Great machines and pretty low prices.

Impressive - if I'm doing my math right, we're looking at around $65/month once I deduct 19% from 59 euros and apply the exchange rate. Am I missing anything?

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]This is where USA-W2 is currently located. They have pretty much moved out of the personal server business.[/quote]

For their sake, I hope so. Those are pretty uncompetitive prices. FWIW 1&1 offers an i3 Xeon (2 cores + HT) plus 12GB of RAM for $99/month, if you need a US server. We've had them for six years and have been pretty satisfied.

Cheers!

Luke

USA-W2 is down. Probably going to need a new drive. This may take a few days.

Got backups? If you do I can get you a VM by dinnertime.

Cheers!

Luke

It would be better if it muted VA teamspeaks and ACARS programs when flights are below 10000

Some ACARS already have such a feature.

Cheers!

Luke

Would it not make sense to ensure only people who should have access have access? Seems pretty logical to me.

Keeping the site up would seem logical to me, but what do I know?

Cheers!

Luke

I'm just wondering, does your ratio of 3:400 staff to participants involve personally training each of those participants in every level of their progress?  I'm not sure this is a fair comparison.

Do the ATMs personally train every controller in their facility? I left out the instructors and the mentors for that reason.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]So at first, the ATDs are unecessary because they don't do anything, and now they are at fault for doing too much?  What's your point exactly?  I'm afraid I'm lost here.[/quote]

My point is that a fair bit of what the ATDs are doing isn't of great value, or can be done more effectively. It's quite possible to be insanely busy and not doing anything critical, and this might be the case.

Part of the reason why I'm comparing VATUSA/VATSIM against other corporate and volunteer organizations that I've been involved with in past years is that VATSIM seems to have far more levels of hierarchy than any other organization I've dealt with, yet be far less effective and dynamic in its mission.

Cheers!

Luke

The crux of the matter is that people tend to compare the operations of VATSIM or VATUSA to a real world company, or other volunteer organizations, or virtual airlines. Quite frankly, that comparison cannot and should not be made.

What you're suggesting is that VATUSA is sufficiently unique that absolutely no objective comparison is possible with any other organization, no matter what its nature. Therefore, we have no objective way of determining whether the structure and size of VATUSA is effective. In the real world, this is completely unacceptable and won't get you anywhere. And having worked in structured volunteer and hobbyist organizations for 25 years this year, I can tell you it doesn't pass muster there either.

Part of the challenge I see with VATUSA is that there's a group of individuals within an organization that aggressively promotes the notion that no one outside their group is capable of assessing their effectiveness with any accuracy. They don't seem to be capable of much introspection as to what of their duties are really necessary or required. Those are great signs of an organization incapable of self-improvement.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I see references to Delta Virtual, and no offense to Luke, but you tons more staff than VATUSA. You harp on the duties of the ATD, but your VA has multiple staff positions each with multiple assistants. I'm not saying that this structure is inefficient or inoperable, but you have a structure that mirrors VATUSA staff and yet you're here to criticize how this division operates.[/quote]

Alex, your analysis is completely faulty. You really should withdraw this nonsense.

You're absolutely correct in stating that Delta Virtual has multiple staff positions and several of those have assistants. But to claim that we have more staff than VATUSA is inaccurate. What you're counting as our staff is the equivalent of the ARTCC staffs as well. I have a program (the 737-800) with a manager and two assistants, handling 426 active pilots. Are you suggesting that there are ARTCCs in VATUSA with 3 staff members and 426 controllers? If so, my hat's off to you. If you want to make an accurate comparison, I'm happy to count our staff against the ATMs, DATMS, Event Coordinators, Engineers, Facility Advisory Boards and heavens knows what else exists at the local facility level. It might be interesting.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]You've said it many times in public as well as to me; you aren't a controller and you don't understand how the administration of the ATC side of network operates.[/quote]

Let me tell you a personal anecdote. I manage a group of a half-dozen software architects (what CNN called the "best job in America", and I agree) for a well-known US cable network. One of the less pleasant tasks of my job which I need to do this week is go through the annual review process for each of them. Now they're all exceptionally bright, talented and well-paid individuals, and while I understand some aspects of their job and share some of their skills all of them are far more versed in core areas of their duties than I will ever be. Now despite that liability, rest assured that absolutely no one would ever dream of suggesting that until I've done their job I'm incapable of assessing their performance, nor would I do anything more than say "that's quaint" and promptly proceed to do just that. (My own boss would do the same thing, except he'd chew me out for half an hour first for making such an absurd claim.)

