VATUSA Forums
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: J Jason Vodnansky on February 18, 2010, 08:27:57 AM
-
If I have a question about a policy, who do I speak to? What method of communication?
I ask because I have been told the following;
1) Emails are private (cannot be shared) and the opinions contained in them are those of the individual, and are only their interpretation.
2) Forum posts are not required reading, and are therefore not enforceable
3) Voice conversations, recorded or not, are not able to be used, as you cannot positively identify the people on the recording.
So, what is the method of communication that will allow for an interpretation of policy that will be backed up by all members of the chain of command, and we can get away from the "double talk".
I guess this begs the question. Will the answer in this forum be the correct way, the "official" way?
Jason Vodnansky
-
Jason, I can only offer you my opinion to answer your question, and here it is.
If I have a question of policy where ever I am at, I ask my immediate boss, I would pretty much want to get it in writing (or at least a reference), and then use that as an answer. If I am then questioned on my behavior based on the answer I recieved from my boss, I should comply with whatever is being told at the time, and refer the one questioning my practice to my immediate boss who gave me direction on the practice that I was engaged in, and let the two of them duke it out, so to speak.
Of course this is VATSIM, and there are VATSIMisms that have to be taken into consideration, and like I said, this is MHO only.
-
Jason, I can only offer you my opinion to answer your question, and here it is.
If I have a question of policy where ever I am at, I ask my immediate boss, I would pretty much want to get it in writing (or at least a reference), and then use that as an answer. If I am then questioned on my behavior based on the answer I recieved from my boss, I should comply with whatever is being told at the time, and refer the one questioning my practice to my immediate boss who gave me direction on the practice that I was engaged in, and let the two of them duke it out, so to speak.
Of course this is VATSIM, and there are VATSIMisms that have to be taken into consideration, and like I said, this is MHO only.
Unfortunately, that makes entirely too much sense for VATSIM! I agree that is the way it SHOULD work, but I think that the last 3, and certainly, the last 2 Division Directors for VATUSA would agree that it doesn't work that way.
Let's see what the "official" answer is.
JV
-
The answer in my opinion is you talk with your "chain of command", and get it in writing. This thread I predict will have a shelf life of a few hours before it turns into another pitchfork and torch fest against the BoG/EC.
We get it Jason, you and a few others are upset with the BOG/EC... Why do you have to throw more chaos into VATUSA with these threads and stirring of the pot. Let's get things fixed around here because of the voids left behind by the departing admin., and revisit these hotbed issues in a week or two when we have an administration in place.
-
Jason, it actually DOES work that way, at least as far as I'm concerned. If I have am providing my interpretation of something, I will usually notate it as such, and will always go "somewhere" to have that clarified. I will normally seek out the person who should be best qualified to answer the specific question. If it's a CR matter, I'll go to Norm, if it's a matter of Regional policy, I'll go to Roland. Operations are either Terry or Dave, though I try to keep Dave's mailbox as free of clutter as possible. In global matters, sometimes it's the EC or BOG (or both) that I seek out to provide an answer.
I realize that sometimes, there are all different interpretations from many different people. Hopefully you'll get an official answer to this one that suits your needs. I can only explain how I operate and conduct business.
-
The answer in my opinion is you talk with your "chain of command", and get it in writing. This thread I predict will have a shelf life of a few hours before it turns into another pitchfork and torch fest against the BoG/EC.
That's what this question is... as are most posts by Jason recently.
-
Jason, it actually DOES work that way, at least as far as I'm concerned. If I have am providing my interpretation of something, I will usually notate it as such, and will always go "somewhere" to have that clarified. I will normally seek out the person who should be best qualified to answer the specific question. If it's a CR matter, I'll go to Norm, if it's a matter of Regional policy, I'll go to Roland. Operations are either Terry or Dave, though I try to keep Dave's mailbox as free of clutter as possible. In global matters, sometimes it's the EC or BOG (or both) that I seek out to provide an answer.
I realize that sometimes, there are all different interpretations from many different people. Hopefully you'll get an official answer to this one that suits your needs. I can only explain how I operate and conduct business.
Bryan, thanks for the response, I have several follow up questions.
Would you like them in this thread, or as separate topics?
JV
-
Bryan, thanks for the response, I have several follow up questions.
Would you like them in this thread, or as separate topics?
JV
Might as well keep it in this thread. Then if the name calling begins and it has to be locked again, at least it's all in one place.
-
Might as well keep it in this thread. Then if the name calling begins and it has to be locked again, at least it's all in one place.
