Check-In Responsibility

[David Klain]

Tom,

You raise some valid points.  From your perspective I can see why you feel the way you do.  One thing I would ask you to consider is that VATSIM's purpose in life is NOT to train ATC students or prepare people for ATC or flight training.  At the end of the day, this is a hobby that people do for relaxation.  One of the problems that has frustrated the founders and the BOG is that some (note I say "some" and not "all" ARTCC staffs took this "ultra-realist approach" where people were expected to have darn near the level of knowledge and skills as required of real-world controllers who do this for a living.  Some people would say "what is wrong with that?  Realism is good and we are trying to be as realistic as possible..."  My counter to that is that ATC students at UND and ERAU are a VERY small population and if VATSIM only catered to them, we would very soon be a network of just a few hundred people.  

I've used this analogy in the past, so forgive me if it seems tired, but I think it represents what the VATSIM leadership's vision for the network is.  In flight simulation, imagine a spectrum of realism.  At one end is the pure gamer...picture the Microsoft Gaming Zone.  At the other end is the ultrarealist...the person who spends 6 hours flight planning, follows every step, etc.  Clearly those two extremes will not be happy with how the other end of the spectrum operates.  By the same token, those extremes represent a TINY part of the entire flight simulation community.  For better or for worse (we think for better, but you certainly may think otherwise), VATSIM has made a conscious decision NOT to cater to either extreme.  Instead we try to cater to the 80 percent in between.  The result is that some of the folks who want to do things as realistically as possible will be frustrated (as you are) and some of the people who just want to get on and control or fly will be frustrated (as others are), but we are meeting the needs of the MAJORITY of the VATSIM membership.

What you have done in going from VATSIM through school and now to a job with the FAA is a great thing.  My suspicion is that 5 or 10 years from now you might not be as interested in recreating every nuance of ATC on VATSIM as you are today because you live it in real life.  I got an interesting email from a real world 777 Captain on this very subject just a couple of days ago.  His comment was "I go on VATSIM to relax and as a break from real life...I am not at all interested in recreating all of the crap and bureaucracy, including stage checks and currency requirements, that I deal with in my real job.  That is why I am no longer interested in controlling on this network."  

I can see where you are coming from, but would ask you to look at it from my (and the rest of the leadership team's perspective).  While you and the rest of the ATC students at UND and ERAU and ATC students-in-waiting/wannabees want one level of realism, the reality is that you are a TINY percentage of the overall VATUSA population.  A vocal and active percentage, but a small percentage nonetheless.  I would submit to you that the majority of the controllers in VATUSA have no idea that this thread is going on, that VATUSA1 has resigned or that there is all this turmoil and gnashing of teeth.  All they want to do is come home from work, have  a beer and connect to the network for a few hours to fly or control.  I've got the membership population stats to prove that the average member is between 25 and 40 years old, male, out of school and doing this for recreation.  Most of them aren't interested in a perfect simulation of the real world, they want something that isn't a game with a bunch of teenagers running around being idiots, but they also don't want to deal with a lot of the crap that has been implemented in many parts of VATUSA by well-meaning and motivated staffers who have a different vision for the network.  There are presently 3713 controllers in VATUSA with a rating of S1 or above...only 945 are even on this forum.  

There are a lot of members out there who aren't interested in all of this rule making and empire-building...they just want to get on and CONTROL.  I have been laughed by several ARTCC staff members for making the point that "if a guy only comes on and controls 1 hour every other month (6 hours a year) as part of his recreational enjoyment of VATSIM, that is 6 hours of controller availability we would otherwise never have had and that is a good thing."  Those staffers have told me that this guy won't be familiar with current SOPs, procedures, etc. and should not be allowed to connect because he will "embarrass the ARTCC."  At the end of the day, no one is in any danger and we are here to have fun, yet we are limiting people's ability to contribute based on idiotic ideas like this?  ZAU (where I control right now) has a requirement a person log on and control at least 1 hour a month or they will be dropped off the roster.  That is NOT a VATSIM requirement.  That is NOT a VATNA requirement.  That is NOT a VATUSA requirement (although similar requirements exist in almost every ARTCC in VATUSA).  It is a local facility requirement.  Amazingly enough, just about every other part of the world manages to function without these rules which do nothing but EXCLUDE people from controlling, even if for just six hours a year...

