What is this about only Senior Students as Center controllers???
Jeff Thomas
Effective July 1, 2002:
No VATSIM member rated below Senior Student may work a Center (CTR) ......
------
Did I miss this post, or was it just placed on the website and we were
supposed to just read it?? (It's alright if I just missed it....)
How is this going to be enforced?
I personally have enough going on in my life to worry about taking another
test to move up to Senior Student, and frankly I could care less about
getting promoted here. However I do love this past time, and spend a
majority of my time controlling as Chicago Center. Now, I'm being punished
just because I don't feel like taking another test??
This makes no sense! You'd rather have a student running Chicago Approach
or NY Approach versus the Center position?? Am I reading this correctly???
Why not just say students are only allowed to be tower......which is just as
bad! If pilots are getting bad service then they should take it up with the
ARTCC Chief they were in at the time.....
I know I must be having a heat stroke and my eyes are blurred..... ;-) (no
cracks about too much Diet Pepsi)
Please don't pounce on me about this one, but it doesn't sound right to me.
Can someone please explain this?
Thanks a million,
Jeff
GWA2680
Richard Green
made soon -
And I am sorry you don't have time to train and study for another test, but
if you have time to control - you should be able to devote a bit of that to
learn - that is if controling at that level is important to you....
A decision was made ABOVE our level.. but in a way I agree - there is too
much going on at MOST ARTCCs at the CTR level for a s3 to handle -
Not to mention SEVERAL ARTCCs already have this rule in place. - this just
makes it a VATSIM-wide rule....
I hope you can find the time to train - as you are here to improve your
skills - and be a better pilot and controller- no?
--
Richard Green
VATUSA4
Events and VA Director
Richard Green
> "You are assuming just because someone runs through all the tests and
> becomes
> Controller in two weeks, that they know more than say a regular
> student who has 500 hours controlling....I have received some of my
> worst experiences with these "paper" controllers as a virtual pilot."
>
> It just so happens that some (most) of my worst experiences online
> come from STUDENT controllers. Just take one simple test, and get
> your Senior Student rating, and your VOICE rating too, and everybodys
> happy. If you consider yourself
> such an excellent controller, then the 25 question (or something like
> that) test
> shouldn't take you more than FIVE MINUTES. If you're so smart, you
> could've taken the test in less the time you've wasted making this
> post.
>
> my 2..
> Have a nice day.
I think Brian makes a good point - all be it a BIT SHORT -
if you can take the time to control - take the time to test - as its NOT
going to be up to us - as this is a NETWORK WIDE change -
Jeff Thomas
I understand the concept. I just disagree with it. I think it is just
another restriction, and really doesn't have much to do with quality or
virtual safety.
You are assuming just because someone runs through all the tests and becomes
Controller in two weeks, that they know more than say a regular student who
has 500 hours controlling....I have received some of my worst experiences
with these "paper" controllers as a virtual pilot.
That said, in this place we love as VATSIM, I guess there isn't much we can
do to verify the "quality" of service without the ratings....
Any ideas on how it will be enforced?
I guess I'll just get to spend my time as Approach......DOH, can't do that
because my ARTCC requires we fill the Center position first....DOH, I can't
do that either because I'm a lowly student, so I guess I'll man the tower.
I think we are going to see a lot more towers open and a lot less
controlling.........
Oh, I have an idea, I'll just go take the darn test.......geesh I coulda
saved everyone's time....ah quit my whining already ;-)
Thanks for listening,
Jeff
"Richard Green" <vat...@vatusa.org> wrote in message
news:Xns922AD5CD116E0rg...@64.246.15.37...
Brian
becomes
Controller in two weeks, that they know more than say a regular student who
has 500 hours controlling....I have received some of my worst experiences
with these "paper" controllers as a virtual pilot."
It just so happens that some (most) of my worst experiences online come from
STUDENT controllers. Just take one simple test, and get your Senior Student
rating, and your VOICE rating too, and everybodys happy. If you consider
yourself
such an excellent controller, then the 25 question (or something like that)
test
shouldn't take you more than FIVE MINUTES. If you're so smart, you could've
taken the test in less the time you've wasted making this post.
my 2..
Have a nice day.
"Jeff Thomas" <jttho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d06a1e5$1...@news.simflight.com...
David Liu
"It just so happens that some (most) of my worst experiences online come
from STUDENT controllers." I believe that most of the controllers out there
are students so I guess you were just unlucky. Most of the time, Chicago is
fully staffed with students with only a few spots being filled by more
experienced controllers. The quality of service varies from controller to
controller, some have had more experience then others but everyone has to
start somewhere. If the level of service from controllers is not up to your
expectations, no one is holding you back from signing up to become a
controller and providing the service quality you deem fitting.
Restricting the center slot for senior students and above will only push
ahead the mistakes made by center controllers since the senior students will
have as much experience controlling in the center environment as any fresh
new student (zero). The proper course of action should have been to provide
more training opportunities for new controllers, instead of just restricting
them based on experience they had no way of earning.
In my opinion, the entire purpose of VATSIM is to expose pilots and
controllers to the world of air traffic control. Frustrations and mistakes
occur frequently in real life. This is probably a bad choice for a quote,
but as Mao Tze Dong once said, "If you open a window, it is natural that
some flies will come in". I feel it is better to have a controller keeping
an eye on traffic than to have airliners rampaging unchecked through the
airways merely because a senior student was not present. Otherwise, what
use will VATSIM have besides providing tower and approach services?
Regards,
David Liu
Mike Evans
can't do it.. plain & simple.
As to ARTCC's requiring that CTR be filled first, I suspect that most
will/(must) now change this requirement to have you fill in whatever you CAN
fill in first..
IMO, requiring someone to take CTR when they don't feel ready/up to filling
CTR is not very good, and probably leads to pilots frustration dealing with
a controller that is way over their head at CTR.
Mike
"Jeff Thomas" <jttho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d06a1e5$1...@news.simflight.com...
Ryan Stone
Ryan Stone
"David Liu" <lame...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3d06...@news.simflight.com...
