VATUSA Forums
General => The Control Room Floor => Topic started by: J Jason Vodnansky on September 14, 2010, 04:32:35 PM
-
As I understand it, upon the release of GRP v2, LCTP airports no longer exist. Is this a correct statement?
Thanks,
Jason Vodnansky
-
If I answer that question with a 'yes', what allegations from you will that answer subsequently spark...?
-
Jason,
While I cannot vouch for your understanding and therefore cannot speak to the inherent accuracy of your question, I can unequivocally say the LCTP program and the facilities designated as such are a thing of the past.
I just couldn't resist...
-
Well said!
On the topic of the thread, thanks, that is what I thought too.
It seems as though at least one VATUSA facility is unaware of that fact...
Jason Vodnansky
-
It seems as though at least one VATUSA facility is unaware of that fact...
A PM on this would be appreciated...
-
You will have it shortly...
JV
-
You will have it shortly...
JV
Gary,
Plan on another email from me regarding this to. I would prefer that any other allegations that come up would be emailed to Gary, Roger, and I as I've just spent the last 4 days dealing with rumors that were found only to be rumors. But it seems a certain someone it trying to pick a fight again, sorry I don't play these games.
-
Gary,
Plan on another email from me regarding this to. I would prefer that any other allegations that come up would be emailed to Gary, Roger, and I as I've just spent the last 4 days dealing with rumors that were found only to be rumors. But it seems a certain someone it trying to pick a fight again, sorry I don't play these games.
Not to throw fire on this subject, but here is my opinion.
Mr. Vodnansky here seems to like bashing people publicly even if it is in the form of asking a 'question' and/or without naming names.
I have read numerous other posts from him that strikes me as being somewhat hostile towards other members of VATUSA or VATSIM in general. At the same time I will say that there are some remarks which Mr. Vodnansky has made in the past about the enforcement and/or existence of written policies within VATUSA and VATSIM that I do agree with.
However, I do not believe matters such as these should creep their way onto the boards.
If you have a specific question that relates to someone violating any VATSIM or VATUSA policy then this should be address directly and discretely through email with a VATUSA Staff Member, such as the DCRM. Nothing wrong with due diligence, however it should be practiced with an appreciation for being respectful and discrete.
Let this not become a tattle-tale forum board. Please.
Best to all,
Andrew
-
Not to throw fire on this subject, but here is my opinion.
Mr. Vodnansky here seems to like bashing people publicly even if it is in the form of asking a 'question' and/or without naming names.
I have read numerous other posts from him that strikes me as being somewhat hostile towards other members of VATUSA or VATSIM in general. At the same time I will say that there are some remarks which Mr. Vodnansky has made in the past about the enforcement and/or existence of written policies within VATUSA and VATSIM that I do agree with.
However, I do not believe matters such as these should creep their way onto the boards.
If you have a specific question that relates to someone violating any VATSIM or VATUSA policy then this should be address directly and discretely through email with a VATUSA Staff Member, such as the DCRM. Nothing wrong with due diligence, however it should be practiced with an appreciation for being respectful and discrete.
Let this not become a tattle-tale forum board. Please.
Best to all,
Andrew
Couldn't have said it any better than this!!! Thank you Andrew!
If you just can't seem to help yourself, carefully click the logout button and find something else to occupy your time...plow the south 40...take a nap...wash the windows...go to the zoo....whatever!!!
-
Can this be brought up through DCRM? If so, where can I find the process?
Thanks,
JV
-
Not to throw fire on this subject, but here is my opinion.
Mr. Vodnansky here seems to like bashing people publicly even if it is in the form of asking a 'question' and/or without naming names.
I have read numerous other posts from him that strikes me as being somewhat hostile towards other members of VATUSA or VATSIM in general. At the same time I will say that there are some remarks which Mr. Vodnansky has made in the past about the enforcement and/or existence of written policies within VATUSA and VATSIM that I do agree with.
However, I do not believe matters such as these should creep their way onto the boards.
If you have a specific question that relates to someone violating any VATSIM or VATUSA policy then this should be address directly and discretely through email with a VATUSA Staff Member, such as the DCRM. Nothing wrong with due diligence, however it should be practiced with an appreciation for being respectful and discrete.
Let this not become a tattle-tale forum board. Please.
Best to all,
Andrew
Andrew,
In all seriousness I thought I WAS being respectful and discrete by NOT naming names in the public board. Yet still calling attention to the problem.