When I (and Jeremy who posted above by the way) first became a VATSIM controller, I started out as ORD GND/DEL.  All training and about 95% of controlling at ZAU was done at KORD because that was the airport and that is where the traffic was.  There was none of this "need special training to control at one of the big airports" foolishness...people just got online and controlled.  If a pilot (or a controller) didn't realize that a STAR or an Approach had been updated, they laughed about it and quickly got the updated chart (or used the old one) and moved on...with everyone having a good time in their evening's relaxation.  Today if a pilot happened to have the old chart/STAR in his flight plan he is as likely to be chewed out by a controller and/or forced to refile his flight plan, look up new stuff before he is given a departure clearance.  That may cost that pilot 20 minutes of the 1 or 2 hours he had that evening to recreate on our network...and it may turn him off.  THAT is why there is a big push coming down from the founders and the BOG.  THAT is why GRP was implemented.  What you see as a lowering of standards may very well be a lowering of the high standards you set for yourself and your students, but we would call that creating a set of standards that allow for people to enjoy the network and for the network to thrive.

Let me give you another example...softball leagues.  Don't know if you play softball or not, but you certainly know people who do.  You also likely know that their are teams out there who practice daily and play with the intensity of professional ballplayers.  There are also leagues out there where people go out to have fun, get a break from work, have a beer and play some ball with their friends.  The second group tries equally hard to win the game, but they don't do it at the expense of friendships and having a good time.  There is nothing wrong with the first approach to softball...but I would submit to you the second approach is the spirit and intent of the VATSIM network.  If a guy has never played softball before (or is a lousy ballplayer) and comes to one of those teams...the first one will either:

(a) outright refuse to let him play because he lacks the knowledge/skills
(b) accept him, put him through the ringer in making him a "good" player and odds are he will quit out of frustration.

I would submit that the second team would not only welcome him, they would let him play and have fun.  There are too many ARTCC's in VATSIM (and many of them are in VATUSA) that too closely resemble the first team and not the second...and that hurts the network overall.

To some extent GRP was "forced" down the ARTCC's throats because some of them were getting completely out of control and needed to be forced back into line with VATSIM's overall approach to flight simulation after YEARS of us working with them and trying to get them to see the light.  Part of the reason GRP 2.0 took so darn long to get done is because the EC worked very hard to get key stakeholders involved in developing the policy.  I, the rest of the BoG and the EC got our butts regularly handed to us in the forums because it took so long to get done and I repeatedly said we were taking our time to make sure we got it right.  The fact that the majority of VATSIM's membership has been happy with how GRP 2.0 came out tells me we got it right.  We didn't satisfy everyone (and that was never going to happen anyway), but we developed a compromise that most people felt they could live with.  In an organization this big, that's a win.

This email is already too long, but let me answer one more point you raise...the issue of Secret meetings, agendas, etc...while the EC does the same thing, I will just answer for the BOG and ask you to take a look at the following links:

http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45671 - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43076 - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41620 - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38447 - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda

http://www.vatsim.net/network/docs/library/bogminutes/ --- All BOG minutes which show exactly what happened and what we discussed

We bend over backwards to have transparency in what we do...and my email box is always open President at vatsim dot net.

all the best,
Dave

[Brian Pryor]

Tom,

You raise some valid points.  From your perspective I can see why you feel the way you do.  One thing I would ask you to consider is that VATSIM's purpose in life is NOT to train ATC students or prepare people for ATC or flight training.  At the end of the day, this is a hobby that people do for relaxation.  One of the problems that has frustrated the founders and the BOG is that some (note I say "some" and not "all" ARTCC staffs took this "ultra-realist approach" where people were expected to have darn near the level of knowledge and skills as required of real-world controllers who do this for a living.  Some people would say "what is wrong with that?  Realism is good and we are trying to be as realistic as possible..."  My counter to that is that ATC students at UND and ERAU are a VERY small population and if VATSIM only catered to them, we would very soon be a network of just a few hundred people.  