Kiel McGowan
fights and arguments but in time they worked themselves out and Students
feel an accomplishment when they step up to Center and control for the first
time after passing...get this the SENIOR CONTROLLER exam. Basically ground
is Students, tower Senior Student, Approach Controller, and Center Senior
Controller. So should be happy the US doesnt start applying this! It does
work though and the quality of service in the UK is probably better then any
other VATSIM area. The center controllers have most likely spent a year
doing tower and ground at various airfields prior to going to center. Right
now how the USA has it Students have no reason to learn the info and become
Senior Students or above. Now all students will be itching to learn all the
c enter procedures so they can become Senior Students. Its a great idea,
and should have been implemented much earlier! The Student to Student+
ratio in the US is way off and this policy should get more students trying
for the higher ratings.
Just my 2 cents,
Kiel McGowan
Retired VATSIM-UK Senior Controller
New VATUSA Senior Controller
"Mike Evans" <mi...@usc.edu> wrote in message
news:3d06a942$1...@news.simflight.com...
Jeff Thomas
and I will take the test because we are VATSIMBORG and you will be
assimilated.....
now see you have me dropping corny Star Trek one liners in here to lighten
it up.....
Jeff
PS you have to have someone sign you up for that test....so it might take 5
minutes plus a day ;-)
PPSS Wonder if they will ever automate that instead of having to do the
email bag drag??
"Brian" <N/A...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3d06...@news.simflight.com...
Ben Schwartz VATUSA1
its use were discussed with the VATUSA staff and the ARTCC Chiefs and was
endorsed as such.
I am sorry if it is asking too much for controllers to have to reach one
promotion up to Senior Student but the leadership from all ARTCC's knows
what is involved in getting the Senior Student rating and felt that this new
policy was fair.
As far as the language and tone of this thread, I understand that there will
be some that are not happy whenever a new policy is put into place. You
simply need to trust that these decisions are made to make our hobby better,
not to try to push anyone around...
Ben Schwartz
VATUSA1
"Jeff Thomas" <jttho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d06...@news.simflight.com...
mr gray
"David Liu" <lame...@netzero.net> wrote:
> . This is probably a bad choice for a quote,
>but as Mao Tze Dong once said, "If you open a window, it is natural that
>some flies will come in <<
flies out !
In my opinion (and I agree with David on his points BTW) I think there can
be concessions made on a case by case basis; I would feel better with a staff
sargeant at the controls than a 2nd Lt. on the first day; and if there is
no continuity in ATC in different sectors, it just adds to the problem of
who to put where. Besides, a student with 500 hours is not a good use of
resource management, he should be promoted with a given that he must test
out to keep his promotion; if he doesnt want it, well he needs to be able
to train or something; above all he needs credit reflected somewhere; perhaps
a grandfather clause is applicable here, but with testing necessary.
Capt Gray (CEO of WAE who still needs pilots !!!!!!)
Mark Brummett
wrote:
>Restricting the center slot for senior students and above will only push
>ahead the mistakes made by center controllers since the senior students will
>have as much experience controlling in the center environment as any fresh
>new student (zero). The proper course of action should have been to provide
>more training opportunities for new controllers, instead of just restricting
>them based on experience they had no way of earning.
I disagree. I always try to make my students observe what I do while
working center at some point. Instructors are there to provide
guidance and knowledge, and to answer any questions.
You'd be surprised how many students don't take the online courses. I
know that some ARTCCs require these to be taken in order to obtain
higher rankings. These courses are essential, IMO. I can already
hear the argrument "we don't have time to take these tests" coming out
from some people, but, by the same token, if you have enough time to
control, you should have enough time to take an hour out of a weekend
to do one course, and since you're not supposed to get promoted within
a 30 day window of a previous promotion, it gives a student ample
time.
And this policy has been "loosely" in force since the old days of
SATCO. I agree with it. You can't learn how to run the Center
position unless you have the basics from ground up. If you can
provide proper seperation in an approach/departure environment, then
you should be able to operate the Center position. But, you have to
walk before you can run.....
My .02
--Mark Brummett
ZKC (Kansas City) Ass't Chief - VATSIM
Ian Elchitz
Hats off to whoever had the BALLS to see this put into place.
- If you don't know how to run Delivery, Ground, Tower, and Approach - then
you have no business being on Center.
- If you have time to control, you have time to study and take the exams.
- Becoming an S3 is not rocket science. You just have to prove that you have
taken some time to try and learn.
- For ARTCC's that people say "will never have center staffed" - well they
will obviously have to start training people, if they choose not to - then
they won't be seeing much traffic.
- True - there is no way to verify the validity of a controller rating from
ARTCC to ARTCC. A C3 from XXXX is sometimes no better than an S1 from YYYY.
- The number of hours doesn't mean much in many cases. Some people can sit
logged on for 4 hours and have 5-6 movements. Other areas may have 20+ in
one hour.
- Bad service is NOT IMHO better than no service. I would much rather fly
in on Unicom then deal with bad ATC. With that said - we all have to be patient
with new controllers who are learning (just as ATC must be patient with new
pilots learning) - we all started somewhere.
- Somone said "You have to walk before you can run" - I agree 100%.
- The UK's model was somewhat adopted in ZLA about 8 months with position
restrictions and certifications. Many other ARTCC's (Boston and New York
come to mind) have similiar position restrictions in place as well and these
are the areas that I feel always provide the best service on VATSIM.
- It's all about training. If people do not want to take the time it takes
to learn how to do it properly, then perhaps this is not the place for you
to play.
My opinions - not yours...
Again - I support this 100%.
Sincerely,
Ian Elchitz
ZLA ARTCC
(Once upon a time I was a text only S1)
Brian
> expectations, no one is holding you back from signing up to become a
> controller and providing the service quality you deem fitting.
Hi there,
FYI - I hold a Senior Controller rating on VATSIM, and I've been
around for three years (SATCO days).
David Liu
"Basically ground is Students, tower Senior Student, Approach Controller,
and Center Senior Controller." So what you are saying is that unless a
senior controller logs in, there is NO control being provided for enroute or
departing aircraft? What pilot will want to fly in the UK if the only
serviced ATC positions are ground, since none of the higher ranking
controllers are logged in? I would appreciate it if you could explain
exactly how this system works so we can consider implementing it here.
