Do we even need a VATUSA1?

[Ira Robinson]

Well gentleman, after listening in here and to the previous discussion regarding the trials and tribulations of leadership in this little organization of ours it seems pretty clear to me  that whoever is chosen as the next VATUSA1 better be someone without any axes to grind, friends to please, political ties or connections, IOU's or UOMe's, hidden agendas, and isn't pi$$ed off about anything yet and hasn't pi$$ed anyone else off yet.

In other words it sounds like you need to find someone who isn't generally known to anyone in the VATUSA or VATSIM hierarchy.

Yea. Good luck with that      

Ira R..

[Jeff Thomas]

Case in point, the GRP. It was originally actualized through a request from the BoG to the EC to come up with a policy that provided regulation over the widely variant and in many cases, outlandishly difficult and obtuse controller training, transfer and visiting requirements VATSIM-wide. Up to that time even with constant prodding, no positive results had been attained in answer to the identified problems. Through this "codification", a loss of some autonomy at the operational level has occurred. Many find this disconcerting to say the least. This is further exasperated by the fact that such codification has to be well-crafted, easy to understand, well focused and thorough in applicability.

Now layer on top of all this the factor of VATSIM being a volunteer organization. With the onerous burden of having to operate under more and more policies and regulations and a sense of not being able to determine one's own "destiny" as-it-were, you can quickly see where frustration can erupt and members who have all the best in mind for their efforts become any one of; frustrated, combative, reticent...(fill in the blank).

Gary, this is perhaps the best summary of the cause and effect of the situation I've heard to date.  I hope someone at VATSIM is reading this one.

[Bryan Wollenberg]

I'll echo Jeff's sentiments.

I haven't been wanting to reply much to this thread or the other thread, as I wanted to see the discussion that transpired.  But I'll certainly provide my $0.02 for what it's worth.

I see a lot of blaming of upper management taking place.  And make no mistake, I can improve, the BOG can improve, and the EC can improve.  There is always room for improvement.  But what is noticeably missing from this argument is self-examination, and inclusion of what takes place below those levels.  Don't for a minute think that the lower levels of staffing should be excluded from this discussion.

What amazes me is that this same evil BOG, and the dirty rotten EC are the exact same people who serve the rest of the VATSIM world, but this phenomenon, if you will, is really only taking place in VATUSA.  Right there, I would begin looking away from the BOG and EC as the root cause of this problem.  This animosity does not really exist in other Divisions or Regions.  I wonder why?    

What we have, in a nutshell, is this grand vision from the Founders.  They know what they want the network to "look like," how they want it to function, etc.  And realizing that vision, and creating the policies to realize that vision, we have the BOG and EC.  And from what I've heard, the BOG and EC have done an outstanding job in seeing that the vision is realized, particularly through the latest GRP.  Unfortunately, the Founders' vision, and the vision of the ARTCCs within VATUSA (some of them anyway) do not line up, in many cases, at all, and you get this huge resistance from ATMs who think that we (BOG, EC) are trying to take away their power.  They want to run their little kingdoms as they see fit, regardless of what anyone says.

This is the cause of the problem, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.  Are there communications break-downs?  Absolutely.  Are there policies that could be better?  Sure.  Are there processes that sometimes just don't work for the ATMs and staff, yes.  But that does not cause problems like we see here.  

What we end up with are VATUSA1's (and assorted staff) who want to implement the policies of the BOG/EC, but at the same time want to stick up for the ARTCCs, even the ones who are completely in the wrong.  They're stuck in the middle of all this, and then we wonder why we can't keep a USA1 for more than a few months.

There are many ARTCCs out there who just do not want to change how they have been operating for years and years and that is where much of this contention comes from.  We are told by the Founders, and subsequently the BOG/EC that we need to be inclusive...that ATMs can't just remove anyone they like from their rosters without going through the CR process, for example.  They decided that it is wrong to be able to deny transfer or VC status for whatever reason the ATM wants.  

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.  

We have many ATMs saying that they do not agree with the Founders' Vision.  That's really what it comes down to.  But fortunately, or unfortunately, it is that vision that we need to achieve.  It means we're inevitably going to have to change the way we do business around here.  VATUSA can no longer continue to operate like it has for the past 10 years, whether we like it or not.  There is going to be change.  And until we can make things work under those changes, we're going to be left with this.