I've used this analogy in the past, so forgive me if it seems tired, but I think it represents what the VATSIM leadership's vision for the network is.  In flight simulation, imagine a spectrum of realism.  At one end is the pure gamer...picture the Microsoft Gaming Zone.  At the other end is the ultrarealist...the person who spends 6 hours flight planning, follows every step, etc.  Clearly those two extremes will not be happy with how the other end of the spectrum operates.  By the same token, those extremes represent a TINY part of the entire flight simulation community.  For better or for worse (we think for better, but you certainly may think otherwise), VATSIM has made a conscious decision NOT to cater to either extreme.  Instead we try to cater to the 80 percent in between.  The result is that some of the folks who want to do things as realistically as possible will be frustrated (as you are) and some of the people who just want to get on and control or fly will be frustrated (as others are), but we are meeting the needs of the MAJORITY of the VATSIM membership.

What you have done in going from VATSIM through school and now to a job with the FAA is a great thing.  My suspicion is that 5 or 10 years from now you might not be as interested in recreating every nuance of ATC on VATSIM as you are today because you live it in real life.  I got an interesting email from a real world 777 Captain on this very subject just a couple of days ago.  His comment was "I go on VATSIM to relax and as a break from real life...I am not at all interested in recreating all of the crap and bureaucracy, including stage checks and currency requirements, that I deal with in my real job.  That is why I am no longer interested in controlling on this network."  

I can see where you are coming from, but would ask you to look at it from my (and the rest of the leadership team's perspective).  While you and the rest of the ATC students at UND and ERAU and ATC students-in-waiting/wannabees want one level of realism, the reality is that you are a TINY percentage of the overall VATUSA population.  A vocal and active percentage, but a small percentage nonetheless.  I would submit to you that the majority of the controllers in VATUSA have no idea that this thread is going on, that VATUSA1 has resigned or that there is all this turmoil and gnashing of teeth.  All they want to do is come home from work, have  a beer and connect to the network for a few hours to fly or control.  I've got the membership population stats to prove that the average member is between 25 and 40 years old, male, out of school and doing this for recreation.  Most of them aren't interested in a perfect simulation of the real world, they want something that isn't a game with a bunch of teenagers running around being idiots, but they also don't want to deal with a lot of the crap that has been implemented in many parts of VATUSA by well-meaning and motivated staffers who have a different vision for the network.  There are presently 3713 controllers in VATUSA with a rating of S1 or above...only 945 are even on this forum.  

There are a lot of members out there who aren't interested in all of this rule making and empire-building...they just want to get on and CONTROL.  I have been laughed by several ARTCC staff members for making the point that "if a guy only comes on and controls 1 hour every other month (6 hours a year) as part of his recreational enjoyment of VATSIM, that is 6 hours of controller availability we would otherwise never have had and that is a good thing."  Those staffers have told me that this guy won't be familiar with current SOPs, procedures, etc. and should not be allowed to connect because he will "embarrass the ARTCC."  At the end of the day, no one is in any danger and we are here to have fun, yet we are limiting people's ability to contribute based on idiotic ideas like this?  ZAU (where I control right now) has a requirement a person log on and control at least 1 hour a month or they will be dropped off the roster.  That is NOT a VATSIM requirement.  That is NOT a VATNA requirement.  That is NOT a VATUSA requirement (although similar requirements exist in almost every ARTCC in VATUSA).  It is a local facility requirement.  Amazingly enough, just about every other part of the world manages to function without these rules which do nothing but EXCLUDE people from controlling, even if for just six hours a year...

