Michael,

You certainly have very valid concerns.  As was already mentioned, I am NOT also the Deputy Director.  I had to put myself into that position on the website while Gary took over because of how the website was coded.  Only certain VATUSA staff members have access to various features of the VATUSA website, and I needed that access during Gary's transition to Director.  I just...haven't been removed yet.

As far as the position vacancies, there are no requirements to fill the vacancies, nor will there ever be.  In fact, there are no requirements to have any of the positions in the first place.  There was a time in VATUSA when there weren't 15+ VATUSA staff members.  The number gradually got inflated over the years (for good or bad).  Gary has stated on numerous occassions his desire to return to a more simple staff structure, and that's what he has done.  The same goes for ARTCCs.  There is no requirement anywhere to have a webmaster, facility engineer, etc.  If the ATM wants them to go vacant, that is his/her prerogative.  It's really up to the Division to delegate how the duties are generally delegated.

As has been said, other staff members have been filling in for the "vacant" positions, and have done a fine job, I might add.  Just because the positions are "vacant" does not mean the work is not getting accomplished.  

Rahul, of course they were passed along, as part of Gary's initial briefing.

Thanks guys!!  Much appreciated.  I'm not sure what specifically you have to look forward to at this age.  Maybe one more year closer to retirement?  

Thanks again!

VATSIM UK has an excellent training website which allows students to post their availablity on various dates and times, the mentor then logs in and sees the request and can pick from the availability before picking up the session.

Various ARTCCs within VATUSA have this too.  I can't imagine why something that would need to be done on the divisional level.

No, it's not NASA anymore.  The new system is called ATSAP.  I think the NASA reports are incorporated from what I recall, but it's a completely separate system.  Some people like it, some don't.  But regardless of what people might think, the system is actually getting things accomplished.  Safety issues that have been discussed for years and years now have a national venue, and the ATSAP Committee has some serious power to actually get things accomplished.  And they don't just deal with OE's and such.  Radio/radar coverage issues (obviously a safety concern) are a good example of other items these guys cover.

Hi Thomas,

I'll address a few of your issues.

We are simultaneously training students on 2 rather large airports in the National Airspace Sysytem (Real World) and VATSIM and the makers of the GRP will not give them to us.  They based the major certification on traffic levels.  You want to talk about Traffic Levels?  I dare you to compare KBUF and KDTW in the past couple days.  No events have taken place at all, just pure people getting on the network.  So why not make KBUF a major?  It has more operations in the past week than KDTW.

Therein lies part of the problem.  See what I bolded above.  Part of the problem with a lot of the major airports that were submitted, was that the ARTCCs were basing their requests on real world complexity and traffic levels.  That has absolutely no bearing on VATSIM.  Well...the complexity does to a very little extent, but certainly not the traffic levels.  

I just looked at BUF and it averages about 5 ops a day.  Are you trying to tell me that any controller (without a major certification there) could not handle 1 aircraft every 5 hours??  How complex can it possibly be?  Even without reading the SOPs, I'm pretty certain I could jump on there and handle that one aircraft without any sort of difficulties, and I know nothing about the airport.

And that's the very problem with a lot of the submissions we received.  I say "we" as in VATUSA.  The EC and I did not reject any major airport that was approved by VATUSA.  The major submissions were supposed to be based on extenuating complexity or traffic levels, and instead, we received applications for airports with 4 or 5 movements a day and no particular complexity to speak of.  The ATMs simply wanted to protect every bit of airspace from "outsiders" that they possibly could.  It's not that I necessarily disagree with that idea, and can understand to some degree why ARTCCs would want to do that.  But airspace was being locked down in VATSIM and nobody was able to control anywhere without going through an incredibly lengthy training process.

To put things into perspective, in many places, it takes/was taking longer on VATSIM to get certified than it does in the real world!  Now I realize that's apples to oranges and I don't particularly like making that comparison myself, but you can't help but think that taking 3 or 4 years to get certified on VATSIM...a hobby network...is a little silly no?  There were brand new people on the network who couldn't even work a position by themselves because it was taking a month, two, or three just to get certified to work someplace on their own.  Not only did you have the online sessions, but literally 5 or 6 written tests (that is not an exaggeration).  And we wonder why we were losing new controllers?  

If everyone would just be reasonable in their approach to setting up the ARTCCs in the first place, the GRP would not be here today.  It is a direct result of power-hungry folk who wanted to lock down their ARTCCs and impose ridiculous rules and regulations.  Why not just get rid of those people?  I don't know either, but this is where we are, as a result of their behavior.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Also, rumor has it that they want to take away KDTW from the Major certification list.  You have no idea how livid this makes me.[/quote]

I'm not really sure where you heard that.  There are 6 people who can remove DTW from the list of majors, and unless one of the other 5 EC members told you they want to see it removed from the list, I'm not sure where you are getting your information.  You certainly didn't hear it from me.  

In fact, the only mention of major certifications (and no specific facilities were ever mentioned) was Dave Klain mentioning that major airports seeing no traffic were not going to keep their status.  And with this, I concur.  The yearly review of the GRP is coming up, and the lengthy list of major airports is certainly something I will be looking at.  If these "major" airports are getting 4 or 5 movements a day, you can bet they're going to be looked at a little closer than some of the others.  If DTW falls into that category, of 1 movement every 5 or 6 hours, then yes, it's going to be looked at.  I honestly don't know if it falls into that category or not; I didn't look.  Of course, traffic is not the only factor, but it's certainly a major factor.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I have written emails to Staff Members of the network, only to go unanswered (suprise?).[/quote]

Again, I hadn't received any emails from you.  If you want to specifically discuss the GRP, the requirements, or why it was put into place, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.  But you have to write.   I answer every email I receive normally within hours, at the latest a day or two (rare) at the most, if I'm travelling.  If you wrote and haven't gotten a reply within that timeframe, I never received it.

Gary is absolutely correct.

The requirements have not changed.  While a center is not specifically designated airspace (and if a facility does not have a major airport, any C1 who is a visiting controller, passes the competency check, etc., etc. can work that facility), a center controller must provide top-down services when able.  A center controller must at any major airport in the center.

Ahhhh, gotcha Harold.  If they're pending in the VATUSA system, they haven't come to me yet.  I don't even see those until they are approved by the DD.