Pilot Expectations, cont...

Manuel Manigault

  • VATSIM Leadership
  • 579
    • View Profile
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2021, 08:56:10 PM »
Kyle, thank you for splitting the conversation.  Feedback and ideas in this conversation won't go to waste.
Mani Manigault
Vice President, Americas Region
VATSIM

Douglas Peterson

  • ZOA Staff
  • 5
    • View Profile
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2021, 08:57:44 PM »

(As an aside, why is it that when I connect with the wrong vis range, I almost instantly get a message from a SUP, but it can take 5-10+ minutes to get a problematic pilot removed? Is this an automation issue? If so, all the more reason to empower controllers. Let us help the supervisors.)

TBH, the vis range enforcers make controlling demoralizing. I recall doing an event where I was doing Local instead of my usual approach position. I didn’t downgrade my vis range, and was pretty busy. Some SUP had nothing more important to do besides send me messages about my vis range. Meanwhile any OBS or any pilot could connect with 4 times my vis range and be just fine. This made sense, maybe, back 15 years ago. But now? It might be nice to not gratuitously piss off your controllers, especially the instructors. Just saying

Zachary Bartig

  • Members
  • 3
    • View Profile
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2021, 11:20:20 PM »
Zach, I  appreciate the kind words and the mention.  I do think that as a network, VATSIM can do more to point pilots to resources to learn and get started.  And I do think there needs to be some accountability when they refuse to do so.

However, as much of a proponent of General Aviation flying I am, I don't think *forcing* pilots to start with GA is the right move.  The overwhelming majority of VATSIM pilots want to fly airliners because that is what they consider fun and that is what interests them.  Forcing them to first do X-dozen hours of something that they *don't* consider fun and that *doesn't* interest them is not the right way to go.  It's only going to chase them away.

There are thousands upon thousands of perfectly capable virtual airliner pilots on the network on a weekly basis, and many of them have 0.0 hours in anything smaller than 100,000 pounds.   Let's figure out how they got there and encourage the rest of our budding Captains to follow a similar path.   The ones who want to gravitate toward General Aviation will do so, and I think we've proven that we can make that experience super-enjoyable when they do.  But let's not force the ones who don't.

Rob,

My apologies, I think I may have worded the above a bit misleading. My point was to highlight that we have many resources available such as the VUFC, and streams such as yours, that are either entirely dedicated, or partially dedicated to the promotion of VFR flying and the basic foundations of aviation.  As always, I more than value your opinion here and I do agree with you.  It wouldn't be logical to force new pilots to fly VFR or smaller aircraft for "X" amount of hours.  However, I do think that encouraging those new pilots to do so could be a good helping hand in fixing part of the quality issues. 

Since my last post, I had thought of a way to easily put something like that into fruition.  When a new pilot signs up for a membership on the network, does the CBT, etc. and is finally set free, perhaps an email and/or pop-up screen highlighting some of the network's assets wouldn't hurt.  Among those in this "list", could be categorization of which assets offer what.  For example, a category of clubs/groups such as the VUFC that offer introductory style VFR events and some complex ones as well, plus a million helping hands within the community.  Along with that could be categories of streamers;  Training/instructional/VFR streamers such as Eric, VFR event and processes streamers such as Mike, Navigational and technique-based flying streamers such as yourself, and of course the inclusion of some of the larger streamers who stream mostly IFR/airliners/more complex flights.  (**note, as far as the examples above go, they are simply just some of the best quality that I have seen, and I of course cannot speak on their behalf)

By having categorized resources like the above, and promptly advertising them through at least 2 direct routes, the awareness of those resources' existence in my opinion surely would have us all on the right steps towards fixing quality issues, and to help those who may be a bit lost.  It goes without saying that there are definitely some trolls that peruse the network, but I think a majority of the pilot quality issues are simply due to honest confusion.  By choosing to include resources such as these, we not only give back to those who put blood sweat and tears into supporting Vatsim, but also remove the line of confusion between new pilots, and the quality information/material that can help them prosper within the network. 

Above all, the suggestions on this thread are all incredible, but I do really like the idea of having a pilot feedback system, especially one along the lines of the NASA system that Zhenhao suggested.  With ARTCC/sector-based data logging of common mistakes, VATUSA and it's divisions can use this information to find remedies to common issues such as the infamous ORCKA departure turn out of LAX.  With publicly available incident reports (but no PI revealed), those whom may wish to take the responsible course of action prior to flying into a new airport could now have a valuable resource that can highlight the common mistakes and misconceptions of the procedures associated with a particular airport.

