VATUSA Forums
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Derek Hood on November 04, 2010, 04:11:30 PM
-
As I sit here and work a position on the network its funny to see how bad it has gotten over the past few years alone. People logging on and taxiing to and from or taking off / landing as they please without calling you. Then you query them and all you get is "Oh sorry, I didn't know you were on" or "Oh sorry I don't know whats going on this is my first time" I mean I understand that we all started out on this at one time or another, but read the guidelines or they need to be enforced a little better IMHO. The network is slowly going down the drain and the fun is really starting to go with it as well with sub-par pilots connecting to the network.
Sorry for the rant, but I know im not the only one who feels this way.
Derek Hood
ZMP/ZLA Controller
-
You're not the only one, Derek.
-
You're not the only one, Derek.
Oh I know Tyler, I know there is a huge line behind me. But I was just very frustrated today.
-
Not sure how "huge" the line is in respect to the entire network, but there are a significant number of experienced members concerned for sure... I'll be the first to agree.
As a controller who's put in an average of 80-100 hours a month (Albeit some leaves here and there due to real life, while being active, this is roughly my average.) with somewhere around 3,500 total hours behind the scopes, I've witnessed the downhill slide since I began controlling in 2005, especially within the past two years the most. The "fun" level for those of us who see the network as being far more capable than it is headed is truly becoming depressing. I'm beginning to slow down already and looking for alternatives, to be quite frank.
Referencing the Major airport off-peak certification thread (found here in the VATSIM forum: http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=52546) (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=52546)) that's been fairly popular recently, this is enough for me to realize things aren't heading in a positive directing for someone like me anymore. I prefer a more realistic atmosphere, more standardized procedures, a well-trained and maintained roster of controllers in a facility with a realistic approach towards controlling and, to top it off, pilots that appreciate that level of service offered and, in turn, are of high quality themselves - that's enjoyment of the network for me. I know there are others out there as well - I wish they would speak up more rather than biting their tongue (whether this is out of concern for their staff positions or what - I'm not certain).
A quote David Klain posted from the founders has me particularly concerned:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]When VATSIM first started out, a couple of guys would be flying and another guy would control...he would jump from DEL to GND to TWR to DEP to CTR to ARR to TWR to GND to provide them 100% ATC coverage for the entire flight. The pilots got to talk to a controller throughout the whole flight and fun was had by all. As VATSIM has grown, we have instituted regions, divisions and FIRS which have made this impossible in today's world due to all the bureaucracy and requirements to either belong to the FIR or get visiting status. Those Regions, Divisions and FIRs have forgotten that they don't own the airspace...VATSIM does. Maybe it's time we do away with all of that and adopt a global approach where controllers can control anywhere....[/quote]
Sure, maybe this was fun while it started - but the network has grown to allow for so much more in terms of advancements in technology and with the allowance of facilities to become more realistic and standardized. Now it seems we just want to retract all of this and retreat back to how things were 10 years ago? It's difficult to digest sometimes for someone like me... It's like taking 10 steps backwards - who in their right mind who's reached a level of knowledge, experience, and entertainment from high quality here would want to see this happen? Allow me to explain my thoughts on this further...
What I'm seeing is a large disconnect between a good portion of the founders and the current status of the network, referencing the above comment. It seems to me like an old boys club that is disappointed because the network evolved beyond their capabilities and they don't want it because it's either too difficult or complex for them now, regardless of the fact that many others have probably enjoyed a lot of the advancements a number of facilities have made over the years to improve quality.
I think Keith Smith said it right in this thread as well... When has anyone actually seen a founder work a _busy_ sky themselves recently (and if so, how regularly do they actually do it)??? I don't think I've ever seen a founder go through my facility's training program, let alone any others I've been a part of or involved with, and see how truly amazing that can be if you actually put some effort into it... I'm sure this goes for many other facilities as well. It's few and far between that you see that. It seems to me decisions to remove supposed excessive restrictions on membership and simplify things is being based on the excuse that "since other members appear to be struggling, it must be true, even though we've never really tried to see it for ourselves". When do the experienced and regular members who have actually seen good things come from these advancements the network has made get to be heard about these changes? Again, I'm not saying that every facility has done it right, but I'd like to think most have done alright. In my opinion, it's already too easy to become a controller on VATSIM as is in a majority of VATUSA facilities.
Sure, maybe their are numbers to show people aren't enjoying how long it takes to become certified in certain areas or pilots don't want deal with testing or other things, but it truly has taken a noticeable toll on overall quality, in my honest opinion. To me, it's feeling more and more like people simply don't want to put the effort in anymore, they just want instant gratification from this. Maybe this is what the founders want now. It definitely appears that way more and more though. Adding to this point, events are something we all look forward to on VATSIM. You need a well trained, organized, and prepared roster to handle them effectively and, on top of this, quality piloting. This is something that every member should _want_ to work for. If you take away the drive by making things easier for everyone, this disappears and becomes all the more frustrating for those of us who have put the effort in. I can speak from experience in having witnessed this problem as of late as well.
Ever since the Founders letter to the community, I knew we were in for changes that probably were not going to impress the experienced and dedicated here... Maybe some of them have been beneficial to some extent, but again, I'm speaking as someone who's seen and experienced a lot here over the years - and it really has gone downhill. Pilot quality really took a steep descent upon opening up memberships to free email service providers. It amazes me how flawed the relatively new "join VATSIM" page is in failing to mention anything at all about actually being prepared prior to logging on... There are so many newer members on this network now than I've ever seen before, it's outweighing those members with experience, which is in turn creating frustration amongst us and contributing towards the realism divide (referencing exactly what Derek has posted above, I've seen it so much more frequency now days than ever).
For the record, I think it's a terrible idea to remove the off peak certifications all together - it's another prime example of the disconnect between network management and understanding of things going on at the local level. A quick fix solution that maybe fixes a few bad apples, but screws facilities that have actually made it work. You're impeding some of the better advancements some facilities have made on this network by doing away with this.
There's something Gary Millsaps had to say that I liked as well, specifically the area in which controllers try to experience that natural "high" from working a busy sector and knowing they can keep it under control. I think the last time I've actually experienced that "high" is well over a year ago at this point. Again, there is such an incredibly high volume of new people on the network, it outweighs the experienced more than ever before... It's rarely an effective learning environment. Getting a "good session" in is so few and far between these days (for me anyhow). Trying to work with 10 new pilots at a time is a difficult, if not nearly impossible task to accomplish (this isn't an exaggeration either). I surely try to be respectful and help out, I'd like to think my feedback at ZLA shows that for the most part as well, but it's truly not fun when you're experiencing this day in and day out now... I'm at the point where I'm impressed if one guy obtains and reports ATIS when checking in with me, complies with instructions timely, maintains a high situational awareness in a busy sky, and actually appreciates and attempts to work with a knowledgeable controller when he/she finds one...
Obviously we all did start somewhere. The real concern I'm experiencing is relevant to the foundational flaws in the network and how we're appearing to go about handling them. Starting with whoever decided it would be a smart idea to require controlling training, yet nothing at all of pilots, is just absurd... It's fundamentally flawed in every aspect. Additionally, with the advancements facilities have made to improve procedures, training and other aspects that make this enjoyable for people who actually prefer a "simulation" rather than just another "game", we have created members (like myself) that desire a more realistic and organized environment - that is what is "fun" for us. I'm not saying I (or others) don't understand and respect the fact that we were all once new and needed help at one point or another, just that this should be able to occur in moderation with the experienced able to grandfather down at an appropriate rate of attrition with the new members, rather than the blind leading the blind as it appears more and more now days (no disrespect meant to those actual blind members here). This type of professional environment seems to be rapidly fading now, especially within VATUSA (again, I'm speaking from first hand observation of this). When comments are posted regarding the lack of controller or pilot quality now, many are easy to criticize those experienced members complaints for being too realistic, etc... It's unfair in my opinion. There does seem to be valid concern that quality is suffering here, it just seems to be ignored by many. You need the quality-concerned members to stick around to help improve the rest. To the founders, you've allowed the network to produce higher quality members from the get-go. Do you honestly want to kick them to the curb in favor of quantity over quality now? I just don't get how this will help improve anything other than making this more and more like the MSN Game Zone... Do you honestly want that as well?
There may be one area I can agree with the founders on - excessive bureaucracy here. Again, in my opinion, its been allowed to get to this point though. The flaws in the foundation of the network have fostered the differences across the realism spectrum we now face and the political crap is all a result of this in some form or fashion.
In the end, who am I to speak though I guess... I'm just a controller here now. I just hope my opinions are not overlooked (as I'm not the only one with it). Obviously this is the founders network to do as they please with. As stated in the comment, it's their airspace - we just borrow it. They can do as they please in the end...
I'd just ask network management (founders, BoG, etc) that before making decisions/implementing policy that negatively impact certain facilities and members, that you take some time to listen to those who have experienced the good that has come from the development of the network over the years and try a little harder to allow for flexibility in those areas when enacting policy. You will only continue to drive off those experienced members frustrated by what is an apparent lack of understanding otherwise. Put a little time and effort in by either controlling (try actually going through training programs that are complaining about your lack of understanding to their needs, listen to those facility's concerns directly) or flying regularly in certain areas (spending time on the front lines of the network again) to see this what's happening first-hand rather than sitting high up in your ivory tower saying things like, "It's not right, it's too hard for us, we need to go back to how it was before," when you're hardly actively involved at the facility level anymore. Because, with all due respect, it appears to someone like me that you're approaching things in a very close-minded manner right now - I'm sure others feel the same way. Break down the political barriers by becoming involved again at the basic level. Show the community that you're making an active effort to understand each side of the spectrum before implementing change. Please take this constructively...
Sincere Regards from a concerned member,
-
Not sure how "huge" the line is in respect to the entire network, but there are a significant number of experienced members concerned for sure... I'll be the first to agree.
As a controller who's put in an average of 80-100 hours a month (Albeit some leaves here and there due to real life, while being active, this is roughly my average.) with somewhere around 3,500 total hours behind the scopes, I've witnessed the downhill slide since I began controlling in 2005, especially within the past two years the most. The "fun" level for those of us who see the network as being far more capable than it is headed is truly becoming depressing. I'm beginning to slow down already and looking for alternatives, to be quite frank.
Referencing the Major airport off-peak certification thread (found here in the VATSIM forum: http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=52546) (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=52546)) that's been fairly popular recently, this is enough for me to realize things aren't heading in a positive directing for someone like me anymore. I prefer a more realistic atmosphere, more standardized procedures, a well-trained and maintained roster of controllers in a facility with a realistic approach towards controlling and, to top it off, pilots that appreciate that level of service offered and, in turn, are of high quality themselves - that's enjoyment of the network for me. I know there are others out there as well - I wish they would speak up more rather than biting their tongue (whether this is out of concern for their staff positions or what - I'm not certain).
A quote David Klain posted from the founders has me particularly concerned:
Sure, maybe this was fun while it started - but the network has grown to allow for so much more in terms of advancements in technology and with the allowance of facilities to become more realistic and standardized. Now it seems we just want to retract all of this and retreat back to how things were 10 years ago? It's difficult to digest sometimes for someone like me... It's like taking 10 steps backwards - who in their right mind who's reached a level of knowledge, experience, and entertainment from high quality here would want to see this happen? Allow me to explain my thoughts on this further...
What I'm seeing is a large disconnect between a good portion of the founders and the current status of the network, referencing the above comment. It seems to me like an old boys club that is disappointed because the network evolved beyond their capabilities and they don't want it because it's either too difficult or complex for them now, regardless of the fact that many others have probably enjoyed a lot of the advancements a number of facilities have made over the years to improve quality.
I think Keith Smith said it right in this thread as well... When has anyone actually seen a founder work a _busy_ sky themselves recently (and if so, how regularly do they actually do it)??? I don't think I've ever seen a founder go through my facility's training program, let alone any others I've been a part of or involved with, and see how truly amazing that can be if you actually put some effort into it... I'm sure this goes for many other facilities as well. It's few and far between that you see that. It seems to me decisions to remove supposed excessive restrictions on membership and simplify things is being based on the excuse that "since other members appear to be struggling, it must be true, even though we've never really tried to see it for ourselves". When do the experienced and regular members who have actually seen good things come from these advancements the network has made get to be heard about these changes? Again, I'm not saying that every facility has done it right, but I'd like to think most have done alright. In my opinion, it's already too easy to become a controller on VATSIM as is in a majority of VATUSA facilities.
Sure, maybe their are numbers to show people aren't enjoying how long it takes to become certified in certain areas or pilots don't want deal with testing or other things, but it truly has taken a noticeable toll on overall quality, in my honest opinion. To me, it's feeling more and more like people simply don't want to put the effort in anymore, they just want instant gratification from this. Maybe this is what the founders want now. It definitely appears that way more and more though. Adding to this point, events are something we all look forward to on VATSIM. You need a well trained, organized, and prepared roster to handle them effectively and, on top of this, quality piloting. This is something that every member should _want_ to work for. If you take away the drive by making things easier for everyone, this disappears and becomes all the more frustrating for those of us who have put the effort in. I can speak from experience in having witnessed this problem as of late as well.
Ever since the Founders letter to the community, I knew we were in for changes that probably were not going to impress the experienced and dedicated here... Maybe some of them have been beneficial to some extent, but again, I'm speaking as someone who's seen and experienced a lot here over the years - and it really has gone downhill. Pilot quality really took a steep descent upon opening up memberships to free email service providers. It amazes me how flawed the relatively new "join VATSIM" page is in failing to mention anything at all about actually being prepared prior to logging on... There are so many newer members on this network now than I've ever seen before, it's outweighing those members with experience, which is in turn creating frustration amongst us and contributing towards the realism divide (referencing exactly what Derek has posted above, I've seen it so much more frequency now days than ever).
For the record, I think it's a terrible idea to remove the off peak certifications all together - it's another prime example of the disconnect between network management and understanding of things going on at the local level. A quick fix solution that maybe fixes a few bad apples, but screws facilities that have actually made it work. You're impeding some of the better advancements some facilities have made on this network by doing away with this.
There's something Gary Millsaps had to say that I liked as well, specifically the area in which controllers try to experience that natural "high" from working a busy sector and knowing they can keep it under control. I think the last time I've actually experienced that "high" is well over a year ago at this point. Again, there is such an incredibly high volume of new people on the network, it outweighs the experienced more than ever before... It's rarely an effective learning environment. Getting a "good session" in is so few and far between these days (for me anyhow). Trying to work with 10 new pilots at a time is a difficult, if not nearly impossible task to accomplish (this isn't an exaggeration either). I surely try to be respectful and help out, I'd like to think my feedback at ZLA shows that for the most part as well, but it's truly not fun when you're experiencing this day in and day out now... I'm at the point where I'm impressed if one guy obtains and reports ATIS when checking in with me, complies with instructions timely, maintains a high situational awareness in a busy sky, and actually appreciates and attempts to work with a knowledgeable controller when he/she finds one...
Obviously we all did start somewhere. The real concern I'm experiencing is relevant to the foundational flaws in the network and how we're appearing to go about handling them. Starting with whoever decided it would be a smart idea to require controlling training, yet nothing at all of pilots, is just absurd... It's fundamentally flawed in every aspect. Additionally, with the advancements facilities have made to improve procedures, training and other aspects that make this enjoyable for people who actually prefer a "simulation" rather than just another "game", we have created members (like myself) that desire a more realistic and organized environment - that is what is "fun" for us. I'm not saying I (or others) don't understand and respect the fact that we were all once new and needed help at one point or another, just that this should be able to occur in moderation with the experienced able to grandfather down at an appropriate rate of attrition with the new members, rather than the blind leading the blind as it appears more and more now days (no disrespect meant to those actual blind members here). This type of professional environment seems to be rapidly fading now, especially within VATUSA (again, I'm speaking from first hand observation of this). When comments are posted regarding the lack of controller or pilot quality now, many are easy to criticize those experienced members complaints for being too realistic, etc... It's unfair in my opinion. There does seem to be valid concern that quality is suffering here, it just seems to be ignored by many. You need the quality-concerned members to stick around to help improve the rest. To the founders, you've allowed the network to produce higher quality members from the get-go. Do you honestly want to kick them to the curb in favor of quantity over quality now? I just don't get how this will help improve anything other than making this more and more like the MSN Game Zone... Do you honestly want that as well?
There may be one area I can agree with the founders on - excessive bureaucracy here. Again, in my opinion, its been allowed to get to this point though. The flaws in the foundation of the network have fostered the differences across the realism spectrum we now face and the political crap is all a result of this in some form or fashion.
In the end, who am I to speak though I guess... I'm just a controller here now. I just hope my opinions are not overlooked (as I'm not the only one with it). Obviously this is the founders network to do as they please with. As stated in the comment, it's their airspace - we just borrow it. They can do as they please in the end...
I'd just ask network management (founders, BoG, etc) that before making decisions/implementing policy that negatively impact certain facilities and members, that you take some time to listen to those who have experienced the good that has come from the development of the network over the years and try a little harder to allow for flexibility in those areas when enacting policy. You will only continue to drive off those experienced members frustrated by what is an apparent lack of understanding otherwise. Put a little time and effort in by either controlling (try actually going through training programs that are complaining about your lack of understanding to their needs, listen to those facility's concerns directly) or flying regularly in certain areas (spending time on the front lines of the network again) to see this what's happening first-hand rather than sitting high up in your ivory tower saying things like, "It's not right, it's too hard for us, we need to go back to how it was before," when you're hardly actively involved at the facility level anymore. Because, with all due respect, it appears to someone like me that you're approaching things in a very close-minded manner right now - I'm sure others feel the same way. Break down the political barriers by becoming involved again at the basic level. Show the community that you're making an active effort to understand each side of the spectrum before implementing change. Please take this constructively...
