ATC Training

Ok, no worries. Thanks for the update, Andy.

@Andy Ford Any update on this, kind sir? ;)

The request is in with Web - that's all I have :)

Thanks for the updates, guys. :)

Hi Andy,

Is there any chance that Bodmin (EGLA) could be added to the list? There's some documentation on their website here: http://bodminairfield.com/visiting-pilots/

Thanks!

Edited May 9, 2018 by William Grimsley

Hi guys,

 

Any update on Bodmin and the bookings issue?

 

Cheers!

Still can't make a booking...

1 hour ago, William Grimsley said:

Still can't make a booking...

I'm sure the team will update you when anything changes... They likely haven't implemented this feature in the 7 days since you last asked..

Are you surprised that I'm asking? It seems that way. It has been nearly 2 months since the request was made, don't you think that's a bit long? No anger intended.

Have you considered your request against other priorities, for example GDPR?  Which would you say was more important?  Meeting new regulations on Data Protection or allowing you to book a position?

I'm sure there are other options in there that are potentially greater impacting which is why your request is still unactioned, plus the team is not an infinite number of individuals.

If you're desperate to get it added, have you considered volunteering your services to assist the team and help move things forward faster?

Definitely GDPR, hence why I understand that, Trevor. That's why I didn't expect this to be completed within a few days/weeks, but 2 months seems a little long. I am, however, patient and don't mind when this is done. Yes, but I thought I had to be S2 to be part of web services?

Edited June 9, 2018 by William Grimsley

https://community.vatsim.uk/news/web-services/open-source-web-services-update-3-r34/

Albeit the CTS isnt open source, but you don't have to be a WSA to contribute.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Andy Ford

No worries, Calum! Like I said, I respect and thank everyone who makes this division as good as it is, without you we wouldn't be where we are today. I was unrealistic in my expectations and came over quite rudely in some posts. I apologise for this.

Edited June 9, 2018 by William Grimsley

Thanks for sorting this Calum.

The last few weeks have been hectic for the Division.  We have had to do everything we usually do a well as dealing with GDPR (which we were ahead of the curve with).  A good team effort has meant that everything has carried on business as usual while our workload has increased exponentially.  I would like to thank the staff involved with this, especially Calum and Nathan who dealt with GDPR in my absence. #teamawesome 

Agreed, Simon.

Thanks very much, Calum! Greatly appreciated! ?

Could we add EGNL Information (Barrow Walney Island) Frequency of 123.20?

Another Request: Barra Infomation on 118.075 would be nice

Are we able to control every AFIS & A/G yet? I feel it would be better than having to continually approve requests. If not, I have another request... Shoreham now has a radio as is stated in the AIP:

http://prntscr.com/kbga5t

Edited July 26, 2018 by William Grimsley

1 hour ago, William Grimsley said:

Are we able to control every AFIS & A/G yet? I feel it would be better than having to continually approve requests. If not, I have another request... Shoreham now has a radio as is stated in the AIP:

http://prntscr.com/kbga5t

We are deliberately limiting the scope of these validations to prevent people just logging on any position that they fancy - we've selected positions that are fairly well known and most importantly, well documented. At the end of the day, the S1 rating is not a competency based rating - it is strictly defined as a temporary rating whilst a member trains to S2. It is our desire to get S1s through to S2 as quick as possible, at which point they can do whatever TWR position they please within the normal restrictions. What we don't want these validations becoming is a free ticket to controlling with no intent of progression.

As you'll see from the capture you posted - Shoreham Radio is only open at 0800-0900 Monday-Friday. My understanding is that this is due to ATC Staff Shortages (which is also why a number of the instrument approaches have been un-published). As such, until this is further understood, I do not believe it worthwhile to jump on this one. As above though, It is not my intent to make this validation a controlling freebie, so Shoreham's air traffic status does not mean that it will automatically be added to the validation.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Andy Ford

*The below is not intended to be a complaint but more an opinion.*

Even though I understand and mostly agree with what you've said, Andy, I was never aware that it was the division's desire to push S1s to progress to S2 ASAP... What if they only want to remain as a S1? I feel that S1s should have a little more choice, after all there are more S1s than of any other rating. Are we trying to make S1s seem insignificant? Without S1s are division would not be what it is today.