Regards,
David Liu
Vince Horan
Believe me, David, it works! Pilots in the UK, expect from time to time to
not receive an enroute service. This down side, is far outweighed, as Kiel
has already testified, by the quality of ATC, the breath of knowledge and
the personal satisfaction of achieving higher levels.
The system of Restrictive Ratings in the UK is just upon its 2nd
anniversary, and is a success. Traffic levels in the UK over last couple of
years have shot up!
I am sure there will be a period of whining about this in the US, but the
pain will be worth it in the long run. One of the key aspects of the UK
system is *mentoring* i.e. allowing Students to control on CTR whilst being
watched by a higher rated controller. If its not already being considered as
part of ratings based restriction policy in the US, I would suggest that it
is give some thought
Vince Horan VS-UK3
Training Department, VATSIM-UK
Daniel S. Harris
training and mentoring department in place before introducing RR's of any
kind. I'm certain VATUSA has and I know VATSIM-UK has <G>, however if this
is gonna be a network wide issue we need to look at the other regions.
Dan Harris
"Vince Horan" <3...@vatsim-uk.net> wrote in message
news:3d0757e9$1...@news.simflight.com...
Marvin Thompson
into lately, I don't think that these new regulations go far enough. The
ARTCC chiefs are obviously not screening their staff, and can not be online
at all times to enforce their own regulations. There is a bunch of us that
are getting sick of the garbage. I no longer allow atc to ruin a nice flight
when they have their head up their ass, I just log off and say the hell with
it. Dam if I am going to sit in front of this screen for a 2-5 hr. flight
and have some Center or Approach controller ruin my evening again with their
worthless vectors and other garbage. I can land and fly on Vatsim with my
buddies anywhere in the world with or without ATC. I wonder what ATC is
going to do without pilots.
Marv
"Ian Elchitz" <ielchitz@NOSPAM_eleventhstreet.com> wrote in message
news:3d06d506$1...@news.simflight.com...
Jim Bartosh
This is a total test of the "Bad ATC is worse than no ATC" concept, as it
will have an impact in those ARTCCs that RELY on S-1s to open there CTR positions.
It happens to be one I totally agree with. In my mind, VATSIM strives to
be the "as real as it gets" environment. Less restrictive environments like
The Zone, FSTower, and IVAO are available for those who put don't place as
much value on achieving high fidelity simulation.
I am not saying that it is impossible to find S-1s capable handling a CTR
position, but I seems totally counter-intuitive to let the lowest training
rank, including people who literally just recieved thier CID to work the
most complex airspace.
To look at from another perspective, if we allow S-1s to take any postion,
why differentiate any ranks. Everbody might as well be marked as S-1, and
training material might just as well be option - "read it if your interested".
In other words, whats the point of having a hierachy of skill level, if we
are not going to apply it in some way.
This is a rich, complex hobby with 30,000+ participants. It fully deserves
organized quality control steps.
It is more than a simple 16 person mulitplayer game. You want that kind of
environment where no one will hassle you, and you can be as good or as lousy
as you like, try FS Tower.
Jim Bartosh
ZLA ARTCC AC
Marvin Thompson
this thread. There is a heck of allot of very good controllers on this
network also. I just have had the misfortune of picking the wrong flights
lately, which shouldn't be a factor in my flight planning. When looking
these guys up, I find most of them are very inexperienced, and over there
heads. Hopefully the new regulations will be a start in the right direction.
If you do the same with the Approach position, you have my vote also.
Marv
"Jim Bartosh" <fs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3d07...@news.simflight.com...
>
Blaine Iler
Your interpretation of the rating distribution over the positions is mostly
correct, however there are some conflicting things that go on in my area,
the NY ARTCC.
Our rating distribution goes a little like this...
Student (Level 1) - Delivery
Sen. Student (Level 2) - Ground
Sen. Student (Level 3) - Tower
Controller (Level 4) - Departure
Sen. Controller (Level 5) - Approach
Sen. Controller (Level 6) - Center
In addition, our chief decided to divide control up amongst the three main
airports (KJFK, KLGA, and KEWR). This way, there would be control spread
out over the areas, and you would only have to master procedures at one
facility.
--
Blaine W. Iler
bi...@comcast.net
"Kiel McGowan" <hock...@hockeymail.com> wrote in message
news:3d06...@news.simflight.com...
Nigel Spink
Thought I would add my tuppence to the views, as someone who has progressed
through the restrictive ratings scheme and is now rated Controller.
The main restrictions are Area Control, and TWR and APP positions at EGLL,
EGCC and EGKK (with a few other exceptions). So even though it sounds as
though there will be huge gaps in coverage, that is not necessarily the
case. Pilots (being one myself) I believe have no problem with there being
the occasionally gap in ATC available to them, and to be honest the most
interesting (exciting?) part of the flight is the departure and arrival, so
that to some people is more important to be covered than a Control position.
The UK has a very successful Regional Airport scheme, which sees most new
Students controlling at one nominated airport while training through the
ranks - therefore if there are no Area Controllers online, it is likely that
say for a flight from EGSS to EGCC you will have GND,TWR and APP for
departure, a short cruise with no control, then APP, TWR, GND on arrival.
I have been training on London TMA and Control for my Senior Controller
exam, and to perfectly honest I am still struggling with a few procedures,
so I have no idea how a new student could be expected to take such a
potentially busy position with little or no experience (I realise there are
exceptions).
Hope the transition goes well.
Nigel Spink
PS. Bristol (EGGD) is open for any international traffic - nice views, and
great controllers <g>
"David Liu" <lame...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3d07...@news.simflight.com...
Ernie Alston
I for one disaagree with with it.
- Approach IMO is a more difficult position to work and master than
Center. So the improved controller quality argument to me holds little
weight. You still have inexperienced people eligible to work the more
difficult positions.
- I see no evidence that suggests ARTCC's with restrictive ratings had
a better level of ATC than ARTCC's that did not.
- This takes the authority away from the ARTCC Chief to be a little
less restrictive within his/her sector if they choose, a growing trend
to which I completely disagree with. IMO the choice whether or not to
apply position restrictions should be a local decision not a global
one.
Regards.