Contrary to popular opinion, I am not out to hang anyone. I want answers that I can depend on, and that don't change like the wind. Let's start with this one.
Understanding that forum posts are NOT required reading, why should I believe the answers contained in this thread will be "official", and be the "law of the land"? Please understand, I am not trying to be difficult here. I simply want to know that the answers given here can be referred to and yes, be pointed to as fact when/if the time comes.
I would like for you, or the appropriate BoG member, be it the President, or VP of Operations, or VP of Regions to make a determination that the answers here are factual, and can be counted on NOT to change.
Jason Vodnansky
-
And I thought this was going to be a boring weekend
-
The answer in my opinion is you talk with your "chain of command", and get it in writing. This thread I predict will have a shelf life of a few hours before it turns into another pitchfork and torch fest against the BoG/EC.
We get it Jason, you and a few others are upset with the BOG/EC... Why do you have to throw more chaos into VATUSA with these threads and stirring of the pot. Let's get things fixed around here because of the voids left behind by the departing admin., and revisit these hotbed issues in a week or two when we have an administration in place.
I do not agree with everything that Jason posts on these forums, however, he does ask/present some valid questions. IF everyone sat back and acted as puppets, and just said "yes sir, whatever you say sir", then the questions he brings up would never be answered. And remember, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if you don't agree with his, or anyone elses for that matter, be a man, and agree to disagree.
-
Understanding that forum posts are NOT required reading, why should I believe the answers contained in this thread will be "official", and be the "law of the land"? Please understand, I am not trying to be difficult here. I simply want to know that the answers given here can be referred to and yes, be pointed to as fact when/if the time comes.
I would like for you, or the appropriate BoG member, be it the President, or VP of Operations, or VP of Regions to make a determination that the answers here are factual, and can be counted on NOT to change.
*** Caution: OPINION ALERT!!!!! ***
Jason, I can't fault you at all for asking such a question, and it fact, it is one I have had an issue with a number of times. For example, the only documentation of range limitations (to my knowledge) is in the main forum. I have come across, numerous times, people who legitimately had no idea there were any guidelines for range, since they never read that particular forum post. It's nothing I lose sleep over, but it certainly is a concern. In fact, I recommended a couple times that something about the forum or even a link to the forum be included in the sign-up material. Whether that change has happened or not, I'm not sure. I haven't gone through the sign-up material in some time.
You're right that members aren't required to read the forums. However, for staff members, those "requirements" are a little different. Take the VATUSA forums, for example. While there is no written policy (to my knowledge) that staff members read the forum, there is absolutely a reasonable expectation that it will happen, and in fact, every VATUSA1 in recent memory has gotten slightly irritated when staff members do not check the forums. In fact, I think you were on the receiving end at some point.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect that staff members should visit the forums, and read the forums, and that important information be passed to staff via the forums.
But again, that's just my opinion.
-
I don't think that it is unreasonable that particularly staff members, but other members also read the forums on a regular basis. But something to take into consideration is that it is nearly impossible to read every thread ever posted, particularly in the VATSIM forums, but in this forum also. It is kind of like the courts telling you that you have to come and look through this pile of subponeas, warrants, and papers every week to make sure that you are not wanted, or being summoned. Important information and guidelines need to be published in an easily visible place, and very important changes need to occur via email where an individials personal receipt is more likely, kind of like when you are served by a law enforcement officer or certified mail.
So I guess it is not unreasonable to have people check and participate in the forums, if they have something to add to the conversation (I think Jason and the VATUSA staff can attest to what happens when you require people to post in the forums and they don't have anything to add to the conversation), but policy and general guidelines belong elsewhere.
At ZID we have a thing called Controller Worthiness Directives, which is similar to the idea of airworthiness directives for aircraft. When something new comes out that everyone should review it is added as a CWD (the line up and wait change will be a good example of how we use them). We use the forums to store these CWDs because it is just more practical for us than designing some sort of backend system which accomplishes it. We expect our controllers to read them so on the front of our home page is an area which shows what the current controller worthiness directive is and provides a link. If it is extremely important we would send a mass email out to the membership. It is something that can easily be checked by controllers to see if there is something new they need to look at.
-
...
I would like for you, or the appropriate BoG member, be it the President, or VP of Operations, or VP of Regions to make a determination that the answers here are factual, and can be counted on NOT to change.
