OK, let me try to bring this back to the "approach" issue..............

I want to throw out a sort of made up term that I attribute to VATSIM....."leadership by coercion".  VATSIM is an all volunteer organization.  We all know this.  But it is a distinction that makes it so much different than any of the management experience that most people have had.  In the public and private sector, leadership is done to some extent with buy-in, but you always have 'leadership by decree' to fall back on.  That doesn't exist here.  Edicts without 'buy-in' are doomed to disaster whether they are good ideas or not.  Volunteers have nothing more than a desire to serve keeping them in place, and once that begins to be eroded, the turnover will commence.  It is not unique to VATSIM, all volunteer organizations experience it and I have dealt with it heavily first hand outside of this network. Participation has very natural, albeit at times steep, ebbs and flows, and I think that it is extremely important to recognize that volunteer management is the inverse of the norm.

In volunteer management, the top truly needs the bottom a hell of a lot more than the bottom needs the top.   It may seem counter-intuitive, but it is true.  So when we talk about 'stability in the division staff', it is really a flawed concept.  You really do not need a lot of stability in personnel at the division level because the heavy lifting is not done there.  Where you need it is at the ARTCC level.  Those guys are the ones that directly influence the makeup of the INS cadre, they have the most influence over the attitudes of the controllers on the frequency, and they are the ones that provide for the existence of every layer of management above them.

We need their buy-in and their belief in the direction of the network, because the happiness and job satisfaction of the 1st echelon of staff in a volunteer organization will translate into higher productivity (e.g. more hours of training provided, more people online, more controllers moving more quickly through the system).  If those people feel over-regulated and hamstrung......does it really matter what the EC or the BOG thinks about whether or not it is true?

The org chart here is a hierarchy, but you may as well torch it because it is meaningless.  The top echelons do not drive the success of this network.  They have the least amount of influence over it short of pulling the plug on the servers.  The bottom drives the organization.  I told my staff on many occassions, the ATMs, TAs and other staff members at the ARTCCs our our customers and that is exactly how they should be treated.  I felt that the USA staff was here to support their efforts not to drive them.  In the same way, pilots are the customer of the controller, and it is unfortunate that sometimes the way people are treated doesn't reflect that.  Without pilots, there's nobody to give ATC services to. Similarly without staff at the lowest level, there's no need for the upper levels.  Being approachable is fine, but that concept is severely diminished when a part of that turns into open attacks or divisive statements when someone dissents, or in this network's case, gets tagged as a troublemaker.  The fact that someone regularly disagrees, and maybe even chooses their words to do so poorly, does not mean that their point of view is automatically invalid or that they deserve anything less than friendly, respectful treatment from the leadership.  But as of late, that has not been the case here.  And that is truly a shame, and disheartens me more every time I see it.

So to tie it all back together, when I say 'leadership by coercion', what I mean is presenting a attitude and an approach that lends itself to people wanting to do the same things you want to do, and being open to the idea that your thoughts are not perfect, and be willing to compromise to achieve the best result, recognizing that having the last word or being right really is not that important in the grand scheme of things.

Few points of clarification:

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Just to note, the DD stepped up and refused to implement a part of the GRP that didn't affect VATUSA in any way whatsoever. And such was explained. That section of the GRP (5.3 for those tuning in for the first time) is worded especially for Divisions whose FIRs/ARTCCs have no websites. You'll notice the "Division/Facility" meaning one or the other. Thinking that every local policy needed to appear on the Division website was a misconception.[/quote]

GRP 5.3:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Notwithstanding paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, it is acceptable for Divisions to introduce Standard Operating Procedures to provide guidance to Controllers in respect of local arrangements such as runway configurations, clearance altitudes, handoff procedures etc. Such SOPs must be approved by the Division Director and must be published on Division/Facility websites for all controllers and pilots to read.[/quote]

How the heck is one supposed to make the connection that if an ARTCC has no website, only their policies have to be approved by the Division Director?  Posting it on a website was not the problem, having to review them all was the problem.  And no,  such was not explained.  

What you said to me on 1/11/10 was:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]"I'm in complete agreement that the ridiculousness has to stop somewhere. The amount of oversight is indeed ridiculous and your example just shows that.  Why the hell should you care about runway selection and such? ha ha! That's why I "think" applies to local procedures in general, but who the hell knows.[/quote]

You gave me your personal interpretation that it did not apply, but then followed it with the above, so I asked for a formal answer and pointed out the problems with the system.......


Refusal to implement part of the GRP was based on 2 things:

1) I did not want to have to approve or force the staff to approve airspace procedures like runway configs, etc.  I felt it was overkill and the ARTCCs were capable of doing that on their own.  Call me crazy, but the GRP is clear on that point. The contention is now that "well that didn't really apply to VATUSA"........ but it is a Global Policy so how is a DD supposed to know what rules in a network wide policy apply and which ones don't.............  Bruce, your understanding of the issue was dead correct.

2) I did not feel that it was the USA Division's job to invent an arbitrary meeting for C3 which is a global rating and is supposed to transfer across divisions.  It would not have the same meaning between divisions and I could not understand why the GRP would address all of the other ratings but make that one subjective.  It is in my opinion, 100% wrong to take a situation that has been a problem since GRP1 and ignore it by pushing it off on the divisions where it could easily be turned into a boys club elitist rating.

I never received any official response to the refusal.  I actually told members of the USA Staff that I expected to be fired for it, and should have been.  I would have had a ton of respect for VATSIM if they had fired me because at least then there would have been some accountability.