Sincere Regards from a concerned member,
Very well put AJ. I think its responses like this that need to be view by all founders and BoG alike.
Derek
-
+1
You're definitely not alone AJ.
Thnx!
-
Spot on. Well said AJ.
-
I completely agree with you AJ. You were able to put into words what I wasn't able to.
-
Well said AJ.
-
Agreed. Very much agreed. There are also a whole lot of people who would mirror those sentiments who I've talked to recently.
-
+1
-
+1. Heartily agreed. Given the latest posts in the mothership forum, it seems like the dedicated guys have finally had enough.
-
I wholeheartedly agree with AJ's sentiments.
-
+1... AJ has it spot on.
-
AJ,
What you've said is essentially what everyone else who controls regularly is saying, specifically in regards to pilot quality. It's a very disheartening trend to see how many pilots have no clue whatsoever as to what is going on in the most remote sense. While pilots used to model the habits of FS9/FSX Default ATC, I don't even see THAT anymore; it's turned into a conglomeration of confusion all over the scope. There are posts in the VATSIM Forums about it just about every couple of weeks. Though, instead of focusing on pilot training, it seems we're now focusing on controller de-training, if that's even a word. I just don't get it.
At the same time, I must re-iterate what I said in the VATSIM Forums that much of what we've heard thus far is hearsay. I see no point in mass-resignations unless there is hard evidence, like a notice of a policy change or something, that VATSIM staff will make major changes to the way ARTCCs and divisions are operated. Sure, I too take offense that some higher-ups have degraded the work we've done in improving our areas of VATUSA, but I'm sure they've had those feelings for quite a long time. Whether or not they will act on them is something I look forward to seeing. Usually what I've seen in the forums are discussions on various idealistic situations, most if not all of which never come to fruition. I wouldn't think this one is really any different.
-
Harold, during the last 2-3 years there is a continuous innuendo going on that most of the problems on this network arise from the "tyrannies of the ARTCCs". Please notice how ofter the high ranks of the network imply that. Many of us feel that we get treated, like a few rotted apples (that DID exist), affected the whole garden and now there must be a massive, devastating cure for everyone. This is unfair. The guys in ZLA have put a lot of effort, countless hrs of commitment and a good amount of money for their server to create one model ARTCC that has proven out that IT WORKS AS IT SHOULD and should be used as a model for the rest. One would think that VATSIM should at least show the way and actually help the rest to move towards the direction of ARTCCs like ZLA. What really happens is the opposite. Paul Byrne gave a spot on explanation in the VATSIM thread we're all referring to. Most of the changes that are happening or that are announced actually make sense if you see them from Paul's perspective. I repeat this is happening for many years now. "LOWER THE STDS LOWER THE STDS". That's what I read behind the lines every single time. And to clear this out I don't think that by raising the bar in an ARTCC you make the network exclusive. You need to motivate people to get better. That's how it always worked in human history. Whenever a radical change that lowers the standards is announced we always end up having posts like: "Yeah! It's boring to learn this, to read this, to work on that blah blah. Now that I can log on and play with minor effort is so much better!". I'm exaggerating this but I think we all get the point.
-
AJ,
What you've said is essentially what everyone else who controls regularly is saying, specifically in regards to pilot quality. It's a very disheartening trend to see how many pilots have no clue whatsoever as to what is going on in the most remote sense. While pilots used to model the habits of FS9/FSX Default ATC, I don't even see THAT anymore; it's turned into a conglomeration of confusion all over the scope. There are posts in the VATSIM Forums about it just about every couple of weeks. Though, instead of focusing on pilot training, it seems we're now focusing on controller de-training, if that's even a word. I just don't get it.
Well said... I'm at the point where, more often than not, I feel like I'm unable to be an effective controller with the declining level of competence. It's very difficult to get into a "groove" where you can feel the momentum built up on frequency with everything under control and everyone enjoying the professionalism of the environment (that "high" Gary speaks of). Again, it's been so long since I've last experienced that... I feel like I'm hopelessly hunting for it when I get on these days. Like an addict unable to get his/her fix...
I don't know about many of you, but I signed up to control on VATSIM, not to be babysitter having to hand-hold everyone that visits our sectors because they don't know how to fly. Did anyone ever consider this being a critical reason towards a number of people not wanting to become controllers here? This virtual job has become one more suited for a professional teacher now...
At the same time, I must re-iterate what I said in the VATSIM Forums that much of what we've heard thus far is hearsay. I see no point in mass-resignations unless there is hard evidence, like a notice of a policy change or something, that VATSIM staff will make major changes to the way ARTCCs and divisions are operated. Sure, I too take offense that some higher-ups have degraded the work we've done in improving our areas of VATUSA, but I'm sure they've had those feelings for quite a long time. Whether or not they will act on them is something I look forward to seeing. Usually what I've seen in the forums are discussions on various idealistic situations, most if not all of which never come to fruition. I wouldn't think this one is really any different.
Allow me to direct you to a recent quote from David Klain (VATSIM President) regarding off-peak certification removal:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The VATSIM leadership totally agree with the idea that controllers should be able to work major airports faster. Bottom line is that off-peak solos are not authorized. Not part of GRP and they violate the intent of GRP and the network. GRP is a binary thing – you are either qualified or not. If qualified, you are qualified to work the airspace at any time. If not qualified, then you should not be working it at any time. Several ARTCCs/FIRS/VACCs in various divisions had brought in this “off peak” solo as a way of giving a student a “temporary permission” to control a major airport at “off peak” times (whatever the heck they are). There were (and are) a number of problems with this idea:
(1) when is off peak? Local times? Zulu times? Where published? Different for every airport around?
(2) Where is the list of who is authorized to control “off peak”…as compared to endorsed to control that major airport at any time? How do supervisors enforce the policy?
(3) The whole point of GRP is that if a person has the requisite knowledge to work the airspace, he should be authorized to control it. GRP 2.0 originally had no major airports or designated airspace. It was added during the review as part of a compromise because a number of review participants were insistent the world would collapse if anyone worked that airport/airspace without specific training. The compromise was that for designated airspace and major airports there would be a requirement for an appropriately-rated controller to also get an endorsement signifying he/she was familiar with the nuances of that specific airport/airspace. If a person is familiar with that airsapace (the SOPs, nuances, etc.) and the instructor is willing to sign them off for “off peak” times, then by definition they are familiar with it and should be granted the endorsement and able to work it at any time…period. Reality is that a newly-endorsed controller will make some mistakes…but VATSIM is a learning environment that is not “zero fault” and those mistakes are not only expected and acceptable, they are part of the learning process and learning environment.
Bottom line: off peak endorsements are not permitted and that word should be filtering down to the various divisions and then the facilities in those divisions. At that point there any and all references and use of "off peak endorsements" should (and will) go away. Anyone who runs into a facility that is still imposing them should notify the appropriate staff (obviously starting at the division level and then escalating to the RD if necessary).
GRP is about INCREASING controller's access to airspace and getting more controllers online...off peak endorsements are actually a way of DELAYING a controller from doing just that out of some fear that the controller will make a mistake. Given the fact that VATSIM has ZERO risk to people or equipment, those mistakes are part of life and the facilities that don't get that need to get over it and get with the program as articulated by the Founders.
Dave[/quote]
I think this should definitely be evident enough that they've decided to do away with it.
Kyle Ramsey, another BoG member:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The "quality uber alles" crowd are on a path not supported by the Founders or BoG. You can continue to rant in these forums about it, you can hold on, for now, to your staff positions. But know your agenda is not going to continue to influence VATSIM and your way is going away.[/quote]
The general feel I'm getting after reading posts like this is borderline militant... Either we get with the program articulated by the founders hiding in their ivory tower and their brilliant understanding of things at the facility-level... Or we get out. Coming directly from network management at that... Impressive, to say the least, no?
The recent resignations of ZLA staff should not be taken lightly with regards to this either. ZLA has been a powerhouse facility of VATUSA for a long time and the off peak certifications have been _critical_ towards the success of training in that facility due to the massive influx of students and limited training staff. Before you jump to the conclusion that the problem must be as simple as I just wrote it (referencing "limited training staff"), you should know more about the principles of ZLA. ZLA has built itself on the principles of training knowledgeable, well trained, professional controllers - this takes a while to achieve for many, but is an extremely rewarding experience once you get to that level. It gives many the motivation to work towards that level. Taking away that motivation by opening the proverbial "flood gates" will likely wreck what's been created there. Training off-peak was the motivating factor towards obtaining the full certification so you could control during busy periods/events. This system worked well towards fulfilling ZLA's needs with the extreme popularity. Did anyone bother to check with ZLA before making the decision to kill off-peak? I'd be surprised with the resignations that have just occurred...
After many discussions I've had with people from multiple facilities over the past few weeks regarding this topic and others, I'm quickly discovering there are plenty of us here fed up with the present status of VATSIM and network management. All of them feel that the network is capable of much more, yet being restricted from progress not only by politics that have developed here, but also from this attempt to simplify controller training. I'm speaking on behalf of many of them because I no longer have anything to lose (I already lost my staff position years ago, sorry Kyle). I've witnessed the political crap, I've dealt with backstabbing (one of the few things I can thank this network for now; teaching me at an early age how to protect myself from this in the real world) amongst other ridiculous things you'd expect to see in the White House (having managed a facility for 15 months, and been removed due to political reasons). I'm slowly realizing it's honestly not worth it to dump time into VATSIM anymore if it's going to continue down this road. And I hate to say this, but I've already begun to pursue alternatives to VATSIM along with a number of these others...
I could easily delve more into specifics on wonderful stories of the gruesome politics I've experienced here in many more posts. I'll reserve comment, for now, but will likely come back to this soon to discuss specifics on a certain facility I've witnessed, and used to be a proud member of, go down the tubes as I feel it applies to this topic and the present status of the network in many ways.
-AJ
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]At the same time, I must re-iterate what I said in the VATSIM Forums that much of what we've heard thus far is hearsay. I see no point in mass-resignations unless there is hard evidence, like a notice of a policy change or something, that VATSIM staff will make major changes to the way ARTCCs and divisions are operated.[/quote]
This is not hearsay. I got my official notification from VATUSA that we are to stop using our student, off-peak certification program immediately. No grandfather clause for the 12 members we have that have this rating. We were not even asked how it works, what our opinions were, nothing... Division staff were not even consulted on this.
LA is not the only facility that uses/used this method. There are many facilities that use this method effectively. And guess what, we were doing it years before "GRP". Why? My estimate is that off-peak certs get a student on the network controlling said "major field" a minimum of 5 hours of training staff time earlier than if we did not do this. We and many other facilities that employ this program, have used this as a means of lowering the load on our training staff(Which is as thin as I have ever seen it by the way. Not just ZMA, but across the network.) and getting our students controlling solo faster. We keep hearing about the "spirit of GRP". Does anyone honestly expect people to believe that the "spirit" is being upheld here? What exactly is the motive here for this?
Honestly, I have no idea why I am even writing this post. It is painfully obvious that the opinions of the members do not have even the slightest bearing on decisions made by the BoG.
-
I know, for me, that it's sad to see both Ian and Mike go. Both of them were great guys and helped establish ZLA as one of the premier ARTCC's. Will this open the "flood-gates" as someone already stated? Absolutely. We will continue to see, quite frankly, horrible pilots and ATC has to walk them through each step just to get them off the ground. Once they actually start flying, it's another story. That's not what I've volunteered my time for. I volunteered to control with realism (as much as VATSIM allows); not babysitting. Hell, being on VATSIM has significantly influenced my life. I'm now going to school to get a CTI certificate and actually control for real. That's what this network has allowed me to do.
This hardline stance by the BoG is showing me that they are, simply, out of touch. They appear to not want to work with division staff on finding ways to better both sides, pilot and controller. While the pilot ratings are the first step forward, its essentially less than a baby step. These ratings are not mandatory, and honestly, I'm not sure how many people want to spend the time on them. I know I'm not. I feel that I'm at a good enough level as a pilot to listen and respond to orders correctly.
This fundamental shift in thinking should be a wake up call to the BoG/Founders. If you want to continue to lose some of your best USA controllers, keep going down this path, and see where it takes you.
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Kyle Ramsey: The "quality uber alles" crowd are on a path not supported by the Founders or BoG. You can continue to rant in these forums about it, you can hold on, for now, to your staff positions. But know your agenda is not going to continue to influence VATSIM and your way is going away.[/quote]
The arrogance and disrespect of this statement... Coming from a guy that has not controlled a position on the network in over 4 years or been a pilot since the release of GRP... Mind numbing! Not sure if I am mad, amused, saddened, or disgusted...
-
The arrogance and disrespect of this statement... Coming from a guy that has not controlled a position on the network in over 4 years or been a pilot since the release of GRP... Mind numbing! Not sure if I am mad, amused, saddened, or disgusted...
Wow Bob - I missed that quote from Kyle that is pretty telling.
-
Wow Bob - I missed that quote from Kyle that is pretty telling.
I think he got scared and deleted it. Either way its very "Chairman Mao" in my eyes. What happened to the REALISM this network is suppose to emulate?
Flame Suit on!
Derek
-
If you want to gaze into a crystal ball of VATSIM's future headed in this direction look no farther than Chicago. A once proud flagship ARTCC in VATUSA. Now it lies in shambles. In its heyday the controllers were very knowledgeable and could vector airplanes like there's no tomorrow. The unique nature of ORD pretty much required this. When I started, I chose ZAU not because I knew it had traffic, i didn't, but because I lived in the airspace. After graduating from the VATUSA Academy ,which was a phenomenal experience by the way, I saw my classmates at other facilities moving up though the ranks. I however was receiving the best training in VATUSA on radar and because of that I had no problems working the (at that time) complex airspace around ORD.
A founder once told me "There is nothing more exciting on VATSIM then to see another airplane parallel to you on approach for another runway." During my tenure at ZAU, I received multiple compliments, and pilots guaranteeing me they would come back because I had set them up with another aircraft on a converging approach. To see the other aircraft coming towards them was exciting and fun!
Then an ATM who would "Let the facility burn to the ground to prove his points about GRP," took over. He stripped any shred of realism from the facility, fired staff members and all instructors who wanted to teach realistic procedures. His thinking, was in line with what I'm now seeing from the higher ups.
When the last straw was pulled for me in Chicago, I moved to the "Eagle that Perches Over ZAU" (ZMP). Our radar ranges go out far enough to see aircraft going into the Chicago area, and traffic has dramatically decreased since I was there. I have had multiple pilots in my airspace that when I ship them off to Chicago, they disconnect. The amount of times I see this can't be a coincidence. It has to be because Chicago controllers no longer meet their expectations. These pilots, are the well versed ones that are every controllers dream. So if we remove all the standards from VATSIM as a whole, not only will you see mass resignations from controllers, myself included, but also those prized jewels, the pilots, will leave the remaining controllers with a lot of blank screen to look at.
-
If you want to gaze into a crystal ball of VATSIM's future headed in this direction look no farther than Chicago. A once proud flagship ARTCC in VATUSA. Now it lies in shambles. In its heyday the controllers were very knowledgeable and could vector airplanes like there's no tomorrow. The unique nature of ORD pretty much required this. When I started, I chose ZAU not because I knew it had traffic, i didn't, but because I lived in the airspace. After graduating from the VATUSA Academy ,which was a phenomenal experience by the way, I saw my classmates at other facilities moving up though the ranks. I however was receiving the best training in VATUSA on radar and because of that I had no problems working the (at that time) complex airspace around ORD.
A founder once told me "There is nothing more exciting on VATSIM then to see another airplane parallel to you on approach for another runway." During my tenure at ZAU, I received multiple compliments, and pilots guaranteeing me they would come back because I had set them up with another aircraft on a converging approach. To see the other aircraft coming towards them was exciting and fun!
Then an ATM who would "Let the facility burn to the ground to prove his points about GRP," took over. He stripped any shred of realism from the facility, fired staff members and all instructors who wanted to teach realistic procedures. His thinking, was in line with what I'm now seeing from the higher ups.
When the last straw was pulled for me in Chicago, I moved to the "Eagle that Perches Over ZAU" (ZMP). Our radar ranges go out far enough to see aircraft going into the Chicago area, and traffic has dramatically decreased since I was there. I have had multiple pilots in my airspace that when I ship them off to Chicago, they disconnect. The amount of times I see this can't be a coincidence. It has to be because Chicago controllers no longer meet their expectations. These pilots, are the well versed ones that are every controllers dream. So if we remove all the standards from VATSIM as a whole, not only will you see mass resignations from controllers, myself included, but also those prized jewels, the pilots, will leave the remaining controllers with a lot of blank screen to look at.
Matt,
Before you go opening your mouth about ZAU, how about we do a little fact checking.
1. Before you go around slinging accusations that the facility is in shambles. I recommend you take a look at how the facility currently runs. You're talking as if the last ATM is still running the show. He's not, we've righted ship, and are making progress. You can't expect changes to happen overnight. In the 10 months or so that I've been the dATM, we've instituted new policies and LOA's that get us back to the middle ground of simulation vs. arcade. I agree with you that when you were here, the pendulum was shifted all the way to the arcade side, but that is not so anymore. Drop by some time and you may be surprised.