Ernie Alston
VATUSA.
Brian Ammons
Center."
Are you serious? Center most of the time is a combination of several
approach controls, towers, and ground controls. How can that be easier than
one little approach control.
Brian
"Ernie Alston" <71302...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3d07e081...@64.246.15.37...
Ernie Alston
<atc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"- Approach IMO is a more difficult position to work and master than
>Center."
>
>
>Are you serious? Center most of the time is a combination of several
>approach controls, towers, and ground controls. How can that be easier than
>one little approach control.
Its the time factor and the margin for error IMO. At Center you have
more time and a wider margin for error than you do at approach. Center
you have the STAR's to make your life easier, APP your likely doing a
lot of vectoring which to me is the most difficult ATC task, and the
one the pilots remember most when you screw it up.
Regards.
Ernie.
Daniel S. Harris
entirely different skill sets required for Approach and Center. I think a
busy single runway Tower position can be very tricky, as can a correctly
operated Ground.
The system of ratings is probably not ideal, but it is infinitely more
practical than a system of individual licences that has been toyed with.
Ultimately a compromise needs to be made, and within a framework of the
current ratings structure it is possible to find a good compromise.
Dan Harris
"Ernie Alston" <71302...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3d07fa20...@64.246.15.37...
Jeff Callender
This should remain at the option of the Center Chief. Different Cneter have
different requirements and traffic patterns. What may hold true in Chicago
or LA may not be relevant in Houston or DFW. Unfortunately, the result of
this will not be more Senior Controllers, the result will be Centers being
manned for fewer hours. by making this policy, you immediately limit the
number of Controllers availbale to man a Center position.
I would like to see - and it may already be available on the website - a
breakdown by rating of the Controllers. How many S-1's, S-3's, etc.
I think this is ill-advised and will only limit the amount of scope time and
controlled air-space available.
Jeff Callender
S-1 for a couple of years.......
"Brian" <N/A...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3d06...@news.simflight.com...
j1mdavis
"Jeff Callender" <j_bcal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d08...@news.simflight.com...
Jim Johnson
Have you ever worked LAX_APP? I'm certified to work all 5 sectors at once
and trust me it's no easy task to have 3 a/c on finals at BUR, ONT and LAX
all at the same time being the only controller online. IMHO, APP really is
harder than CTR, at least in some ARTCC's.
Jim Johnson
JM
ZLA S-3
"Brian Ammons" <atc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3d07e608$1...@news.simflight.com...
Neal Fejedelem
than Chicago Center.The reason I say this is that our ARTCC has one major
focus and that is Chicago O'Hare.I would go as far to say 80% or more of our
traffic is for ORD MDW or CGX and those are all covered by the Chicago
Approach position.When I'm working the center position normally all I have
to do is issue a crossing restriction on the STAR or vector those who
haven't filed for one.Basically the app controller gets most of the work.I
realize that in an ARTTC with more major airports this might not be the case
but in Chicago it is.
Of course when app is not staffed things can get very hectic for center and
is most likely way too much for a Student.But when app is staffed ctr will
find him self with very little to do besides to descend Chicago arrivals and
climb departures.I don't think that it makes sense in this case to say that
a STU can work app while a more experienced controller is working ctr and
has next to nothing to take care off.That's why I think that this is an
issue that should be handled at the local level where the ARTCC Chief can
take everything into account about a specific area.
Anyways that's probably why I see a few Chicago controllers that don't agree
with this idea but hey we don't pay for this so I guess we'll just have to
go along with whatever the powers that be decide.Hopefully I'll see all of
you in the skies.
Neal A Fejedelem
S3 Chicago ARTCC
"Brian Ammons" <atc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3d07e608$1...@news.simflight.com...
Ian Elchitz
Ernie,
I think Brian's comment is that if you are working center and there is no
approach controller on - you are expected to act as center AND approach.
Also - the best approach controller can be completely paralyzed by a center
controller that can't get the aircraft set up into the proper location/altitude/speed
for approach.
I like to think of center as the guy who sets it all up for the tracons -
sort of like:
Center = John Stockton and Approach = Karl Malone
Center = Adam Oates and Approach = Brett Hull
Center = Duane Ward and Approach = Tom Henke
Center = Joe Montana and Approach = Jerry Rice
Center = Kent Steffes and Approach = Karch Kiraly
Center = Bill Hewlett and Approach = Dave Packard
OK enough - point made <G> !!!!
Ian Elchitz
ZLA ARTCC
Ian E.
Mike Evans
APP facilities under him/her.
ME
"Jim Johnson" <jim.jo...@verizon.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:3d08...@news.simflight.com...
Mike Evans
haven't learned enough in all that time to pass the Senior Student test?
I'm not sure what the big deal of all this is.. if you truly know enough to
work center, take the Senior Student test & get it over with... if you don't
know enough to pass the Senior Student test, you CLEARLY don't know enough
to work center.
Mike
"Jeff Callender" <j_bcal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d08...@news.simflight.com...
Mark Brummett
wrote:
>JM, I think Brian's point is that Center should be able to handle ALL of the
>APP facilities under him/her.
>
>ME
But, as stated in one of the training guidelines, Center shouldn't
have to be EXPECTED to provide approach control, unless the workload
permits it. That's the way I've always approached that issue, in the
4+ years I've been doing this.
If it's being done differently these days, then I've been doing it
wrong.
Mike Evans
handle everything under him or her, and I don't think this is an unrealistic
assumption.. I've seen controllers do it (and do it well) in ZLA airspace
with over 20 aircraft, so I know it can be done other places as well. If
people don't want to spend the time & effort to at least earn a S-3 rating,
then yes, I would rather fly with no control on center than with someone
(not saying all) that the first thing I'm told (after an automated handoff
from Approach) is "Radar Contact", and given a heading/speed/altitude
restriction, when I'm trying to proceed on course.
Mike
"Mark Brummett" <oilerfan07_NOSPAM@yahoo_NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:2tlggu432mb98po82...@4ax.com...
Daniel S. Harris
result will be Centers being manned for fewer hours"
I'm afraid that the practice does not bear out your theory Jeff, RR's have
certainly led to more members progressing up the ranks in the UK.
