Check-In Responsibility

Andrew Podner

  • Members
  • 438
    • View Profile
    • http://www.vatusa.net
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2010, 09:33:10 AM »
Can we keep the language to a child/family appropriate level please?

thank you
Andrew Podner

J Jason Vodnansky

  • Members
  • 197
    • View Profile
    • http://
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2010, 09:37:58 AM »
Since I am supposedly inaccurate in my assertions regarding "secret rules" that VATSIM supervisors have, and me offer some evidence that I have been directly involved with...

Visibility ranges.  In no written documentation, that is available to the average member, is there a limit on visibility ranges.  I have had numerous instances and conversations that have been documented on this very forum on the topic.

Unless the VATSIM forums are required reading now, which they might be, when a supervisor has been asked about where to find such policy.  The response has been either to point to the forums, or to say they are following the rules published on the Supervisor's board.

So, if the supervisors are enforcing "unwritten rules", one that can be found on the Supervisor's board, then yes, in fact then they ARE secret, as the general membership does not have access to that board, and can not be held to account for those rules.

Said another way, How can I follow the "law" if I have no way of KNOWING the law?



There are at least two fixes to this.

#1  Change the law...
#2  Stop enforcement

Seems pretty simple...

Jason Vodnansky

Spencer Devino

  • Members
  • 6
    • View Profile
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2010, 06:25:02 PM »
Quote from: J. Jason Vodnansky
Since I am supposedly inaccurate in my assertions regarding "secret rules" that VATSIM supervisors have, and me offer some evidence that I have been directly involved with...

Visibility ranges.  In no written documentation, that is available to the average member, is there a limit on visibility ranges.  I have had numerous instances and conversations that have been documented on this very forum on the topic.

Unless the VATSIM forums are required reading now, which they might be, when a supervisor has been asked about where to find such policy.  The response has been either to point to the forums, or to say they are following the rules published on the Supervisor's board.

So, if the supervisors are enforcing "unwritten rules", one that can be found on the Supervisor's board, then yes, in fact then they ARE secret, as the general membership does not have access to that board, and can not be held to account for those rules.

Said another way, How can I follow the "law" if I have no way of KNOWING the law?



There are at least two fixes to this.

#1  Change the law...
#2  Stop enforcement

Seems pretty simple...

Jason Vodnansky


There is a very good point here. When I was training for my S2 Cert. I was told you do not need to set your Vis Range higher than 50nm. This is NOWHERE in the training material. Well, here I am sitting in the Tower CAB with vis @ 90nm and I get PMed by a SUP (the almighty) saying rudely that I am wasting bandwidth and have to turn my Visibility range down now.

Nobody appreciates being talked to like a dog. Hopefully VATSIM will rid themselves of the Gestapo-like supervisors and post up some rules that people can read... Instead of shooting people down without them knowing a single thing of what the guy with the gun is talking about.

Things get done slowly around here and there is always thousands of fingers to blame... Can anybody just FIX it?

Spencer Devino

Alex Bailey

  • Members
  • 330
    • View Profile
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #18 on: February 06, 2010, 06:44:44 PM »
Spencer,

I'm sorry you feel this way and I can assure you that multiple Supervisors including myself have asked for VATSIM to include visibility ranges in the Code of Conduct and we always get shut down. It literally would take 2 minutes to accomplish and would solve many headaches, but they seem unwilling to do so. Unfortunately we are still asked to enforce the visibility ranges and it tends to reflect poorly upon us.

The BoG is reading this thread, so hopefully they will take yet another complaint regarding this situation to heart. It needs to be placed in the Code of Conduct, and this provides further evidence of the claim.

Thanks for your comments!

Best,

Nicholas Taylor

  • Members
  • 33
    • View Profile
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #19 on: February 06, 2010, 06:47:53 PM »
Quote from: Spencer Devino
There is a very good point here. When I was training for my S2 Cert. I was told you do not need to set your Vis Range higher than 50nm. This is NOWHERE in the training material. Well, here I am sitting in the Tower CAB with vis @ 90nm and I get PMed by a SUP (the almighty) saying rudely that I am wasting bandwidth and have to turn my Visibility range down now.

Nobody appreciates being talked to like a dog. Hopefully VATSIM will rid themselves of the Gestapo-like supervisors and post up some rules that people can read... Instead of shooting people down without them knowing a single thing of what the guy with the gun is talking about.

