VATUSA Forums
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dan Leavitt on February 05, 2010, 11:44:21 PM
-
I had an interesting situation come up today. I was talking with one of my pilots, who was flying into a controlled center airspace (a side note, the center controller holds a sup rating, this will play into the scenario as we continue) from an uncontrolled airspace. He was unaware that he was flying into the controlled airspace, and was just continuing on with his flight, and was at the controls the ENTIRE time. After flying in for a while, he got a private message from the controller staffing the center. The message read: "this message is to inform you that you are being removed from the network for not contacting me within 30 min of entering my airspace." To this, my pilot responded saying that he hadn't received a contact message, and was unaware he was in controlled airspace. After a bunch of pointless bickering back and forth, the controller finished the conversation by stating "it is the responsibility of the pilot to know whether he is in controlled airspace, and the controllers are not required to send out contact messages."
Now, I've done my homework, the PRC says that IDEALLY the pilot will contact the controller when they enter the airspace. At the same time, it states that the pilot can't be absent from the flight deck while in controlled airspace. I've read through the forums here and at VATSIM, and I keep seeing posts that say controllers SHALL, and usually will send contact messages(but these messages are just from other controllers and pilots). By that same token, I haven't seen anything saying that it is required. A lot of these postings and wordings in documents are contradictory, and we have no official documents outlining something as simple as this. Can the determination of whether a pilot is removed from the network really fall to the discretion of supervisors, when there's nothing written/approved stating who's(pilot, controller, both) responsibility it is to establish contact?
Is it the sole responsibility of the pilot to establish contact with the controller? or does the controller have an obligation to at least attempt to contact a pilot who didn't check in (not checking in doesn't mean they are away from the controls)?
Thanks,
Dan
-
I had an interesting situation come up today. I was talking with one of my pilots, who was flying into a controlled center airspace (a side note, the center controller holds a sup rating, this will play into the scenario as we continue) from an uncontrolled airspace. He was unaware that he was flying into the controlled airspace, and was just continuing on with his flight, and was at the controls the ENTIRE time. After flying in for a while, he got a private message from the controller staffing the center. The message read: "this message is to inform you that you are being removed from the network for not contacting me within 30 min of entering my airspace." To this, my pilot responded saying that he hadn't received a contact message, and was unaware he was in controlled airspace. After a bunch of pointless bickering back and forth, the controller finished the conversation by stating "it is the responsibility of the pilot to know whether he is in controlled airspace, and the controllers are not required to send out contact messages."
Now, I've done my homework, the PRC says that IDEALLY the pilot will contact the controller when they enter the airspace. At the same time, it states that the pilot can't be absent from the flight deck while in controlled airspace. I've read through the forums here and at VATSIM, and I keep seeing posts that say controllers SHALL, and usually will send contact messages(but these messages are just from other controllers and pilots). By that same token, I haven't seen anything saying that it is required. A lot of these postings and wordings in documents are contradictory, and we have no official documents outlining something as simple as this. Can the determination of whether a pilot is removed from the network really fall to the discretion of supervisors, when there's nothing written/approved stating who's(pilot, controller, both) responsibility it is to establish contact?
Is it the sole responsibility of the pilot to establish contact with the controller? or does the controller have an obligation to at least attempt to contact a pilot who didn't check in (not checking in doesn't mean they are away from the controls)?
Thanks,
Dan
Sounds like your pilot got "baited" and the supervisor was abusing his authority.
How does said supervisor know that he was away for greater than 30 minutes if the pilot was never contacted to find out if he WAS away from the controls.
Must be more secret rules that the supervisors have...
Too bad,
Jason Vodnansky
-
By the way...
It doesn't matter what the PRC says. It only matters what VATSIM's CoC, CoR, VATNA and VATUSA policies say.
VATUSA's policies may not apply since there is no VATUSA policy published on the VATNA website as required by VATNA policy 0505, but that has been an issue for years, and will likely never be fixed.
Oh, I forgot, those pesky "secret rules" that the supervisor can hold people to account for may apply here too.
JV
-
Dan,
Despite the incorrect assumptions of Mr. Vodnansky, the Supervisor was not following any "secret policies" (they don't exist) and was in the wrong. Your best course of action would be to send the Supervisor's name and information regarding the situation to Michael Zazula and copy Norman Blackburn to ensure you get a response.
Supervisors follow the published regulatory documents available to all members. Those are pretty big claims to make, Jason, which require some substantiation.
Dan, if you have any further questions please let us know.
Regards,
-
To clarify one more point, the 30 minute rule only applies to pilots in uncontrolled airspace. In controlled airspace, the discretion is left to the Supervisor and the current situation (is the pilot conflicting with other members?). However, the Supervisor must make attempts to contact the pilot and document said attempts. Hope that clears it up.
-
In response to the COC question, yes, the pilot does have an independent obligation to contact a controller upon entering controlled airspace. Obviously it's a good idea for controllers to send out a "contactme", but the Code of Conduct is clear that the pilot does have the obligation to be in contact with the appropriate controllers.
That said, the key question in regards to enforcing that section of the Code of Conduct from a Supervisor perspective is one of intent. It's unreasonable to remove a pilot that's at his computer for not contacting a controller due to unknowingly entering controlled airspace. Justified removals under COC B3 generally involve pilots who intentionally don't make contact with the appropriate controllers, or are not at their computers despite the presence of controlled airspace.
-
Guys,
Thanks for your responses, it is much appreciated
Your best course of action would be to send the Supervisor's name and information regarding the situation to Michael Zazula and copy Norman Blackburn to ensure you get a response.
Supervisors follow the published regulatory documents available to all members.
Dan, if you have any further questions please let us know.
Regards,
Without delving into details, and without naming names, i'll just say this...it doesn't matter who would get emailed, from experience and perception, said person IS untouchable.
To clarify one more point, the 30 minute rule only applies to pilots in uncontrolled airspace. In controlled airspace, the discretion is left to the Supervisor and the current situation (is the pilot conflicting with other members?). However, the Supervisor must make attempts to contact the pilot and document said attempts. Hope that clears it up.
In response to the COC question, yes, the pilot does have an independent obligation to contact a controller upon entering controlled airspace. Obviously it's a good idea for controllers to send out a "contactme", but the Code of Conduct is clear that the pilot does have the obligation to be in contact with the appropriate controllers.
That said, the key question in regards to enforcing that section of the Code of Conduct from a Supervisor perspective is one of intent. It's unreasonable to remove a pilot that's at his computer for not contacting a controller due to unknowingly entering controlled airspace. Justified removals under COC B3 generally involve pilots who intentionally don't make contact with the appropriate controllers, or are not at their computers despite the presence of controlled airspace.
Not to play devils advocate here, but I have to ask. Alex, you say supervisors MUST make attemptS...plural(i've seen it happen after 1 call) where as Mike says COC B3 GENERALLY, which to me implies that there's room for interpretation/no set standards.
I respect both of your opinions on the matter, but since there's a difference between the 2, it's just that, an opinion. Can we get an "official" VATUSA determination on this?
Thanks,
Dan
-
[quote name='Dan Leavitt' date='Feb 6 2010, 08:42 AM' post='9997']
Hi Dan,
Nobody is untouchable. As Alex has said, fire an email to Michal and I and you can be sure questions will be asked.
Whilst it is the pilots responsibility to make contact, the controller didnt help things by watching without action. If the situation occurred as you relay here, removing them without warning is nothing short of abuse of the Supervisor's ability.
-
I don't think there's any inconsistency at all between what Alex and I said. I outlined what would be a situation that calls for removal under COC B3, not the standards that apply to finding out if someone is at their computer or not.
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Without delving into details, and without naming names, i'll just say this...it doesn't matter who would get emailed, from experience and perception, said person IS untouchable.[/quote]
Sorry, the quote above managed to vanish.
-
Dan,
It isn't a VATUSA issue so they won't be able to provide an answer. The thing to remember is that we do have discretion on how to carry out our duties, but the fact remains - we enforce the Code of Conduct and Code of Regulations in situations such as these. What Jason mentioned is grossly inaccurate because any removal or suspension must be based upon a documented violation of either of the two documents.
What Mike and I have said is that there are various clauses in those documents that take care of various violations. CoC A9 covers pilots in uncontrolled airspace. CoC B3/B10 covers pilots in controlled airspace, and A14 applies to observers and controllers who aren't at their computer (inactive connections). There must be some sort of measure for whether or not a member is at their machine, and I don't see how that happens without contacting the pilot. If the pilot was disrupting another member's flight, then their removal could be instant and based upon CoC A1.
In the situation you described, unless the SUP in question can read someone's mind, how does he know the pilot isn't there? Whilst it is the pilot's job to check for appropriate ATC, the ATC should also send a contact message and the SUP should definitely confirm the absence of the pilot before taking any sort of action.
Finally, it all comes down to assisting the users of the network. Our primary job is to provide assistance and when it comes time to play police officer, we should keep the hobby aspect in mind. Does there appear to be malicious intent with the pilot's actions or did he simply step away to grab his laundry? Many SUPs get it right and understand that we aren't here to look for opportunities to remove and suspend people. I use it as a last resort.
-
Alex/Mike,
Now I understand a bit better as to what the "guideline" for it is. Thank you.
Norm, I will be weighing my options in regards to an email to you and mike.
Thanks all for your input,
Dan
-
Thanks Dan.
-
Dan,
I'm pretty sure it was me you are talking about...but the pilot is only sharing some of the facts (or message has been gotten scrambled up with transmission to and through you).
1. I had a pilot enter my airspace (from uncontrolled airspace) and sent him 11 .contactme messages over the course of about 60 miles as he flew over other traffic and approached Chicago from the East.
2. The pilot finally responded when he was over Lake Michigan and in the arrivals corridor for ORD. Because he established contact so late, he was at FL240 at WYNDE instead of 10,000 feet despite his best efforts to descend.
3. When the pilot finally did check in I told him "Good thing you checked in, I was about 5 minutes away from disconnecting you from the network"
4. I never disconnected him.
5. Pilot got pissy with me, said he never got the contactme messages except the last one.
6. I never said it was the pilot's responsibility to monitor if ATC is online and contact me first, and I certainly have never taken that position as a controller or VATSIM staff member.
Bottom line is in the case I dealt with last night, I have a pilot who, for whatever reason (not being at the computer, not seeing the .contactme messages, not getting the .contactme messages) flew well into the airspace for an extended period of time and was approaching a position where I was going to .kill him...but I never did. So the real story (assuming this is the incident to which you were referring) is that after repeated attempts to make contact with a pilot, upon check-in, he was told "good thing you checked in...I was five minutes away from disconnecting you"...the rest is all crap.
By the way, as a controller I never .kill someone unless no supes are online. In another case last night I did have another issue with an unresponsive pilot and issued a .wallop like anyone else...think it was Mike Cassel who responded. I would have done the same thing here...another 5 min and I would have .wallop'd for a supervisor....
Does that help?
Dave
Edit made to correct spelling of Mike's name.
-
Dave's post certainly changes my position...
Jason Vodnansky
-
Can we keep the language to a child/family appropriate level please?
thank you
-
Since I am supposedly inaccurate in my assertions regarding "secret rules" that VATSIM supervisors have, and me offer some evidence that I have been directly involved with...
Visibility ranges. In no written documentation, that is available to the average member, is there a limit on visibility ranges. I have had numerous instances and conversations that have been documented on this very forum on the topic.
Unless the VATSIM forums are required reading now, which they might be, when a supervisor has been asked about where to find such policy. The response has been either to point to the forums, or to say they are following the rules published on the Supervisor's board.
So, if the supervisors are enforcing "unwritten rules", one that can be found on the Supervisor's board, then yes, in fact then they ARE secret, as the general membership does not have access to that board, and can not be held to account for those rules.
Said another way, How can I follow the "law" if I have no way of KNOWING the law?
There are at least two fixes to this.
#1 Change the law...
#2 Stop enforcement
Seems pretty simple...
Jason Vodnansky
-
Since I am supposedly inaccurate in my assertions regarding "secret rules" that VATSIM supervisors have, and me offer some evidence that I have been directly involved with...
Visibility ranges. In no written documentation, that is available to the average member, is there a limit on visibility ranges. I have had numerous instances and conversations that have been documented on this very forum on the topic.
Unless the VATSIM forums are required reading now, which they might be, when a supervisor has been asked about where to find such policy. The response has been either to point to the forums, or to say they are following the rules published on the Supervisor's board.
So, if the supervisors are enforcing "unwritten rules", one that can be found on the Supervisor's board, then yes, in fact then they ARE secret, as the general membership does not have access to that board, and can not be held to account for those rules.
Said another way, How can I follow the "law" if I have no way of KNOWING the law?
There are at least two fixes to this.
#1 Change the law...
#2 Stop enforcement
Seems pretty simple...
Jason Vodnansky
There is a very good point here. When I was training for my S2 Cert. I was told you do not need to set your Vis Range higher than 50nm. This is NOWHERE in the training material. Well, here I am sitting in the Tower CAB with vis @ 90nm and I get PMed by a SUP (the almighty) saying rudely that I am wasting bandwidth and have to turn my Visibility range down now.
Nobody appreciates being talked to like a dog. Hopefully VATSIM will rid themselves of the Gestapo-like supervisors and post up some rules that people can read... Instead of shooting people down without them knowing a single thing of what the guy with the gun is talking about.
Things get done slowly around here and there is always thousands of fingers to blame... Can anybody just FIX it?
Spencer Devino
-
Spencer,
I'm sorry you feel this way and I can assure you that multiple Supervisors including myself have asked for VATSIM to include visibility ranges in the Code of Conduct and we always get shut down. It literally would take 2 minutes to accomplish and would solve many headaches, but they seem unwilling to do so. Unfortunately we are still asked to enforce the visibility ranges and it tends to reflect poorly upon us.
The BoG is reading this thread, so hopefully they will take yet another complaint regarding this situation to heart. It needs to be placed in the Code of Conduct, and this provides further evidence of the claim.
Thanks for your comments!
Best,
-
There is a very good point here. When I was training for my S2 Cert. I was told you do not need to set your Vis Range higher than 50nm. This is NOWHERE in the training material. Well, here I am sitting in the Tower CAB with vis @ 90nm and I get PMed by a SUP (the almighty) saying rudely that I am wasting bandwidth and have to turn my Visibility range down now.
Nobody appreciates being talked to like a dog. Hopefully VATSIM will rid themselves of the Gestapo-like supervisors and post up some rules that people can read... Instead of shooting people down without them knowing a single thing of what the guy with the gun is talking about.
Things get done slowly around here and there is always thousands of fingers to blame... Can anybody just FIX it?
Spencer Devino
Speaking of visibility ranges...
A while ago when I was an S3 I was monitoring somebody on ORD_TWR and I had forgotten to switch profiles so my visibility range was still up around 100. My windows were open and I heard our neighbors across the street starting yelling for help, it turns out that her mother had passed out and she's home alone and she's wheelchair bound with M.S. So I ran across the street to help.
I eventually get back to VRC and I see that I had been disconnected. I looked at my PMs and I had one from a supervisor. (unfortunately at the time I had no idea how to save chat logs) and wouldn't ya know, this supervisor PMed me at xxxxZ at 56 seconds, the next PM was at 26 seconds into the next minute telling me to "Respond now." and the very last one was at 56 seconds of the same minute as the last PM saying that he is disconnecting me and giving me a 24 hour suspension.
Needless to say I talked to our dATM at the time and he told me to talk to VATUSA guys. I went into their teamspeak and and they laughed about it. Told me to e-mail Michael Zazula about it. He reversed the suspension and laughed at what happened... What the SUP did was ABUSE of power.
-
Speaking of visibility ranges...
A while ago when I was an S3 I was monitoring somebody on ORD_TWR and I had forgotten to switch profiles so my visibility range was still up around 100. My windows were open and I heard our neighbors across the street starting yelling for help, it turns out that her mother had passed out and she's home alone and she's wheelchair bound with M.S. So I ran across the street to help.
I eventually get back to VRC and I see that I had been disconnected. I looked at my PMs and I had one from a supervisor. (unfortunately at the time I had no idea how to save chat logs) and wouldn't ya know, this supervisor PMed me at xxxxZ at 56 seconds, the next PM was at 26 seconds into the next minute telling me to "Respond now." and the very last one was at 56 seconds of the same minute as the last PM saying that he is disconnecting me and giving me a 24 hour suspension.
Needless to say I talked to our dATM at the time and he told me to talk to VATUSA guys. I went into their teamspeak and and they laughed about it. Told me to e-mail Michael Zazula about it. He reversed the suspension and laughed at what happened... What the SUP did was ABUSE of power.
I'd have to disagree... what you did was violate the Code of Conduct. As a controller, you can be removed almost immediately for not responding since you must be there to provide services to pilots. I'm sure there is more to the story and the truth rests somewhere in between, but if you leave your connection unattended you are asking for a removal or suspension.
-
I'd have to disagree... what you did was violate the Code of Conduct. As a controller, you can be removed almost immediately for not responding since you must be there to provide services to pilots. I'm sure there is more to the story and the truth rests somewhere in between, but if you leave your connection unattended you are asking for a removal or suspension.
You and I talked about this at the time it happened. I was MONITORING a student and I WAS NOT the active controller, I was not physically providing service to the pilots. And what I typed is the truth, why should I lie to anyone?
-
You and I talked about this at the time it happened. I was MONITORING a student and I WAS NOT the active controller, I was not physically providing service to the pilots. And what I typed is the truth, why should I lie to anyone?
Just a disclaimer, I don't know how the SUP responded to you so I can't say whether he was rude and abusive on that end.
However, if you are online on the VATSIM network and not attending your connection, then you're violating the CoC and wasting bandwith that generous donors have provided. I have sympathy for the situation since I'm an EMT and understand that things pop up, but regardless of what has happened you can be removed or suspended for not attending your connection. This applies to pilots, controllers, or observers.
-
Just a disclaimer, I don't know how the SUP responded to you so I can't say whether he was rude and abusive on that end.
However, if you are online on the VATSIM network and not attending your connection, then you're violating the CoC and wasting bandwith that generous donors have provided. I have sympathy for the situation since I'm an EMT and understand that things pop up, but regardless of what has happened you can be removed or suspended for not attending your connection. This applies to pilots, controllers, or observers.
But to get technical, I wasn't physically primed up on the frequency and was providing no service to pilots. Does that still leave me grounds for suspension?
-
But to get technical, I wasn't physically primed up on the frequency and was providing no service to pilots. Does that still leave me grounds for suspension?
Were you signed onto the network with your CID? Then yes, you can be removed and suspended.
Consider VATSIM like your water faucet in the bathroom. Would you leave the water on when you're not using it? Hope that helps
-
It's really pilot's job to know where he is flying and as CoC-B3 says he must verify if an apropriate ATC is avaiable and makes contact either by voice or text. He may sent a PM to clarify this matter (do I call you? I'm flying inside your airspace? and so on...).