2. You say the previous ATM fired all staff and INS that wanted to teach realistic procedures. If you really simplify it down, you can get away with that half-ass excuse. Realistically though, he fired staff and INS because they wouldn't comply with his directives. His directives were to halt teaching realistic procedures, so the staff was fired for insubordination, and let's not forget, you were one of these staff members. Remember as a staff member of an ARTCC, including Instructors, you serve at the whim of the ATM, if you don't like how it's being run, you always have the option of leaving. If you don't follow the ATM's rules he always has the option to fire you. The reason that these directives were put in place is because ZAU was an FAA training grounds before he came in. It would take months for students to get any sort of training, and if their phraseology wasn't spot on to a T they wouldn't be passed. If they gave a pilot the wrong taxi routing they wouldn't be passed, hell, even if the controller stammered through 1 clearance the whole day they wouldn't be passed. Is any of that in the spirit of GRP? ABSOLUTELY NOT. We all may not agree with the content of GRP, why it was put in place, or just the general concept of it, but our superiors decided it was needed, so therefore we MUST follow it. I'm willing to bet if the powers that be took a "tour" of your training facility, they'd find another FAA proving ground. I mean really. Who in Gods name needs a 33 page ARTCCAM, a 136 page operations manual, a 113 page M98 specific SOP, and a 59 page specialist manual. And all of this is required reading for new controllers to ZMP??? I don't quite think that is in the "spirit of GRP".
Before you go calling out another facility, make sure you do your homework, and better yet, make sure your facility is in good operational order and in compliance with all policies and directives, and not about to crumble to bits and pieces.
DL
-
Here's a thought:
It might be time to re-evaluate VATSIM.
There appears to be enough unhappiness expressed in these forums to justify a re-evaluation.
My own personal experience has been telling me this as well.
Some background:
As a kid, all I wanted to do was fly. The Air Force would have been my home, but my eyes couldn’t make the cut back in the 50’s, when 20/20 was the absolute rule, my family didn’t have the money to pay for private lessons and plane rental, so that was that.
Cut to the 80’s, when Microsoft came out with Flight Simulator for Apple. Little more than a video game, but advancement came quickly, spurred on by people like me, who wanted to taste and experience as much as possible of what flying was really like. MSFS added sophisticated navigation, ATC, and then third party developers took it the rest of the way. I was along for the ride and it was fun, but when I discovered VATSIM it took on a whole new dimension.
On VATSIM, I could interact with live controllers, learn to plan and execute flights, fly procedures, FLY—in an environment where proficiency, knowledge and execution mattered .
It got so that flying without controllers was just no fun anymore. It just meant aimlessly messing about the virtual sky to no purpose. It was then that a controller suggested if I understood that, I might want to give back a little of the fun I was having, by becoming a controller myself, providing a taste of reality for other enthusiasts.
“But doesn’t it take a lot of knowledge to become an Air Traffic Controller,” I asked.
The answer was, “yes, but we’ll train you, teach you, help you teach yourself, and when you’re ready, you’ll be on the scopes.”
Now compared to most of you, I’m a pretty old dog, but the instructors in my ARTCC were dedicated, the flash classes and other materials provided were logical and understandable, and hell, I CAN read, so with a little effort and a little time, I got my certs, and became a controller.
A little later on, through no fault of my own, I was asked to be the DATM of the ARTCC. In accepting, I became privy to a completely different view of what is going on.
The new paradigm I’m seeing seems to be following that of the rest of the country: “it’s too hard to aspire to excellence. It takes too much time and requires too much effort. Make it easier and give it to me now.” Certainly, I don’t see this from every new applicant, but it is a pretty prevalent attitude.
With all the free resources literally at their fingertips, these folks barely look at the flash classes, barely read the SOPs, barely learn the airspace, and barely pass the UNTIMED, OPEN BOOK exams. Then they want to control Center by lunchtime.
Now, do you seriously want to turn these folks loose on whatever airspace happens to take their fancy? Not me-- but as I read the recent forums, it seems there are those who do, in the name of “fun” and “fairness” and “openness,” all while making “excellence” a dirty word, to be equated with “discriminatory” and “unfair.”
But for me, the fun comes in the learning, and then sharing that learning in practical ways, either by flying or controlling with other live human beings who enjoy learning, as in “learning how to do it right,” as well.
If all you want to do is fly around or talk to pilots, you just need FS9 or FSX or the new Zone, and a Skype hookup with all your buddies so you can shoot the breeze. No need to get on VATSIM.
In the end, if this is where we’re going, if this is what the Founders had in mind (though I can’t believe it is), if this is how the Board of Governors is interpreting those early guidelines, if this is the purpose of the GRP then, as I said earlier, it might be time to re-evaluate VATSIM.
Maybe it is time to get the like-minded people together and form a new network dedicated to the old principles of excellence and performance. Maybe “quality uber alles” (thanks for the Third Reich reference, but there is nothing pejorative about aspiring to be good at what you do) is the way to go.
I’m betting that we have the technical and managerial expertise to get it done. Hell, I’d pay for the privilege. In fact, maybe charging $20 a person per year for access would make people really consider their level of commitment before joining up. And don’t tell me that $20 will make it too exclusive. Show me a 10-year old who doesn’t have an allowance of $20 anymore.
Anyway, that’s my two cents (or $20) worth. Can VATSIM be saved from its own success, or is it time to make the wheel round again?
Justin Friedland
DATM - ZNY
-
"The quote is taken from another forum. There is nothing here in VATSIM that scares me, ever, nor should there be."
Thanks Kyle I appreciate the message....We will see you on the scopes, oh wait that won't happen. Im not surprised that nothing scares you on here, you have to be active on the network for that to happen.
Derek
-
Nice to know how private messages are handled by you, sir.
Since we're here, I'll elaborate. The quote, as I mentioned above, wasn't deleted by me, wasn't hidden by me, etc. It was from another forum. By this I mean those who will take their realism to the point of violating other members' rights to enjoyment of this network. We still have staff members who claim to hold this position, for them the words stand. This is really a pretty small group overall.
Most of the rest of you are trying to do the right thing for VATUSA in general. You aren't being ignored. Don't do anything that prevents you from helping solve the problem. If you quit, someone else will get to do that.
My time on the network is somewhat limited by personal situation and I'd love to fly more than I get to; I am a pilot, real and virtual, not really a controller - my S3 is from the time when they gave them out with much less rigor than today and was to facilitate TWR for my VSOA at KMOB. But I give back by getting on VRC to help out Sups by taking a newbie pilot and spending the time with them so the Sup can go help elsewhere and to be available to anyone who wants to talk, to complain, to offer suggestions, or just be friendly. I am in no way suggesting my time on the network is more valuable than anyone else's, and the controllers who plug in are the point of the spear and what all of us are focused on supporting.
-
Nice to know how private messages are handled by you, sir.
Since we're here, I'll elaborate. The quote, as I mentioned above, wasn't deleted by me, wasn't hidden by me, etc. It was from another forum. By this I mean those who will take their realism to the point of violating other members' rights to enjoyment of this network. We still have staff members who claim to hold this position, for them the words stand. This is really a pretty small group overall.
Most of the rest of you are trying to do the right thing for VATUSA in general. You aren't being ignored. Don't do anything that prevents you from helping solve the problem. If you quit, someone else will get to do that.
My time on the network is somewhat limited by personal situation and I'd love to fly more than I get to; I am a pilot, real and virtual, not really a controller - my S3 is from the time when they gave them out with much less rigor than today and was to facilitate TWR for my VSOA at KMOB. But I give back by getting on VRC to help out Sups by taking a newbie pilot and spending the time with them so the Sup can go help elsewhere and to be available to anyone who wants to talk, to complain, to offer suggestions, or just be friendly. I am in no way suggesting my time on the network is more valuable than anyone else's, and the controllers who plug in are the point of the spear and what all of us are focused on supporting.
What you have nothing to hide like you just stated correct? I will do with MY private messages as I wish, thanks for questioning me.
Derek
-
@ Dan
My intention was not to call out ZAU. It was to provide an example of what the current direction I'm seeing has done at a local level. As you acknowledged, ZAU was not in a good spot prior to your administration.
You guys inherited quite a task, and if you are making progress then I am thrilled. It nearly killed me to see what happened to that facility as it was where I got my start, and made a bunch of life long friends.
As far as our procedures go, what is the problem with having them available should controllers want to better themselves. Aside from MSP, which is our Major facility, All that information is there for reference.
-
Boy I didn't think I'd return back to the forums, but some good friends ushered me back in this direction. I, too, left VATSIM for many of the reasons stated in this thread, although my view wasn't as popular back when I chose to make the decision. Everything said in this thread is entirely the reason why I resigned the Division Director position, and my dissent lead to my dismissal from the pilot training staff. I really feel bad for Gary, because as a former staff member I know exactly how it feels to not be considered as part of the solution to many problems. The BoG and Founders ARE out of touch with this organization and will continue to be until they actually listen to the constituency.
I would caution those applying the carte blanche principle to this debate. I can promise you that the entire BoG is not corrupt or out of touch, and I'm afraid Kyle Ramsey's remarks are being applied out of context. Kyle's experiences make him a valuable asset to VATSIM, and I would encourage everyone who has issues with VATSIM to speak with him because he WILL support a valid opinion that is supported by evidence. I worked with him for quite some time and I stand nothing to gain by the public praise, so take that for what it's worth.
Hopefully the upper management will recognize that David Klain's advice of "If you don't like it, then leave" is actually being taken. You've lost people who once had a passion for this hobby and for this organization. You are NOTHING without your volunteers, and this is something to think about as you see those of us who have left and those who are currently packing their bags. You're losing your playground.
[Insert all of AJ's post here, as he said it better than I could.]
- Alex
-
Matt - Unfortunately, you beat me to it. I have far more I'd like to mention in regards to that facility and why I feel it ties into the present status of the network and where things are appearing to head, more so than what you stated and in a tad more of a constructive manner. I'll get there eventually.
Dan - This isn't necessarily current management's fault there, so I would like you to sit back on this just a bit for now before coming after ZMP. I know you are trying and I realize you have a rather significant mess to clean up...
And, for the record, I think ZMP has done extremely well. That facility has made so many improvements recently in terms to maintaining realistic standards and a well trained crew roster and unfortunately they aren't recognized merely enough for much of it. I remember when ZMP's roster was hardly active and pertained very little knowledge of air traffic control procedures in general, that's definitely not the case anymore. I'm officially visiting up there now and they've really got their S*** together! They don't receive enough credit for the work they've put in there (publicly anyhow). It should be a prime example of what all VATUSA facilities should want to attain on this network. They have a fantastic crew up there in terms of personality and activity (being composed of many previous members of ZAU plus many others) and are active on a near nightly basis with a firm following of quality pilots - exactly what many wanted for ZAU. I'll get into further details later on all of this, but for now I'll leave the rest to Dhruv to explain (as he's done already before in previous threads, but will apparently require re-addressing here now in defense of his facility after the previously mentioned comments). In fact, he's drafting a response now...
Justin - You're comments are great and should be taken seriously. I've seen it countless times at ZLA... Many don't make it because they simply don't want to put the effort in. They easily could, but would rather take the easy way out by complaining that it's "too hard". Now they're supposed to be the ones who are correct? Ridiculous. I feel controller standards are too low over a significant portion of VATUSA anyhow. Again, speaking from experience, I've seen the decline in quality over the years. Considering all of the complaints that now have come out of the woodwork between this forum and, even more so, the VATSIM forum, involving those concerned with quality here, you would think network management would want to shift their approach towards attempting to keep their most dedicated here interested and happy... Effort should be more focused on improvement of pilot quality rather than diminishing ATC quality further. Again, I see no reason why we'd want to retreat to where the network was ten years ago. The network is capable of so much more now days.
And, by the way, your idea for a new payware network is not as far fetched as some would like to think...
-AJ
-
Alex, thanks for your words... I thought somewhere along the line someone stated that network management was working towards improvement of transparency... I think it's fairly apparent that has been lost. Richard Jenkins was the first one (in the VATSIM forum) to actually state that things were actually being looked at... Why couldn't someone within the Founders or current BoG say just that 10-15 pages ago in that thread... lol.
The quote I took from Kyle was posted within the VATSIM forum, page 6 I believe of the thread I mention frequently here. He didn't delete it. If the intent of this was misinterpreted, then I feel that it should have been worded differently from the start because I surely wasn't the only one who took it this way. I'm in agreement that not all of the BoG or Founders are supportive of this push for simplification, knowing a member or two myself. I just wish they'd speak up a bit more.
-AJ
-
I'm willing to bet if the powers that be took a "tour" of your training facility, they'd find another FAA proving ground. I mean really. Who in Gods name needs a 33 page ARTCCAM, a 136 page operations manual, a 113 page M98 specific SOP, and a 59 page specialist manual. And all of this is required reading for new controllers to ZMP??? I don't quite think that is in the "spirit of GRP".
Before you go calling out another facility, make sure you do your homework, and better yet, make sure your facility is in good operational order and in compliance with all policies and directives, and not about to crumble to bits and pieces.
It's funny, Dan. Every time someone at another facility looks at our documents, the issue of page count comes up. I'd be far more inclined to field concerns about the length/breadth of our policies and procedures if people would actually look into reading the documents instead of simply tying page count to complexity. Those documents were written to be a comprehensive reference to working any position under any imaginable traffic level or circumstance, and aren't meant to be memorized. Furthermore, the 113-page M98 SOP is, if you peruse it more closely, approximately 50 pages of diagrams regarding airspace flows and delegations for our 8 different runway configurations, none of which are expected to be committed to memory.
The 59 page specialist manual to which you refer is our training syllabus which is only of concern to our training staff and not required reading for our students/controllers other than to provide an insight into the way their training will likely progress. We have a fairly strong commitment to standardization amongst our training staff which allows for increased flexibility in instructor/student pairings, and our training manual allows us to achieve this with greater efficiency.
In closing, I've heard more complaints about the page count of our SOPs from you and other outside observers than I have from our own students and controllers. I'd say that's a fairly telling fact. That being said, perhaps you ought to heed your own advise and do your homework prior to calling out our policies. Feel free to apply for visitor status and prove me wrong .
-
Matt,
Before you go opening your mouth about ZAU, how about we do a little fact checking.
1. Before you go around slinging accusations that the facility is in shambles. I recommend you take a look at how the facility currently runs. You're talking as if the last ATM is still running the show. He's not, we've righted ship, and are making progress. You can't expect changes to happen overnight. In the 10 months or so that I've been the dATM, we've instituted new policies and LOA's that get us back to the middle ground of simulation vs. arcade. I agree with you that when you were here, the pendulum was shifted all the way to the arcade side, but that is not so anymore. Drop by some time and you may be surprised.
2. You say the previous ATM fired all staff and INS that wanted to teach realistic procedures. If you really simplify it down, you can get away with that half-ass excuse. Realistically though, he fired staff and INS because they wouldn't comply with his directives. His directives were to halt teaching realistic procedures, so the staff was fired for insubordination, and let's not forget, you were one of these staff members. Remember as a staff member of an ARTCC, including Instructors, you serve at the whim of the ATM, if you don't like how it's being run, you always have the option of leaving. If you don't follow the ATM's rules he always has the option to fire you. The reason that these directives were put in place is because ZAU was an FAA training grounds before he came in. It would take months for students to get any sort of training, and if their phraseology wasn't spot on to a T they wouldn't be passed. If they gave a pilot the wrong taxi routing they wouldn't be passed, hell, even if the controller stammered through 1 clearance the whole day they wouldn't be passed. Is any of that in the spirit of GRP? ABSOLUTELY NOT. We all may not agree with the content of GRP, why it was put in place, or just the general concept of it, but our superiors decided it was needed, so therefore we MUST follow it. I'm willing to bet if the powers that be took a "tour" of your training facility, they'd find another FAA proving ground. I mean really. Who in Gods name needs a 33 page ARTCCAM, a 136 page operations manual, a 113 page M98 specific SOP, and a 59 page specialist manual. And all of this is required reading for new controllers to ZMP??? I don't quite think that is in the "spirit of GRP".
Before you go calling out another facility, make sure you do your homework, and better yet, make sure your facility is in good operational order and in compliance with all policies and directives, and not about to crumble to bits and pieces.
DL
It's funny, Dan. Every time someone at another facility looks at our documents, the issue of page count comes up. I'd be far more inclined to field concerns about the length/breadth of our policies and procedures if people would actually look into reading the documents instead of simply tying page count to complexity. Those documents were written to be a comprehensive reference to working any position under any imaginable traffic level or circumstance, and aren't meant to be memorized. Furthermore, the 113-page M98 SOP is, if you peruse it more closely, approximately 50 pages of diagrams regarding airspace flows and delegations for our 8 different runway configurations, none of which are expected to be committed to memory.
The 59 page specialist manual to which you refer is our training syllabus which is only of concern to our training staff and not required reading for our students/controllers other than to provide an insight into the way their training will likely progress. We have a fairly strong commitment to standardization amongst our training staff which allows for increased flexibility in instructor/student pairings, and our training manual allows us to achieve this with greater efficiency.
In closing, I've heard more complaints about the page count of our SOPs from you and other outside observers than I have from our own students and controllers. I'd say that's a fairly telling fact. That being said, perhaps you ought to heed your own advise and do your homework prior to calling out our policies. Feel free to apply for visitor status and prove me wrong .
As it has been stated countless times before and as Dhruv has had to mentioned yet again here. I would appreciate questions to be asked and assumptions not be made.
