We don't talk enough...

[Ira Robinson]

You have questions and concerns why haven't you brought them to your ATM?  I could go on, but each point ends with why haven't you brought your concerns to your ATM?

Probably because his ATM just got fired...

Oh come on Dhruv.  Really?  Snide doesn't suit you my friend. On the other hand, it is pretty funny.

[Mark Hubbert]

Derek, I am thankful that you started this post.  I am as frustrated as a lot of you are maybe from a different perspective.  I think the common denominator in all of this is communications.  Communications has been a big topic of discussion amongst Division Staff; we concede that we have not done the best job that we could do but I would also argue that communications is a two way street.  Certain individuals have questions or concerns but rather than follow a simple process to get to who can give you the answer, they resort to social media to try and stir up a big stink.

With regards to transparency, there are some things that cannot be transparent, some things are private and confidential and those sort of things should never be transparent.  I do agree that the direction that the Direction that this Division has been trying to move in may not be transparent to everybody so that is something to work on.

I’m going to respectfully disagree. As VATUSA Staff, 1 and 2 are in charge of 3 ATDs, each of whom is in charge of 7-8 ATMs, each of whom is responsible to their controllers. 3 is in charge of the 22 TAs, who oversee their instructors. 5 is in charge of the 22 ECs. The simple fact is, the hierarchy has not been respected and promoted. I’ve received wildly conflicting opinions on how to interpret VATSIM, Region, and divisional policy from my ATD and USA1. If the division staff isn’t on the same page, compliance and cohesiveness within the ranks falls down.

Dhruv, point taken.

The big question that I ask is.  If Division works on better communications, will the ARTCC's work with us?  I know the answer will be Yes from certain ARTCC's.  Keep in mind there have been several times that I personally have asked for input and got none or my request was twisted into something negative and like somebody else mentioned the discussion was turned into a battlefield.  Which to be honest with everybody is one of the reasons I do not use the forum that often anymore because I got tired of a few individuals who purposely turned conversations into something negative.

On another note, I have attempted to visit some ARTCC's Teamspeak and most of the time I could not get in. 

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Yeah, but you basically said that if you want to participate in more realism, you should take it elsewhere (to the FAA in your case).

Basically?  Close, but no.  I was still grossly misquoted.  There are limitations to the game, no matter the "As real as it gets" slogan from MSFS.  You want real?  Go get real.  Video games *have* to make concessions.

[Dhruv Kalra]

Basically?  Close, but no.  I was still grossly misquoted.  There are limitations to the game, no matter the "As real as it gets" slogan from MSFS.  You want real?  Go get real.  Video games *have* to make concessions.

False equivalence. What if I told you there's a whole spectrum of gray between your absolutes? "Fun" vs "realistic" is not a zero-sum game.

[Manuel Manigault]

I take exception to a lot of what I've read in this post about ATDs.  I've been in this position just over two years.  In that time, I have been on the network over 600 hours in one capacity or another in addition to the hours off line I have devoted to being ATD.  I have held numerous meetings with ATMs and have been very transparent about the goals of the Division.  The goals of my region have been regularly communicated and have been in alignment with the Division.  At times Divisional goals have changed based on feedback from Town Halls.  As these goals have changed,  I have been quick to communicate these changes to my ATMs.  When ATMs have shared concerns/objections with me,  I have routinely escalated those concerns to my teammates in HQ.  I am easily accessible by phone, Discord, FB, etc.  I have been quick to respond to any communications I have received.  How often have messages been cascaded down by the ATMs to their ARTCC membership to ensure alignment?  When ARTCC staff hear complaints, how often do they communicate these complaints up the chain of command to give us an opportunity to respond and adjust?  When ARTCC staff hear complaints, how often do they participate in complaining rather than communicating the Division's message and encouraging members to escalate concerns to their ATD if they still have concerns?  ATMs should be communicating with each other to share best practices and come up with some workable solutions.  Divisional staff cannot do it alone.  Also, ARTCCs are subdivisions of VATUSA.  We should be working together instead of some ARTCCs attempting to go rogue and follow their own agenda.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Basically?  Close, but no.  I was still grossly misquoted.  There are limitations to the game, no matter the "As real as it gets" slogan from MSFS.  You want real?  Go get real.  Video games *have* to make concessions.