Although an ATC doesn't need to I never was called by or answered at a .wallop without the ATC saying "unresponsive pilot to x contactme"
I then send a PM to the "offender" in which I identify myself as Supervisor (sometimes I'm an active ATC) telling him that ATC X requested a supervisor because of a B3 violation. Once he answers things are clarified (if pilot has already left that controlled airspace I sugest that he/she contacts ATC X and clarify this EVEN if he isn't inside that particular airspace so no hard fellings are left between pilot/ATC).
If pilot doesn't answer my PM (3-4 calls) or if he is disturbing traffic (T/O from wrong rwy, entering a busy airspace, unresponsive to-not contacting an ATC/B3, not following an ATC instruction /B10, things that endanger normal operations) then he is disconnected and an email is sent to him/her.
Pilot must know that something may be wrong if an unknow/invisible ATC (or a x_SUP by the way) is trying to contact him, since an active ATC connected with SUP rating has the same obligations as a _SUP. This plus his/her flight inside a controlled airspace - that he MUST KNOW - justify his disconnection if not answering to a supervisor call.
-
Nicholas,
You have to remember that a SUP does not know any circumstances, aside from the fact your connection is unattended. They don't know if you're across the street helping the neighbor in an emergency, or sleeping on your couch. In the eye of the SUP, you had an unattended connection and were removed. However, if you have an explanation after the fact, bring it up. In the past, I have been emailed a couple times from people (pilots included) who I suspended. One specifically had a major car accident in front of his house (even had documentation to back it up), and there were probably two or three others of which I can't even remember the circumstances. I asked that those people be re-instated to the network immediately, and they were back on within a matter of hours.
Now I understand the circumstances of your specific suspension (especially being suspended after 1 minute!) were suspect. I'm just speaking generally.
But to get technical, I wasn't physically primed up on the frequency and was providing no service to pilots. Does that still leave me grounds for suspension?
There have been instructors on many occassions who just leave their VRC logged on, and then go to the mall or such while the student controls on his/her own. I love checking instructors and mentors for that very reason; It's a huge disservice to the student, above anything else.
However, you do make a good point. I'm not sure what specifically you would be removed for. It's not B3, it's not A9 (prior to 30 minutes). A14? Eh, that's probably a stretch. Maybe it's just time for a C12, specifically referencing controllers (and ins/men).
-
So going back to the original question, B3 states:
"A pilot must at all times check for appropriate air traffic control coverage for the airspace he is crossing at any given time. If there is an appropriate air traffic controller available or upon request to make contact with an appropriate air traffic controller, then the pilot should immediately contact such controller."
I've bolded the part that makes this rule confusing. This leaves it open to interpretation. Why can't we just make a rule that states it nice and clearly and concisely? The way it's worded now you could interpret it as the pilot must make the contact, or the pilot must initiate contact once requested to by the controller.
And switching to visibility ranges, there is no bonafide RULE. Sure, there is a "recommended general rule" posted in the Vatsim forums, but does that mean we must read and be familiar with all the little postings like that before connecting? I'm willing to bet more than half of the controllers don't even read that forum, so how can they be held accountable for something in there? Is it really that difficult to copy and paste that into the CoC in a new section?! It might be considering the CoC goes C 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8. If something happens relating to C3, how the heck do you know which C3 we're talking about?
-
I've held off on replying to the discussion on vis ranges as I wanted to hear what people had to say and wanted to see where the conversation went (it's amazing how much you can learn that way).
Let me now give some perspective and guidance from the leadership on why the rules are written the way they are and why there is NOT a published rule on vis ranges.
First -- we can't create a rule for every circumstance. If we tried, the list of rules would quickly grow into the thousands and become unmanageable. Instead, VATSIM has taken an approach of providing guidelines and then expecting people to comply with them. It is a philosophical approach to running the network. Some people want organizations with hundreds of pages of rules. Some want no rules. VATSIM has taken an approach somewhere in the middle...we explain what the accepted behavior is, provide examples as to what is not acceptable and then expect people to use their judgment. Supervisors and VATSIM staff are chosen based on that judgment. They don't always get it right and that's why we have an appeals process, but the overall process gets it right just about every time.
Second -- we don't publish vis ranges because there are exceptions to every case and good reasons why. Let me give you an example. What should be the vis range for approach? The limits of the class C or B airspace? 20 miles outside that? But wait...not all approaches are tied to class B or C airspace! Some cover mutliple airsapce rings (think Potomac Approach which covers the IAD, DCA and BWI rings). There are also approach facilities in other divisions which have very good reasons why they require extended ranges...
So what do we do instead? We puiblish guidance -- keep your vis range as small as necessary to accomplish the job. If someone's vis range seems excessively high, a supervisor touches base with them to determine "why". If the reason is acceptable, things go on as normal. If the reason is not acceptable, the controller is asked to reduce his vis range.
Now as to "secret rules" -- there aren't any. I think one of the things a previous poster referred to was the "secret supervisor vis range rule". Let me be clear -- it doesn't exist. What DOES exist is a tool that highlights to supervisors controllers who MAY have an excessive visibility range setting. All that does is clue the supervisor in to take a look and see if there is an issue or not. The ranges that set that tripwire are not "rules" but rather ballpark figures of what we find is an acceptable max range 90-99% of the time. If a supervisor is using this as a rule, he is misinformed... That said, I find that 9 times out of 10 a controller has no good reason for the excessive range setting he is using...it isn't operationally necessary to cover his airspace and (as pointed out) it is sucking down our bandwidth.
Before someone jumps in and says the bandwidth argument is crap, let me share some other things with you.
1. Every VATSIM server is paid for by someone. That donation is provided based on two expectations: (a) that the server will be used to support flight/atc simulation on the network (hence our rules on no ground vehicles) and (B) that we will be good stewards of the resources we are given (meaning we work hard to ensure we don't waste bandwidth).
2. We use a MASSIVE amount of bandwidth on the network. Many people say that bandwidth is cheap and point to things like Bluehost.com's "Unlimited bandwidth" offer for around $4/month. If you work with them, you will soon discover that "unlimited" really doesn't mean "unlimited" and they will shut you down if you pull the kind of load we do (how do I know this? because that is how the vatsim.info server got shut down. that server hosted a number of things including vatusa and bluehost pulled the plug due to excessive bandwidth usage). Klain.net is one of the hosts for the VATSIM data feed (what feeds Servinfo, Vroute, VATSPY and all those sites that show "who's online". Anyone want to take a guess on how much bandwidth that feed alone uses? It typically pulls around 300 GB a month (10 GB a day). A hosting plan that (a) provides that sort of bandwith and (B) provides the processing power and ability to handle the 50-100 data calls a MINUTE for the data file doesn't come for $5/month. I'm paying $73/month for a VPS that meets the needs...that's over $800 a year. Multiply that by the 2 other servinfo feeds, the data server, the cert server, and the VATSIM FSD servers and we're talking 10+ servers most of which cost between 70 and 100 dollars a month. Even at the low end we're talking over $8000/year in server costs...and the members of VATSIM don't pay a single dime to use the network. Instead we ask them to not abuse bandwidth and, if a supervisor thinks a vis range is excessive, we ask them to dial it back.
Bottom line -- VATSIM's leadership has made a conscious decision to not make this an organization filled with rules. Instead we provide guidelines and then rely on people exercising their judgment. Obviously this is not what some of you want, but if we gave you the kind of rulebook some of you appear to be asking for, we'd have a whole other group of people pissed off at how bureaucratic VATSIM is (and we already get that now!).
Let me close with a direct response to one comment made in this thread --- a reference to supervisors as Gestapo. I find that statement incredibly offensive and insensitive. Before you think it, no I am not Jewish or German, but comparing any one of the volunteers who dedicate their free time to making this network better to the Nazi Gestapo is in poor taste, offensive and downright rude. I recognize that many of the VATSIM membership are young people who don't necessarily "think before they speak" but it is time some of you start doing just that.
Supervisors are specifically chosen based on their judgment. The BoG turns down a number of people with every list submitted by Michael Zazula because we have doubts about them. We don't always get it right, but we do our best...and so do the supervisors. For the person who got suspended because he was monitoring a student and had to go away...get over it. You did violate the code of conduct because you had an unattended controller connection. Yes you were not controlling traffic, but monitoring a student means just that ACTIVELY MONITORING. A flight instructor can't monitor a student if he is in the back of the plane reading a book and a flight instructor is responsible for everything his student does. Same thing goes with controllers monitoring student controllers. Too many controllers out there aren't doing this and we've specifically asked supervisors to check up on monitors/OBS logins. In this case your connection was unattended and you were disconnected and suspended. Whatever your reason for leaving, you still left....and that student was now controlling with no one monitoring him meaning you were also violating another VATSIM rule. To be honest, I wouldn't have rescinded your suspension but you got lucky and Michael gave you a break.
Hopefully this perspective will help the rest of you understand where VATSIM (and the supervisors) are coming from. I know you all won't agree with some of what I've written, but hopefully you now at least understand where we are coming from.
all the best,
Dave
-
Dave,
Are you saying that all the so-called "guidelines" posted in the VATSIM forums must be followed? I don't have the hard statistics, but I'm willing to place a large sum of money on the fact that less than half of VATSIM's controlling population actively read the VATSIM forums. It's unfair to require all controllers to follow the guidelines in the forums when the forums aren't a required reading. Adding 1 more section to the C section in the CoC really isn't going to create a giant rulebook.
And in regards to me being suspended for leaving my connection, can you point me to the specific section in the CoC or CoR that I violated?
EDIT: Here is the exact e-mail from Michael Zazula: "Nick,
XXXX, acting as SUP, was indeed a little bit „quick” and he has admitted it was his fault. Therefore I have reverted your suspension and reactivated your account. Please accept my apologizes for the situation.
Best regards,
MJZ"
And from Alex Bailey: "Nick,
I have forwarded your message to VATSIM VP Supervisors. CoC B9 isn't the correct reference for this removal, and I don't believe you should have been suspended, but that's just my opinion. When signed into an active control position, you may not leave it unattended for any amount of time. I usually give about 5 minutes for the controller to return since I understand that issues do pop up that may be out of your control. I'll see what he has to say.
Thanks,
Alex Bailey
Division Director"
And the actual chat log:
[22:22:26] XX_SUP: My name is XX, Online Supervisor, answer this call.
[22:23:06] XX_SUP: I'm trying to contact you but no answer. This is second call
[22:23:26] XX_SUP: Either you comply or you will be removed.
Nobody could really tell me which section of the CoC I broke. I am still confused to this day, could you clear it up for me?
-
Dave,
Many of the members and Supervisors who take issue with VATSIM's stance on visibility ranges do so because we think VATSIM is getting it wrong. You say there are published guidelines, but forums are not required reading and it creates headaches for those of us who actually are out there on the front lines and enforcing the regulations created by VATSIM. If a controller has an invalid range setting (with no reason) and refuses to lower it, we really don't have any authority to do much about it. It would be arrogant of myself for me to remove the controller because he didn't comply with my instruction to lower the range setting which doesn't exist in a policy in any way, shape, or form.
You say VATSIM doesn't want to add a bunch of policy, but this is where you have it wrong. VATSIM is now taking the stance to not insert one clause in the CoC which would make the jobs of Supervisors MUCH easier. The clause can be written in the same manner in which you present vis ranges to everyone else - there will be exceptions but here are the general guidelines. This doesn't add more bureaucracy, and it's literally the only "guideline" that gives us trouble when it comes time to enforce it.
Amazing strides would be made if this was included in the CoC. Not only would it make our job easier, but it would instill a bit more trust in the supervisors from the general membership because we wouldn't be pressed for documentation when we try to enforce an unwritten rule. At the end of the day, it is your choice, but here is what I see happening more and more due to this stance:
1) An increasing amount of trust is being lost by the members. Supervisors are made to look like the bad guys when unwritten rules are enforced. Posts such as these become more and more common, whether the VATSIM BoG sees them or not.
2) Supervisors begin to look the other way and not enforce vis range settings. We simply don't need the headaches that come with it. Thus, the steward comment is thrown out the window.
Both are happening and both are bad situations. Dave, you have a lot of people who really care about this organization and it would be nice if some of these issues could be put on the table instead of being deflected every time it comes up. It is such a little change that would bring about a huge improvement and ease of carrying out our duties.
-
Nick,
Read the Code of Conduct. B(9) states pilots may fly in formation, and the entire B Section applies to pilots. How could you, as a controller, be suspended for B(9) when you were unattended? This was clearly a mistake by the Supervisor, hence my comments.
As far as not attending your connection, do you really want to hash this out? You were wasting VATSIM bandwith and you were not serving your student. If I was your ATM, you would lose your instructor/mentor status for this offense. As a Supervisor, you were not there and you would be removed. As I told you, I generally give 5 minutes to controllers and observers to respond before I remove them. This ensures enough time to get a drink or use the bathroom and get back to the screen. I believe that is reasonable.
Norman Blackburn and others from the VATSIM management have stated that A14 can be used for observers and controllers who aren't attending their connection. If your CID is connected, but you aren't there, then your connection is now non-active. Regardless, you should be at your connection and if you choose not to, you need to accept the responsibility for your actions.
-
Gents,
Short and sweet.
The CoC is not the place for these suggested range settings. It is a document of rules, not guidelines.
In regard to range requirements a controller should take what they need, not what they would like. If a written policy is put out there you can bet your bottom dollar that people will see the figures as targets rather than limits.
-
Nick,
Read the Code of Conduct. B(9) states pilots may fly in formation, and the entire B Section applies to pilots. How could you, as a controller, be suspended for B(9) when you were unattended? This was clearly a mistake by the Supervisor, hence my comments.
As far as not attending your connection, do you really want to hash this out? You were wasting VATSIM bandwith and you were not serving your student. If I was your ATM, you would lose your instructor/mentor status for this offense. As a Supervisor, you were not there and you would be removed. As I told you, I generally give 5 minutes to controllers and observers to respond before I remove them. This ensures enough time to get a drink or use the bathroom and get back to the screen. I believe that is reasonable.
Norman Blackburn and others from the VATSIM management have stated that A14 can be used for observers and controllers who aren't attending their connection. If your CID is connected, but you aren't there, then your connection is now non-active. Regardless, you should be at your connection and if you choose not to, you need to accept the responsibility for your actions.
Alex,
I take responsibility for my actions, I left the connection unattended. It was my fault for doing that. And at the time I wasn't an instructor or mentor, at ZAU anyone is allowed to monitor anyone as long as they have the rating the other person desires. The whole thing I didn't understand BACK THEN, which was over 3 months ago, was why I was suspended after only 1 minute and what section of the CoC did I break? Wollenberg in this thread said, "However, you do make a good point. I'm not sure what specifically you would be removed for. It's not B3, it's not A9 (prior to 30 minutes). A14? Eh, that's probably a stretch. Maybe it's just time for a C12, specifically referencing controllers (and ins/men)."
Anyway, I don't think we should continue the argument about me any longer. This thread is far off of where it started. I agree with everything you said in the post above the one I quote you here. But originally, this was about whose responsibility is it to initiate contact?
-
Gents,
Short and sweet.
The CoC is not the place for these suggested range settings. It is a document of rules, not guidelines.
In regard to range requirements a controller should take what they need, not what they would like. If a written policy is put out there you can bet your bottom dollar that people will see the figures as targets rather than limits.
Norman,
So why don't we have a policy that states the forums are a required reading? The only place the guidelines are posted are the forums which aren't required reading. Something needs to change to make it clearer for everyone...
-
Hi Nick,
Then, yet again we get complaints of there being too many rules.
Controller visibility range is really a training issue and harkens back to my earlier post where we should take what we need rather than we would like.
-
There must be a solution. The forums are not required reading, yet VATSIM is enforcing something posted there. That's just morally wrong, IMHO. What if you were a teacher and I was your principle. There is a bulletin board in the office that isn't required to read, but it says we suggest you get to school 30 to 60 minutes before school starts. But you get there 10 minutes for the bell and I reprimand you for that, is that right?
-
There must be a solution. The forums are not required reading, yet VATSIM is enforcing something posted there. That's just morally wrong, IMHO. What if you were a teach and I was your principle. There is a bulletin board in the office that isn't required to read, but it says we suggest you get to school 30 to 60 minutes before school starts. But you get there 10 minutes for the bell and I reprimand you for that, is that right?
This is spiralling completely out of context.
The guidelines used by Supervisors are guidelines. Not rules. Members are not reprimanded for having something in excess unless they continue to take what they want (and we regularly see people connected as TWR and have 400/600nm) despite education.
[email protected] - more than happy to reply there should you wish to take this further.
-
This is spiralling completely out of context.
The guidelines used by Supervisors are guidelines. Not rules. Members are not reprimanded for having something in excess unless they continue to take what they want (and we regularly see people connected as TWR and have 400/600nm) despite education.
[email protected] - more than happy to reply there should you wish to take this further.
Thanks for your time, Norman. I'll let this thread continue back to the pilots calling controllers thing.
-
Norman laid it out exactly as I would have. I have never said that the forums are required reading. LET ME BE CLEAR -- VATSIM IS NOT ENFORCING A POLICY THAT IS ONLY PUBLISHED IN THE FORUMS! With regards to controller visibility ranges, the overarching guidance ("use only what you need") was promulgated from the founders to the BOG to the EC to the Divisions to the ARTCC/FIR Chiefs. If they have never explained this to you, then the problem you have is NOT with VATSIM but rather with the training you got from the ARTCC staff. In addition, even if no one had ever told you this, the point is irrelevant...the supervisors are there to preserve NETWORK operations and excessive range interferes with network operations. As such, they have unilateral authority to act as necessary to keep the network running smoothly.
When it comes to what visibility range setting is acceptable, that is a training issue and needs to be handled by the Divisions and FIRs/ARTCCs. They can either (a) institute specific ranges if they desire or (B) train their controllers to "use all you need, but no more" (which is the overarching VATSIM policy. I've explained why we can't have a global policy (too many variations). If an ARTCC puts out a list of ranges for the various positions in that center and a controller is following them, when a supervisor sees something he thinks may be excessive and is told by the controller "this is facility SOP as posted here...", the supervisor will either accept that or pass it up his chain of command so that the facility can be told to adjust the published ranges if higher authority determines they are indeed excessive.
Bottom line is:
(a) we CAN'T publish global ranges because of all the variations. Back in the day, most facilities did publish range settings for the various positions (when I first started controlling at KZAU there was a list of ASRC settings for every position). Most ARTCC's don't do this anymore. Note I am not saying they have to do it, just that they can.
(B) with regards to the wasting bandwidth issue, let me make something clear. The CoC and CoR are the overriding guidelines for VATSIM. The CoR specifically states that [!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Sole Discretion: It is within the sole discretion of the individual authorized by this rule to determine whether the conduct of a member warrants removal or temporary suspension of said member. (6.04B)[/quote] What this means is that a supervisor is authorized to use his discretion.
As far as what part of the COC you violated, I would go with A13 and/or A14 (unattended connections). You had an unattended connection as an OBS...the fact it was only unattended for a minute is irrelevant. Excessive is situation dependent and a person monitoring/training a student is expected to be there 100% of the time, no exceptions. A13 might also apply as your failure to be present monitoring the student could potentially hinder operation of the network.
