Check-In Responsibility

[Luke Kolin]

Sure, turn off all the forums, mailing lists, TS servers and give me 30 days, turn your back, and just ignore the loud crashes and bangs in the background.

I'd donate a year's worth of hosting charges or a pair of servers if I could watch the crashes and bangs.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]My excessive fascination with bandwidth? Hardly....[/quote]

Not you personally; a collective you as the Founders. Bandwidth is a textbook case of "not sweating the small stuff" in action, where we focus on the tactical and ignore the strategic.

Cheers!

Luke

[J Jason Vodnansky]

Harold, great point.  It was an implied task but wasn't written down anywhere (the implied task being "how do I setup or configure my controller client software?".  That was fixed with GRP 2.,0 and would now be included in I.A.1 (Setup, Configure and Connect to the network).

Dave

Observation...

These ranges must be written in invisible ink, or there is a font color problem, because I sure don't see any range limits contained in GRP 2.0, as it exist at this moment, on the NEW VATSIM website.  Having reviewed the section referenced, it contains nothing related to visiblity ranges.

Best,
Jason Vodnansky

[Gerry Hattendorf]

I've been reading this thread, and as it seems the heading and altitude are drifting all over the place, I just have one simple question.  Instead of us acting like a bunch of lawyers, why not just good old common sense regardless if your a pilot, ATC, SUP, ADM, etc?

If a pilot fails to call ATC on some invisible border, simple, the ATC guy calls the pilot.  If the pilot is unresponsive, it's ATC's call to determine if this will cause a problem with other VATSIM members, and make a decision to monitor the guy, or wallop a SUP.  

Checking visibility ranges, unattended connections, etc, are all part of the Supervisors duties, and as such should not be viewed as a Gestapo act, but normal "back-office" work in an attempt to keep the network usage maximized.  The job of a Sup is to help pilots and controllers, and of course an administrator if it's deemed necessary to remove a member from the network due to disruptive activity.  

Again, I'm not a lawyer so common sense takes the trump card always!

Gentlemen,

[Spencer Devino]

I've been reading this thread, and as it seems the heading and altitude are drifting all over the place, I just have one simple question.  Instead of us acting like a bunch of lawyers, why not just good old common sense regardless if your a pilot, ATC, SUP, ADM, etc?

If a pilot fails to call ATC on some invisible border, simple, the ATC guy calls the pilot.  If the pilot is unresponsive, it's ATC's call to determine if this will cause a problem with other VATSIM members, and make a decision to monitor the guy, or wallop a SUP.  

Checking visibility ranges, unattended connections, etc, are all part of the Supervisors duties, and as such should not be viewed as a Gestapo act, but normal "back-office" work in an attempt to keep the network usage maximized.  The job of a Sup is to help pilots and controllers, and of course an administrator if it's deemed necessary to remove a member from the network due to disruptive activity.  

Again, I'm not a lawyer so common sense takes the trump card always!

Gentlemen,

I like this post because it seems to represent what we all want from the community. Vis Ranges should not be a "gestapo" act if done kindly.

If rule is...

1. Vis Range for Airport Operations (eg. ORD Tower and Below) between 30 - 50 miles.
2. Vis Ranges for APP/DEP no more than 30 miles outside airpsace.
3. Vis Ranges for CTR no more than 50 miles outside ARTCC airspace.

Example:
SUP: I see you have your vis range @ xxx miles which is pretty high, may I ask why?
ATC: I am working Approach and have my Vis range set 20 miles out of my airspace.
SUP: ok, thanks.

^^^ the above would be great to see- nobody wants dogmatic responses from Controllers or Supervisors.

Maybe? Yes? No? Can we get a RULE? A simple add for EVERYONE to follow? (even a judgment-based rule would be nice).

Spencer D.

[Alex Bailey]

Spencer,

For the majority of the time, the example in your post represents the situation accurately. Only in a very few situations will you see a Supervisor acting outside of his/her authority or in a rude manner, and in this situation you have a course of action to rectify the problem. You can always send an email to the VP Supervisors or VP Conflict Resolution as an appeal.

Best,

[J Jason Vodnansky]

Spencer,

For the majority of the time, the example in your post represents the situation accurately. Only in a very few situations will you see a Supervisor acting outside of his/her authority or in a rude manner, and in this situation you have a course of action to rectify the problem. You can always send an email to the VP Supervisors or VP Conflict Resolution as an appeal.

Best,

Too bad that the penalty has ALREADY been served.  Which is the whole point.

What's the sense in appealing but to expunge the record?  Which, we have to take on faith (of which there is very little) that it has been expunged...

