VATUSA Forums
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jeff Thomas on February 13, 2010, 12:02:53 PM
-
One might make the argument that we don't need a VATUSA division "staff", and it's a pretty good argument as long as there is a policy/member liaison, a training person, and a website/technology dude.
If the VATUSA1s of the world are so unhappy (for whatever reason) and we cannot keep them, why have em?
What is the value added by a division head at this level of the organization?
And to that end, what is the purpose/value-add of the Regional Director other than to act as a speed bump between the division head and the VATSIM EC?
If the division heads cannot implement their own policies outside the CoR, and now GRP2, what's the point? I wouldn't want that job for sure, because all you are at that point is a figure head. Is it just to take care of the day-to-day needs of the VATUSA membership so the EC or RD don't have to deal with it? Again, I wouldn't want that job either.....
Could we get away without having a VATUSA1 realistically? Keep a member person, a training/standards/QA person, and a web site person, and that's it.
Jeff
PS> we obviously have an organizational issue (along with some communication issues it seems), so why not lay out all the cards and options?
"let the flaming commence
-
Jeff,
Using your logic, why does each city need a mayor? Keep the directors of the Department of Public Works, Police, and Fire in their position, then every city can talk to the governor of its state. Frankly that's ridiculous.
Resignations are not necessarily a bad thing. If people in positions such as VATUSA1 get worn down, then they're going to resign. It's not necessarily that they're unhappy. And just because VATUSA gets more frequent resignations than, say, VATEUD, that doesn't mean something's wrong.
The GRP is not an overwhelmingly binding document (edit:) with regard to VATUSA policies and has very little (if any) effect on them. In fact, it's hardly an overwhelmingly binding document at all. I worked as the TA of ZDV for a year to establish ZDV training department compliance with that document. It primarily bounds ARTCC training departments. Sure, VATUSA has had to tweak a couple of things such as the Training Resource Center to reflect rating changes in the GRP, but beyond that there isn't a whole lot that has had to change on the divisional level. Whether or not you agree with me, the GRP is not an evil document and has provided many positives in its implementation, as shown by the response from individual ARTCCs to VATUSA at the time of GRP review last year.
VATSIM divisions are bound to the Code of Regulations in the same sense that states of the US are bound to the US Constitution. Cities in states of the US are bound to the state constitution. That's basically how VATSIM works, too. The CoR does not prevent someone from trying something new, expediting efficiency, or -- generally speaking -- from making new policy, as long as it complies with the policies set forth by the top.
Many of the positions have been established to simply reduce workload for other staff members higher up on the bureaucratic tier. Nothing's wrong with that. It's okay to have people making regional, divisional, and ARTCC decisions that conform to VATSIM's policies.
-
Harold,
Jeff,
Using your logic, why does each city need a mayor? Keep the directors of the Department of Public Works, Police, and Fire in their position, then every city can talk to the governor of its state. Frankly that's ridiculous.
Mayors have the authority to develop policy and broad discretion (sometimes not because of city councils holding of the broad discretion) to make decisions. They can create ordinance, allocate funds (which we don't do on VATSIM) so on and so forth. Though it seems like the idea of a Mayor and VATUSA1 may fit together I don't think that they are as connected as it may appear.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Resignations are not necessarily a bad thing. If people in positions such as VATUSA1 get worn down, then they're going to resign. It's not necessarily that they're unhappy. And just because VATUSA gets more frequent resignations than, say, VATEUD, that doesn't mean something's wrong.[/quote]
That would be good if it is the fact, but I don't think that the recent turnover is because of normal attrition. I could be wrong and only those people really know the answer.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The GRP is not an overwhelmingly binding document (edit:) with regard to VATUSA policies and has very little (if any) effect on them. In fact, it's hardly an overwhelmingly binding document at all. I worked as the TA of ZDV for a year to establish ZDV training department compliance with that document. It primarily bounds ARTCC training departments. Sure, VATUSA has had to tweak a couple of things such as the Training Resource Center to reflect rating changes in the GRP, but beyond that there isn't a whole lot that has had to change on the divisional level. Whether or not you agree with me, the GRP is not an evil document and has provided many positives in its implementation, as shown by the response from individual ARTCCs to VATUSA at the time of GRP review last year.[/quote]
The implementation of GRP1 was dramatically different than the implementation of GRP2.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]VATSIM divisions are bound to the Code of Regulations in the same sense that states of the US are bound to the US Constitution. Cities in states of the US are bound to the state constitution. That's basically how VATSIM works, too. The CoR does not prevent someone from trying something new, expediting efficiency, or -- generally speaking -- from making new policy, as long as it complies with the policies set forth by the top.[/quote]
Not really. The Constitution is a supreme law, one which all other regulation must fall within from the local level to the Federal level. The COC/COR are technically the only low. Outside of what the BOD can accomplish policy wise there are is technically no rule making allowed outside the COC/COR. There is rule making allowed within the U.S. Constitution hundreds of thousands of pages of law which have been created to fit within the guidelines of the Constitution. The discretion at the local level on VATSIM to make rules is extremely limited. Essentially to minimum hours requirements, which is also regulated, and local field procedures which are also regulated through GRP.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Many of the positions have been established to simply reduce workload for other staff members higher up on the bureaucratic tier. Nothing's wrong with that. It's okay to have people making regional, divisional, and ARTCC decisions that conform to VATSIM's policies.[/quote]
You are right, that is the purpose of hiring staff members under you but if no authority or discretion is delegated to those staff members all that is created is frustration, and confusion. For example, all of the staff at ZID, and I hope that they would agree, have extremely broad discretion to make decisions regarding their departments. I don't approve everything my TA says or does, nor my DATM. I monitor their decisions and attempt to stay in communication them so that their decisions are likely inline with my vision for the ARTCC. If I were to require them to have approved by my everything which they do I completely eliminate the purpose of hiring additional staff, and should essentially just leave the positions vacant and do the work myself. And that leads us to the initial post.
Leaving the division staff vacant may be something to consider, maybe not ideal and certainly not my decision to make it is an idea which deserves thought.
-
BTW I am being devil's advocate with this thread.
-
BTW I am being devil's advocate with this thread.
It's a question worth asking. You have ARTCC staff, the VATUSA Regions, VATUSA, VATNA, EC, BoG, and finally the Founders. That's an awful lot of layers for how many active controllers?
While VATUSA might need to stick around since airspace rules are as I understand it national there's value in a national level of organization, there's certainly two or three layers in that above list that could vanish without anyone noticing.
Cheers!
Luke
-
Jeff, that's a perfectly fine question to ask, and I understand that you are just asking, without any predetermined stake in the question, so to say. So please understand that my response is not directed towards you in any way, but it is directed towards answering the question. I, personally, think that abolishing the institution of VATUSA would be an enormous mistake, as any of the subtitutes that one might put in its place would either be worse, or at best, only just as good as having VATUSA in the first place, thereby rendering the idea useless at best, and detrimental at worst.
There is a great deal of value in having a VATUSA Staff, which helps to ensure a level of conformity within the constituent ARTCCs, and also takes on the responsibility of dealing with the bureaucratic issues that would otherwise fall directly onto the ATMs, who, I think we would all agree, already have enough to do. There is, furthermore, an enormous value of having a leader for the VATUSA Staff, in the person of VATUSA1. This role is intended to serve as a single point of contact for the entire division, as far as the eyes of VATSIM are concerned. In every organization, there is a single point of contact - this is the person who is expected to make the final decisions, and who takes the blame for any shortcomings that befall his staff (and then takes due steps to correct them). There is a great value in having a single leader to every organization of people. This has been a standard way of leading organizations since...the dawn of civilization. Have you ever heard of a co-King of a kingdom? A co-President of a democratic state? Every method of government has 1) a leader, and 2) a staff of advisors. The Romans (while they were working properly) had an Emperor, and a Senate. Each King had his court. And Bruce, I respectfully disagree that Harold's analogy is in error. Just because VATSIM does not have funds to dole out, does not make the analogy useless. The Mayor can not make laws of his own devising, they must also be in line with the laws of the state, and of the nation. This is indeed much like the relationship between VATUSA with the Region and the BOG/Founders.
If we were to take away the VATUSA staff, then the ARTCC's would answer to who? VATNA, right? Guess what - another single point of contact - no change in operation. What if we were to do away with VATNA as well? Then who do the ARTCCs answer to? The EC? The BOG? Can you imagine having to run the daily operations of an ARTCC and have to answer directly to the BOG who meets, what, once a quarter? How would this be expected to work?
So now you have about 23 organizations that are all on equal terms, with no one to answer to except one of the two choices given above (either to VATNA1 which would be much like the status quo, with the exception that VATNA1 would not have any staff to help with the job, or it would be answering to the EC/BOG, which would basically sever any ties of responsibility between the ARTCCs and their governorship due to the limited daily operations of the BOG). So now the ARTCCs are free to govern themselves? This is a sure-fire way to have anarchy ensue, and the order of things would simply come to an end.
VATUSA serves a very well defined purpose, and that is to oversee the operations of the ARTCCs, enable the ARTCC staff with the tools they need in order to to do the jobs that they need to do (at least in theory), and to relieve the burden of the ARTCC staff from dealing with the globally based bureaucratic issues (which do, in fact need to be dealt with in the case of a multinational organization, virtual or not). VATSIM is a small version of the real world, whether it's a hobby or not. There are controllers online right now in Japan, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Libya, South Africa and Urugay - not to mention Canada and the United States. These are real people from around the globe that are participating in this "hobby". The organization is complex, and with thousands of members (all of whom have slightly different goals when they log on to the network, by the way), a structure is needed in order to govern the activities on the network, and to give direction to the efforts of so many people, so that those efforts will bear fruit.
If there were no VATUSA, then the ARTCCs which currently make up VATUSA would become a collection of organizations that would be extremely difficult to manage, to say the least. This is about the equivalent of the head of a corporation disbanding his or her headquarters and saying, "well, each of the 23 cities in which we have offices will be fine - they can make decisions on their own - just have them each answer to the shareholders individually." If anyone thinks that it is a good idea to do away with VATUSA, then I ask you to explain to me why the analogy of the corporation giving up their leadership of their consituents is not a common business practice. Is it because the corporation prefers to weild power that they choose not release their constinuents? Or is it because the organization as a whole would suffer from lack of central leadership? I think it is the latter. Why not have each of the 50 states govern themselves - why do we have a federal government? The analogies are endless.
