Check-In Responsibility

[Alex Bailey]

Dave,

Many of the members and Supervisors who take issue with VATSIM's stance on visibility ranges do so because we think VATSIM is getting it wrong. You say there are published guidelines, but forums are not required reading and it creates headaches for those of us who actually are out there on the front lines and enforcing the regulations created by VATSIM. If a controller has an invalid range setting (with no reason) and refuses to lower it, we really don't have any authority to do much about it. It would be arrogant of myself for me to remove the controller because he didn't comply with my instruction to lower the range setting which doesn't exist in a policy in any way, shape, or form.

You say VATSIM doesn't want to add a bunch of policy, but this is where you have it wrong. VATSIM is now taking the stance to not insert one clause in the CoC which would make the jobs of Supervisors MUCH easier. The clause can be written in the same manner in which you present vis ranges to everyone else - there will be exceptions but here are the general guidelines. This doesn't add more bureaucracy, and it's literally the only "guideline" that gives us trouble when it comes time to enforce it.

Amazing strides would be made if this was included in the CoC. Not only would it make our job easier, but it would instill a bit more trust in the supervisors from the general membership because we wouldn't be pressed for documentation when we try to enforce an unwritten rule. At the end of the day, it is your choice, but here is what I see happening more and more due to this stance:

1) An increasing amount of trust is being lost by the members. Supervisors are made to look like the bad guys when unwritten rules are enforced. Posts such as these become more and more common, whether the VATSIM BoG sees them or not.

2) Supervisors begin to look the other way and not enforce vis range settings. We simply don't need the headaches that come with it. Thus, the steward comment is thrown out the window.

Both are happening and both are bad situations. Dave, you have a lot of people who really care about this organization and it would be nice if some of these issues could be put on the table instead of being deflected every time it comes up. It is such a little change that would bring about a huge improvement and ease of carrying out our duties.

[Alex Bailey]

Nick,

Read the Code of Conduct. B(9) states pilots may fly in formation, and the entire B Section applies to pilots. How could you, as a controller, be suspended for B(9) when you were unattended? This was clearly a mistake by the Supervisor, hence my comments.

As far as not attending your connection, do you really want to hash this out? You were wasting VATSIM bandwith and you were not serving your student. If I was your ATM, you would lose your instructor/mentor status for this offense. As a Supervisor, you were not there and you would be removed. As I told you, I generally give 5 minutes to controllers and observers to respond before I remove them. This ensures enough time to get a drink or use the bathroom and get back to the screen. I believe that is reasonable.

Norman Blackburn and others from the VATSIM management have stated that A14 can be used for observers and controllers who aren't attending their connection. If your CID is connected, but you aren't there, then your connection is now non-active. Regardless, you should be at your connection and if you choose not to, you need to accept the responsibility for your actions.

[Norman Blackburn]

Gents,

Short and sweet.

The CoC is not the place for these suggested range settings.  It is a document of rules, not guidelines.  

In regard to range requirements a controller should take what they need, not what they would like.  If a written policy is put out there you can bet your bottom dollar that people will see the figures as targets rather than limits.

[Nicholas Taylor]

Nick,

Read the Code of Conduct. B(9) states pilots may fly in formation, and the entire B Section applies to pilots. How could you, as a controller, be suspended for B(9) when you were unattended? This was clearly a mistake by the Supervisor, hence my comments.

As far as not attending your connection, do you really want to hash this out? You were wasting VATSIM bandwith and you were not serving your student. If I was your ATM, you would lose your instructor/mentor status for this offense. As a Supervisor, you were not there and you would be removed. As I told you, I generally give 5 minutes to controllers and observers to respond before I remove them. This ensures enough time to get a drink or use the bathroom and get back to the screen. I believe that is reasonable.

Norman Blackburn and others from the VATSIM management have stated that A14 can be used for observers and controllers who aren't attending their connection. If your CID is connected, but you aren't there, then your connection is now non-active. Regardless, you should be at your connection and if you choose not to, you need to accept the responsibility for your actions.

Alex,

I take responsibility for my actions, I left the connection unattended. It was my fault for doing that. And at the time I wasn't an instructor or mentor, at ZAU anyone is allowed to monitor anyone as long as they have the rating the other person desires. The whole thing I didn't understand BACK THEN, which was over 3 months ago, was why I was suspended after only 1 minute and what section of the CoC did I break? Wollenberg in this thread said, "However, you do make a good point. I'm not sure what specifically you would be removed for. It's not B3, it's not A9 (prior to 30 minutes). A14? Eh, that's probably a stretch. Maybe it's just time for a C12, specifically referencing controllers (and ins/men)."