I think this is your problem right here. I understand that managing a fluid situation with many differing directions from multiple authorities is annoying at best, but that's the situation. Ask for an answer in the forum, and likely you will get an answer from someone that differs from something else you saw in a policy, and that is also not related to what you read in the meeting notes from the BoG. This is a situation that you need to be able to handle. Each of the inconsistencies is a problem, yes - and although we might collectively strive to eliminate some of the ones we have at this moment, they will never go away entirely, and we will never have this utopia that you speak of, where all the rules are perfectly written down, and where there is never any confusion or disagreements on any of the points, so I don't see why you keep trying to achieve that.
If you follow the direction of your immediate supervisor, you are doing everything you can to comply with the current rule set. If you are trying to fix a system wide problem single handedly, you are wasting your time, as you can not represent all of the stakeholders at once. These sort of issues will be worked out through the people who are reponsible for each of the roles involved... e.g., if the RD said something that differs with what was said my the DD, then those two people need to deal with it, end of story. Your involvement in the issue is over, as you are not the DD or the RD. You can rest peacefully if you simply do what the DD told you to do, as that is the person to whom you are responsible for your actions. If you want to participate meaningfully in these conversations, then you need to be one of the stakeholders. Otherwise, you are just a pundit. Of course, you have every right to be a pundit if you like, but then I fail to understand what goal it is you are trying to achieve with these inquiries; the answers seem plain to me.
-
*** Caution: OPINION ALERT!!!!! ***
Jason, I can't fault you at all for asking such a question, and it fact, it is one I have had an issue with a number of times. For example, the only documentation of range limitations (to my knowledge) is in the main forum. I have come across, numerous times, people who legitimately had no idea there were any guidelines for range, since they never read that particular forum post. It's nothing I lose sleep over, but it certainly is a concern. In fact, I recommended a couple times that something about the forum or even a link to the forum be included in the sign-up material. Whether that change has happened or not, I'm not sure. I haven't gone through the sign-up material in some time.
You're right that members aren't required to read the forums. However, for staff members, those "requirements" are a little different. Take the VATUSA forums, for example. While there is no written policy (to my knowledge) that staff members read the forum, there is absolutely a reasonable expectation that it will happen, and in fact, every VATUSA1 in recent memory has gotten slightly irritated when staff members do not check the forums. In fact, I think you were on the receiving end at some point.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect that staff members should visit the forums, and read the forums, and that important information be passed to staff via the forums.
But again, that's just my opinion.
Bryan,
Thanks for offering up an opinion. Though, I must admit, I don't believe I was asking if forums should be required reading. What I am looking for is someone, who has the power to do so, to state that categorically, this thread contains the proper way to ask questions, and that the "subordinate's" efforts in clarification and/or creation, once performed, relieves said subordinate of "responsibility" once a superior determines that an action taken by said subordinate is a valid action, and complies with all policies.
Here is a "for instance"...
As ATM, vZAU created an activity policy that was sent through the chain of command. We asked VATUSA8 (Then our ATD) to "ENSURE it is approved in accordance with VATNA 0505". Within hours, yes HOURS, we had policy approval. Credit to our ATD for approving said policy so quickly. I believed that our ATD knew what he had the authority to approve, and what he didn't. Who were we to question what he could/could not do? Later, it became quite the source of anger by a few members of the facility. We received more than a few questions regarding its legality, and has been used to remove a BoG member from the facility. While to some, this may seem extreme, but you have to understand as well, that all of the ATMs have been hearing that all members must be treated equally, and that there could not be exceptions to that rule. I understood that there were more important things going on, and that if anyone deserved an exception, he did! I was prepared to overlook the inactivity, and was doing so, until I was asked by another member that had been removed for inactivity why he was still on the roster. Anything I said in response would have been a lie or an admission that this member WAS being treated differently. This has happened on multiple occasions.
Since this was approved by the ATD, is it the ATMs job to ensure his ATD is doing their job correctly? To be fair, this policy as I understand it, remains in place, but am unsure as to whether it would stand up to a conflict resolution hearing, given the VATNA 0505 policy. No, I am NOT busting on 0505 right now, using it as an example only.
How about the thread regarding the RNAV departure prohibition in ZAB in the forum below?
Now, I am not being sarcastic here, but again, why should I believe you Bryan, or anyone else for that matter when down the road, when it counts, one of the three points above will be thrown into the mix, and any rule that is in question has no backing.
Look forward to the response.
JV
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Bryan,
Thanks for offering up an opinion. Though, I must admit, I don't believe I was asking if forums should be required reading. What I am looking for is someone, who has the power to do so, to state that categorically, this thread contains the proper way to ask questions, and that the "subordinate's" efforts in clarification and/or creation, once performed, relieves said subordinate of "responsibility" once a superior determines that an action taken by said subordinate is a valid action, and complies with all policies.