Things get done slowly around here and there is always thousands of fingers to blame... Can anybody just FIX it?

Spencer Devino
Speaking of visibility ranges...

A while ago when I was an S3 I was monitoring somebody on ORD_TWR and I had forgotten to switch profiles so my visibility range was still up around 100. My windows were open and I heard our neighbors across the street starting yelling for help, it turns out that her mother had passed out and she's home alone and she's wheelchair bound with M.S. So I ran across the street to help.

I eventually get back to VRC and I see that I had been disconnected. I looked at my PMs and I had one from a supervisor. (unfortunately at the time I had no idea how to save chat logs) and wouldn't ya know, this supervisor PMed me at xxxxZ at 56 seconds, the next PM was at 26 seconds into the next minute telling me to "Respond now." and the very last one was at 56 seconds of the same minute as the last PM saying that he is disconnecting me and giving me a 24 hour suspension.

Needless to say I talked to our dATM at the time and he told me to talk to VATUSA guys. I went into their teamspeak and and they laughed about it. Told me to e-mail Michael Zazula about it. He reversed the suspension and laughed at what happened... What the SUP did was ABUSE of power.

Alex Bailey

  • Members
  • 330
    • View Profile
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2010, 06:53:24 PM »
Quote from: Nicholas Taylor
Speaking of visibility ranges...

A while ago when I was an S3 I was monitoring somebody on ORD_TWR and I had forgotten to switch profiles so my visibility range was still up around 100. My windows were open and I heard our neighbors across the street starting yelling for help, it turns out that her mother had passed out and she's home alone and she's wheelchair bound with M.S. So I ran across the street to help.

I eventually get back to VRC and I see that I had been disconnected. I looked at my PMs and I had one from a supervisor. (unfortunately at the time I had no idea how to save chat logs) and wouldn't ya know, this supervisor PMed me at xxxxZ at 56 seconds, the next PM was at 26 seconds into the next minute telling me to "Respond now." and the very last one was at 56 seconds of the same minute as the last PM saying that he is disconnecting me and giving me a 24 hour suspension.

Needless to say I talked to our dATM at the time and he told me to talk to VATUSA guys. I went into their teamspeak and and they laughed about it. Told me to e-mail Michael Zazula about it. He reversed the suspension and laughed at what happened... What the SUP did was ABUSE of power.

I'd have to disagree... what you did was violate the Code of Conduct. As a controller, you can be removed almost immediately for not responding since you must be there to provide services to pilots. I'm sure there is more to the story and the truth rests somewhere in between, but if you leave your connection unattended you are asking for a removal or suspension.

Nicholas Taylor

  • Members
  • 33
    • View Profile
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2010, 06:54:55 PM »
Quote from: Alex Bailey
I'd have to disagree... what you did was violate the Code of Conduct. As a controller, you can be removed almost immediately for not responding since you must be there to provide services to pilots. I'm sure there is more to the story and the truth rests somewhere in between, but if you leave your connection unattended you are asking for a removal or suspension.
You and I talked about this at the time it happened. I was MONITORING a student and I WAS NOT the active controller, I was not physically providing service to the pilots. And what I typed is the truth, why should I lie to anyone?

Alex Bailey

  • Members
  • 330
    • View Profile
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2010, 06:57:08 PM »
Quote from: Nicholas Taylor
You and I talked about this at the time it happened. I was MONITORING a student and I WAS NOT the active controller, I was not physically providing service to the pilots. And what I typed is the truth, why should I lie to anyone?

Just a disclaimer, I don't know how the SUP responded to you so I can't say whether he was rude and abusive on that end.

However, if you are online on the VATSIM network and not attending your connection, then you're violating the CoC and wasting bandwith that generous donors have provided. I have sympathy for the situation since I'm an EMT and understand that things pop up, but regardless of what has happened you can be removed or suspended for not attending your connection. This applies to pilots, controllers, or observers.

Nicholas Taylor

  • Members
  • 33
    • View Profile
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #23 on: February 06, 2010, 06:59:13 PM »
Quote from: Alex Bailey
Just a disclaimer, I don't know how the SUP responded to you so I can't say whether he was rude and abusive on that end.