[Bruce Clingan]

Unfortunately, the Founders' vision, and the vision of the ARTCCs within VATUSA (some of them anyway) do not line up, in many cases, at all, and you get this huge resistance from ATMs who think that we (BOG, EC) are trying to take away their power.  They want to run their little kingdoms as they see fit, regardless of what anyone says.

I think that it has been clearly, and then not so clearly stated that the ATM's don't have any power.  No power may be delegated to us unless the BOG approves (as in the case of the visibility ranges I guess but that was news to most of us).  It's hard to take power away from a position which "has no authority".  Why are those who have "little kingdoms" removed?  If that is where the problem really lies it seems like a pretty simple solution.  

Yes Bryan is right we can all do better at our job, everyone in the world can say that, but the bigger issue is that it is hard to analyze the lower level staff's decision making when they don't have the authority to make a decision.  It took the DD stepping up and essentially, from what I can gather, refusing to implement part of the GRP division wide in order to give the ATMs the minuscule responsibility of actually being able to develop air traffic procedures for our facility.  Not turning people away from the ARTCC but simply saying that the most ideal traffic flow for airport XXX is to follow this certain procedure.  A local procedure which the BOG, EC and really the DD aren't even affected by.  We are talking about which runways are preferred and such and beyond that many of the ARTCC, maybe most or all, use essentially real world procedures anyway.  

So after some self examination I came to the determination that you are right.  I could be quicker pressing the accept transfer button, or adding new visitors to the roster, but beyond that everything else we do is directly mandated from those higher levels.  Any Bryan is also right, I presume, in saying that this doesn't occur elsewhere on the network.  So what variables, if any don't exist in those other divisions?  Are those divisions looked upon differently from the EC/BOG than VATUSA, and is everyone being treated "fairly" from the upper levels down to the bottom?  I don't know it's well above my pay grade.  

I apologize if this seems harsh or offensive but for those of us who follow the edicts from the top, even if I don't like them, I get a little fired up when asked to self examine my job duties.  If there are people who aren't doing their "job", and I use that kind of loosely because this is a hobby, then they need to be removed.  That simple.

[Nicholas Taylor]

I must be confused... We're all here bickering and going back and forth in this thread, but nothing is being done. Instead of spending a week in one of these threads that appear every two weeks, maybe the upper echelons should spend their valuable time positively contributing to our hobby and doing something to improve their [our] weaknesses.

"Are there communications break-downs? Absolutely. Are there policies that could be better? Sure. Are there processes that sometimes just don't work for the ATMs and staff, yes."

So let's fix it!

I believe I've made at least a minute impact on VATSIM, at least in ZAU a bit. I get on and instruct and help out our students whenever I have free time to devote to our hobby. I try my best not to spend my time in forums getting into arguments, etc. I like to be on and working with our students helping them to be as best as they can. I don't think they'd appreciate it much if I sat here and typed out 45 minutes worth of sewage when I could be helping them or someone else.

So I guess the moral of my story is let's stop sitting around and actually do something to fix the obvious problem(s).


-Nick

[Bryan Wollenberg]

It took the DD stepping up and essentially, from what I can gather, refusing to implement part of the GRP division wide in order to give the ATMs the minuscule responsibility of actually being able to develop air traffic procedures for our facility.  Not turning people away from the ARTCC but simply saying that the most ideal traffic flow for airport XXX is to follow this certain procedure.  A local procedure which the BOG, EC and really the DD aren't even affected by.  We are talking about which runways are preferred and such and beyond that many of the ARTCC, maybe most or all, use essentially real world procedures anyway.

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.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]"Are there communications break-downs? Absolutely. Are there policies that could be better? Sure. Are there processes that sometimes just don't work for the ATMs and staff, yes."

So let's fix it![/quote]

Agreed, and I think that's what we're all trying to do.  I'm starting my full review of the VATNA policies tonight (including 05/05 just for you Jason!), and I always respond to emails the same day...normally within a couple hours.

[Gary Millsaps]

Bryan, et. Al.,

First of all, I’d like to apologize again for the piecemeal posting above; my day got a bit hectic and I didn’t get to the finish line with it all. That said; please do not take what I posted as a condemnation of the GRP or any new or changed policies at VATSIM or any other level. I was using the GRP example to set a context only.

Bryan, in direct response to your post, I’d like to ask you to think back a few months; are the current attitudes and responses being posted any different than those expressed by many ATMs, DATMs and other staff (you and myself included) when the initial word of the first GRP policy was announced? I think not. If memory serves, those earlier posts and discussions were much more vociferous in nature…we all were just as dismayed, angered, and felt trodden-on then as now. A significant effort was made to work through the previous issues and to establish buy in – no less of an effort is necessary this time around.