Here is a "for instance"...
As ATM, vZAU created an activity policy that was sent through the chain of command. We asked VATUSA8 (Then our ATD) to "ENSURE it is approved in accordance with VATNA 0505". Within hours, yes HOURS, we had policy approval. Credit to our ATD for approving said policy so quickly. I believed that our ATD knew what he had the authority to approve, and what he didn't. Who were we to question what he could/could not do? Later, it became quite the source of anger by a few members of the facility. We received more than a few questions regarding its legality, and has been used to remove a BoG member from the facility. While to some, this may seem extreme, but you have to understand as well, that all of the ATMs have been hearing that all members must be treated equally, and that there could not be exceptions to that rule. I understood that there were more important things going on, and that if anyone deserved an exception, he did! I was prepared to overlook the inactivity, and was doing so, until I was asked by another member that had been removed for inactivity why he was still on the roster. Anything I said in response would have been a lie or an admission that this member WAS being treated differently. This has happened on multiple occasions.
Since this was approved by the ATD, is it the ATMs job to ensure his ATD is doing their job correctly? To be fair, this policy as I understand it, remains in place, but am unsure as to whether it would stand up to a conflict resolution hearing, given the VATNA 0505 policy. No, I am NOT busting on 0505 right now, using it as an example only.
How about the thread regarding the RNAV departure prohibition in ZAB in the forum below?
Now, I am not being sarcastic here, but again, why should I believe you Bryan, or anyone else for that matter when down the road, when it counts, one of the three points above will be thrown into the mix, and any rule that is in question has no backing.
Look forward to the response.
JV[/quote]
Lest I be accused of "creatively editing my post"...
Change the following sentence FROM:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]How about the thread regarding the RNAV departure prohibition in ZAB in the forum below?[/quote]
TO:
How about the thread regarding the RNAV departure prohibition in ZAB in the forum below? I believe the ZAB ATM SHOULD have the right to keep it as real as HE wants. My opinion is that requiring pilots to get, and comply with real world NOTAMs is a bit "over the top".
JV
-
Lest I be accused of "creatively editing my post"...
Change the following sentence FROM:
TO:
How about the thread regarding the RNAV departure prohibition in ZAB in the forum below? I believe the ZAB ATM SHOULD have the right to keep it as real as HE wants. My opinion is that requiring pilots to get, and comply with real world NOTAMs is a bit "over the top".
JV
Re: ZAB no ones requiring the pilot to get real world NOTAM's. We do base our decision using such but we politely inform the pilot that the route of flight is invalid and provide an alternate. We don't tell the pilot to go get the real world NOTAM's. We also don't usually go with any other NOTAMs. However this specific one has been ongoing for several years now and is an issue of traffic management. Especially on VATSIM where the experience of the pilot can vary, mixing inbound and outbound aircraft on the same arrival can become a problem.
This comes up maybe once every few months and is a very minor issue. 99.9% of the time when it does come up the pilot gets a different flight plan with no issue.
-
Jason,
I'm REALLY confused as to what you are asking in your post, and I mean no disrespect by that. I really want to answer your questions, as they seem legitimate. I'm just not sure what exactly you're asking.
As far as the particular policy you mentioned, all I know is that it didn't come to me, at least as far as my email records show. It could have and the email is lost, or my search didn't pick up on it, but I don't remember it.
Staff members have to have autonomy. An ATD has to be able to make a decision on his own without running everything by me first. Just as I need to be trusted to make a decision without going through Roland, Dave, the Founders, etc. Can that person be wrong? Yeah. And somebody from above will say, "Hey, this probably isn't right" or "This should be changed" or whatever. And we change it. Now before you say that mentality goes against 05/05, you're right. And that's exactly why I'm reviewing it and other policies. It might have worked well for Craig and others, but as I said, I'm really not interested in micromanaging to that extent. Make no mistake, all the policies do get reviewed. I visit every single website quite regularly, and review policies, and email students, and all sorts of stuff you guys probably don't know about. That gives me a very good guage of how things are going at the lower levels.