As I said in my earlier post, these things are judgment calls. It's already happened and I feel no need to rehash this. Michael overturned your suspension and I trust his judgment.
Neither you or Alex are happy with the published guidance on visibility ranges and unattended connections. Clearly you are both more comfortably working in an environment where everything is laid out for you in policies and procedures, step by step. VATSIM is not that kind of environment and the founders and BOG have no intention of making it that kind of place. The only issue now is a decision you make -- can you live with the environment VATSIM provides for its members or not? If you can't, it's time for you to move elsewhere and find a network that better suits your needs. Whatever you decide, I can assure you that VATSIM will be fine.
all the best,
Dave
-
Edit: Comment removed - I'll copy the post I made into an email to continue discussion.
-
Everyone,
This started off as a simple question of who is contact left up to, and now we've strayed to vis ranges.
The matter of the pilot/controller mis-communication has been handled privately.
If you guys want to argue vis ranges, I'd suggest making a new thread, as this WAS supposed to be about checking-in/contacting, there's also hundreds of other topics already made in regards to the vis range issues.
Since this has strayed so far off topic, I'd request that this thread be brought back on topic or closed
Thanks for your time and responses
Dan
edit: changed wording of request.
-
Personally as a pilot, if I'm not familiar with the airspace, I won't contact any controllers until they contact me. I have no way to tell that I'm in your airspace, and I absolutely hate it when pilots call me 200 miles outside of my airspace, and then I have to find them...
-
I'll bring it back on topic.
There are two parts of the specific CoC, and I think Tom covers it very reasonably:
A pilot must at all times check for appropriate air traffic control coverage for the airspace he is crossing at any given time.
Does this mean checking SERVINFO constantly to see if a controller is on or comes on? Possibly, however, I know when I'm flying, I don't refresh the darned thing constantly...I'm flying my airplane. But you should certainly make an effort to determine if a controller comes online.
So this is where the next section comes in.
or upon request to make contact with an appropriate air traffic controller
This is perfectly clear.
So as to whose responsibility it is to make contact? It's everyones' responsibility. The pilot should make a reasonable effort to determine if he's flying in controlled airspace, or will be soon, and it's the controller's responsbility to contact a pilot who is entering his/her airspace.
-
I'll bring it back on topic.
There are two parts of the specific CoC, and I think Tom covers it very reasonably:
A pilot must at all times check for appropriate air traffic control coverage for the airspace he is crossing at any given time.
Does this mean checking SERVINFO constantly to see if a controller is on or comes on? Possibly, however, I know when I'm flying, I don't refresh the darned thing constantly...I'm flying my airplane. But you should certainly make an effort to determine if a controller comes online.
So this is where the next section comes in.
or upon request to make contact with an appropriate air traffic controller
This is perfectly clear.
So as to whose responsibility it is to make contact? It's everyones' responsibility. The pilot should make a reasonable effort to determine if he's flying in controlled airspace, or will be soon, and it's the controller's responsbility to contact a pilot who is entering his/her airspace.
Sorry, Brian, but first "A pilot must at all times check for appropriate air traffic control coverage for the airspace he is crossing at any given time" and if sometime later he doesn't contact apropriate ATC then "or upon request to make contact with an appropriate air traffic controller"
A pilot "should make a reasonable effort to determine if he's flying in a controlled airspace" should be changed to must. It's his obligation, his duty. I agree that an ATC calling a pilot many miles outside his airspace or to call a pilot that will be flying above his superior limit is wrong specially if he wants to "control" that flight. But not to know the airspace where he will be/is flying and not taking notice that in his FSINN/SB program an ATC just has come in range?
-
Eduardo, I would challenge you on that.
The reason is simple: As a pilot, you cannot know the airspace or frequency you should be on at all times. Lets go back to 2001-2007 when BAY_TWR was online. Do you contact him if you're flying out of SFO/OAK/SJC? The answer is yes. How does a pilot know this, he's not flying into KBAY, and it doesn't show up on serv info.
Another example. You're flying to Haiti from KMIA, you depart without MIA_CTR on, and you're flying along at FL210 and a Nassau Center controller comes online, do you contact him? The technical answer, is no. His airspace owns up to 18k. However, recently we are renegotiating a deal where they can control up to FL600. If Nassau center is offline and ZMA_O_CTR is online, or if they're both online, who do you contact?
You, as a pilot, cannot possibly know of all the different airspace requirements, restrictions and limitations. That's the controllers job.
However, if you are familiar with the airspace, you should be comfortable to contact who you need to.
According to the VATSIM page, VATSIM does not utilize constant policing of it's members. Meaning, if we all use common sense, then these situations can be resolved.
-
This really saddens me. Not because of the topic, but because this discussion is apt to be read by prospective pilots and controllers thinking about joining our organization. What if this thread were someone's only impression of VATSIM? Do we really want people thinking that this is what it is all about...semantics and ultimatums? It certainly is not the VASTIM I joined.
This thread has devolved into what the core problem is, intolerance and entitlement. People would rather be right than agree that their views differ with others. I am sorry, but I do not feel that telling someone "if you don't like it, leave" is the correct response when people have a disagreement. That kind of thing smacks of exclusivity and is not what we are all about.
Do you know what I do when a pilot comes into my airspace? I hit the HOME key and ASEL him....
Wanna know what happens if he doesn't respond? Nothing, unless he is a threat to other aircraft, in which case I will shuffle the other aircraft as best I can, and maybe contact a SUP if it gets out of hand.
Why do I take this attitude toward the subject? Simple, my enjoyment and minimization of my stress while doing this comes first. And I refuse to let myself get worked up over someone being AFK, or their radio not working, or whatever. The percentage of people who wantonly get on the network to hose the controllers and pilots is so small that it is barely worth mentioning, and immediately concluding that everyone who doesn't follow instructions to the letter (as interpreted in most cases) has malicious intent is a very juvenile attitude to take.
With regards to the rules being laid out...those who are complaining about the Vis Ranges not being officially published have a completely valid point, and calling people out, suppressing the argument, or shifting the blame doesn't make it any less valid. Anything that is subject to enforceability by a SUP or ADM should be a published rule. At same time, calling out the higher ups because you're not happy is also unacceptable. Handle it like grown-ups behind closed doors.
What we are doing now is holding members accountable to a standard that is not part of the documents available to the membership at large. That is unfair to the members. People's CERT records get dinged for this regularly. I would argue that since you have no published standard in the rules, you can't ding someone over it. That should be a wake up call that something needs adjustment. It doesn't have to be a CoC amendment, just a simple EC doc will do; just give us a standard, it is not too much to ask and should not consume more than an hour of time to get accomplished. Not only that, but the idea that we have rules on what an S1 is supposed to know about taxi instructions but not what his max vis range is when network bandwidth is constantly used as a reminder of something we must be cognizant of is just plain silly on its face.
Relax people, we are supposed to be having fun. If you aren't having fun, why continue to subject yourself to it?
-
...
Let me close with a direct response to one comment made in this thread --- a reference to supervisors as Gestapo. I find that statement incredibly offensive and insensitive. Before you think it, no I am not Jewish or German, but comparing any one of the volunteers who dedicate their free time to making this network better to the Nazi Gestapo is in poor taste, offensive and downright rude. I recognize that many of the VATSIM membership are young people who don't necessarily "think before they speak" but it is time some of you start doing just that.
David, I ask that you read my post carefully:
There is a very good point here. When I was training for my S2 Cert. I was told you do not need to set your Vis Range higher than 50nm. This is NOWHERE in the training material. Well, here I am sitting in the Tower CAB with vis @ 90nm and I get PMed by a SUP (the almighty) saying rudely that I am wasting bandwidth and have to turn my Visibility range down now.
Nobody appreciates being talked to like a dog. Hopefully VATSIM will rid themselves of the Gestapo-like supervisors and post up some rules that people can read... Instead of shooting people down without them knowing a single thing of what the guy with the gun is talking about.
Things get done slowly around here and there is always thousands of fingers to blame... Can anybody just FIX it?
This was not the first time that I have been spoken to in the rudest manner possible. There is a way to do things, and there is also a way not to do things. When I am spoken to in a rude manner by more than one of the Supervisors that I called "Gestapo" (only trying to refer to a select few SUP) there is something wrong in the upper management.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and I can guarantee that there are some supervisors who love their position for the power trip it provides to them. There are also many supervisors who are kind and considerate- they are the ones who understand everything they do affects everyone around them. All I ask is that we rid ourselves of those Supervisors and Upper Management who are there for selfish reasons (eg. the power trip). Because, as stated in the quote, nobody likes to be spoken to like a dog (which goes along with the Gestapo reference).
Oh, and to respond to the statement made by "David Klain" (quoted above), you obviously don't understand the reference made. When someone is treated like a dog on the network, especially when that person is a controller trying to serve on the network you, along with many donations, pay over $8000 a year for, it gives off the impression of exactly what I said... "Gestapo"
Definition:
n.
1. gestapo pl., -pos. A police organization that employs terroristic methods to control a populace.
And by telling someone in a rude manner that they are wasting bandwidth and must turn down the vis range now... in my own opinion they fit the terrorist methods listed in the definition. The SUP is using his implied "power", to .kill, to enforce a rule that is not written, and is judgement based, to control the populace of Vatsim pilots and controllers. This fits the description.
I also do not appreciate someone with your "stature" telling me to think before I speak because I am 18 years old. Don't you believe that is a little beyond being conceited? This implies that your judgement is better than mine and that you have some sort of elitist position in the upper management. Most ATC/Pilots on here agree with the other ATC/pilots, and most SUPs agree with the other SUPs... There is obviously a line here that seems to be holding the two apart.
Spencer Devino
-
A pilot "should make a reasonable effort to determine if he's flying in a controlled airspace" should be changed to must.
Eduardo, we're just arguing semantics, like lawyers. Must, should, shall doesn't concern me in the slightest when it comes to B3. It's very simple. A pilot should make a reasonable effort to check for ATC and contact them. The controller should use the .contactme feature to get a hold of pilots who are entering their airspace. That's it. It really is that simple.
-
Eduardo, we're just arguing semantics, like lawyers. Must, should, shall doesn't concern me in the slightest when it comes to B3. It's very simple. A pilot should make a reasonable effort to check for ATC and contact them. The controller should use the .contactme feature to get a hold of pilots who are entering their airspace. That's it. It really is that simple.
No Bryan, unfortunately it ISN'T that simple...
The very fact that you understand the difference in the terms and are STILL unwilling to do anything about just goes to further demonstrate your unwillingness to support those that you yourself, chose to delegate such authority to, and then down the chain. Said another way, you tasked us with the responsibility, but remove all tools used to exercise any of it.
Nothing like passing off the responsibility/authority to those who are UNABLE to utilize it, and further tying their hands in the implementation of your responsibilities. Yet, people wonder why there is such a disconnect.
Anyway, those who are in the positions of authority, and implementing policy and procedure need to take a step down a few level and have a look at the consequences of your decisions, sounds vaguely like a show I just watched, how fitting. I digress...
Clearly VATNA1, the EC, and the BoG (collectively) have lost touch with (wow, it is so fitting too), those frontline members tasked with doing what they (VATNA, EC and the BoG) have tasked. I don't want your job, but you better know what we deal with, before you start issuing edicts from "on high".
Best,
Jason Vodnansky
-
Too many resident lawyers at VATUSA... back to controlling.
-
Once upon a time there was a group of guys that got together and decided to try and make FS a little more exciting. They had a server running on a 56k modem in one of their basements on weekends only. Jason Grooms whipped a little app called ProController. Joe created SB, no mulitplayer mind you and Marty made it so the two apps could talk to each other..................
You want to set your range to 1500nm fine by me....maybe all of you should! I'll watch. Heaven forbid you should just try and help out without someone having to cram a piece of paper down your throat first.
Another policy? This in a thread where some the participants spend all their spare time in other threads screaming about too many policies.
-
Too many resident lawyers at VATUSA... back to controlling.
Amen.
-
Once upon a time there was a group of guys that got together and decided to try and make FS a little more exciting. They had a server running on a 56k modem in one of their basements on weekends only. Jason Grooms whipped a little app called ProController. Joe created SB, no mulitplayer mind you and Marty made it so the two apps could talk to each other..................
You want to set your range to 1500nm fine by me....maybe all of you should! I'll watch. Heaven forbid you should just try and help out without someone having to cram a piece of paper down your throat first.
Another policy? This in a thread where some the participants spend all their spare time in other threads screaming about too many policies.
Yet, how amazingly screwed up it has become. This most certainly isn't your father's VATSIM. Too bad, it was such a good place.
Perhaps someone will stand up and fix it.
Best,
JV
-
Yet, how amazingly screwed up it has become. This most certainly isn't your father's VATSIM. Too bad, it was such a good place.
Perhaps someone will stand up and fix it.
Best,
JV
agreed.
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]how do I know this? because that is how the vatsim.info server got shut down. that server hosted a number of things including vatusa and bluehost pulled the plug due to excessive bandwidth usage[/quote]
One clarification,
Bluehost pulled the plug because the VATUSA site was hacked via an old Drupal installation that was never deleted off the server. They refused to restore service because the code was all PHP4 era and generally unsecure. The server exploit that got us affected over 100,000 servers worldwide.
I apologized profusely to Mr. Klain that our site was the cause of it (mind you it was my first day as VATUSA6), and promptly paid for our own server the next day and took our IT off of VATSIM's dime & resources because I felt it was the right thing to do. Not asking for accolades, just setting the record straight
I fully resent the notion that the VATUSA website was somehow a drain on VATSIM, nobody here has asked VATSIM for a penny nor have we asked for any special treatment for data services. We have worked hard to be good stewards of their systems and have always err'd on the side of caution. I am irritated by the idea that this was dredged up and misrepresented so as to put this division in a bad light particularly when our current site (which has much more content, feeds, etc now than it used to, plus it backs up offsite hourly) uses a "whopping" 4.5GB per month.
-
Once upon a time there was a group of guys that got together and decided to try and make FS a little more exciting. They had a server running on a 56k modem in one of their basements on weekends only. Jason Grooms whipped a little app called ProController. Joe created SB, no mulitplayer mind you and Marty made it so the two apps could talk to each other..................
Yup, and just enough of them hung around after they stopped participating with the absolute ability to say no to anything they didn't like, but little ability to encourage people to do something that they wouldn't ordinarily do. Then they hired people to replace them that were really good at shutting things down and encouraging people to leave, but with no ability to bring in people and encourage them to participate.
It is not an exercise of leadership to shut down a discussion. It is not an exercise of leadership to defend the status quo and say things aren't going to change. It is not an exercise of leadership to tell volunteers that if they don't like it, to not let the door hit them on the way out.
I wonder if you asked that group of guys if just over a decade later they'd have an organization with pretend corporate memoranda straight out of Office Space that passes for the Broadcast policy, a ratings policy that takes two years to amend and a software development pipeline that produces marginally less code than Duke Nukem Forever, what would they say? Why don't you ask them, and get them to fix it? Because they're the only ones that can fix it within the confines of VATSIM. You (and they) have made sure of that.
Please. Make a network that's all about the cool stuff we can do, instead of a regulatory, bureaucratic and political nightmare that it has become.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]You want to set your range to 1500nm fine by me....maybe all of you should! I'll watch.[/quote]
I bet FSD will handle it just fine. If someone actually ran the numbers they'd see that such a viz range adds around 0.25K/sec to the total bandwidth - if FSD can't handle that, it's not worth hiding behind an NDA. I really like the part in this thread where 50-100 requests a MINUTE are described as something high-volume, where I work that kind of throughput on commodity boxes gets you fired, because our devs have to actually go out of their way to write such low-volume code. Serving a static file out of memory is the kind of thing you can do 1,000 times a SECOND on a basic VPS box, and 300GB is the kind of bandwidth your provider tosses in FOR FREE at contract renewal.
I say this because there's a price to your excessive fascination on bandwidth, and it's called eliminating goodwill among members which is hard to measure, but worth a lot more than the piddly amount of bandwidth consumed. I've heard of cases of Supervisors bragging about the connections they've killed. I expect those are in the past, but this is yet another example of a misguided policy that has hurt you far more than the trivial amount of bandwidth it has saved.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Heaven forbid you should just try and help out without someone having to cram a piece of paper down your throat first.[/quote]
You should try writing software for VATSIM.
Cheers!
Luke
-
Please. Make a network that's all about the cool stuff we can do, instead of a regulatory, bureaucratic and political nightmare that it has become.
Sure, turn off all the forums, mailing lists, TS servers and give me 30 days, turn your back, and just ignore the loud crashes and bangs in the background.
My excessive fascination with bandwidth? Hardly....
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--][!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Yet, how amazingly screwed up it has become. This most certainly isn't your father's VATSIM. Too bad, it was such a good place.
Perhaps someone will stand up and fix it.
Best,
JV[/quote]
agreed.
[/quote]
I would have to disagree with the sentiment that VATSIM has become screwed up. Too often in this organization do we tend to look at one issue as if it's going to bring down the network. As RJ said, this network was once a couple of guys who simulated ATC and flying via a now-obsolete version of FS and a now-obsolete program called ProController. The network has obviously expanded, and with expansion comes policy. In no way do I believe the policies enacted thus far create such a burden on anyone to the degree that the network is considered screwy. Anyone can still get on and fly, and anyone can still get on and control with a few hours of training. Nobody has to be involved in the political aspect of VATSIM, but some (including myself) sometimes choose to do so.
Each time an improvement is made to the network, at any level, only a select few seem to come forward and tell those who put work and effort into making the improvement possible. Improvements to the servers; websites of divisions, ARTCCs, FIRs, and ACCs; revisions of policies; and updates to software which we use to more realistically take part in the network happen very frequently -- once a month at the very least.
You can be annoyed by one particular thing that is (or isn't) in the CoC, you can be annoyed at the rather large number of roles filled at any level of the VATSIM bureaucracy (<- which is not a bad word, you know), or you can just be annoyed. But stop dwelling on these minute problems as if we're going to come tumbling down because of them. There are so many good people on and things about this network that make it great, but unfortunately those tend to be overshadowed by a few things that some consider negatives.
I agree with Andrew and many others in that the CoC should include at least a small mention of visibility ranges, if not a fully laid out explanation, if the visibility range issue is indeed fueled by bandwidth cost. (Some say it is, others say it isn't, but I'm not going to go there.) It does not have to be a "suggestion" or a "recommendation" as alluded to by some within this thread. People can simply not be expected to be reasonable with this regulation if there is no written rule about it. If there is something written, even if deemed a matter of interpretation (which I am not saying that it should be), there is at least some substantiation to back up those who enforce this regulation.
I have a suggestion for the BoG if mention of a visibility range is ever considered for entry into the CoC:
"Excessive visibility ranges (or visibility points) may be enforced by SUP- or ADM-rated VATSIM members. "Excessive" is defined as a visibility which exceeds the following conditions:
1.) a viewing of their sector of airspace.
2.) a viewing of the distance at which a handoff is normally initiated to his or her sector of airspace.