Dan Harris
Ernie Alston
<ielchitz@NOSPAM_eleventhstreet.com> wrote:
>Ernie,
>
>I think Brian's comment is that if you are working center and there is no
>approach controller on - you are expected to act as center AND approach.
You may be doing both positions, but the bulk of your workload is the
approach position anyway. The center controller simply becomes an
approach controller who also does center duties as time permits. When
working as all these position, the guy being vectored for the approach
is going to be at the top of the priority list. The Approach tasks get
the hightest priority anyway, because they are the ones you have the
least options with without causing delays.
Plus I think Brian overstated the workload at the other positions.
Ground control normally gets eliminated. You don't normally give
detailed ground instructions when working as center. Usually you tend
to release departures at the satellite airports rather than giving
taxi and takeoff clearances.
So working multiple airports and approaches isn't so difficult, its
the one busy pproach position that will expend the biggest chunk of
your scope time.
>Also - the best approach controller can be completely paralyzed by a center
>controller that can't get the aircraft set up into the proper location/altitude/speed
>for approach.
Merely supports what I said about less margin for error at approach.
Center has lots more airspace to work with than approach.
>I like to think of center as the guy who sets it all up for the tracons -
>sort of like:
Consider the number of instructions and tasks needed to be done in the
same span of time at both positions. To me clearly the approach
position is more difficult.
Ernie.
Ernie Alston
<1...@vatsim-uk.net> wrote:
>Its a very difficult thing to quantify in my opinion. There are really two
>entirely different skill sets required for Approach and Center. I think a
>busy single runway Tower position can be very tricky, as can a correctly
>operated Ground.
Tower can hold aircraft on the ground if he/she gets too busy, and
ground can do gate holds. Those are options Approach does not have.
I really don't think the positions can be compared.
>The system of ratings is probably not ideal, but it is infinitely more
>practical than a system of individual licences that has been toyed with.
>Ultimately a compromise needs to be made, and within a framework of the
>current ratings structure it is possible to find a good compromise.
More practical ?? How so ?
So far I see no reports or evidence that such ratings systems are
either practical or have resulted in better quality of ATC, as
compared to those sectors that do not emply them.
I refer to the recent Vatusa ARTCC evaluations in which the areas that
did not have ratings restrictions appeared to score as high in realism
as those sectors that did not have such ratings.
I'm not suggesting the ARTCC evaluations are to be taken as
conclusive, but it does for the first time at least make a suggestion
that possibly the ratings systems effects are negligable regarding ATC
quality.
I think we need a bit more justification for such far reaching policy
shifts.
Regards.
Ernie.
Ben Schwartz VATUSA1
http://www.vatusa.org/jpgraph/src/default.php
Ben
VATUSA1
"Jeff Callender" <j_bcal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d08...@news.simflight.com...
Ernie Alston
That doesn't go against Jeff's theory by itself though.
Your going to have more advances as a result increased membership. A
certain percentage of members will advance whether there are
restrictions or not.
Ernie.
Neal Fejedelem
"Mike Evans" <mi...@usc.edu> wrote in message
news:3d06a942$1...@news.simflight.com...
> I can tell you how it will be enforced.. you try to login as CTR, and you
> can't do it.. plain & simple.
If this is the way it is going to be done then how would a S1 be able do
work CTR under supervisor of a mentor or an instructor as someone else
mention in a different post?
Mike Evans
If they want to work Center AT ALL, they can put in the time & effort to
move up one position to be an S-3. If they don't want to put in a tiny bit
of effort, they don't get the privilege & excitement <g> of working center.
Mike
"Neal Fejedelem" <nfeje...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3d08baa5$1...@news.simflight.com...
Jim B.
Arguing about whether APP or CTR is more difficult in isolation is not productive,
because "labaratory" conditions for the comparison don't occur all that often.
For example - ZLA & ZNY CTR can be damned tricky because:
* Theres is often alot of traffic
* That traffic can be spread out geogrpahically - one always sweats bullets
working LA CTR with no LAS APP and LAX APP and traffic at both.
* APPs may open and close underneath you.
They key issue - is that a CTR controller is expected to be able to handle
the responsibility of all his underlying airspace. So if APP is "the harder
postion" that just means that CTR is responsbile to pick that up when APP
closes, in addition to his CTR tasks.
Jim.
Ernie Alston
"Jim B." <fs...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>They key issue - is that a CTR controller is expected to be able to handle
>the responsibility of all his underlying airspace.
As Mark B pointed out, according to the training guidelines he is not expected
to work approach.
Regards.
Ernie.
Richard Green
ABOVE USA level - if you have issue please take it up there - as repeating
the same arguments over and over will do nothing but active PLONKs....
If you have an issue take it up with the EC
Mike Evans
works in practice, and maybe the guidelines should be changed so that a
Center controller IS expected to be able to perform the duties of all those
under him/her.
Mike
"Ernie Alston" <alst...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3d08e468$1...@news.simflight.com...
Jim B.
>As Mark B pointed out, according to the training guidelines he is not expected
to work approach.
Wow !
You got me Ernie ! Never heard that before, and certainly not in the vain
of our setup at ZLA, as we require CTR controllers to be certified for each
underlying APP sector.
I understand why they would set this up for workload reasons, but seems kind
of short-sighted from a "knowledge" perspective....
"Uh AAL203, d/m 14000. I'm not sure why, but just do it, cause thats what
they tell me to do."
Interesting. How do we feel about TWR controllers who don't know how to issue
taxi clearances or wont handle GND functions ?
Jim.
Jim B.
Hey Richard,
its free speach man, we can b*tch as much as we like. I am sure you are not
suggesting "censoring" opinions on the forum.
Besides, keeps the forum active and lively, I'm sure everyone doesnt just
want to read my Event postings !
Jim B.
Richard Green
least do it to the people who can chnage things - noone at VATUSA CAN -
this is an EC issue - so maybe this should be moved to the VATSIM forum -
im not mad - or upset - just wanting this thread to go to a proper place.
Mark Brummett
wrote:
>This may be what the guidelines say, however I don't feel this is how it
>works in practice, and maybe the guidelines should be changed so that a
>Center controller IS expected to be able to perform the duties of all those
>under him/her.