And again, if you do away with VATUSA, then the ARTCCs (logically) would have to answer to VATNA1 instead. So VATNA1 currently does not have a staff like VATUSA does, so now the entire set of functions perfomed by the VATUSA Staff is taken up by one person. Sounds like a problem - so we should have the VATNA1 representative hire some staff. Great - now we have simply changed the name "VATUSA" to "VATNA", and our problems stay exactly where they always have been, but with a new, fresh name. This is not a solution. The only logical separation from the status quo is to have the ARTCCs answer to the EC or the BOG, and that is where my previous analogies (hopefully) shed some light on why having VATUSA Staff (and particularly a VATUSA1 representative) is a good idea.
Lastly, Luke - I just wanted to give the same sort of analogy to address your statements. For each law-abiding citizen of the US, there is a city council, a city Mayor, a state Governor, representatives and Senators to the Federal Government, President of the US, and then multinational organizations such as the United Nations that work together to make life peaceful and prosperous in our world. Which of those levels can be removed without anyone noticing? I believe that there is a good purpose to each of the structures that you named (at least, ideally). Now, whether they are all working together the way that they should be is a different question, and one worth asking. But abolishing any one (or more) of them is not a solution to the problem. If the interaction between the organizations is not optimal, then this problem should be addressed.
And finally, to respond to the allegation that "if VATUSA is the only major division that is having problems, and Europe is not, for example, then what exactly is the cause of these woes?" (I paraphrase from a different post...) I offer the simple solution - perhaps VATUSA is the problem. And now we are full circle to Jeff's original comment. Now, although VATUSA may indeed be the problem (just like if you have been in dozens of car accidents, then perhaps you are the driver to blame), the solution to the problem in this case is not to just abolish VATUSA (or to take away the car, in the analogy - how are you supposed to get to work then, without a car? The solution is to learn how to drive). In our case, the VATUSA leadership needs to work more closely with their higher-ups and find solutions.
Now I have heard more than one former VATUSA1 report to us in these forums that the problems stem from the VATSIM leadership, and I have no emprical way to tell whether this is true. However, I would argue that, objectively, the former VATUSA1 representatives have no empirical way to tell that their allegations are true either, having not been members of the BOG. The BOG doesn't seem to think that they are the cause of any problems, and neither do our former VATUSA1's. So I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, I'm just saying that I can't say with proof that either of the parties are fully reliable, as they both are, by design, meant to represent the interests of only a subset of the VATSIM population. The VATUSA1 clan is trying to do the best they can for VATUSA, and the BOG is trying to do the best they can for the EC and the RD's. All I can objectively deduce from this is that more communication is needed between these parties. If one of the parties is indeed actively trying to subjugate the needs of the other, then this will eventually make itself known, but I have a hard time believing that this is the case, as it would take an act of willful malice from a person, or group of persons, who have concurrently supplied the VATSIM network with voluntary resources (monetary and otherwise) - and those two concepts simply don't mix (charity and malice). So we have to deduce that both parties are acting in their own best interest, and with their best intentions, and that there is simply more work that needs to be done (on the part of both parties) in order to get VATUSA running the way that both VATUSA and the BOG want VATUSA to run.
So I say, let us choose our next leader for VATUSA, and let that work continue. If the next VATUSA1 decides to resign in 6 months, I will be crestfallen, of course. But I will thank that person for having given their time and effort toward achieving this goal, I will continue to do my job, and I will support their successor as well.
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Now I have heard more than one former VATUSA1 report to us in these forums that the problems stem from the VATSIM leadership, and I have no emprical way to tell whether this is true. However, I would argue that, objectively, the former VATUSA1 representatives have no empirical way to tell that their allegations are true either, having not been members of the BOG. The BOG doesn't seem to think that they are the cause of any problems, and neither do our former VATUSA1's. So I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, I'm just saying that I can't say with proof that either of the parties are fully reliable, as they both are, by design, meant to represent the interests of only a subset of the VATSIM population. The VATUSA1 clan is trying to do the best they can for VATUSA, and the BOG is trying to do the best they can for the EC and the RD's. All I can objectively deduce from this is that more communication is needed between these parties. If one of the parties is indeed actively trying to subjugate the needs of the other, then this will eventually make itself known, but I have a hard time believing that this is the case, as it would take an act of willful malice from a person, or group of persons, who have concurrently supplied the VATSIM network with voluntary resources (monetary and otherwise) - and those two concepts simply don't mix (charity and malice). So we have to deduce that both parties are acting in their own best interest, and with their best intentions, and that there is simply more work that needs to be done (on the part of both parties) in order to get VATUSA running the way that both VATUSA and the BOG want VATUSA to run.[/quote]
David,
You hit the nail entirely on its head with these comments. Every VATUSA1 has represented what they thought was best for VATUSA. Each one utilized their own talents and abilities to make this division a better place, and I believe each Director has done just that even if we weren't around for very long.
We also have our opinions on the state of this network, and ultimately all had our own reasons for resigning. From my personal opinion backed with various evidence, I believe the breakdown comes with lack of communication and the current management style of the BoG. It seems that a big "event" must happen to get the BoG to take notice of anything, at least within VATUSA in the past year. From my personal experience, the BoG was very quick to criticize and attempt to stake someone (usually when someone below the Director such as an ATM made a "mistake") but wasn't available to answer questions or provide guidance for proactive measures. Again, this is my personal opinion and view of the situation, but where is the motivation to not tell the truth? I don't want to turn this thread into the destructive nature of the other one, so we'll stick to what I believe is a serious problem with communication and the lack of attention to any situation that doesn't cross the BoG mailing list. The BoG seems to work off of a reactive approach to management, rather than a proactive approach to maintaining the network. More time is spent playing damage control rather than managing people and preventing situations before they occur.
Division Directors wouldn't have left on such quick terms if this weren't the case. Ultimately we get sick and tired of the "over communication" when somebody screws up, and wish we could get that same level of communication when we needed some guidance. Each Director takes the position with the intent to stick around for years and each one thinks they know the climate of the position. However, you quickly realize the number of things you CAN'T do and find yourself with a tiny list of things you can do. I realized that I could no longer be an effective leader and stick to the goals I put out for myself simply due to the fact that I could not continue to represent the views of the ATMs when they had questions that I could never get answered from above. At some point you begin to realize you're just a pawn and that's when you decide that this isn't for you anymore. David, you clearly mentioned that there should be no malice with charity, and you're right. But there is still posturing by various individuals inside and outside of the BoG. Some want to move up within the BoG and become President, some outsiders want on the BoG and will be a "yes man" to do it, and others on the BoG are there for the right reasons and truly want to use their position not as a title or circle of influence, but as a true desire to do the work to improve our community.
It all comes down to effective management. The tactics currently employed simply don't portray a good image to those who see how it really works "up there". The "take it or leave it" comments and various other power plays turn off the staff who are trying to do everything they can to fix the problems. As I said before and in other threads, it takes people skills and the realization that "in your face" management doesn't work outside of the military and it will only sour those who are subject to it. VATUSA Division Directors want guidance and support, and it unfortunately has not been happening under the current administration.
None of this is being said to rake over the coals. These are conclusions I arrived at by combining various experiences in the position, and I firmly believe that any corrective measures begin with the Founders and BoG. If those deficiences aren't accepted and accounted for first, then no matter the measure taken at this level there will still be serious problems. You can take away VATNA or VATUSA or even the ATMs, but it's not going to correct the flow of information or the general leadership provided by the BoG. Friendly gestures and genuine offers of assistance backed up with action will always go 100 miles further than swooping in after a conflict.
Tell the VATUSA Directors what they CAN do, what SUPPORT they have, and what they are doing RIGHT. Build a positive relationship and correct the poor image of the board. Fix the top first and get a cohesive bond among and between Founders and the BoG. Once you do this, your staff will enjoy working with you and probably won't leave in 5 months.
-
Alex,
You raise some interesting points and I will try to address some of them and also explain where the Founders, BoG and EC fit in the overall structure. There are some that will be reading these posts that have no idea of the VATSIM structure.
Founders - Own the network and basically ensure that we have a network to play on.
BoG - Administers the network with each of the VATGOVs having a specific area to manage such as Web Services, Communications, Regions, Conflicts, Supervisors etc.etc.
EC - consists of the six Regional Directors who are responsible for managing airspace and to oversee operations of the Divisions within their regions.
DD - administer their individual Divisions
The Founders do not get involved in the day to day running of VATSIM but have oversite on all things VATSIM and if they see things that they perceive to be detrimental to the network then they will make it known and the Founders Letter is a typical example of this.
Does this sound like we are top heavy in management, I think not, however when there is a problem it is essential that we all try to resolve it from the top down. You believe that a lack of communication is a contributing factor and I am inclined to believe you. The BoG have taken steps to resolve this by creating a special forum within VATSIM Forums that are inclusive of the BoG, EC and Divison Directors. Problems can be raised in this forum and have the benefit of the BoG and RD's input . I believe that this is a step forward and will help to resolve problems before they get out of hand.
The BoG and your RD is listening and whilst you may not see any activity there is a lot of discussion taking place and we intend to assist in anyway we can.
Terry Scanlan
VP-OPS
-
Lastly, Luke - I just wanted to give the same sort of analogy to address your statements. For each law-abiding citizen of the US, there is a city council, a city Mayor, a state Governor, representatives and Senators to the Federal Government, President of the US, and then multinational organizations such as the United Nations that work together to make life peaceful and prosperous in our world. Which of those levels can be removed without anyone noticing? I believe that there is a good purpose to each of the structures that you named (at least, ideally). Now, whether they are all working together the way that they should be is a different question, and one worth asking. But abolishing any one (or more) of them is not a solution to the problem. If the interaction between the organizations is not optimal, then this problem should be addressed.
VATSIM isn't intended to be the government. It's not intended to be a replay of what you learned in Civics class. It's a hobby - we're here to have some fun, fly airplanes around and provide ATC services. I've already dealt with the government on immigration, taxation and Medicaid, and if that's going to be the model for my hobby, no thank you.
Each time this question gets asked, people come out of the woodwork to explain how important each level of hierarchy is, how VATSIM would cease to operate properly if a particular layer was removed and how the real problem is ineffective communication between the layers. It's worth noting that every time, the answer is provided by people who currently hold or have held positions within the same bloated hierarchy. It takes a particular form of testicular fortitude for someone admit in public that their role adds no significant value, and that's not something I see at the lower levels (or the higher levels, for that matter) of VATSIM. What's even more amazing about this gigantic hierarchical explosion of titles and positions is that it's uniquely limited to the ATC side of the house. You have, at most, 2,100 active controllers (who have logged more than 30 minutes of scope time in the last 30 days). Do you really need a staff of several hundred at six different levels to manage a small group of hobbyists? How many controllers do we have per staff member? I'd love to see that ratio.