Anyway, I don't think we should continue the argument about me any longer. This thread is far off of where it started. I agree with everything you said in the post above the one I quote you here. But originally, this was about whose responsibility is it to initiate contact?

[Nicholas Taylor]

Gents,

Short and sweet.

The CoC is not the place for these suggested range settings.  It is a document of rules, not guidelines.  

In regard to range requirements a controller should take what they need, not what they would like.  If a written policy is put out there you can bet your bottom dollar that people will see the figures as targets rather than limits.

Norman,

So why don't we have a policy that states the forums are a required reading? The only place the guidelines are posted are the forums which aren't required reading. Something needs to change to make it clearer for everyone...

[Norman Blackburn]

Hi Nick,

Then, yet again we get complaints of there being too many rules.

Controller visibility range is really a training issue and harkens back to my earlier post where we should take what we need rather than we would like.

[Nicholas Taylor]

There must be a solution. The forums are not required reading, yet VATSIM is enforcing something posted there. That's just morally wrong, IMHO. What if you were a teacher and I was your principle. There is a bulletin board in the office that isn't required to read, but it says we suggest you get to school 30 to 60 minutes before school starts. But you get there 10 minutes for the bell and I reprimand you for that, is that right?

[Norman Blackburn]

There must be a solution. The forums are not required reading, yet VATSIM is enforcing something posted there. That's just morally wrong, IMHO. What if you were a teach and I was your principle. There is a bulletin board in the office that isn't required to read, but it says we suggest you get to school 30 to 60 minutes before school starts. But you get there 10 minutes for the bell and I reprimand you for that, is that right?

This is spiralling completely out of context.

The guidelines used by Supervisors are guidelines.  Not rules.  Members are not reprimanded for having something in excess unless they continue to take what they want (and we regularly see people connected as TWR and have 400/600nm) despite education.

norman@vatsim.net - more than happy to reply there should you wish to take this further.

[Nicholas Taylor]

This is spiralling completely out of context.

The guidelines used by Supervisors are guidelines.  Not rules.  Members are not reprimanded for having something in excess unless they continue to take what they want (and we regularly see people connected as TWR and have 400/600nm) despite education.

norman@vatsim.net - more than happy to reply there should you wish to take this further.

Thanks for your time, Norman. I'll let this thread continue back to the pilots calling controllers thing.

[David Klain]

Norman laid it out exactly as I would have.  I have never said that the forums are required reading.  LET ME BE CLEAR -- VATSIM IS NOT ENFORCING A POLICY THAT IS ONLY PUBLISHED IN THE FORUMS!  With regards to controller visibility ranges, the overarching guidance ("use only what you need") was promulgated from the founders to the BOG to the EC to the Divisions to the ARTCC/FIR Chiefs.   If they have never explained this to you, then the problem you have is NOT with VATSIM but rather with the training you got from the ARTCC staff.  In addition, even if no one had ever told you this, the point is irrelevant...the supervisors are there to preserve NETWORK operations and excessive range interferes with network operations.  As such, they have unilateral authority to act as necessary to keep the network running smoothly.  

When it comes to what visibility range setting is acceptable, that is a training issue and needs to be handled by the Divisions and FIRs/ARTCCs.  They can either (a) institute specific ranges if they desire or (B) train their controllers to "use all you need, but no more" (which is the overarching VATSIM policy.  I've explained why we can't have a global policy (too many variations).  If an ARTCC puts out a list of ranges for the various positions in that center and a controller is following them, when a supervisor sees something he thinks may be excessive and is told by the controller "this is facility SOP as posted here...", the supervisor will either accept that or pass it up his chain of command so that the facility can be told to adjust the published ranges if higher authority determines they are indeed excessive.

Bottom line is:

(a) we CAN'T publish global ranges because of all the variations.  Back in the day, most facilities did publish range settings for the various positions (when I first started controlling at KZAU there was a list of ASRC settings for every position).  Most ARTCC's don't do this anymore.  Note I am not saying they have to do it, just that they can.

