Hi Dev,

Let me add my welcome to Mark's - Welcome to VATUSA!

According to VATUSA records you applied to the Division and took the Basic Controller Exam on Oct 12, 2009. Unfortunately, you did not pass the exam and thus are unable to select any ARTCC at this time. I will re-schedule you for the VATUSA Basic Controller Exam within the next few days. Please check back on the VATUSA website at: www.vatusa.net and look for the red notification in the right-hand panel that you have been scheduled for the exam.

As Mark said, take your time on that exam...it is open-book but a failure to get an 80% grade will mean you will have to wait seven (7) days to re-take the exam. Once you have passed that exam, the system will automatically allow you to select which ARTCC you'd like to join. I believe you said above you were looking to join New York ARTCC (vZNY).

Good luck on the exam and again welcome to VATUSA!

Dan,

A review of local policies apparently had NEVER been conducted prior to my taking office, and some are so out-of-line with reality that I felt a review was needed.

I take issue with this statement. A constant state of policy review was in effect during my tenure. The difference being it was accomplished dynamically as the facility needs, staff personnel and upper level requirements were changing.

A personal view of this if I may...I've found that what one person views as extreme or "out-of-line" may very well be interpreted by anyone else in an entirely different light. One of the benefits of holding a management level position is the authority and responsibility to ensure policy and regulation within one's area of authority are the best response to the needs of the organization overall or the unit(s) for which it is intended. I caution that personal views of any policy (or lack thereof) be thoroughly vetted against this standard.

Regards,

Hi Harold,

Indeed the range rings on the older radar systems (ARTS series) are centered on the actual radar antenna site - known as the "Main Bang." The primary radar beam being transmitted and received via the parabolic dish and the secondary 'firing' from the antenna block that rides atop the main dish. As for the newer systems, I believe the rings can be displayed wherever the controller specifies but am unsure on this. I think the same is true for mosaic radars as well.

As for the antenna locations..that info was available in the DAFIF/USFIF data information. It is also shown on some radar video display maps but would be a visual representation only.

Also, no offense taken at all. Discussions and debates are meant to be just that. Not meant to be filled with disclaimers and apologies.

Force of habit...my time as DD taught me well...

Wade, if it were so simple as that...let me illustrate and please note this is NOT a slam nor is it a bash of Nick's ideas...just a starting point for context...

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]1. Update the outdated and nearly impossible to install [correctly] pilot software. You have to be a computer wiz to get it just right.[/quote]
As explored in several other forums ad threads, this is pretty much out of our (VATSIM's) hands.The pilot clients are the product of individual freelance efforts. They are neither spoonsored by nor controlled by VATSIM. The methodology by which any client connects to VATSIM is a controlled and negotiated product.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]2. Update PRC/voluntary pilot ratings (on the way). The PRC now is extremely long and very daunting for the new guy.[/quote]
As noted, in the works and will be available at some point in the future.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]3. This falls in line with number 2, but make the initial call-up/sign in procedure less intimidating.[/quote]
What could be simpler than the existing CID & Password system? In the case of both pilot and controller signup, one only has to go to the application screen and fill in a few blanks, wait for an email and voila!...logon.
 
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]4. Everyone learns differently, so if just reading the PRC and going through the ratings to-be doesn't just work; maybe it's possible to have a team of experienced members who are willing to sit down 1 on 1 with someone to help them out.[/quote]
We have trouble mustering and maintaining manning levels to provide nowhere close to 1-on-1 training for the 5-15% of population that makes up the controller force on VATSIM...where would the individuals needed to provide such support to the other 90% or so (pilots) come from?

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]5. Go to IVAO and see what they do differently [better] than VATSIM and attempt to implement or "try out" those ideas.[/quote]
Good sentiment but I believe if one looked at their system close enough one would find many of the same problems VATSIM experiences. This is aside from the fact that the fundamental approaches to the hobby are different between the two networks.