>
>Mike
Understand that I am for the restriction. I am also of the belief it
should be evaluated when the enforcement begins to see what happens.
And I also VEHEMENTLY disagree with Mike's above statement. To expect
Center to provide approach services in a TRACON/RAPCON area in a busy
sector would be absolutely unfair to the enroute airplanes, when you
are logged on at the Center position. Pilots should know enough to be
able to fly an approach whenever Center terminates radar service due
to no approach controller.
That's not to say I don't provide approach services when I'm
online...for the majority I do, but, for the pilot to expect it, would
be tantamount to an employee expecting his/her boss to do the work of
everyone in his/her department if they are all gone...granted that
probably would never happen IN THE REAL WORLD, but, this is a virtual
environment.
Mark Brummett
>Interesting. How do we feel about TWR controllers who don't know how to issue
>taxi clearances or wont handle GND functions ?
Not the point. If you are working Center, you SHOULD know how to work
all the positions below that. The point is that it is unfair to
expect the Center controller to have to recenter his scope all over
the place (and in some ARTCC's like mine, that is an ENORMOUS
headache) to provide the detail of radar service that
approach/departure/tower/ground requires without abandoning your
enroute aircraft, whom you are still obligated to provide seperation
and radar service.
Heck, I even catch myself doing this sometimes. We aren't supermen
here. Not all of us can work LA like you guys at LA can. ;-)
Richard Green
> Not the point. If you are working Center, you SHOULD know how to work
> all the positions below that.
Agreed - thats the reason ARTCCs train from CLR_DEL up - it may not be the
MOST INTERESTING part - but you have to get your feet wet - before you can
swim with the big fish.
Jeff Clark
things interesting.
At ZLA, we -do- expect that Center will work the appcon, tower, ground and
even clearance positions if they aren't staffed, and I suspect that it works
this way at most facilities in VATUSA.
In real-life, a little known legal nicety is that ALL airspace is owned by
the Center, and is DELEGATED by Center to the approach controls, who then
delegate airspace down to Towers. Philosophically and legally, the Center
is responsible for the safe/efficient/etc., operation of all facilities
underneath them, and in some ways, this sort of echoes this nicely.
Finally, one other point from the real world - in the US, Center controllers
hold higher Civil Service rankings and are paid more than approach
controllers. Although I worked at both facilities and personally also think
that Terminal work is harder, there's probably a reason for this somewhere.
Jeff Clark
ZLA Chief
"Mark Brummett" <oilerfan07_NOSPAM@yahoo_NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:t5shgucd3j77unlgu...@4ax.com...
Ian Elchitz
think it's an exile to be stuck on DEL is IMHO just an important as the
other positions/roles that various men and women play in the complex air
traffic control system.
When we're busy as he** - I'd give my older sister in return for a person
who can get all of those routings set properly. In fact when the call went
out for who wanted to work where at the upcoming California Screaming
event - my first choice was LAX_DEL.
BTW - just wanted to mention that I can not think of group of people I
would rather "argue" about regarding VATSIM policies. It's quite amazing to
see so many people feel so passionately about a tiny niche amongst niches in
a great big world.
Anyhow - I'd rather be flying...
Ian Elchitz
"Richard Green" <vat...@vatusa.org> wrote in message
news:Xns922C9EB4EC61Crg...@64.246.15.37...
Richard Green
opinion doesn't go so far as a voter - but agreed and point taken.
I just don't see what the big deal is - why is it such a HARDSHIP to get a
C-1 - if they are good enough the control the airspace it shouldn't be that
big of an issue should it?
Jeff Clark
strictly a VATSIM thing. VATSIM -did- ask the opinions of it's member
divisions, and I'm happy to stand up and say that I, as one voting member of
VATUSA, voted in favour of this proposal, as did a vast majority of the
other Center chief's in the VATUSA division, so in a sense, we DID have
something to do with this.
So did the Center Chiefs and other staff of the other divisions of VATSIM
from all around the globe. I am sure that if we had all said 'No', then the
'top brass' wouldn't have put this through.
I also understand why folks wish to discuss it 'here' rather than taking it
'to the governors' - they -know- us here, and although some on the BOG are
also very visible, it's easier to lobby for change at the grass roots.
For those who -weren't- asked if they wanted this or not, I appreciate that
this may be frustrating, especially at first glance. You should know that
we spent a long time discussing this, and hopefully if you get to know us,
you'll know that we only want the best for our hobby - most of us having
invested thousands of hours into it. Let's give this a try and see how it
works, but those of us who've thought about it long enough are generally
happy that this will work out OK in the long run.
Jeff Clark
ZLA Chief
"Richard Green" <vat...@vatusa.org> wrote in message
news:Xns922C9B1FF95Drg...@64.246.15.37...
Richard Green
really - just another client on the server of life?
Mike Evans
=)
ME
Mike Evans
know how long it takes between compiles =)
ME
"Richard Green" <vat...@vatusa.org> wrote in message
news:Xns922CAB7CDCD61rg...@64.246.15.37...
Ernie Alston
"Jim B." <fs...@aol.com> wrote:
>You got me Ernie ! Never heard that before, and certainly not in the vain
>of our setup at ZLA, as we require CTR controllers to be certified for >each
underlying APP sector.
That's a local determination made by the ARTCC Chief as has been my position
from the very beginning where it belongs.
With this in place I would definitely pass on being a Chief again. When being
a Chief I preffered a more open less restrictive sector. The power of the
Chief to make this decision has now been removed. I see a trend here I definitely
don't like.
I'm pretty surprised the Chiefs would agree to this removal of their power.
I for one would have opposed it. Though as was often the case when I actually
was Chief I likely would have been in the minority.
Regards.
Ernie.
Jeff Thomas
Jeff
PS> sorry to have started this entire thread .....
"Ben Schwartz VATUSA1" <vat...@vatusa.org> wrote in message
news:3d0892d2$1...@news.simflight.com...
Jeff Thomas
If the tests were easy to get to and we didn't have to take the time to go
through our Chief then I would agree. As it is, since I started this
ill-fated thread I have been asking to be scheduled for the darn test....no
luck yet..... but I don't blame my Chief either. We all have lives.