As it has been brought up directly, the loss of control over the transfer and visiting controller functions at the ARTCC level is of serious concern to many. Looking at it from the ATM’s point of view, for good or ill, it was one area over which they had a modicum of influence. That has now been removed – again for good or ill. To some degree, we have been our worst enemies on this one…in my tenure as VATUSA1; I too had a very disappointing instance of blackballing occur. I very much regret it happening but I worked my ass off to fix it. The answer lies somewhere within due diligence and a strong dose of common sense. The codification of the requirements for denial, removal or other personnel actions brought about its own problems as no officially acceptable process was initially provided to guide the staff in applying the policy dictates. This only added to the frustration and angst.

Now comes a thorny issue…there has been a policy on the VATNA books regarding the requirement for review and approval of all local policies at the RD level before they are truly in effect. This has been around in some form since before my tenure as DD. At first glance, the policy would seem to answer the ever so elusive concept of accountability by placing approval authority at a single point within the management hierarchy. Does it accomplish what really needs to be done? I’ll repeat myself, I think not (this is a personal opinion). Rather than centralize the approval authority, put such day-to-day work at the lowest level and hold those responsible accountable via the hierarchy…and be serious about it…that’s true management. Barring this, if it must stay as it is, remove the stigma of “do what I say, not as I do” by approving one or three or all 100+ of them. Having a policy that isn’t “approved” as required by rote authority is useless to the ATM in their quest to administer their facility…they have nothing behind their efforts. Further, it is flat-out unconscionable to expect them to follow the myriad of policies and procedures they are asked to abide by when their authority has not fulfilled its own obligations to approve and post their simplest procedures as mandated by that authority’s policy.

Though I am no longer privy to the deeper staff forums of the division, I find it ludicrous to think ATMs are engaging in or threatening out-and-out insubordination or the mutinous behavior you have mentioned. I may be ignorant of the facts so don’t take it that I’m calling you a liar. If that is a fact, then they are a problem that must be dealt with accordingly.

Bryan, I’m not trying to ruin your day any more than anyone else’s…you spoke that VATUSA has to change its “modus operandi” from what has gone on for the past 10 years. (BTW, I'd like to except the 1-1/2 years I was DD... ; we weren't perfect but we did a pretty damn good job.)  You are correct on many levels but that change must be guided and nurtured, not crammed down the throats of volunteers who you rely on to make up and manage the units, divisions and region for which you are responsible. I would ask that you temper your actions with a thought toward determining if what you see as necessary change is change that truly fits the Founder’s intent or your own vision of such. As a leader, your vision must be built upon and with the vision of those you lead...it's not a one man show.

With respect,

[Bruce Clingan]

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.

Hmmm... Not exactly how it was worded to us ATMs I must misunderstand what we were told.  

[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=GRP 5.3)--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE (GRP 5.3)[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]5.3 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]

I don't think that the concern was as much related to the part of the GRP that you quoted but to every document requires the direct approval of the DD.  My misunderstanding though.  Thanks for the clarification.

[Michael Hodge Jr]

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.

Hmmm... Not exactly how it was worded to us ATMs I must misunderstand what we were told.

Oh, don't forget about 1.2E (The C3 Rating).

And let's also not forget that the issue with 5.3 was not only the fact that they had to be posted on the division website, it was that VATUSA Staff was required to again go through and review, approve somewhere along the lines of 200 SOPs/Policies within the division, and those had to be posted on the website. Which would've done no good anyway, because they were null and void due to NA Policy 0505 (as they would not have been posted on the VATNA website)

[Bryan Wollenberg]

Bryan, et. Al.,

First of all, I’d like to apologize again for the piecemeal posting above; my day got a bit hectic and I didn’t get to the finish line with it all. That said; please do not take what I posted as a condemnation of the GRP or any new or changed policies at VATSIM or any other level. I was using the GRP example to set a context only.

