post deleted

Tom,

IIRC, wasn't there a VATUSA enforced rule made a few years back that required all ARTCCs to include all vital ARTCC information (i.e. SOPs, LOAs, Sector files, etc) accessible to the public? I may want to view a sector file of an ARTCC without necessarily joining that ARTCC, why can't I? The other issue is visiting controllers/transfers almost always wish to view the sector file and what an ARTCC has to offer prior to placing the request. To me it seems every ARTCC should make sector files, etc, public information.

JM

Because this is VATSIM, where we don't have "flavors of the day" we have "rules of the day".  They change daily based on who you talk to, especially when those people tasked with enforcement either don't enforce the written rules, or have their hands tied so much by those above that they (the enforcers) are UNABLE to do their jobs.  This is just a symptom of a MUCH bigger problem with VATSIM.

Justin, we agree!  Imagine that!!  :-)

It has been stated though that ZTL has their files locked down as a result of a "deal with the FAA".

I was asked to ask the following...

When did the founders' give ZTL the power to negotiate on VATSIM's behalf?

The way that this is made out to be read, seems very cut and dry, if you are not Major certified, you can't work the Center. Seems very Black and White. Now to add some color. Can a C-1, home or visiting, who is NOT Major certified for whatever reason, still work Center IF an Approach is online for the major airspace? If that is the case, then the Center controller must sign off when the Approach sector closes, yes? OR, can the Center stay/come online, but just hand-off planes to Unicom when the Aircraft reach the Major Airspace's boundaries?

DL

Interesting question Dan, and it seems to me that there was a discussion about something similar within the VATUSA staff forum, or ATM forum, but it has been a long time and I could be wrong on that "memory"...



OPINION
I agree that it seems "black and white".  If you are NOT "major" endorsed, then you may "NOT" work center for that airspace.  You can't comply with the "top-down" service "philosophy".

OPINION
I DO believe that IF a "major" endorsed controller is controlling said "major" airport, that a controller CAN control the CENTER position.  That controller, after all, is NOT handling the supposed "MAJOR" airport.  Once that CENTER controller becomes responsible for that airport, he/she must sign off, as simply terminating service into said "major" airport is not following the aforementioned "philosophy".


I am curious to see what answers come forth in the near term.  Even more curious as to the long term answers, though I think we actually have them, thanks to Norman for that information.

It seems that the BoG and the EC have this right, the question is, is it as intended?

Best,
JV

Not to throw fire on this subject, but here is my opinion.

Mr. Vodnansky here seems to like bashing people publicly even if it is in the form of asking a 'question' and/or without naming names.

I have read numerous other posts from him that strikes me as being somewhat hostile towards other members of VATUSA or VATSIM in general. At the same time I will say that there are some remarks which Mr. Vodnansky has made in the past about the enforcement and/or existence of written policies within VATUSA and VATSIM that I do agree with.

However, I do not believe matters such as these should creep their way onto the boards.

If you have a specific question that relates to someone violating any VATSIM or VATUSA policy then this should be address directly and discretely through email with a VATUSA Staff Member, such as the DCRM. Nothing wrong with due diligence, however it should be practiced with an appreciation for being respectful and discrete.

Let this not become a tattle-tale forum board. Please.

Best to all,

Andrew

Andrew,

In all seriousness I thought I WAS being respectful and discrete by NOT naming names in the public board.  Yet still calling attention to the problem.

Students continue to be mistreated on this network, and held to standards that are completely unreasonable.  I find this stuff by reading facility's policies.  Something each facility WANTS a person to do.  I find, what I BELIEVE to be "conflicts" based on my understanding of a subject.  So I then ask the question...

If my understanding is incorrect, then there is no point in asking the follow up question.  Perhaps I had misunderstood a rule, and then the answer would clarify MY understanding.  A logical process, no?  Why should I condemn someone in public, and tell them they are wrong if I have an inaccurate understanding of the rule myself...

Thanks for the thoughts, but I have some reading to do, and more questions to ask.  If the DCRM process is open to this kind of stuff, which is never was before, then I will gladly take it up in that direction.

JV

Thanks!

Jason Vodnansky

 Well said!


On the topic of the thread, thanks, that is what I thought too.

It seems as though at least one VATUSA facility is unaware of that fact...  

Jason Vodnansky

Assume you have attained a "MAJOR" endorsement for a given airport.

Sometime AFTER gaining this endorsement, a member of the staff decides to revoke that endorsement.  Is this legal in the eyes of VATSIM?

I am NOT speaking of a VATSIM Rating, merely the endorsement.

Thanks,
Jason Vodnansky

Interesting, I wasn't aware that VATUSA could override the EC.

Gary, if you are watching this thread, is the list on VATUSA's site correct?

Bryan, as VATNA1, and as the chair of the EC, could you explain the process used to designate a "major" facility?  When did the EC vote on adding KMCO to the list? Could you also explain which source takes priority?

Surely some process has been used to bypass the EC's authority...

Jason Vodnansky