-
"We have met the enemy and he is us" (Pogo)
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Furthermore, the 113-page M98 SOP[/quote]
WHAT!!??? 113 pages? 50 or so pages are pictures? And they don't even make them learn it, all they have to do is become familiar with it and learn how to use it? Oh my gosh! You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. You are actually expecting people to spend a few hours to learn how to use something that probably took over 100 hours in developing? The nerve of you guys!
I can't believe how lazy some people are today.
I just looked at this document and must say, I am very impressed. It is as good as any I have seen on the network. You guys did a great job and should be proud of your work. It looks like you took the real world SOP and made it VATSIM usable. If I wasn't so busy making SOP's for lazy people to whine about, I would not mind learning that airspace and controlling it. Looks like some fun airspace.
-
AJ,
What mess at ZAU are you referring too? Please enlighten us.
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]What mess at ZAU are you referring too? Please enlighten us.[/quote]
I believe he is referring to the complete shambles the last ATM there put it in before he was removed. A once premier ARTCC was burned to the ground. There is no denying that. That place used to rock. Look at it now, average at best.
I don't think he is saying it is in shambles now... The current staff is making progress reviving it but honestly, it will take time to undo what can only be described as total devastation.
-
Bob,
I know this is off topic, but Dhruv and Logan and all the staff at our facility do an amazing job keeping the SOP's and Sector Files/Maps up to date and they work their a$$ off doing it. Spending their own time and effort after they teach / work all day to make this the most interactive experience possible. Thank you for someone actually realizing it!
Derek
ZMP
-
AJ,
What mess at ZAU are you referring too? Please enlighten us.
Bob,
Specifically what did the past ATM do to create such a shambles? Who gives you the right to say that myself and my fellow controllers at ZAU are average at best. I am deeply offended..
-
Bob,
Specifically what did the past ATM do to create such a shambles? Who gives you the right to say that myself and my fellow controllers at ZAU are average at best. I am deeply offended..
Damn, I forgot how specific you have to be in these forums.
The TRAFFIC there used to rock to the levels that you see at ZLA and ZNY. The TRAFFIC levels there are now average at best. It is improving though.
As I remember, and keep in mind that I was right next door at Cleveland watching it all unfold from start to finish, that facility went from ultra realistic to ultra game nearly overnight. From the day it became a game zone the traffic levels started decreasing to the levels they are today, average at best.
What he did was strip that facility of every single shred of realism it ever had. As a result, and there just is no denying it, the place burned to ground.
Since I have moved to ZMA I am not there to see exactly what is happening now. Though word around the campfire is that the current administration is making strides towards reviving what was once a "premier" ARTCC.
That is all that was meant so don't be offended.
-
Bob,
Specifically what did the past ATM do to create such a shambles? Who gives you the right to say that myself and my fellow controllers at ZAU are average at best. I am deeply offended..
Still drinking that JV Kool-Aid eh Graeme You know darn well the problems that that caused the dissent and divide within that facility.
-
Guys,
Let's take a short break here...the title of this thread is titled "Integrity of the Network"...as if integrity was some abstract ideal. It's not. We are...each and every one of us are the true integrity of the network. This gutter-sniping isn't reflective of the integrity I know every member of VATUSA possesses.
Let me put this in a context that most of you may not have considered.
For all of the perceived value, well thought of improvements, advanced capabilities or heightened realism anyone has ever tried to bring to VATSIM, one basic factor underscores it all. None of it has ever been required, mandated or requested by VATSIM. Each and every software package, SOP, LOA, video map, traffic flow, etc. has been volunteered into the system by someone (singularly or by group) who felt that insertion might in some way "improve" the system. Now before you get all ruffled...there is no doubt a vast majority of participants at all levels agree with what has been accomplished over the years; and those members who have made these contributions should be thanked and shown great appreciation. However, within the context that is VATSIM, there is no requirement that they exist and are, for all intents and purposes, expendable.
As there is no prescribed requirement that certain levels of complexity, reflection of their real-life counterparts or technical capability be established, then judgments of their use or non-use are unwarranted and moot. This is especially true when such judgments are proffered by those whose own operational workspaces are not unduly affected. No one in any ARTCC within this division has the right to dictate to or make unwarranted judgments about the operation of any other ARTCC within this division.
Short trip around the barn gentlemen, this crap-slinging needs to stop. Those of you carrying some self-picked sore you won't allow to heal need to find the betadine and bandaids...let the damn sores heal...the putrifaction is getting unbearable!
-
Okay Gary, to right the ship back on track, what is the bottom line here? I think we can all agree that with all the hard work that us, the network as whole, put into this day in and day out with the free time we have outside our normal lives, feels like it is going down the drain upon deaf ears. We don't do this as a "game" I think we can ALL also agree on that. If it were a game I would just sit on atc_sim and control AI traffic. We do it for the realism factor and the human intetaction amongst friends, pilots, strangers alike. But like I stated in my first post, when we log on and get people that A. Have NO clue whats going on B. Act like you dont exist C. Could care less about all the hard work behind the scenes, how do you think we feel (hopefully yourself included) when the BoG or VATSIM in general could really care less if this turns into a "GAME". I know I didnt spend all the countless hours on sweatbox and live training sessions to just have that all go away.
I mean what happened to the days that CoC was follwed for pilots that were away from there computer too long or unresponsive? I know that I HAVE been kicked for it, even suspended because of it. Now Im lucky when I control (usually at 11-2AM PST) to get a response from 2-3 pilots becuase the rest are asleep. My point is the realism factor is not there anymore with small things like this and pilots not having even a fraction of an idea of whats going on.
Sorry for my rant that is all over the place. Its like anything in life, you put hard work and effort into for no compesation besides the gratitude of knowing that you provided the best / most accurate experience and you feel like you are getting dumped to the wayside. Its very frustrating and sad too see a thing that I have been a part of slowly wither away. I wont be here to see it burn down in flames.
Derek
-
Derek VATSIM has existed for long enough that I don't in my opinion feel that this will burn down in flames. I wish you and the others the best in your future plans by the sounds of it.
As Gary said many people have done great work and made strides in the hobby and specifically to the division.
The realism factor has been a problem since day 1 of VATSIM and I in my heart of hearts believe that the founders knew this and have done the best they can while working to keep a balance.
As has been said previous while many have gained a career or grown to be the best darn controller in the virtual world the scale is always sliding. For every person that reaches mastery if you will at controlling there are several in the wings just starting up. The same goes for pilots as we have experienced pilots we have also gained the new and inexperienced.
With due respect to everyone who didn't come into this with real world experience, who the hell are we to suddenly raise the bar higher and push out people who lack the level of skill to be professional. If someone had done that to you 1, 2, 5, 10 years ago when you started my guess is you'd have a different opinion. What we have here people is a disconnection from where we came from and that is not an excuse to push progress and tighter restrictions onto the backs of new and future members of this network.
At the end of the day no matter how well intended a network is designed there will always be someone making a mistake. It happens IRL all the time in the aviation industry or else the NTSB wouldn't have a job. If those demanding ultra realism were actually held to the standard and made a mistake, would they be ok with being fired, in some countries thrown in jail? I'm being extreme here but that's what ultra realism becomes right?
People need to at the end of the day accept VATSIM for what it is, it is a place where people come to enjoy aviation. On a technical scale it's a computer simulation network that provides virtual ATC to virtual pilots.
It was never designed at it's core to be an professional ATC or Pilot training tool. To provide ultra realism for a select few.
It's about sharing the hobby of aviation with anyone who enjoys it using flight simulators and radar clients to facilitate giving a world of ATC to what would be a computer generated voice.
If someone learns a thing or two along the way then that's great, a lot of us are here for the community and that is what separates us from any of the competitors past, present, or future which try to give a niche to an already niche market.
For those that wish to have ultra realism I challenge you to seek out a career in that field, take college courses as some already have and embrace real life for what it is. Take it to the next level.
To that same group I ask this, rather than become jaded towards new members embrace them and teach them. Remember where you came from and don't try to steal what we have made here as a community.
-
Excellent post Bryan. I think that many of us forget our humble (or not so humble as the case may be) beginnings on the network.
I will, however, pose to you the following point of contention. I don't know about the rest of you here, but I can safely say that I from day 1 sought to improve my skills both as a pilot and then subsequently as a controller, initially with zero aspirations of pursuing anything aviation-related in the real world. Can anyone else remember back to 2002-03, when charts actually took some searching to locate online if you weren't fortunate enough to have access to the local FBO's expired cast-offs? When controllers could reasonably expect that the majority of pilots would do their best to maximize their enjoyment of the network rather than blindly go blasting out of LAX on 7R of their own volition when the controller had an arrival stream 10 deep for 25L?
If you poll most of the controllers here now, the real lament is that in an age when the FAA freely allows online access to every conceivable publication to aid in safe and reasonable navigation from point A to point B, the drive to take advantage of such information simply does not exist amongst an alarmingly increasing segment of the pilot population. Instead, the average newcomer pilot is more apt to simply connect and begin wreaking havoc on a busy sector while completely oblivious to his effect on traffic in his surroundings.
On the ATC side, given that many of the participants in this thread are instructors at our respective facilities, the sad part of it is that we have seen this "me-me-me" attitude spill over into the training we provide. I don't presume to speak for anyone else in this division, but I take pride in the services I provide every time I plug in, because I worked for my ratings and make every effort to continually better my craft by learning from each session on the scopes. More and more, this sense of pride and work ethic is lost on the students with whom I work with on a weekly basis. When I embarked upon my "career" as a VATSIM controller (and I use the term loosely), I remember spending a full weekend reviewing the radar client documentation, learning basic phraseology, and reviewing my facility's procedures applicable to the S1 rating. Nowadays as an instructor, it feels like I'm expected to be the student's one-stop shop radar client manual, chart reader, and spoon-feeder of material.
If I had to pose one simple question, it would be this: at what point did network newcomers stop taking pride in acquiring new knowledge and skills? Surely we can all remember back to the days when we successfully flew our first instrument approaches on the network, or when we successfully delivered our first clearances. The standards, in my views, haven't really changed since then. Motivated students, like motivated and open-minded pilots, unfortunately, have become the exception as of late, rather than the rule.
-
For what it's worth, and I spoke to Brian about this, I think there is a clear distinction on the network between new members who honestly want to learn and who will cooperate with efforts to help them, and those who can't be bothered with even the most rudimentary of rules. It's my impression that the latter group is consistently increasing over time and has been the source of a fair number of complaints in the past. I don't have the solution, but I honestly think that while the VATSIM community does a commendable job with the first, it's truly in their best interest to address the latter.
-----------
EDIT: The painful result of slow typing and thought reconstruction; Dhruv said it better and faster while I was composing the above.
-
For what it's worth, and I spoke to Brian about this, I think there is a clear distinction on the network between new members who honestly want to learn and who will cooperate with efforts to help them, and those who can't be bothered with even the most rudimentary of rules. It's my impression that the latter group is consistently increasing over time and has been the source of a fair number of complaints in the past. I don't have the solution, but I honestly think that while the VATSIM community does a commendable job with the first, it's truly in their best interest to address the latter.
And that I think is the heart of the matter. The people who just don't want to take the time to learn anything. Now I don't see that there is much that can be done with a pilot other then to call a SUP and hope he is able to help. It's just the nature of the beast. But as far as new controllers are concerned I think that is something we can address. Of course my solution may not be as all-inclusive as some people would like, but like anything else in this world you get out of something only what you put in. My theory is pretty simple; maybe this hobby is just not for everyone.
Look, if you pass the VATUSA S1 that means you must have read something. That's a great start. But come to me as an S1 who hasn't read more than just enough to get by and you won't. The whole process relies on the student doing some homework. It doesn't take much time to figure out if the student has read anything or just jumped into the controller pool. And it isn't our jobs to spoon feed them or cram the information into their heads.
Their job is to put in a little time and effort and our job is to make sure they understand what that time and effort is for and how to apply it. If you don't put in the time I won't waste mine. I am a believer that there is no one that cannot be taught to do what we do. But I am also of the belief that you cannot save someone from themselves. It's not my job to make you a controller. It's my job to make you a better controller. And frankly, if the people who don't want to put any time into this are allowed to remain on the roster for any length of time all they do is corrupt the next group of newbies. And so these are the folks who remain an S1 forever and generally end up going away.
And if the write letters and complain to my boss so be it. And this isn't about over-realistic standards or expectations. I don't expect that anyone will sound like the guys who do this 12 hours a day, 6 days a week for 20 years. Yes this is a hobby, but I have other hobbies too and they all require a little serious attention every now and again. This one should be no different.
People have to learn that sometimes "no" is an answer. We can't be everything to everybody. We just are what we are and we should not be changing what has worked all these years just because a new generation of players want to make the game easier. It has been said that "if it were easy everyone could do it". Well we do make it pretty easy I think, but I don't think we should be "dumbing down" the basics to attract new people.
-
Bob
lot of accusations there but no facts or subsistence to back up any of your allegations. ZAU was and is just fine !!!!
Matt
It was personal attacks such as the one above that got you fired. Don't be bitter get over it and enjoy your staff position at ZMP. Is there any events going on up there anytime soon?
-
Bob
lot of accusations there but no facts or subsistence to back up any of your allegations. ZAU was and is just fine !!!!
Matt
It was personal attacks such as the one above that got you fired. Don't be bitter get over it and enjoy your staff position at ZMP. Is there any events going on up there anytime soon?
Yes we do actually. Ira +1 spot on to the T!
-
This statement below from FS9's Learning Center - Expanding Your Hobby is what attracted me to VATSIM -- first as a pilot and then as a controller:
"There are also add-on avionics packages that simulate the latest display and navigation technology, and specialized scenery areas that make the Flight Simulator world even more realistic. A few add-ons even enable Flight Simulator pilots to fly together in a radar-controlled environment over the internet - with real people acting as Air Traffic Controllers. "
When I read that four years ago, I was extremely excited. I have zero real world piloting experience, but a heavy appetite for learning about all things aviation. I saw VATSIM as an advancement in my flight simulating experience -- not the beginning of my flight simulation experience. I thought I would really need to be up on my piloting skills to even think about signing onto the network. After being an online pilot for a year and a half, I decided to become a controller in order to learn more about managing airspace. This was right at the time that the academy closed down.
I have only been with ZDC since I started as a controller. I have noticed several trends:
1. Looking at our roster, there are only three controllers who are still active who were with ZDC when I started.
2. The average age of our roster has skewed younger. As an adult, one thing that pleased me about VATSIM was the wide variety of ages in the community. I was happy to see that there were people in my age group on the network. I think we lose something as a community when the overall age group range skews too much in one direction or the other. The wide variety in ages is the key to balance on the network if the expectations are properly managed.
3. There has been heavy attrition amongst controllers who work their way up through GND, TWR, Major TRACON, CTR and leave shortly after obtaining CTR certification. This tells me that after putting in all of their hard work, their expectations of the network were not met and they sought there entertainment elsewhere. It also may be a symptom of real life obligations crowding out time for VATSIM, or it may be a symptom of VATSIM burn out.
4. Pilot ages in the U.S. have appeared to skew younger as well. I think we lose something as a community when this age group range skews too much in one direction or the other as well. The wide variety in ages is the key to balance on the network if the expectations are properly managed.
5. The absence of online presence from upper management, and a growing struggle between the proper balance between ARTCC autonomy and standardization across ARTCC's. This creates a disconnect between management and the controller/pilot population. As a result, the expectations of VATSIM have not been properly managed, and a disturbing malaise has been allowed to set in.
I think the "Off Peak Cert" topic in the VATSIM forum quickly became sidetracked into an issue about traffic at minor fields. I don't think minor field traffic is the issue at all. I have two class C fields that receive an average of 30+ operations a week. These fields are not regularly staffed, but I am certain they would see an increase in traffic if staffed regularly. It is a good environment for those who want to control and not put in the extra time required to learn the major fields. I think this is an issue of controller and pilot expectations not being met. Upper management needs to determine the expectation of the pilot/controller population and either adjust to the pilot/controller population or recalibrate the pilot/controller population's expectations.
-
Bob
lot of accusations there but no facts or subsistence to back up any of your allegations. ZAU was and is just fine !!!!
Matt
It was personal attacks such as the one above that got you fired. Don't be bitter get over it and enjoy your staff position at ZMP. Is there any events going on up there anytime soon?
You win. Can't get the stats from Vataware from that far back. Yep, you're right. He was unjustly removed. He did wonders to improve that facility. The network needs more like him.
If "average at best" is your thing after being premier, glad you are happy.
I won't say another word.
You can go ahead and respond too this so you get the last word in.
-
Mani,
My story resembles yours so closely that it brought me back 4 years...haha! I read the exact same paragraph in FS9 and investigated that statement further, only to find VATSIM. I then started in the VATUSA Academy, too.
The statement about VATSIM not being a starting ground is something the demographic described by Tom above, that does not appreciate any sort of educational resources including actual humans, has a hard time with. I have never flown any aircraft for the first time on VATSIM. You always start out offline in the sim until you figure out what you're doing. Not many newcomers seem to "get" that, and this is the cause of probably a majority of our issues from a controller's perspective. You know that's the case when you issue something so simple as a climb or a turn only to have it complied with 2 minutes later OR responded to with "Standby, uhhh, we're havin some issues."
I don't think minor field traffic is the issue at all.
You're exactly right. The guys who are on the scopes regularly, like you and me and most in this forum, know what goes on at minor facilities. It's a non-issue.
-
I am going to comment because a lot of what is being said here is beyond absurd. Not even one single example can be quoted of what our previous ATM did to "burn this facility to the ground"
I feel I am qualified to comment as I was a member before during and after and know a lot of what went on over the past couple years.
