What we need to be discussing

[Wade Williams]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]IMO we don't produce enough controllers. We have this huge training apparatus and bureaucracy to support these kinds of promotions? Doesn't really seem efficient to me...but then that brings us to the quantity versus quality debate.[/quote]

Hmm...could be.  Then again...

At this moment, we have about 200 more pilots online than IVAO.  Our East Coast is lit up like a Christmas tree in terms of ATC.

But:

• We're right in the middle of a FNO
• They have only 3 controllers on
• It's not their "prime-time"

So we're in the middle of our most popular weekly event, with TONS of ATC coverage, and yet we've only got 200 more pilots while they're in a slow period.

My point in all this is that I don't know that it's the ATC coverage that makes the difference.  I certainly support your desire for more ATC - after all, without ATC, pilots would quickly decide to fly offline, on IVAO or the zone.

I just wonder what it is that is drawing pilots to IVAO.  

Don't misunderstand me - I don't think VATSIM is going down the tubes...I just wonder what else we can do.

[Luke Kolin]

While I have no doubt the testing and rigorous programs in some places are a factor, I'm honestly not sure we would see an overwhelming increase in controllers if we opened controlling up to everybody, without any knowledge or testing.

I'm not suggesting we open controlling up to everybody. It's not an either-or debate. I will suggest, however, that the level of qualification required increases exponentially up the scale. I love and appreciate having a great Center controller handle 30 aircraft at once in a busy sector, and I want those controllers to be well-trained. However, I'd gladly sacrifice a fair bit of quality in my Ground and Tower guys if it means getting them in front of a scope and driving live traffic that much quicker. I'd also suggest that I'd take a less-qualified CTR or APP at lower traffic times rather than having them man an empty tower scope. Plenty of organizations let the lower-level folks have a taste of more important duties at non-peak times.

The point I am attempting to suggest is that VATSIM appears quite comfortable in letting airspace remain empty rather than having a less-qualified controller attempt to serve it. I'm suggesting that at least from this pilot's view, that doesn't appear to be a good trade-off at all levels. Generally, the lower you go, the less sense it makes.

Wade makes a good point. What got me hooked on VATSIM flying way back when was a bunch of Sunday night online events some folks at Delta Virtual started putting on. Every Sunday night we'd fly around and had very little ATC around (this was 2002-2003). I remember a flight from SAN to PDX where we had a little bit of ATC around LAX and certainly nothing north of SFO, and we were busy giving each other PIREPs on our way in, since none of us had flown into the airport before and had no charts to speak of. Great fun!

Online flying is wonderful because you interact with other human beings. Whether they are controllers or other pilots doesn't make as much of a difference as one thinks. Flying into crowded airspace with a great controller is wonderful. Flying into less crowded airspace with a bunch of pilots and feeling your way through without mashing into each other? Wonderful too. That might be what IVAO offers. It's something that based on my own circumstances would interest me a great deal.

Cheers!

Luke

[Jeff Thomas]

Three problems.

1) We make it too hard to become an app or center controller.  Staff it and they will come.  No staff=no pilots.
2) The pilot software is a bit daunting to non-computer types.
3) There is no training available for pilots, and the pat answer is always http://www.vatsim.net/prc

[Bryan Wollenberg]

However, I'd gladly sacrifice a fair bit of quality in my Ground and Tower guys if it means getting them in front of a scope and driving live traffic that much quicker.

The process for becoming a Ground/Tower controller is actually unbelievably simple, which is why I question if lowering the standards would actually see a drastic increase in controllers.  

I would love to see more controllers online, but I'm not sure if lower standards is the key to doing it.  Reducing the hoops one must jump through is definitely along the right track; as we can see with the GRP (Version 2) we aimed at doing just that.  One written test, one practical test per rating.  In some places, there used to be 1/2 a dozen or more written tests alone for some ratings.  

What will be interesting to see is if controller promotions are up following the release of the GRP.  It's probably way too early to see any trends, but in theory, we should see an increase in promotions, and a decrease in time-in-rating between promotions.  If we don't see that, there are probably other factors at play.

[Alex Bailey]

Three problems.

1) We make it too hard to become an app or center controller.  Staff it and they will come.  No staff=no pilots.
2) The pilot software is a bit daunting to non-computer types.
3) There is no training available for pilots, and the pat answer is always http://www.vatsim.net/prc

Pilot training is on its way, but currently there are plenty of organizations providing training until we can get the VATSIM program off the ground.  

[J Jason Vodnansky]

The process for becoming a Ground/Tower controller is actually unbelievably simple, which is why I question if lowering the standards would actually see a drastic increase in controllers.  

I would love to see more controllers online, but I'm not sure if lower standards is the key to doing it.  Reducing the hoops one must jump through is definitely along the right track; as we can see with the GRP (Version 2) we aimed at doing just that.  One written test, one practical test per rating.  In some places, there used to be 1/2 a dozen or more written tests alone for some ratings.  