As far as the ZAB policy, I honestly had no idea it was taking place. It doesn't bother me though. We try to be realistic. Pilots want realism. As Ian or Mike or somebody mentioned, similar happened at LAX and LAS with runway closures. The pilots loved it! Now when the runway was closed, if a pilot requested it, would they be denied? Nah. If a certain runway configuration is in place at say PHX, and a pilot wants to land the opposite direction. Do you deny it, and tell the guy that if he doesn't want to land the right direction, he can go someplace else? I hope not. When I'm controlling, I accommodate everyone. If the guy wants to land the wrong way or takeoff the wrong way, there might be a delay due to all the other traffic, but I'll do what I can to get the guy out. It's no big deal. Same goes for outdated charts. If somebody files the CIVET4 into LA (which is quite outdated), either I'll accommodate the request or give vectors. Everyone is happy. Somebody want to land a 747 at SNA? We had competitions before on who could land it there in the shortest distance. It's not realistic in the slightest and we could be jerks and deny 747's from landing there, but why?
So when it comes to runway closures, and charts, etc., just use some common sense. Be accommodating and have fun.
-
Jason,
I'm REALLY confused as to what you are asking in your post, and I mean no disrespect by that. I really want to answer your questions, as they seem legitimate. I'm just not sure what exactly you're asking.
As far as the particular policy you mentioned, all I know is that it didn't come to me, at least as far as my email records show. It could have and the email is lost, or my search didn't pick up on it, but I don't remember it.
Staff members have to have autonomy. An ATD has to be able to make a decision on his own without running everything by me first. Just as I need to be trusted to make a decision without going through Roland, Dave, the Founders, etc. Can that person be wrong? Yeah. And somebody from above will say, "Hey, this probably isn't right" or "This should be changed" or whatever. And we change it. Now before you say that mentality goes against 05/05, you're right. And that's exactly why I'm reviewing it and other policies. It might have worked well for Craig and others, but as I said, I'm really not interested in micromanaging to that extent. Make no mistake, all the policies do get reviewed. I visit every single website quite regularly, and review policies, and email students, and all sorts of stuff you guys probably don't know about. That gives me a very good guage of how things are going at the lower levels.
As far as the ZAB policy, I honestly had no idea it was taking place. It doesn't bother me though. We try to be realistic. Pilots want realism. As Ian or Mike or somebody mentioned, similar happened at LAX and LAS with runway closures. The pilots loved it! Now when the runway was closed, if a pilot requested it, would they be denied? Nah. If a certain runway configuration is in place at say PHX, and a pilot wants to land the opposite direction. Do you deny it, and tell the guy that if he doesn't want to land the right direction, he can go someplace else? I hope not. When I'm controlling, I accommodate everyone. If the guy wants to land the wrong way or takeoff the wrong way, there might be a delay due to all the other traffic, but I'll do what I can to get the guy out. It's no big deal. Same goes for outdated charts. If somebody files the CIVET4 into LA (which is quite outdated), either I'll accommodate the request or give vectors. Everyone is happy. Somebody want to land a 747 at SNA? We had competitions before on who could land it there in the shortest distance. It's not realistic in the slightest and we could be jerks and deny 747's from landing there, but why?
So when it comes to runway closures, and charts, etc., just use some common sense. Be accommodating and have fun.
Bryan, let me try this again.
Why should I believe you, or anyone that answers this thread? Down the road, when someone needs the support of the chain of command, often one of the original three things in the first post are referenced, thus shutting down whatever this person was doing, regardless of how far up the chain it was approved.
So again, why should I believe anything you say here, if down the road, someone can simply use one of he excuses listed above?
That is the first question that needs to be answered. If we can't depend on the answers you give, then why waste the time discussing them?
Hope that helps, sorry for being blunt, and be assured, there is no sarcastic tone.
JV
-
Bryan, let me try this again.
Why should I believe you, or anyone that answers this thread? Down the road, when someone needs the support of the chain of command, often one of the original three things in the first post are referenced, thus shutting down whatever this person was doing, regardless of how far up the chain it was approved.
So again, why should I believe anything you say here, if down the road, someone can simply use one of he excuses listed above?
That is the first question that needs to be answered. If we can't depend on the answers you give, then why waste the time discussing them?
Hope that helps, sorry for being blunt, and be assured, there is no sarcastic tone.
JV
So let me get this straight: he tries to help you by giving you an answer, and you call it BS? WOW.
All you seem to be doing is instigating fights with every single staff member that tries to give you some sort of an answer. EVERY single post of yours is a bash against any sort of leadership that comes onto these forums and tries to help you out with some sort of clarification on an issue. It's absolutely pathetic.
All you want to do is fight about any single issue that you feel is not right when it means ABSOLUTELY nothing to you. Let's revisit that ZAB thread... how did that effect you? It didn't, so why get involved?
All you should worry about as FE at ZAU is what your ATM tells you to do. Or better yet, you become VATUSA1 and see how you do. I'd bet money that you'd resign just as fast and get less done then the rest of them with the attitude that you have.