If you are concerned for our facility stop whining about it and come on over and help us out. If not don't throw stones it helps nobody !!!!!
-
It's funny, Dan. Every time someone at another facility looks at our documents, the issue of page count comes up. I'd be far more inclined to field concerns about the length/breadth of our policies and procedures if people would actually look into reading the documents instead of simply tying page count to complexity. Those documents were written to be a comprehensive reference to working any position under any imaginable traffic level or circumstance, and aren't meant to be memorized. Furthermore, the 113-page M98 SOP is, if you peruse it more closely, approximately 50 pages of diagrams regarding airspace flows and delegations for our 8 different runway configurations, none of which are expected to be committed to memory.
The 59 page specialist manual to which you refer is our training syllabus which is only of concern to our training staff and not required reading for our students/controllers other than to provide an insight into the way their training will likely progress. We have a fairly strong commitment to standardization amongst our training staff which allows for increased flexibility in instructor/student pairings, and our training manual allows us to achieve this with greater efficiency.
In closing, I've heard more complaints about the page count of our SOPs from you and other outside observers than I have from our own students and controllers. I'd say that's a fairly telling fact. That being said, perhaps you ought to heed your own advise and do your homework prior to calling out our policies. Feel free to apply for visitor status and prove me wrong .
Dhruv,
Perhpas you have forgotten, but I did visit at ZMP at one point, as well as my roommate was a fulltime zmp controller. I have done my HW, I have read the policies, while yes they are very well written and comprehensive, is it necessary to have all of that for VATSIM? What's been written is for real world traffic levels, you won't see those levels even on your biggest event night. You are also telling me that the documents aren't required reading, and that the specialist manual is only for training staff?
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I highly encourage you to visit our Controller Documents section of our website (login required) to begin reviewing and becoming familiar with our local procedures and standards as soon as possible:
http://www.minniecenter.org/?page=documents (http://www.minniecenter.org/?page=documents)
- 7120.1D, Air Route Traffic Control Center Administrative Manual (ARTCCAM)
- Air Traffic Control Standard Operating Procedures (ATCSOP)
- 7110.26A, Minneapolis ATCT and TRACON Standard Operating Procedures
- Air Traffic Control Specialist Training Manual (ATCSTM)[/quote]
Once again, congratulations on making a real-world FAA training facility.
DL
-
Bob
lot of accusations there but no facts or subsistence to back up any of your allegations. ZAU was and is just fine !!!!
Matt
It was personal attacks such as the one above that got you fired. Don't be bitter get over it and enjoy your staff position at ZMP. Is there any events going on up there anytime soon?
Graeme, It is pointless to argue with you. To heed Gary's advice, I'm not going to comment on how another facility runs their buisness.
For the record, I was fired both times because I refused to accept the direction that administration was taking the facility. I'm not bitter about anything. It's just sad to see your home destroyed and know there's nothing you can do about it. As far as trying to help, I've tried and been told thanks but no thanks. I could give you examples of what your previous administration did that caused the issues, but what would be the point? You would casually dismiss them. However at the end of the day, Your facility was left with a couple senior controllers,no instructors and a 15 student backlog.
I appreciate your well wishes. I'm very happy in ZMP.
-
What's been written is for real world traffic levels, you won't see those levels even on your biggest event night.
Hmm.... I think our traffic counts during Northern Migration were about 250 - 300 movements over a 4 hour period. I'm pretty sure MSP (RW) averages about 60 an hour during a bank. Believe it or not, sometimes we do see traffic up in lowly MSP.
-
Over there in the VATSIM forums is a 20 page long thread that started out to discuss the creation of "major facility off-peak certification" by a number of ARTCCs, the VATSIM leadership's response to same (negative) which then blossomed into a full throated discussion of where the network is going that parallels this one.
In that thread, the question of standards for pilots and controllers came to the fore. After all the shouting moderated, and after I finished re-reading the posts for the 5th time, I offered this, which seems germane to this discussion as well.
Indulge me for a moment, please.
It seems that we actually agree on the "what", just not on how rigorous the "how" should be.
There should, and need to be, standards for both pilots and controllers. That's the what.
How and under what circumstances one acquires the level of expertise necessary to achieve those standards is where I part company with what seems to be the new reality espoused by leadership as they invoke "the Founders."
Recognizing that this IS NOT the real world; that engines flame out only if we set the sim to "random failure" mode; that the average controller sees 5 to 10 aircraft an hour (if he's lucky) and not 5 to 10 a minute; that if and when we screw up, nobody dies; still -- even with that recognition that VATSIM is a hobby-oriented entity, most hobbyists I know take pride in overcoming the challenges of being good at their avocation, of achieving excellence and, if they're lucky, getting recognized for it.
This is what I think VATSIM needs to continue to offer: a challenge to its members to be the best that they can be, not to just be good enough. And this has to be posited as the overriding theme, not just something we hope will sort of kind of trickle down maybe. It begs the question, what is the charge you give to your Supervisors as they monitor the network. How militant should they be when adjudicating differences between pilots and controllers? Or are they necessary at all, if this is to be a non-judgemental, inclusive world of minimal standards?
My fear is that if we, the members, allow things to drift and descend to a "lowest common denominator," standard, VATSIM will become nothing more than a very complex game site, where anyone with a computer, a copy of MSFS and an internet connection, can just do as they damn well please. (My wife, who has, shall we say, a puckish sense of humor, frequently asks me why I don't just boot up my FA-18 and go chase guys in 737s around the sky, or vector aircraft into one another when I am controlling just for shifts and giggles.)
Keep lowering the standards and that scenario might not be just a figment of my bride's twisted sense of humor and VATSIM could end being no more than what ol' Cactus Jack described (a reference to a statement by a former VP of the United States quoted by one VATSIM forum member. You could look it up in Wikipedia.)
Regards,
Justin Friedland
DATM - ZNY
-
Hmm.... I think our traffic counts during Northern Migration were about 250 - 300 movements over a 4 hour period. I'm pretty sure MSP (RW) averages about 60 an hour during a bank. Believe it or not, sometimes we do see traffic up in lowly MSP.
That many? Impressive! Miami recently enjoyed the experience of having our Cross The Gulf event generate that kind of traffic. What a blast! I missed it so I was curious to ask what you believe it was that attracted traffic like that? I wish I had seen that one.
For our success on Cross The Gulf, I attribute much of it to being a shorter version of the hugely popular Cross The Pond events. Our events guy went a long way to make it this way. His phenomenal job of organizing and advertising it was crucial.
I also attribute a large amount of it's success to the 200 or so pages of procedures, airspace delegation maps, vectoring diagrams, and position briefings that were used to control the airspace. Without them we would not have been able to have 9-10 TRACON controllers, 6-7 CAB controllers, and 8 or so Center controllers working together as a team. Someone coined it as organized chaos. This, in my eyes made the airspace very attractive. As a result we had many arrivals and departures to and from other areas. That got us some of the 2-way traffic we all dream about. Also since we were using simultaneous approaches to the field, many pilots experienced looking out the windows to see another aircraft directly beside them on the adjacent approach. Both talking to different controllers. Some call that the coolest thing that can happen on the network. I would agree. Very satisfying to a controller as well. When you do stuff like that right it is "as real as it gets". What a high...
Say what you want about SOP's with large page counts that are very detailed. There is no way you can convince me that you can have that many controllers working side by side without having some very detailed procedures. You can't have that many VATSIMmers "organized" in the same place at the same time without detailed procedures.
At ZMA we do not require that our student's "know" these procedures but that they know how to use them. That would make us FAA. I doubt that other facilities are any different.
-
I also attribute a large amount of it's success to the 200 or so pages of procedures, airspace delegation maps, vectoring diagrams, and position briefings that were used to control the airspace. Without them we would not have been able to have 9-10 TRACON controllers, 6-7 CAB controllers, and 8 or so Center controllers working together as a team. Someone coined it as organized chaos. This, in my eyes made the airspace very attractive. As a result we had many arrivals and departures to and from other areas. That got us some of the 2-way traffic we all dream about. Also since we were using simultaneous approaches to the field, many pilots experienced looking out the windows to see another aircraft directly beside them on the adjacent approach. Both talking to different controllers. Some call that the coolest thing that can happen on the network. I would agree. Very satisfying to a controller as well. When you do stuff like that right it is "as real as it gets". What a high...
Say what you want about SOP's with large page counts that are very detailed. There is no way you can convince me that you can have that many controllers working side by side without having some very detailed procedures. You can't have that many VATSIMmers "organized" in the same place at the same time without detailed procedures.
At ZMA we do not require that our student's "know" these procedures but that they know how to use them. That would make us FAA. I doubt that other facilities are any different.
Emphasis mine.
Finally, someone gets it. Attempting to run a large-scale event without standardization of this manner results in the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. By all means SOPs can/should be deviated from during low-traffic situations. The flip side is, however, that you need to have a working knowledge of how to work a subsectored airspace in a high traffic environment; and the only way to accomplish this is SOP.
For example, If the sum of my traffic on center is 3 MSP inbounds on different STARs and I have an approach guy on, you can safely bet that I'm either going to clear them straight to the TRACON arrival gate or even direct the field with coordination if they'll accept it. In a busy event, though, the sky just isn't mine to do with as I wish, and it's important that each and every controller understands the role that he/she plays in the overall picture, especially when you start dividing up a busy TRACON or center into 3 or 4 sectors.
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]3. There has been heavy attrition amongst controllers who work their way up through GND, TWR, Major TRACON, CTR and leave shortly after obtaining CTR certification. This tells me that after putting in all of their hard work, their expectations of the network were not met and they sought there entertainment elsewhere. It also may be a symptom of real life obligations crowding out time for VATSIM, or it may be a symptom of VATSIM burn out.[/quote]
Manny don't forget that ever present mindset....... "I beat the game."
Ira
-
So lets see if I have this now. Option #1 respond to Manuel and Justin about how to keep people interested within some type of reasonable learning environment. Then there's option #2, dive in and start adding my thoughts on how large and all encompassing our documentation should be and whether or not the controller must learn it or simply learn how to referrance it because I have 4 major facilities in my artcc and that would be great if I didn't have to learn it all and still be a cool CTR controller, or #3, jump in with both feet and pick sides in the my artcc is better than your artcc arguement because it was your fault in the first place and how dare you insult my mother and.... [breath] ..... Oh wait. Oh whatever......
Jesus guys.
"We have met the enemy and he is us" (Pogo)
Ira
-
The fighting needs to stop in this thread.
It's obvious some people have strong feelings about neighboring facilities and people past and present in staff positions there.
You guys are supposed to be leaders in your facilities, it's time to start acting like that and rise above petty fighting.
-
In response to the original question; I believe that the amount of pilot knowledge has been dropping. I can even notice it even though I have only been a part of the network for a year. However, I believe it is a community that is required to deal with the problem. I know plenty of controllers that when a new pilot tries to get help who obviously is just starting out on VATSIM is ignored. The controllers are no longer offering this to new pilots. I believe it is a general attitude that drives this. The general attitude used to be "welcome to the network" compared to now being "I'm busy, read the PRC". Lets be honest, nobody wants to read the PRC when they first join VATSIM. They are supposed to but reading a long document just isn't very interesting; especially if you are just trying the network out. It is important that people give back to VATSIM. Remember when each one of us joined the network, lost, not knowing what to do. It was through one of the members that we were able to enjoy this network. Something has gone terribly wrong; now its an exclusive club that only those that know can join.
I don't think it's something new we have to implement or anything, just our mindsets toward helping out the new pilots.
-
In response to the original question, I too believe that pilot AND controller knowledge has dropped at a geometric rate. The reason for this is because a great many of the ones coming to network now have zero regard for any rules. They have no desire to EARN anything. But mostly because they view this network as a game. It's not about flight simulation for them. They just think it is "cool" to get on the network with all the people. The busier the airspace is, the more these gamers show up.
Only one way to fix that. Start taking the "if you don't like it, leave" approach to them that is being applied to the members that want to keep this network a simulation and not a game. It's not at all hard to say "Either get with the program like so many before you or hit the road, you are wasting my time". Sure you will lose "members". So what? The only ones being lost are the ones that disrupt the network and come in these forums to whine and cry about how hard and unfair it is. Maybe if we took that "so what?" stance towards losing them that is taken when a long-time productive member leaves...
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I know plenty of controllers that when a new pilot tries to get help who obviously is just starting out on VATSIM is ignored. The controllers are no longer offering this to new pilots. I believe it is a general attitude that drives this. The general attitude used to be "welcome to the network" compared to now being "I'm busy, read the PRC".[/quote]
To some extent this is true. Many times, I am "unavailable" to teach a pilot to fly. Not because I am annoyed. I am too busy trying to get the 2 or 3 "gamers" in my airspace that are trashing the sequence I worked so hard for to follow my simplest of instructions like turn on your transponder or get off the runway and reconnect at the gate.
As far as having to read the PRC or hell, anything at all, why should someone have to teach someone something they can learn by simply reading about it? I have no problem helping someone that will help themselves... If they can't even do that, then please, go away. That's my attitude. If you want to help yourself though, I will spend all the time with you that you need.
-
In response to the original question, I too believe that pilot AND controller knowledge has dropped at a geometric rate. The reason for this is because a great many of the ones coming to network now have zero regard for any rules. They have no desire to EARN anything. But mostly because they view this network as a game. It's not about flight simulation for them. They just think it is "cool" to get on the network with all the people. The busier the airspace is, the more these gamers show up.
Only one way to fix that. Start taking the "if you don't like it, leave" approach to them that is being applied to the members that want to keep this network a simulation and not a game. It's not at all hard to say "Either get with the program like so many before you or hit the road, you are wasting my time". Sure you will lose "members". So what? The only ones being lost are the ones that disrupt the network and come in these forums to whine and cry about how hard and unfair it is. Maybe if we took that "so what?" stance towards losing them that is taken when a long-time productive member leaves...
Agreed. As I said earlier,
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]People have to learn that sometimes "no" is an answer. We can't be everything to everybody. We just are what we are and we should not be changing what has worked all these years just because a new generation of players want to make the game easier.[/quote]
When I have a dozen aircraft at JFK all looking for clearance and taxi and departure instructions I don't have time to wet nurse a newbie. But I do have time to ask him to wait 10 minutes and I'll take him over to ISP and walk him through some stuff if he wants some help.
What I don't have the time for either is the newbie who blows that off because he doesn't want to wait or an experienced pilot or controller or SUP jumping on my back because I didn't help the newbie out in a "timely" manner.
I can't tell you how many times I have had to listen to the speach about why didn't you help the guy instead of just telling him leave JFK and go elsewhere. Well, that is a little out of context but no one seems to notice that.
I'll say it again; we can't be all things to all people and the sooner people understand that the sooner we can back to helping those who do want it.
And I'm sorry if that if is upsetting to some people who have been around a while and remember when this was a friendlier place. But we're a little bigger now and unfortunately there isn't as much time to chat on frequency and get to know each other like before.
Ira
-
Here's the problem I see happening with the network.
1st, you have this attitude of "I'm too lazy, i want someone to do all the work for me." That's been discussed already, so I'll leave it at that.
2nd: This thought has probably come up, but I don't think I've seen it said in this thread. In order for someone to control any position on the network, they at the very least have to take a VATUSA exam, and go through some sort of training. The pilots on the other hand, have their free email account that they can register with, and done, they're on the network. What if we required the pilots to take a VATSIM exam, built around flying, with some ATC components in it, so they know what they're getting into, and maybe some sort of training program, ie: a moodle, atutor, etc... Sure it will take some work to get set up, but it would be for the good of the network. We're already half-way there with the pilot ratings, now lets go all the way and have these exams and training site. It could bring back the integrity of the network. Like I said, it's probably been brought up somewhere, but with all the new issues coming to light, maybe it's time for another look at the idea.
DL
-
2nd: This thought has probably come up, but I don't think I've seen it said in this thread. In order for someone to control any position on the network, they at the very least have to take a VATUSA exam, and go through some sort of training. The pilots on the other hand, have their free email account that they can register with, and done, they're on the network. What if we required the pilots to take a VATSIM exam, built around flying, with some ATC components in it, so they know what they're getting into, and maybe some sort of training program, ie: a moodle, atutor, etc... Sure it will take some work to get set up, but it would be for the good of the network. We're already half-way there with the pilot ratings, now lets go all the way and have these exams and training site. It could bring back the integrity of the network. Like I said, it's probably been brought up somewhere, but with all the new issues coming to light, maybe it's time for another look at the idea.
DL
i would think this really is possible and should be implemented. Open book test just like our basic ATC test when we join vatusa.
-
Derek VATSIM has existed for long enough that I don't in my opinion feel that this will burn down in flames. I wish you and the others the best in your future plans by the sounds of it.
As Gary said many people have done great work and made strides in the hobby and specifically to the division.
The realism factor has been a problem since day 1 of VATSIM and I in my heart of hearts believe that the founders knew this and have done the best they can while working to keep a balance.
As has been said previous while many have gained a career or grown to be the best darn controller in the virtual world the scale is always sliding. For every person that reaches mastery if you will at controlling there are several in the wings just starting up. The same goes for pilots as we have experienced pilots we have also gained the new and inexperienced.
With due respect to everyone who didn't come into this with real world experience, who the hell are we to suddenly raise the bar higher and push out people who lack the level of skill to be professional. If someone had done that to you 1, 2, 5, 10 years ago when you started my guess is you'd have a different opinion. What we have here people is a disconnection from where we came from and that is not an excuse to push progress and tighter restrictions onto the backs of new and future members of this network.