When I (and Jeremy who posted above by the way) first became a VATSIM controller, I started out as ORD GND/DEL.  All training and about 95% of controlling at ZAU was done at KORD because that was the airport and that is where the traffic was.  There was none of this "need special training to control at one of the big airports" foolishness...people just got online and controlled.  If a pilot (or a controller) didn't realize that a STAR or an Approach had been updated, they laughed about it and quickly got the updated chart (or used the old one) and moved on...with everyone having a good time in their evening's relaxation.  Today if a pilot happened to have the old chart/STAR in his flight plan he is as likely to be chewed out by a controller and/or forced to refile his flight plan, look up new stuff before he is given a departure clearance.  That may cost that pilot 20 minutes of the 1 or 2 hours he had that evening to recreate on our network...and it may turn him off.  THAT is why there is a big push coming down from the founders and the BOG.  THAT is why GRP was implemented.  What you see as a lowering of standards may very well be a lowering of the high standards you set for yourself and your students, but we would call that creating a set of standards that allow for people to enjoy the network and for the network to thrive.

Let me give you another example...softball leagues.  Don't know if you play softball or not, but you certainly know people who do.  You also likely know that their are teams out there who practice daily and play with the intensity of professional ballplayers.  There are also leagues out there where people go out to have fun, get a break from work, have a beer and play some ball with their friends.  The second group tries equally hard to win the game, but they don't do it at the expense of friendships and having a good time.  There is nothing wrong with the first approach to softball...but I would submit to you the second approach is the spirit and intent of the VATSIM network.  If a guy has never played softball before (or is a lousy ballplayer) and comes to one of those teams...the first one will either:

(a) outright refuse to let him play because he lacks the knowledge/skills
( accept him, put him through the ringer in making him a "good" player and odds are he will quit out of frustration.

I would submit that the second team would not only welcome him, they would let him play and have fun.  There are too many ARTCC's in VATSIM (and many of them are in VATUSA) that too closely resemble the first team and not the second...and that hurts the network overall.

To some extent GRP was "forced" down the ARTCC's throats because some of them were getting completely out of control and needed to be forced back into line with VATSIM's overall approach to flight simulation after YEARS of us working with them and trying to get them to see the light.  Part of the reason GRP 2.0 took so darn long to get done is because the EC worked very hard to get key stakeholders involved in developing the policy.  I, the rest of the BoG and the EC got our butts regularly handed to us in the forums because it took so long to get done and I repeatedly said we were taking our time to make sure we got it right.  The fact that the majority of VATSIM's membership has been happy with how GRP 2.0 came out tells me we got it right.  We didn't satisfy everyone (and that was never going to happen anyway), but we developed a compromise that most people felt they could live with.  In an organization this big, that's a win.

This email is already too long, but let me answer one more point you raise...the issue of Secret meetings, agendas, etc...while the EC does the same thing, I will just answer for the BOG and ask you to take a look at the following links:

http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45671 - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43076 - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41620 - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38447 - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda

http://www.vatsim.net/network/docs/library/bogminutes/ --- All BOG minutes which show exactly what happened and what we discussed

We bend over backwards to have transparency in what we do...and my email box is always open President at vatsim dot net.

all the best,
Dave

+1 , well said Dave

[Luke Kolin]

All BOG minutes which show exactly what happened and what we discussed

Except when you talk about the Web Site or the Data Server. Why is that?

Cheers!

Luke

[Nicholas Taylor]

We bend over backwards to have transparency in what we do...and my email box is always open President at vatsim dot net.

all the best,
Dave

Dave,

It seems to me that you "bend over backwards" even more by creating these little "minutes" documents when you could just record the thing in TS, compress it, and have it available to download. That way you'll have transparency in EVERYTHING you do instead of choosing not to include certain topics in the "minutes" document (as Luke pointed out above); which is a pretty poor representation of the meeting in my opinion. Look at VATUSA, all the instructor meetings, etc., etc., are recorded and available to download. That takes much less time and effort too.

-Nick

[Brian Pryor]

Dave,

It seems to me that you "bend over backwards" even more by creating these little "minutes" documents when you could just record the thing in TS, compress it, and have it available to download. That way you'll have transparency in EVERYTHING you do instead of choosing not to include certain topics in the "minutes" document (as Luke pointed out above); which is a pretty poor representation of the meeting in my opinion. Look at VATUSA, all the instructor meetings, etc., etc., are recorded and available to download. That takes much less time and effort too.