However, if you are online on the VATSIM network and not attending your connection, then you're violating the CoC and wasting bandwith that generous donors have provided. I have sympathy for the situation since I'm an EMT and understand that things pop up, but regardless of what has happened you can be removed or suspended for not attending your connection. This applies to pilots, controllers, or observers.
But to get technical, I wasn't physically primed up on the frequency and was providing no service to pilots. Does that still leave me grounds for suspension?

Alex Bailey

  • Members
  • 330
    • View Profile
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #24 on: February 06, 2010, 07:04:32 PM »
Quote from: Nicholas Taylor
But to get technical, I wasn't physically primed up on the frequency and was providing no service to pilots. Does that still leave me grounds for suspension?

Were you signed onto the network with your CID? Then yes, you can be removed and suspended.  

Consider VATSIM like your water faucet in the bathroom. Would you leave the water on when you're not using it? Hope that helps  
« Last Edit: February 06, 2010, 07:12:53 PM by Alex Bailey »

Eduardo Passos

  • Members
  • 2
    • View Profile
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2010, 03:27:23 AM »
It's really pilot's job to know where he is flying and as CoC-B3 says he must verify if an apropriate ATC is avaiable and makes contact either by voice or text. He may sent a PM to clarify this matter (do I call you? I'm flying inside your airspace? and so on...).
Although an ATC doesn't need to I never was called by or answered at a .wallop without the ATC saying "unresponsive pilot to x contactme"
I then send a PM to the "offender" in which I identify myself as Supervisor (sometimes I'm an active ATC) telling him that ATC X requested a supervisor because of a B3 violation. Once he answers things are clarified (if pilot has already left that controlled airspace I sugest that he/she contacts ATC X and clarify this EVEN if he isn't inside that particular airspace so no hard fellings are left between pilot/ATC).
If pilot doesn't answer my PM (3-4 calls) or if he is disturbing traffic (T/O from wrong rwy, entering a busy airspace, unresponsive to-not contacting an ATC/B3, not following an ATC instruction /B10, things that endanger normal operations) then he is disconnected and an email is sent to him/her.
Pilot must know that something may be wrong if an unknow/invisible ATC (or a x_SUP by the way) is trying to contact him, since an active ATC connected with SUP rating has the same obligations as a _SUP. This plus his/her flight inside a controlled airspace - that he MUST KNOW - justify his disconnection if not answering to a supervisor call.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2010, 04:11:51 AM by Eduardo Passos »
Eduardo Passos
VATSIM Supervisor
VATBRZ Controller

Bryan Wollenberg

  • Members
  • 341
    • View Profile
    • http://www.laartcc.org
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2010, 05:30:23 AM »
Nicholas,

You have to remember that a SUP does not know any circumstances, aside from the fact your connection is unattended.  They don't know if you're across the street helping the neighbor in an emergency, or sleeping on your couch.  In the eye of the SUP, you had an unattended connection and were removed.  However, if you have an explanation after the fact, bring it up.  In the past, I have been emailed a couple times from people (pilots included) who I suspended.  One specifically had a major car accident in front of his house (even had documentation to back it up), and there were probably two or three others of which I can't even remember the circumstances.  I asked that those people be re-instated to the network immediately, and they were back on within a matter of hours.  

Now I understand the circumstances of your specific suspension (especially being suspended after 1 minute!) were suspect.  I'm just speaking generally.  

Quote from: Nicholas Taylor
But to get technical, I wasn't physically primed up on the frequency and was providing no service to pilots. Does that still leave me grounds for suspension?

There have been instructors on many occassions who just leave their VRC logged on, and then go to the mall or such while the student controls on his/her own.  I love checking instructors and mentors for that very reason; It's a huge disservice to the student, above anything else.  

However, you do make a good point.  I'm not sure what specifically you would be removed for.  It's not B3, it's not A9 (prior to 30 minutes).  A14?  Eh, that's probably a stretch.  Maybe it's just time for a C12, specifically referencing controllers (and ins/men).
Bryan Wollenberg
Retired North America Regional Director

Nicholas Taylor

  • Members
  • 33
    • View Profile
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2010, 10:15:56 AM »
So going back to the original question, B3 states:

"A pilot must at all times check for appropriate air traffic control coverage for the airspace he is crossing at any given time. If there is an appropriate air traffic controller available or upon request to make contact with an appropriate air traffic controller, then the pilot should immediately contact such controller."

