Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
> "New account good for VFR only. Track account VFR flight following time, whenever a controller tags a users aircraft with a transponder code for flight following. Set minimum hours, say 25 hours of VFR flight following in GA pistons. Next step 25 hours of IFR GA pistons, tracked with controller tagging the user account by assigning the transponder code. Then unlimited network use."
I am a huge proponent of General Aviation on this network, but I completely flat out disagree that *forcing* pilots who are interested in airline flying (and are not interested in General Aviation flying) to fly General Aviation is the way to go here. You cannot tell someone who is on this network completely to enjoy what interests them and what they consider fun, that they must first do something that doesn't interest them and they don't consider fun for X number of hours first. It's just going to send them to other networks.
And many of them, if given the right resources and motivation could become perfectly capable sim airliner pilots without ever once having booted up a plane weighing less than 100,000 pounds. There are, in fact, thousands upon thousands of pilots on the network on a weekly basis who fit that description exactly.
3) Last year (IIRC), VATUSA was more worried about having exit interviews with S1s (who cares?) when we should have been focusing on our C1+'s that got fully certified, worked some hours, and went away. Who cares why the S1 who did minimal training to work a DEL/GND position left? You'd have much more meaningful feedback if we focused on the fully certified C1+s that left after certification. If we did that, I'm willing to bet that you'd be hearing the same thing about pilots over, and over, and over again...if you had that feedback last year, maybe we could have made meaningful impact network wide regarding pilot competency, and eliminating that as a factor for Burnout.
So let me see if I understand this. Experienced controllers with years or decades under their belts are unhappy and leaving. FNG's coming in as OBS/S1's getting an eyeful, then leaving shortly after joining. Pilots are woefully unprepared, leading to negative experience for the experienced controllers. Got it.
Experienced controllers leaving:
-Many of us have been there with lots of hobbies. You set a goal, such as C1, work toward it, reach it, then realize that the fun was getting there, not being there.
-Pilots ill prepared, reduce the immersion, and fun of controlling, resulting in no incentive to make controlling a priority when discretionary time is available.
New controller recruits leaving early:
-Excessive training requirements.
-Training based on "that's how we've always done it" mentality, prepared by people that have no background in teaching.
-Slow advancement. Not enough on the job learning, and too much "sweatbox" with outdated scenarios that are counter productive
-Too many third party programs needed for a simple ATC session.
Pilots:
-In denial that even a little self study will go a long way in making their experience, and that of others much better.
-Refuse to start low and slow VFR, moving to flight following, graduating to GA IFR, then tackling airliners. Nope, jump right into that PMDG 737, and go.
Solution:
-Narrow the gap between controller training, and pilot expectations.
-Controller cert should not mirror real world exactly, and should not take a year to accomplish. More OTJ, low volume time on the live network, less didactic frat house training.
-Pilots should bear more responsibility for airspace knowledge. New account good for VFR only. Track account VFR flight following time, whenever a controller tags a users aircraft with a transponder code for flight following. Set minimum hours, say 25 hours of VFR flight following in GA pistons. Next step 25 hours of IFR GA pistons, tracked with controller tagging the user account by assigning the transponder code. Then unlimited network use.
I +1 to everything Dylan says. I cannot word it any better so I won't repeat the same points.
Can you not turn this thread into how everyone is out to get you, and instead actually focus on the merits of Dylan's post? If you have issues with yourself and VATSIM that has no bearing on this conversation, and that was half your post.
Only one attempt at a landing? I love everything you guys do in terms of event planning but there's too many variables to make that a hard and fast rule...
The idea is that we say it's what we're gonna do on paper but adapt it during the operational phase (and obviously abide by VATSIM policy).
Unfortunately VATSIM is not a democratic organization. This structure doesn't just pertain to VATUSA, all of the Regions have a similar structure. It doesn't mean that doing what the masses need to survive shouldn't be done, and input is required to make decisions that benefit the masses. To get the input, we need to figure out how to communicate. This system has worked for a long time.
This attitude is a logical fallacy. You can't run a volunteer organization as a dictatorship. There's absolutely a need for someone to call the shots in administrative matters, but can you honestly tell me with a straight face that we're stronger as a division after the events of the past 8 days? We're down an entire facility staff, a division events director, and the only losers are the rank and file controllers and students at the affected facility, who are left leaderless and discouraged because the community that they built together has been blown up. I'm all for appropriate disciplinary action being taken, but to jump right to staff removal is something that should be done only after a grave amount of care. The previous VATUSA1 removed ONE ATM in a 5 year tenure; the current administration has made that same move three times in less than a year. Surely you don't disagree that there's some cause for concern with that statistic.
The volunteers - the ones devoting time, blood, sweat, tears, money, and expertise with little return aside from their own enjoyment are the lifeblood of this division. ARTCCs are tight-knit communities because for the longest time, the division hasn't done much to force us to co-mingle and coexist. The construct in which we operate makes us work together on things like LOAs, etc. out of necessity and not out of a desire to build bridges or relationships across the borders. Couple that with the fact that in this hobby, there's always going to be an implicit air of competition from one facility to the next, and you have the friendly, but largely adversarial view by which most controllers and staff regard their neighbors.
That being said, it also takes a cultural shift. Many times during high traffic situations, tempers flare, and we're busy looking for ways to blame everyone around us (including the pilots). What we need to be doing is taking more pride in the way we work and doing our best to not shovel our mess into the adjoining sectors or facilities. I just had a long conversation with one of my S3 controllers who is on the precipice of his Center OTS. He was concerned about "what if [insert Center here] screws us over on spacing?" to which I had to gently nudge him into acknowledging that none of us are perfect at this hobby. Rather than trying to blame the neighbors for underperforming, we should be looking for ways to help them step up their game. Constructive feedback and sharing of techniques and best practices goes a long way, and I'm incredibly happy to see Rick's initiatives to start that process.
DK hit it on the head - at the end of the day, we're all on the same team.
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?