-Nick

One of the problems that they run into vs the staff meetings we have is executive session, items in ES are usually confidential in nature, and while editing would not be difficult it can become time consuming.

[David Klain]

Dave,

It seems to me that you "bend over backwards" even more by creating these little "minutes" documents when you could just record the thing in TS, compress it, and have it available to download. That way you'll have transparency in EVERYTHING you do instead of choosing not to include certain topics in the "minutes" document (as Luke pointed out above); which is a pretty poor representation of the meeting in my opinion. Look at VATUSA, all the instructor meetings, etc., etc., are recorded and available to download. That takes much less time and effort too.

-Nick

Very good point, but there are some things discussed which are NOT for general discussion, either to protect people's privacy, or VATSIM proprietary information.  For example:

- Discussion on DCRM appeals that have come up to the BOG.  
- Discussion on people being permanently banned/suspended from VATSIM
- Discussion on VATSIM finances, relations with server owners, etc.
- Discussion on some things being worked for the website or other things that we believe gives VATSIM a competitive advantage over it's competitor networks (we don't want them to know what we are working on/rolling out).

Bottom line is that some things should not be (and will not be) made public...and that's the way it should be.

Dave

[David Jedrejcic]

Great post, Dave.  Thanks for the insight.

[Nicholas Taylor]

Dave, these "Executive Sessions" I see in the minutes, are they when those sort of things are discussed? If so, is it possible to hold said "ES" in a different room or stopping and starting recording after that is finished and splicing the two files together? It certainly wouldn't be hard too hard to do. And if it takes more time than creating these minutes documents, please say so. It just seems to me a recording would be easier for everyone to understand and that way you hear everything the way it's said, not a short recap in a 3 page document on a 2 and a half hour meeting.

-Nick

[Jeff Thomas]

David,
  Thank you for the note.  I too learned at ORD when it was just fun, and not the ATC control freaks that have emerged.  I did not realize that GRP 2.0 was actually intended to tame some of these folks that have gone way overboard in their pursuit of reality in this wonderful HOBBY/GAME, and levelset the entire thing.

  I think this is bane of our existence at this point.  The stress between those who want this to be like real life, and those of us who just want to enjoy the game.

  Like you said, I only have a few hours to invest in this game a week, and I don't want to spend my time studying FAA regs, or getting picked at about how I say stuff as long as I control the traffic and push tin.  I don't need some kid from NDU bitching because I say "You are 10nm from the marker"....  I like learning don't get me wrong, but I don't want it to take over the fun....

  If I wanted to do this for a living, I would have, but hey controlling is STRESSFUL.  Why are we making it SO hard on ourselves.... I just don't get it....  Get out and fly/control.  We have people who could be controlling positions that cannot because of some crazy process that we've put down on ourselves.

Jeff

PS>  I never really thought the controllers were the problem on VATSIM, it was the lack of training for the pilots....but somehow we've spun it around the wrong way.....ATC is a service, not a power.

[David Klain]

Dave, these "Executive Sessions" I see in the minutes, are they when those sort of things are discussed? If so, is it possible to hold said "ES" in a different room or stopping and starting recording after that is finished and splicing the two files together? It certainly wouldn't be hard too hard to do. And if it takes more time than creating these minutes documents, please say so. It just seems to me a recording would be easier for everyone to understand and that way you hear everything the way it's said, not a short recap in a 3 page document on a 2 and a half hour meeting.