I've bolded the part that makes this rule confusing. This leaves it open to interpretation. Why can't we just make a rule that states it nice and clearly and concisely? The way it's worded now you could interpret it as the pilot must make the contact, or the pilot must initiate contact once requested to by the controller.

And switching to visibility ranges, there is no bonafide RULE. Sure, there is a "recommended general rule" posted in the Vatsim forums, but does that mean we must read and be familiar with all the little postings like that before connecting? I'm willing to bet more than half of the controllers don't even read that forum, so how can they be held accountable for something in there? Is it really that difficult to copy and paste that into the CoC in a new section?! It might be considering the CoC goes C 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8. If something happens relating to C3, how the heck do you know which C3 we're talking about?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2010, 10:19:15 AM by Nicholas Taylor »

David Klain

  • Members
  • 26
    • View Profile
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2010, 12:59:30 PM »
I've held off on replying to the discussion on vis ranges as I wanted to hear what people had to say and wanted to see where the conversation went (it's amazing how much you can learn that way).

Let me now give some perspective and guidance from the leadership on why the rules are written the way they are and why there is NOT a published rule on vis ranges.

First -- we can't create a rule for every circumstance.  If we tried, the list of rules would quickly grow into the thousands and become unmanageable.  Instead, VATSIM has taken an approach of providing guidelines and then expecting people to comply with them.  It is a philosophical approach to running the network.  Some people want organizations with hundreds of pages of rules.  Some want no rules.  VATSIM has taken an approach somewhere in the middle...we explain what the accepted behavior is, provide examples as to what is not acceptable and then expect people to use their judgment.   Supervisors and VATSIM staff are chosen based on that judgment.  They don't always get it right and that's why we have an appeals process, but the overall process gets it right just about every time.

Second -- we don't publish vis ranges because there are exceptions to every case and good reasons why.  Let me give you an example.  What should be the vis range for approach?  The limits of the class C or B airspace?  20 miles outside that?  But wait...not all approaches are tied to class B or C airspace!  Some cover mutliple airsapce rings (think Potomac Approach which covers the IAD, DCA and BWI rings).  There are also approach facilities in other divisions which have very good reasons why they require extended ranges...

So what do we do instead?  We puiblish guidance -- keep your vis range as small as necessary to accomplish the job.  If someone's vis range seems excessively high, a supervisor touches base with them to determine "why".  If the reason is acceptable, things go on as normal.  If the reason is not acceptable, the controller is asked to reduce his vis range.  

Now as to "secret rules" -- there aren't any.  I think one of the things a previous poster referred to was the "secret supervisor vis range rule".  Let me be clear -- it doesn't exist.  What DOES exist is a tool that highlights to supervisors controllers who MAY have an excessive visibility range setting.  All that does is clue the supervisor in to take a look and see if there is an issue or not.  The ranges that set that tripwire are not "rules" but rather ballpark figures of what we find is an acceptable max range 90-99% of the time.  If a supervisor is using this as a rule, he is misinformed...  That said, I find that 9 times out of 10 a controller has no good reason for the excessive range setting he is using...it isn't operationally necessary to cover his airspace and (as pointed out) it is sucking down our bandwidth.

Before someone jumps in and says the bandwidth argument is crap, let me share some other things with you.

1. Every VATSIM server is paid for by someone.  That donation is provided based on two expectations: (a) that the server will be used to support flight/atc simulation on the network (hence our rules on no ground vehicles) and (B) that we will be good stewards of the resources we are given (meaning we work hard to ensure we don't waste bandwidth).
2. We use a MASSIVE amount of bandwidth on the network.  Many people say that bandwidth is cheap and point to things like Bluehost.com's "Unlimited bandwidth" offer for around $4/month.  If you work with them, you will soon discover that "unlimited" really doesn't mean "unlimited" and they will shut you down if you pull the kind of load we do (how do I know this?  because that is how the vatsim.info server got shut down.  that server hosted a number of things including vatusa and bluehost pulled the plug due to excessive bandwidth usage).  Klain.net is one of the hosts for the VATSIM data feed (what feeds Servinfo, Vroute, VATSPY and all those sites that show "who's online".  Anyone want to take a guess on how much bandwidth that feed alone uses?  It typically pulls around 300 GB a month (10 GB a day).  A hosting plan that (a) provides that sort of bandwith and (B) provides the processing power and ability to handle the 50-100 data calls a MINUTE for the data file doesn't come for $5/month.  I'm paying $73/month for a VPS  that meets the needs...that's over $800 a year.  Multiply that by the 2 other servinfo feeds, the data server, the cert server, and the VATSIM FSD servers and we're talking 10+ servers most of which cost between 70 and 100 dollars a month.  Even at the low end we're talking over $8000/year in server costs...and the members of VATSIM don't pay a single dime to use the network.  Instead we ask them to not abuse bandwidth and, if a supervisor thinks a vis range is excessive, we ask them to dial it back.