At the end of the day no matter how well intended a network is designed there will always be someone making a mistake. It happens IRL all the time in the aviation industry or else the NTSB wouldn't have a job. If those demanding ultra realism were actually held to the standard and made a mistake, would they be ok with being fired, in some countries thrown in jail? I'm being extreme here but that's what ultra realism becomes right?
People need to at the end of the day accept VATSIM for what it is, it is a place where people come to enjoy aviation. On a technical scale it's a computer simulation network that provides virtual ATC to virtual pilots.
It was never designed at it's core to be an professional ATC or Pilot training tool. To provide ultra realism for a select few.
It's about sharing the hobby of aviation with anyone who enjoys it using flight simulators and radar clients to facilitate giving a world of ATC to what would be a computer generated voice.
If someone learns a thing or two along the way then that's great, a lot of us are here for the community and that is what separates us from any of the competitors past, present, or future which try to give a niche to an already niche market.
For those that wish to have ultra realism I challenge you to seek out a career in that field, take college courses as some already have and embrace real life for what it is. Take it to the next level.
To that same group I ask this, rather than become jaded towards new members embrace them and teach them. Remember where you came from and don't try to steal what we have made here as a community.
This thread kills me. This quote from Brian is right on, and Brian and I don't agree on alot of things, but I must say, this was brilliant. I joined this network as a hobby, I was a real world aviator for over 20 years in the USNavy, and now just enjoy flying and controlling in a hobbylike envirnment. It was not in the founders intent to create a stepping stone for r/w ATC or pilots, but as Brian said, if some actually learns something along the way.... FANTASTIC..
So quit slinging mud, get out there and fly, and or contol, and don't let the "children"(that try to ruin every good thing that is presented to them) stop you from enjoying yourselves.
-
This thread kills me. This quote from Brian is right on, and Brian and I don't agree on alot of things, but I must say, this was brilliant. I joined this network as a hobby, I was a real world aviator for over 20 years in the USNavy, and now just enjoy flying and controlling in a hobbylike envirnment. It was not in the founders intent to create a stepping stone for r/w ATC or pilots, but as Brian said, if some actually learns something along the way.... FANTASTIC..
So quit slinging mud, get out there and fly, and or contol, and don't let the "children"(that try to ruin every good thing that is presented to them) stop you from enjoying yourselves.
+1 Scott. Right on.
-
For those that wish to have ultra realism I challenge you to seek out a career in that field, take college courses as some already have and embrace real life for what it is. Take it to the next level.
What's the easy answer for those of us that have a disibility that prohibits us from doing that Brian?
This is why I train myself to such standards. It allows me to live out a dream impossible in real life. I don't care what direction the founders want to take the network. I really don't. However the day they tell me that I can't control the way I control because it's too realistic and not accpetable here, I'm gone.
-
What's the easy answer for those of us that have a disibility that prohibits us from that Brian?
I don't know of an easy answer Matthew, life is full of challenges for everyone. Part of living is working with those challenges to the best of our ability. Sometimes no matter how hard we try things just aren't obtainable and part of life is accepting that.
For me , age is a disability I can never become an FAA ATC because i've got less than 30 days till i'm 30 (I believe the cutoff is appointment by age 30).
I've come to accept that VATSIM will be the closest thing to working as an air traffic controller. I only have myself to blame for not pursuing the career earlier but that's beside the point.
VATSIM while for some like me and i'm guessing you allows us to throw on the headset and for a small period of time live the dream of being an air traffic controller. No matter how hard we try at the end of the day reality sets in that this is a simulation.
It's not meant to be a substitute or a training stepping stone for the real thing no matter how hard we want it. We have to accept the network for what it is and enjoy it for the same reasons.
I hope my post provides some clarity.
-
It's not meant to be a substitute or a training stepping stone for the real thing no matter how hard we want it.
This is Brain's opinion, not a VATSIM rule or regulation. It can be and is a substitute for many VATSIM controllers. It's also a training stepping stone into not only an ATC career but dispatcher or pilot. Some of us like realism other like arcade. This is the best part of the diversity of VATUSA.
-
Chris I think you misunderstood me, it's also the opinion of the founders from my understanding of their responses to the issues on the forums. There is no rule but on the flip policies like GRP prevent facilities from forcing the bar of realism onto the backs of the VATSIM membership.
As in my original post if someone is able to learn with VATSIM and grow that's great but the focus is not on making any facilities training that which is a stepping stone to the real thing. Some here want that ultra realistic 100% accurate training environment to which the founders have said was not the design, intent, or purpose of VATSIM.
-
I might have. No worries man
-
As in my original post if someone is able to learn with VATSIM and grow that's great but the focus is not on making any facilities training that which is a stepping stone to the real thing. Some here want that ultra realistic 100% accurate training environment to which the founders have said was not the design, intent, or purpose of VATSIM.
Why is that when a facility has detailed SOP's and training documents, they are deemed ultra realistic, FAA, militants? I have made several of these documents that I am sure some of these people would deem "ultra realistic". But you know what, I/we don't make them "know" it. Hell, I don't even "know" them and I wrote them! We teach our students how to use and reference them and that is all we expect to them to know. If I ask a student a question from them, they do not have to snap back the answer from memory. They do however have to answer that question by looking it up if they don't know it. Yes, if they don't/won't/can't even do that, they FAIL.
To the critics of failing a student seeking major endorsement for a single conflict or a descent below MVA, I say this. As a pilot on this network, after a 3-4 or more hour flight, I have never had any fun being descended into a mountain or ran into another plane. That's just me though...
-
Why is that when a facility has detailed SOP's and training documents, they are deemed ultra realistic, FAA, militants? I have made several of these documents that I am sure some of these people would deem "ultra realistic". But you know what, I/we don't make them "know" it. Hell, I don't even "know" them and I wrote them! We teach our students how to use and reference them and that is all we expect to them to know. If I ask a student a question from them, they do not have to snap back the answer from memory. They do however have to answer that question by looking it up if they don't know it. Yes, if they don't/won't/can't even do that, they FAIL.
To the critics of failing a student seeking major endorsement for a single conflict or a descent below MVA, I say this. As a pilot on this network, after a 3-4 or more hour flight, I have never had any fun being descended into a mountain or ran into another plane. That's just me though...
I think that is the crux of the matter. The difference between "knowing" and "reference"...people have different interpretations of those meanings. Some places are creating very detailed instruments and expecting the student to "know" exactly what it says. Where others are creating "references" for the student to find information. There needs to be some sort of method for giving the student "the need to know" stuff out of those. I don't think it's reasonable to hand a student a couple hundred pages and tell them they need to study it for the test. Maybe a study guide of some sort?
As for the zero error OTS...First, doesn't it really depend on the type of error? Was it within the control of the student? Second, if a student does 99 things right during the test and does 1 wrong and fails, what message does that send? Is there a mechanism available to counsel the student about the error as to what went wrong and why, so that it doesn't happen again and then move on?
Rich
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]As for the zero error OTS...First, doesn't it really depend on the type of error? Was it within the control of the student? Second, if a student does 99 things right during the test and does 1 wrong and fails, what message does that send? Is there a mechanism available to counsel the student about the error as to what went wrong and why, so that it doesn't happen again and then move on?[/quote]
I think this post represents the crux of the misunderstanding.
First, the only "zero-error" OTSes I'm aware of are for the most severe types of errors in ATC - letting two planes get too close or letting a plane get too close to terrain or another controller's airspace. Every other single type of error that I'm aware of is not an automatic failure - while sufficiently many other errors can cause a failure, those are not a zero-error situation.
Second, all "zero-error" OTSes of course take into account pilot mistakes - all such errors need to be primarily the fault of the controller. As far as I'm aware, facilities with that policy do not fail someone if the conflict situation was primarily caused by a pilot mistake. As long as the student recognizes the problem in a reasonable amount of time and takes steps to deconflict the problem after it occurs, the controller isn't even charged with an error of any kind, much less an "automatic failure".
The comment about "what went wrong and why" is perhaps the most troublesome. ATC is not a simple knowledge game, where if you memorize all the rules you can become a good controller. Everyone taking an OTS knows the rules. The trouble is in being a good enough controller to follow them - that takes practice, experience, and some talent. If someone commits a "deal", it frequently isn't the kind of thing that can just be talked about and moved on from. It's usually an indicator instead that the combination of skills required to work the position just hasn't been fully developed yet.
Finally, in response to the 99 things right - all policies are administered with some human touches. Zero-errors is an aspirational goal, and in my view a good one. But I personally have "not seen" a guy go .1 mile into a higher MVA on what was otherwise a truly kick-ass OTS. If an OTS was truly oversaturated with traffic and despite any controller's best efforts a conflict was inevitable, that's taken into consideration. But on the whole I think that asking someone to control for an hour, maybe an hour 15 on the position they want to work without nearly crashing someone's plane is not an unreasonable objective.
-
I think this post represents the crux of the misunderstanding.
First, the only "zero-error" OTSes I'm aware of are for the most severe types of errors in ATC - letting two planes get too close or letting a plane get too close to terrain or another controller's airspace. Every other single type of error that I'm aware of is not an automatic failure - while sufficiently many other errors can cause a failure, those are not a zero-error situation.
Second, all "zero-error" OTSes of course take into account pilot mistakes - all such errors need to be primarily the fault of the controller. As far as I'm aware, facilities with that policy do not fail someone if the conflict situation was primarily caused by a pilot mistake. As long as the student recognizes the problem in a reasonable amount of time and takes steps to deconflict the problem after it occurs, the controller isn't even charged with an error of any kind, much less an "automatic failure".
The comment about "what went wrong and why" is perhaps the most troublesome. ATC is not a simple knowledge game, where if you memorize all the rules you can become a good controller. Everyone taking an OTS knows the rules. The trouble is in being a good enough controller to follow them - that takes practice, experience, and some talent. If someone commits a "deal", it frequently isn't the kind of thing that can just be talked about and moved on from. It's usually an indicator instead that the combination of skills required to work the position just hasn't been fully developed yet.
Finally, in response to the 99 things right - all policies are administered with some human touches. Zero-errors is an aspirational goal, and in my view a good one. But I personally have "not seen" a guy go .1 mile into a higher MVA on what was otherwise a truly kick-ass OTS. If an OTS was truly oversaturated with traffic and despite any controller's best efforts a conflict was inevitable, that's taken into consideration. But on the whole I think that asking someone to control for an hour, maybe an hour 15 on the position they want to work without nearly crashing someone's plane is not an unreasonable objective.
Perhaps it's OTS standards are all over the place within VATSIM? Is that good or bad? Does it allow for diversity giving the student the ability to pick the level of realism that is suitable for them? I think I could argue it from bothsides.
-
Perhaps it's OTS standards are all over the place within VATSIM? Is that good or bad? Does it allow for diversity giving the student the ability to pick the level of realism that is suitable for them? I think I could argue it from bothsides.
I don't know if I would say the standards are "all over the place", but certainly there are differences in the way things are run from ARTCC to ARTCC, and obviously from Division to Division. I think that's perfectly fine, not "good or bad". Although I see the benefit of having a GRP that dictates at least a minimal amount of conformity across VATSIM, I also think it's acceptable for different ARTCCs to have slightly different ways of operating, training, etc. VATUSA would be a little more bland IMHO if every ARTCC had to administer every OTS in the same exact manner as every other ARTCC. If a student joins an ARTCC and finds it to be not enough realism, they can pretty quickly get the scoop from their colleagues and find out where to go in order to get as real as they want to. If they find themselves in a very regimented program and wish to have a little more fun and a little less studying, I'm sure they will find where they need to go as well. Both kinds of programs have merit, and I support the ARTCC being able to dictate what kind of facility they will sponsor (within reason). I, myself, am not a huge fan of the ultra-realism point of view, but some folks are - and they have places they can flourish. Thankfully, I can also find an ARTCC that suits my somewhat more relaxed needs, and everybody has somewhere to call home.
-
The GRP, when looked at from one perspective, is written such that it appears every competency must be passed on an evaluation. David Klain admits this in a reply to me on the VATSIM Forums, as that was something I had asked about. I think the situations of the OTS will take into account any errors. Like Mike said, if a guy is working a major TRACON OTS with a hot frequency throughout most of the event, then he's not going to be busted (by me at least) on minor phraseology bluffs, a missed traffic pointout here and there, or a missed ILS interception or two. Again, it all depends on the situation. I think we as ARTCC leaders are able to handle the responsibility of disseminating that information to ARTCC staff. I don't, however, think there should be OTSs that are failed due to one error despite a GRP interpretation that may allow for it.
-
For me , age is a disability I can never become an FAA ATC because i've got less than 30 days till i'm 30 (I believe the cutoff is appointment by age 30).
I've come to accept that VATSIM will be the closest thing to working as an air traffic controller. I only have myself to blame for not pursuing the career earlier but that's beside the point.
You are missing a whole other side of ATC Brian. There are several ways to become an Air Traffic Controller outside of the FAA. Attend a school, get your CTO (Certified Tower Operator) license and apply at a contract tower. Majority of them have zero age limits. A CTO is an FAA license, you have to have it 90% of the time to get hired at Contract Towers but a small number will train you to the point of being able to earn your CTO (less likely). With a CTO, you can get a job almost anywhere. Contract Towers are hiring. Plus, there are contract towers in Afghan that are hiring and pay very well (triple digits to start, plus they pay for you to come home on holidays etc etc). You also have military. Every branch has ATC. If you really want to do it, find an alternative. The FAA is most definitely NOT the only way to become a real world Air Traffic Controller.
-
Boy I didn't think I'd return back to the forums, but some good friends ushered me back in this direction. I, too, left VATSIM for many of the reasons stated in this thread, although my view wasn't as popular back when I chose to make the decision. Everything said in this thread is entirely the reason why I resigned the Division Director position, and my dissent lead to my dismissal from the pilot training staff. I really feel bad for Gary, because as a former staff member I know exactly how it feels to not be considered as part of the solution to many problems. The BoG and Founders ARE out of touch with this organization and will continue to be until they actually listen to the constituency.
I would caution those applying the carte blanche principle to this debate. I can promise you that the entire BoG is not corrupt or out of touch, and I'm afraid Kyle Ramsey's remarks are being applied out of context. Kyle's experiences make him a valuable asset to VATSIM, and I would encourage everyone who has issues with VATSIM to speak with him because he WILL support a valid opinion that is supported by evidence. I worked with him for quite some time and I stand nothing to gain by the public praise, so take that for what it's worth.
Hopefully the upper management will recognize that David Klain's advice of "If you don't like it, then leave" is actually being taken. You've lost people who once had a passion for this hobby and for this organization. You are NOTHING without your volunteers, and this is something to think about as you see those of us who have left and those who are currently packing their bags. You're losing your playground.
[Insert all of AJ's post here, as he said it better than I could.]
- Alex
Alex,
You and I have a mutual friend who was once the ATM of ZTL during SATCO days and a founding member of this network. Those of us posting in this forum are not the only ones who don't like the direction this network is going.....
To continue on:
As one who started back when this thing was called SATCO (I hear some 15 year old kid in the background saying, "What's SATCO???") I can say VATSIM as a whole has changed. Personally for me the change is a negative. I remember times on SATCO, using ProController mind you, when events would draw 300 pilots during the course of 4-5 hours. These pilots were taught Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Some of you old heads remember having "TURN THEN TYPE!" listed in your controller info. The big difference back then is that the pilots were really keen about learning how to do things as closely as possible to real world procedures. Controllers were the same. As others have put it, we all took pride in bettering our understanding and craved anything that would increase it.
Now-a-days it seems, I say it SEEMS, certain groups of individuals have their minds set on lowering the standard of training which so many of us years ago put so much pride into. The sad part is that the perception behind the decisions implementing the new changes is one of making things easier for pilots. But it really is not a perception. This is real. For a network that requires controllers to undergo training, but allows pilots to login without so much reading one single manual, or even taking an entry exam... Well... Fair and Balanced? I think not. So all of us who have put in so much time and effort to SIMULATE the ATC Environment, suffer for the benefit of the new generation of pilots, and in many cases, ATC'ers.
But lets face the reality... The whole thing, IMHO, is about membership numbers. VATSIM is/was losing members (supposedly). I personally believe this is due to a continued lack of realism on the part of many, and the continued justification and totalitarianism of many within the upper ranks. This is not to say each member of the upper ranks sees things this way. I can assure that at least one does not.
IMHO, many of the decisions being made are introduced by those who are now in the position of getting their way. These same individuals are the ones who did not like realism from the beginning. The same ones who got mad at those of us who worked hard to be the best we could be. Now, like children who were once bullied but grew-up to be wealthy, they themselves are doing things their way, as if out of spite. Could I be wrong about this? Absolutely. But when these individuals make the remarks that are too commonly quoted throughout these forums and elsewhere, it doesn't take a whole lot to see how many of these guys are acting like spoiled brats.
I think AJ summed up the feelings most of us 'relics' from days gone by are feeling. I personally think perhaps it is time for a division of individuals to split off from VATSIM and start a new organization which tailors to the realists. I mean, how ironic would that be? Years ago IVAO was founded by former SATCO/VATSIM members due to circumstances similar, albeit quite the opposite, of what we are experiencing now with VATSIM. Too much realism in IVAOs eyes (amongst other, more politcal reasons). Perhaps VATSIM is quickly becoming the new IVAO. Again, how ironic would that be?
I personally will not resign from VATSIM as I truly do love this community and try to give it as much as I can. VATSIM is about the best as it gets when it comes to online flying, and I do still have many enjoyable moments on the network and many folks whom I consider friends. If however, something better were to come along, well.........
