Do we even need a VATUSA1?

[Jeff Thomas]

One might make the argument that we don't need a VATUSA division "staff", and it's a pretty good argument as long as there is a policy/member liaison, a training person, and a website/technology dude.  

If the VATUSA1s of the world are so unhappy (for whatever reason) and we cannot keep them, why have em?

What is the value added by a division head at this level of the organization?

And to that end, what is the purpose/value-add of the Regional Director other than to act as a speed bump between the division head and the VATSIM EC?

If the division heads cannot implement their own policies outside the CoR, and now GRP2, what's the point?  I wouldn't want that job for sure, because all you are at that point is a figure head.  Is it just to take care of the day-to-day needs of the VATUSA membership so the EC or RD don't have to deal with it?  Again, I wouldn't want that job either.....

Could we get away without having a VATUSA1 realistically?  Keep a member person, a training/standards/QA person, and a web site person, and that's it.  

Jeff
PS> we obviously have an organizational issue (along with some communication issues it seems), so why not lay out all the cards and options?

"let the flaming commence

[Harold Rutila]

Jeff,

Using your logic, why does each city need a mayor? Keep the directors of the Department of Public Works, Police, and Fire in their position, then every city can talk to the governor of its state. Frankly that's ridiculous.

Resignations are not necessarily a bad thing. If people in positions such as VATUSA1 get worn down, then they're going to resign. It's not necessarily that they're unhappy. And just because VATUSA gets more frequent resignations than, say, VATEUD, that doesn't mean something's wrong.

The GRP is not an overwhelmingly binding document (edit:) with regard to VATUSA policies and has very little (if any) effect on them. In fact, it's hardly an overwhelmingly binding document at all. I worked as the TA of ZDV for a year to establish ZDV training department compliance with that document. It primarily bounds ARTCC training departments. Sure, VATUSA has had to tweak a couple of things such as the Training Resource Center to reflect rating changes in the GRP, but beyond that there isn't a whole lot that has had to change on the divisional level. Whether or not you agree with me, the GRP is not an evil document and has provided many positives in its implementation, as shown by the response from individual ARTCCs to VATUSA at the time of GRP review last year.

VATSIM divisions are bound to the Code of Regulations in the same sense that states of the US are bound to the US Constitution. Cities in states of the US are bound to the state constitution. That's basically how VATSIM works, too. The CoR does not  prevent someone from trying something new, expediting efficiency, or -- generally speaking -- from making new policy, as long as it complies with the policies set forth by the top.

Many of the positions have been established to simply reduce workload for other staff members higher up on the bureaucratic tier. Nothing's wrong with that. It's okay to have people making regional, divisional, and ARTCC decisions that conform to VATSIM's policies.

[Bruce Clingan]

Harold,

Jeff,

Using your logic, why does each city need a mayor? Keep the directors of the Department of Public Works, Police, and Fire in their position, then every city can talk to the governor of its state. Frankly that's ridiculous.

Mayors have the authority to develop policy and broad discretion (sometimes not because of city councils holding of the broad discretion) to make decisions.  They can create ordinance, allocate funds (which we don't do on VATSIM) so on and so forth.  Though it seems like the idea of a Mayor and VATUSA1 may fit together I don't think that they are as connected as it may appear.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Resignations are not necessarily a bad thing. If people in positions such as VATUSA1 get worn down, then they're going to resign. It's not necessarily that they're unhappy. And just because VATUSA gets more frequent resignations than, say, VATEUD, that doesn't mean something's wrong.[/quote]
That would be good if it is the fact, but I don't think that the recent turnover is because of normal attrition.  I could be wrong and only those people really know the answer.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The GRP is not an overwhelmingly binding document (edit:) with regard to VATUSA policies and has very little (if any) effect on them. In fact, it's hardly an overwhelmingly binding document at all. I worked as the TA of ZDV for a year to establish ZDV training department compliance with that document. It primarily bounds ARTCC training departments. Sure, VATUSA has had to tweak a couple of things such as the Training Resource Center to reflect rating changes in the GRP, but beyond that there isn't a whole lot that has had to change on the divisional level. Whether or not you agree with me, the GRP is not an evil document and has provided many positives in its implementation, as shown by the response from individual ARTCCs to VATUSA at the time of GRP review last year.[/quote]

The implementation of GRP1 was dramatically different than the implementation of GRP2.  