Cheers,
Zach

Daniel Kormendy

  • Members
  • 11
    • View Profile
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2021, 12:26:13 AM »
Hey everyone,

I wanted to just overall share my experience and idea on the pilots that I experience daily. I am a controller from VATCAR and I control the ZSU (San Juan CERAP) in Puerto Rico, outside of VATCAR I control the ZLC ARTCC with Kyle as well so we have both works with each other quite a bit. I'm very happy that this issue is attempting to be addressed to VATSIM managers/governors as this has been an issue even starting as a basic S1. The first time I dealt with inexperienced pilots was at Jacksonville, I had never encountered a pilot who had no real flight experience because I had been so used to just decent pilots at the time. I was originally an S2 at Jacksonville and I couldn't handle why this guy didn't know what an IFR clearance was or anything, he didn't know he needed some sort of allowance to fly via an IFR clearance. I was very frustrated when I got bad feedback for attempting to help him by providing constructive feedback to get better, it took me about a month to get back to controlling after that situation. The core values of VATSIM are "Aviate, Educate, Communicate" something like that. The problem with pilots is that VATSIM provides the "educate" part in there but really doesn't do much to maintain that "educate" part for pilots. VATSIM should implement a system like said by Kaylan Fullerton a feedback system much like ours. This would help benefit pilots by providing constructive criticism to improve as pilots and also give them a chance to fix their mistakes the next time they fly. Let me list some things I have seen so far for the past few weeks.

*  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.

These are just some of the things that I see on a daily basis, some may be strange things that you don't see on a daily basis however some mistakes can be simply just failing to maintain a simple, heading, or altitude. Another situation I had was actually Gander and if you are certified in an oceanic position you would totally understand how I feel about this. Pilots do not know how to really cross the pond properly all the time and they can miss key information that you need for an oceanic clearance or just go AFK and not contact you because the flight is long. Gander has been one of the most frustrating positions to work in only because the pilots who decide to cross the pond poorly understand how oceanic control works. Pilots will call me from La Guardia for a taxi for a VFR departure to the west out of the New York class bravo or I will get a pilot calling me for oceanic clearance from the other side of the pond. At a certain point I got stir crazy from just the boredom and fury I experience trying to focus on like 10-20 planes at once during events and contacted by everyone who is not supposed to contact me or I am not getting concise information. I ended up just quitting Gander because of that specific reason. I hope my feedback or stories helps provide an inside into the things along with many other C1+ rated controllers experience when controlling a center or flight service station position.

Thanks,
Daniel Kormendy
Daniel Kormendy

ZLC ARTCC

Brad Littlejohn

  • Members
  • 149
    • View Profile
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2021, 06:06:31 PM »

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.

Quote
- 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.

Quote
- 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.

Quote
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.

Ben Lindsey

  • ZLC Staff
  • 23
    • View Profile
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2021, 01:52:22 AM »
Obviously, there's been a relative spike in new users, which anecdotally seem to have a higher rate of competency issues than previous new pilots. One bad pilot is all it takes to ruin a previously good controlling session, so I agree that competency is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed.

I like the discussed idea of a feedback system for pilots, or even something similar to a deviation reporting system. I believe that could go a long way to improving the current situation in a way that allows pilots to improve upon their skills, rather than simply being an annoyance to controllers.

As a controller, it's easy for one particularly bad pilot to ruin a session in which every other pilot had no issues. Any system which can be used to combat common errors or deviations would likely go a long way in reducing controller frustration and the burnout it can cause.

If this type of pilot feedback/deviation reporting system was implemented and run on a global VATSIM-wide scale, this feedback could potentially be used to see global or regional trends. Common issues could be addressed by the Pilot Training Department, and training materials could be created to hopefully curb the issue. If a pilot made a common mistake, a link to that specific material could be sent to them.

I agree with many of the points raised, and in general, I want to give a +1 to the discussion of the issue. Pilot expectations and behavior are a well-known (and often discussed) issue in controlling settings, so just having this discussion in a public forum will hopefully yield some good ideas which can be implemented, potentially on a scale greater than just one ARTCC or VATUSA as a whole.
Ben Lindsey
ZLC Deputy Air Traffic Manager | Instructor

Kyle Sanders

  • Instructors
  • 230
    • View Profile
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2021, 05:52:39 PM »

… as this is a learning environment [truncated]… we need to hold that learning environment accountable. There needs to be a way to validate that that learning is indeed happening.