Strangely enough, VATSIM has approximately 13,500 active pilots and can handle them just fine without any hierarchy, or anyone on the BoG dedicated to them or their needs. Amazing!
As you suggest, we need more effective communication. I'd suggest that the sheer number of layers are what makes communications ineffective, and that you won't get what you want until you eliminate some. The dysfunction is caused not just by the sheer number of layers, but the inverse relationship between the increasing number of people at level and their decreasing authority. No wonder there's so much politics! There's so little else for them to do. (And while I don't what to give your Civics analogy too much credit, it's worth noting that while there is a hierarchy of governments, each has certain exclusive areas of jurisdiction, which doesn't exist on VATSIM.)
I was struck by something Harold Rutilla said in another topic - he mentioned that we still couldn't get enough competent controllers behind the scopes after 10 years. That to me is shocking - that we keep trying the same methods with the same bloated hierarchical structure without adequate results, and we don't have anything more constructive than GRP2 to solve the problem. I wonder if this is what the Founders had in mind when they created the network; a bureaucratic ATC monster, with paperwork and policies galore and pilots and members that are treated as, at best, an afterthought and at worst a nuisance.
Personally, one shouldn't justify the system unless one is proud of the results. And I don't know who would be.
Cheers!
Luke
-
I was struck by something Harold Rutilla said in another topic - he mentioned that we still couldn't get enough competent controllers behind the scopes after 10 years.
What?!? When and where did I say this? I've been with VATSIM for less than four years, and on the ATC side for less than that.
-
What?!? When and where did I say this? I've been with VATSIM for less than four years, and on the ATC side for less than that.
This is the quote:
"That's an ARTCC problem, and most of the time it has to do with short staffing. Again, we can't pay instructors and mentors, so you have to wait for whomever is available. That's how its been for almost a decade."
My memory is not quite as bad as I thought, but in fairness I think you really meant that we couldn't get enough folks to do evaluations, not behind the scopes in general. I think my overall point remains valid - VATSIM's processes are insufficient to get proper coverage and keep people moving up through the hobby and engaged. I wonder if we're ever going to try anything different.
Cheers!
Luke
-
Strangely enough, VATSIM has approximately 13,500 active pilots and can handle them just fine without any hierarchy, or anyone on the BoG dedicated to them or their needs. Amazing!
Easy to say, because you have no idea how it really works. The hierarchy is in a sense the same, which is one reason why pilots select regions and divisions when signing up. Pilots do indeed contact the DDs and RDs too, just like the controllers do. I get probably close to a dozen emails every single day from pilots needing help. In fact, the support I give to them, and the requests I receive, far outnumber those coming from controllers.
-
Easy to say, because you have no idea how it really works. The hierarchy is in a sense the same, which is one reason why pilots select regions and divisions when signing up.
If I have no idea how it works, please explain to me what aspect of operating as a Pilot on VATSIM would change if I changed Divisions/Regions to somewhere on the other side of the world.
The link between a Pilot and a Division, while it exists, has no practical consequences.
Cheers!
Luke
-
No aspect would change, but without some sort of hierarchy (you are saying that no hierarchy at all is needed, correct?), you get one guy who would be getting anywhere from 80-90 emails per day, and this is not including those from controllers.
-
No aspect would change, but without some sort of hierarchy (you are saying that no hierarchy at all is needed, correct?), you get one guy who would be getting anywhere from 80-90 emails per day, and this is not including those from controllers.
Lack of hierarchy does not equate to one person doing it, nor does the fact that you answer pilot questions means that there's a hierarchy on the pilot side. Probably every ATC answers pilot questions, whether the pilot is part of their Division or not.
Cheers!
Luke
-
ATC's are not the only ones having to deal with bureaucracy. Each individual virtual airline has their own hierarchy also. DVA for example has 6 on the senior staff, 5 handling admin services, 29 chief pilots to cover each aircraft type, one to head online events, and one to run the flight academy.
-
Lack of hierarchy does not equate to one person doing it,
It might not. So then what, you have one guy in charge on the BOG with 20 assistants underneath him to take care of everything? I fail to see the difference.
-
Dave Jedrejcic for VATUSA1.
-
Dave Jedrejcic for VATUSA1.
I already have some bumper stickers if you're interested
-
Lol, thanks guys - at least I would start off with a 1% approval rating
Luke, I know that VATSIM is not indeed an actual government, but that doesn't mean that it is an organization that does not require governance. And like all governments that we have ever put forth on this planet, they have hierarchies, and they have a person in charge of each of the levels in the hierarchy. What kind of structure are you saying would work better, and why?
I think it is clear from your statements that you think at least one of these "layers" should be abolished, so please answer the question I put forth above...If you think VATUSA should be abolished, then tell me why we do not regularly see corporations abolished by their constituents, for example. If there were an advantage to having local rule without any centralization, then one would think that American corporations would have taken advantage of the idea, no? Instead, it is the opposite - corporations have been able to thrive (some might say too well) due to centralized governance. How come the idea of centralized authority seems to have lasted so long, if it is in fact flawed, and much worse than just having each individual group fend for themselves?
I'm not trying to push the idea of the government analogy past its usefulness, but I think it is a valid analogy - and I realize it's an analogy, but I don't see why we can't use it to discuss the topic. The analogy of the corporations I made above is also valid as an analogy. VATSIM is neither of these things, but it is similar to both of them, so we should be able to draw conclusions about VATSIM by studying the things which it mimics. Since you seem to believe that the current structure is inherently broken, I would like to know (as I stated above) what other solution you have come up with in order to make things better on the network. More testicular fortitude?
Here is where I see this would lead, in the form of a satirical remark (there is no offense intended here, it's simply a straightforward way for me to make a point):
/SATIRE
I'll resign my position as a VATUSA Staff member, and the controllers at each of the ARTCC's I represent can just contact the BoG directly, so that there wouldn't be so many layers to go through. The BoG already (allegedly) does not respond to the Division Directors when they ask for help, but I'm certain that each individual controller would have their voices heard loud and clear if we got rid of the ARTCC's, the Divisions, and the Regions that are keeping this more direct conversation from happening.
/satire
I think it should be clear that this situation doesn't make any sense. The intermediaries do, in fact, serve a purpose. And that purpose is communication. And again, I'm not saying the system is working properly, but that just means we have to fix it - not abolish it. It might not be easy to work through the system, but that's the only way one can create positive change - through the system. Bashing the system because it hasn't provided you with the results you want is not going to get you the results you want. It only results in a bashed system.
-
This is the quote:
"That's an ARTCC problem, and most of the time it has to do with short staffing. Again, we can't pay instructors and mentors, so you have to wait for whomever is available. That's how its been for almost a decade."
My memory is not quite as bad as I thought, but in fairness I think you really meant that we couldn't get enough folks to do evaluations, not behind the scopes in general. I think my overall point remains valid - VATSIM's processes are insufficient to get proper coverage and keep people moving up through the hobby and engaged. I wonder if we're ever going to try anything different.
Oh, I see now. I didn't mean that we couldn't get enough competent controllers behind the scopes, however. This was in response to a complaint (paraphrasing:) that it was VATUSA's fault one particular ARTCC didn't have the training staff to handle a large number of students.
-
Just as an aside (and not commenting on any person's opinion in this thread), standard management/leadership theory (and practice) is that no person can effectively more than 7 direct reports...especially if each direct report does something significantly different than the others).
Even the "world is flat" authors like Friedman have generally come to the conclusion seven is about the largest group that can be effectively managed. That is pretty close to the structure VATSIM has now:
Board of Governors each lead no more than seven people
VP Regions (member of the BOG) has six RDs under him
The Six RD's each have somewhere between three and four Divisions under them
The Diivision Directors are where the organization starts to flatten as some of them have a GREAT number of FIRs under them.
The implementation of Divisions is where things have gotten quite interesting and VATEUD and VATUSA present very different models of how things are managed. In VATEUD, the Division chief is an interface between the FIR chiefs to the RD, handles administrative things (CERT, etc.). In VATUSA, the Division Chief has a staff which duplicates many of the things done at the FIR/ARTCC level due to a desire to standardize things (thus the VATUSA TA, Events Manager, etc.).
I am not saying one is better than another, but they are different. VATEUD takes on the role of primarily information dissemination and coordination. VATUSA takes on the role of managing the ARTCCs in far greater detail than VATEUD would ever consider doing. Different models...
In closing, there also seems to be some confusion about the EC and the RDs. The EC IS the RDs combined with VP, Regions. If you want to use a governmental model, I think the equivalent would be:
VATSIM President - Prime Minister
BOD - the Cabinet members (each with a different portfolio)
EC - Parliment with each EC member being an RD representing his/her regions
Division Directors would probably be something like County Managers or Town Council Presidents...
all good,
Dave
-
Ah, now there's a BETTER question instead of elminating VATUSA1, how about just getting rid of the Staff? (except a technology person unless the VATUSA1 has those skills).
I like the model of the interface as I don't really see the need for a duplication of everything at the VATUSA level.
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The implementation of Divisions is where things have gotten quite interesting and VATEUD and VATUSA present very different models of how things are managed. In VATEUD, the Division chief is an interface between the FIR chiefs to the RD, handles administrative things (CERT, etc.). In VATUSA, the Division Chief has a staff which duplicates many of the things done at the FIR/ARTCC level due to a desire to standardize things (thus the VATUSA TA, Events Manager, etc.).[/quote]
Huh? VATEUD lists more people on its staff page than VATUSA does and most positions tend to compare to VATUSA positions as well. VATEUD also has a training director and events manager. What you described for VATEUD is also the case for VATUSA. The Division Directors act as an interface between FIR/ARTCC chiefs and the RD, we handled admin duties, and that was about it. I fail to see your point. Did you ask any former division directors what their duties were or did I just miss the point of this paragraph being an assumption?