Be assured, there is no sarcastic tone.
-
As others have said:
**OPINION ALERT**
It appears to me that alot of people are taking what Jason is asking out of context. I'm reading this as he is asking if a question of policy is asked on this or anyother forum, and is answered by someone who is put in a position of authority over him, would said answer be, for lack of other terms, admissible, let's say in a DCRM inquiry? I don't read this as him attacking any specific policy, but referencing policies that have come under question here or in other forums. Look at his first post....the one that started this thread.
And before anyone starts throwing stones at me, Jason and I AREN'T "BUDS", I don't know Jason from Adam, I just think he is presenting some interesting questions, and I am hanging around to see the answers. And sometimes posting my opinions.
-
As others have said:
**OPINION ALERT**
It appears to me that alot of people are taking what Jason is asking out of context. I'm reading this as he is asking if a question of policy is asked on this or anyother forum, and is answered by someone who is put in a position of authority over him, would said answer be, for lack of other terms, admissible, let's say in a DCRM inquiry? I don't read this as him attacking any specific policy, but referencing policies that have come under question here or in other forums. Look at his first post....the one that started this thread.
And before anyone starts throwing stones at me, Jason and I AREN'T "BUDS", I don't know Jason from Adam, I just think he is presenting some interesting questions, and I am hanging around to see the answers. And sometimes posting my opinions.
The problem is that he doesn't actually want an answer. He's doing everything in his mind to prevent a reasonable answer. All he's doing is bringing up something, and when it's answered just saying he doesn't believe it. He's trying to get the public to see flaws in leadership, and all he's doing is making him look crazy. I agree that the questions brought up originally were not bad questions, but it's his attitude. Bryan is obviously trying to give a straight, respectful answer, but G-d forbid any answer be good enough for The Great Vodnansky.
JM
-
Jason,
I'm still not quite understanding what you should/shouldn't believe me on. But like I said either earlier in this thread or in another, every staff member that I've ever seen tries to give good faith answers to anything that comes up. I can assure you that I'm not going to intentionally lead you astray, only to have you get screwed later when you find out my answer was incorrect. If I give you incorrect information and somebody overrides it later on, we'll fix it and move on.
I'm not getting the whole CR thing you keep bringing up. I have no idea what policy you're referring to, or who is thinking about bringing anything CR against you. But if a policy was approved by the guy above you (the ATD in this case?), and it turns out that he was wrong in approving the policy, how could you possibly be held responsible for that? I'll personally fight that one for you.
-
Jason,
I'm still not quite understanding what you should/shouldn't believe me on. But like I said either earlier in this thread or in another, every staff member that I've ever seen tries to give good faith answers to anything that comes up. I can assure you that I'm not going to intentionally lead you astray, only to have you get screwed later when you find out my answer was incorrect. If I give you incorrect information and somebody overrides it later on, we'll fix it and move on.
I'm not getting the whole CR thing you keep bringing up. I have no idea what policy you're referring to, or who is thinking about bringing anything CR against you. But if a policy was approved by the guy above you (the ATD in this case?), and it turns out that he was wrong in approving the policy, how could you possibly be held responsible for that? I'll personally fight that one for you.
Ok, let me ask again, and I will try and be blunt.
Please reference my original post, which I am amazed was not immediately refuted, further leading me to believe that, in fact, those statements are true, and appears to be the opinion of the leadership of this network, as I ask the following question.
If I have a question about something, anything, what is the procedure for getting an answer to said question?
If I cannot depend on email, forum posts, or voice conversations, please tell me how I get an answer that can be trusted?
JV
-
Forgive the intrusion here...
Jason, you're asking for something that does not exist. The basic foundations upon which VATSIM sits has the defacto (as in irrefutable) regulatory information in the CoR, CoC and Users Agreement. Any interpretations of those have to be taken as a matter of trust without regard for the medium through which they are delivered. We all rely on valued judgments and considerations made by one another - that's just part of the human conversation. It's not a perfect solution - like I said, such a solution does not exist.
Respectfully,
-
Gary,
Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately I believe I am coming to the same conclusion. It seems that there is no reliable or authoratative way to get an answer to a question. Be it simple or complex.
As a previous Division Director, if you had a question, and you were seeking an answer, I would assume your first point of contact would have been the Regional Director. If the Regional Director gives you the answer, what method is he using? How do you ask that question of your Regional Director? If he doesn't know the answer, who does he ask, and how?
What I am after is who is the final authority? Who is the person to ask?
Surely such a method exists, especially since email, voice, and forums are off the table. Tell me what I am missing.