False equivalence. What if I told you there's a whole spectrum of gray between your absolutes? "Fun" vs "realistic" is not a zero-sum game.

Which I explicitly acknowledged above.

[Matthew Bartels]

Yeah, but you basically said that if you want to participate in more realism, you should take it elsewhere (to the FAA in your case).

Basically?  Close, but no.  I was still grossly misquoted.  There are limitations to the game, no matter the "As real as it gets" slogan from MSFS.  You want real?  Go get real.  Video games *have* to make concessions.

What is your solution for those of us with disqualifying disabilities that make getting real impossible?

VATSIM can’t be everything to everyone. We are definitely not a video game, but a community of simulation enthusiasts. The beauty is that we have the ability to make our personal experience as realistic as we want provided we choose to exceed the required minimum.

Those that want to be more realistic shouldn’t be discouraged, in fact the staff at every level of our organization should be encouraging our members to pursue such an attitude. Not only does it make the entire network stronger, it provides for an enriching and educational experience for the individual.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Yeah, but you basically said that if you want to participate in more realism, you should take it elsewhere (to the FAA in your case).

Basically?  Close, but no.  I was still grossly misquoted.  There are limitations to the game, no matter the "As real as it gets" slogan from MSFS.  You want real?  Go get real.  Video games *have* to make concessions.

What is your solution for those of us with disqualifying disabilities that make getting real impossible?

VATSIM can’t be everything to everyone. We are definitely not a video game, but a community of simulation enthusiasts. The beauty is that we have the ability to make our personal experience as realistic as we want provided we choose to exceed the required minimum.

Those that want to be more realistic shouldn’t be discouraged, in fact the staff at every level of our organization should be encouraging our members to pursue such an attitude. Not only does it make the entire network stronger, it provides for an enriching and educational experience for the individual.

While I can appreciate your frustration, just because your situation leaves you with a hole to fill, not everybody is in that position.  Entertainment is as much a tenant of VATSIM as education.  There's a balance, but if we're not having fun, we won't have people.

What good is a realism-only attitude if there's nobody left?  Strike the balance.  Promote the strength of the network -- Don't run 13 year olds away just because they aren't perfect.  Neither were any of us at that age.

[Dhruv Kalra]

What good is a realism-only attitude if there's nobody left?  Strike the balance.  Promote the strength of the network -- Don't run 13 year olds away just because they aren't perfect.  Neither were any of us at that age.

There you go again with the false equivalences. No one runs 13 year olds away because they aren’t perfect. All we’re asking is that they come into the conversation ready to learn something. The measuring stick has more graduations on it than “empty” and “full”. No I don’t expect every single controller to treat this like they want to go into the FAA someday. The way you’re advocating your position, it comes across as a blatant disregard for ANY standards all in the name of good fun. You’re obsessed with appeasing every 13 year-old VATSIM hopeful regardless of whether or not they actually want to put effort into the hobby. Perhaps we need to resurrect MS Zone - that seems to be what you’re looking for.

[Ryan Pitt]

What good is a realism-only attitude if there's nobody left?  Strike the balance.  Promote the strength of the network -- Don't run 13 year olds away just because they aren't perfect.  Neither were any of us at that age.

There you go again with the false equivalences. No one runs 13 year olds away because they aren’t perfect. All we’re asking is that they come into the conversation ready to learn something. The measuring stick has more graduations on it than “empty” and “full”. No I don’t expect every single controller to treat this like they want to go into the FAA someday. The way you’re advocating your position, it comes across as a blatant disregard for ANY standards all in the name of good fun. You’re obsessed with appeasing every 13 year-old VATSIM hopeful regardless of whether or not they actually want to put effort into the hobby. Perhaps we need to resurrect MS Zone - that seems to be what you’re looking for.