So Alex, it's nice of you to share with us. From one old head to another, blue skies.
To everyone else who is singing a Peter Frampton song right now, tail winds to you.
"Do You Feel Like We Do.....Oh that's true"
Andrew
-
Andrew just some thoughts.
Fair and Balanced, that's a news slogan for Fox News, no where in VATSIM does it state we'll be fair and balanced in every aspect or any for the matter of fact.
Andrew I think you're off base with the leaders of this network being the bullied and taking it out on others. From day 1 VATSIM has been about inclusivity and not elitism or realism taking priority.
It's funny you mention the old days of SATCO with 300 members at a fly-in. Pilots back then were the same as now. In fact things were less realistic then on many fronts simply due to lack of the available material.
Now it's common for someone to fly an arrival as published, back then only a minority at best would spend the real money on publications with STARS/SIDS/Diagrams etc.
Sector files were basically big maps with VOR/NDBS/FIXES's and if you were lucky someone hard coded a diagram. Now we can add approaches, turn on/off all sorts of diagrams of all kinds, and get different radar modes.
Things have "advanced" a lot and at a good pace I think, for those that take it to the next level good for you, but remember the core focus of VATSIM has never been about "as real as it gets" as pointed out by David Klain in a post tonight. That's Microsofts slogan, just like Fox News uses Fair and Balanced. Neither are attributed to VATSIM.
(End Rant)
-
2nd: This thought has probably come up, but I don't think I've seen it said in this thread. In order for someone to control any position on the network, they at the very least have to take a VATUSA exam, and go through some sort of training. The pilots on the other hand, have their free email account that they can register with, and done, they're on the network. What if we required the pilots to take a VATSIM exam, built around flying, with some ATC components in it, so they know what they're getting into, and maybe some sort of training program, ie: a moodle, atutor, etc... Sure it will take some work to get set up, but it would be for the good of the network. We're already half-way there with the pilot ratings, now lets go all the way and have these exams and training site. It could bring back the integrity of the network. Like I said, it's probably been brought up somewhere, but with all the new issues coming to light, maybe it's time for another look at the idea.
DL
I like this idea and have discussed it with many others. Just as we have Ratings and Major Facility certs for controllers, we should have Flight Rules for Pilots. New to the network? Guess what.. you're not allowed to operate at a Class Bravo (Major) Airport until you earn your VFR. Next step is IFR Training. IFR Training teaches you how to fly sids, stars and ILS approaches at a minimum. Now you can fly VFR on the network.
Of course a new pilot client would have to be written that would boot a newbie off the network if they connected at a Major Airport, unless selecting the "Observer" mode, which would disable your Voice OUT comms and Text out on the radio, and somehow through FSUIPC would prevent your aircraft from moving about. But again, the whole connecting with a callsign thing is something I totally disagree with. The architecture of VATSIM needs to be revamped. No more filing flightplans through the pilot client, you must prefile, just as in the real world. Controllers should be able to change an aircrafts callsign just as they are able to do in the real world. Pilots login only selecting their multiplayer aircraft make/model and livery. Flightplans are correlated to squawk codes issued automatically by the system when the flight plan is filed, using a beacon allocation program......
I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on. I know some of you are drooling......
Andrew
-
Andrew just some thoughts.
Brian,
Just some thoughtful replies to your thoughts
Fair and Balanced, that's a news slogan for Fox News, no where in VATSIM does it state we'll be fair and balanced in every aspect or any for the matter of fact.
I don't watch Fox news so I wouldn't have thought of that off the top of my head. I think however I detect some humor from you with this?
Andrew I think you're off base with the leaders of this network being the bullied and taking it out on others. From day 1 VATSIM has been about inclusivity and not elitism or realism taking priority.
Perhaps I am off base with the majority. However, there are those out there that will, and have, done things to purposely spite those who enjoy realism. If you do not agree, then I agree to disagree.
It's funny you mention the old days of SATCO with 300 members at a fly-in. Pilots back then were the same as now. In fact things were less realistic then on many fronts simply due to lack of the available material.
I don't think this is funny at all. Pilots back then were not the same as they are today. Back then pilots didn't have the resources available to them, nor did they have many fancy FMS or GPS programs, or advanced panels with these features. In fact, if you recall, SquawkBox had a built-in FMS that allowed for lateral navigation, and functioned much like VasFMC functions. The Nav/Fix data was updated regularly. The difference between pilots back then and now is that they craved charts. If you were able to find charts. Perhaps you forget about programs such as Georges Lorschs's Final Approach? People used to design charts themselves and share them with others. These things were prized possessions, and when found, pilots jumped at the chance to use them. Everyone was hungry for this stuff.
Now it's common for someone to fly an arrival as published, back then only a minority at best would spend the real money on publications with STARS/SIDS/Diagrams etc.
I agree to an extent. With the advent of flightaware, any yahoo can search for a route. In fact, even with simroutes people can find a route. Sure they can file it. But more often than not (more so with RNAV DPs and STARs) they do not check to ensure all of the waypoints have been loaded correctly. Many simply download a Default GPS Flightplan file and load it up. They then file the route, but do not fly it correctly. Pilots back in the day at least tried to do things that would ensure compliance with a file routing. Yeah you saw a lot of GPS Direct and things of that nature, but ATC was expecting it because that is what was filed. These days you get yahoos that don't file correctly, and thus don't do what you were expecting.
Sector files were basically big maps with VOR/NDBS/FIXES's and if you were lucky someone hard coded a diagram. Now we can add approaches, turn on/off all sorts of diagrams of all kinds, and get different radar modes.
This is true. But again, I remember going out and buying a book written by a former A80 Tracon controller. In this book were diagrams of the Tracon maps. It took me a lot of time, but I hand coded to the best of my ability these lines to give an accurate representation of what the Tracon Airspace layout was. When I released it, controllers went GaGa over it. You would have thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now, these days, even some controllers treat this stuff with indifference. Maybe that's because they never went without? I don't really know...
Things have "advanced" a lot and at a good pace I think, for those that take it to the next level good for you, but remember the core focus of VATSIM has never been about "as real as it gets" as pointed out by David Klain in a post tonight. That's Microsofts slogan, just like Fox News uses Fair and Balanced. Neither are attributed to VATSIM.
Yes things have advanced. But only so many people have advanced with the advances. No, the core focus has never been "as real as it gets," and with as many slogans that you are able to identify perhaps you might consider a job as a Microsoft or Fox News spokesperson? In all seriousness though, VATSIM doesn not have a true mission statement, at least not where I can find it. There is a broad scope description on the 'About Vatsim' page which contains some touchy-feely statements (some which I do agree with) but were written by (IMHO) a collective group of misguided ideologues. These people, as defined by Webster, are impractical idealist simply because you can't say you're simulating something, but then take away the realism. Simulation, as defined by Webster, is "the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another." Well you take do that by taking away the realism, because as Webster defines imitation, we are in fact using real world ATC as the "functioning system" which we "..follow as a pattern, model, or example."
(End Rant)
Same
-
I like this idea and have discussed it with many others. Just as we have Ratings and Major Facility certs for controllers, we should have Flight Rules for Pilots. New to the network? Guess what.. you're not allowed to operate at a Class Bravo (Major) Airport until you earn your VFR. Next step is IFR Training. IFR Training teaches you how to fly sids, stars and ILS approaches at a minimum. Now you can fly VFR on the network.
Of course a new pilot client would have to be written that would boot a newbie off the network if they connected at a Major Airport, unless selecting the "Observer" mode, which would disable your Voice OUT comms and Text out on the radio, and somehow through FSUIPC would prevent your aircraft from moving about. But again, the whole connecting with a callsign thing is something I totally disagree with. The architecture of VATSIM needs to be revamped. No more filing flightplans through the pilot client, you must prefile, just as in the real world. Controllers should be able to change an aircrafts callsign just as they are able to do in the real world. Pilots login only selecting their multiplayer aircraft make/model and livery. Flightplans are correlated to squawk codes issued automatically by the system when the flight plan is filed, using a beacon allocation program......
I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on. I know some of you are drooling......
Andrew
I like your suggestions, Andrew.
But I don't think VATSIM has the current infrastructure to revamp the entire system to match the real world. Have you ever thought it would be really complicated for those who're going to work on it? If you demand a certain realism in this Division, there are others out there who has their own set of procedures in the real world. What you're suggesting is very specific to the United States, what seems realistic for USA may not be the same for Ethiopia. Get my logic?
That's why we can't just do something like what you've suggested. Only way to that is hand over your keys and start your own network that mimics a specific real world system. I wish it was that easy. But no... IMHO what we have currently is tailored to accommodate EVERYONE'S air traffic system. What we can do now at best is to elevate the level of realism in our facilities. By referring to the real world SOPs, using rw video maps, vectoring diagrams and so and so forth. We can never be realistic when it comes to the technological aspect of things.
But if I understand this thread correctly and the thread on the VATSIM forums, they (the founders and the BoG) don't want the kind of realism that exists right now. Hence why they wanted to abolish it or to 'dumb down' the system that exist.
-
VATSIM's Mission Statement
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]VATSIM is an online community created for enthusiasts of flight simulation and air traffic control. One of the main goals of VATSIM is to create an environment which is fun and, at the same time, educational and a realistic simulation of procedures followed by pilots and air traffic controllers everyday around the world.To further these goals, members of VATSIM must comply with the following Code of Conduct. This Code sets forth how members are expected to conduct themselves.[/quote]
Emphasis mine
-
VATSIM's Mission Statement
Emphasis mine
I have read that as well, however, and I don't want to get too technical here, VATSIM does not have an official, labeled, Mission Statement. Therefore anything which is written can only be inferred as such.
-
Alex,
You and I have a mutual friend who was once the ATM of ZTL during SATCO days and a founding member of this network. Those of us posting in this forum are not the only ones who don't like the direction this network is going.....
Then he needs to open his mouth and say something, because it has been dead silence from him for quite some time. Instead of me constantly fighting with Collins about obfuscated training schema and coming off looking like a hardcore ATC nut, he could chime in and help.
Richard Jenkins
VATSIM Co-Founder
"I typed my way through Cal Scream 1"
-
But if I understand this thread correctly and the thread on the VATSIM forums, they (the founders and the BoG) don't want the kind of realism that exists right now. Hence why they wanted to abolish it or to 'dumb down' the system that exist.
That's not correct. What we want is the efficient and timely delivery of training. People sitting around waiting weeks and months for initial training is not acceptable. Or the other famous method of not accepting a rating from one place to another. Which basically locked a member down to staying where he was trained. Understand the reasoning behind it, but find it unfair to the member.
As long as VATSIM is dependent on 1:1 training methods, the level of realism will be compromised to meet the demand for the service. Now I guess we could set a limit on new members, like some VA's do. Make a reservation for membership? Something to think about.
Mandatory training and testing for pilots? We can't even keep up with the training for controllers. How in the heck would we even begin to keep up with all the new pilots? Only about 3% - 5% of new members become controllers. So now we want to train and test the other 95%?
Richard Jenkins
VATSIM Co-Founder
"I typed my way through Cal Scream 1"
-
From a ZOB standpoint, We (ZOB) can further our training efforts if the the Founders and BoG would just let us run it our way. For years prior to the GRP release you go and look at ZOB's training records and you will find that we had 10 people on staff and training was being conducted every night. Now with this new GRP, we have had less active members mainly because we have 3 Class B fields, only 1 of them is considered a "major". Now VATSIM is trying to tell us that we need to COMPLETELY redo our training outline (Which I did in about a month of late nights).
Essentially back in our hayday, we gave the student an option as to which airport they would like to start their training at. Naturally, people who lived in the Detroit area would choose KDTW to start their training, same goes for PIT and CLE. Now we cannot do this. We have to say "Ok read up on the PIT and CLE SOPs and we'll go over lesson 1 tomorrow" type of deal. People don't want to train at 2 airports simultaneously. This is where the Major/Minor cert lacks for us. We are simultaneously training students on 2 rather large airports in the National Airspace Sysytem (Real World) and VATSIM and the makers of the GRP will not give them to us. They based the major certification on traffic levels. You want to talk about Traffic Levels? I dare you to compare KBUF and KDTW in the past couple days. No events have taken place at all, just pure people getting on the network. So why not make KBUF a major? It has more operations in the past week than KDTW.
Also, rumor has it that they want to take away KDTW from the Major certification list. You have no idea how livid this makes me. Here at ZOB we have 3 Class Bravo Airports, I don't know if that means anything to anybody else, but that sure as hell means something to me. Now they are going to take away our only Major airport. Look at any other ARTCC that have 3 Class B Airports and tell me is only 1 of them is considered a Major. Something isn't right.
My whole campagin when I was the DATM was to let us (James Hamilton and myself) run ZOB how we want to, and not be bound by these GRP rules. I have written emails to Staff Members of the network, only to go unanswered (suprise?). I ended up getting so tired of the politics, and the constant emails we would recive saying "Someone has complained about your training program..." Only to find that they were completely false and in some cases exaderated to the point where it was false.
So Richard, if you want to talk about this 1:1 training, I will show you the flow chart I made for the Training staff on the steps and lessons required to comply with the GRP and you can see that even you would not want to go throgh what the GRP is making us go through from a training Standpoint.
TK
-
From a ZOB standpoint, We (ZOB) can further our training efforts if the the Founders and BoG would just let us run it our way. For years prior to the GRP release you go and look at ZOB's training records and you will find that we had 10 people on staff and training was being conducted every night. Now with this new GRP, we have had less active members mainly because we have 3 Class B fields, only 1 of them is considered a "major". Now VATSIM is trying to tell us that we need to COMPLETELY redo our training outline (Which I did in about a month of late nights).
Essentially back in our hayday, we gave the student an option as to which airport they would like to start their training at. Naturally, people who lived in the Detroit area would choose KDTW to start their training, same goes for PIT and CLE. Now we cannot do this. We have to say "Ok read up on the PIT and CLE SOPs and we'll go over lesson 1 tomorrow" type of deal. People don't want to train at 2 airports simultaneously. This is where the Major/Minor cert lacks for us. We are simultaneously training students on 2 rather large airports in the National Airspace Sysytem (Real World) and VATSIM and the makers of the GRP will not give them to us. They based the major certification on traffic levels. You want to talk about Traffic Levels? I dare you to compare KBUF and KDTW in the past couple days. No events have taken place at all, just pure people getting on the network. So why not make KBUF a major? It has more operations in the past week than KDTW.
Also, rumor has it that they want to take away KDTW from the Major certification list. You have no idea how livid this makes me. Here at ZOB we have 3 Class Bravo Airports, I don't know if that means anything to anybody else, but that sure as hell means something to me. Now they are going to take away our only Major airport. Look at any other ARTCC that have 3 Class B Airports and tell me is only 1 of them is considered a Major. Something isn't right.
My whole campagin when I was the DATM was to let us (James Hamilton and myself) run ZOB how we want to, and not be bound by these GRP rules. I have written emails to Staff Members of the network, only to go unanswered (suprise?). I ended up getting so tired of the politics, and the constant emails we would recive saying "Someone has complained about your training program..." Only to find that they were completely false and in some cases exaderated to the point where it was false.
So Richard, if you want to talk about this 1:1 training, I will show you the flow chart I made for the Training staff on the steps and lessons required to comply with the GRP and you can see that even you would not want to go throgh what the GRP is making us go through from a training Standpoint.
TK
Let's start with this first:
I'm and sick and tired of rumor control around here. I hear more incredible stories out of VATUSA than anywhere in VATSIM. So, right here, right now, who told you DTW was being taken?
Second,
"I have written emails to Staff Members of the network, only to go unanswered (suprise?)."
Who and when? If you have the emails send them on over.
Third,
Send me your flowchart.
richard AT vatsim.net
-
Thomas,
I just read your resignation post in the ZOB forum. Can you provide me with the identity of the name caller? No reason for that stuff.
-
Hi Thomas,
I'll address a few of your issues.
We are simultaneously training students on 2 rather large airports in the National Airspace Sysytem (Real World) and VATSIM and the makers of the GRP will not give them to us. They based the major certification on traffic levels. You want to talk about Traffic Levels? I dare you to compare KBUF and KDTW in the past couple days. No events have taken place at all, just pure people getting on the network. So why not make KBUF a major? It has more operations in the past week than KDTW.
Therein lies part of the problem. See what I bolded above. Part of the problem with a lot of the major airports that were submitted, was that the ARTCCs were basing their requests on real world complexity and traffic levels. That has absolutely no bearing on VATSIM. Well...the complexity does to a very little extent, but certainly not the traffic levels.
I just looked at BUF and it averages about 5 ops a day. Are you trying to tell me that any controller (without a major certification there) could not handle 1 aircraft every 5 hours?? How complex can it possibly be? Even without reading the SOPs, I'm pretty certain I could jump on there and handle that one aircraft without any sort of difficulties, and I know nothing about the airport.
And that's the very problem with a lot of the submissions we received. I say "we" as in VATUSA. The EC and I did not reject any major airport that was approved by VATUSA. The major submissions were supposed to be based on extenuating complexity or traffic levels, and instead, we received applications for airports with 4 or 5 movements a day and no particular complexity to speak of. The ATMs simply wanted to protect every bit of airspace from "outsiders" that they possibly could. It's not that I necessarily disagree with that idea, and can understand to some degree why ARTCCs would want to do that. But airspace was being locked down in VATSIM and nobody was able to control anywhere without going through an incredibly lengthy training process.