It seems rather odd that it would simply be left up to one person's opinion. Am I to understand that potentially one person's opinion can undo the work of, potentially, an entire division, or region? If that person is one's superior, how are the instructions conveyed to the subordinate? Somehow information is moving, and it must be moving via a method other than email, forums, or voice. This procedure must exist then, or nobody "has anyone's back".
Otherwise, has the system been set up in such a way so as to prevent any accountability? While I believe that this was/is an oversight, it is hard to understand why there is no clear method to gain this infomation.
JV
-
Jason,
I can only speak for myself and my experiences as DD. It was this simple, I was hired to do the job. I was trusted with the responsibility to use my own judgement and render the interpretations and decisions I was called upon to make. This was the case in 99-44/100 % of the instances of record.
When I did have a question, it was not a cut and dried affair. I tendered whatever it was to Craig, the RD, with my recommendations and thoughts. If he was good with that (which he was 100% of the time, no kidding), then that was that. If he felt he needed to send it upstream, he advised me so and got back to me with a response. I can only think of one instance where that occurred and that had to do with the LCTP program. Due to circumstances of that time, I was actually still VATUSA8 transitioning to USA1 during many of those discussions.
As for the accountability, I held myself accountable and had no cause to pass the buck...that's not why I was hired in the first place.
Just for clarity and thoroughness, most of the exchanges occurred via email..a few were by voice over TS.
-
As a staff member, I try to keep "current" by seeing what is going on the in the world of VATUSA by reading the forums. I think I am going to remove that from my VATSIM routine.
I work to run Memphis how I think it should be run. I follow the rules as presented and work to make Memphis a kick ass ARTCC. If I have a question I ask someone. NO one has ever said "Matt, you can't do that cause you are in violation of blah blah blah"
These tired topics get old...really old. Don't we all have better things to do than have the same discussion over and over again?
-
Any answers yet?
JV
-
Gary, that is exactly the answer I would have thought you would have, and exactly the answer I would have if the circumstances were the same. Every time I have been put in a position of authority (r/w and vatsim) I make decisions based on either my personal knowledge, or interpretations of directives from higher authority. If my decision is wrong, I own up to it, because it was mine. I know some have said this is not the military, and blah blah blah the chain of command, but I'm here to tell you, if the chain of command is used properly, both up and down the chain, then problems/situations get resolved (most of the time). Of course, as with anything, you are not going to please 100% of the population, but if the decision is made with the best interest of the majority, then it was the right decision, in my book.
To Matt, these forums, in my opinion keep people on their toes, sure you get some repetitive threads, asking the same things, but if you look at just about any thread, it's already been brought up at some point in time. If you are referring to threads that create some thought provoking questions/ideas and you don't like or agree with them, my recommendation is just not to read them.
-
If you are referring to threads that create some thought provoking questions/ideas and you don't like or agree with them, my recommendation is just not to read them.
Thought provoking is good! It is just when thought provoking turns into a broken record. And, yes...not reading them is an option that I often take advantage of.
-
Thought provoking is good! It is just when thought provoking turns into a broken record.
Amen and we have the same songs to dance to often of late, from one artist/band
-
So, here's a thought provoking question:
If you are dancing to a song, and you're not getting it right, do you just forget it and move on to a different song, or keep dancing to that same song until you get it right?
-
If a person has a rule or policy that affects their workplace then any question about it should go their immediate workplace supervisor. Rules and policies are in written form to provide an authorative reference. Any “correspondence†about the interpretation or applicability of rules or policies should be in writing between the parties; no question.
The ultimate authority on the interpretation of any rule or policy is the body that administers the rule or policy; which is clearly identified within the document or at its source.
Now to the question of how to “correspond†in such matters.
Written correspondence is preferred (read essential) since it is easy and also provides an essential audit trail. This is very important in ensuring proper follow-up takes place.
Email is private; being the modern electronic counterpart of traditional private mail. Any correspondence, including email, may be subject to privacy considerations. Email has become a significant part of modern “correspondence†in and out of most organizations. Banks, airlines and even VATSIM send me business email.
Within an organization email is the most common way for staff to communicate; replacing the old written MEMO. The parties are known to each other and identified by their name and position title.
In writing email, if you wish a matter to be “Private & Confidential†than you say so within the email; otherwise the recipient may share the content in a way that is consistent with their role and responsibilities within the organisation AND IN NO OTHER WAY.
It is wise to seek the other party’s permission before sharing private email content with others. In any event, the content of private email should not be shared within forums.
I believe all of the above is generally understood.