In the event that controllers' visibility ranges are deemed excessive with reference to the conditions set forth above, a SUP- or ADM- rated VATSIM member may require them to reduce their visibility range to comply with those conditions."
I really don't know why that is so hard to include. I know that we sometimes have problems with policy, but this is something many of us just don't understand. There's a difference between an annoying policy and a purpose-based policy, and I think (if this is a bandwidth issue) that something like what I wrote is a purpose-based policy.
I would also like to address one other point, which is that it is the responsibility of ARTCC training departments to teach students about the visibility range issue. I spent a year as a Training Administrator in one of the ARTCCs here in VATUSA, and nowhere within any documentation in my ARTCC's archives, in any VATUSA training material, or in any briefing I received from my retiring colleague, VATUSA Regional Director, or VATUSA3 did I ever hear mention of teaching about visibility ranges. I truly would have had my I1s and MTRs incorporate this into training, but I had nothing that requested we do so, verbally or textually. I'm sure not much has changed with regard to the same subject. If indeed this is an issue that should be taught, I believe regions and divisions should be informed (or re-informed) about it somehow.
-
I would also like to address one other point, which is that it is the responsibility of ARTCC training departments to teach students about the visibility range issue. I spent a year as a Training Administrator in one of the ARTCCs here in VATUSA, and nowhere within any documentation in my ARTCC's archives, in any VATUSA training material, or in any briefing I received from my retiring colleague, VATUSA Regional Director, or VATUSA3 did I ever hear mention of teaching about visibility ranges. I truly would have had my I1s and MTRs incorporate this into training, but I had nothing that requested we do so, verbally or textually. I'm sure not much has changed with regard to the same subject. If indeed this is an issue that should be taught, I believe regions and divisions should be informed (or re-informed) about it somehow.
Harold, great point. It was an implied task but wasn't written down anywhere (the implied task being "how do I setup or configure my controller client software?". That was fixed with GRP 2.,0 and would now be included in I.A.1 (Setup, Configure and Connect to the network).
Dave
-
Sure, turn off all the forums, mailing lists, TS servers and give me 30 days, turn your back, and just ignore the loud crashes and bangs in the background.
I'd donate a year's worth of hosting charges or a pair of servers if I could watch the crashes and bangs.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]My excessive fascination with bandwidth? Hardly....[/quote]
Not you personally; a collective you as the Founders. Bandwidth is a textbook case of "not sweating the small stuff" in action, where we focus on the tactical and ignore the strategic.
Cheers!
Luke
-
Harold, great point. It was an implied task but wasn't written down anywhere (the implied task being "how do I setup or configure my controller client software?". That was fixed with GRP 2.,0 and would now be included in I.A.1 (Setup, Configure and Connect to the network).
Dave
Observation...
These ranges must be written in invisible ink, or there is a font color problem, because I sure don't see any range limits contained in GRP 2.0, as it exist at this moment, on the NEW VATSIM website. Having reviewed the section referenced, it contains nothing related to visiblity ranges.
Best,
Jason Vodnansky
-
I've been reading this thread, and as it seems the heading and altitude are drifting all over the place, I just have one simple question. Instead of us acting like a bunch of lawyers, why not just good old common sense regardless if your a pilot, ATC, SUP, ADM, etc?
If a pilot fails to call ATC on some invisible border, simple, the ATC guy calls the pilot. If the pilot is unresponsive, it's ATC's call to determine if this will cause a problem with other VATSIM members, and make a decision to monitor the guy, or wallop a SUP.
Checking visibility ranges, unattended connections, etc, are all part of the Supervisors duties, and as such should not be viewed as a Gestapo act, but normal "back-office" work in an attempt to keep the network usage maximized. The job of a Sup is to help pilots and controllers, and of course an administrator if it's deemed necessary to remove a member from the network due to disruptive activity.
Again, I'm not a lawyer so common sense takes the trump card always!
Gentlemen,
-
I've been reading this thread, and as it seems the heading and altitude are drifting all over the place, I just have one simple question. Instead of us acting like a bunch of lawyers, why not just good old common sense regardless if your a pilot, ATC, SUP, ADM, etc?
If a pilot fails to call ATC on some invisible border, simple, the ATC guy calls the pilot. If the pilot is unresponsive, it's ATC's call to determine if this will cause a problem with other VATSIM members, and make a decision to monitor the guy, or wallop a SUP.
Checking visibility ranges, unattended connections, etc, are all part of the Supervisors duties, and as such should not be viewed as a Gestapo act, but normal "back-office" work in an attempt to keep the network usage maximized. The job of a Sup is to help pilots and controllers, and of course an administrator if it's deemed necessary to remove a member from the network due to disruptive activity.
Again, I'm not a lawyer so common sense takes the trump card always!
Gentlemen,
I like this post because it seems to represent what we all want from the community. Vis Ranges should not be a "gestapo" act if done kindly.
If rule is...
1. Vis Range for Airport Operations (eg. ORD Tower and Below) between 30 - 50 miles.
2. Vis Ranges for APP/DEP no more than 30 miles outside airpsace.
3. Vis Ranges for CTR no more than 50 miles outside ARTCC airspace.
Example:
SUP: I see you have your vis range @ xxx miles which is pretty high, may I ask why?
ATC: I am working Approach and have my Vis range set 20 miles out of my airspace.
SUP: ok, thanks.
^^^ the above would be great to see- nobody wants dogmatic responses from Controllers or Supervisors.
Maybe? Yes? No? Can we get a RULE? A simple add for EVERYONE to follow? (even a judgment-based rule would be nice).
Spencer D.
-
Spencer,
For the majority of the time, the example in your post represents the situation accurately. Only in a very few situations will you see a Supervisor acting outside of his/her authority or in a rude manner, and in this situation you have a course of action to rectify the problem. You can always send an email to the VP Supervisors or VP Conflict Resolution as an appeal.
Best,
-
Spencer,
For the majority of the time, the example in your post represents the situation accurately. Only in a very few situations will you see a Supervisor acting outside of his/her authority or in a rude manner, and in this situation you have a course of action to rectify the problem. You can always send an email to the VP Supervisors or VP Conflict Resolution as an appeal.
Best,
Too bad that the penalty has ALREADY been served. Which is the whole point.
What's the sense in appealing but to expunge the record? Which, we have to take on faith (of which there is very little) that it has been expunged...
Jason Vodnansky
-
Too bad that the penalty has ALREADY been served. Which is the whole point.
What's the sense in appealing but to expunge the record? Which, we have to take on faith (of which there is very little) that it has been expunged...
Jason Vodnansky
There are a couple of things I do not understand and will try to make them as simple as possible. This is how they are flowing through my mind in a rudimentary explanation:
1. Why isn't there a rule about Vis Ranges! Because it's talked about so much. Having said rules would END ALL DISCUSSION.
2. Why does it take VATSIM thousand of posts on something before anything is really DONE by the upper management?
3. Pilots seem to still fly on the network even though there are corrupt SUPs- probably because VATSIM is the only network of its kind.
4. Why aren't the above stated SUPs taken care of? Why are they even around?
5. Why do the pilots and ATC get spoken to rudely when trying to speak up about problems?
Can anyone answer any of these?
Spencer D.
-
Can't imagine why people control at all with garbage like this post flying around. Simple answer was given and it turned into the post that made the (in my opinion) top 3 ppl in Vatsim resign. Nice job guys.
If the pilot had a complaint he should have logged a complaint with the director of supervisors which is where I would have sent him rather than make a post in the forum.
Gotta hand it to you jason, u sure have a way of getting Vatusa1's to resign...first alex and now andrew...lol.
-
Can't imagine why people control at all with garbage like this post flying around. Simple answer was given and it turned into the post that made the (in my opinion) top 3 ppl in Vatsim resign. Nice job guys.
If the pilot had a complaint he should have logged a complaint with the director of supervisors which is where I would have sent him rather than make a post in the forum.
Gotta hand it to you jason, u sure have a way of getting Vatusa1's to resign...first alex and now andrew...lol.
I can promise you that Jason had no hand in making Andrew (nor I, nor Rob) resign.
-
I can promise you that Jason had no hand in making Andrew (nor I, nor Rob) resign.
Nor I
-
HA,
I wish! Took me by surprise as well when I found out. I can't say I blame them for leaving.
Regarding Alex, as I have said many times, as far as I know Alex resigned, as his real world priorities were getting in the way. I don't believe that I can/should/will take any credit for it.
Personally, I can think of only 3 people I would like to see resign. I am fully aware that people think one way or another about me. I can't help it, and know that I can't please everyone. I do know that I can read (which is more than some have demonstrated), and follow the written policies. As stated previously, and in the ATM staff board, I am NOT against many of these policies, NOR am I against visibility ranges. Never have I claimed otherwise. That seems to be the belief however. Again, read what is said...
People ask me to contribute to the hobby. Been there, done that, and continue to do so. People ask me to contribute "positively" to the discussion. What exactly does that mean? Explaining why a policy is confusing isn't contributing positively? Explaing how something could be worded better isn't contributing positively to the network? Exposing another side of the story isn't contributing positively to the hobby? How many emails go unanswered every day? Yet, that is the answer, "private email is better than a forum post". Why? so there is no public record of what is said? So others can lie about it?
Seems to me that these are ALL positive contributions to the hobby.
If anyone thinks that private emails weren't tried, and clarifications weren't asked for privately, they are mistaken. The issue is that one person says one thing, another says another, and then the "almighty" steps in and offers another interpretation. All expect THEIR way to be followed, except, ooooops, NONE are in accordance with standing WRITTEN policies.
Let me leave you with this thought about visibility ranges...
Richard Jenkins posted earlier that, and let me quote it to get it right...
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]You want to set your range to 1500nm fine by me....maybe all of you should! I'll watch. Heaven forbid you should just try and help out without someone having to cram a piece of paper down your throat first.[/quote]
Since he posted the suggested visibility guidlines in the VATSIM forum, and they have been taken as "law". Does this mean that we can now reference this post as "law"? Why should one post be more important than the other?
Now, to be fair, I assume he is kidding, and saying this "tongue in cheek". But, let me ask, how do we know? How do we know he wasn't kidding the first time? Which is it, and which is to be enforced? As I said, both are forum posts...
Best,
Jason Vodnansky
-
HA,
I wish! Took me by surprise as well when I found out. I can't say I blame them for leaving.
Regarding Alex, as I have said many times, as far as I know Alex resigned, as his real world priorities were getting in the way. I don't believe that I can/should/will take any credit for it.
Personally, I can think of only 3 people I would like to see resign. I am fully aware that people think one way or another about me. I can't help it, and know that I can't please everyone. I do know that I can read (which is more than some have demonstrated), and follow the written policies. As stated previously, and in the ATM staff board, I am NOT against many of these policies, NOR am I against visibility ranges. Never have I claimed otherwise. That seems to be the belief however. Again, read what is said...
People ask me to contribute to the hobby. Been there, done that, and continue to do so. People ask me to contribute "positively" to the discussion. What exactly does that mean? Explaining why a policy is confusing isn't contributing positively? Explaing how something could be worded better isn't contributing positively to the network? Exposing another side of the story isn't contributing positively to the hobby? How many emails go unanswered every day? Yet, that is the answer, "private email is better than a forum post". Why? so there is no public record of what is said? So others can lie about it?
Seems to me that these are ALL positive contributions to the hobby.
If anyone thinks that private emails weren't tried, and clarifications weren't asked for privately, they are mistaken. The issue is that one person says one thing, another says another, and then the "almighty" steps in and offers another interpretation. All expect THEIR way to be followed, except, ooooops, NONE are in accordance with standing WRITTEN policies.
Let me leave you with this thought about visibility ranges...
Richard Jenkins posted earlier that, and let me quote it to get it right...
Since he posted the suggested visibility guidlines in the VATSIM forum, and they have been taken as "law". Does this mean that we can now reference this post as "law"? Why should one post be more important than the other?
Now, to be fair, I assume he is kidding, and saying this "tongue in cheek". But, let me ask, how do we know? How do we know he wasn't kidding the first time? Which is it, and which is to be enforced? As I said, both are forum posts...
Best,
Jason Vodnansky
Just assume anything I say is law. My therapist says it will help....
So this is how the thing will playout:
They'll put it in the CoC.
They'll forget about the exceptions to the range settings for some positions around the world.
We'll get a list of those together.
There will be a debate about if those really are exceptions or not.
A committee will be formed to review those exceptions.
Committee will decide it needs a policy to determine if something is an exception or not.
Committee will forward it to the EC for review.
EC will make recommendations.
Back to committee.
XYZ ACC/ARTCC/FIR will say they didn't get a chancce to comment.
Back to committee for edits to include new facility who was blatantly ignore in first round.
Someone will notice there is no procedure for applying for exception to the range suggestions.
Committee writes procedure for applying for exception.
CoC somehow gets amended by vote.
SUPs complain they don't know who has exceptions.
Committe finds someone to build a webpage. The will require additional staff to maintain.
Find staff.
Need a Exception rule director. We'll call him Except1.
Setup email for him.
He'll need an assistant because directors needs someone to direct.
Time goes by.
We'll need a review!
Exception rule updated so you can only have 2 range exceptions within your facility.
XYZ ACC/ARTCC/FIR says they need three!
...and it goes on and on.
Get the point....?
-
Just assume anything I say is law. My therapist says it will help....
So this is how the thing will playout:
They'll put it in the CoC.
They'll forget about the exceptions to the range settings for some positions around the world.
We'll get a list of those together.
There will be a debate about if those really are exceptions or not....
So kind of like the major fields in GRP 2.0?
-
So this is how the thing will playout:
They'll put it in the CoC.
.. much stupidity and role-playing deleted
Get the point....?
The other option is to create maximum viz ranges about 3x larger than needed in any realistic situation, enforce them in FSD and the problem goes away. Of course, that would involve strategic thinking and not sweating the small stuff and not being anal about bandwidth that would cost less than my lunch tab. I'll be good-natured and gregarious before VATSIM is capable of such advanced actions.
This entire stupidity came around because VATSIM cares about 20K of bandwidth that literally costs fractions of a penny to provide. Way to see the big picture!
Cheers!
Luke
-
The other option is to create maximum viz ranges about 3x larger than needed in any realistic situation, enforce them in FSD and the problem goes away. Of course, that would involve strategic thinking and not sweating the small stuff and not being anal about bandwidth that would cost less than my lunch tab. I'll be good-natured and gregarious before VATSIM is capable of such advanced actions.
This entire stupidity came around because VATSIM cares about 20K of bandwidth that literally costs fractions of a penny to provide. Way to see the big picture!
Cheers!
Luke
Yep, those developers should do that. Any ideas who? I could quit wasting time reading this drivel.
Someone I was talking to today made an interesting comment. He said "Why do we need divisions?" What if we could just dissect a layer out? What would be the pros and cons. What would stop working? Why does an ARTCC events director need an assistant? Twenty-two of these? So many questions...
-
Yep, those developers should do that. Any ideas who? I could quit wasting time reading this drivel.
Someone I was talking to today made an interesting comment. He said "Why do we need divisions?" What if we could just dissect a layer out? What would be the pros and cons. What would stop working?
Divisions and local facilities do most of the leg work for VATSIM. Cut them out, and you might as well save yourself some money and not pay the bills next month because it won't be worth the 10 people you have left on the network. You want to know the reason why so many people resign around VATUSA and in the other divisions? Seagull management.
-
Divisions and local facilities do most of the leg work for VATSIM. Cut them out, and you might as well save yourself some money and not pay the bills next month because it won't be worth the 10 people you have left on the network. You want to know the reason why so many people resign around VATUSA and in the other divisions? Seagull management.
No, seriously, the ARTCC's pretty much take care of themselves. Provide them each with an interface to CERT. Have them report directly to one of the 6 regions. We could wipeout something like 24 or 25 divisions and remove a truckload of staff people who could do what they really want to do on VATSIM...control and fly!
-
I'd also recommend probationary periods for every position. SCrew up in the first 90 days...cya.
-
No, seriously, the ARTCC's pretty much take care of themselves. Provide them each with an interface to CERT. Have them report directly to one of the 6 regions. We could wipeout something like 24 or 25 divisions and remove a truckload of staff people who could do what they really want to do on VATSIM...control and fly!
Isn't this an "oh s***" approach? Something happens, email goes to the BoG list, founders and governors swoop in and make a mess, then leave.
Think of the big picture before wiping out such an important group. The problems sits with the completely incohesive group of Founders and the BoG. You're doing a good job, Richard, but until you can bring ALL founders to the table and get some guidance flowing, nothing you do will fix these problems.
-
Actually,
I was just thinking why we need an EC? They've barely done anything and anything they have done has been a complete waste of time. Get rid of the EC and let the divisions work their magic with oversight from the BoG directly and I'd think you'd end up with far less problems on the network .
Cheers!
[edit for silly use of English]
-
Actually,
I was just thinking why we need an EC? They've never done anything and anything they have done has been a complete waste of time. Get rid of the EC and let the divisions work their magic with oversight from the BoG directly and I'd think you'd end up with far less problems on the network .
Cheers!
Yes!
-
Yep, those developers should do that. Any ideas who? I could quit wasting time reading this drivel.
Good question. Do you have any developers who write multi-threaded game servers? I wish I knew something about writing high-performance, low-latency servers so that I could help you. But geez, I've never written any so I have no idea what to do.
I'm puzzled why you're unsure where to find these people. I recall Lefteris telling me that they had all the help they could use and someone like me wasn't needed when he was looking for FSD volunteers. Maybe you should ask him?
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Someone I was talking to today made an interesting comment. He said "Why do we need divisions?" What if we could just dissect a layer out? What would be the pros and cons. What would stop working? Why does an ARTCC events director need an assistant? Twenty-two of these? So many questions...[/quote]
Paul Byrne's got the right idea. It's amazing that a controller needs to go through about five levels of bureaucracy through the ARTCC, VATUSA Region, VATUSA and VATNA/EC levels to the BoG. But you already knew that. Why not do something about it?
Cheers!
Luke
-
Isn't this an "oh s***" approach? Something happens, email goes to the BoG list, founders and governors swoop in and make a mess, then leave.
Think of the big picture before wiping out such an important group. The problems sits with the completely incohesive group of Founders and the BoG. You're doing a good job, Richard, but until you can bring ALL founders to the table and get some guidance flowing, nothing you do will fix these problems.
Are we saying ZLA and the likes couldn't do what they are doing today wtihout VATUSA. If so, why? Could what needs to be done happen at the region level?
-
Are we saying ZLA and the likes couldn't do what they are doing today wtihout VATUSA. If so, why? Could what needs to be done happen at the region level?
As I said, the problem rests with the Founders and BoG. Cut out anything below the EC level and your problems will still exist. The problem isn't the amount of assistants to the assistant events coordinator (that's bad too, but not the real problem). The problem is the management of VATSIM doesn't gel, doesn't realize the impact of their decisions or comments, and then wonder why such turbulence exists. Ask the BoG about their back channel mailing list that the Founders can't see. So where, then, does the problem exist?