If we use a bit of common sense here, I don't see how opening up every AFIS and Air Ground position to S1s is a problem. It's like saying that we won't let S1s control every GND position, even if they have been allowed to control that type of position. We don't have this problem with GND positions, so why do we have it with AFIS and Air Ground positions? It would save people having to attend to this thread to approve positions, which seems like a no-brainer to me.

I am a believer of "If you're going to do something, do it properly." It doesn't really seem that way in this case.

As with everything I post, I hope this hasn't come over negative/rude in any way.

Edited July 26, 2018 by William Grimsley

13 minutes ago, William Grimsley said:

Even though I understand and mostly agree with what you've said, Andy, I was never aware that it was the division's desire to push S1s to progress to S2 ASAP... What if they only want to remain as a S1? I feel that S1s should have a little more choice, after all there are more S1s than of any other rating. Are we trying to make S1s seem insignificant? Without S1s are division would be not what it is today.

As with everything I post, I hope this hasn't come over negative/rude in any way.

It's not just the divisions desire, it's .NET's desire. Many divisions don't provide training to S1's at all, it's straight onto S2 training! In any case, why wouldn't it be the divisions desire to get members up to S2, which grants them far more freedoms in our division and on the network as a whole, as quickly as we can?

From a .NET perspective, an S1 has demonstrated no formal level of competence and, as such, may be restricted in any way a division sees fit. We are quite fortunate here in that we allow our S1s almost free reign because we provide them with the basic level of training and then go a step further through familiarisation sessions and offering them a chance to mentor (again, many other divisions do not on all counts).

This isn't about making S1's feel insignificant - far from it. As mentioned above, S1 rated members have plenty of choice in VATSIM UK - many popular aerodromes to choose from, events to join in with, the opportunity to mentor. I'd consider that quite a lot of choice, especially given where we've been historically as a division. At the end of the day, the S1 rating is defined by VATSIM as temporary... it is, after all, referred to as "Tower Trainee".

13 minutes ago, William Grimsley said:

We don't have this problem with GND positions, so why do we have it with AFIS and Air Ground positions?

We have the time to formally train people controlling ground - as we have in OBS->S1 and familiarisation. We don't have the resources to spend on what is effectively a temporary validation that an S2 rating immediately supersedes.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Andy Ford

pretty sure I mentioned this aswell...

27 minutes ago, William Grimsley said:

*The below is not intended to be a complaint but more an opinion.*

Even though I understand and mostly agree with what you've said, Andy, I was never aware that it was the division's desire to push S1s to progress to S2 ASAP... What if they only want to remain as a S1? I feel that S1s should have a little more choice, after all there are more S1s than of any other rating. Are we trying to make S1s seem insignificant? Without S1s are division would not be what it is today.

If we use a bit of common sense here, I don't see how opening up every AFIS and Air Ground position to S1s is a problem. It's like saying that we won't let S1s control every GND position, even if they have been allowed to control that type of position. We don't have this problem with GND positions, so why do we have it with AFIS and Air Ground positions? It would save people having to attend to this thread to approve positions, which seems like a no-brainer to me.

I am a believer of "If you're going to do something, do it properly." It doesn't really seem that way in this case.

As with everything I post, I hope this hasn't come over negative/rude in any way.

William, I think there are better things to focus on to be honest.. Why are we worrying about AFIS/AG when people can just get an S2 and control them anyway? I believe that it's good to have for the S1's to build a bit of extra knowledge before their tower training. I think you are being slightly ungrateful with regards to the AFIS/AG endorsement, not every VACC/Divison has this opportunity. We don't need every position to be available as there is a decent variety of positions to control above. As the saying goes 'if you don't like it, then lump it'.

If you want to control a wider variety of AFIS/AG positions, maybe you should consider starting your training for an S2 and complete your exam! Then bosh! You can log onto Shoreham! 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Louie Lister

This is just going to end up in another slinging match so I'm going to remove myself from the thread.