Students continue to be mistreated on this network, and held to standards that are completely unreasonable. I find this stuff by reading facility's policies. Something each facility WANTS a person to do. I find, what I BELIEVE to be "conflicts" based on my understanding of a subject. So I then ask the question...
If my understanding is incorrect, then there is no point in asking the follow up question. Perhaps I had misunderstood a rule, and then the answer would clarify MY understanding. A logical process, no? Why should I condemn someone in public, and tell them they are wrong if I have an inaccurate understanding of the rule myself...
Thanks for the thoughts, but I have some reading to do, and more questions to ask. If the DCRM process is open to this kind of stuff, which is never was before, then I will gladly take it up in that direction.
JV
-
As a staff member at the facility in question, I feel I need to address some of Jason's comments and put a stop to the allegations that he has brought against us both here and on the VATSIM Forums (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?p=378480#p378480).
Jason, prior to making any more allegations against ZMP as a facility and the procedures to which we hold ourselves, I suggest you re-read those SOPs to comprehension, something that countless students within our facility have done without complaint.
That specific facility SOP was approved by our ATD prior to its publication on our website. Indeed, the first page and introductory paragraph explicitly states that the SOP is designed for high-traffic situations and shall not be a substitute for good controller judgement in the absence of traffic levels that justify its use.
Regarding ground metering and SWAP routes, VATUSA has conducted an officially sanctioned comprehensive traffic management course over the past 4 months, in which two of our facility members have been enrolled. The purpose of that course has been to increase awareness and proficiency in applying various FAA traffic management initiatives, INCLUDING SWAP routes, to the network. Feel free to contact Alex Evins at ZNY or the VATUSA staff if you feel this is going against the spirit of the network. Since I have yet to see a complaint on your part about ZNY's Operational Information System regarding the VATUSA NAS or their spearheading of this Traffic Management Training Course, I can only conclude that either you are uninformed on this matter, or simply selectively targeting ZMP out of convenience, malice, or both.
I'm curious as to your interpretation of airports that "CANNOT be staffed by an otherwise appropriately rated controller". Our facility requires a KMSP tower certification prior to starting M98 TRACON training as KMSP is our major field. Until such a certification is complete, a controller cannot provide top-down service as MSP_APP and therefore is unable to work the position in compliance with the GRP. At NO point during our training do we instruct students to terminate services at a TRACON boundary. If a pilot is executing an instrument approach procedure to a Class D airport at a time outside that airport's hours of operation without the tower staffed, then yes a frequency change is given and we advise that the pilot report an IFR cancellation, a policy, to the extent of my knowledge, that is echoed by a majority of the ARTCCs within VATUSA. Unless you have specific examples to the contrary, I suggest you keep such allegations to yourself.
Regarding 'letting the students get on and control', that's exactly what we do. We simply prefer that our controllers be prepared to handle a high level of traffic should it occur, and I have been informed by more than one student following a busy event how appreciative they are of this philosophy.
Allow me to close with the following. You are not now, nor at any point have been a member of ZMP. Thus, none of our policies should directly affect your enjoyment of this network. At no point has one of our controllers used our policies or procedures as a crutch to deny services to a pilot, thus I fail to see how our SOPs are causing you any anguish or inconvenience.
My inbox remains open to any SPECIFIC grievances you may have, rather than simply blasting rhetoric about the philosophy in which ZMP's staff chooses to conduct operations within our facility.
-
For a DCRM to become involved it has to be submitted by a supervisor and the issue must be a CoR/CoC/UA violation and be deemed as a serious issue.
-
I don't think Jason has 'outed' the facility he has concerns with.
Doing my own research I found another VATUSA ARTCC besides ZMP that seems to conflict in regards to the now defunct LCTP Program.
I've emailed the ATD and Gary with the info and will let them handle it.
As an ATM this discussion and the others have prompted me to proactively scrub over the policies in place at my facility to make sure they align with GRP revisions.
-
Let's keep in mind that neither VATUSA nor VATNA came out with anything in writing, to my knowledge, that explicitly stated "LCTP is no more." I was a TA when GRP2 came out, and I adjusted our program according to what I could observe in the document and from the VATSIM Forums. Most of us found that out about the lack of LCTP on our own and submitted our LCTPs to be considered for majors (many of those requests are still in "pending" status, btw ). Many may be under the assumption that VATUSA will be publishing their own version of the GRP, as was done in GRP1 (and hence the LCTP program) and suggested by Alex in our staff forum way back when, but it's important to note that this will not be the case.
