Wow.. and with no hint of sarcasm or cynicism, I have to say that here we go again with this thread. Not that it is tedious or to gather a ton of groans, but that if it is being brought up again, it is important and something needs to be done. What that something is is the question.
A lot of what was mentioned in this thread and in the other thread was visited a number of times over the past 20 years. The PRC. VATSTAR. Training Academies. Opinions vary on the successes of those, but if the problem still persists to where 20 years on we are still talking about the same thing, the the same things we are trying and expecting a different result is what is known as Einstein's Definition of Insanity.
Now, not all is doom and gloom, as I've seen some ideas here that should be taken into consideration. With that, let's dig in:
Possible Solutions:
- Pilot Deviation Reporting - No brainier and everyone above has indicated exactly how I'd go about it. Pilots need to be able to see it so they can learn and grow. Should be managed by the Facility with the ability to be elevated higher if further action needs to be taken.
I really like this idea, as what we should be able to do is if there is a problem, ATC should have a way to log that problem and submit it to the top brass (SUP and above), who should act as the moderators of that. They then send a "please explain" or similar type message to the pilot, either allowing the pilot to explain their side of things or a "these are the rules, you need to be reminded to follow them", etc. In short, SUP and above are the FSDO.
- Pilot Rating System similar to Pilotege - Their system works. What I like most about their system is you don't have to use it, but you better be good. If you are not good, use this program to get good. Oh by the way, no exam, just get on the network fly and prove that you can perform with a entire network of people around basically 24/7 to help you understand complex concepts/material.
Keith expanded on what we already had here at VATSIM at the time (Keith was the ATM of ZLA here), so he already knew what he wanted to do, but took it more commercially. We could do similar here and should. The issue here is that the ratings system was relative to what the pilot was learning at the PRC, but apparently, the PRC wasn't taken seriously among the rest of the network; it was a recommendation rather than a requirement, because there has been the longstanding ... well.. "common knowledge" (lack of a better word) that anyone should be able to join the network as a pilot, regardless of experience, as this is a learning environment. And while I get that, understand that, and agree with that, we need to hold that learning environment accountable. There needs to be a way to validate that that learning is indeed happening.
- Controller kill Pilot capability - Remove the problem child when they are a problem (even if not on purpose) and file the report. Maybe they didn't know, but now they do and everyone can learn and grow. The reality is SUP's (to no fault of their own) are poorly equipped to actually decide if a pilot is worthy of a kill as it relates directly to air traffic operations in a "timely" and fair manner. The best equipped people to decide that is the facility. Guy who's frame rates aren't cooperating, kill. Guy who spawns on runway, kill. Guy who leaves computer 20 miles from the field on final freq, kill. File the report. They learn, your scope is manageable again, everybody happy. I imagine the process of the ".kill" is probably more complex, but you get the idea.
I want to say that SUP and higher have that ability, but I can see where as a controller, that ability can be abused. For example, if you know of a certain person that is known to cause trouble on the network, hasn't done anything wrong, but you just don't want to deal with them, having the ability to boot someone off the network just because or out of spite can cause issues that VATUSA doesn't want to deal with, let alone VATSIM as a whole.
I see pros and cons to this, and why it is limited to those SUP and higher. In fact, I've only seen it used twice while controlling: once by Harv or Amy, and the other by GSM, when some idiot using FS2000 wanted to joke around and crash into the WTC.
I realize that in practice, this is a gross oversimplification of what would be required to establish such a system and VATSIM/VATUSA has come such an incredibly long way over the last year. Most of what needs to be said has already been said and I ultimately want to provide my +1 for this issue.
This wouldn't be that hard to do, as it basically requires a way at the controller client level to be able to log the session (this becomes "the tapes") so that if any pilot deviations occur, they can get sent to the SUPs to be handled. The only drawback with this is that that logged session wouldn't include any logging of voice comms, unless those could be logged at the voice server level (I haven't looked into AFV to see if that's possible). If it is, that's okay. Additionally, the handling of this would have to be at the division level, because a SUP at VATRUS, VATKOR, or VATSA wouldn't have a clue about what we are doing here.
Hey everyone,
* Pilot fails to contact me in a timely manner.
* Pilot has a language barrier and is unable to contact me in English when the language of the air is English.
* Pilot fails to turn in a timely manner after requested to turn by a controller.
* Pilot fails to understand what "Hold for Release" means
* Pilot doesn't understand that PDC commands via PMs are NOT CPDLC systems and attempts to contact me via telex and uplink messages.
Daniel Kormendy
This brings up another good idea. Pursuant to the Pilot Deviation idea above, one thing that the VATUSA brass could also implement is a "suspension" (again, lack of a better word) of an offending pilot's use of the network pending a slight variation of an Operation Raincheck.
Seeing that all pilots have the OBS controller rating, should they commit an offense more than a couple of times (those offenses being reported; see above), they can not fly on the network until they've visited the ARTCC they've had the problem in, if not the staffed airport in particular to see what the SOPs are for that airport and seen them in action on the network, on the scopes. Yes, this would require them to have a simplistic ATC client installed (shout out to VRC for simplicity) so they can observe the controller and what they should be doing that conforms to SOPs and pilot expectations on the network. This could even be a Sweatbox session or something similar; it just has to be something where the pilot gets a crash course in the area they are having trouble in, and also so they can see how whatever problem they are creating cascades down to others having a problem, which in turn makes everyone's enjoyment of the network turn belly up.
Now, language barriers we may not be able to handle, and quite honestly, that isn't our fault, nor the fault of the network. I've controlled pilots from Japan and Malaysia who could understand English better than they could speak it, so I couldn't fault them for if they couldn't understand what I wanted them to do. All that could help that is patience and giving them the time to set up for what they need.
However, the others fall back onto training and being able to look over the controller's shoulder to see what should happen when it is done right versus what they are doing wrong. They can take that into account, apply it, and they are on the network again. Again, that's logged on a private part of their record (only SUP and higher would have access to that), so should they commit an offense again, they get a sterner warning from the brass; after that, suspension or sacking from the network.
Now, finally, the only other thing any of these (not just my) suggestions need to take into consideration, is that some of these changes would be global, across the entire network. So every division let alone the BoG would need to have buy-in on it, and that is even if their region isn't having such a problem. So it's a big undertaking for us here, but any suggestions would need to be run up to the BoG for those to occur.
BL.