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]VATSIM divisions are bound to the Code of Regulations in the same sense that states of the US are bound to the US Constitution. Cities in states of the US are bound to the state constitution. That's basically how VATSIM works, too. The CoR does not  prevent someone from trying something new, expediting efficiency, or -- generally speaking -- from making new policy, as long as it complies with the policies set forth by the top.[/quote]

Not really.  The Constitution is a supreme law, one which all other regulation must fall within from the local level to the Federal level.  The COC/COR are technically the only low.  Outside of what the BOD can accomplish policy wise there are is technically no rule making allowed outside the COC/COR.  There is rule making allowed within the U.S. Constitution hundreds of thousands of pages of law which have been created to fit within the guidelines of the Constitution.  The discretion at the local level on VATSIM to make rules is extremely limited.  Essentially to minimum hours requirements, which is also regulated, and local field procedures which are also regulated through GRP.  

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Many of the positions have been established to simply reduce workload for other staff members higher up on the bureaucratic tier. Nothing's wrong with that. It's okay to have people making regional, divisional, and ARTCC decisions that conform to VATSIM's policies.[/quote]

You are right, that is the purpose of hiring staff members under you but if no authority or discretion is delegated to those staff members all that is created is frustration, and confusion.  For example, all of the staff at ZID, and I hope that they would agree, have extremely broad discretion to make decisions regarding their departments.  I don't approve everything my TA says or does, nor my DATM.  I monitor their decisions and attempt to stay in communication them so that their decisions are likely inline with my vision for the ARTCC.  If I were to require them to have approved by my everything which they do I completely eliminate the purpose of hiring additional staff, and should essentially just leave the positions vacant and do the work myself.  And that leads us to the initial post.

Leaving the division staff vacant may be something to consider, maybe not ideal and certainly not my decision to make it is an idea which deserves thought.

[Jeff Thomas]

BTW I am being devil's advocate with this thread.

[Luke Kolin]

BTW I am being devil's advocate with this thread.

It's a question worth asking. You have ARTCC staff, the VATUSA Regions, VATUSA, VATNA, EC, BoG, and finally the Founders. That's an awful lot of layers for how many active controllers?

While VATUSA might need to stick around since airspace rules are as I understand it national there's value in a national level of organization, there's certainly two or three layers in that above list that could vanish without anyone noticing.

Cheers!

Luke

[Alex Bailey]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Now I have heard more than one former VATUSA1 report to us in these forums that the problems stem from the VATSIM leadership, and I have no emprical way to tell whether this is true. However, I would argue that, objectively, the former VATUSA1 representatives have no empirical way to tell that their allegations are true either, having not been members of the BOG. The BOG doesn't seem to think that they are the cause of any problems, and neither do our former VATUSA1's. So I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, I'm just saying that I can't say with proof that either of the parties are fully reliable, as they both are, by design, meant to represent the interests of only a subset of the VATSIM population. The VATUSA1 clan is trying to do the best they can for VATUSA, and the BOG is trying to do the best they can for the EC and the RD's. All I can objectively deduce from this is that more communication is needed between these parties. If one of the parties is indeed actively trying to subjugate the needs of the other, then this will eventually make itself known, but I have a hard time believing that this is the case, as it would take an act of willful malice from a person, or group of persons, who have concurrently supplied the VATSIM network with voluntary resources (monetary and otherwise) - and those two concepts simply don't mix (charity and malice). So we have to deduce that both parties are acting in their own best interest, and with their best intentions, and that there is simply more work that needs to be done (on the part of both parties) in order to get VATUSA running the way that both VATUSA and the BOG want VATUSA to run.[/quote]

David,

You hit the nail entirely on its head with these comments. Every VATUSA1 has represented what they thought was best for VATUSA. Each one utilized their own talents and abilities to make this division a better place, and I believe each Director has done just that even if we weren't around for very long.

We also have our opinions on the state of this network, and ultimately all had our own reasons for resigning. From my personal opinion backed with various evidence, I believe the breakdown comes with lack of communication and the current management style of the BoG. It seems that a big "event" must happen to get the BoG to take notice of anything, at least within VATUSA in the past year. From my personal experience, the BoG was very quick to criticize and attempt to stake someone (usually when someone below the Director such as an ATM made a "mistake") but wasn't available to answer questions or provide guidance for proactive measures. Again, this is my personal opinion and view of the situation, but where is the motivation to not tell the truth? I don't want to turn this thread into the destructive nature of the other one, so we'll stick to what I believe is a serious problem with communication and the lack of attention to any situation that doesn't cross the BoG mailing list. The BoG seems to work off of a reactive approach to management, rather than a proactive approach to maintaining the network. More time is spent playing damage control rather than managing people and preventing situations before they occur.