Looking at the stats of the USA over 50% are S1s......you guys should
think about making the testing a little easier to get at seeings how the
numbers are going to start pouring in (hopefully)....
Jeff
"Richard Green" <vat...@vatusa.org> wrote in message
news:Xns922CA98266400rg...@64.246.15.37...
Richard Green
yourself ready - its not JUST base don time but ability - but knowing yours
- since I have flown under your control - I would say you are
Jim B.
Yeah,
Mark, as I said in my response to Ernie on this - I can understand it from
a workload perspective. I was somewhat suprised, because in my 1 year plus
on the network, i've never encountered it, as a pilot or controller.
Superman or not, in my hours on LAX CTR, I have been geographically stretched
into virtual taffy when working LAX and LAS APP functions, as they are seperated
by abt 300nm. If they both get heavy with traffic, and you don't have someone
at least issuing departure clncs at one or the other, it can approach impossible.
however, it seems to have always been the "norm" at ZLA to cover the APP
functions. I can see this even more a case in the largest ARTCCs, such as
MSP.
Understand your take.
Jim B.
Jeff Thomas
a problem....thank god you can midair refuel in FS!
Jeff
"Richard Green" <vat...@vatusa.org> wrote in message
news:Xns922CC9CFB48B0rg...@64.246.15.37...
Ben Oakley
I dont want to across as rude or anything, but here's the deal. I dont see
why you guys are arguing about this. In the time that you guys spend arguing,
you could have your promotion done! The S-3 written is not hard at all.
CD/GND/TWR. Thats it. The OTS? Easy. All you have to do is try to work a
TWR session for 45-60 minutes. Also, please stop making a debate over this.
I feel sorry for Dr. Schwartz. We shouldnt be arguing at a National Level.
If you really do feel strongly against this, then I encourage you to write
an email to the BoG, and take this to a Global level! Dont worry guys, we'll
all be laughing in a week or two saying, what were we thinking!!LOL!!
Lets go control!
Ben Oakley, Controller
Chicago ARTCC
Richard Critz
action comes from the Executive Committee (the EC to which Richard Green
refers). This is precisely their province as it as a day-to-day operational
issue, which places it squarely outside the purview of the Board of
Governors. The EC is comprised of the 7 Regional Directors.
cz
--
Richard Critz
VATSIM
VP/Pilot Training
"Jeff Clark" <je...@laartcc.org> wrote in message
news:3d0900c4$1...@news.simflight.com...
Ernie Alston
wrote:
>
>One clarification that seems appropriate this far into the discussion: this
>action comes from the Executive Committee (the EC to which Richard Green
>refers). This is precisely their province as it as a day-to-day operational
>issue, which places it squarely outside the purview of the Board of
>Governors. The EC is comprised of the 7 Regional Directors.
If would seem to me that the day to day operational issues is the
Chief's provice not the Executive committe's.
The Executive Comittee's province should be more strategic than
operational.
Ernie.
A Guy Called Tyketto
>
> Heck, I even catch myself doing this sometimes. We aren't supermen
> here. Not all of us can work LA like you guys at LA can. ;-)
And just when the superhero tights started to feel good on me..
;) *humming the Robin Hood: Men in Tights theme*
BL.
--
Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyk...@wizard.com
Unix Systems Administrator, | tyk...@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
Richard Green
Chris Smith
complaining about the new policy could easily have studied for and tested
out on the S3 requirement. We're not asking you to remove an arm to study
10 minutes for a relatively simple test. If folks have the experience at
CTR as S1 then they should have no issue at all completing an over the
shoulder test with their ARTCC.
Chris Smith
ZJX Chief
"Jeff Thomas" <jttho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d06...@news.simflight.com...
> From the VATUSA Website:
> Effective July 1, 2002:
> No VATSIM member rated below Senior Student may work a Center (CTR) ......
>
> ------
>
> Did I miss this post, or was it just placed on the website and we were
> supposed to just read it?? (It's alright if I just missed it....)
>
> How is this going to be enforced?
>
> I personally have enough going on in my life to worry about taking another
> test to move up to Senior Student, and frankly I could care less about
> getting promoted here. However I do love this past time, and spend a
> majority of my time controlling as Chicago Center. Now, I'm being
punished
> just because I don't feel like taking another test??
>
> This makes no sense! You'd rather have a student running Chicago Approach
> or NY Approach versus the Center position?? Am I reading this
correctly???
>
> Why not just say students are only allowed to be tower......which is just
as
> bad! If pilots are getting bad service then they should take it up with
the
> ARTCC Chief they were in at the time.....
>
> I know I must be having a heat stroke and my eyes are blurred..... ;-)
(no
> cracks about too much Diet Pepsi)
>
> Please don't pounce on me about this one, but it doesn't sound right to
me.
> Can someone please explain this?
>
> Thanks a million,
> Jeff
> GWA2680
>
>
>
>
>
>
Glenn Miller
"Ben Schwartz VATUSA1" <vat...@vatusa.org> wrote in message
news:3d06...@news.simflight.com...
> This policy from VATSIM did not come as a surprise. The ramifications of
> its use were discussed with the VATUSA staff and the ARTCC Chiefs and was
> endorsed as such.
>
> I am sorry if it is asking too much for controllers to have to reach one
> promotion up to Senior Student but the leadership from all ARTCC's knows
> what is involved in getting the Senior Student rating and felt that this
new
> policy was fair.
>
> As far as the language and tone of this thread, I understand that there
will
> be some that are not happy whenever a new policy is put into place. You
> simply need to trust that these decisions are made to make our hobby
better,
> not to try to push anyone around...
>
> Ben Schwartz
> VATUSA1
Chris Click
This makes no sense.... I controlled back in SATCO days and lost my rating
when VATSIM came around because I was deployed with the Air Force. I enjoy
flying and dont control anymore, however I can say that this new policy is
effective at NOTHING..... I thought this was here for fun for pilots and
controllers alike.... It seems to be, Sups and Admin are having all the fun
by writing new rules and laws everyday....