Fix the top before you mess with the bottom.
-
Are we saying ZLA and the likes couldn't do what they are doing today wtihout VATUSA. If so, why? Could what needs to be done happen at the region level?
Paul might be right. I was looking at it from a reduction of staff point of view. Would be interesting to model it bothways and see what it does.
Luke, I was just looking at the thread in the devs forum about the redo of FSD. They couldn't agree if it needed to be multi-threaded or not! Regardless, I just saw a working version of a new FSD running on a test server. Actually written in Java. That should make you smile.
-
Tyler, you're so far off base, you're not even playing the same sport when it comes to my reasons for leaving.
-
Luke, I was just looking at the thread in the devs forum about the redo of FSD. They couldn't agree if it needed to be multi-threaded or not!
Math is hard. Let's go shopping.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Regardless, I just saw a working version of a new FSD running on a test server. Actually written in Java. That should make you smile.[/quote]
Good. Then you clearly have the developers you were asking about.
Cheers!
Luke
-
As I said, the problem rests with the Founders and BoG. Cut out anything below the EC level and your problems will still exist. The problem isn't the amount of assistants to the assistant events coordinator (that's bad too, but not the real problem). The problem is the management of VATSIM doesn't gel, doesn't realize the impact of their decisions or comments, and then wonder why such turbulence exists. Ask the BoG about their back channel mailing list that the Founders can't see. So where, then, does the problem exist?
Fix the top before you mess with the bottom.
Okay...let me think about this for a second. I was on the BoG for 9 years. I might know something about this list, but I'm a Founder also. Are you saying the BoG is hiding things from the Founders? Show me an email from this list. I find the BoG is keeping secrets....There is going to be a big problem.
-
Math is hard. Let's go shopping.
Good. Then you clearly have the developers you were asking about.
Cheers!
Luke
Here's an idea. What about a payware version pilot client. Somewhat like the vroute model. You get the basic thing for free, but if you want extra toys, you pay?
-
Okay...let me think about this for a second. I was on the BoG for 9 years. I might know something about this list, but I'm a Founder also. Are you saying the BoG is hiding things from the Founders? Show me an email from this list. I find the BoG is keeping secrets....There is going to be a big problem.
Send me an email/PM if you'd like to hear about it, forum is no place. As for the true issue here, the amount of staff at the division and local level is NOT the reason for all of these issues and shouldn't even be looked at until the upper management fix their problems. VATUSA staff are leaving because of this, and we're talking qualified managers who put their heart into this organization are now leaving. This should send a clear message, and no matter how hard it is to admit the problem and work to fix it - the Founders and BoG must drop the politics and the attitude towards its members and do a better job of calculating decisions and managing the network. You can reject ideas without insulting the well-intentioned VATSIM member who wants to see this place succeed.
I mentioned seagull management above. This is the style of management currently employed by the BoG across many situations. It's an insult to the excellent work being done by division and ARTCC level staff. These guys poor money and time into running their communities and they don't get near the recognition that they deserve. To be completely honest, as VATUSA1 I never did thank them enough or recognize their efforts as best as I could, but through all of the arguments and discussions on policy each one of them has the best interest of VATSIM at heart. Andrew does, Jason does, Dave Klain does - everyone does.
-
Here's an idea. What about a payware version pilot client. Somewhat like the vroute model. You get the basic thing for free, but if you wnat extra toys, you pay?
Great idea. Once the Founders endorse such a model I'll get right to work on it. My job sucks anyways.
Cheers!
Luke
-
Great idea. Once the Founders endorse such a model I'll get right to work on it. My job sucks anyways.
Cheers!
Luke
Intriguing isn't it.....
-
If it worked as advertised and the freeware version had no network limitations, I wouldn't have a problem with that. In fact, being (self described) a hardcore VATSIMmer, I would probably buy the payware version to support the developer and VATSIM.
vroute has already set the precedent.
Cheers!
-
Send me an email/PM if you'd like to hear about it, forum is no place. As for the true issue here, the amount of staff at the division and local level is NOT the reason for all of these issues and shouldn't even be looked at until the upper management fix their problems. VATUSA staff are leaving because of this, and we're talking qualified managers who put their heart into this organization are now leaving. This should send a clear message, and no matter how hard it is to admit the problem and work to fix it - the Founders and BoG must drop the politics and the attitude towards its members and do a better job of calculating decisions and managing the network. You can reject ideas without insulting the well-intentioned VATSIM member who wants to see this place succeed.
Amen!!!
You've pretty much hit the nail square on it's head.
-
Intriguing isn't it.....
If I thought you were serious....
Cheers!
Luke
-
Amen!!!
You've pretty much hit the nail square on it's head.
I'd be the first to agree information flow is lacking. I quickly read Andrew's resignation and found some distrubing things in it. From a Founders perspective I am troubled by the apathy many staff have from the top to the bottom in just ensuring the day to day things are done to keep the trains running.
I function in a world of measures in my real job. I apply those measures, quietly, to VATSIM. I don't make them public and I generally don't discuss them. Rest assured though the stink in this place goes all the way to the bottom and to the top. Are there Founders that are apathetic? Yes. Are there BoG members that are out of touch with parts of VATSIM. Yes. Are there RD's that do the absolute minimum. Yes. Are there division directors that don't show up for work? Yes. Are there facility directors that build little kingdoms. Yes.
So as we're throwing the poo tonight. Let's take a good look around. Because people do talk to me when I go online and there are facility people that bark just as loud and nasty about division staff. It's the nature of the beast around here. It's not unique to VATUSA.
-
Hi Richard,
Completely agree. I, like you live by a few simple rules. One of them is this: You have to lead by example. This has to come from the top down.
Cheers!
-
Hi Richard,
Completely agree. I, like you live by a few simple rules. One of them is this: You have to lead by example. This has to come from the top down.
Cheers!
And in my experience and teachings, good leaders don't abandon the ship when the weather turns bad above them...
-
You have to lead by example. This has to come from the top down.
QFT.
Cheers!
Luke
-
And in my experience and teachings, good leaders don't abandon the ship when the weather turns bad above them...
I'm sorry but if that is some underhanded dig at those VATUSA staff members who just quit that was completely inappropriate.
-
That is all well and good, and I understand you can't change the world overnight, nobody would reasonably expect such. But none of that excuses rudeness or treating members like second class citizens when they disagree with the company line. When that attitude comes out of the leadership, there is a problem that goes way beyond the mechanics of policies. Until that changes, everything else is just fluff.
There are people that have violated the trust of their position repeatedly only to get promoted later. I have seen polices and procedures completely blown off at the highest level, and then turned right back around and thrown in someone's face later on. You cannot beat someone up with the CoC and CoR and then ignore it later on because in one person's judgment following the rules would not have changed the outcome of the situation, it reeks of hypocrisy. You can't have a healthy network when the offenders have more rights than the people trying to get positive things done.
That is the kind of thing that drives people off. It doesn't matter whether you have constructed an elitist leadership or not. If people perceive it to be elitist because of its actions, or not following its own rules, then it might as well be elitist by design.
I would challenge every single Founder, BoG and EC member to this......walk a mile as an DD, ATM, or TA for 60 days in the VATSIM of 2010. Not just observing it......take the position, own it, see what it is like to navigate the waters of dealing with problem members, frivolous complaints, moving targets, unknown rules, thin instruction staffing, transfers, inactives, making up meanings for ratings, trying to determine the intent of a policy, getting your own policies approved, and a thick bureaucracy of people telling you all the things you can't do, but never trying to help you figure out what you can do.
But the number 1 thing to start with is this: The membership and staff of an organization is reflective of its leadership. When the leadership acts dismissive, sarcastic, or rudely......well you get the picture.
my .02
-
Richard,
It's all about perception. While USA3, I made a very conscience effort to try to stay on top of how I was perceived. Not by the people above me so much as the people below me. After all, I had 22 TA's looking up to me for advice, guidance, and suggestions, and if they felt like I was working against them as opposed to for them, then we would never get anything constructive accomplished. I was there to help them, not micromanage them. I was there to support them and assist when they needed. That's all my job entailed. The sad part is, is that there are some, myself included, that honestly feel as though the BOG/EC is working against them as opposed to for them.
Now we all know there are those staff members that don't do anything productive. We all know they shouldn't have the opportunity to hold some of the titles that they do, but they do, and for the most part, we can't change that. However, when the politics of this virtual organization get to the point where it's pushing the good people out of positions, then obviously it's an issue that should be looked at and addressed.
Respectfully,
-Mike
-
I'm sorry but if that is some underhanded dig at those VATUSA staff members who just quit that was completely inappropriate.
It was not intended to be a dig at anyone, it's a statement of my principles i've been taught as a leader and been in similiar wording through several leadership seminars.
The previous administration did plenty of good things for VATUSA and VATSIM, however what we needed then and now need more than ever is stability. This past administration with no disrespect, has not accomplished that task and further plagued us with instability.
While their intent is to enact change, whether that happens now or later, the members of VATUSA suffer now in the void these folks have left behind.
-
There will never be stability unless you fix the underlying problem.
-
While their intent is to enact change, whether that happens now or later, the members of VATUSA suffer now in the void these folks have left behind.
I'm more surprised that they took the job in the first place - they're not the first VATUSA staff members to flame out and resign after a few months, and they won't be the last.
Luke
-
If I thought you were serious....
Cheers!
Luke
Speaking for myself.....
I think the pitch could be made. The idea that VATSIM could survive in the years to come off the already generous donation of the current developers is doubtful. The vroute model has shown that a payware version of something will work on VATSIM. Now obviously the new client would need to have full functionality and maybe a toy or two to attract a following.
I know the vroute model works. VATSIM has benefited from it. If some coin going to you or some other developer to keep you writing and maintaining code so the masses could enjoy VATSIM for free, I am okay with that.
-
There will never be stability unless you fix the underlying problem.
+1
-
While I and most agree we need stability above and below for the middleman (VATUSA) to be stable, I think people have to realize this before they take the job. I've been at VATSIM for just over a half year and seen 3 different VATUSA1's. That is pretty bad. Whomever applies for VATUSA1 next needs to realize that there is not 100% perfection above. So maybe it's time to try and make a difference beyond one's division and give it a shot. When one meets resistance, don't quit, keep trying. It will work out [hopefully].
-
Nicholas,
I thought and said the same thing in my interview, but you have to have the right tools available to you to be effective, if they aren't there, then the whole premise falls apart. Resistance is a daily occurrence and all of us of have held the position were prepared for that. But the issue is deeper than that.
-
It was not intended to be a dig at anyone, it's a statement of my principles i've been taught as a leader and been in similiar wording through several leadership seminars.
The previous administration did plenty of good things for VATUSA and VATSIM, however what we needed then and now need more than ever is stability. This past administration with no disrespect, has not accomplished that task and further plagued us with instability.
While their intent is to enact change, whether that happens now or later, the members of VATUSA suffer now in the void these folks have left behind.
You know that is a fine principal and all but frankly it doesn't work. I may not have agreed with the decision some of my predecessors made, heck I got fired by one of them but their hearts were in the right place and frankly its an insult to be trying to place blame on people who put some much effort into this. I would invite you to try to spend just a week up in the meat grinder and see how you like it. I had the privilege of working for three administrations (four if you count the few hours I worked for one person) these people dedicated countless hours to this hobby, a lot more then they should have. Its really easy for everyone here to talk the talk saying that we need stability and all of this, spend some time in one of these guys shoes you will learn quick that this is a full time job on top of life, it just isn't that simple.
-
When the title is more important then the job, then it is time to give up the title.
-
Richard,
It's all about perception. While USA3, I made a very conscience effort to try to stay on top of how I was perceived. Not by the people above me so much as the people below me. After all, I had 22 TA's looking up to me for advice, guidance, and suggestions, and if they felt like I was working against them as opposed to for them, then we would never get anything constructive accomplished. I was there to help them, not micromanage them. I was there to support them and assist when they needed. That's all my job entailed. The sad part is, is that there are some, myself included, that honestly feel as though the BOG/EC is working against them as opposed to for them.
Now we all know there are those staff members that don't do anything productive. We all know they shouldn't have the opportunity to hold some of the titles that they do, but they do, and for the most part, we can't change that. However, when the politics of this virtual organization get to the point where it's pushing the good people out of positions, then obviously it's an issue that should be looked at and addressed.
Respectfully,
-Mike
I agree. The staff face different concerns at the various levels. For me, I was faced with the issue that VATSIM couldn't deliver in a timely manner what it was selling on frontpage.
I was dragging new people in the frontdoor but we weren't getting them through the training process. It was frustrating for me. VATSIM never mandated the training programs we have today for ATC. Some divisions it actually takes longer to become a C1 than it does in the real world. Maybe not now.
The frustration level at the BoG/EC was the ever evolving hoops being mandated at the ARTCC/ACC/FIR and division level without the staffing or infrastructure to process all the new members. So we go to people and say you need to help us get these people through. We can't have TA's and ATM not showing up for weeks. As an example, we have used what are called shoppers to test the system. A fake a ccount basically. Some of our shoppers went up to 3 months waiting for OTS as visiting controllers, new students waiting weeks just to get the written. We have to be realistic and know that anyone who joins and then must wait weeks just to take it for a test drive is not going to stick around.
Support is a two-way road. Part of my job as president was to find money, software, and bandwidth. When you have declining new membership, and a perception by the public that VATSIM is full of ATC zealots, it makes it hard to sell. Sit in our shoes for a few minutes also. I can't tell you how many times I have been told to shut-up and stay out of it because I'm not in the "trenches" with the troops. Well, the troops aren't in my trench either. We face different issues and have to help each other with those issues. That is not happening. Asking a developer to sitdown and write 40,000+ lines of code for an organization that can only produce a few thousand students a year and only 400 or 500 C-1s per year is incredibly hard. Especially when I had no hand in creating the hoops at the lower levels. I once had an ATM tell me if he was allowed he would reject 98% of his new students.
I mentioned above that information flow is lacking here. Part of me is feels as though we need some sort of CRM software or something to track issues. Andrew's GRP access. I have no idea why he didn't have access but apparently he didn't. CRM software would track "to-do" and keep cases open and elevate as they age. Andrew's issue would have elevated and more people would have been notified that his issue was not being resolved.
-
Support is a two-way road. Part of my job as president was to find money, software, and bandwidth. When you have declining new membership, and a perception by the public that VATSIM is full of ATC zealots, it makes it hard to sell. Sit in our shoes for a few minutes also. I can't tell you how many times I have been told to shut-up and stay out of it because I'm not in the "trenches" with the troops. Well, the troops aren't in my trench either. We face different issues and have to help each other with those issues. That is not happening.
Richard,
I agree and hear what your saying 100%!
So I bolded the portion of your statement which I feel is the core of all of this and the question has to be asked: "Why?". Obviously you (the BOG/Founders) are facing different problems then us (the divisions). The question is why aren't we helping each other. Why is there such a disconnect.
I've been talking so much of perception, and so if we recognize that our perception (as divisional staff, or in this case former) of the BOG/EC is not the most positive one, and also recognize that it is a two way street and the BOG/EC may feel the same about us, what do we need to do to change that perception? I know personally, where I got frustrated was when it felt like it COULD NOT be changed. However, I do acknowledge that the moment you say something "can't" be done, it "won't" be done.
-Mike
-
Richard,
Now we all know there are those staff members that don't do anything productive. We all know they shouldn't have the opportunity to hold some of the titles that they do, but they do, and for the most part, we can't change that. However, when the politics of this virtual organization get to the point where it's pushing the good people out of positions, then obviously it's an issue that should be looked at and addressed.
Respectfully,
-Mike
+1
I have known Mike and Rob for quite some time, and they are great people. Not only are they very easy to get along with, they have the desire to volunteer their free time to make this place better. I too was at one time one of these volunteers, and while I wasn't forced out of my position like my colleague was, the sickening politics that were transpiring in a VIRTUAL environment made me throw my hands up. Why should those of us who actually care put up our time and effort when someone who only cares about as Rob put it, "the title", is put in front of us? If there's one thing I learned from the military, it's that leaders can't be leaders if they're forced to follow, and that is what is happening to VATUSA today.
I AM a real life controller at one of the busiest towers in the country.
I USED to love to share my knowledge to those who wanted to be like the real thing.
I USED to be a VATSIM Instructor and teach students.
I USED to love giving virtual pilots a true experience.
I STOPPED because of virtual politics.....
Does it make you turn your head a little and say hmmmmmm?
-
Lets go back before the GRP1&2 was forced down from the top, There are many more examples of this, but with each change that we've seen from the EC, the people down towards the bottom are throwing up their hands. You want me to re-write my training curriculum not once but twice? Oh, we've gotten rid of S1, now we have it again. Oh, S2 is back.
What has happened from the EC and BOG level, is an unprecedented amount of NON-COMMUNICATION. They see a problem, and rather than asking the ARTCCs how they think they could fix it, they come up with a solution amongst themselves and write a directive or statement. And when ARTCCs, or VATUSA1/2/3/s want to contribute to the knowledge dump, the EC says "Your say doesn't matter anyways!". This is problem number 1.
Problem number 2 is caused by Problem number 1, where we have a constant rotation of 1/2/3, the people that applied previously to these positions feel shat on, over and over, because the people that are being chosen are all friends of the first guy who's up there. Or, thats how it appears. Well, that constant rotation also includes a constant rotation of policies, which this last group was actually pretty good at not doing, but if you go back a few VATUSA1's, there were alot more policies to be shoved.
Because of this problem, Problem number 3 arises. You have a lack of coordination between administrations. One VATUSA group will be Pro ARTCC, the next will be Pro Region. One will be totally hands on, the next totally hands off. You have some who sit down and write the entire training website mostly by themself (Good work!) and some who ask the ARTCCs to do it, and submit their work.
I've said this for a long time now, if you want to raise money, then put a little "Donate Now" button with a chart of how much money is needed to run the VATSIM servers. I've done this for years on my website, and I've netted over 10 thousand dollars a year - and I only have 3,000 active members.
Sure, you could be like Vroute and charge for a client, but that's a chicken s**t way to do it, some people can't afford the upgrade. Instead, those who can would donate an equal amount of "help" towards the organization.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]When you have declining new membership, and a perception by the public that VATSIM is full of ATC zealots, it makes it hard to sell.[/quote]
If we have a declining membership, we could attribute this to many factors. But how many of those members are hard core pilots or controllers, and how many are becoming more hard core, even though the numbers may be diminishing.
You could consider me an ATC Zealot. However, I think you have a VATSIM success story on your hands. I started VATSIM when I was 13. I was a pilot first, then a controller. I fell in love with controlling. When I graduated High School, I went to Embry-Riddle. When I stepped foot into my classes, I was already an I1 on VATSIM, and while I didn't know absolutely everything, I knew 99%. All of my ATC courses I took, I was miles ahead of my classmates, who were just learning the ATC material for the first time. Got an A on every test without studying, and graduated with a degree in Aeronautics and minor in ATC. Now, I'll be working for the FAA soon as a controller, and I strongly believe that VATSIM had a major part to do with that. So when I teach my controllers, I teach them like I'd want to be taught, with realism and being true to the real thing. And 99% of them eat it up. I'm not one of the only one of these ATC zealots that have gone to the FAA. EZ from ZLA, Marc Sykes, and many other guys that I know. And personally, I couldn't of done it without VATSIM.