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I am not saying one is better than another, but they are different. VATEUD takes on the role of primarily information dissemination and coordination. VATUSA takes on the role of managing the ARTCCs in far greater detail than VATEUD would ever consider doing. Different models...[/quote]
Again, what are you basing your opinion on? The only role VATUSA has taken in managing the ARTCCs is simply doing what you guys wanted us to do. The BoG failed entirely when I was DD to provide guidance and assistance with the VATSIM policies, specifically what ATMs had the authority to do. I assume this was also the case under Andrew's leadership. You guys consistently tell us that ATMs have no authority to do anything, then wonder why we spend so much time regulating their activities. We wouldn't be doing this if we were allowed to put trust into our staff to do their duties.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]VATSIM President - Prime Minister
BOD - the Cabinet members (each with a different portfolio)
EC - Parliment with each EC member being an RD representing his/her regions
Division Directors would probably be something like County Managers or Town Council Presidents...[/quote]
Such a huge jump from EC to Division. Is this why the ego of some upper VATSIM management is such a distraction to DD's who want to improve their division? Is this why you look down upon everyone with such ease? This exact attitude is what turns away your volunteers and sparks such hostility in these forums.
-
I base my opinion (and it is only that...my opinion) on the interactions I've had for almost three years with the two region directors, the two division directors and (as necessary) FIR/ARTCC chiefs in the two divisions. The conclusion I drew is that the relationship between FIR chiefs and VATEUD is fundamentally different than between ARTCC chiefs and VATUSA.
VATEUD is also different than VATUSA in that they provide for Eurocontrol -- a mechanism by which ATC services are provided that cross multiple FIRs. The analogy would be if VATUSA had the structure in place (training, qualification, etc.) for controllers to control all of the Southeastern, Northeaster, Midwest or Western United States. They also chose to standardize their testing system through Eurotest...one testing system supports all of the FIRS in question. Lastly, VATEUD covers something like 38 different countries and around 25 different languages. As a result, they have a need for some staff just to help address the language barriers...but in practice they really act as an information transmission body in a manner quite different than what I have observed in VATUSA.
I also base that judgment on having observed VATUSA's interaction with the controllers of VATUSA since December 2003 when I first joined KZAU as a controller. As I (and several other long time members of VATUSA) have pointed out in this thread and others, the role of VATUSA and its relationship with the ARTCCs has changed over the last few years.
As far as the need for guidance from the BOG, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but given the fact the EC (and VATNA specifically) sits between VATUSA1 and the BOG, I would expect almost NO guidance to come from the BOG except very overarching guidance that is applicable world-wide. The same is true of pretty much any large organization in the world, be it a foundation, NGO, business or government.
Lastly, I'm not sure what the "huge jump form EC to Divisions" is that I posted. I provided an analogy that I thought made sense because the US form of government doesn't make sense since the Legislative and Executive Branches are separate in the US unlike a Parliamentary system. In a Parliamentary system, representatives represent districts and the next lower step in the government is typically either a county or a town council. If we were to use a US model and call the RD's congressmen (who also represent districts), what would you call a Division Director? Next step below a typical congressional district would be a President of the Town Council or a Mayor...but even there we have wide variability because there are congressional districts that cover multiple towns and cities that cover multiple congressional districts. If it is your view that the analogy I used makes light of divisions, I regret that you draw that conclusion but can't find any place in the analogy that does that. Of course people read into analogies what they want to read into them...
All that said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to disagree with it.
all the best,
Dave
-
Just as an aside (and not commenting on any person's opinion in this thread), standard management/leadership theory (and practice) is that no person can effectively more than 7 direct reports...especially if each direct report does something significantly different than the others).
Even the "world is flat" authors like Friedman have generally come to the conclusion seven is about the largest group that can be effectively managed. That is pretty close to the structure VATSIM has now:
Board of Governors each lead no more than seven people
VP Regions (member of the BOG) has six RDs under him
The Six RD's each have somewhere between three and four Divisions under them
The Diivision Directors are where the organization starts to flatten as some of them have a GREAT number of FIRs under them.
The implementation of Divisions is where things have gotten quite interesting and VATEUD and VATUSA present very different models of how things are managed. In VATEUD, the Division chief is an interface between the FIR chiefs to the RD, handles administrative things (CERT, etc.). In VATUSA, the Division Chief has a staff which duplicates many of the things done at the FIR/ARTCC level due to a desire to standardize things (thus the VATUSA TA, Events Manager, etc.).
I am not saying one is better than another, but they are different. VATEUD takes on the role of primarily information dissemination and coordination. VATUSA takes on the role of managing the ARTCCs in far greater detail than VATEUD would ever consider doing. Different models...
In closing, there also seems to be some confusion about the EC and the RDs. The EC IS the RDs combined with VP, Regions. If you want to use a governmental model, I think the equivalent would be:
VATSIM President - Prime Minister
BOD - the Cabinet members (each with a different portfolio)
EC - Parliment with each EC member being an RD representing his/her regions
Division Directors would probably be something like County Managers or Town Council Presidents...
all good,
Dave
This method works pretty well I am sure, when it works. But when it fails, it fails spectacularly!
Let's try an experiment...
Take one RD, who doesn't support his staff. Add one VP of Regions, who seems to subscribe to "why say it in 10 words, when you can say it in 1000". Contradicting himself from forum post to forum post. Throw in a weak EC, add a dose of an over reaching board that tends to everyone's business including attempts to impede a member's "due process". What do you get from that?
I think the answer is in front of us.
That is why I believe a VATUSA DD is required. Someone needs to support the ATMs!
After all, how did you say it Mr. President, [!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]...you are certainly entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to disagree with it.[/quote]
SNAFU,
Jason Vodnansky
-
Just by reading the posts in here, and nothing else, I'm getting the sense that there's a big gap in what some are saying the lack of communication lays. DD's work for RD's, therefore, if a DD is not getting direction/guidance, I'm thinking that would be on the RD, not the EC, or BOG. Military or not, there is a chain of command. DD's should be looking to RD's for guidance, not the EC or BOG, also, the same holds true going downhill, the BOG, EC, shouldn't be giving direct input, (good or bad) to the DD's but to the RD's first, but, that is just MHO
ps. this is a very condensed version of what I really would like to say.
-
Point is, the RD could never get answers for the DD because no information was passed down. The BoG only seemed interested in the operations of VATUSA when something was going wrong. There was absolutely no support any other time.
-
Point is, the RD could never get answers for the DD because no information was passed down. The BoG only seemed interested in the operations of VATUSA when something was going wrong. There was absolutely no support any other time.
So, one would think that the RD should then get on the BOG and tell them to funnel all correspondance directed towards the DD's thru him. Otherwise, what's the point of having a RD, except to sit on the EC? And if that was his/her only job, then they would just be BOG "gophers"
Example:
BOG: OK RD's go tell the DD's to do this!
RD: Yes sir boss whatever you say.
Of course, I don't believe that is why they are there, only saying that IF that is the only reason.
Somebody, somewhere along the line has to have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they think is right for their people. IMHO
-
Somebody, somewhere along the line has to have the insestinal fortitude to stand up for what they think is right for their people. IMHO
I believe that our recently former DD here did have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they thought was right for their people. I remember a staff forum post telling us that he had stood up for a point the ATM's were having difficulty with. But DD's have little to no influence in the upper tier leadership from what I can gather.
-
Take one RD, who doesn't support his staff. Add one VP of Regions, who seems to subscribe to "why say it in 10 words, when you can say it in 1000". Contradicting himself from forum post to forum post. Throw in a weak EC, add a dose of an over reaching board that tends to everyone's business including attempts to impede a member's "due process". What do you get from that?
I think the answer is in front of us.
That is why I believe a VATUSA DD is required. Someone needs to support the ATMs!
As I have never worked with those mentioned here, all of my comments are speculative at best. Be that as it may, I'd like to chime in...yet again...for what it's worth
I find this contradicting and a bit odd. I find it difficult to believe that EVERYONE you mentioned above the DD has this many faults. From your framing of the situation, the problem does not lie in the arms of the ATM and DD, but rather with the entire senior management of VATSIM.
I have heard NUMEROUS times now that the VATUSA1 does not feel "supported" from above. This then drives them to quit.
You state that the whole goal of the DD is to "support" {I read that as fight for, stick up for, defend, etc.} the ATMs from "above".
My question is WHY is it a us vs. them scenario? Who is driving the wedge and conflict? Posts like this definitely don't go towards finding a solution, but rather, further drive that wedge in. It's rheotorical btw. Poor communication, i.e. not being on the same page, seems to be the key premise of all the threads around this situation. Expectation setting, accountablity, process flow, etc. etc. all seem to be at issue.
However, you win some, you loose some, and ultimately the Founders and BoG hold the keys to the castle, i.e. if they decided to stop paying for all this stuff, we'd be out a hobby. If they want something done a certain way, then you make your case, then live with the decision....good or bad.
Just quitting out right does NOT solve the problem, and by doing so you are basically leaving the rest of us out in the wind with no "support" from the so-called terrible upper management.
I just don't buy that.
From this post, JV, you make it sound like the RD, the VP of Regions, the President of VATSIM, and the entire EC are a bunch of idiots that should be fired out right....??? Again, I don't buy that; not when the rest of the world doesn't seem to have the same problems as we do here in the U.S.
I do know this. Whomever applies to be VATUSA1 had better KNOW this situation exists, be very careful in their decision making, and go in with the understanding that your decisions may be overturned. Being a leader is as much about following as it is leading. Just remember that
Again, I don't have specifics about this situation, so my comments may be off base a bit (they usually are), but I don't think the entire upper management structure of VATSIM is as evil or stupid as your post (and many others) suggest. Are there issues? Most definitely. But beating the dead horse over and over and over and over again isn't going to solve them. I'm not sure what will, although the mass-resignation-in-protest route doesn't appear to work either.....that's what led me to my original post about do we even need a DD.
(sorry if I used 1000 words).....
-
I apologize for the piecemeal approach to this post but I'm at work and have limited moments of access (and clarity some might say )
I do know this. Whomever applies to be VATUSA1 had better KNOW this situation exists, be very careful in their decision making, and go in with the understanding that your decisions may be overturned. Being a leader is as much about following as it is leading. Just remember that
Ahhh....a reasoned voice!
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]However, you win some, you loose some, and ultimately the Founders and BoG hold the keys to the castle, i.e. if they decided to stop paying for all this stuff, we'd be out a hobby. If they want something done a certain way, then you make your case, then live with the decision....good or bad.[/quote]
This is the point! Articulation and dissemination of the Founders requirements through the BoG et. al. takes alot of damn hard work. Appropriately wielded, the DD position can be a valued participant and as importantly, an advocate representing his constituents. That voice of advocacy is what will be lost through the elimination of the DD position. The job could be done by the RD but how effective will this be while he is also responsible to the remaining divisions and the region as a whole?