If we were to wrap up this enter discussion into a single idea… this is it!
Best Regards,
Kyle Sanders

Kyle Sanders

  • Instructors
  • 230
    • View Profile
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2021, 05:53:31 PM »

If this type of pilot feedback/deviation reporting system was implemented and run on a global VATSIM-wide scale, this feedback could potentially be used to see global or regional trends. Common issues could be addressed by the Pilot Training Department, and training materials could be created to hopefully curb the issue. If a pilot made a common mistake, a link to that specific material could be sent to them.

If any of this is going to appeal to VATSIM HQ, it’s this^
Best Regards,
Kyle Sanders

Karl Mathias Moberg

  • ZNY Staff
  • 108
    • View Profile
    • NYARTCC
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2021, 08:13:26 AM »
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

Unfortunately, this is not something VATUSA could do. VATUSA does not have the power to suspend users, only a SUP or DCRM can do so with the current Code of Conduct and CoR in place. From what I've been seeing from the BoG and the VATSIM meeting minutes, they are in no rush to change that policy.


Karl Mathias Moberg (KM) - C3/I1
New York ARTCC
ZNY Air Traffic Manager

Brayden Manzella

  • VATSIM Supervisors
  • 203
    • View Profile
    • VATUSA
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #24 on: July 10, 2021, 12:21:56 PM »
There has been a lot of good discussion and ideas flowing through this thread. We've been having discussions on this topic on and off for many years now with little action actually being taken, both network and division wide. I think now is the time to build on this momentum.

I've discussed this idea with Mani, and I'd like to get a small workgroup put together to see what ideas we can put into place here at the division level to address our relationship with the pilot community. Specifically, looking at a Pilot Community Manager position.

If you're interested in being a part of the workgroup, please shoot me an email or message me on Discord. I'd like to get a meeting setup within the next week or two.
Brayden Manzella
VATUSA Team Development Manager

Lee Sacharin

  • Members
  • 9
    • View Profile
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2021, 09:46:45 PM »
A ton of good ideas presented, hopefully not all on deaf ears.  As a online controller (who does not fly the network at all...but does IRL) I have an appreciation for the use of certification, continued training and learning, feedback, and testing.  With all that in mind, the need for annual checking should be included in any environment.  This concept is (for Vatsim) should not be limited to pilots but controllers as well. 

We check an individual to whatever the level (C1, S3, etc.) and never recheck/test them for competency again.  While some do an excellent job, others develop poor habits and deviate from taught standards with no return to square 0.  Does your ARTCC have 'undesirables' or persons who simply need some level of instruction/training whereby they are called out on concerns?  Apply the same logic to future 'rated' pilots here in Vatsim.  They enter the IFR world without any bi-annual requirement...never learning again without checking or feedback.

I understand the difficulties in keeping up with staff to instruct new members without the task of a annual (or bi-annual) review/check.  Increase the work to include the pilot-world and things become even more daunting.

Easy to point out problems and areas that are lacking....viable and achievable solutions, that's where the real talent is.

Simon Kelsey

  • Members
  • 2
    • View Profile
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2021, 09:57:31 AM »
Hi all,

I was pointed to this thread the other day and have been reading with interest! The first thing to say is that I absolutely appreciate the frustrations and I am determined to do whatever we can to reduce those frustrations on both sides of the issue. Many of the ideas in this thread feed in to some work around this that my predecessor, Ethan, was actively looking in to and which I am carrying on.

It's a fine balance between coming up with something which does provide some recourse against those who genuinely have no interest in learning or improving, versus creating an impression of an incredibly stiff, strict, punitive culture where the tiniest mistakes are leapt on and punished with ridicule/bans etc. The problem with that image is that it tends to actually put off those who would actually be quite good VATSIM pilots/controllers precisely because they hear that it's a really realistic, strict environment where they need to have all this knowledge before connecting and so they never do because they're worried that they don't know enough and if they mess up they'll be kicked. Meanwhile those who really don't care just connect anyway and so it ends up being counterproductive and having the opposite effect to that intended! We need to make sure that we are learning from and promoting the real-world "just culture" concepts and making it really clear -- internally and externally -- that we want to hear about and learn from honest mistakes, and that honest mistakes and genuine efforts will never be punished, only clear negligence/acting in bad faith.

With regard to the feedback/ATSAP idea -- this is absolutely a good idea. In the first instance if we want to tackle this problem -- and, just as importantly, identify whether any progress has in fact been made -- we need proper data and this is something which is currently lacking. Of course we have anecdotal comments and experiences shared in forums like this, in the VATSIM Discord and so on but to be honest -- I've been reading similar comments to some degree or another for the last 21 years and beyond! To collate and analyse some proper data we need a proper feedback system and that is something which we are actively working on and I hope to have something to trial in the not too distant future.