Forums are a different matter since be definition a forum is; “A public meeting or assembly for open discussion.â€
Fundamentally an electronic forum is the text counterpart of the traditional voice forum with comment to and fro. Electronic forums offer more variety than the traditional voice forums in respect of participation and purpose.
An electronic forum within an organization may be used for a variety of purposes. Apart from the basic forum activity; an electronic text forum can also be used as one of the broadcast modes available to an organization. Typically an organization will use multiple communication methods when making a broadcast since one single method may not reach everyone. Email only goes to those on the email list at the time and not those who come along later. An electronic forum provides an archive but then not everyone reads forums. Communication is very important but a perfect system is not always possible; particularly in a dynamic environment.
When an electronic forum is used to post an official notice it can be a “one-way†communication; just the same as pinning up a written notice at an outdoor forum. If you write on the bottom of the outdoor forum notice it does not mean that your response will be seen by the author of the notice; but it might if they pass that way again.
VATSIM forums are continuously monitored by senior staff and a genuine post on an important matter will generally get a response. However, as mentioned earlier, a forum response may resolve a matter for an individual but it doesn’t necessarily get delivered to all who need to know.
A forum discussion only has a real value when it results in a change outside of the forums; the forum discussion itself is not the real objective. In the case of rules and policies, the outcome of forum discussion may be that the source document is changed; either to add or remove items or change word in order to clarify the meaning. Private correspondence or forum discussion all over the place doesn’t help in achieving uniformity. When the source document is changed it stands as an authorative statement for everyone.
If you want to bring about change or receive clarification on any matter then it is much better to write directly to the person concerned rather than ask questions in an open public forum; where you are likely to get lots of different opinions. The appropriate person should respond to genuine correspondence as a responsibility of their role. As mentioned earlier; the audit trail associated with written correspondence allows you to follow up if a timely reply has not been received.
I have shared my thoughts about the “authority†of documents and “effective communicationâ€. In doing so I don’t think I have told you anything new or said anything that has been absolutely earth-shattering or ground-breaking.
Roland Collins
VATSIM co-Founder
VATSIM VP Regions
-
Roland,
Can I depend on this forum post NOT to be viewed later by someone simply saying "Its a forum post, and cannot be considered as anything other than his opinion."
For the record, I understand, and completely agree with your statements here. But having been told all of the following before, forgive me if I am a bit skeptical. Rhetorically, I find myself asking...
Why now?
What took so long?
I am not looking for answers to those two questions, just the questions running through my head.
Thanks for the reply,
Jason Vodnansky
-
Roland,
Can I depend on this forum post NOT to be viewed later by someone simply saying "Its a forum post, and cannot be considered as anything other than his opinion."
For the record, I understand, and completely agree with your statements here. But having been told all of the following before, forgive me if I am a bit skeptical. Rhetorically, I find myself asking...
Why now?
What took so long?
I am not looking for answers to those two questions, just the questions running through my head.
Thanks for the reply,
Jason Vodnansky
Jason, I presume your last two questions are about my response above. I don't post often as a Founder because I like to see others working through issues and concerns for themselves; and usually they do that quite successfully. Sitting back reading forums allows me to view the capabilities of others and also provides insight to their motives. There is an old saying; "When Peter tells you something about Paul you learn more about Peter than about Paul."
As Founders we oversee all things. I will jump in if I see something that is incorrect, going in the wrong direction or going around in circles; since none of these are good for VATSIM.
Now to your first question; about being able to rely on my forum post. If I answer YES Jason you could just as easily come back and ask if you can rely on my YES.
You have said that you already understood what I was saying and I was aware in writing that I wasn't really telling anyone anything new. I think everyone understands it so that matter is over and should end. PERIOD
Having signed with my full title as a Founder and a Governor you can take it as being the behavior that VATSIM expects.
Any member writing email or any member writing forums posts should stop and think about exactly what it is they doing; and what they expect to achieve for VATSIM as an outcome of their contribution. The objective should always be to move VATSIM forward in its mission.
In relation to the interpretation of a rule or policy; any email or forum post should be:
- Written by a person with direct or delegated authority in the matter
- Verified as being true by checking with the author or authorative source.
- Signed with the person's name and title
- Dated
- Made a sticky in the case of a forum post.
Simple matters of clarifiction may ensue, that's normal, but any lengthy discussion generally means that the article need to be rewritten so that the matter is clear for all. A lengthy discussion is not the end; only a means to reach the end.
Remember; "When the source document is changed it stands as an authorative statement for everyone."
Roland Collins
VATSIM co-Founder
VATSIM VP Regions