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]My question is WHY is it a us vs. them scenario? Who is driving the wedge and conflict? Posts like this definitely don't go towards finding a solution, but rather, further drive that wedge in. It's rheotorical btw. Poor communication, i.e. not being on the same page, seems to be the key premise of all the threads around this situation. Expectation setting, accountablity, process flow, etc. etc. all seem to be at issue.[/quote]
Keyword here is accountability. Most of the issues at their most basic level, are attributable to the lack of exercised accountability and holding folks responsible in times past. Most of the new policies and policy amendments reflect an effort to "codify" if-you-will actions that are expected of individuals in positions of management. For varied reasons those actions were not accomplished in recent past (say 5 years) - in essence no common sense was applied as would have been expected. Case in point, the GRP. It was originally actualized through a request from the BoG to the EC to come up with a policy that provided regulation over the widely variant and in many cases, outlandishly difficult and obtuse controller training, transfer and visiting requirements VATSIM-wide. Up to that time even with constant prodding, no positive results had been attained in answer to the identified problems. Through this "codification", a loss of some autonomy at the operational level has occurred. Many find this disconcerting to say the least. This is further exasperated by the fact that such codification has to be well-crafted, easy to understand, well focused and thorough in applicability.
Now layer on top of all this the factor of VATSIM being a volunteer organization. With the onerous burden of having to operate under more and more policies and regulations and a sense of not being able to determine one's own "destiny" as-it-were, you can quickly see where frustration can erupt and members who have all the best in mind for their efforts become any one of; frustrated, combative, reticent...(fill in the blank).
-
Well gentleman, after listening in here and to the previous discussion regarding the trials and tribulations of leadership in this little organization of ours it seems pretty clear to me that whoever is chosen as the next VATUSA1 better be someone without any axes to grind, friends to please, political ties or connections, IOU's or UOMe's, hidden agendas, and isn't pi$$ed off about anything yet and hasn't pi$$ed anyone else off yet.
In other words it sounds like you need to find someone who isn't generally known to anyone in the VATUSA or VATSIM hierarchy.
Yea. Good luck with that
Ira R..
-
Case in point, the GRP. It was originally actualized through a request from the BoG to the EC to come up with a policy that provided regulation over the widely variant and in many cases, outlandishly difficult and obtuse controller training, transfer and visiting requirements VATSIM-wide. Up to that time even with constant prodding, no positive results had been attained in answer to the identified problems. Through this "codification", a loss of some autonomy at the operational level has occurred. Many find this disconcerting to say the least. This is further exasperated by the fact that such codification has to be well-crafted, easy to understand, well focused and thorough in applicability.
Now layer on top of all this the factor of VATSIM being a volunteer organization. With the onerous burden of having to operate under more and more policies and regulations and a sense of not being able to determine one's own "destiny" as-it-were, you can quickly see where frustration can erupt and members who have all the best in mind for their efforts become any one of; frustrated, combative, reticent...(fill in the blank).
Gary, this is perhaps the best summary of the cause and effect of the situation I've heard to date. I hope someone at VATSIM is reading this one.
-
I'll echo Jeff's sentiments.
I haven't been wanting to reply much to this thread or the other thread, as I wanted to see the discussion that transpired. But I'll certainly provide my $0.02 for what it's worth.
I see a lot of blaming of upper management taking place. And make no mistake, I can improve, the BOG can improve, and the EC can improve. There is always room for improvement. But what is noticeably missing from this argument is self-examination, and inclusion of what takes place below those levels. Don't for a minute think that the lower levels of staffing should be excluded from this discussion.
What amazes me is that this same evil BOG, and the dirty rotten EC are the exact same people who serve the rest of the VATSIM world, but this phenomenon, if you will, is really only taking place in VATUSA. Right there, I would begin looking away from the BOG and EC as the root cause of this problem. This animosity does not really exist in other Divisions or Regions. I wonder why?
What we have, in a nutshell, is this grand vision from the Founders. They know what they want the network to "look like," how they want it to function, etc. And realizing that vision, and creating the policies to realize that vision, we have the BOG and EC. And from what I've heard, the BOG and EC have done an outstanding job in seeing that the vision is realized, particularly through the latest GRP. Unfortunately, the Founders' vision, and the vision of the ARTCCs within VATUSA (some of them anyway) do not line up, in many cases, at all, and you get this huge resistance from ATMs who think that we (BOG, EC) are trying to take away their power. They want to run their little kingdoms as they see fit, regardless of what anyone says.
This is the cause of the problem, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Are there communications break-downs? Absolutely. Are there policies that could be better? Sure. Are there processes that sometimes just don't work for the ATMs and staff, yes. But that does not cause problems like we see here.
What we end up with are VATUSA1's (and assorted staff) who want to implement the policies of the BOG/EC, but at the same time want to stick up for the ARTCCs, even the ones who are completely in the wrong. They're stuck in the middle of all this, and then we wonder why we can't keep a USA1 for more than a few months.
There are many ARTCCs out there who just do not want to change how they have been operating for years and years and that is where much of this contention comes from. We are told by the Founders, and subsequently the BOG/EC that we need to be inclusive...that ATMs can't just remove anyone they like from their rosters without going through the CR process, for example. They decided that it is wrong to be able to deny transfer or VC status for whatever reason the ATM wants.
What do we get? We get ATMs who blatantly announce that they will exploit every possible loophole they can to circumvent the policies. And they do it!! The BOG and EC be damned. In short, what we really have are ATMs saying they will exploit every possible loophole to get around the Founders' Vision. Think about that one for a minute.
We have many ATMs saying that they do not agree with the Founders' Vision. That's really what it comes down to. But fortunately, or unfortunately, it is that vision that we need to achieve. It means we're inevitably going to have to change the way we do business around here. VATUSA can no longer continue to operate like it has for the past 10 years, whether we like it or not. There is going to be change. And until we can make things work under those changes, we're going to be left with this.
-
Unfortunately, the Founders' vision, and the vision of the ARTCCs within VATUSA (some of them anyway) do not line up, in many cases, at all, and you get this huge resistance from ATMs who think that we (BOG, EC) are trying to take away their power. They want to run their little kingdoms as they see fit, regardless of what anyone says.
I think that it has been clearly, and then not so clearly stated that the ATM's don't have any power. No power may be delegated to us unless the BOG approves (as in the case of the visibility ranges I guess but that was news to most of us). It's hard to take power away from a position which "has no authority". Why are those who have "little kingdoms" removed? If that is where the problem really lies it seems like a pretty simple solution.
Yes Bryan is right we can all do better at our job, everyone in the world can say that, but the bigger issue is that it is hard to analyze the lower level staff's decision making when they don't have the authority to make a decision. It took the DD stepping up and essentially, from what I can gather, refusing to implement part of the GRP division wide in order to give the ATMs the minuscule responsibility of actually being able to develop air traffic procedures for our facility. Not turning people away from the ARTCC but simply saying that the most ideal traffic flow for airport XXX is to follow this certain procedure. A local procedure which the BOG, EC and really the DD aren't even affected by. We are talking about which runways are preferred and such and beyond that many of the ARTCC, maybe most or all, use essentially real world procedures anyway.
So after some self examination I came to the determination that you are right. I could be quicker pressing the accept transfer button, or adding new visitors to the roster, but beyond that everything else we do is directly mandated from those higher levels. Any Bryan is also right, I presume, in saying that this doesn't occur elsewhere on the network. So what variables, if any don't exist in those other divisions? Are those divisions looked upon differently from the EC/BOG than VATUSA, and is everyone being treated "fairly" from the upper levels down to the bottom? I don't know it's well above my pay grade.
I apologize if this seems harsh or offensive but for those of us who follow the edicts from the top, even if I don't like them, I get a little fired up when asked to self examine my job duties. If there are people who aren't doing their "job", and I use that kind of loosely because this is a hobby, then they need to be removed. That simple.
-
I must be confused... We're all here bickering and going back and forth in this thread, but nothing is being done. Instead of spending a week in one of these threads that appear every two weeks, maybe the upper echelons should spend their valuable time positively contributing to our hobby and doing something to improve their [our] weaknesses.
"Are there communications break-downs? Absolutely. Are there policies that could be better? Sure. Are there processes that sometimes just don't work for the ATMs and staff, yes."
So let's fix it!
I believe I've made at least a minute impact on VATSIM, at least in ZAU a bit. I get on and instruct and help out our students whenever I have free time to devote to our hobby. I try my best not to spend my time in forums getting into arguments, etc. I like to be on and working with our students helping them to be as best as they can. I don't think they'd appreciate it much if I sat here and typed out 45 minutes worth of sewage when I could be helping them or someone else.
So I guess the moral of my story is let's stop sitting around and actually do something to fix the obvious problem(s).
-Nick
-
It took the DD stepping up and essentially, from what I can gather, refusing to implement part of the GRP division wide in order to give the ATMs the minuscule responsibility of actually being able to develop air traffic procedures for our facility. Not turning people away from the ARTCC but simply saying that the most ideal traffic flow for airport XXX is to follow this certain procedure. A local procedure which the BOG, EC and really the DD aren't even affected by. We are talking about which runways are preferred and such and beyond that many of the ARTCC, maybe most or all, use essentially real world procedures anyway.
Just to note, the DD stepped up and refused to implement a part of the GRP that didn't affect VATUSA in any way whatsoever. And such was explained. That section of the GRP (5.3 for those tuning in for the first time) is worded especially for Divisions whose FIRs/ARTCCs have no websites. You'll notice the "Division/Facility" meaning one or the other. Thinking that every local policy needed to appear on the Division website was a misconception.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]"Are there communications break-downs? Absolutely. Are there policies that could be better? Sure. Are there processes that sometimes just don't work for the ATMs and staff, yes."
So let's fix it![/quote]
Agreed, and I think that's what we're all trying to do. I'm starting my full review of the VATNA policies tonight (including 05/05 just for you Jason!), and I always respond to emails the same day...normally within a couple hours.
-
Bryan, et. Al.,
First of all, I’d like to apologize again for the piecemeal posting above; my day got a bit hectic and I didn’t get to the finish line with it all. That said; please do not take what I posted as a condemnation of the GRP or any new or changed policies at VATSIM or any other level. I was using the GRP example to set a context only.