VATSIM truly can be a training environment for controllers or pilots. It's not just a game like we make it out to be, sometimes.
There is a significant lack of trust, respect and coordination from the BOG&EC to the normal controller/staff member/pilot. This has been caused by years of 'closed door' meetings on policies, and then the creation of these new policies. It's just like the work place, if Corporate tells you that the new policy is that you can't drink water from a paper cup because it's bad for the environment, you're going to be pissed off at corporate because you like your paper cups.
There have been no meeting notes posted, no topics of discussion, nothing, over the past several years. And to be honest, as a staff member, I couldn't even tell you who is on either one of these boards. The only thing I know is that Harv Stein was up there, and so are you, Richard. But I only know that because I used to see him on the scopes, and I see you in the forums. And I see you on the forums helping members and actually providing positive advice.
Alot of the EC/BOG have a Holier 'than thou' attitude, and they feel that the need to communicate to the controllers/pilots/ARTCC Staff/Division Staff is nil. If you liken it to real world, the soldiers are the pilots and controllers. The Staff are the Lieutenants and the Divison staff are the Captains. Above them, in our present situation, you have Bryan, the Colonel, and then a series of Generals that never step foot into the field. If you never saw your General, ever, then how much would you trust them?
And the awesome part about this post, is if I ever wanted to run for another VATUSA1/2/3 position, it would probably be held against me because I speak my mind too much.
-
After reading parts of this thread the question that comes to my mind is "why do we need forums?" It is really terrible for the VATUSA membership that these squabbles get dragged out into public forums. Most everyone who has posted in this thread (and others like it scattered around the network) are supposedly adults right? I wouldn't know it by reading this thread.
Disgusting.
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]"why do we need forums?"[/quote]
So people can express their opinions.
This is the VATUSA forum and the majority of people posting here are VATUSA members. We are allowed to express and share our opinion whether you like it or not. If there was anything abusive or rude here, you can be guaranteed it would be locked. All I have seen in this topic is some passionate expression of opinion, which should be encouraged rather than belittled.
You should also read the entire thread, not just parts of it, so you can see the full story.
Cheers!
-
However, I think you have a VATSIM success story on your hands. I started VATSIM when I was 13. I was a pilot first, then a controller. I fell in love with controlling. When I graduated High School, I went to Embry-Riddle. When I stepped foot into my classes, I was already an I1 on VATSIM, and while I didn't know absolutely everything, I knew 99%. All of my ATC courses I took, I was miles ahead of my classmates, who were just learning the ATC material for the first time. Got an A on every test without studying, and graduated with a degree in Aeronautics and minor in ATC. Now, I'll be working for the FAA soon as a controller, and I strongly believe that VATSIM had a major part to do with that. So when I teach my controllers, I teach them like I'd want to be taught, with realism and being true to the real thing. And 99% of them eat it up. I'm not one of the only one of these ATC zealots that have gone to the FAA. EZ from ZLA, Marc Sykes, and many other guys that I know. And personally, I couldn't of done it without VATSIM.
As a flight instructor...I think this is just great. We strive for this type of enthusiasm and this is how we "breed" the next generation of pilot, ATC or whatever. Getting someone interested in aviation as a career path has been tough. There are many many reasons for this...really beyond the scope of this thread. But, in any event...Tom, thank for sharing this story.
-
Lets go back before the GRP1&2 was forced down from the top, There are many more examples of this, but with each change that we've seen from the EC, the people down towards the bottom are throwing up their hands. You want me to re-write my training curriculum not once but twice? Oh, we've gotten rid of S1, now we have it again. Oh, S2 is back.
What has happened from the EC and BOG level, is an unprecedented amount of NON-COMMUNICATION. They see a problem, and rather than asking the ARTCCs how they think they could fix it, they come up with a solution amongst themselves and write a directive or statement. And when ARTCCs, or VATUSA1/2/3/s want to contribute to the knowledge dump, the EC says "Your say doesn't matter anyways!". This is problem number 1.
Problem number 2 is caused by Problem number 1, where we have a constant rotation of 1/2/3, the people that applied previously to these positions feel shat on, over and over, because the people that are being chosen are all friends of the first guy who's up there. Or, thats how it appears. Well, that constant rotation also includes a constant rotation of policies, which this last group was actually pretty good at not doing, but if you go back a few VATUSA1's, there were alot more policies to be shoved.
Because of this problem, Problem number 3 arises. You have a lack of coordination between administrations. One VATUSA group will be Pro ARTCC, the next will be Pro Region. One will be totally hands on, the next totally hands off. You have some who sit down and write the entire training website mostly by themself (Good work!) and some who ask the ARTCCs to do it, and submit their work.
I've said this for a long time now, if you want to raise money, then put a little "Donate Now" button with a chart of how much money is needed to run the VATSIM servers. I've done this for years on my website, and I've netted over 10 thousand dollars a year - and I only have 3,000 active members.
Sure, you could be like Vroute and charge for a client, but that's a chicken s**t way to do it, some people can't afford the upgrade. Instead, those who can would donate an equal amount of "help" towards the organization.
If we have a declining membership, we could attribute this to many factors. But how many of those members are hard core pilots or controllers, and how many are becoming more hard core, even though the numbers may be diminishing.
You could consider me an ATC Zealot. However, I think you have a VATSIM success story on your hands. I started VATSIM when I was 13. I was a pilot first, then a controller. I fell in love with controlling. When I graduated High School, I went to Embry-Riddle. When I stepped foot into my classes, I was already an I1 on VATSIM, and while I didn't know absolutely everything, I knew 99%. All of my ATC courses I took, I was miles ahead of my classmates, who were just learning the ATC material for the first time. Got an A on every test without studying, and graduated with a degree in Aeronautics and minor in ATC. Now, I'll be working for the FAA soon as a controller, and I strongly believe that VATSIM had a major part to do with that. So when I teach my controllers, I teach them like I'd want to be taught, with realism and being true to the real thing. And 99% of them eat it up. I'm not one of the only one of these ATC zealots that have gone to the FAA. EZ from ZLA, Marc Sykes, and many other guys that I know. And personally, I couldn't of done it without VATSIM.
VATSIM truly can be a training environment for controllers or pilots. It's not just a game like we make it out to be, sometimes.
There is a significant lack of trust, respect and coordination from the BOG&EC to the normal controller/staff member/pilot. This has been caused by years of 'closed door' meetings on policies, and then the creation of these new policies. It's just like the work place, if Corporate tells you that the new policy is that you can't drink water from a paper cup because it's bad for the environment, you're going to be pissed off at corporate because you like your paper cups.
There have been no meeting notes posted, no topics of discussion, nothing, over the past several years. And to be honest, as a staff member, I couldn't even tell you who is on either one of these boards. The only thing I know is that Harv Stein was up there, and so are you, Richard. But I only know that because I used to see him on the scopes, and I see you in the forums. And I see you on the forums helping members and actually providing positive advice.
Alot of the EC/BOG have a Holier 'than thou' attitude, and they feel that the need to communicate to the controllers/pilots/ARTCC Staff/Division Staff is nil. If you liken it to real world, the soldiers are the pilots and controllers. The Staff are the Lieutenants and the Divison staff are the Captains. Above them, in our present situation, you have Bryan, the Colonel, and then a series of Generals that never step foot into the field. If you never saw your General, ever, then how much would you trust them?
And the awesome part about this post, is if I ever wanted to run for another VATUSA1/2/3 position, it would probably be held against me because I speak my mind too much.
Sorry to re-quote the entire post, but you have hit my thoughts absolutely dead on, Tom. Having met you before and experiencing much the same things as you, I could not have said it any better.
We seem to be classified as "too much" for this network, but if you learn to accept the ways of VATSIM and work with it, you can do amazing things for the network and still be realistic about it. It's taken me many years and hardships here to figure that out, but I still owe everything to the network for what it has done for me on a personal level.
Let's just forget the political stuff here and move towards creating this collectively - there really shouldn't be anything wrong with that...
Regards,
AJ
-
Don't worry... Be happy.
-
Tom,
You raise some valid points. From your perspective I can see why you feel the way you do. One thing I would ask you to consider is that VATSIM's purpose in life is NOT to train ATC students or prepare people for ATC or flight training. At the end of the day, this is a hobby that people do for relaxation. One of the problems that has frustrated the founders and the BOG is that some (note I say "some" and not "all" ARTCC staffs took this "ultra-realist approach" where people were expected to have darn near the level of knowledge and skills as required of real-world controllers who do this for a living. Some people would say "what is wrong with that? Realism is good and we are trying to be as realistic as possible..." My counter to that is that ATC students at UND and ERAU are a VERY small population and if VATSIM only catered to them, we would very soon be a network of just a few hundred people.
I've used this analogy in the past, so forgive me if it seems tired, but I think it represents what the VATSIM leadership's vision for the network is. In flight simulation, imagine a spectrum of realism. At one end is the pure gamer...picture the Microsoft Gaming Zone. At the other end is the ultrarealist...the person who spends 6 hours flight planning, follows every step, etc. Clearly those two extremes will not be happy with how the other end of the spectrum operates. By the same token, those extremes represent a TINY part of the entire flight simulation community. For better or for worse (we think for better, but you certainly may think otherwise), VATSIM has made a conscious decision NOT to cater to either extreme. Instead we try to cater to the 80 percent in between. The result is that some of the folks who want to do things as realistically as possible will be frustrated (as you are) and some of the people who just want to get on and control or fly will be frustrated (as others are), but we are meeting the needs of the MAJORITY of the VATSIM membership.
What you have done in going from VATSIM through school and now to a job with the FAA is a great thing. My suspicion is that 5 or 10 years from now you might not be as interested in recreating every nuance of ATC on VATSIM as you are today because you live it in real life. I got an interesting email from a real world 777 Captain on this very subject just a couple of days ago. His comment was "I go on VATSIM to relax and as a break from real life...I am not at all interested in recreating all of the crap and bureaucracy, including stage checks and currency requirements, that I deal with in my real job. That is why I am no longer interested in controlling on this network."
I can see where you are coming from, but would ask you to look at it from my (and the rest of the leadership team's perspective). While you and the rest of the ATC students at UND and ERAU and ATC students-in-waiting/wannabees want one level of realism, the reality is that you are a TINY percentage of the overall VATUSA population. A vocal and active percentage, but a small percentage nonetheless. I would submit to you that the majority of the controllers in VATUSA have no idea that this thread is going on, that VATUSA1 has resigned or that there is all this turmoil and gnashing of teeth. All they want to do is come home from work, have a beer and connect to the network for a few hours to fly or control. I've got the membership population stats to prove that the average member is between 25 and 40 years old, male, out of school and doing this for recreation. Most of them aren't interested in a perfect simulation of the real world, they want something that isn't a game with a bunch of teenagers running around being idiots, but they also don't want to deal with a lot of the crap that has been implemented in many parts of VATUSA by well-meaning and motivated staffers who have a different vision for the network. There are presently 3713 controllers in VATUSA with a rating of S1 or above...only 945 are even on this forum.
There are a lot of members out there who aren't interested in all of this rule making and empire-building...they just want to get on and CONTROL. I have been laughed by several ARTCC staff members for making the point that "if a guy only comes on and controls 1 hour every other month (6 hours a year) as part of his recreational enjoyment of VATSIM, that is 6 hours of controller availability we would otherwise never have had and that is a good thing." Those staffers have told me that this guy won't be familiar with current SOPs, procedures, etc. and should not be allowed to connect because he will "embarrass the ARTCC." At the end of the day, no one is in any danger and we are here to have fun, yet we are limiting people's ability to contribute based on idiotic ideas like this? ZAU (where I control right now) has a requirement a person log on and control at least 1 hour a month or they will be dropped off the roster. That is NOT a VATSIM requirement. That is NOT a VATNA requirement. That is NOT a VATUSA requirement (although similar requirements exist in almost every ARTCC in VATUSA). It is a local facility requirement. Amazingly enough, just about every other part of the world manages to function without these rules which do nothing but EXCLUDE people from controlling, even if for just six hours a year...
When I (and Jeremy who posted above by the way) first became a VATSIM controller, I started out as ORD GND/DEL. All training and about 95% of controlling at ZAU was done at KORD because that was the airport and that is where the traffic was. There was none of this "need special training to control at one of the big airports" foolishness...people just got online and controlled. If a pilot (or a controller) didn't realize that a STAR or an Approach had been updated, they laughed about it and quickly got the updated chart (or used the old one) and moved on...with everyone having a good time in their evening's relaxation. Today if a pilot happened to have the old chart/STAR in his flight plan he is as likely to be chewed out by a controller and/or forced to refile his flight plan, look up new stuff before he is given a departure clearance. That may cost that pilot 20 minutes of the 1 or 2 hours he had that evening to recreate on our network...and it may turn him off. THAT is why there is a big push coming down from the founders and the BOG. THAT is why GRP was implemented. What you see as a lowering of standards may very well be a lowering of the high standards you set for yourself and your students, but we would call that creating a set of standards that allow for people to enjoy the network and for the network to thrive.
Let me give you another example...softball leagues. Don't know if you play softball or not, but you certainly know people who do. You also likely know that their are teams out there who practice daily and play with the intensity of professional ballplayers. There are also leagues out there where people go out to have fun, get a break from work, have a beer and play some ball with their friends. The second group tries equally hard to win the game, but they don't do it at the expense of friendships and having a good time. There is nothing wrong with the first approach to softball...but I would submit to you the second approach is the spirit and intent of the VATSIM network. If a guy has never played softball before (or is a lousy ballplayer) and comes to one of those teams...the first one will either:
(a) outright refuse to let him play because he lacks the knowledge/skills
(b) accept him, put him through the ringer in making him a "good" player and odds are he will quit out of frustration.
I would submit that the second team would not only welcome him, they would let him play and have fun. There are too many ARTCC's in VATSIM (and many of them are in VATUSA) that too closely resemble the first team and not the second...and that hurts the network overall.
To some extent GRP was "forced" down the ARTCC's throats because some of them were getting completely out of control and needed to be forced back into line with VATSIM's overall approach to flight simulation after YEARS of us working with them and trying to get them to see the light. Part of the reason GRP 2.0 took so darn long to get done is because the EC worked very hard to get key stakeholders involved in developing the policy. I, the rest of the BoG and the EC got our butts regularly handed to us in the forums because it took so long to get done and I repeatedly said we were taking our time to make sure we got it right. The fact that the majority of VATSIM's membership has been happy with how GRP 2.0 came out tells me we got it right. We didn't satisfy everyone (and that was never going to happen anyway), but we developed a compromise that most people felt they could live with. In an organization this big, that's a win.
This email is already too long, but let me answer one more point you raise...the issue of Secret meetings, agendas, etc...while the EC does the same thing, I will just answer for the BOG and ask you to take a look at the following links:
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45671 (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45671) - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43076 (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43076) - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41620 (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41620) - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38447 (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38447) - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://www.vatsim.net/network/docs/library/bogminutes/ (http://www.vatsim.net/network/docs/library/bogminutes/) --- All BOG minutes which show exactly what happened and what we discussed
We bend over backwards to have transparency in what we do...and my email box is always open President at vatsim dot net.
all the best,
Dave
-
Tom,
You raise some valid points. From your perspective I can see why you feel the way you do. One thing I would ask you to consider is that VATSIM's purpose in life is NOT to train ATC students or prepare people for ATC or flight training. At the end of the day, this is a hobby that people do for relaxation. One of the problems that has frustrated the founders and the BOG is that some (note I say "some" and not "all" ARTCC staffs took this "ultra-realist approach" where people were expected to have darn near the level of knowledge and skills as required of real-world controllers who do this for a living. Some people would say "what is wrong with that? Realism is good and we are trying to be as realistic as possible..." My counter to that is that ATC students at UND and ERAU are a VERY small population and if VATSIM only catered to them, we would very soon be a network of just a few hundred people.
I've used this analogy in the past, so forgive me if it seems tired, but I think it represents what the VATSIM leadership's vision for the network is. In flight simulation, imagine a spectrum of realism. At one end is the pure gamer...picture the Microsoft Gaming Zone. At the other end is the ultrarealist...the person who spends 6 hours flight planning, follows every step, etc. Clearly those two extremes will not be happy with how the other end of the spectrum operates. By the same token, those extremes represent a TINY part of the entire flight simulation community. For better or for worse (we think for better, but you certainly may think otherwise), VATSIM has made a conscious decision NOT to cater to either extreme. Instead we try to cater to the 80 percent in between. The result is that some of the folks who want to do things as realistically as possible will be frustrated (as you are) and some of the people who just want to get on and control or fly will be frustrated (as others are), but we are meeting the needs of the MAJORITY of the VATSIM membership.
What you have done in going from VATSIM through school and now to a job with the FAA is a great thing. My suspicion is that 5 or 10 years from now you might not be as interested in recreating every nuance of ATC on VATSIM as you are today because you live it in real life. I got an interesting email from a real world 777 Captain on this very subject just a couple of days ago. His comment was "I go on VATSIM to relax and as a break from real life...I am not at all interested in recreating all of the crap and bureaucracy, including stage checks and currency requirements, that I deal with in my real job. That is why I am no longer interested in controlling on this network."
I can see where you are coming from, but would ask you to look at it from my (and the rest of the leadership team's perspective). While you and the rest of the ATC students at UND and ERAU and ATC students-in-waiting/wannabees want one level of realism, the reality is that you are a TINY percentage of the overall VATUSA population. A vocal and active percentage, but a small percentage nonetheless. I would submit to you that the majority of the controllers in VATUSA have no idea that this thread is going on, that VATUSA1 has resigned or that there is all this turmoil and gnashing of teeth. All they want to do is come home from work, have a beer and connect to the network for a few hours to fly or control. I've got the membership population stats to prove that the average member is between 25 and 40 years old, male, out of school and doing this for recreation. Most of them aren't interested in a perfect simulation of the real world, they want something that isn't a game with a bunch of teenagers running around being idiots, but they also don't want to deal with a lot of the crap that has been implemented in many parts of VATUSA by well-meaning and motivated staffers who have a different vision for the network. There are presently 3713 controllers in VATUSA with a rating of S1 or above...only 945 are even on this forum.
There are a lot of members out there who aren't interested in all of this rule making and empire-building...they just want to get on and CONTROL. I have been laughed by several ARTCC staff members for making the point that "if a guy only comes on and controls 1 hour every other month (6 hours a year) as part of his recreational enjoyment of VATSIM, that is 6 hours of controller availability we would otherwise never have had and that is a good thing." Those staffers have told me that this guy won't be familiar with current SOPs, procedures, etc. and should not be allowed to connect because he will "embarrass the ARTCC." At the end of the day, no one is in any danger and we are here to have fun, yet we are limiting people's ability to contribute based on idiotic ideas like this? ZAU (where I control right now) has a requirement a person log on and control at least 1 hour a month or they will be dropped off the roster. That is NOT a VATSIM requirement. That is NOT a VATNA requirement. That is NOT a VATUSA requirement (although similar requirements exist in almost every ARTCC in VATUSA). It is a local facility requirement. Amazingly enough, just about every other part of the world manages to function without these rules which do nothing but EXCLUDE people from controlling, even if for just six hours a year...