Jason Vodnansky

[Spencer Devino]

Too bad that the penalty has ALREADY been served.  Which is the whole point.

What's the sense in appealing but to expunge the record?  Which, we have to take on faith (of which there is very little) that it has been expunged...

Jason Vodnansky

There are a couple of things I do not understand and will try to make them as simple as possible. This is how they are flowing through my mind in a rudimentary explanation:

1. Why isn't there a rule about Vis Ranges! Because it's talked about so much. Having said rules would END ALL DISCUSSION.
2. Why does it take VATSIM thousand of posts on something before anything is really DONE by the upper management?
3. Pilots seem to still fly on the network even though there are corrupt SUPs- probably because VATSIM is the only network of its kind.
4. Why aren't the above stated SUPs taken care of? Why are they even around?
5. Why do the pilots and ATC get spoken to rudely when trying to speak up about problems?

Can anyone answer any of these?

Spencer D.

[Tyler Walton]

Can't imagine why people control at all with garbage like this post flying around. Simple answer was given and it turned into the post that made the (in my opinion) top 3 ppl in Vatsim resign. Nice job guys.

If the pilot had a complaint he should have logged a complaint with the director of supervisors which is where I would have sent him rather than make a post in the forum.

Gotta hand it to you jason, u sure have a way of getting Vatusa1's to resign...first alex and now andrew...lol.

[Michael Hodge Jr]

Can't imagine why people control at all with garbage like this post flying around. Simple answer was given and it turned into the post that made the (in my opinion) top 3 ppl in Vatsim resign. Nice job guys.

If the pilot had a complaint he should have logged a complaint with the director of supervisors which is where I would have sent him rather than make a post in the forum.

Gotta hand it to you jason, u sure have a way of getting Vatusa1's to resign...first alex and now andrew...lol.

I can promise you that Jason had no hand in making Andrew (nor I, nor Rob) resign.

[Alex Bailey]

I can promise you that Jason had no hand in making Andrew (nor I, nor Rob) resign.

Nor I

[J Jason Vodnansky]

HA,

I wish!  Took me by surprise as well when I found out.  I can't say I blame them for leaving.

Regarding Alex, as I have said many times, as far as I know Alex resigned, as his real world priorities were getting in the way.  I don't believe that I can/should/will take any credit for it.

Personally, I can think of only 3 people I would like to see resign.  I am fully aware that people think one way or another about me.  I can't help it, and know that I can't please everyone.  I do know that I can read (which is more than some have demonstrated), and follow the written policies.  As stated previously, and in the ATM staff board, I am NOT against many of these policies, NOR am I against visibility ranges.  Never have I claimed otherwise.  That seems to be the belief however.  Again, read what is said...

People ask me to contribute to the hobby.  Been there, done that, and continue to do so.  People ask me to contribute "positively" to the discussion.  What exactly does that mean?  Explaining why a policy is confusing isn't contributing positively?  Explaing how something could be worded better isn't contributing positively to the network?  Exposing another side of the story isn't contributing positively to the hobby?  How many emails go unanswered every day?  Yet, that is the answer, "private email is better than a forum post".  Why? so there is no public record of what is said?  So others can lie about it?

Seems to me that these are ALL positive contributions to the hobby.

If anyone thinks that private emails weren't tried, and clarifications weren't asked for privately, they are mistaken.  The issue is that one person says one thing, another says another, and then the "almighty" steps in and offers another interpretation.  All expect THEIR way to be followed, except, ooooops, NONE are in accordance with standing WRITTEN policies.

Let me leave you with this thought about visibility ranges...

Richard Jenkins posted earlier that, and let me quote it to get it right...
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]You want to set your range to 1500nm fine by me....maybe all of you should! I'll watch. Heaven forbid you should just try and help out without someone having to cram a piece of paper down your throat first.[/quote]

Since he posted the suggested visibility guidlines in the VATSIM forum, and they have been taken as "law".  Does this mean that we can now reference this post as "law"?  Why should one post be more important than the other?

Now, to be fair, I assume he is kidding, and saying this "tongue in cheek".  But, let me ask, how do we know?  How do we know he wasn't kidding the first time?  Which is it, and which is to be enforced?  As I said, both are forum posts...

Best,
Jason Vodnansky

[Richard Jenkins]

HA,

I wish!  Took me by surprise as well when I found out.  I can't say I blame them for leaving.

Regarding Alex, as I have said many times, as far as I know Alex resigned, as his real world priorities were getting in the way.  I don't believe that I can/should/will take any credit for it.

