By Callum McLoughlin
In respect of the below:
If an S2 is good enough to control Approach during CTP, they should be upgraded to S3! That is not a disparaging comment towards any of the SAV chaps, the way - but a suggestion that these guys genuinely need an upgrade!! This equally applies to all solo validation holders controlling in their "acting S2/S3/C1" capacity.
Would this be actioned after CTP, as what better exam could there be?
I hope that VATUK finds a pragmatic way forward with this as it would be a fantastic coup.
By Harry Sugden
Would it be possible to advise controllers during their training, that if a pilot sounds like they might need the initial climb issued to them, that it be given in the clearance? Of course this might lead to some pilots who do check the chart being told it, and some who don't check the charts still busting it... but it's getting a bit tiring on London these days with the number of busts. It's VATSIM... chart reading isn't a particularly popular pass time, but of course this idea would require subjective interpretation of what a non-chart reader sounds like.
Open to other suggestions as to how we can address this problem... perhaps some way we can point pilots to charts better than we do now?
By Andy Ford
Recently we've been having a very long discussion regarding how we handle controller feedback and how our processes can be improved, as not everyone feels that we do feedback in the best way - especially when that feedback isn't positive. From these discussions we've come up with a possible idea for a new system for handling ATC feedback and would like the input of the membership before we take anything further.
The current system for ATC Feedback is a manual process involving delegated members of the ATC Training Department. All feedback submitted is anonymous (members of staff have to explicitly click a button in order to view who submitted the feedback, which is logged). When feedback comes in, a member of staff reviews the feedback. If the feedback is positive, we pass it on to the member - without revealing the identity of the submitter (so some redaction may take place). If the feedback is negative, we generally do not pass it on to the member every time (except in cases where trends are developing), but use it to inform areas for improvement within the department.
Some members that we have spoken to do not like this system, as they want to know everything that people have to say about them and on the flip side want to make sure that their feedback is going to the member in question, not just sitting in a database waiting to be processed.
The proposed system would change how we handle feedback, to the following:
Members submitting feedback may indicate whether or not they want feedback to be sent to the controller in question or just the ATC Training staff. In choosing to send feedback to the member, they acknowledge that everything they say will be made visible and thus should take care not to say anything that would identify them if they wish to remain anonymous. By default, members will automatically receive all feedback (positive or negative) when it is submitted unless they choose to opt out. This will be available, as it is now, through the front-end of Core. All feedback is visible to delegated members of ATC Training Staff. Through this proposed to system, we hope to achieve the following things:
Reduced admin time for ATC Training staff - who will then only have to process feedback addressed directly to us. Members who want to know what is being said about them can find out straight away, so that they can see how they are doing. Members submitting feedback can be sure that their feedback is reaching the intended individual, not gathering dust in a database row somewhere. For this purpose, we have created a poll that asks the following question: "Given the current and proposed systems of handling Controller Feedback, which would you prefer?". We would encourage all members to vote in this poll so that we can gauge how popular a change from our current system is with the membership. Moreover, if anybody has any comments or suggestions, please reply to this post - the proposed system is up for discussion and change.
By Andy Ford
To conclude the epic quest that has been restructuring our training syllabus, we would like to present the first draft of the new C1 syllabus for comments.
As with S2 and S3, the purposes here are as follows:
To clearly define what skills a student must demonstrate in order to progress towards the C1 rating and how their performance corresponds to different gradings A guide to mentors to reduce mentor interpretation in grading students Designating a number of competencies as "self-taught", removing the theory aspect (and namely repeating the same thing multiple times over) from sessions. The draft syllabus may be found here:
Any feedback and comments are most welcome. Once people have had a chance to comment, we'll begin the process of finalising this and putting it live.
By Andy Ford
Following the redesign of the S2 syllabus, we are now in a position to do this for S3 with the same aims as before.
As such, I am pleased to present the first draft of the S3 syllabus for review. It would be great if members could have a read though and let us know any feedback that they have on this forum thread. Once everyone's had an opportunity to read and comment, we'll make any amendments and look towards implementation including updating the progress sheets.
Syllabus Flow Diagram Thanks!