Bryan, in direct response to your post, I’d like to ask you to think back a few months; are the current attitudes and responses being posted any different than those expressed by many ATMs, DATMs and other staff (you and myself included) when the initial word of the first GRP policy was announced? I think not. If memory serves, those earlier posts and discussions were much more vociferous in nature…we all were just as dismayed, angered, and felt trodden-on then as now. A significant effort was made to work through the previous issues and to establish buy in – no less of an effort is necessary this time around.
As it has been brought up directly, the loss of control over the transfer and visiting controller functions at the ARTCC level is of serious concern to many. Looking at it from the ATM’s point of view, for good or ill, it was one area over which they had a modicum of influence. That has now been removed – again for good or ill. To some degree, we have been our worst enemies on this one…in my tenure as VATUSA1; I too had a very disappointing instance of blackballing occur. I very much regret it happening but I worked my ass off to fix it. The answer lies somewhere within due diligence and a strong dose of common sense. The codification of the requirements for denial, removal or other personnel actions brought about its own problems as no officially acceptable process was initially provided to guide the staff in applying the policy dictates. This only added to the frustration and angst.
Now comes a thorny issue…there has been a policy on the VATNA books regarding the requirement for review and approval of all local policies at the RD level before they are truly in effect. This has been around in some form since before my tenure as DD. At first glance, the policy would seem to answer the ever so elusive concept of accountability by placing approval authority at a single point within the management hierarchy. Does it accomplish what really needs to be done? I’ll repeat myself, I think not (this is a personal opinion). Rather than centralize the approval authority, put such day-to-day work at the lowest level and hold those responsible accountable via the hierarchy…and be serious about it…that’s true management. Barring this, if it must stay as it is, remove the stigma of “do what I say, not as I do†by approving one or three or all 100+ of them. Having a policy that isn’t “approved†as required by rote authority is useless to the ATM in their quest to administer their facility…they have nothing behind their efforts. Further, it is flat-out unconscionable to expect them to follow the myriad of policies and procedures they are asked to abide by when their authority has not fulfilled its own obligations to approve and post their simplest procedures as mandated by that authority’s policy.
Though I am no longer privy to the deeper staff forums of the division, I find it ludicrous to think ATMs are engaging in or threatening out-and-out insubordination or the mutinous behavior you have mentioned. I may be ignorant of the facts so don’t take it that I’m calling you a liar. If that is a fact, then they are a problem that must be dealt with accordingly.
Bryan, I’m not trying to ruin your day any more than anyone else’s…you spoke that VATUSA has to change its “modus operandi†from what has gone on for the past 10 years. (BTW, I'd like to except the 1-1/2 years I was DD... ; we weren't perfect but we did a pretty damn good job.) You are correct on many levels but that change must be guided and nurtured, not crammed down the throats of volunteers who you rely on to make up and manage the units, divisions and region for which you are responsible. I would ask that you temper your actions with a thought toward determining if what you see as necessary change is change that truly fits the Founder’s intent or your own vision of such. As a leader, your vision must be built upon and with the vision of those you lead...it's not a one man show.
With respect,
-
Just to note, the DD stepped up and refused to implement a part of the GRP that didn't affect VATUSA in any way whatsoever. And such was explained. That section of the GRP (5.3 for those tuning in for the first time) is worded especially for Divisions whose FIRs/ARTCCs have no websites. You'll notice the "Division/Facility" meaning one or the other. Thinking that every local policy needed to appear on the Division website was a misconception.
Hmmm... Not exactly how it was worded to us ATMs I must misunderstand what we were told.
[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=GRP 5.3)--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE (GRP 5.3)[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]5.3 Notwithstanding paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, it is acceptable for Divisions to introduce Standard
Operating Procedures to provide guidance to Controllers in respect of local arrangements such as
runway configurations, clearance altitudes, handoff procedures etc. Such SOPs must be approved by
the Division Director and must be published on Division/Facility websites for all controllers and pilots
to read.[/quote]
I don't think that the concern was as much related to the part of the GRP that you quoted but to every document requires the direct approval of the DD. My misunderstanding though. Thanks for the clarification.
-
Just to note, the DD stepped up and refused to implement a part of the GRP that didn't affect VATUSA in any way whatsoever. And such was explained. That section of the GRP (5.3 for those tuning in for the first time) is worded especially for Divisions whose FIRs/ARTCCs have no websites. You'll notice the "Division/Facility" meaning one or the other. Thinking that every local policy needed to appear on the Division website was a misconception.
Hmmm... Not exactly how it was worded to us ATMs I must misunderstand what we were told.
Oh, don't forget about 1.2E (The C3 Rating).
And let's also not forget that the issue with 5.3 was not only the fact that they had to be posted on the division website, it was that VATUSA Staff was required to again go through and review, approve somewhere along the lines of 200 SOPs/Policies within the division, and those had to be posted on the website. Which would've done no good anyway, because they were null and void due to NA Policy 0505 (as they would not have been posted on the VATNA website)
-
Sooooo....
To answer the question at hand: There certainly seems like there is a lot of work to be done - perhaps we could use a VATUSA1 to help do it. I'm not getting the impression that our motley crew is making much progress by acting as pundits. I say let's get some leadership in place so that some progress (if any) can be made. The chances of getting anything done without them are exactly zero. The chances with leadership in place are greater than that. I'm ready to do my part.
-
Bryan, et. Al.,
First of all, I’d like to apologize again for the piecemeal posting above; my day got a bit hectic and I didn’t get to the finish line with it all. That said; please do not take what I posted as a condemnation of the GRP or any new or changed policies at VATSIM or any other level. I was using the GRP example to set a context only.
Gary, no need to apologize. I actually thought your post was quite good. Allow me to address a few things one-by-one if I could:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Bryan, in direct response to your post, I’d like to ask you to think back a few months; are the current attitudes and responses being posted any different than those expressed by many ATMs, DATMs and other staff (you and myself included) when the initial word of the first GRP policy was announced? I think not. If memory serves, those earlier posts and discussions were much more vociferous in nature…we all were just as dismayed, angered, and felt trodden-on then as now. A significant effort was made to work through the previous issues and to establish buy in – no less of an effort is necessary this time around.[/quote]
You're absolutely right. At the time, it seemed like a really silly idea to me. There were a whole lot of issues that didn't seem right. However, after seeing the GRP in action for 2+ years, I realized it really isn't a big deal. Version 2 in my mind is policy done right. The competencies of course are the big one. You have to remember as well that the Division was involved with the GRP review process from the begining. There weren't a whole lot of concerns brought up during the process.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]As it has been brought up directly, the loss of control over the transfer and visiting controller functions at the ARTCC level is of serious concern to many. Looking at it from the ATM’s point of view, for good or ill, it was one area over which they had a modicum of influence. That has now been removed – again for good or ill.[/quote]
It is a concern, as it should be. However, it has been abused for so many years, that we find ourselves under the microscope. Removing people outside of the CR process is something that the Founders have actually been trying to stop for a very long time (or so I'm told). It is something that shouldn't have been taking place at all, yet has been allowed to go on for ages. It's never a power that ATMs actually had; a blind eye was simply turned to what was going on. The fact that it was continuing as recently as a month or two ago just shows that it's not something we have gotten rid of. There are still ATMs continuing to build their kingdoms, allowing in only the members they want to allow in, removing those (even permanently!!!) who violate any minute aspect of the ARTCCs regulations, etc. And while it would make the most sense to fire those people, that's apparently not how we do business. Fair enough.
In the staff forum, there was a discussion regarding petitioning the BOG to reach a middle ground, or augment the CoR when it comes to removals from ARTCCs. Andrew and I both encouraged a formal proposal in an attempt to augment the CR process locally, and I agreed to deliver it to the BOG, if I recall. So far, I've received nothing. Absolutely nothing. The deal still stands. While I obviously can't promise anything from the BOG, at least we tried.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Now comes a thorny issue…there has been a policy on the VATNA books regarding the requirement for review and approval of all local policies at the RD level before they are truly in effect. This has been around in some form since before my tenure as DD. At first glance, the policy would seem to answer the ever so elusive concept of accountability by placing approval authority at a single point within the management hierarchy. Does it accomplish what really needs to be done? I’ll repeat myself, I think not (this is a personal opinion). Rather than centralize the approval authority, put such day-to-day work at the lowest level and hold those responsible accountable via the hierarchy…and be serious about it…that’s true management. Barring this, if it must stay as it is, remove the stigma of “do what I say, not as I do†by approving one or three or all 100+ of them.[/quote]
I've discussed this one ad nauseum in the staff forums. I had planned on waiting for the release of the GRP and a possible amendment to the Global VC Policy before approving the local rules. Many of them would have to be changed, particularly the ones that allow for ATMs to remove people for basically looking at the ATM the wrong way, which was the reason for the delay.
However, as I mentioned above, I am (tonight) begining a review of all the VATNA policies, particularly the ones that were in effect since long before I got here. 05/05 is the big one, and will most likely be removed entirely. I have no intention of micromanaging any facility to the extent that every little change has to be run by me first, however, there are some changes that are going to have to take place within local policy. Those will be addressed when the time comes.
Does that help any?
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I would ask that you temper your actions with a thought toward determining if what you see as necessary change is change that truly fits the Founder’s intent or your own vision of such.[/quote]
Anything I have passed down has come straight from my bosses, as needing to be corrected. In most of the matters that have come down, it hasn't really been a matter of debate. We have the removals (which are a clear violation of CR policy/CoR) and the GRP. Those are pretty well set in stone.
[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Michael Hodge Jr)--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE (Michael Hodge Jr)[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Oh, don't forget about 1.2E (The C3 Rating).[/quote]
You know what I think about the C3 rating. But at the same time, I think leaving it at the Division's discretion isn't the end of the world either. If the Division wants to use it, great. If not, great too. I see no problem with how VATUSA is currently using it...or not using it.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]And let's also not forget that the issue with 5.3 was not only the fact that they had to be posted on the division website, it was that VATUSA Staff was required to again go through and review, approve somewhere along the lines of 200 SOPs/Policies within the division, and those had to be posted on the website.[/quote]
As I said above, they didn't have to be posted on the Division website. That is only in the absense of a local website, as I note in my previous post. That just ensures that local SOPs are indeed posted somewhere. Else, how would the global controllers be able to find SOPs to look at? It was worded that way specifically for Divisions whose local facilities do not have websites.