(B) with regards to the wasting bandwidth issue, let me make something clear.  The CoC and CoR are the overriding guidelines for VATSIM.  The CoR specifically states that [!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Sole Discretion: It is within the sole discretion of the individual authorized by this rule to determine whether the conduct of a member warrants removal or temporary suspension of said member. (6.04B)[/quote]  What this means is that a supervisor is authorized to use his discretion.

As far as what part of the COC you violated, I would go with A13 and/or A14 (unattended connections).  You had an unattended connection as an OBS...the fact it was only unattended for a minute is irrelevant.  Excessive is situation dependent and a person monitoring/training a student is expected to be there 100% of the time, no exceptions.  A13 might also apply as your failure to be present monitoring the student could potentially hinder operation of the network.

As I said in my earlier post, these things are judgment calls.  It's already happened and I feel no need to rehash this.  Michael overturned your suspension and I trust his judgment.  

Neither you or Alex are happy with the published guidance on visibility ranges and unattended connections.  Clearly you are both more comfortably working in an environment where everything is laid out for you in policies and procedures, step by step.  VATSIM is not that kind of environment and the founders and BOG have no intention of making it that kind of place.  The only issue now is a decision you make -- can you live with the environment VATSIM provides for its members or not?  If you can't, it's time for you to move elsewhere and find a network that better suits your needs.  Whatever you decide, I can assure you that VATSIM will be fine.

all the best,
Dave

[Alex Bailey]

Edit: Comment removed - I'll copy the post I made into an email to continue discussion.

[Dan Leavitt]

Everyone,

This started off as a simple question of who is contact left up to, and now we've strayed to vis ranges.

The matter of the pilot/controller mis-communication has been handled privately.

If you guys want to argue vis ranges, I'd suggest making a new thread, as this WAS supposed to be about checking-in/contacting, there's also hundreds of other topics already made in regards to the vis range issues.

Since this has strayed so far off topic, I'd request that this thread be brought back on topic or closed


Thanks for your time and responses

Dan

edit: changed wording of request.

[Thomas Flanary]

Personally as a pilot, if I'm not familiar with the airspace, I won't contact any controllers until they contact me. I have no way to tell that I'm in your airspace, and I absolutely hate it when pilots call me 200 miles outside of my airspace, and then I have to find them...

[Bryan Wollenberg]

I'll bring it back on topic.

There are two parts of the specific CoC, and I think Tom covers it very reasonably:

A pilot must at all times check for appropriate air traffic control coverage for the airspace he is crossing at any given time.

Does this mean checking SERVINFO constantly to see if a controller is on or comes on?  Possibly, however, I know when I'm flying, I don't refresh the darned thing constantly...I'm flying my airplane.  But you should certainly make an effort to determine if a controller comes online.

So this is where the next section comes in.

or upon request to make contact with an appropriate air traffic controller  

This is perfectly clear.

So as to whose responsibility it is to make contact?  It's everyones' responsibility.  The pilot should make a reasonable effort to determine if he's flying in controlled airspace, or will be soon, and it's the controller's responsbility to contact a pilot who is entering his/her airspace.

[Eduardo Passos]

I'll bring it back on topic.

There are two parts of the specific CoC, and I think Tom covers it very reasonably:

A pilot must at all times check for appropriate air traffic control coverage for the airspace he is crossing at any given time.

Does this mean checking SERVINFO constantly to see if a controller is on or comes on?  Possibly, however, I know when I'm flying, I don't refresh the darned thing constantly...I'm flying my airplane.  But you should certainly make an effort to determine if a controller comes online.

So this is where the next section comes in.

or upon request to make contact with an appropriate air traffic controller  

This is perfectly clear.

So as to whose responsibility it is to make contact?  It's everyones' responsibility.  The pilot should make a reasonable effort to determine if he's flying in controlled airspace, or will be soon, and it's the controller's responsbility to contact a pilot who is entering his/her airspace.

Sorry, Brian, but first "A pilot must at all times check for appropriate air traffic control coverage for the airspace he is crossing at any given time" and if sometime later he doesn't contact apropriate ATC then "or upon request to make contact with an appropriate air traffic controller"
A pilot "should make a reasonable effort to determine if he's flying in a controlled airspace"  should be changed to must. It's his obligation, his duty. I agree that an ATC calling a pilot many miles outside his airspace or to call a pilot that will be flying above his superior limit is wrong specially if he wants to "control" that flight. But not to know the airspace where he will be/is flying and not taking notice that in his FSINN/SB program an ATC just has come in range?