Division Directors wouldn't have left on such quick terms if this weren't the case. Ultimately we get sick and tired of the "over communication" when somebody screws up, and wish we could get that same level of communication when we needed some guidance. Each Director takes the position with the intent to stick around for years and each one thinks they know the climate of the position. However, you quickly realize the number of things you CAN'T do and find yourself with a tiny list of things you can do. I realized that I could no longer be an effective leader and stick to the goals I put out for myself simply due to the fact that I could not continue to represent the views of the ATMs when they had questions that I could never get answered from above. At some point you begin to realize you're just a pawn and that's when you decide that this isn't for you anymore. David, you clearly mentioned that there should be no malice with charity, and you're right. But there is still posturing by various individuals inside and outside of the BoG. Some want to move up within the BoG and become President, some outsiders want on the BoG and will be a "yes man" to do it, and others on the BoG are there for the right reasons and truly want to use their position not as a title or circle of influence, but as a true desire to do the work to improve our community.

It all comes down to effective management. The tactics currently employed simply don't portray a good image to those who see how it really works "up there". The "take it or leave it" comments and various other power plays turn off the staff who are trying to do everything they can to fix the problems. As I said before and in other threads, it takes people skills and the realization that "in your face" management doesn't work outside of the military and it will only sour those who are subject to it. VATUSA Division Directors want guidance and support, and it unfortunately has not been happening under the current administration.

None of this is being said to rake over the coals. These are conclusions I arrived at by combining various experiences in the position, and I firmly believe that any corrective measures begin with the Founders and BoG. If those deficiences aren't accepted and accounted for first, then no matter the measure taken at this level there will still be serious problems. You can take away VATNA or VATUSA or even the ATMs, but it's not going to correct the flow of information or the general leadership provided by the BoG. Friendly gestures and genuine offers of assistance backed up with action will always go 100 miles further than swooping in after a conflict.

Tell the VATUSA Directors what they CAN do, what SUPPORT they have, and what they are doing RIGHT. Build a positive relationship and correct the poor image of the board. Fix the top first and get a cohesive bond among and between Founders and the BoG. Once you do this, your staff will enjoy working with you and probably won't leave in 5 months.  

[Terry Scanlan]

Alex,
You raise some interesting points and I will try to address some of them and also explain where the Founders, BoG and EC fit in the overall structure. There are some that will be reading these posts that have no idea of the VATSIM structure.
Founders - Own the network and basically ensure that we have a network to play on.
BoG - Administers the network with each of the VATGOVs having a specific area to manage such as Web Services, Communications, Regions, Conflicts, Supervisors etc.etc.
EC - consists of the six Regional Directors who are responsible for managing airspace and to oversee operations of the Divisions within their regions.
DD - administer their individual Divisions

The Founders do not get involved in the day to day running of VATSIM but have oversite on all things VATSIM and if they see things that they perceive to be detrimental to the network then they will make it known and the Founders Letter is a typical example of this.
Does this sound like we are top heavy in management, I think not, however when there is a problem it is essential that we all try to resolve it from the top down. You believe that a lack of communication is a contributing factor and I  am inclined to believe you. The BoG have taken steps to resolve this by creating a special forum within VATSIM Forums that are inclusive of the BoG, EC and Divison Directors. Problems can be raised in this forum and have the benefit of the BoG and RD's input . I believe that this is a step forward and will help to resolve problems before they get out of hand.

The BoG and your RD is listening and whilst you may not see any activity there is a lot of discussion taking place and we intend to assist in anyway we can.
Terry Scanlan
VP-OPS

[Luke Kolin]

Lastly, Luke - I just wanted to give the same sort of analogy to address your statements.  For each law-abiding citizen of the US, there is a city council, a city Mayor, a state Governor, representatives and Senators to the Federal Government,  President of the US, and then multinational organizations such as the United Nations that work together to make life peaceful and prosperous in our world.  Which of those levels can be removed without anyone noticing?  I believe that there is a good purpose to each of the structures that you named (at least, ideally).  Now, whether they are all working together the way that they should be is a different question, and one worth asking.  But abolishing any one (or more) of them is not a solution to the problem.  If the interaction between the organizations is not optimal, then this problem should be addressed.

VATSIM isn't intended to be the government. It's not intended to be a replay of what you learned in Civics class. It's a hobby - we're here to have some fun, fly airplanes around and provide ATC services. I've already dealt with the government on immigration, taxation and Medicaid, and if that's going to be the model for my hobby, no thank you.