-
I am a firm believer that if, over the past 10 years, VATUSA did a better job of overseeing its facilities and ATMs specifically, and took the necessary action when required - then we would never have needed policies such as the GRP or those regarding visitors, transfers, and removals.
We need a VATUSA Director, but it needs to be someone with Leadership, Communication, and Vision.
We need VATUSA RTDs, but they need to be people who will monitor, collaborate, and provide guidance for the facilities they are responsible for. They must also be able to remove an ATM as required.
We need a VATUSA Training Director, but it needs to be someone who can administer a training program and provide the division with much needed materials (like the one that just resigned)
We need a supporting VATUSA staff to keep the web site running, answer questions, and maintain the events calendar - but in all cases they should act as a supporting resource only.
I was quite pleased with what I was seeing with the previous administration, and have a hard time believing that we will see that level of communication, collaboration, and advocacy in the near future. The senior staff at our facility is becoming quietly concerned about what might happen without an advocate at the VATUSA level to communicate with the EC/BOG on our behalf.
-
The senior staff at our facility is becoming quietly concerned about what might happen without an advocate at the VATUSA level to communicate with the EC/BOG on our behalf.
Not just limited to the senior staff... There's at least one controller there who's been watching this and developing concerns as well...
Hoping for the best,
AJ
-
As stated by David, Ian, AJ, and I'm sure in many others' thoughts, the VATUSA staff can only do so much without VATUSA1 as their leader. Bryan, if changes are beginning to occur (at least at the regional level), I would assume that some of these changes would trickle down and affect the divisions as well.
If that is the case, wouldn't you agree that it would be best to have a DD for VATUSA in place who can sit down and discuss matters, which may later affect him, with you? This affords them the opportunity to have a voice in the policies, rules, standards, etc. that would be in effect when they would eventually step up to run the division. To me, this would serve as a better and more productive opportunity for you and for the new DD to discuss matters and reach conclusions together, instead of the DD being handled a pile of papers and expected to go through them and follow them. This also allows for the DD to have a better understanding of WHY such regulations, procedures, etc. are in place.
As I personally believe, it is always best to discuss with people policies, procedures, etc. which affect them so that they are aware of the how's and why's behind them, ultimately allowing for better communication and coordination amongst all ranks.
-
Few points of clarification:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Just to note, the DD stepped up and refused to implement a part of the GRP that didn't affect VATUSA in any way whatsoever. And such was explained. That section of the GRP (5.3 for those tuning in for the first time) is worded especially for Divisions whose FIRs/ARTCCs have no websites. You'll notice the "Division/Facility" meaning one or the other. Thinking that every local policy needed to appear on the Division website was a misconception.[/quote]
GRP 5.3:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Notwithstanding paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, it is acceptable for Divisions to introduce Standard Operating Procedures to provide guidance to Controllers in respect of local arrangements such as runway configurations, clearance altitudes, handoff procedures etc. Such SOPs must be approved by the Division Director and must be published on Division/Facility websites for all controllers and pilots to read.[/quote]
How the heck is one supposed to make the connection that if an ARTCC has no website, only their policies have to be approved by the Division Director? Posting it on a website was not the problem, having to review them all was the problem. And no, such was not explained.
What you said to me on 1/11/10 was:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]"I'm in complete agreement that the ridiculousness has to stop somewhere. The amount of oversight is indeed ridiculous and your example just shows that. Why the hell should you care about runway selection and such? ha ha! That's why I "think" applies to local procedures in general, but who the hell knows.[/quote]
You gave me your personal interpretation that it did not apply, but then followed it with the above, so I asked for a formal answer and pointed out the problems with the system.......
Refusal to implement part of the GRP was based on 2 things:
1) I did not want to have to approve or force the staff to approve airspace procedures like runway configs, etc. I felt it was overkill and the ARTCCs were capable of doing that on their own. Call me crazy, but the GRP is clear on that point. The contention is now that "well that didn't really apply to VATUSA"........ but it is a Global Policy so how is a DD supposed to know what rules in a network wide policy apply and which ones don't.............??? Bruce, your understanding of the issue was dead correct.
2) I did not feel that it was the USA Division's job to invent an arbitrary meeting for C3 which is a global rating and is supposed to transfer across divisions. It would not have the same meaning between divisions and I could not understand why the GRP would address all of the other ratings but make that one subjective. It is in my opinion, 100% wrong to take a situation that has been a problem since GRP1 and ignore it by pushing it off on the divisions where it could easily be turned into a boys club elitist rating.
I never received any official response to the refusal. I actually told members of the USA Staff that I expected to be fired for it, and should have been. I would have had a ton of respect for VATSIM if they had fired me because at least then there would have been some accountability.
There has also been a lot of talk about my access to the GRP forum. I did not have it, but it didn't matter. The revisions and drafts of the GRP were not being circulated in that forum anyway, so access to it would not have accomplished anything. We did not see any draft after 9/1/09 or the final GRP until the day it was released, so my refusal to implement those provisions was necessary due to the fact that there was no opportunity to interject input prior to its codification.
Gary is more right that you guys can imagine. Rules seem to keep being created in response to things that have gone awry in the past. Rather than deal with the problem head on, rules are created to outlaw the problem. Thing is, no matter what the intent of the GRP is, the end result is more bureaucracy and administrative overhead. More webpages to develop, procedures to approve, tests to rewrite, blah blah blah. That was a big concern to me with any policy, "How much does this affect downstream workload?" For instance...GRP requires written exam AND OTS for every rating. Ok Fine. But VATSIM does not provide a central system for written exams, so every division is now REQUIRED to develop a testing center. Fortunately, USA already had one, but the point remains that it is more downstream workload. Major airspace creates another set of bureaucracy....signoffs, policies, training programs, etc.
Bryan, I am glad to hear that you are considering dumping 05/05, it is ridiculous, and that should be evidenced by the stack of policies that were submitted in October for approval. I wish you would have told me that before.
Why do VATUSA1's quit? Simple......the amount of frivolity you have to deal with and cannot do anything about is abundant. That alone would be fine, but when legitimate issues go unanswered, a person's ability to make decisions is diminished to a point where all that is left is fielding complaints from unhappy people..... so what is the point?
As it stands now, the DD's job (quote from my resignation letter) is mostly a "buffer for people to complain at". You cannot get involved in Conflict Resolution. You cannot mitigate a situation where someone is poisoning an ARTCC, controller or staff. And you really have to be careful about who you appoint to a position because it is a decision that pretty much cannot be undone. You cannot hold staff accountable for breaking the rules without becoming an internet lawyer to build a case (and there are no rules on how the case must be built, it is completely subjective depending on who the "judge" is).
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]What do we get? We get ATMs who blatantly announce that they will exploit every possible loophole they can to circumvent the policies. And they do it!! The BOG and EC be damned. In short, what we really have are ATMs saying they will exploit every possible loophole to get around the Founders' Vision. Think about that one for a minute.[/quote]
I do not remember that ever being said......I must have missed it. I don't remember a case of an ATM trying to maliciously subvert the rules (except one minor time, but I brought that to his attention and never had an issue after that), and certainly not one that was brought to my attention from above. I think that overall the ATMs do a fantastic job of managing their positions, and should be commended for it. The few bad apples that have existed over time should be dealt with individually rather than trying to choke them out via legislation, that doesn't work anyway. But with the history of what it takes to deal with getting rid of a bad apple and making it stick......who would want to even try?
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I'm starting my full review of the VATNA policies tonight (including 05/05 just for you Jason!)...
and
However, as I mentioned above, I am (tonight) begining a review of all the VATNA policies, particularly the ones that were in effect since long before I got here. 05/05 is the big one, and will most likely be removed entirely. I have no intention of micromanaging any facility to the extent that every little change has to be run by me first, however, there are some changes that are going to have to take place within local policy. Those will be addressed when the time comes.[/quote]
Good, then my work here is done. While waiting on this review, I will move on to the next topic of contention, Transferring and Visiting Controllers in the coming days...
JV
-
With respect to Mr. Podner's post: I am happy to see someone with instant knowledge respond to what I took as a sweeping condemnation of VATUSA's ATMs and other local staff. I also missed the reported behavior, and dispute it. There may in fact be a VATUSA ATM who actively subverts the system, but I have fully one third of VATUSA's ARTCCs and I have no knowledge of such activities. In point of fact, I interact with one or more facilities seven days a week, and I am personally familiar with several others; instead of negative behavior, I am constantly amazed at the amount of time, effort and creativity that is devoted to this hobby by those who have chosen to step up and run a facility. All they really need is support instead of criticism ... and the ability NOT to blackball anyone, but to rid their roster through due process of clearly detrimental individuals who cause constant problems and drag the rest down.
Mr. Podner and Mr. Millsaps have it exactly right. It would be extremely helpful if their words were given the credibility they deserve.
-
I am a firm believer that if, over the past 10 years, VATUSA did a better job of overseeing its facilities and ATMs specifically, and took the necessary action when required - then we would never have needed policies such as the GRP or those regarding visitors, transfers, and removals.
Presto Bada Bing....
This applies to many of the divisions. What goes on under the radar in many divisions is just downright depressing. I actually think VATUSA is probably one of the better divisions at keeping tabs on the staff, but things still happen. The email I posted in the other thread is an example. Why doesn't the division know his TA is a draconian task master? Does he condone the behavior? Is he oblivious? Or does he know and just doesn't want to rock the boat out fo fear he will have to get online and do training himself? Why hasn't the RD taken care of this? Why does this member feel as though he needs to come to me for redress?
There were way too many times as president that I was dragged into division issues. I shouldn't have been hearing from VATXXX1 at all! My experience was when in doubt staff members would copy everyone they could think of on an email and then say they have covered their bases. I don't know how many times I have been told, "Hey, I contacted the BoG and they didn't even respond!" Well, in most cases it was merely the fact people were jumping the chain. I would get emails from ATM's or the like saying I need to fix this or that. They usually got a response to go talk to VATUSA1. For me to intervene in that fashion would have been cutting the legs out from VATUSA1 or VATNA1.
I have quietly been asking questions and requesting information regarding some of the allegations with the demise of the last VATUSA1. Frankly, I was surprised by Andrew's resignation. He always conducted himself in a professional manner and from what I saw, seemed to keep a lid on things that have always raised their head in VATUSA.
His post about not complying with parts of GRP2 was a little out of character I thought and attributed it to frustration with the entire process. Then came the explosive resignation post. Pretty clear there needed to be some work on the roster removal issue... Other parts of it I felt Andrew was mistaken, but that is here nor there now. What Andrew's resignation should be saying loud and clear is that information flow and case resolution is not working.