Hey heres an idea, lets keep this fun.... I am glad VATSIM is here they make
a great hobby fun for everyone, but when you become Big Goverment on something
that is completly voluntary and for fun.... you start mutating from the Virtual
FAA to worse than the real thing
Thats just my opinion.... But Im sure I speak for some others as well
Chris
Greg Phelan
I think that this is an excellent policy. This will help to ensure the
quality of the ATC provided, by forcing those who want to control higher
positions to learn what they need to know.
Chris Click wrote:
>
> This makes no sense.... I controlled back in SATCO days and lost my rating
> when VATSIM came around because I was deployed with the Air Force. I enjoy
> flying and dont control anymore, however I can say that this new policy is
> effective at NOTHING..... I thought this was here for fun for pilots and
> controllers alike.... It seems to be, Sups and Admin are having all the fun
> by writing new rules and laws everyday....
I haven't seen that many new rules or laws written here. This one, in
specific, will assist in quality assurance.
>
> Hey heres an idea, lets keep this fun....
That seems to be the goal here. As a pilot, is it fun for you when a
controller doesn't know his rear end from the front end of a plane?
This simply makes sure that those who want to control Center know the
basics of ATC. I don't know about your tests, but the ones in VATCAN
are pretty easy at the Sr. Student level.
> I am glad VATSIM is here they make
> a great hobby fun for everyone, but when you become Big Goverment on something
> that is completly voluntary and for fun.... you start mutating from the Virtual
> FAA to worse than the real thing
And, it still is voluntary. No one is forcing you to take the test; no
one is forcing you to control at the Center level.
Do you think that someone should be allowed to sign up, and start
controlling New York Center? That is essentially what we have right now
(as in, no system safeguards, there would likely be punitive action
taken against that controller, and I am just using New York as an
example, insert your chosen ARTCC there).
> Thats just my opinion.... But Im sure I speak for some others as well
>
> Chris
You may indeed speak for others, but if you want a network where there
is no quality assurance... please go someplace else, because some
(perhaps the great majority?) of us want quality ATC.
Regards,
Greg Phelan
FMR ACI - Edmonton FIR
Ernie Alston
wrote:
>I think that this is an excellent policy. This will help to ensure the
>quality of the ATC provided, by forcing those who want to control higher
>positions to learn what they need to know.
But that's just it, the center position is not nceessarily seen as a
higher position to the S1's.
S1's don't aspire to work Center more than they do Approach.
In my experience Approach is the position that is usually in highest
demand.
>This one, in specific, will assist in quality assurance.
Ah yes, I believe we've heard this strawman before regarding
restrictions.
It was for the voice restriction. The voice restriction was supposed
to improve ATC quality by acting as a carrot to encourage more S1's
upwards in the ranks.
The effect of the voice restriction has been negligable in improving
ATC quality.
Now this new restriction is yet another attempt at holding a carrot in
front of the S1's, in hopes they will nibble at it.
It likely will fare no better, especially the way its currently to be
implemented.
Ernie.
Chris Click
Thanks Ernie... I totally agree with you and you accent another point.....
Voice Restrictions and other Restrictions aside, each position offers something
different and challenging... I for one know that when I worked CHI_CTR then
MSP_CTR or SLC_CTR.... They were MUCH easier than APP ever could be.....
If you want to train people thats one thing, but as a pilot I can tell you,
that flying from Baltimore all the way to the west coast and not being in
contact with anyone because they are all working TWR, or APP, sure can get
boring for both sides.....
Once again, lets put the fun back into it.... I have flown into places where
controllers have messed up and had to spin me, but you know what, its for
FUN.... FUN FUN FUN... .Thats the simple solution, you start making alot
of rules and restrictions, you are just going to drive people away.... This
is not the REAL world and as much as you would like it to be, it wont happen....
I will not go elsewhere, because Forums, rules and everything else aside
this is still fun for me... I notice all the abbreviations and titles you
gave yourself, and because you have those, I will say this, if you want real,
go to work or fly in the real world
Thanks
CHris
Bill Irvine
CTR and worked downward from there; i.e., the first person online took CTR; then,
when the next controller showed up online, that person would take APP (or they
negotiated who worked best where) The only reason I mention this is that SATCO got a
reputation for being somewhat pedantic and didactic; myself, I always referred to it
as being exclusive as opposed to being inclusive. It remains to be seen where
VATsimUSA is going with this one.
Bill
BTW, I too, have many " . . . all the abbreviations and titles you gave yourself,"
but let me remind others: I did not give these to myself; they were earned or given
to me by others.
I like to refer to it as 'service'.
Chris Click wrote:
--
Bill Irvine, SCC, WWA4094
Vice-president Flyin Operations
WestWind Virtual Airline
http://www.flywestwind.com/online/hubtour.htm
http://www.islandnet.com/~wji/fly.html
Greg Phelan
"all the abbreviations and titles..."
Let's take a look at the single title I used, FMR ACI - Edmonton FIR
FMR = Former (as in, not presently)
ACI = Assistant Chief Instructor
Edmonton - Pretty self-explanatory
FIR = Flight Information Region, synonymous with ARTCC (more or less)
I used this here to put my words into context with my viewpoint.
And also, for your information, I am going to work ATC as a profession,
I start IFR training on August 6th at the Nav Canada Training Institute,
in Cornwall, Ontario. I do not know your local ARTCC Rules, but if
there is no Approach online, the Center controller will usually take
over the approach position. Now, I would consider Center more difficult
here, because you may be handling approaches for 3 major airports at a
time (Try it, it gets rather exciting), in addition to overflights and
clearance delivery. A Center controller should know approach first,
unless they are mandated to only work center if all airports which have
an approach position are manned at approach.
One of the plans that we had come up with in the FIR (and may or may not
be currently in use), was that students were trained at one of the TCU's
on Delivery, Ground, and Tower initially, and then after 30-50 hours
received approach training for that TCU. They were then pretty much
ready for their Sr. Student test, and picking up center was as easy as
learning the other airports.
This is as much a hobby as a game for many of us, and we aspire to
excellence in our hobby. Taking a test should not be a big deal for
you, provided you know your stuff.
As for the voice only at Sr. Student, I disagree with that policy
entirely, I think that it should be up to the Chief Instructor when a
student is qualified for voice use.
Greg