Okay, now let's look at the what should be focused on. First off (and this isn't new information), this is a hobby. Any amount of time anyone puts into it is their own choice and what they get out of it should reflect what they put into it - no more nor less. Before the days of "open" membership in VATSIM, one had to be rather dedicated to the pursuit of VATSIM-flying to obtain and keep an ISP-issued email in order to join and access the network. This naturally led to a "filtration" if-you-will of the populace to those whose passion and interest in the hobby were high thus, the dedicated ones reflected the bulk of the population of VATSIM. Of course this population was smaller than it is today but the percentile of activity was much higher among that group. Today, things are much different. The VATSIM population has grown dramatically. As it has grown so to has the dynamics of the population changed. There no longer needs to be a measured level of dedication or "deep" desire to pursue this hobby to join in the fun. I'm not judging the good or bad of this, just making the observation.

This variant level of dedication exhibits itself in many ways as we are all aware. For example, it was noted above that the PRC is a long and daunting document. Is it really? or are new pilots just in too much of a hurry to read through even the most basic parts of it to figure out what they should do? Another apt example on the controller side...I worked Boston Approach recently, good night moderate traffic; a relatively new non-MAJOR S-3 working TWR...with 7 aircraft in the queue, awaiting anything from clearance to taxi to takeoff instructions. He left that position to open a Class C APP; within minutes he closed that position and moved to another Class C APP airport. It wasn't 20 minutes later he abandoned that position as well. Meanwhile the traffic level at Boston had moderately risen. So you see, a different dynamic is at work here when traffic is there and just because it is not the highest level a controller might hold, they will leave the position and traffic to "chase" nothing elsewhere. I do not mean to paint with a broad brush, just identifying characteristics we now see more and more prevalently across the network. Everyone wants it sooner, simpler and with no restrictions.

Also related in several posts is this concept of "as real as it gets." Great slogan...even makes a great chant...I personally would love to see this stricken from any VATSIM-related documents at all. As Jeremy posted, there is nothing remotely "real" about VATSIM or any online flying/controlling environment at all. "As real as it gets" is not scoping much less talking to any actual flying aircraft for the better part of the first 1-2 years (based on the facility and position) of a controller's career and that's after any schooling. Real is having to memorize and be able to fill out a blank drawing of your airspace area with all boundaries, navaids, fixes, MVA values, etc... correctly identified from memory - the list is long, again depending on position. Spitting back 7110.65 references and quoting spirited real-world SOPs and LoAs is just so much faldora. Demanding pilots follow this or that because the real world does it; or unduly limiting controller promotions is all bunkus. I'm waiting on the first controller to refuse me in my B707/A a VOR-to-VOR route clearance one day.  

With all these paradigms in place and noting these historical differences, we would be remiss in not exploring that ever-repeated concept of "enjoyment of the hobby." This directly touches on the ideals of reality vs. gaming-mode. Many make strong pronouncements about their preference for "experienced controllers" and "realistic handling" - this from both sides - pilots and controllers alike. Others couldn't care less and still others just want to get online and fly or control making it more a social-connection experience. A network organization like VATSIM must establish its rules and guidelines and provide such services so as to meet the needs of the central majority of its users - those in the center bulk of the bell curve. I believe there is a failing in ensuring those on the fringes of the curve understand they are more than welcome to pursue their level of realism, intensity, etc. as long as it is in cooperation with those around them and does not in any way degrade the enjoyment of others using the network.

So where does this all leaves us?

VATSIM's product offerings do a pretty good job of covering the view from 30k feet. I believe improvement in the delivery of those products is where the greatest improvement is needed.

Richard's numbers and the quick review he provided regarding controller advancements is encouraging. The GRP appears to be slowly doing its work and making an impact - as it was intended to do. Of course, there is always room for improvement. As Richard also noted, there is nothing wrong with OJT. It makes no sense to hold a controller to always prompting for the correct ATIS from a pilot or hitting the approach gate perfectly every time before he receives a basic rating. So with the new competencies now a standard, I think better training of the INS/Mentors in their interpretation may be needed.