What will be interesting to see is if controller promotions are up following the release of the GRP.  It's probably way too early to see any trends, but in theory, we should see an increase in promotions, and a decrease in time-in-rating between promotions.  If we don't see that, there are probably other factors at play.

It has been my experience that the junior most controllers ONLY want the prime positions.  Many are simply not willing to look at a scope for more than 30 minutes if it is empty.  I can't tell you how often controllers get on, ready to take ORD_TWR, only to find it already staffed, and instead of opening up MDW_TWR, or ANY other facility, they log off.

Of course, then they complain they can never get on...

JV

[Wade Williams]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]1) We make it too hard to become an app or center controller. Staff it and they will come. No staff=no pilots.[/quote]

Jeff,

I'm not so sure.  As I was pointing out, IVAO was only a few hundred pilots below us with only 3 ATC online, in one of their slow periods, when we were staffed to the hilt with an event going on.  

Additionally, I'm not sure that making it easier to become an approach or center controller is the answer.  The reason approach or center is difficult for students is not because you have to learn some new phraseology, but rather because you have to manage traffic.  I can remember my first night training as a center controller, and I got absolutely overwhelmed by 4 aircraft.  Still today on a busy night in ZLA on Socal I have to constantly remind myself to use the lessons I've learned in my training or my picture goes to crap in about 2 minutes.  And I still have more to learn.  

In short, what they need to know to avoid getting overwhelmed and providing poor service can only be obtained through disciplined training.

The bigger problem with easing the path into approach or center though is that controllers who are given an easy path by and large don't ever improve.  They develop a sense of entitlement.  I saw that at an ARTCC with extremely lax standards that hired someone with real-world experience as a TA. When told they weren't doing it right, the existing controllers got indignant, made lots of "do you know how long I've been a C1"-type speeches and many of them resigned.

If it were possible to make it easy to become an approach / center controller and have them continue to improve, I'd be all for it.  But past experience says that's only possible with a few dedicated individuals.  The majority are done improving the minute they get their ticket.

 
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]2) The pilot software is a bit daunting to non-computer types.
3) There is no training available for pilots, and the pat answer is always http://www.vatsim.net/prc[/quote]

This is probably an area where continued improvement would pay benefits.

Again, the focus on this discussion is what can we do to attract and retain pilots.  ATC coverage plays a big part of that, but I don't think it's the total solution.

[Richard Jenkins]

That would be great!  It would definitely be nice to see some hard core numbers to see what's going on.  





While I have no doubt the testing and rigorous programs in some places are a factor, I'm honestly not sure we would see an overwhelming increase in controllers if we opened controlling up to everybody, without any knowledge or testing.  If you remember back to The Zone, where it was one big free-for-all, you definitely had people who wanted to be the controller, but far more people wanted to fly.  I have no doubt any cross-section of the population would show the same thing.  If you asked 100 people if they would rather fly a plane or sit behind a radar scope in a dark room all day, what do you think the answer is going to be?

Okay...here we go.

Members achieving a rating of S1 or higher.

Time Period = 11/1/08 to 10/31/09 registration dates

Code: [Select]

VATSIM                   VATUSA  Total ATC                Active Last 30 Days

S-1 = 42.0%            37.1%             (96)                          (47)
S-2 = 42.6%            51.4%             (133)                        (75)
S-3 = 10.9%              8.5%             (22)                         (18)
C-1 = 3.8%                1.5%            (4)                          (4)
I1   = 0.6%                1.5%            (4)                          (4)

[Jeremy Bucholz]

Okay...here we go.

Members achieving a rating of S1 or higher.

Time Period = 11/1/08 to 10/31/09 registration dates

Code: [Select]

VATSIM                   VATUSA  Total ATC                Active Last 30 Days

S-1 = 42.0%            37.1%             (96)                          (47)
S-2 = 42.6%            51.4%             (133)                        (75)
S-3 = 10.9%              8.5%             (22)                         (18)
C-1 = 3.8%                1.5%            (4)                          (4)
I1   = 0.6%                1.5%            (4)                          (4)

Seems like a brick wall hits once a student hits S-2.   If there's 133 that achieve S-2, 75 that retain activity, but only 22 make S-3....seems as if something is stopping these students.  Does this show that we need to change our ways?  Maybe, maybe not.  There could be many reasons these numbers are like this both our cause and the students cause.

1.  The student doesn't try to go any further.
2.  There's not enough instruction staff.
3.  Students don't schedule or make their scheduled times with their instructors.
4.  The training program is too difficult.
5.  There's no traffic.

and so on.....

What does this show us?  IMO, absolutely nothing.  Unless we did a VATUSA wide poll and EVERY student participated, we will never know the true answers, and we all know that's not going to happen.  My theory, it's up to the ATMs to keep track of their students and if they find that they aren't progressing, find out why.  If they don't, then they as the ATM are failing their students.

[Bryan Wollenberg]

Thanks for those stats Richard!