When I (and Jeremy who posted above by the way) first became a VATSIM controller, I started out as ORD GND/DEL. All training and about 95% of controlling at ZAU was done at KORD because that was the airport and that is where the traffic was. There was none of this "need special training to control at one of the big airports" foolishness...people just got online and controlled. If a pilot (or a controller) didn't realize that a STAR or an Approach had been updated, they laughed about it and quickly got the updated chart (or used the old one) and moved on...with everyone having a good time in their evening's relaxation. Today if a pilot happened to have the old chart/STAR in his flight plan he is as likely to be chewed out by a controller and/or forced to refile his flight plan, look up new stuff before he is given a departure clearance. That may cost that pilot 20 minutes of the 1 or 2 hours he had that evening to recreate on our network...and it may turn him off. THAT is why there is a big push coming down from the founders and the BOG. THAT is why GRP was implemented. What you see as a lowering of standards may very well be a lowering of the high standards you set for yourself and your students, but we would call that creating a set of standards that allow for people to enjoy the network and for the network to thrive.
Let me give you another example...softball leagues. Don't know if you play softball or not, but you certainly know people who do. You also likely know that their are teams out there who practice daily and play with the intensity of professional ballplayers. There are also leagues out there where people go out to have fun, get a break from work, have a beer and play some ball with their friends. The second group tries equally hard to win the game, but they don't do it at the expense of friendships and having a good time. There is nothing wrong with the first approach to softball...but I would submit to you the second approach is the spirit and intent of the VATSIM network. If a guy has never played softball before (or is a lousy ballplayer) and comes to one of those teams...the first one will either:
(a) outright refuse to let him play because he lacks the knowledge/skills
( accept him, put him through the ringer in making him a "good" player and odds are he will quit out of frustration.
I would submit that the second team would not only welcome him, they would let him play and have fun. There are too many ARTCC's in VATSIM (and many of them are in VATUSA) that too closely resemble the first team and not the second...and that hurts the network overall.
To some extent GRP was "forced" down the ARTCC's throats because some of them were getting completely out of control and needed to be forced back into line with VATSIM's overall approach to flight simulation after YEARS of us working with them and trying to get them to see the light. Part of the reason GRP 2.0 took so darn long to get done is because the EC worked very hard to get key stakeholders involved in developing the policy. I, the rest of the BoG and the EC got our butts regularly handed to us in the forums because it took so long to get done and I repeatedly said we were taking our time to make sure we got it right. The fact that the majority of VATSIM's membership has been happy with how GRP 2.0 came out tells me we got it right. We didn't satisfy everyone (and that was never going to happen anyway), but we developed a compromise that most people felt they could live with. In an organization this big, that's a win.
This email is already too long, but let me answer one more point you raise...the issue of Secret meetings, agendas, etc...while the EC does the same thing, I will just answer for the BOG and ask you to take a look at the following links:
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45671 (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45671) - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43076 (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43076) - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41620 (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41620) - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38447 (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38447) - BOG meeting announcement and Agenda
http://www.vatsim.net/network/docs/library/bogminutes/ (http://www.vatsim.net/network/docs/library/bogminutes/) --- All BOG minutes which show exactly what happened and what we discussed
We bend over backwards to have transparency in what we do...and my email box is always open President at vatsim dot net.
all the best,
Dave
+1 , well said Dave
-
All BOG minutes which show exactly what happened and what we discussed
Except when you talk about the Web Site or the Data Server. Why is that?
Cheers!
Luke
-
We bend over backwards to have transparency in what we do...and my email box is always open President at vatsim dot net.
all the best,
Dave
Dave,
It seems to me that you "bend over backwards" even more by creating these little "minutes" documents when you could just record the thing in TS, compress it, and have it available to download. That way you'll have transparency in EVERYTHING you do instead of choosing not to include certain topics in the "minutes" document (as Luke pointed out above); which is a pretty poor representation of the meeting in my opinion. Look at VATUSA, all the instructor meetings, etc., etc., are recorded and available to download. That takes much less time and effort too.
-Nick
-
Dave,
It seems to me that you "bend over backwards" even more by creating these little "minutes" documents when you could just record the thing in TS, compress it, and have it available to download. That way you'll have transparency in EVERYTHING you do instead of choosing not to include certain topics in the "minutes" document (as Luke pointed out above); which is a pretty poor representation of the meeting in my opinion. Look at VATUSA, all the instructor meetings, etc., etc., are recorded and available to download. That takes much less time and effort too.
-Nick
One of the problems that they run into vs the staff meetings we have is executive session, items in ES are usually confidential in nature, and while editing would not be difficult it can become time consuming.
-
Dave,
It seems to me that you "bend over backwards" even more by creating these little "minutes" documents when you could just record the thing in TS, compress it, and have it available to download. That way you'll have transparency in EVERYTHING you do instead of choosing not to include certain topics in the "minutes" document (as Luke pointed out above); which is a pretty poor representation of the meeting in my opinion. Look at VATUSA, all the instructor meetings, etc., etc., are recorded and available to download. That takes much less time and effort too.
-Nick
Very good point, but there are some things discussed which are NOT for general discussion, either to protect people's privacy, or VATSIM proprietary information. For example:
- Discussion on DCRM appeals that have come up to the BOG.
- Discussion on people being permanently banned/suspended from VATSIM
- Discussion on VATSIM finances, relations with server owners, etc.
- Discussion on some things being worked for the website or other things that we believe gives VATSIM a competitive advantage over it's competitor networks (we don't want them to know what we are working on/rolling out).
Bottom line is that some things should not be (and will not be) made public...and that's the way it should be.
Dave
-
Great post, Dave. Thanks for the insight.
-
Dave, these "Executive Sessions" I see in the minutes, are they when those sort of things are discussed? If so, is it possible to hold said "ES" in a different room or stopping and starting recording after that is finished and splicing the two files together? It certainly wouldn't be hard too hard to do. And if it takes more time than creating these minutes documents, please say so. It just seems to me a recording would be easier for everyone to understand and that way you hear everything the way it's said, not a short recap in a 3 page document on a 2 and a half hour meeting.
-Nick
-
David,
Thank you for the note. I too learned at ORD when it was just fun, and not the ATC control freaks that have emerged. I did not realize that GRP 2.0 was actually intended to tame some of these folks that have gone way overboard in their pursuit of reality in this wonderful HOBBY/GAME, and levelset the entire thing.
I think this is bane of our existence at this point. The stress between those who want this to be like real life, and those of us who just want to enjoy the game.
Like you said, I only have a few hours to invest in this game a week, and I don't want to spend my time studying FAA regs, or getting picked at about how I say stuff as long as I control the traffic and push tin. I don't need some kid from NDU bitching because I say "You are 10nm from the marker".... I like learning don't get me wrong, but I don't want it to take over the fun....
If I wanted to do this for a living, I would have, but hey controlling is STRESSFUL. Why are we making it SO hard on ourselves.... I just don't get it.... Get out and fly/control. We have people who could be controlling positions that cannot because of some crazy process that we've put down on ourselves.
Jeff
PS> I never really thought the controllers were the problem on VATSIM, it was the lack of training for the pilots....but somehow we've spun it around the wrong way.....ATC is a service, not a power.
-
Dave, these "Executive Sessions" I see in the minutes, are they when those sort of things are discussed? If so, is it possible to hold said "ES" in a different room or stopping and starting recording after that is finished and splicing the two files together? It certainly wouldn't be hard too hard to do. And if it takes more time than creating these minutes documents, please say so. It just seems to me a recording would be easier for everyone to understand and that way you hear everything the way it's said, not a short recap in a 3 page document on a 2 and a half hour meeting.
-Nick
Nick,
To be honest that has never been done. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it just hasn't ever been done. The reality is the minutes exist as a means of documenting what happened at the meeting. It is standard business practice in any large organization or board meeting because there is no requirement to have a word-by-word record (as compared to legal proceedings where an exact transcript is required). A set of minutes also allows a board member or founder to review them and see what happened at the meeting (which is the purpose of minutes). Having generated the minutes once or twice (I don't remember) when I was VATGOV2 and had to cover it because VP Comms was unavailable, I can tell you that a teamspeak recording of a 2+ hour meeting is a LARGE file. I have the 22 March 09 recording on my hard drive and it is 222 MB zipped up. Someone would literally need to listen to it for the full two hours, identify the areas where we go into executive session, cut the file and then splice the rest back together and that is a LOT more time intensive than creating minutes from a set of notes taken as the meeting goes on. That said, if there is that much interest in what goes on in BoG meetings, what I will do is change the format of our next meeting (sked for the end of March). We'll do all straight business up front and NOT go into exec session. I'll then have the person making the recording actually stop recording, we'll go into exec session and do what we need to do. We'll then post the recording on the server and see how many people download it. If there are people who download it, actually listen to the whole darn thing and find it useful, we can probably do that in the future... Does that sound like a reasonable approach?
all the best,
Dave
-
Dave,
I'm not going to argue your points, I stand by what I said.
I'm not the guy you described. For the people that know me, they know this and I dont' need to prove myself. There are those people on the network, but I haven't run into any in a while. I do feel that my controllers should be confident though, regardless of what I'm teaching them.
If there wasn't a problem, then I would question why all the Divisional Directors we've had wanted to retire early.
-Tom
-
Dave,
I'm not going to argue your points, I stand by what I said.
I'm not the guy you described. For the people that know me, they know this and I dont' need to prove myself. There are those people on the network, but I haven't run into any in a while. I do feel that my controllers should be confident though, regardless of what I'm teaching them.
If there wasn't a problem, then I would question why all the Divisional Directors we've had wanted to retire early.
-Tom
Nine years of VATSIM and VATEUD has had 3 directors. I wonder what the difference is...
-
Nine years of VATSIM and VATEUD has had 3 directors. I wonder what the difference is...
The story I heard is that they are better at asking forgiveness. For their recent VATSIM sins they had to repeat the COR 4 times, the GRP 3 times, and Visiting Controllers 2 times.
-
Nick,
To be honest that has never been done. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it just hasn't ever been done. The reality is the minutes exist as a means of documenting what happened at the meeting. It is standard business practice in any large organization or board meeting because there is no requirement to have a word-by-word record (as compared to legal proceedings where an exact transcript is required). A set of minutes also allows a board member or founder to review them and see what happened at the meeting (which is the purpose of minutes). Having generated the minutes once or twice (I don't remember) when I was VATGOV2 and had to cover it because VP Comms was unavailable, I can tell you that a teamspeak recording of a 2+ hour meeting is a LARGE file. I have the 22 March 09 recording on my hard drive and it is 222 MB zipped up. Someone would literally need to listen to it for the full two hours, identify the areas where we go into executive session, cut the file and then splice the rest back together and that is a LOT more time intensive than creating minutes from a set of notes taken as the meeting goes on. That said, if there is that much interest in what goes on in BoG meetings, what I will do is change the format of our next meeting (sked for the end of March). We'll do all straight business up front and NOT go into exec session. I'll then have the person making the recording actually stop recording, we'll go into exec session and do what we need to do. We'll then post the recording on the server and see how many people download it. If there are people who download it, actually listen to the whole darn thing and find it useful, we can probably do that in the future... Does that sound like a reasonable approach?
all the best,
Dave
Dave,
That's a great idea. I hope you actually do this. I mean, it can't really hurt anything and if there is not a big response, then all means, please stop. But hopefully you guys at least give it a try.
Don't knock it till 'ya try it,
Nick
-
Dave,
That's a great idea. I hope you actually do this. I mean, it can't really hurt anything and if there is not a big response, then all means, please stop. But hopefully you guys at least give it a try.
Don't knock it till 'ya try it,
Nick
We'll give it a shot with the March Meeting and will post a link to download the recording (assuming I get no objections from the rest of the BOG. I don't expect any but don't want to speak unilaterally for the Board).
-
Nine years of VATSIM and VATEUD has had 3 directors. I wonder what the difference is...
Maybe we shouldn't have to wonder. Maybe we should find out. Seriously, if somthing is working somewhere then why isn't it working somewhere else? Pesonalities, politics, management styles, administrative structure, what??
Something is obviously different. Why not try and figure out what it is instead of just saying, "well it works there so how bad can it be?"
-
Maybe we shouldn't have to wonder. Maybe we should find out. Seriously, if somthing is working somewhere then why isn't it working somewhere else? Pesonalities, politics, management styles, administrative structure, what??
Something is obviously different. Why not try and figure out what it is instead of just saying, "well it works there so how bad can it be?"
I didn't think it was necessary to state the obvious.....
-
Ira,
Unfortunately, the number of Directors in Europe doesn't really reflect at all how things have gone over on their side of the world. It says they keep their Directors, but I assure you that they have had their share of turmoil. Now if you want to look at a good system, I'm personally fond of the VATPAC guys. They have a very good thing going over there.
-
I didn't think it was necessary to state the obvious.....
My apologies for misreading your intentions and frankly I am actually glad to hear that I did. Nice to see someone use a little sarcasm in a positive way every now and again.
It's pretty hard around here sometimes to read between the lines and since I am pretty new to this discussion I clearly missed one here.
Unfortunately the only other reply to date does exactly what I though you were doing; addressing something other than the issue at hand by suggesting that there maybe a better place to look for the answer. Like I said, it must be me, being the new guy and all. Maybe the next response will actually address the question.
Ira
-
Man, I've stayed out of this up to now, but everyone has a limit.
Well said, Ira.
VATUSA clearly has a problem keeping directors. After six pages of thread, why are we still speaking in analogies and veiled references, and not actually focusing on and addressing the problem? If VATEUR doesn't have the same problem, WHY? If VATPAC has a better system or program or policy, WHAT IS IT?
How about leaving the cute one-liners and metaphors behind, and devote some energy to fixing the problem? That might mean taking ownership of it too. And that takes guts.
-
Fact of the matter is, some regions do better with people management and working WITH their staff rather than against them. When I had the privilege of negotiating the oceanic agreements with Oceania, Terry clearly had an excellent relationship going with his staff in the region. There was a bond between them and they worked together for the common good.
I have countless records of VATSIM doing the complete opposite with VATUSA. Not once did I ever see anyone above Bryan trying to work with us to solve problems. Bryan gets the short end of the stick in some of the comments coming from people, but he did an excellent job working with me when I was Director. As Andrew said, we were only told what we couldn't do and the only time there was any communication was after an "oh s***" event when the seagulls flew in.
Mike Hodge will have to refresh my memory, but how many emails did we send "up" regarding the behavioral issues we were encountering and how many did we get back?
I have a BoG member on record stating that ATMs have no authority and therefore serve at the whim of VATSIM. I have the same BoG member on record calling Jason Vodnansky a "crap ATM". I have the President of VATSIM threatening ME because an ATM removed a controller from an ARTCC and that controller decided to complain to the BoG after I gave him a solution to the situation. I had no idea he chose to ignore my email (which was his reinstatement to that ARTCC if he wanted it) and go to the BoG, but Mr. Klain so kindly requested information by stating "Bailey better provide some answers or he may find himself out of a job in 3 days" (something to that effect). That sure is a great way to motivate your staff and create a positive working relationship.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The story I heard is that they are better at asking forgiveness. For their recent VATSIM sins they had to repeat the COR 4 times, the GRP 3 times, and Visiting Controllers 2 times. [/quote]
So Ron, what is a "VATSIM sin" and why is it a laughing matter? It appears that the problems happening over there were due to lack of oversight from both EC and BoG. Policies don't continue to be broken when people actually care to provide guidance to their staff.
-
Guys,
Although this thread has gotten wildly out-of-control, off-topic, and should have been locked a long time ago, there was a bit of hope on one of the pages, in which somewhat-productive discussion was actually taking place. Imagine that. I highly suggest it remain that way, we start acting like adults, and carry on polite and respectful discussion that might actually help the Division. Arguing and bickering is not going to get us anywhere, and in fact will not be allowed to continue. Fair enough?
-
...a bunch of teenagers running around being idiots,...
Pardon me Gov'na, but it isn't necessarily just teenagers running around being idiots on VATSIM. Some of the older aged demographic are quite guilty of indulging in tomfoolery in kind.
None the less, I find this thread to be quite intriguing. It's amazing that some of the same issues being brought up here that are claimed to happen on the VATSIM level actually occur on the ARTCC level as well.
Things that make you go "Hmmm."
Good day gentlemen, and I do hope things can be sorted through amicably. What I want to know now is this, would VATSIM be interested in having adverts run in FBO Chains such as Landmark on countertop video screens? EDIT: Just realized the video on our website is not working for some reason. Anyway, we have it on youtube Spotpoint Media Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwshG-jiXWU) (http://www.spotpointmedia.com (http://www.spotpointmedia.com))
PM if interested.
-
Mike Hodge will have to refresh my memory, but how many emails did we send "up" regarding the behavioral issues we were encountering and how many did we get back?
We sent plenty, got none back. The saddest part was that we actually didn't expect anything back. However, even I am guilty of not answering e-mails, so in that sense, i'm not complaining.
-
Andrew, I believe you are taking that quote out of context. The reference to teenagers running around being idiots was a reference to my earlier mention of a place like the Microsoft Gaming Zone...and yes you are correct, not all teenagers run around being idiots and not all idiots are teenagers...but neither of those was a point my post was making.
As far as the marketing issue, please contact me via email to discuss.
all the best,
Dave
-
wow...... all i have to say is wow...
it is amazing how when people get power they forget about the people that they were.
I joined vatsim in oct '08
I have seen more bull in the past two years then i have ever seen in my life
First off in late 08' I ran into some issues I sent emails from vatusa1- BOG and guess what the basic response i got was....( as i infer it) Sry, not our problem we don't care what our artccs do...
I have seen what like 3 VATUSA directors resign already...
Please stop bickering like children and Answer the Main questions
1. Why is this Happening @ VATUSA and is not EVIDENT ANYWHERE ELSE?
2. Why is it so hard to get answers?
3. Why do newly transfered students that are certified on the position have to wait so long just to get a "checkout" on a position?
4. Ladies,Gentelemnt, Governors, Have you and I mean you EVER READ the FOUNDERS LETTER? Seems like the founders post it, yet the "man" ignores it
5. Can the staff please be consitent? I'm pretty sure theres a policy on how to make a policy to make a policy.
6. It is impossible to get anything done because you ahve to get approval from person A who needs approval from person B who needs approval from the DD who needs approval from the RD etc.
Finally
All Staff: Stop the politics! I think IL is less messed-up then some of the staff in vatsim.. What is the goal of VATSIM Again? Or did the staff forget about that already?