And that seems to be an issue. Some of these 13 year-old students won’t put in the effort to be prepared for their sessions. So do you just pass them along, or do you hold them to a standard? I hold them to the same standard as everyone else.

Like I said earlier, I don’t do this to have fun. I do it because I still have some sort of enjoyment.

[Kyle Kaestner]

While I can appreciate your frustration, just because your situation leaves you with a hole to fill, not everybody is in that position.  Entertainment is as much a tenant of VATSIM as education.  There's a balance, but if we're not having fun, we won't have people.

What good is a realism-only attitude if there's nobody left?  Strike the balance.  Promote the strength of the network -- Don't run 13 year olds away just because they aren't perfect.  Neither were any of us at that age.

One thing that is being left out is the fact that entertainment/fun comes from the realism. People who fly on the network generally fly where there is ATC. Pilots want to be immersed because it's supposed to be a simulation. The reason that FNOs get 70+ arrivals is because people want to experience top-down ATC like it is in the real world.

Regarding driving 13 year olds away because they aren't perfect: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." If someone really wants to learn, they will buy into the process and work towards it. Pushing a controller along just because they want the C1 next to their name at the end, doesn't do any good to pilots or the rest of the community. If someone goes through the process the right way, the individual also just got pilot training as a side effect.

The fun in training to become an air traffic controller, is the actual learning curve. The trophy at the end has no meaning if there isn't a process to go through that isn't somewhat difficult. I'll be honest, a lot of the fun for a controller diminishes after they get their C1, but you have to find things to improve at.

[Ryan Barnes]

I dont normally chime in on these posts but I will this time.

I have been part of VATSIM for almost 2 years and have gained over 1400 hours as a controller. I don't have this many hours because it's a hobby, but is just something entertaining.

I can see the whole realsim arguement while also see the whole "video game" arguement. Like in most things, there is a middle. There are some realism things that are hard to emulate, such as runway/taxiway closures, weather, navigation data. And there are things that are hard to impliment in a video game, like no phraesology, lack of ratings, and such.

I get why people strive for realism, but what do you do if a pilot doesn't want to run real world weather? In that case, why do you close taxyways and runways for that matter? Is it because there are construction crews in the sim? If so that is an addon I never heard of. Navigation data is not a requirement, but recomendation on VATSIM. VATSIM is free and only requires a client and a simulator. That's it.

I do believe there should be a standard as a controller. I believe phraesology should be about 75 to 80 percent correct generally. There are some people who want to work just events or no events at all, which is why I believe very high training standards are not a great idea. It should take a year to get a C1, in my opinion.

Anyways, thats just my 2 and a half cents.

[Nolan Danziger]

While I can appreciate your frustration, just because your situation leaves you with a hole to fill, not everybody is in that position.  Entertainment is as much a tenant of VATSIM as education.  There's a balance, but if we're not having fun, we won't have people.

What good is a realism-only attitude if there's nobody left?  Strike the balance.  Promote the strength of the network -- Don't run 13 year olds away just because they aren't perfect.  Neither were any of us at that age.

One thing that is being left out is the fact that entertainment/fun comes from the realism. People who fly on the network generally fly where there is ATC. Pilots want to be immersed because it's supposed to be a simulation. The reason that FNOs get 70+ arrivals is because people want to experience top-down ATC like it is in the real world.

Regarding driving 13 year olds away because they aren't perfect: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." If someone really wants to learn, they will buy into the process and work towards it. Pushing a controller along just because they want the C1 next to their name at the end, doesn't do any good to pilots or the rest of the community. If someone goes through the process the right way, the individual also just got pilot training as a side effect.

The fun in training to become an air traffic controller, is the actual learning curve. The trophy at the end has no meaning if there isn't a process to go through that isn't somewhat difficult. I'll be honest, a lot of the fun for a controller diminishes after they get their C1, but you have to find things to improve at.

I couldn't agree more Kyle.