July 21, 2009 (granted over a year ago, but around the time of v2 implementation):
http://forum.vatusa.net/index.php?showtopic=1097 (http://forum.vatusa.net/index.php?showtopic=1097) (for those who can see it)
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Although VATUSA is currently in the middle of policy revision and updates to our Ratings Guidelines...[/quote]
Then we went with an interim USA1 for a while, and I think this fell by the wayside.
I'm not trying to spark a debate or anything; I'm just providing suggestions about where some of the LCTP confusion may have stemmed from.
-
Doing my own research I found another VATUSA ARTCC besides ZMP that seems to conflict in regards to the now defunct LCTP Program.
I'm curious as to where you find ZMP in conflict re: LCTPs. Our sole major rating field is KMSP, and is reflected as such on our controller roster and all policy documents.
-
I'm curious as to where you find ZMP in conflict re: LCTPs. Our sole major rating field is KMSP, and is reflected as such on our controller roster and all policy documents.
http://www.minniecenter.org/docs/vZMP_ATCSOP_rev5a.pdf (http://www.minniecenter.org/docs/vZMP_ATCSOP_rev5a.pdf)
Section 4.1/4.2 lists KRST as being classified as an LCTP facility. To which Gary above mentions is a defunct program.
I can unequivocally say the LCTP program and the facilities designated as such are a thing of the past.
I stand by my earlier statement to say that all facilities could use a good scrub of their policies to ensure everything is "up to code". A bit of spring cleaning if you will.
-
I'm curious as to where you find ZMP in conflict re: LCTPs. Our sole major rating field is KMSP, and is reflected as such on our controller roster and all policy documents.
After reading this whole thread i still don't get why the post was put up in the first place. This is one of the first times i have been on forums in over 4 years and i still see nothing has changed. So we are saying that LCTP airports in ARTCC's are now invalid? What a waste of the last three years.
I still see simple things are for simple minds and whatever comes out for an update i guess i have to follow it. Even if it is valid in the real world or not. People have to start making smart decisions because I haven't seen any in the last half decade. VATUSA forums are a waste of time, you guys have to figure it out by actually meeting in a Teamspeak because its been the same way forever. Im trying to understand why the LCTP airports are now invalid but i haven't seen one post why. It is just a waste of time I think if we have to keep updating everything and saying its invalid when i haven't heard or seen a problem with it until now. All i see is problem this problem that and don't see what the real problem is. If anyone can tell me what the problem is then feel free to reply.
-
http://www.minniecenter.org/docs/vZMP_ATCSOP_rev5a.pdf (http://www.minniecenter.org/docs/vZMP_ATCSOP_rev5a.pdf)
Section 4.1/4.2 lists KRST as being classified as an LCTP facility. To which Gary above mentions is a defunct program.
I stand by my earlier statement to say that all facilities could use a good scrub of their policies to ensure everything is "up to code". A bit of spring cleaning if you will.
Guilty as charged. You'll notice that the publication date of that document is Feb 2, 2009, prior to the release of GRP2.
Revisions to the document in question are forthcoming and while the SOP may still indicate as such, the LCTP rating is not enforced, nor has it been done so since the publication of GRP2.
-
I understand that Dhruv hence my statement about all facilities checking their documents for meeting current standards.
It's one of the things i've done in the first couple of weeks since I became ATM of the facility and i've got a few revisions we're re-working and will send up to the ATD for approval.
I get while you guys aren't enforcing the LCTP , it's still listed as the letter of the law per se and a student coming in who reads the SOP (although 197 pages is an eye strain!) may interpret it as the current policy leading to confusion.
Jason's motives while they may seem sinister always seem to be on keeping the left hand doing the same as the right hand, by pointing out inconsistencies it evokes change and updates.
-
So i get it now the whole thread is about outdated ATC SOPS, how many other ARTCC's have the same issue. We have an SOP thats 5 times longer than anyone else. Its shouldn't be people's business from other ARTCC's to come and say we did something wrong when we really didn't. I'm not going to go (for example not pointing a finger) and say ZTL has outdated SOP or something in it isn't right. That is called snitching and just being ridiculous. The SOP was before GRP2 so in reality we are being called out for a outdated SOP. Congratulations, really i applaud your efforts for keeping an eye on us. If your going to do something like that, there is no need to post it over in a forum that has been the same way for years, full of never ending threads. You have a problem with this post you send an email to me personally at mastersmurf07@yahoo.com and we can talk about it.