You were all S-1s and S-3s.... Don't forget who you were! This is not about who gets the most glory, or who gets the the position, this is about THE CONTROLLERS so STOP THE POLITICS Don't we all want more people online so we can get on the scopes? Well then stop the politics and fix the problem
RW Connection: I have a local football league and there are some coaches that are plan A****** as my dad says for football. This is about the kids, not politics
(This is about John Doe whos an OBS os ARTCC X who isn't getting training, this (VATSIM) is not about POLITICS
.02 from a Students View
-
I have seen more bull in the past two years then i have ever seen in my life
First off in late 08' I ran into some issues I sent emails from vatusa1- BOG and guess what the basic response i got was....( as i infer it) Sry, not our problem we don't care what our artccs do...
FROM VATUSA1 - BOG?! would you mind elaborating on this?
Please stop bickering like children and Answer the Main questions
1. Why is this Happening @ VATUSA and is not EVIDENT ANYWHERE ELSE?
2. Why is it so hard to get answers?
3. Why do newly transfered students that are certified on the position have to wait so long just to get a "checkout" on a position?
bickering? aren't you bickering as well? .
I think your question #3 is ARTCC specific. I.E. @ ZAU, you need to schedule a training slot with the instructors for a "checkout".
5. Can the staff please be consitent? I'm pretty sure theres a policy on how to make a policy to make a policy.
What do you mean by "consitent"? Policies? Decisions? Who the staff is?
If it's who they are, Anthony, you need to realize that staffs can't be consistent. People come and go. VATSIM is a HOBBY, NOT A JOB. There's really no real-world benefits from this. You could see many resignations if people got bored of VATSIM (no offense to it). There's really no way to have a consistency in the staff members.
6. It is impossible to get anything done because you ahve to get approval from person A who needs approval from person B who needs approval from the DD who needs approval from the RD etc.
And what would these "get anything done" things be?
-
wow...... all i have to say is wow...
I have seen more bull in the past two years then i have ever seen in my life
If you're equating "bull" to legitimate policy discussion, you're wrong. Policy can be discussed, staff members can reply, and people can still be unhappy. That doesn't make it "bull."
First off in late 08' I ran into some issues I sent emails from vatusa1- BOG and guess what the basic response i got was....( as i infer it) Sry, not our problem we don't care what our artccs do...
I have seen what like 3 VATUSA directors resign already...
1. Why is this Happening @ VATUSA and is not EVIDENT ANYWHERE ELSE?
You need to go through the proper channels to get your issues resolved. Most of the time that does not involve going straight to VATUSA1 nor the BoG. It's unlikely that the above was the response. They probably just said the same thing I did.
Since when is resignation such a horrible thing? Do you want us to pay these people? People get worn down, and that's when a resignation happens. Someone else comes in, and the cycle continues. Other divisions probably don't have as many resignations because the people in them aren't as easily worn down. Not to say that the jobs are any more or less difficult, but it's just a basic part of bureaucracy.
2. Why is it so hard to get answers?
It's not. You have three senior staff members available to talk to, either via e-mail or in Teamspeak or something like it. There's the VATUSA Forums, the VATSIM Forums, the VATUSA help desk, and many VATUSA staff members if none of the aforementioned channels resolve your issue.
3. Why do newly transfered students that are certified on the position have to wait so long just to get a "checkout" on a position?
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.
4. Ladies,Gentelemnt, Governors, Have you and I mean you EVER READ the FOUNDERS LETTER? Seems like the founders post it, yet the "man" ignores it
Elaborate, please? If you're referring to DK, I've seen nothing less than compliance by Dave with the Founders' vision as outlined in their letter, especially in the VATSIM Forums where many propsitions emerge that contradict it.
5. Can the staff please be consitent? I'm pretty sure theres a policy on how to make a policy to make a policy.
What??
6. It is impossible to get anything done because you ahve to get approval from person A who needs approval from person B who needs approval from the DD who needs approval from the RD etc.
That's in terms of VATUSA policy, not individual ARTCC policy. The main thing that really affects you as a student is ARTCC policy, which has a much quicker implementation process than one might think, as long as the ARTCC staff is competent and efficient.
All Staff: Stop the politics! I think IL is less messed-up then some of the staff in vatsim.. What is the goal of VATSIM Again? Or did the staff forget about that already?
No, I'm pretty sure Illinois has had more political conflict than the staff in VATSIM. There could be no VATSIM without politics, because many people have different view on how something like this could be run.
You were all S-1s and S-3s.... Don't forget who you were! This is not about who gets the most glory, or who gets the the position, this is about THE CONTROLLERS so STOP THE POLITICS Don't we all want more people online so we can get on the scopes? Well then stop the politics and fix the problem
What's the problem to which you keep referring?
RW Connection: I have a local football league and there are some coaches that are plan A****** as my dad says for football. This is about the kids, not politics
(This is about John Doe whos an OBS os ARTCC X who isn't getting training, this (VATSIM) is not about POLITICS
Having coaches who come across as rude is not politics -- that's their style of team management. If John Doe isn't getting training, then he has many avenues to pursue in getting that training.
-
Here's all I'm going to say on this topic...
If you feel that people haven't been getting the job done, then step up yourself and take the job. All I see is a bunch of people that just bicker to bicker and no one wants to step up and and give a solution which may or may not work.
-
Here's all I'm going to say on this topic...
If you feel that people haven't been getting the job done, then step up yourself and take the job. All I see is a bunch of people that just bicker to bicker and no one wants to step up and and give a solution which may or may not work.
For all we know there could be people participating in this thread who have made application at the BOD/BOD level and have not been given the chance. Sometimes it is not a matter of stepping up but a matter of being let in.
-
For all we know there could be people participating in this thread who have made application at the BOD/BOD level and have not been given the chance. Sometimes it is not a matter of stepping up but a matter of being let in.
I have seen each and every single application for BoG and EC jobs over the past year. Just like the real world, applications are on how you sell yourself.
-
I have seen each and every single application for BoG and EC jobs over the past year. Just like the real world, applications are on how you sell yourself.
My comment was ambiguous. Someone says that many people are in this thread are wining and don't even have the gumption to step up, I was just stating that that is not the case. I know a few people in this thread who have made attempts to be on the BOG/BOD that is really all I am saying Norm. I would have no idea as to the specific qualifications of anyone who applied for a position, but more particularly those who were selected, as I really don't know any of them. I am sure, or at least hope, that each position is advertised, and everyone who applies is given the appropriate level of consideration based on their qualifications both on and off the network.
-
My comment was ambiguous. Someone says that many people are in this thread are wining and don't even have the gumption to step up, I was just stating that that is not the case. I know a few people in this thread who have made attempts to be on the BOG/BOD that is really all I am saying Norm. I would have no idea as to the specific qualifications of anyone who applied for a position, but more particularly those who were selected, as I really don't know any of them. I am sure, or at least hope, that each position is advertised, and everyone who applies is given the appropriate level of consideration based on their qualifications both on and off the network.
Hi Bruce,
Rest assured each and every application is given appropriate consideration. More out of interest than anything else I ran the names of those in this thread against those who applied for BoG roles following a NOTAM. Unless I missed something, which is quite possible, the results were underwhelming.
-
More out of interest than anything else I ran the names of those in this thread against those who applied for BoG roles following a NOTAM.
It's worth noting as well that several BoG positions filled (and vacated) recently have not been NOATM'd.
Cheers!
Luke
-
I have seen each and every single application for BoG and EC jobs over the past year. Just like the real world, applications are on how you sell yourself.
Norm,
Without attempting to read anything more into your response than is there and with respect, you seem to be implying a rather shallow and short-sighted approach to vetting individuals for positions the BoG is responsible for. Your assertion that applications reflect how well someone "sells" themselves is a surety. However, in the real world, it is only a minor piece of the total package that is the individual - a door opener - if you will. Real world organizations may determine an applicant's basic level of qualifications from the information in their application/resume/cv but they go to much greater lengths to confirm the individual as the best applicant for the job.
Confirming an individual's capabilities through a verifiable series of past accomplishments is another cornerstone of evaluation of one's suitability. As the level of positional responsibility and management increase, so to must the candidates' track record of accomplishments and direct involvement at that level be clearly evident and more importantly, used as a barometer in consideration of that individual as the best candidate for the position.
While VATSIM may not have (nor require) as stringent a set of requirements or standards as the real world for any one position, it is in the best interest of the organization and its membership that substantive effort be expended by the BoG and others in thoroughly vetting individuals for the positions they are seeking. Relying solely upon the information in an application and how well someone "sells" themselves leaves the impression that positions go to whomever can "lay it on the thickest" - telling you what you want to hear; and is an abrogation of the responsibility for proper management of VATSIM itself. It further opens the question of accountability for such abrogation.
I again re-emphasize I'm not saying this is what is occurring; your post leaves the impression this is so. I will make a few personal observations on the subject. When vetting candidates, I am aware of no direct interviews of the candidates having ever been held by the BoG or the appointed selection committees. I openly admit I am not aware of all the actions that may or may not have been performed in this regard but can affirm I found it puzzling in those cases where I was involved. This leads me (and I believe would any other reader of this) to the conclusion that sole reliance on the application data is truly the "norm" as a selection process at the upper levels of VATSIM management. Second, I find it "interesting" that of late, there have been several "Director" positions mentioned (even thanked from the BoG level no less) and members using such designations in forum signature blocks and elsewhere. I am unaware of any announcement of these positions being created nor opened for candidacy at any level of VATSIM. I admit great curiosity over these as in one instance, records show that at the time of the mention of such, the person "anointed" with an ATC-related "Directorship" had not attained an S2 rating on VATSIM. What vetting practice missed this fact or is it of no importance?
Lastly, I'm not trying to ruin anyone's day here. I'm just looking for what constitutes a level playing field. I know it will be easy for readers and responders to chalk my comments up to a "sore loser" complex or "why here in this forum?" With all the evidence I have in-hand and have mentioned here, I cannot help but believe a return to core fundamentals of good management practice are in demand VATSIM-wide - from the BoG down to the unit level. If you will allow me, I am an advocate in this case.
-
Hi Bruce,
Rest assured each and every application is given appropriate consideration. More out of interest than anything else I ran the names of those in this thread against those who applied for BoG roles following a NOTAM. Unless I missed something, which is quite possible, the results were underwhelming.
Due to the original poster making the broad assumption that those who are complaining are not seeking "higher office", it only takes one to prove my point. Which I can guarantee the existence of at least one. Thanks for the research though.
-
I thought I would take a moment and share an email with you I received today. I've really been troubled by the analogy that we, the BoG and Founders, dump "Sh!#" on the divisions and then fly away. This email is an example of what we are confronted with on a regular basis. Not asking for your sympathy but to have a look from our seats for a second or two.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Hi Richard,
This letter is in response of what XXXXXXX brought up on the controller's forum.
I have been reading the Founder's Open Letter to the community over and over again. Personally, I transferred to the XXXXXXX Division because there's a lack of inclusiveness in XXXXXXX and to be in that particular XXXXXXX. I earned my S1 rating that then became S2 when the Global Rating Policy was revised to implement the version 2. My previous instructor and mentor was XXXXXX who was a really great controller and was once Deputy RD of XXXXX. While XXXXX was under his leadership promotions are really done easily, I don't even remember worrying about the lack of instructor or mentor because the training department is well organized. But those are the early days of XXXXX, later on, he stepped down and from there I haven't seen him online for quite sometime, in fact, until now.
So I continued controlling in XXXXX given that he already stepped down. My eyes aren't open as to what really is going on within the Division or the ACC itself. Then later on, XXXXX elected a 16 year old and S3 at that time to lead XXXXX, he then became the new ATM of our ACC. We can't do much about it but it brought up some serious talks within the Division. Nothing happened when he was in position, months later, he resigned and his DATM took the ATM's seat and the FE became the DATM. Another S3 leading the place, then later on, he also stepped down and the DATM took the ATM's seat once again now the Events Director of XXXXX, XXXXX. Now the ATM of XXXXX is XXXXXX who is I1 rated, hot headed, hot shot and more of a loose canon. Sorry but that is how I can describe this guy. We joined the ACC together and from there I have witnessed his attitudes, and XXXXX a friend of mine told me that he is aware of this guy's attitude.
On the founder's open letter, our dear founder mentioned something about the lack of inclusivity and the abuse of authority by the staff. Well I have witnessed this when I was still in XXXXX that urged me to transfer somewhere else just so I'm away from XXXXX and it's politics which is worst than XXXXX's issues. I would like to discuss the lack of inclusivity first, I took the S3 promotion exam TWICE but wasn't promoted. First of all because of XXXXX imposition of difficult over the shoulder exam and his demand of a high controller standards that is not supported by our areas traffic levels. I end up rescheduling my test over and over again. He made XXXXX his virtual kingdom and doing things personally, literally personal. As an example, I was shooting for my long deserved OTS since my arrival to the network back in early 2007's, he proposed different mechanics to me. He made it a game show type of stuff. You will start with 20 points, and each mistake you make will cause those points to be reduced and that might result to your failure. My mistakes are detailed below:
* Not reminding the pilot to squawk mode normal given that there's an APP controller online who could easily do it himself should the pilot now squawk normal prior taking off. In XXXXX, a more busier place than XXXXX, I've had no problems when my TWR controller forgets about it, because I know that I can do it myself and is not a real big deal. I understand that people tends to forget things at times, even real world pilots and controllers do.
* Incomplete taxi instructions. In XXXXX, I don't really have to issue taxi instructions completely. Say for example a pilot requests a taxi to runway 32, I usually just say "Taxi to holding point 32, via taxiway Romeo to intersection Kilo. Altimeter XXXX" basically between the two points I issued there's 1 or 2 more taxiway that he has to go through, and it's up to him how he will get to runway 32 using the directions I issued. That's where his AD chart comes in handy. In XXXXX, failure to issue all the turn points for taxiways deducts your points. I tried complaining to him over and over again, but he refused and insisted his impossible mechanics. Take note that there's no updated AD charts in our vACC and I was basing my taxi instructions using the fixes I can see on our sector file, which he later informed me, outdated. From there I already loose 5 points and already considered a failure. He wants me to issue the instructions POINT by POINT.
Notice sir that he is imposing some very difficult mechanics that is not really supported by the local traffic. When I had the mistake of not informing the pilot to squawk normal prior taking off, he called me STUPID which was really hard in the chest to hear someone calling you that when you don't really have any relation to that person. But what can I do, he's my instructor. That is the kind of person he is. Calling me DUMB, STUPID and all degrading words you can hear a person say. After being offended for several times, I called on our ATM's attention and I got no answer. As if telling me, what do they care. I even approached the Division Director and also got no response or any possible action. I believe one of our fellow founders XXXXX knows what I'm talking about here. If XXXXX can call a founder IMMATURE what more can he tell to a Student?
The other month, I had a talk with him after months of leaving XXXXX. I told him that why is it that XXXXX only has 4 radar controllers. 1 INS, 2 S3 and 1 C3. But then again, others are stuck with their OBS rating and aerodrome rating. Which is really discouraging especially in a place that is not really that active in terms of traffic movements. So what will happen in the end? The ACC becoming inactive and partially active because there's no dedication by the staff. So then I told him if he needs my help with the staffing if there's a major event coming up, I told him that humbly and he refused and told me he need no XXXXX controller in his place. See the conversation I have attached and witness it yourself, sir. Speaking like that given that he is an Air Traffic Manager of a VATSIM FIR.
Another thing is the inactivity of the RD. Compare XXXXX RD to other RD, the active participation of the XXXXX RD to XXXXX RD is relatively different. But I understand XXXXX job requires him to be away from time to time to his VATSIM responsibilities. But why not give it to someone who can handle the job better? Also look at the XXXXX Division Staff who is clearly inactive and not doing things to re-activate the partially dead Division. Compare XXXX to other VATSIM Divisions, they are the most inactive. Look at XXXXX, their staff I know of are really doing things to get their controllers trained. Remember that I have worked closely with XXXXX being his former Deputy Director, Director of Airspace/Operations of the Division and also co-Founder until XXXXX and other XXXXX guys joined XXXXX for good. If only XXXXX Staffs control XXX itself I think the place would be more better. But I understand that it isn't possible. Now I'm about to take my C1 rating with XXXXX. A place that is away from any politics of any kind, a place filled with happy living controllers who are dedicated and professional. I'm happy in where I'm currently at.
I hope this didn't put you to sleep sir and that this issue be opened with the appropriate staffs of the Region and Division. I have approached you sir because I am confident that this will be heard, that this will not be ignored and that appropriate investigation and or monitoring will be done. Thank you very much for listening, sir![/quote]
-
I read this while I was controlling an empty airspace today. I got from the beginning talking about a sup abusing power, then to suggestions of CoC additions, then to some stuff about how vatsim started, then an interesting scenario involving a CoC addition, then I skipped a few pages and saw something about payware developers, then skipped some more and saw people argueing about something I couldn't understand because to understand it I would have had to read the previous 1-3 pages, then skipped to the last page and saw a censored email about dumping Sh!# somewhere. VATSIM is not only an ATC/Flying simulator, it's a politics simulator! Some of you are angered, tickled or given something to do by this, I'm interested. Next we can bring in the labor jobs, medical jobs and maybe even various housing projects. This is like the Truman Show, and frankly I'm amazed it's still free.
Andrew Murfin
-
I read this while I was controlling an empty airspace today. I got from the beginning talking about a sup abusing power, then to suggestions of CoC additions, then to some stuff about how vatsim started, then an interesting scenario involving a CoC addition, then I skipped a few pages and saw something about payware developers, then skipped some more and saw people argueing about something I couldn't understand because to understand it I would have had to read the previous 1-3 pages, then skipped to the last page and saw a censored email about dumping Sh!# somewhere. VATSIM is not only an ATC/Flying simulator, it's a politics simulator! Some of you are angered, tickled or given something to do by this, I'm interested. Next we can bring in the labor jobs, medical jobs and maybe even various housing projects. This is like the Truman Show, and frankly I'm amazed it's still free.
Andrew Murfin
Politics comes into play at some level anywhere through life , at work, at school etc. VATSIM is by no means exempt from that. I don't know your age Andrew but by the time one reaches an adult they should be able to identify that.
Sometimes I personally think it's better to let sleeping dogs...well sleep rather than resurrect them 2 months later.
-
Politics comes into play at some level anywhere through life , at work, at school etc. VATSIM is by no means exempt from that. I don't know your age Andrew but by the time one reaches an adult they should be able to identify that.
Sometimes I personally think it's better to let sleeping dogs...well sleep rather than resurrect them 2 months later.
So you can't post observations on Forums anymore? Imagine that.
I would sort of call it resurection, but then again someone else would have replied and this thread would be blown out again.
I don't agree with "Well since it has been xx months/days/years etc, therefore you can't post anymore". Its a free country right? You can post if you want to, as long as it is within the CoC obviously and isn't harassment to another induvidual.
And VATSIM is a very political place, just look at the staff forums. My policy is to stay out of it as much as possible and nobody will attack you. The "If you don't talk to them, they won't talk to you" has worked so far.
If people want to make their point, and argue til Kingdom Come, thats fine with me, but do it in a PM.