One of the challenges with the above is that I am keen that it is NOT simply a "moan form" for controllers to point fingers or sound off about individual pilots because I 100% guarantee that if one pilot is having difficulty with something so will somebody else on the network and just like in real aviation we need to make sure we are using the data to focus on putting resources in place to address the issues more widely for everybody, and not just targeting individual "bad apples" and pretending that by punishing/removing those we are going to remove the problem. Supervisors and .wallop must remain the primary port of call for dealing with members who are being disruptive or in breach of the CoC in individual cases -- and I appreciate that at times this can be a bit more painful than it ought to be and we can discuss about that.

I know the New Member Orientation Course is something which has had some discussion -- I agree that whilst it was a huge step forward to implement this in the first instance, there are definitely improvements that can be made here and it's a project I have running at the moment. Again, armed with data and feedback I want to make this a process of continuous improvement and development so that we are always refining and making sure that we are targeting the important/live issues through the course, so watch this space in that regard.

I strongly believe that ATOs and the Pilot Rating system are an integral part of improving the overall levels of knowledge and skill on the network -- the fact that we now have the pilot ratings more easily visible in tools like VATSpy etc I think is a great step forward and we need to keep on working at ways to make pilot ratings more visible, more attractive and more aspirational. With that in mind I appreciate that capacity in the system at present is nowhere near what it needs to be and I have some plans for how we can improve upon this which I hope to say more about soon.

Finally, alongside the formal pilot ratings we also have to do much better at getting information, training material and so on out there to a much wider audience on a more informal basis -- and that's something which I want to work with the Marketing team on. I'm open for thoughts and suggestions on this as well -- I know the Boston guys have been running webinars in the past which I think is a fantastic idea and I'd love to see more of the same so if there's anything I can do to support that -- likewise I really want to make the PLC a 'destination' for aviation knowledge so if anybody wants to write up an article or a guide etc that they would like to see published on the PLC by all means send it across -- my e-mail address is on the VATSIM Staff page under VP Pilot Training (even if my name is not yet!).

Hope that gives a whistlestop overview of some of the plans we have to try and tackle some of these issues -- as I say I think the most important thing in the first instance is to get the feedback/ATSAP programme in place which in turn will give us the data we need to know what we need to be focussing on and to see whether our efforts are actually having any impact.

As always, my virtual door is open so if you have any thoughts or comments I'm delighted to hear from you!

Best,

Simon
« Last Edit: July 12, 2021, 03:22:44 PM by Simon Kelsey »
Simon Kelsey
Vice President, Pilot Training

Brad Littlejohn

  • Members
  • 149
    • View Profile
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2021, 02:04:47 PM »
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

Unfortunately, this is not something VATUSA could do. VATUSA does not have the power to suspend users, only a SUP or DCRM can do so with the current Code of Conduct and CoR in place. From what I've been seeing from the BoG and the VATSIM meeting minutes, they are in no rush to change that policy.

Hence why I said that this would have to have buy-in from the BoG and every other division. Such a change like this would have to be done NETWORK wide, not just division-wide. Because of that, it needs to be seen if the same pilot issues we are having at VATUSA are also happening in the other divisions; as VATUK, VATSA, VATNZ, VATEUR, and VATEUD are seeing a lot of traffic, are the same piloting idiocies happening there as they are here. If they are, then there is our justification for taking this to the BoG and letting them talk it out.

I know RJ frequents this forum, doesn't live that far from me, and still has some pull at the BoG, as well as Don. I'm more than sure they are aware of this and also could take up the mantle and see how far it can go.

BL.

Robert Shearman Jr

  • Members
  • 289
    • View Profile
    • Slant Alpha Adventures
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2021, 02:34:33 PM »
Considering that the member of the BoG who is directly responsible for Pilot Training just answered this thread in the post above yours, I'd say we have it on good authority that we have attained their audience with our concerns.
Cheers,
-R.

Don Desfosse

  • VATSIM Leadership
  • 7577
    • View Profile
    • http://
Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2021, 05:40:35 PM »
^ This :)  Yep, as much as some people think BoG isn't paying attention, I can assure you that we talk about pilot quality, feedback mechanisms, balance, preventing against abuse, and tradeoffs quite often.  And as much as some people think all the BoG cares about is quantity over quality, I can assure you that can't be farther from the truth! 

Simon was just appointed in his role, and has read this with significant interest.  He is new to the conversation at the BoG level, but is jumping in with both feet.  I, and many of us, look forward to what will come.
Don Desfosse
Vice President, Operations, VATSIM (VATGOV2)
Division Director Emeritus, VATUSA