-
So i get it now the whole thread is about outdated ATC SOPS, how many other ARTCC's have the same issue. We have an SOP thats 5 times longer than anyone else. Its shouldn't be people's business from other ARTCC's to come and say we did something wrong when we really didn't. I'm not going to go (for example not pointing a finger) and say ZTL has outdated SOP or something in it isn't right. That is called snitching and just being ridiculous. The SOP was before GRP2 so in reality we are being called out for a outdated SOP. Congratulations, really i applaud your efforts for keeping an eye on us. If your going to do something like that, there is no need to post it over in a forum that has been the same way for years, full of never ending threads. You have a problem with this post you send an email to me personally at mastersmurf07@yahoo.com and we can talk about it.
This is likely my last reply to this post.
Looking back the question was raised specifically about the policy in general with no ARTCC named. ZMP took it upon itself to challenge Jason in an open forum and 'out' themselves. Obviously it became an argument between the two and in my attempt to point out this is not limited to them it's snowballed.
That's why I am not disclosing the facility I found with an oudated policy and have sent it in private to the ATD and Gary. Now if that facility becomes upset and 'outs' themselves then that is their problem and not mine as i'm protecting their identity from becoming a public issue.
The ATD's are ultimately responsible for ensuring their facilities are 'up to code', it's not my place to do their job BUT I feel it's prudent for me as a tenured VATSIM member if I notice an issue to notify the appropriate ATD of the facility. It's then up to them to decide what sort of action if any is needed.
I myself don't spend my free time hunting down facility SOP's and policies for 'violations' and only became curious when this topic was brought to light and ZMP outed itself. When asked to post the specific example, I did.
Part of the job description as i've understood it for ATM's to manage their facilities. GRP's been out for long enough for each facilities staff to proactively ensure they are in compliance. If they haven't, no harm no foul, things happen but without beating a dead horse perhaps now is a good time to give that spring cleaning to the policy folder so we don't have any issues going forward.
ZMP staff have stated they are working on an update, that should resolve the issues that have been brought up.
-
This is likely my last reply to this post.
Looking back the question was raised specifically about the policy in general with no ARTCC named. ZMP took it upon itself to challenge Jason in an open forum and 'out' themselves. Obviously it became an argument between the two and in my attempt to point out this is not limited to them it's snowballed.
Allow me to direct you to Jason's most recent handiwork on the VATSIM Forums (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?p=378480#p378480), a post directly aimed at a ZMP controller regarding our policies. If that isn't targeting us specifically, I don't know what is. I specifically linked to this post in my first reply to this thread, pointing out that the questions posed by Jason in this topic are a direct follow-on to his post on the VATSIM forum.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]ZMP staff have stated they are working on an update, that should resolve the issues that have been brought up.[/quote]
Agreed. My replies to this thread stop here. The issue is being dealt with. Your help in pointing out the offending verbiage is appreciated, and I say this with no sarcasm or patronization intended.
Next time, JV, send an e-mail .
-
It seems as though at least one VATUSA facility is unaware of that fact...
Having very recently gone through every single local website in VATNA, I can assure you it's well more than just one facility. Generally speaking, it's a matter of old documentation, training websites, etc. not being updated. I have yet to actually come across an ARTCC maliciously honoring these LCTP airports, contrary to the GRP.
I'll be speaking with Gary tonight in hopes that we can get these resolved soon, and so that the ATMs can get their materials updated.
-
-
-
I have yet to actually come across an ARTCC maliciously honoring these LCTP airports, contrary to the GRP.
+1
Updating documentation is a necessary evil. It is always a work in progress. I can't say I agree with this post. Yah know, there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with situations. I think simply pointing out the conflict with VATSIM policies to the ATM or Regional Director would have been an appropriate response. Why people run to the forums with gripes...I just don't get it.
-
Guys,
Let's put an end to this HERE AND NOW! We're not in the third grade...Mr. Millsaps is not going to the Headmaster...we're not on the elementary school playground any more.
For those who have NOT read GRPv2, by command of the EC, the LCTP program is defunct and no longer authorized.
I'm NOT going to run around making sure your documents and procedures are all in compliance with the regs...the ATDs have the responsibility to the Division to do that...and they will do so.
What I WILL take ownership of is the ultimate responsibility to insure the facility policies and procedures are in accord with the VATSIM, EC, Region, Division, etc. requirements...so if you DO hear from me, you will know why.
If ANYONE happens to find an errant policy or whatever, I would ask that YOU SEND ME AN EMAIL TO THAT EFFECT. This public "outing" of facilities by name, reference, inference, or IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER is unnecessary, boorish and borders on childish behavior. We're all adults here...so please, let's act like adults!
Okay?
-
I <3 Gary Millsaps