To put things into perspective, in many places, it takes/was taking longer on VATSIM to get certified than it does in the real world! Now I realize that's apples to oranges and I don't particularly like making that comparison myself, but you can't help but think that taking 3 or 4 years to get certified on VATSIM...a hobby network...is a little silly no? There were brand new people on the network who couldn't even work a position by themselves because it was taking a month, two, or three just to get certified to work someplace on their own. Not only did you have the online sessions, but literally 5 or 6 written tests (that is not an exaggeration). And we wonder why we were losing new controllers?
If everyone would just be reasonable in their approach to setting up the ARTCCs in the first place, the GRP would not be here today. It is a direct result of power-hungry folk who wanted to lock down their ARTCCs and impose ridiculous rules and regulations. Why not just get rid of those people? I don't know either, but this is where we are, as a result of their behavior.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Also, rumor has it that they want to take away KDTW from the Major certification list. You have no idea how livid this makes me.[/quote]
I'm not really sure where you heard that. There are 6 people who can remove DTW from the list of majors, and unless one of the other 5 EC members told you they want to see it removed from the list, I'm not sure where you are getting your information. You certainly didn't hear it from me.
In fact, the only mention of major certifications (and no specific facilities were ever mentioned) was Dave Klain mentioning that major airports seeing no traffic were not going to keep their status. And with this, I concur. The yearly review of the GRP is coming up, and the lengthy list of major airports is certainly something I will be looking at. If these "major" airports are getting 4 or 5 movements a day, you can bet they're going to be looked at a little closer than some of the others. If DTW falls into that category, of 1 movement every 5 or 6 hours, then yes, it's going to be looked at. I honestly don't know if it falls into that category or not; I didn't look. Of course, traffic is not the only factor, but it's certainly a major factor.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I have written emails to Staff Members of the network, only to go unanswered (suprise?).[/quote]
Again, I hadn't received any emails from you. If you want to specifically discuss the GRP, the requirements, or why it was put into place, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. But you have to write. I answer every email I receive normally within hours, at the latest a day or two (rare) at the most, if I'm travelling. If you wrote and haven't gotten a reply within that timeframe, I never received it.
-
Hi Brian, thank you for replying, I understand and agree with everything you have said. But to clarify, I was talking about BUF in the past couple days. Mr. Sal Barcia handled more than 5 planes in the past couple days I can assure you that. I was watching. It was more like in the 12-20 range in that shift for him.
But yes, I do appreciate a lengthy explination from you and agree with you. I think there is stuff going on behind closed doors because if you guys are trying to get to the bottom of it, and didn't know about it, then there is something going on.
-
Then he needs to open his mouth and say something, because it has been dead silence from him for quite some time. Instead of me constantly fighting with Collins about obfuscated training schema and coming off looking like a hardcore ATC nut, he could chime in and help.
Richard Jenkins
VATSIM Co-Founder
"I typed my way through Cal Scream 1"
Richard,
He would have an ulcer if he returned to this. I'm pretty sure he was sick and tired of things when he was on VATUSA staff and how we were treated by the BoG during that time period, it could only be magnified now. You sat in his living room, so I think you know his character. When somebody like him throws in the towel, it means something.
Quite frankly, many of us no longer have the desire to participate in this network in its current state. The management of VATSIM have simply pushed people away, both in word and in action. You have the current President who tells people to leave if they don't like it (and they do leave). I still have a shred of compassion for this network so I tend to (attempt) to keep up on what is happening, and I do have concerns for where this place is headed. There are plenty of people who will just leave and never look back.
Since you mentioned Collins... the entire GRP and much of the current "status quo" was modeled after Oceania's policies and how they conduct business. I said this in the GRP forum and I'll repeat again: You can not take procedures that work for a division of a whopping 40 members and apply them to a division consisting of hundreds, if not a thousand, controllers and expect it to work. My administration with VATUSA did a lot of work to relieve some of the 1-on-1 training, thanks primarily to Mike Hodge, Rob Prescott, and Alan Hensley. We communicated this with the ARTCC staff and started a training website to be used for basic training so that ARTCCs could focus on teaching the intricacies of their airspace. But nobody above would recognize this or the progress made, the collective management only show their faces when something is done wrong or when they can stake someone to the wall.
But, you're here now Richard. You have to fix the top before you can come down here and fix the bottom. I would venture a guess that most of the resistance you meet here and in other divisions would reduce dramatically if your board members took a different approach with handling business. The way VATSIM management goes about communicating and managing the network could improve significantly. I think you could agree that many disagreements and conflicts stem not from what was said, but how it was said. The President telling people to leave if they don't like it is probably a good place to start, because after a while, people will start taking the advice.
Oh, and I can disagree with how VATSIM treats its members and its staff publicly now that I no longer hold any positions that they can threaten me with.
-
I wanted to note that Thomas just PM'ed me a copy of an email he sent me back in June/July on this matter, that apparently I didn't receive. Thanks for clearing that up Thomas! And I apologize for inferring that you didn't write me. I realize how frustrating it can be to not hear back from anyone. I wish I would have gotten it, with the proposal it entailed.
As I mentioned, it usually takes me no more than a day to answer any email. Coincidentally, I just received a second email from a member who sent me one a few days ago (never got the first one). So if you don't hear back, please, please send me a second email or try getting a hold of me via the contact form on the VATNA site (always works, from what I have seen). I definitely don't ignore emails, and even if I don't have an immediate answer for you, I'll at least let you know I got your email.
-
Richard,
He would have an ulcer if he returned to this. I'm pretty sure he was sick and tired of things when he was on VATUSA staff and how we were treated by the BoG during that time period, it could only be magnified now. You sat in his living room, so I think you know his character. When somebody like him throws in the towel, it means something.
Alex,
Think we're talking about two different people. Andrew mentioned the person he was talking about as being the ZTL ATM in SATCO and a founder of VATSIM. That is Joel Lesser.
The communication thing....you're right. How the message is delivered is key. I also think there is an element of mistrust between the BoG/EC/USA. ATM's are convinced that VATSIM is here to dumb it down to IVAO and the Zone. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they want is quality training delivered in a timely manner with a minimum amount of delay that serves no relevant purpose.
The BoG/EC also have an issue in that they don't totally trust some of the ARTCC staff. When they find a staff member lying to them or playing games under the radar, it just reinforces their belief. Right now, we know about a DATM that is using double connections with a fake account to boost the stats at an airport he wants to make a major. If you're reading this..knock it off!
Don't always assume the worst. Those guys don't wake up each morning wondering how they can "F" with the guys in VATUSA. Like the off-peak thing. For whatever reason it was never discussed during the GRP review and GRP doesn't really allow for it as practiced now. So the common sense thing to do is put things in a holding pattern and get it resolved at the yearly review. I feel the off-peak issue is different than say a plain and simple GRP violation that just needs to stop. This issue has circumstances that sets it apart.
-
Alex,
Think we're talking about two different people. Andrew mentioned the person he was talking about as being the ZTL ATM in SATCO and a founder of VATSIM. That is Joel Lesser.
The communication thing....you're right. How the message is delivered is key. I also think there is an element of mistrust between the BoG/EC/USA. ATM's are convinced that VATSIM is here to dumb it down to IVAO and the Zone. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they want is quality training delivered in a timely manner with a minimum amount of delay that serves no relevant purpose.
The BoG/EC also have an issue in that they don't totally trust some of the ARTCC staff. When they find a staff member lying to them or playing games under the radar, it just reinforces their belief. Right now, we know about a DATM that is using double connections with a fake account to boost the stats at an airport he wants to make a major. If you're reading this..knock it off!
Don't always assume the worst. Those guys don't wake up each morning wondering how they can "F" with the guys in VATUSA. Like the off-peak thing. For whatever reason it was never discussed during the GRP review and GRP doesn't really allow for it as practiced now. So the common sense thing to do is put things in a holding pattern and get it resolved at the yearly review. I feel the off-peak issue is different than say a plain and simple GRP violation that just needs to stop. This issue has circumstances that sets it apart.
Richard,
Why can't the whole gang think, act, and be like you?
Now, if your last paragraph was how the issue was approached from the beginning you wouldn't have staff falling on their swords or spilling their kool-aid.
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Right now, we know about a DATM that is using double connections with a fake account to boost the stats at an airport he wants to make a major. If you're reading this..knock it off![/quote]
You have got to be kidding us! I have only one question here. If you know it, what in the hell is this guy still doing as a DATM? That is like one of the cardinal sins of the network and in my eyes is grounds for immediate dismissal of any staff member, especially a DATM or TA. So instead of making policy changes every time one of these jerks breaks the rules, how about canning him instead of making life harder for those of us that are truly trying to it right? I assure you that if any of my staff pulled this stuff, you would not need to can him, he would be gone. Just curious, does his ATM know this?
In my eyes, we have a working system of rules. Just does not seem that they are being enforced here now does it?
-
I have to agree with Bob 110%, the person should be 86'd as a staff member, the dup account closed down. Going further beyond that into the CoC realm isn't all that out of the question either.
I know RJ you can do it but if you want i'll be more than happy to dup out the account in question!
-
Richard,
Thank you so much for maintaining an open line of communication between us and the founders. Getting this information has definitely eased some some of the concerns that us in the trenches have. I do agree with the previous posters concern about DTW. Regardless whether or not it is being considered for removal as a major, the mere thought that it or any major can be removed is very concerning.
I'm not one for locking down every molecule of airspace within a facility, however regardless of traffic levels / complexity, I strongly believe every facility requires at least one major facility. This for both pride and recruiting. People like to feel important, a major designation lets that facility know that, "Yes, we think this airport needs some extra effort and should be classified as a major." (Even if it really dosen't.) It just makes us feel good in some odd way.
If you remove all majors from a facility, then the current membership who put in the time to learn the facility and its intricacies will feel cheated, become frustrated when new controllers come up on position with zero training in the procedures, and ultimately leave furthering the bottom heavy divide between new and senior controllers.
More important than that is recruiting. Obviously we have the traffic chasing new controllers whom just pick their facility based off of just that and head to your ZLA's, ZNY's, etc. However, should it be a controller who is genuinely looking at all of his options and weighing out where he want's to go, a facility will most likely get passed if it doesn't have any major airports. The may be thinking, well, why bother going here there's nothing special to work towards here. Again, you will find controllers leaving with the why bother attitude, and no new ones coming in, then a facility with zero membership that won't be staffed.
-
You can put this in the "for what it's worth" catagory.
The way I see it, you have three different groups on here, 1. the far left, 2. the far right, and 3 the middle. Sounds to me like typical group dynamics, and btw, yes I did take group dynamics 101. And alot more.
So is the network going to the dogs... I think not, mainly because the largest group of the 3 is the one in the middle, who are happy to be here, appreciate all the hard work that goes into providing this "free" service, and will continue to stay, and some will contribute, and that's all good.
my .02
-
You can put this in the "for what it's worth" catagory.
The way I see it, you have three different groups on here, 1. the far left, 2. the far right, and 3 the middle. Sounds to me like typical group dynamics, and btw, yes I did take group dynamics 101. And alot more.
So is the network going to the dogs... I think not, mainly because the largest group of the 3 is the one in the middle, who are happy to be here, appreciate all the hard work that goes into providing this "free" service, and will continue to stay, and some will contribute, and that's all good.
my .02
Well said Scott, and you hit it on the head, we have the liberal group (wide open) the conservative (the sky is falling, restrict everything) and the bulk in the middle who are ok with things.
-
You can put this in the "for what it's worth" catagory.
The way I see it, you have three different groups on here, 1. the far left, 2. the far right, and 3 the middle. Sounds to me like typical group dynamics, and btw, yes I did take group dynamics 101. And alot more.
So is the network going to the dogs... I think not, mainly because the largest group of the 3 is the one in the middle, who are happy to be here, appreciate all the hard work that goes into providing this "free" service, and will continue to stay, and some will contribute, and that's all good.
my .02
Very well said, Scott.
-
Scott,
I wish it was that simple. I just don't think it can be described in those terms. The issue I have with VATSIM isn't all about the direction of the network - it's the procedure by which the decisions are made. VATSIM is currently obsessed with one-size-fits-all management and policies, and no matter how irrational or how counterproductive VATSIM's policies are to their own goals, in my experience attempting to change the policies is about as effective as peeing into a headwind.
The trouble is that the management style of VATSIM crushes the spirit of its best people. VATSIM has an amazing ability to attract smart, incredibly dedicated, fantastic people - people any business would be delighted to have working for them. It also has an amazing ability to stand in their way as they try and make the places they help to run just a little bit better. While assuredly in the end this network is the founders sandbox, and they can run it however they'd like - many people over the years have signed up to help make the sandbox nicer and better run. VATSIM has an institutional obsession with the "worst of the worst" - and constantly uses that as an example to justify bringing the best down to their level. Management and making rules are different things.
That part has nothing to with right-left-center group dynamics - just basic management and respect for those actually charged with doing something productive instead of making more rules.
-
Mike,
I understand where you're coming from. It's very obvious actually from what it seems. However - I don't think VATSIM is a democracy. We don't have any say at all if the Founders wanted to change something in a blink of an eye. We all can side our opinions but there's no guarantee that's it's going to be considered or not. At the end of the day, its still the founders that has the final say. We weren't elected by the people to run our respective facilities, we were appointed by the higher ups.
But hey.... that's just me... that's how I see things around here
All we/I can do is to adopt to those changes...whether we like it or not..
I think the higher ups (founders/BoG) call the shots around here..
-
Mike, I understand what you are saying, however, another "group dynamics" tidbit, as we all know, and it's unfortunately true, is that "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch". Where there are tons of very talented people out there that would not only devote their time, and financial resourses to make this an enjoyable hobby, there are the few that "think" they are trying to help, that have put no resourses into the hobby, and are lying, backstabbing, title grabbing egomaniacs.... that later group is that "one bad apple".... so MHO is that the "powers to be", have to draw the line somewhere...
if that made any sense.
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]if that made any sense.[/quote]
Use a Quality Assurance process to identify and get rid of the bad apples before the good apples are made into applesauce.
As we drive down the highway we throw the bad ones into the back of the pickup truck, allowing them to somehow make their way back into the barrel. What we should do is chuck them out the window as hard as we can and let them be eaten by the livestock.
I'm tired of being applesauce.
-
Ian, I'm pretty sure that's what has been said by some higher ups ...."if you don't like it, there's the door"
This whole thing is not rocket surgery, or brain science, we are playing in someone else's sandbox, they make the rules, no one is being forced to be here, so "......"
-
Ian, I'm pretty sure that's what has been said by some higher ups ...."if you don't like it, there's the door"
This whole thing is not rocket surgery, or brain science, we are playing in someone else's sandbox, they make the rules, no one is being forced to be here, so "......"
Except, let's say hypothetically, a majority of staff members take that instruction and walk away and enough walk away that having any staff like we do now. How do you think this network would be? As most know, the level of training staff in VATUSA has dropped over the last year. It's becoming harder to find and retain instructors and mentors. A couple ARTCCs have even gone so far as to email controllers to try and recruit them from outside their ARTCC and even posting it on VATUSA's position openings. Also, there are some ARTCCs (and FIRs outside VATUSA) that can't find Training Administrators/Chief Instructors. Would there be a network worth having if everyone walked away? Even if they provide it, we're the users of it. If enough walk away that their network apart or there is a risk of it.. they can't just look the other way otherwise there would be no network or no point to it. So, while it is their sand box and their policy goes, at the same time, without the users there is no network.. some kind of common ground needs to exist.
-
Daniel, I hear ya, but look at my previous post. Plus it's not the serious, generous, dedicated members I am referring to, those aren't the bad apples.
-
Daniel, I hear ya, but look at my previous post. Plus it's not the serious, generous, dedicated members I am referring to, those aren't the bad apples.
Hey Scott, it's been a while.
I am not meaning to contradict your post, as it makes complete and total sense what you mean by "bad apples"... However, I can't help but notice (I've been quiet, but I've been paying attention and keeping up with the forums) that it is mostly the "serious, generous, and dedicated memebers" that are the ones taking the advice of "if you don't like it, then there is the door". I mean, those who have walked away or are arguing about their concerns about the network are the ones, IMHO, that are spending more time dedicated to the network compared to those who are in on it for the experience.
I have to agree with Daniel on this. Unfortunately if the staff takes the advice of walking away, the dedication stops, and the facilities (whichever ones that are affected by it) are constantly "rotating" their staff members/roster. There isn't a set plan for the facility in terms of operations/training/etc.... And when there isn't a set plan, I find it harder for one to perceive as to what to do in that case because certainly, I would be completely lost at what to do and how to do it.
Regards,
AD
-
Hey Scott, it's been a while.
I am not meaning to contradict your post, as it makes complete and total sense what you mean by "bad apples"... However, I can't help but notice (I've been quiet, but I've been paying attention and keeping up with the forums) that it is mostly the "serious, generous, and dedicated memebers" that are the ones taking the advice of "if you don't like it, then there is the door". I mean, those who have walked away or are arguing about their concerns about the network are the ones, IMHO, that are spending more time dedicated to the network compared to those who are in on it for the experience.
I have to agree with Daniel on this. Unfortunately if the staff takes the advice of walking away, the dedication stops, and the facilities (whichever ones that are affected by it) are constantly "rotating" their staff members/roster. There isn't a set plan for the facility in terms of operations/training/etc.... And when there isn't a set plan, I find it harder for one to perceive as to what to do in that case because certainly, I would be completely lost at what to do and how to do it.
Regards,
AD
Andy, you may be right, I don't know. What I do know is that I'm glad some of the "bad apples", have tucked their respective tails and are no longer a factor to my enjoyment of this network.