DUAL TRAINING

Ask questions of the training staff and fellow controllers. Also training FAQs

Moderator: ZSE Administrative Staff

Locked
Peter Armstrong
ZSE Controller
ZSE Controller
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:05 am

DUAL TRAINING

Post by Peter Armstrong » Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:04 am

DUAL TRAINING

Dual Training seems to be a concept whereupon Students are receiving training – on a position – both on the Minor Airport and the Major Airport at the same time (concurrently). Something that seems to have been adopted throughout various ARTCCs in VATSIM I am informed via VATSIM Forums.

Whilst I think that this may be a good idea for “through put” – getting students to be endorsed quickly, which may help statistics, I am not sure that this is a good idea for their professional career. Trying to absorb the complexities of separate jurisdictions - Minor v Major – seems to be producing “confusion”. I am witnessing - by OBS - some very confusing phraseology and directions between some students (not necessarily our ARTCC) and pilots trying to cope with these complexities. This is not helping the students – rather, it damages their confidence and abilities and, some pilots are not impressed.

This is not a criticism - just an observation of a recent development on the Network

Food for thought and discussion?

Peter
Happy controlling/flying :beer:
Valor Morghulis
Valor Dohaeris
Caveat Lector

User avatar
Brayden Manzella
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Buffalo, NY

Re: DUAL TRAINING

Post by Brayden Manzella » Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:35 am

I think I've made my opinion clear to you in our email conversations.

The bottom line is that this is offered to our students as an option to enhance their training at which they have the option of saying "Yes, I want to give Seattle Approach a try" or "No, I'll just stick to the minor fields."

The procedures between the two facilities are not as complex as some people make them out to be. In the 5 years that I have been here and involved in the training department, this has always been an option to the students, and in fact, I personally took advantage of it while obtaining my S2 many moons ago. I still support this 100% as I think it is in the spirit of VATSIM and aligns us closer to VATUSA's vision of Retention and Growth, while improving our culture by creating a fun environment and inspiring passion in our new controllers to actively participate.

If a student gets "confused," it is the INS/MTRs duty to dissolve that "confusion" and do whatever means possible to continue their training. The option of halting the Major training while the student continues Minor training is always an option. Remember that no one is perfect, and we have to find that balance of tolerance, both pilots and controllers alike. We are all learning, every day.

If you are "witnessing" such actions occurring here in our ARTCC, it is my hope as someone who clearly has a strong passion for Seattle, that you would reach out to me or Aaron so we can address those issues instead of posting a generalized statement on the forum - as neither one of us have yet to receive anything regarding this topic.

Remember - We are all on the same team here.
Brayden Manzella
Air Traffic Director
VATUSA - Western Region
VATSIM Network Supervisor
Image

Peter Armstrong
ZSE Controller
ZSE Controller
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:05 am

Re: DUAL TRAINING

Post by Peter Armstrong » Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:20 am

Thank you for the contribution to this Thread. However, I am a little confused as to which of the following statements made are correct?

“as neither one of us have yet to receive anything regarding this topic”.

Or

“I think I've made my opinion clear to you in our email conversations”.


If, as claimed, discussions have been made on this topic via e-mail, then surely the statement that nothing has yet been received regarding this topic is not true?

Also, my statements =
“This is not a criticism - just an observation of a recent development on the Network”

- And –

“Food for thought and discussion?”

Seem to have been muted in response to this thread

The good news is that this policy/procedure is now out in the open and available to all Students, which is indeed very refreshing and good for the ARTCCs progression and I look forward to the amendment to APS_007 and/or other programme to reflect these good opportunities.
Happy controlling/flying :beer:
Valor Morghulis
Valor Dohaeris
Caveat Lector

Christopher Lajoie
ZSE Mentor
ZSE Mentor
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:07 pm
Location: Boston, Massachusetts

Re: DUAL TRAINING

Post by Christopher Lajoie » Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:14 am

Peter, first off I shall state that I think you should keep discussion on this thread open and forward moving. Much of what you have just stated has no purpose other than clouting a response by one of our staff members.


Dual Training seems to be a concept whereupon Students are receiving training – on a position – both on the Minor Airport and the Major Airport at the same time (concurrently). Something that seems to have been adopted throughout various ARTCCs in VATSIM I am informed via VATSIM Forums.



Whilst I think that this may be a good idea for “through put” – getting students to be endorsed quickly, which may help statistics, I am not sure that this is a good idea for their professional career.
To be straight forward, this is your opinion. And although you may personally disbelieve in the benefits of dual training, I see the positives.

Trying to absorb the complexities of separate jurisdictions - Minor v Major – seems to be producing “confusion”.
This is not a complexity. Our Major field is Seattle Tacoma International Airport.

I am witnessing - by OBS - some very confusing phraseology and directions between some students (not necessarily our ARTCC)
You need to realize there is a learning curve, this is a simulation network and although we strive for perfection, we cannot always attain it so quickly. We are here for fun, not just for nit picking small minute details that some may have trouble overcoming.

and pilots trying to cope with these complexities.
Many of times, the pilots are unsure about proper FAA regulations, just as some of our Observers, as stated above.


This is not helping the students
We learn wisdom from failure much more than from success. Not every session will be error free, if anything it prepares them for more likely scenarios that will be seen when the controller is covering a vast area, such as Center.

– rather, it damages their confidence and abilities and, some pilots are not impressed.
Although this may be an individuals method of correcting mistakes, this is not something I agree with, in fact, I disagree.

This is not a criticism - just an observation of a recent development on the Network
Peter, especially as the FAB secretary, if you strongly disagree in an executive decision made by senior leadership within the ARTCC, then I would strongly encourage you to e-mail us and/or provide constructive feedback in more of an in-person venue. although you appear to be identifying a vast issue being seen all throughout the ARTCC, I personally have not run into any issues with APS_007. In fact, we are leaning towards loosening the restrictions on minor/major training.

I strongly suggest you take a step back and really reassess the seriousness of the issue you continue to bring up in public forum. Although a realistic simulation, we need to have the flexibility and leniency to progress advanced students beyond basics.

**I am closing this thread. Please e-mail me directly** The case of APS_007 is closed until our FAB Meeting.
Christopher Lajoie
VATUSA, Seattle ARTCC
Commited to excellence
Image

Locked