I try and make a point of telling my new students at least once that VATSIM is just like one of those 'choose your own adventure' books. Some people are going to want to control and fly to 100% max realism and some people just want to hop on and hang out (because we're cool people, right?) or fly the default 737 GPS direct from LAX to JFK. It's perfectly acceptable in my mind for a controller to not want to simulate a runway closure or a taxiway closure. But what's unacceptable for me is when a training staff or an ARTCC as a whole drops the training standard to the bare minimum to accommodate this. I was doing a visiting controller checkout for DFW local last week, and was shocked to find out that the controller (an S2) stumbled his way through several takeoff clearances, had two runway incursions, and even after I discussed the concept of the D10 departure gates for 10-15 minutes, still cleared people to their destinations not on a DP or through a gate. This is unacceptable at a tower level, and in my opinion, it's unacceptable at a GND/DEL level.

To Matthew's point, I would never suggest running off young guys. I was probably around 13-15 when I first joined VATSIM and had my first lesson. But I remember that right out of the gate, I had an understanding that things needed to be done the right way or I wouldn't get my certification. If we lower the standards across the board, we can't be surprised when everything falls apart. Simply passing off a student because he tried his best is unacceptable. Dhruv and Ryan and Kyle are hitting the nail on the head here.

[Manuel Manigault]

While I can appreciate your frustration, just because your situation leaves you with a hole to fill, not everybody is in that position.  Entertainment is as much a tenant of VATSIM as education.  There's a balance, but if we're not having fun, we won't have people.

What good is a realism-only attitude if there's nobody left?  Strike the balance.  Promote the strength of the network -- Don't run 13 year olds away just because they aren't perfect.  Neither were any of us at that age.

One thing that is being left out is the fact that entertainment/fun comes from the realism. People who fly on the network generally fly where there is ATC. Pilots want to be immersed because it's supposed to be a simulation. The reason that FNOs get 70+ arrivals is because people want to experience top-down ATC like it is in the real world.

Regarding driving 13 year olds away because they aren't perfect: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." If someone really wants to learn, they will buy into the process and work towards it. Pushing a controller along just because they want the C1 next to their name at the end, doesn't do any good to pilots or the rest of the community. If someone goes through the process the right way, the individual also just got pilot training as a side effect.

The fun in training to become an air traffic controller, is the actual learning curve. The trophy at the end has no meaning if there isn't a process to go through that isn't somewhat difficult. I'll be honest, a lot of the fun for a controller diminishes after they get their C1, but you have to find things to improve at.

I couldn't agree more Kyle.

I try and make a point of telling my new students at least once that VATSIM is just like one of those 'choose your own adventure' books. Some people are going to want to control and fly to 100% max realism and some people just want to hop on and hang out (because we're cool people, right?) or fly the default 737 GPS direct from LAX to JFK. It's perfectly acceptable in my mind for a controller to not want to simulate a runway closure or a taxiway closure. But what's unacceptable for me is when a training staff or an ARTCC as a whole drops the training standard to the bare minimum to accommodate this. I was doing a visiting controller checkout for DFW local last week, and was shocked to find out that the controller (an S2) stumbled his way through several takeoff clearances, had two runway incursions, and even after I discussed the concept of the D10 departure gates for 10-15 minutes, still cleared people to their destinations not on a DP or through a gate. This is unacceptable at a tower level, and in my opinion, it's unacceptable at a GND/DEL level.

To Matthew's point, I would never suggest running off young guys. I was probably around 13-15 when I first joined VATSIM and had my first lesson. But I remember that right out of the gate, I had an understanding that things needed to be done the right way or I wouldn't get my certification. If we lower the standards across the board, we can't be surprised when everything falls apart. Simply passing off a student because he tried his best is unacceptable. Dhruv and Ryan and Kyle are hitting the nail on the head here.

That is shocking to me as well.  Did you report this to ZFW Management in order for them to report to the VC's home ARTCC Management and perhaps copy the home ARTCC's ATD?  This is the type of communication we need in order to ensure consistency and quality throughout the Division.

[Nolan Danziger]

Yes this was reported to our ATM/DATM. I wasn't comfortable going over their heads so that was as far as I took it.