So yes, I haven't been a controller. But to paraphrase Potter Stewart, when it comes to effective and efficient organizations, "I know it when I see it", and VATUSA isn't it. Based on what Tom's described in this thread, there's a fair amount of time being spent that probably can be avoided, and when I see existing and former office holders describing their duties in vague terms or challenging outsiders' ability to assess the organization's performance, that's smoke. And when there's smoke.....

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]many can see the maliciousness laced through each of your questions.[/quote]

With respect Alex, but I don't care enough about any of you to be malicious.

I merely find the VATUSA structure (well, a great deal of the VATSIM structure as well) to be ineffective. The technology stack is painfully old and obsolete, we seem to have a fair bit of staff turnover (the revolving door at VATUSA, ATMs quitting in a snit) and the whole mess with GRP indicates an organization more focused on policy than results (and a Founders' group that seems to have a passive-aggressive attitude towards pushing change in "their" network).

But it's not done out of malice to you, or any of the officeholders. I think if you attribute malice to my suggestion that your talents would best serve the network in a different role, then maybe something's wound a little too tight. The entire point of rationalizing the VATUSA structure is to recognize the fact that there's a dire shortage of good, committed people in the organization. Let's not waste them doing things that aren't as important as others. I'm not sure why you attribute malice to that, but it's not common. VATSIM is full of people who blindly accept the status quo, and even more who defend their acceptance because even the obsolete technology we've put together is indistinguishable from magic for a large percentage of the community.

You should not confuse malice with a lack of acceptance of the answers you provide, based on different experience than yourself. If I held ill will towards VATSIM, I wouldn't have waited and gotten involved with the ATO partnership with VATSIM and spent the time required to implement it. It's unfortunate that the answer to criticism is either to accuse me of malice or incompetence.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I must admit that when I initially took the position, I filled all of the vacant positions out of precedence rather than a true understanding of what each would do with the team I was responsible for directing. I began to wonder why we needed so many ATDs, why we needed a communications manager, and what the consequences would be if I decided to cut back positions. However, I did not want to lose the people who were staffing these positions. The contributions by each ATD, by Ric, and everyone else on staff were too great to ask them to step down.[/quote]

I think you confuse the elimination and reorganization of positions with letting people go, and that's not what a good manager should do. If you have a good team of individuals (and I've seen nothing about any of them individually to suggest otherwise) there's nothing preventing you from changing the structure to best apply these individuals - maybe that requires bringing things out of the ARTCC level to VATUSA, maybe it involves pushing things upwards, etc.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Luke, you should explore the ATC side of the network and see first-hand the intricacies of its operation.[/quote]

The time requirements to become an ATC (which seems to be a pre-requisite for anything in VATSIM) and the time requirements aren't something I can prioritize against my other duties (I have two jobs - one pays much better and the second is infinitely more interesting and gives me more scope for accomplishment than anything VATSIM could offer). Instead, at some point we should grab a beer and you can explain to me how onerous and complicated it is. As a sign of my lack of malice, I'll pay.

Cheers!

Luke

Consider the possibility (just a possibility) that the current leadership has a more efficient use of their staff than previous administrations.  A less efficient leadership may require more personnel to achieve the same goal, and if we encounter that in the future, I should hope that raising the staffing levels to achieve the GOAL is the priority, and not to keep the roster in check due to some ill-founded "limit" on the number of staff members allowed.

If a new leadership requires more people to do the same task, then perhaps they're not the right people for the job?

If I became VATUSA1 and decided I needed 25 people to function effectively, would that be OK? How about 100? 500? Clearly you realize that there's some absolute numbers that make sense (and others that don't), rather than applying a nebulous form of relevance that prevents us from making any sort of claims whether VATUSA is under- or over-staffed.

Management in the real world is all about making decisions and judgment calls about how many people are adequate for a team and working within that framework. And there are always external parties who are more than willing to make that call for you if you come back with nebulous claims about how it's impossible to come up with a concrete number. They are very helpful that way!

Cheers!

Luke

It's really gratifying to know that all the effort is appreciated. "I don't know what each of the staff members do." Well then, that must mean they're not doing anything, I guess.

I keep asking what an ATD actually does, and I never get a good answer. I asked earlier in the thread, and the silence was deafening. I'm still interested in hearing one, though.

Cheers!

Luke