-Nick

Nick,

To be honest that has never been done.  That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it just hasn't ever been done.  The reality is the minutes exist as a means of documenting what happened at the meeting.  It is standard business practice in any large organization or board meeting because there is no requirement to have a word-by-word record (as compared to legal proceedings where an exact transcript is required).  A set of minutes also allows a board member or founder to review them and see what happened at the meeting (which is the purpose of minutes).   Having generated the minutes once or twice (I don't remember) when I was VATGOV2 and had to cover it because VP Comms was unavailable, I can tell you that a teamspeak recording of a 2+ hour meeting is a LARGE file.  I have the 22 March 09 recording on my hard drive and it is 222 MB zipped up.  Someone would literally need to listen to it for the full two hours, identify the areas where we go into executive session, cut the file and then splice the rest back together and that is a LOT more time intensive than creating minutes from a set of notes taken as the meeting goes on.  That said, if there is that much interest in what goes on in BoG meetings, what I will do is change the format of our next meeting (sked for the end of March).  We'll do all straight business up front and NOT go into exec session.  I'll then have the person making the recording actually stop recording, we'll go into exec session and do what we need to do.  We'll then post the recording on the server and see how many people download it.  If there are people who download it, actually listen to the whole darn thing and find it useful, we can probably do that in the future...  Does that sound like a reasonable approach?

all the best,
Dave

[Thomas Flanary]

Dave,

I'm not going to argue your points, I stand by what I said.

I'm not the guy you described. For the people that know me, they know this and I dont' need to prove myself.  There are those people on the network, but I haven't run into any in a while. I do feel that my controllers should be confident though, regardless of what I'm teaching them.

If there wasn't a problem, then I would question why all the Divisional Directors we've had wanted to retire early.

-Tom

[Richard Jenkins]

Dave,

I'm not going to argue your points, I stand by what I said.

I'm not the guy you described. For the people that know me, they know this and I dont' need to prove myself.  There are those people on the network, but I haven't run into any in a while. I do feel that my controllers should be confident though, regardless of what I'm teaching them.

If there wasn't a problem, then I would question why all the Divisional Directors we've had wanted to retire early.

-Tom

Nine years of VATSIM and VATEUD has had 3 directors. I wonder what the difference is...

[Ron Lemke]

Nine years of VATSIM and VATEUD has had 3 directors. I wonder what the difference is...

The story I heard is that they are better at asking forgiveness. For their recent VATSIM sins they had to repeat the COR 4 times, the GRP 3 times, and Visiting Controllers 2 times.  

[Nicholas Taylor]

Nick,

To be honest that has never been done.  That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it just hasn't ever been done.  The reality is the minutes exist as a means of documenting what happened at the meeting.  It is standard business practice in any large organization or board meeting because there is no requirement to have a word-by-word record (as compared to legal proceedings where an exact transcript is required).  A set of minutes also allows a board member or founder to review them and see what happened at the meeting (which is the purpose of minutes).   Having generated the minutes once or twice (I don't remember) when I was VATGOV2 and had to cover it because VP Comms was unavailable, I can tell you that a teamspeak recording of a 2+ hour meeting is a LARGE file.  I have the 22 March 09 recording on my hard drive and it is 222 MB zipped up.  Someone would literally need to listen to it for the full two hours, identify the areas where we go into executive session, cut the file and then splice the rest back together and that is a LOT more time intensive than creating minutes from a set of notes taken as the meeting goes on.  That said, if there is that much interest in what goes on in BoG meetings, what I will do is change the format of our next meeting (sked for the end of March).  We'll do all straight business up front and NOT go into exec session.  I'll then have the person making the recording actually stop recording, we'll go into exec session and do what we need to do.  We'll then post the recording on the server and see how many people download it.  If there are people who download it, actually listen to the whole darn thing and find it useful, we can probably do that in the future...  Does that sound like a reasonable approach?

all the best,
Dave

Dave,

That's a great idea. I hope you actually do this. I mean, it can't really hurt anything and if there is not a big response, then all means, please stop. But hopefully you guys at least give it a try.

Don't knock it till 'ya try it,
Nick

[David Klain]

Dave,

That's a great idea. I hope you actually do this. I mean, it can't really hurt anything and if there is not a big response, then all means, please stop. But hopefully you guys at least give it a try.

Don't knock it till 'ya try it,
Nick

We'll give it a shot with the March Meeting and will post a link to download the recording (assuming I get no objections from the rest of the BOG.  I don't expect any but don't want to speak unilaterally for the Board).