Integrity of the Network

[Dhruv Kalra]

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.

[Tom Seeley]

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.

[Ira Robinson]

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.

[Graeme Florance]

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?

[Derek Hood]

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!

[Manuel Manigault]

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 Carmona]

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.

[Harold Rutila]

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.

[Graeme Florance]

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 !!!!!

[Dan Leavitt]

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

- 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

[Matthew Bartels]

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.

[Matthew Bartels]

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.

[Justin Friedland]

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

[Bob Carmona]

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.

[Dhruv Kalra]

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.