I would also like to further explore the VATUSA need for excessive guidance from the BoG and EC. As president, I heard from VATUSA on a weekly, if not daily basis, for most of my tenure. In comparison most other divisions hardly ever contacted the BoG directly. I wonder if it had to do with proximity? I was readily available to the VATUSA staff, unlike Europe and the Pacific divisions with the time zone differences.
All things to think about.
-
Some interesting posts here. It really feels like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
- Like Richard, I get emailed all the time. I generally try to answer the question if it is a request for information. If a request for assistance, I try to steer them to the appropriate resource/level (ATM, DD, RD, DCRM, VATSIM forums, PRC, etc.). Can't tell you how many times I have gotten a nasty gram back saying "thanks for nothing...you are no help (or words to that effect)". Classic is a forgotten password when I direct them to the forgot password link and (if that doesn't work) ask them to submit a trouble ticket to membership.
- I see posts in the various forums and will try to answer, especially if I have information that others may not have that changes the dynamics of the issue. Yes it is a "view from 50,000 feet" but that doesn't mean it is wrong and may mean it is actually more accurate as to the true state of affairs, especially on network-wide issues. In the last few days I've been raked over the coals in both this form and the ZAU forum. Maybe as VATSIM President I should just monitor these forums but not respond and limit my responses to the VATSIM forums?
- Whenever there has been something directive in nature I needed sent down to an ATM/FIR Chief or a DD, I have always worked through the relevant RD and DD (if appropriate). Generally sending the message to the RD and asking him to look into the situation or pass the info on. Sometimes it has been a conversation between the ATM, DD, RD and myself with all cc'd on emails. Based on some of these threads...some people feel I am only engaging when there is a problem (think it was called "seagull leadership") but that is really the only time I should be directly engaged with those below the level of RD, otherwise I am cutting the RD out and some would call what I was doing micromanagement.
So on the one hand I can support subordinate levels of the organization, work through them and be seen as unapproachable, unhelpful, disengaged, seagull management. On the other hand I am undercutting the RD, DD and ATM, removing all their power, a micromanager who is interfering at the local level. My belief (and approach) has always been that the truth is somewhere in the middle and I need to balance between the two. I never send an email to the DD or ATM directly. I go to the RD and ask him to look into it and report back. When he does it frequently turns into a multi-level discussion but that is always done with everyone on the email so people aren't cut out. By the same token, other than when that happens, I don't think I should ever be engaged directly with DDs or ATMS. I come to the forums to be approachable to the general membership who (as Richard posted in the other thread) frequently come directly to members of the BOG when they have a problem they feel is being ignored by those above them...and even then my first response is to go to the RD and ask "what is going on?"...
What approach do you all think is the right one??
Dave
-
I think that when one assumes a leadership position, particularly at the division director and higher level, the first thing to realize is that the ability to speak informally, casually, and/or 'off-the-record' has officially expired. Every statement made, every nuance of the diction will be scrutinized and interpreted as law. I am not saying it is right, just, or fair, but it is true. That typically will immediately translate into a sharp reduction in the number of statements made because of that very fact. This is why in my opinion it is extremely important to be highly cognizant of the tone and likely perception of one's statements because it carries a weight that is exponentially relative to the office held.
-
I think that when one assumes a leadership position, particularly at the division director and higher level, the first thing to realize is that the ability to speak informally, casually, and/or 'off-the-record' has officially expired. Every statement made, every nuance of the diction will be scrutinized and interpreted as law. I am not saying it is right, just, or fair, but it is true. That typically will immediately translate into a sharp reduction in the number of statements made because of that very fact. This is why in my opinion it is extremely important to be highly cognizant of the tone and likely perception of one's statements because it carries a weight that is exponentially relative to the office held.
No argument there.... Learned to keep my mouth shut after a few incidents when I was president.
-
This is why in my opinion it is extremely important to be highly cognizant of the tone and likely perception of one's statements because it carries a weight that is exponentially relative to the office held.
No disagreement from me. Several people have emailed me on occasion unhappy with the words I've used in a particular post, but after almost 20 years' experience as a speechwriter to some of the senior military and elected leaders in this country, I'm pretty good at choosing words that convey exactly what I mean to say....
:-)
Dave
-
No disagreement from me. Several people have emailed me on occasion unhappy with the words I've used in a particular post, but after almost 20 years' experience as a speechwriter to some of the senior military and elected leaders in this country, I'm pretty good at choosing words that convey exactly what I mean to say....
:-)
Dave
Therein lies the problem, saying what you mean to say doesn't always make it right or appropriate. I don't believe you truly understood Andrew's words, or maybe you did and simply choose to use it as another platform to share with us your wonderful career in the military, which we've heard ad nauseum. Regardless, you encourage resignations and show people the door whose views differ from your own. If you mean to say these things, then by all means continue to leave yourself open to scathing criticism. That attitude doesn't help VATSIM...
-
I've already acknowledged that a number of posters in this forum (including you) are convinced that all the founders, all the BOG and all the EC are completely screwed up, lousy leaders who have no idea what they are doing or what is best for the network but that you folks have all the answers.... As far as making it right or appropriate...that's in the eye of the beholder and your opinion of VATSIM's leadership is already pretty clear.
I'd also like to be shown a single time when I've ever shown a person the door or told them to resign when their opinion is different than my own...has never happened! What I have publicly stated on a number of occasions is that some VATSIM policies are NOT going to change and that people have a choice...it is THEIR decision whether they can live with those policies or not. If they can't then the would probably be happier somewhere else.
The fact you continue to twist people's words and statements to reflect your preconceived notions and opinions doesn't change what the other words were. I challenge any person in this forum to find a post I've made in this forum (or any other VATSIM forum for that matter) where I have (to use your words)
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Regardless, you encourage resignations and show people the door whose views differ from your own.[/quote]
I have NEVER encouraged anyone to resign OR shown them the door (presumably that means fired them or kicked them out of VATSIM) if their views differ from my personal views. At this point your continued attacks on me are no longer just annoying, based on the fact they are categorically untrue, they are rapidly becoming slanderous in violation of the standard of conduct we ALL have to comply with. I'd also share with you that you don't even have a clue what my personal opinion is on most of the VATSIM policies. Would it surprise you to know that I don't agree with all of them? There are several I disagree with, but I have a choice...I either implement them because they ARE the network policies or (if I can't live with doing that) I step down. To date there has been no policy I disagree with that I find so onerous that I can't live with it.
Near as I can tell, no Founder, BOG Member or EC member in this thread has attacked you in the way you have continued to attack them, let alone told untruths as you have done in the past and have done in the post immediately preceding this one.
So here's the challenge to Alex and the rest of the VATUSA community -- If you can find a single post in ANY VATSIM-related forum where I have ENCOURAGED a person to RESIGN from their staff position in VATSIM OR ENCOURAGED a person to RESIGN (quit) VATSIM OR FIRED a PERSON from a staff position OR KICKED a person out of VATSIM because THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH MY PERSONAL OPINION then
I WILL IMMEDIATELY RESIGN AS PRESIDENT OF VATSIM.
Start your searches now, when you come up with nothing, I would hope you'd be man enough to apologize for your lies and slander.
Dave
edited because upon re-reading Alex's implied statements I just got even more incensed at the lies and mistruths...I have no problem with the criticism (it comes with the job) but the lies really torque me off....
-
OK, let me try to bring this back to the "approach" issue..............
I want to throw out a sort of made up term that I attribute to VATSIM....."leadership by coercion". VATSIM is an all volunteer organization. We all know this. But it is a distinction that makes it so much different than any of the management experience that most people have had. In the public and private sector, leadership is done to some extent with buy-in, but you always have 'leadership by decree' to fall back on. That doesn't exist here. Edicts without 'buy-in' are doomed to disaster whether they are good ideas or not. Volunteers have nothing more than a desire to serve keeping them in place, and once that begins to be eroded, the turnover will commence. It is not unique to VATSIM, all volunteer organizations experience it and I have dealt with it heavily first hand outside of this network. Participation has very natural, albeit at times steep, ebbs and flows, and I think that it is extremely important to recognize that volunteer management is the inverse of the norm.
In volunteer management, the top truly needs the bottom a hell of a lot more than the bottom needs the top. It may seem counter-intuitive, but it is true. So when we talk about 'stability in the division staff', it is really a flawed concept. You really do not need a lot of stability in personnel at the division level because the heavy lifting is not done there. Where you need it is at the ARTCC level. Those guys are the ones that directly influence the makeup of the INS cadre, they have the most influence over the attitudes of the controllers on the frequency, and they are the ones that provide for the existence of every layer of management above them.
We need their buy-in and their belief in the direction of the network, because the happiness and job satisfaction of the 1st echelon of staff in a volunteer organization will translate into higher productivity (e.g. more hours of training provided, more people online, more controllers moving more quickly through the system). If those people feel over-regulated and hamstrung......does it really matter what the EC or the BOG thinks about whether or not it is true?
The org chart here is a hierarchy, but you may as well torch it because it is meaningless. The top echelons do not drive the success of this network. They have the least amount of influence over it short of pulling the plug on the servers. The bottom drives the organization. I told my staff on many occassions, the ATMs, TAs and other staff members at the ARTCCs our our customers and that is exactly how they should be treated. I felt that the USA staff was here to support their efforts not to drive them. In the same way, pilots are the customer of the controller, and it is unfortunate that sometimes the way people are treated doesn't reflect that. Without pilots, there's nobody to give ATC services to. Similarly without staff at the lowest level, there's no need for the upper levels. Being approachable is fine, but that concept is severely diminished when a part of that turns into open attacks or divisive statements when someone dissents, or in this network's case, gets tagged as a troublemaker. The fact that someone regularly disagrees, and maybe even chooses their words to do so poorly, does not mean that their point of view is automatically invalid or that they deserve anything less than friendly, respectful treatment from the leadership. But as of late, that has not been the case here. And that is truly a shame, and disheartens me more every time I see it.
So to tie it all back together, when I say 'leadership by coercion', what I mean is presenting a attitude and an approach that lends itself to people wanting to do the same things you want to do, and being open to the idea that your thoughts are not perfect, and be willing to compromise to achieve the best result, recognizing that having the last word or being right really is not that important in the grand scheme of things.
-
This discussion has now become personal. We have spent far to much time fixing the blame than fixing the problem. Take it somewhere else gentlemen. This thread is closed.