There has been alot of discussion about retaining INS and keeping them engaged. From Richard's numbers I'd like to see if the controller promotion rates are keeping some kind of pace with the influx rate for new members. After all, if the rate of advancement is not keeping pace then the queue facing new arrivals will only grow ever-longer. This is already evident in some areas of the network. We all know there is no "magic bullet" for this so we must try carefully considered new ideas. These should be developed in concert with the facility and divisional/regional management but we also should understand some ideas that show the greatest promise may be counter to the thoughts and ideas of any group at any level of the organization. In these cases, we should not be afraid to engage in valid discussion, negotiate openly and be willing to make compromises. It's the only way one can get buy-in within an all-volunteer organization. We all should not be afraid to take a chance once in a while.

In direct application within VATUSA, I believe it is important that work be completed to re-establish some form of management structure at division level; one that can be an advocate and supporter of both the facilities, managers and staff and can bring the same measure of support for the regional and higher levels of VATSIM management. Whomever occupies whatever seats must be appropriately vetted and every effort must be made to ensure those individuals understand the breadth and the limitations of their spheres of influence and that they are willing to extend themselves to bridge the differences.

I'm sure I missed something in this too long post but I'd like to re-emphasize none of it is meant as a bash or slam on anyone, their thoughts, opinions or posts.

I apologize for the piecemeal approach to this post but I'm at work and have limited moments of access (and clarity some might say   )

I do know this.  Whomever applies to be VATUSA1 had better KNOW this situation exists, be very careful in their decision making, and go in with the understanding that your decisions may be overturned.  Being a leader is as much about following as it is leading.  Just remember that

Ahhh....a reasoned voice!

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]However, you win some, you loose some, and ultimately the Founders and BoG hold the keys to the castle, i.e. if they decided to stop paying for all this stuff, we'd be out a hobby. If they want something done a certain way, then you make your case, then live with the decision....good or bad.[/quote]

This is the point! Articulation and dissemination of the Founders requirements through the BoG et. al. takes alot of damn hard work. Appropriately wielded, the DD position can be a valued participant and as importantly, an advocate representing his constituents. That voice of advocacy is what will be lost through the elimination of the DD position. The job could be done by the RD but how effective will this be while he is also responsible to the remaining divisions and the region as a whole?

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]My question is WHY is it a us vs. them scenario? Who is driving the wedge and conflict? Posts like this definitely don't go towards finding a solution, but rather, further drive that wedge in. It's rheotorical btw. Poor communication, i.e. not being on the same page, seems to be the key premise of all the threads around this situation. Expectation setting, accountablity, process flow, etc. etc. all seem to be at issue.[/quote]

Keyword here is accountability. Most of the issues at their most basic level, are attributable to the lack of exercised accountability and holding folks responsible in times past. Most of the new policies and policy amendments reflect an effort to "codify" if-you-will actions that are expected of individuals in positions of management. For varied reasons those actions were not accomplished in recent past (say 5 years) - in essence no common sense was applied as would have been expected. Case in point, the GRP. It was originally actualized through a request from the BoG to the EC to come up with a policy that provided regulation over the widely variant and in many cases, outlandishly difficult and obtuse controller training, transfer and visiting requirements VATSIM-wide. Up to that time even with constant prodding, no positive results had been attained in answer to the identified problems. Through this "codification", a loss of some autonomy at the operational level has occurred. Many find this disconcerting to say the least. This is further exasperated by the fact that such codification has to be well-crafted, easy to understand, well focused and thorough in applicability.

Now layer on top of all this the factor of VATSIM being a volunteer organization. With the onerous burden of having to operate under more and more policies and regulations and a sense of not being able to determine one's own "destiny" as-it-were, you can quickly see where frustration can erupt and members who have all the best in mind for their efforts become any one of; frustrated, combative, reticent...(fill in the blank).

Thank you Dave...as far as I'm concerned ("twisted facts" notwithstanding), this matter is closed.