There has also been a lot of talk about my access to the GRP forum.  I did not have it, but it didn't matter.  The revisions and drafts of the GRP were not being circulated in that forum anyway, so access to it would not have accomplished anything.  We did not see any draft after 9/1/09 or the final GRP until the day it was released, so my refusal to implement those provisions was necessary due to the fact that there was no opportunity to interject input prior to its codification.

Gary is more right that you guys can imagine.  Rules seem to keep being created in response to things that have gone awry in the past.  Rather than deal with the problem head on, rules are created to outlaw the problem.  Thing is, no matter what the intent of the GRP is, the end result is more bureaucracy and administrative overhead.  More webpages to develop, procedures to approve, tests to rewrite, blah blah blah.  That was a big concern to me with any policy, "How much does this affect downstream workload?"  For instance...GRP requires written exam AND OTS for every rating.  Ok Fine.  But VATSIM does not provide a central system for written exams, so every division is now REQUIRED to develop a testing center.  Fortunately, USA already had one, but the point remains that it is more downstream workload.   Major airspace creates another set of bureaucracy....signoffs, policies, training programs, etc.      

Bryan, I am glad to hear that you are considering dumping 05/05, it is ridiculous, and that should be evidenced by the stack of policies that were submitted in October for approval.  I wish you would have told me that before.

Why do VATUSA1's quit?  Simple......the amount of frivolity you have to deal with and cannot do anything about is abundant.  That alone would be fine, but when legitimate issues go unanswered, a person's ability to make decisions is diminished to a point where all that is left is fielding complaints from unhappy people..... so what is the point?  

As it stands now, the DD's job (quote from my resignation letter) is mostly a "buffer for people to complain at".  You cannot get involved in Conflict Resolution.  You cannot mitigate a situation where someone is poisoning an ARTCC, controller or staff.  And you really have to be careful about who you appoint to a position because it is a decision that pretty much cannot be undone.  You cannot hold staff accountable for breaking the rules without becoming an internet lawyer to build a case (and there are no rules on how the case must be built, it is completely subjective depending on who the "judge" is).

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]What do we get? We get ATMs who blatantly announce that they will exploit every possible loophole they can to circumvent the policies. And they do it!! The BOG and EC be damned. In short, what we really have are ATMs saying they will exploit every possible loophole to get around the Founders' Vision. Think about that one for a minute.[/quote]

I do not remember that ever being said......I must have missed it.   I don't remember a case of an ATM trying to maliciously subvert the rules (except one minor time, but I brought that to his attention and never had an issue after that), and certainly not one that was brought to my attention from above.  I think that overall the ATMs do a fantastic job of managing their positions, and should be commended for it.  The few bad apples that have existed over time should be dealt with individually rather than trying to choke them out via legislation, that doesn't work anyway.  But with the history of what it takes to deal with getting rid of a bad apple and making it stick......who would want to even try?

There will never be stability unless you fix the underlying problem.

+1

Tyler, you're so far off base, you're not even playing the same sport when it comes to my reasons for leaving.

And of course, you asked for it multiple times right?

JV

no comment......

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]how do I know this? because that is how the vatsim.info server got shut down. that server hosted a number of things including vatusa and bluehost pulled the plug due to excessive bandwidth usage[/quote]

One clarification,

Bluehost pulled the plug because the VATUSA site was hacked via an old Drupal installation that was never deleted off the server. They refused to restore service because the code was all PHP4 era and generally unsecure.  The server exploit that got us affected over 100,000 servers worldwide.

I apologized profusely to Mr. Klain that our site was the cause of it (mind you it was my first day as VATUSA6), and promptly paid for our own server the next day and took our IT off of VATSIM's dime & resources because I felt it was the right thing to do.  Not asking for accolades, just setting the record straight

I fully resent the notion that the VATUSA website was somehow a drain on VATSIM, nobody here has asked VATSIM for a penny nor have we asked for any special treatment for data services.  We have worked hard to be good stewards of their systems and have always err'd on the side of caution.  I am irritated by the idea that this was dredged up and misrepresented so as to put this division in a bad light particularly when our current site (which has much more content, feeds, etc now than it used to, plus it backs up offsite hourly) uses a "whopping" 4.5GB per month.

Can we keep the language to a child/family appropriate level please?

thank you

So this brings up another question.

Looking at the map of the airport, and assuming they operate the same as KLAX does (if you want to go to a different terminal, you have to walk outside the building and re-enter at that specific terminal), you would have to go through security again and get screened. But what if you are in transit and do not leave the gate area? If your flight comes into the same area, and you are in transit, you wouldn't be getting screened again, unless you enter the country (by passing customs). This is how my flight was from KOMA-NZAA-YMML. As long as I didn't go through the doors to customs to enter the country, I was in transit, and was free to walk around the transit area in Auckland's airport terminal.

At least with respect to the TSA and at least based on the *********** that is Lagos Security, they should have rescreened every passenger, if not just those transiting to the NWA flight.

This makes me wonder, with how much in bed NWA has been with KLM over the years, if they'll shift US Customs clearances for US-bound flights for NWA/DAL to EHAM.. sort of like how BAW001 has their EGLC-KJFK customs done at Shannon while refueling.

BL.

Each gate on the international concourse is isolated from the others.  The screening point is at the gate itself and the security personnel usually show up at the gate an hour or so before departure to screen everyone.  I have not transferred at EHAM before, so I am not 100% sure, but based on the layout, I do not see any way you could get through an int'l connection without an additional screen.

DeGaulle was that way, I had an inbound from Prague connecting through Paris and had to go through customs and recheck/rescreen for the flight to Newark.