I wanted to see those for a couple reasons.  One, because they're darned interesting and I'm a statistical type of guy.  But secondly, those numbers differ drastically from the numbers I have, and what I have been reporting in my Region Reports.  I only have access to the numbers in CERT, of course, but here is what I show:

VATUSA:

S1 - 15%
S2 - 44%
S3 - 17%
C1+* - 24%

* Includes C1 through ADM since all I1's and I3's are C1/C3, most SUPs are C1/C3, and most ADMs are C1/C3.


Those numbers look fairly well distributed.  The only one that really concerns me is S3.  As others have mentioned, there seems to be a major dropoff between S2 and S3, which corresponds with going from tower to approach.  

However, what I find remarkable is that overall 25% of VATUSA members are controllers!!  That is MUCH higher than I would imagine.  In fact, the majority of VATSIM regions hover around 7% that are controllers.  If my numbers aren't lying, VATUSA is doing a remarkable job of controller recruitment, when compared to the rest of VATSIM.  How many are still active, I haven't a clue.  The lowest division in VATNA is around 14%, which is equal to Europe, and double any other region.  VATCAR sits around 21%.

Now where we do see a dip is from 2008 - present.  About 8% of VATUSA members who signed up 1/1/08 or later are controllers.  Still about double or more the rest of the world, but low nonetheless.

[Michael Hodge Jr]

Andrew may have to chime in, but when we last ran the numbers (July), IIRC, our retention rate from S1-C1 was only around 12%. It may even be slightly less. I know this was an issue we were going to be discussing in depth at the next Training Department meeting.

[Jeremy Bucholz]

Hmmmm, just found something quite interesting.  Now, it's been quite awhile (1 year) since I've taken a hard look at the GRP and LCTP procedures.  When I was on the VATUSA staff, the primary intent (as written) of the LCTP was to limit students from controlling on their own at MAJOR airports ( Class B ).  Under certain circumstances, approved by VATUSA, ARTCC's could limit other airports by showing cause of need.  So, my question is, why are some ARTCCs limiting controllers from working Class D airports under the LCTP?  Aren't we taking this a little too far?

[Bryan Wollenberg]

Good question Jeremy.

LCTP airports do not exist anymore.  The only airports that are off-limits are those listed in the ecurrent version of the GRP.

[Jeremy Bucholz]

Good question Jeremy.

LCTP airports do not exist anymore.  The only airports that are off-limits are those listed in the ecurrent version of the GRP.

Hmmm, yup, just looked at the new GRP, sections 5, 6, & the Appendix.  Guess someone needs to tell these ARTCC's to change their policies.  

One of the biggest problems I could see is the average student not paying attention to the new policy changes and just going off what the ARTCC's are telling them.  Maybe we have been limiting these students in their quest to, and this is the most important part, PLAY as an air traffic controller.  We do have to remember that this is a hobby, not real life.  We do have to remember that if you have a "deal" on VATSIM, nothing is going to come out of it.  Did you know, and Bryan can back me up on this one, that even the FAA is going "lax" on deals.  Now, if you have a deal, all you have to do is file a report in a program we call ATSAP and you can pretty much so wash your hands of it.  It's not an excuse to have a deal, but the blame game has gone out the window and now leaning more towards safety research.  Why are we more difficult on VATSIM?

Now, I don't fully agree that we should make it quote-unquote easier for controllers to achieve ratings, but we do have to draw the line between necessary and ridiculous.

[Tommy Rogers]

Hmmm, yup, just looked at the new GRP, sections 5, 6, & the Appendix.  Guess someone needs to tell these ARTCC's to change their policies.  

One of the biggest problems I could see is the average student not paying attention to the new policy changes and just going off what the ARTCC's are telling them.  Maybe we have been limiting these students in their quest to, and this is the most important part, PLAY as an air traffic controller.  We do have to remember that this is a hobby, not real life.  We do have to remember that if you have a "deal" on VATSIM, nothing is going to come out of it.  Did you know, and Bryan can back me up on this one, that even the FAA is going "lax" on deals.  Now, if you have a deal, all you have to do is file a report in a program we call ATSAP and you can pretty much so wash your hands of it.  It's not an excuse to have a deal, but the blame game has gone out the window and now leaning more towards safety research.  Why are we more difficult on VATSIM?

Now, I don't fully agree that we should make it quote-unquote easier for controllers to achieve ratings, but we do have to draw the line between necessary and ridiculous.

I agree, I love comming to VATSIM to relax after a hard day and enjoy myself.  I love that we aim to be "As real as it gets" but we also have to remember the above.  Sometimes we can train controllers in the basics of the position and then experience and perfection will come after years of doing it.  Even when I became a Center rated controller, I didn't know everything and my skill improve every single day that I control.  I feel that we need to find a balance between real and fun..if we make it so hard it won't be fun to the majority and they will stop doing their training and find another hobby.  My 0.02 anyways.