Quote from: AJ Heiser
I completely agree with this. Can't we say that probably more than 95% of pilots would rather have ATC than no ATC? What's the point of flying without ATC (besides flying in group flights and the like)? I mean, isn't that the whole point of VATSIM? To get the full experience?

I think it goes pretty much without saying that the majority of pilots would prefer ATC.  It's the quality of ATC that sometimes pushes pilots away, but that's why the ARTCC's have the pilot feedback, so if you feel you received sub-standard service, take the time to give the ATM,DATM,TA feedback on how their controllers are doing and then they can work on correcting those things that are sub-standard.

As far as the handing out of certifications, I for one went through the training, did the OTS's failed and retook written exams, that's how you learn.  There are some out there though, that want to be spoon fed everything, don't want to look things up, don't want to study, and expect to get the next level of cert, either globally or locally.  How do you fix that??  Talk to their parents I guess, because you can try on here til you're blue in the face and you won't get through to some... it's called work ethic, and I guess if you've never worked, it's hard to have that ethic.

Please note that I said some...
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Arthur Heiser on February 22, 2010, 03:56:27 PM
Quote from: Scott DeWoody
As far as the handing out of certifications, I for one went through the training, did the OTS's failed and retook written exams, that's how you learn.  There are some out there though, that want to be spoon fed everything, don't want to look things up, don't want to study, and expect to get the next level of cert, either globally or locally.  How do you fix that??  Talk to their parents I guess, because you can try on here til you're blue in the face and you won't get through to some... it's called work ethic, and I guess if you've never worked, it's hard to have that ethic.

Please note that I said some...

This looks to be a side-effect of today's society, the "no winners, no losers" mentality. Today's 13 year old's can't see the difference between "right" and "privilege", and it's looks to be taking it's toll on the next generation of virtual controllers.

2 solutions: Try and get it through their skulls that things aren't going to be spoon fed to them their whole lives. Or, we can work around spoon feeding to make it look like we are, but in reality they are truly earning their cert. I don't have the slightest idea how to do that, but it is an option.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Julian Hoffman on February 22, 2010, 04:23:03 PM
Quote from: Scott DeWoody
As far as the handing out of certifications, I for one went through the training, did the OTS's failed and retook written exams, that's how you learn.  There are some out there though, that want to be spoon fed everything, don't want to look things up, don't want to study, and expect to get the next level of cert, either globally or locally.  How do you fix that??  Talk to their parents I guess, because you can try on here til you're blue in the face and you won't get through to some... it's called work ethic, and I guess if you've never worked, it's hard to have that ethic.

I also agree with this.  Going back to my previously mentioned students who have transferred out of our ARTCC, when you go in to look at them, they repeat the pattern of behavior in wherever they transfer to.  I agree with the thought that a certain ARTCC might not be the best fit for you, and training programs and requirements definitely do vary still, even with the implementation of GRP2.0, but there needs to be some understanding on the part of students that a basic level of competency and dedication still applies.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Luke Kolin on February 22, 2010, 06:23:14 PM
I think the most reliable sign that you're old is when you start despairing about the next generation.

Cheers!

Luke
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Arthur Heiser on February 22, 2010, 06:39:19 PM
Quote from: Luke Kolin
I think the most reliable sign that you're old is when you start despairing about the next generation.

Cheers!

Luke

I'm 16 and I can understand the differences between these things! Really shows you how much difference a couple years makes.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Julian Hoffman on February 22, 2010, 06:42:58 PM
Quote from: Luke Kolin
I think the most reliable sign that you're old is when you start despairing about the next generation.

Cheers!

Luke

Old?  I'm 24.  Lol.
Title: What we need to be discussing
Post by: Luke Kolin on February 22, 2010, 06:51:51 PM
Quote from: Julian Hoffman
Old?  I'm 24.  Lol.

You're only as young as you feel.

Cheers!

Luke