Who is the final authority?

[J Jason Vodnansky]

[!--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

[Brian Pryor]

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.

[Bryan Wollenberg]

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.

[J Jason Vodnansky]

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

[Ryan Geckler]

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.

[Scott DeWoody]

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.  

[Justin A. Martin]

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

[Bryan Wollenberg]

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.

[J Jason Vodnansky]

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

[Gary Millsaps]

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,

[J Jason Vodnansky]

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

[Gary Millsaps]

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.

[Matt Fuoco]

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?

[J Jason Vodnansky]

Any answers yet?

JV

[Scott DeWoody]

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.