Bottom line -- VATSIM's leadership has made a conscious decision to not make this an organization filled with rules.  Instead we provide guidelines and then rely on people exercising their judgment.  Obviously this is not what some of you want, but if we gave you the kind of rulebook some of you appear to be asking for, we'd have a whole other group of people pissed off at how bureaucratic VATSIM is (and we already get that now!).

Let me close with a direct response to one comment made in this thread --- a reference to supervisors as Gestapo.  I find that statement incredibly offensive and insensitive.  Before you think it, no I am not Jewish or German, but comparing any one of the volunteers who dedicate their free time to making this network better to the Nazi Gestapo is in poor taste, offensive and downright rude.  I recognize that many of the VATSIM membership are young people who don't necessarily "think before they speak" but it is time some of you start doing just that.  

Supervisors are specifically chosen based on their judgment.  The BoG turns down a number of people with every list submitted by Michael Zazula because we have doubts about them.  We don't always get it right, but we do our best...and so do the supervisors.  For the person who got suspended because he was monitoring a student and had to go away...get over it.  You did violate the code of conduct because you had an unattended controller connection.  Yes you were not controlling traffic, but monitoring a student means just that ACTIVELY MONITORING.  A flight instructor can't monitor a student if he is in the back of the plane reading a book and a flight instructor is responsible for everything his student does.  Same thing goes with controllers monitoring student controllers.  Too many controllers out there aren't doing this and we've specifically asked supervisors to check up on monitors/OBS logins.  In this case your connection was unattended and you were disconnected and suspended.  Whatever your reason for leaving, you still left....and that student was now controlling with no one monitoring him meaning you were also violating another VATSIM rule.  To be honest, I wouldn't have rescinded your suspension but you got lucky and Michael gave you a break.  

Hopefully this perspective will help the rest of you understand where VATSIM (and the supervisors) are coming from.   I know you all won't agree with some of what I've written, but hopefully you now at least understand where we are coming from.  

all the best,
Dave
« Last Edit: February 07, 2010, 01:00:35 PM by Dave Klain »
Dave Klain
Former VATSIM President

Nicholas Taylor

  • Members
  • 33
    • View Profile
Check-In Responsibility
« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2010, 02:43:31 PM »
Dave,

Are you saying that all the so-called "guidelines" posted in the VATSIM forums must be followed? I don't have the hard statistics, but I'm willing to place a large sum of money on the fact that less than half of VATSIM's controlling population actively read the VATSIM forums. It's unfair to require all controllers to follow the guidelines in the forums when the forums aren't a required reading. Adding 1 more section to the C section in the CoC really isn't going to create a giant rulebook.

And in regards to me being suspended for leaving my connection, can you point me to the specific section in the CoC or CoR that I violated?

EDIT: Here is the exact e-mail from Michael Zazula: "Nick,

 

XXXX, acting as SUP, was indeed a little bit „quick” and he has admitted it was his fault. Therefore I have reverted your suspension and reactivated your account. Please accept my apologizes for the situation.

Best regards,

MJZ"

And from Alex Bailey: "Nick,
 
I have forwarded your message to VATSIM VP Supervisors. CoC B9 isn't the correct reference for this removal, and I don't believe you should have been suspended, but that's just my opinion. When signed into an active control position, you may not leave it unattended for any amount of time. I usually give about 5 minutes for the controller to return since I understand that issues do pop up that may be out of your control. I'll see what he has to say.
 
Thanks,
 
Alex Bailey
Division Director"

And the actual chat log:

[22:22:26] XX_SUP: My name is XX, Online Supervisor, answer this call.
[22:23:06] XX_SUP: I'm trying to contact you but no answer. This is second call
[22:23:26] XX_SUP: Either you comply or you will be removed.

Nobody could really tell me which section of the CoC I broke. I am still confused to this day, could you clear it up for me?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2010, 03:05:36 PM by Nicholas Taylor »