Each time this question gets asked, people come out of the woodwork to explain how important each level of hierarchy is, how VATSIM would cease to operate properly if a particular layer was removed and how the real problem is ineffective communication between the layers. It's worth noting that every time, the answer is provided by people who currently hold or have held positions within the same bloated hierarchy. It takes a particular form of testicular fortitude for someone admit in public that their role adds no significant value, and that's not something I see at the lower levels (or the higher levels, for that matter) of VATSIM. What's even more amazing about this gigantic hierarchical explosion of titles and positions is that it's uniquely limited to the ATC side of the house. You have, at most, 2,100 active controllers (who have logged more than 30 minutes of scope time in the last 30 days). Do you really need a staff of several hundred at six different levels to manage a small group of hobbyists? How many controllers do we have per staff member? I'd love to see that ratio.

Strangely enough, VATSIM has approximately 13,500 active pilots and can handle them just fine without any hierarchy, or anyone on the BoG dedicated to them or their needs. Amazing!

As you suggest, we need more effective communication. I'd suggest that the sheer number of layers are what makes communications ineffective, and that you won't get what you want until you eliminate some. The dysfunction is caused not just by the sheer number of layers, but the inverse relationship between the increasing number of people at level and their decreasing authority. No wonder there's so much politics! There's so little else for them to do. (And while I don't what to give your Civics analogy too much credit, it's worth noting that while there is a hierarchy of governments, each has certain exclusive areas of jurisdiction, which doesn't exist on VATSIM.)

I was struck by something Harold Rutilla said in another topic - he mentioned that we still couldn't get enough competent controllers behind the scopes after 10 years. That to me is shocking - that we keep trying the same methods with the same bloated hierarchical structure without adequate results, and we don't have anything more constructive than GRP2 to solve the problem. I wonder if this is what the Founders had in mind when they created the network; a bureaucratic ATC monster, with paperwork and policies galore and pilots and members that are treated as, at best, an afterthought and at worst a nuisance.

Personally, one shouldn't justify the system unless one is proud of the results. And I don't know who would be.

Cheers!

Luke

[Harold Rutila]

I was struck by something Harold Rutilla said in another topic - he mentioned that we still couldn't get enough competent controllers behind the scopes after 10 years.

What?!? When and where did I say this? I've been with VATSIM for less than four years, and on the ATC side for less than that.
 

[Luke Kolin]

What?!? When and where did I say this? I've been with VATSIM for less than four years, and on the ATC side for less than that.
 

This is the quote:

"That's an ARTCC problem, and most of the time it has to do with short staffing. Again, we can't pay instructors and mentors, so you have to wait for whomever is available. That's how its been for almost a decade."

My memory is not quite as bad as I thought, but in fairness I think you really meant that we couldn't get enough folks to do evaluations, not behind the scopes in general. I think my overall point remains valid - VATSIM's processes are insufficient to get proper coverage and keep people moving up through the hobby and engaged. I wonder if we're ever going to try anything different.

Cheers!

Luke

[Bryan Wollenberg]

Strangely enough, VATSIM has approximately 13,500 active pilots and can handle them just fine without any hierarchy, or anyone on the BoG dedicated to them or their needs. Amazing!

Easy to say, because you have no idea how it really works.  The hierarchy is in a sense the same, which is one reason why pilots select regions and divisions when signing up.  Pilots do indeed contact the DDs and RDs too, just like the controllers do.  I get probably close to a dozen emails every single day from pilots needing help.  In fact, the support I give to them, and the requests I receive, far outnumber those coming from controllers.

[Luke Kolin]

Easy to say, because you have no idea how it really works.  The hierarchy is in a sense the same, which is one reason why pilots select regions and divisions when signing up.

If I have no idea how it works, please explain to me what aspect of operating as a Pilot on VATSIM would change if I changed Divisions/Regions to somewhere on the other side of the world.

The link between a Pilot and a Division, while it exists, has no practical consequences.

Cheers!

Luke

[Bryan Wollenberg]

No aspect would change, but without some sort of hierarchy (you are saying that no hierarchy at all is needed, correct?), you get one guy who would be getting anywhere from 80-90 emails per day, and this is not including those from controllers.

[Luke Kolin]

No aspect would change, but without some sort of hierarchy (you are saying that no hierarchy at all is needed, correct?), you get one guy who would be getting anywhere from 80-90 emails per day, and this is not including those from controllers.

Lack of hierarchy does not equate to one person doing it, nor does the fact that you answer pilot questions means that there's a hierarchy on the pilot side. Probably every ATC answers pilot questions, whether the pilot is part of their Division or not.

Cheers!

Luke

[Manuel Manigault]

ATC's are not the only ones having to deal with bureaucracy.  Each individual virtual airline has their own hierarchy also.  DVA for example has 6 on the senior staff, 5 handling admin services, 29 chief pilots to cover each aircraft type, one to head online events, and one to run the flight academy.