I've held off on replying to the discussion on vis ranges as I wanted to hear what people had to say and wanted to see where the conversation went (it's amazing how much you can learn that way).
Let me now give some perspective and guidance from the leadership on why the rules are written the way they are and why there is NOT a published rule on vis ranges.
First -- we can't create a rule for every circumstance. If we tried, the list of rules would quickly grow into the thousands and become unmanageable. Instead, VATSIM has taken an approach of providing guidelines and then expecting people to comply with them. It is a philosophical approach to running the network. Some people want organizations with hundreds of pages of rules. Some want no rules. VATSIM has taken an approach somewhere in the middle...we explain what the accepted behavior is, provide examples as to what is not acceptable and then expect people to use their judgment. Supervisors and VATSIM staff are chosen based on that judgment. They don't always get it right and that's why we have an appeals process, but the overall process gets it right just about every time.
Second -- we don't publish vis ranges because there are exceptions to every case and good reasons why. Let me give you an example. What should be the vis range for approach? The limits of the class C or B airspace? 20 miles outside that? But wait...not all approaches are tied to class B or C airspace! Some cover mutliple airsapce rings (think Potomac Approach which covers the IAD, DCA and BWI rings). There are also approach facilities in other divisions which have very good reasons why they require extended ranges...
So what do we do instead? We puiblish guidance -- keep your vis range as small as necessary to accomplish the job. If someone's vis range seems excessively high, a supervisor touches base with them to determine "why". If the reason is acceptable, things go on as normal. If the reason is not acceptable, the controller is asked to reduce his vis range.
Now as to "secret rules" -- there aren't any. I think one of the things a previous poster referred to was the "secret supervisor vis range rule". Let me be clear -- it doesn't exist. What DOES exist is a tool that highlights to supervisors controllers who MAY have an excessive visibility range setting. All that does is clue the supervisor in to take a look and see if there is an issue or not. The ranges that set that tripwire are not "rules" but rather ballpark figures of what we find is an acceptable max range 90-99% of the time. If a supervisor is using this as a rule, he is misinformed... That said, I find that 9 times out of 10 a controller has no good reason for the excessive range setting he is using...it isn't operationally necessary to cover his airspace and (as pointed out) it is sucking down our bandwidth.
Before someone jumps in and says the bandwidth argument is crap, let me share some other things with you.
1. Every VATSIM server is paid for by someone. That donation is provided based on two expectations: (a) that the server will be used to support flight/atc simulation on the network (hence our rules on no ground vehicles) and (B) that we will be good stewards of the resources we are given (meaning we work hard to ensure we don't waste bandwidth).
2. We use a MASSIVE amount of bandwidth on the network. Many people say that bandwidth is cheap and point to things like Bluehost.com's "Unlimited bandwidth" offer for around $4/month. If you work with them, you will soon discover that "unlimited" really doesn't mean "unlimited" and they will shut you down if you pull the kind of load we do (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). Klain.net is one of the hosts for the VATSIM data feed (what feeds Servinfo, Vroute, VATSPY and all those sites that show "who's online". Anyone want to take a guess on how much bandwidth that feed alone uses? It typically pulls around 300 GB a month (10 GB a day). A hosting plan that (a) provides that sort of bandwith and (B) provides the processing power and ability to handle the 50-100 data calls a MINUTE for the data file doesn't come for $5/month. I'm paying $73/month for a VPS that meets the needs...that's over $800 a year. Multiply that by the 2 other servinfo feeds, the data server, the cert server, and the VATSIM FSD servers and we're talking 10+ servers most of which cost between 70 and 100 dollars a month. Even at the low end we're talking over $8000/year in server costs...and the members of VATSIM don't pay a single dime to use the network. Instead we ask them to not abuse bandwidth and, if a supervisor thinks a vis range is excessive, we ask them to dial it back.
Bottom line -- VATSIM's leadership has made a conscious decision to not make this an organization filled with rules. Instead we provide guidelines and then rely on people exercising their judgment. Obviously this is not what some of you want, but if we gave you the kind of rulebook some of you appear to be asking for, we'd have a whole other group of people pissed off at how bureaucratic VATSIM is (and we already get that now!).
Let me close with a direct response to one comment made in this thread --- a reference to supervisors as Gestapo. I find that statement incredibly offensive and insensitive. Before you think it, no I am not Jewish or German, but comparing any one of the volunteers who dedicate their free time to making this network better to the Nazi Gestapo is in poor taste, offensive and downright rude. I recognize that many of the VATSIM membership are young people who don't necessarily "think before they speak" but it is time some of you start doing just that.
Supervisors are specifically chosen based on their judgment. The BoG turns down a number of people with every list submitted by Michael Zazula because we have doubts about them. We don't always get it right, but we do our best...and so do the supervisors. For the person who got suspended because he was monitoring a student and had to go away...get over it. You did violate the code of conduct because you had an unattended controller connection. Yes you were not controlling traffic, but monitoring a student means just that ACTIVELY MONITORING. A flight instructor can't monitor a student if he is in the back of the plane reading a book and a flight instructor is responsible for everything his student does. Same thing goes with controllers monitoring student controllers. Too many controllers out there aren't doing this and we've specifically asked supervisors to check up on monitors/OBS logins. In this case your connection was unattended and you were disconnected and suspended. Whatever your reason for leaving, you still left....and that student was now controlling with no one monitoring him meaning you were also violating another VATSIM rule. To be honest, I wouldn't have rescinded your suspension but you got lucky and Michael gave you a break.
Hopefully this perspective will help the rest of you understand where VATSIM (and the supervisors) are coming from. I know you all won't agree with some of what I've written, but hopefully you now at least understand where we are coming from.
all the best,
Dave