Personally, I can think of only 3 people I would like to see resign.  I am fully aware that people think one way or another about me.  I can't help it, and know that I can't please everyone.  I do know that I can read (which is more than some have demonstrated), and follow the written policies.  As stated previously, and in the ATM staff board, I am NOT against many of these policies, NOR am I against visibility ranges.  Never have I claimed otherwise.  That seems to be the belief however.  Again, read what is said...

People ask me to contribute to the hobby.  Been there, done that, and continue to do so.  People ask me to contribute "positively" to the discussion.  What exactly does that mean?  Explaining why a policy is confusing isn't contributing positively?  Explaing how something could be worded better isn't contributing positively to the network?  Exposing another side of the story isn't contributing positively to the hobby?  How many emails go unanswered every day?  Yet, that is the answer, "private email is better than a forum post".  Why? so there is no public record of what is said?  So others can lie about it?

Seems to me that these are ALL positive contributions to the hobby.

If anyone thinks that private emails weren't tried, and clarifications weren't asked for privately, they are mistaken.  The issue is that one person says one thing, another says another, and then the "almighty" steps in and offers another interpretation.  All expect THEIR way to be followed, except, ooooops, NONE are in accordance with standing WRITTEN policies.

Let me leave you with this thought about visibility ranges...

Richard Jenkins posted earlier that, and let me quote it to get it right...


Since he posted the suggested visibility guidlines in the VATSIM forum, and they have been taken as "law".  Does this mean that we can now reference this post as "law"?  Why should one post be more important than the other?

Now, to be fair, I assume he is kidding, and saying this "tongue in cheek".  But, let me ask, how do we know?  How do we know he wasn't kidding the first time?  Which is it, and which is to be enforced?  As I said, both are forum posts...

Best,
Jason Vodnansky

Just assume anything I say is law. My therapist says it will help....  

So this is how the thing will playout:

They'll put it in the CoC.

They'll forget about the exceptions to the range settings for some positions around the world.

We'll get a list of those together.

There will be a debate about if those really are exceptions or not.

A committee will be formed to review those exceptions.

Committee will decide it needs a policy to determine if something is an exception or not.

Committee will forward it to the EC for review.

EC will make recommendations.

Back to committee.

XYZ ACC/ARTCC/FIR will say they didn't get a chancce to comment.

Back to committee for edits to include new facility who was blatantly ignore in first round.

Someone will notice there is no procedure for applying for exception to the range suggestions.

Committee writes procedure for applying for exception.

CoC somehow gets amended by vote.

SUPs complain they don't know who has exceptions.

Committe finds someone to build a webpage. The will require additional staff to maintain.

Find staff.

Need a Exception rule director. We'll call him Except1.

Setup email for him.

He'll need an assistant because directors needs someone to direct.

Time goes by.

We'll need a review!

Exception rule updated so you can only have 2 range exceptions within your facility.

XYZ ACC/ARTCC/FIR says they need three!

...and it goes on and on.



Get the point....?

[Bruce Clingan]

Just assume anything I say is law. My therapist says it will help....  

So this is how the thing will playout:

They'll put it in the CoC.

They'll forget about the exceptions to the range settings for some positions around the world.

We'll get a list of those together.

There will be a debate about if those really are exceptions or not....

So kind of like the major fields in GRP 2.0?

[Luke Kolin]

So this is how the thing will playout:

They'll put it in the CoC.

.. much stupidity and role-playing deleted

Get the point....?

The other option is to create maximum viz ranges about 3x larger than needed in any realistic situation, enforce them in FSD and the problem goes away. Of course, that would involve strategic thinking and not sweating the small stuff and not being anal about bandwidth that would cost less than my lunch tab. I'll be good-natured and gregarious before VATSIM is capable of such advanced actions.

This entire stupidity came around because VATSIM cares about 20K of bandwidth that literally costs fractions of a penny to provide. Way to see the big picture!

Cheers!

Luke

[Richard Jenkins]

The other option is to create maximum viz ranges about 3x larger than needed in any realistic situation, enforce them in FSD and the problem goes away. Of course, that would involve strategic thinking and not sweating the small stuff and not being anal about bandwidth that would cost less than my lunch tab. I'll be good-natured and gregarious before VATSIM is capable of such advanced actions.

This entire stupidity came around because VATSIM cares about 20K of bandwidth that literally costs fractions of a penny to provide. Way to see the big picture!

Cheers!

Luke

Yep, those developers should do that. Any ideas who? I could quit wasting time reading this drivel.

Someone I was talking to today made an interesting comment. He said "Why do we need divisions?" What if we could just dissect a layer out? What would be the pros and cons. What would stop working? Why does an ARTCC events director need an assistant? Twenty-two of these?  So many questions...