What we need to be discussing

[Jeff Thomas]

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.

[Scott DeWoody]

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!

[Richard Jenkins]

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.

[Wade Williams]

[!--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.

[J Jason Vodnansky]

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

[Wade Williams]

[!--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?

[Nicholas Taylor]

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

[Jeremy Bucholz]

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.

[Wade Williams]

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.

[Jeremy Bucholz]

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.

[Gary Millsaps]

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.

[Nicholas Taylor]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Gary Millsaps]

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...

[Luke Kolin]

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

[Arthur Heiser]

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.