Gary,  no need to apologize.  I actually thought your post was quite good.  Allow me to address a few things one-by-one if I could:

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Bryan, in direct response to your post, I’d like to ask you to think back a few months; are the current attitudes and responses being posted any different than those expressed by many ATMs, DATMs and other staff (you and myself included) when the initial word of the first GRP policy was announced? I think not. If memory serves, those earlier posts and discussions were much more vociferous in nature…we all were just as dismayed, angered, and felt trodden-on then as now. A significant effort was made to work through the previous issues and to establish buy in – no less of an effort is necessary this time around.[/quote]

You're absolutely right.  At the time, it seemed like a really silly idea to me.  There were a whole lot of issues that didn't seem right.  However, after seeing the GRP in action for 2+ years, I realized it really isn't a big deal.  Version 2 in my mind is policy done right.  The competencies of course are the big one.  You have to remember as well that the Division was involved with the GRP review process from the begining.  There weren't a whole lot of concerns brought up during the process.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]As it has been brought up directly, the loss of control over the transfer and visiting controller functions at the ARTCC level is of serious concern to many. Looking at it from the ATM’s point of view, for good or ill, it was one area over which they had a modicum of influence. That has now been removed – again for good or ill.[/quote]

It is a concern, as it should be.  However, it has been abused for so many years, that we find ourselves under the microscope.  Removing people outside of the CR process is something that the Founders have actually been trying to stop for a very long time (or so I'm told).  It is something that shouldn't have been taking place at all, yet has been allowed to go on for ages.  It's never a power that ATMs actually had; a blind eye was simply turned to what was going on.  The fact that it was continuing as recently as a month or two ago just shows that it's not something we have gotten rid of.  There are still ATMs continuing to build their kingdoms, allowing in only the members they want to allow in, removing those (even permanently!!!) who violate any minute aspect of the ARTCCs regulations, etc.  And while it would make the most sense to fire those people, that's apparently not how we do business.  Fair enough.

In the staff forum, there was a discussion regarding petitioning the BOG to reach a middle ground, or augment the CoR when it comes to removals from ARTCCs.  Andrew and I both encouraged a formal proposal in an attempt to augment the CR process locally, and I agreed to deliver it to the BOG, if I recall.  So far, I've received nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  The deal still stands.  While I obviously can't promise anything from the BOG, at least we tried.  


[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Now comes a thorny issue…there has been a policy on the VATNA books regarding the requirement for review and approval of all local policies at the RD level before they are truly in effect. This has been around in some form since before my tenure as DD. At first glance, the policy would seem to answer the ever so elusive concept of accountability by placing approval authority at a single point within the management hierarchy. Does it accomplish what really needs to be done? I’ll repeat myself, I think not (this is a personal opinion). Rather than centralize the approval authority, put such day-to-day work at the lowest level and hold those responsible accountable via the hierarchy…and be serious about it…that’s true management. Barring this, if it must stay as it is, remove the stigma of “do what I say, not as I do” by approving one or three or all 100+ of them.[/quote]

I've discussed this one ad nauseum in the staff forums.  I had planned on waiting for the release of the GRP and a possible amendment to the Global VC Policy before approving the local rules.  Many of them would have to be changed, particularly the ones that allow for ATMs to remove people for basically looking at the ATM the wrong way, which was the reason for the delay.  

However, as I mentioned above, I am (tonight) begining a review of all the VATNA policies, particularly the ones that were in effect since long before I got here.  05/05 is the big one, and will most likely be removed entirely.  I have no intention of micromanaging any facility to the extent that every little change has to be run by me first, however, there are some changes that are going to have to take place within local policy.  Those will be addressed when the time comes.  

Does that help any?  

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I would ask that you temper your actions with a thought toward determining if what you see as necessary change is change that truly fits the Founder’s intent or your own vision of such.[/quote]

Anything I have passed down has come straight from my bosses, as needing to be corrected.  In most of the matters that have come down, it hasn't really been a matter of debate.  We have the removals (which are a clear violation of CR policy/CoR) and the GRP.  Those are pretty well set in stone.

[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Michael Hodge Jr)--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE (Michael Hodge Jr)[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Oh, don't forget about 1.2E (The C3 Rating).[/quote]

You know what I think about the C3 rating.    But at the same time, I think leaving it at the Division's discretion isn't the end of the world either.  If the Division wants to use it, great.  If not, great too.  I see no problem with how VATUSA is currently using it...or not using it.  

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]And let's also not forget that the issue with 5.3 was not only the fact that they had to be posted on the division website, it was that VATUSA Staff was required to again go through and review, approve somewhere along the lines of 200 SOPs/Policies within the division, and those had to be posted on the website.[/quote]

As I said above, they didn't have to be posted on the Division website.  That is only in the absense of a local website, as I note in my previous post.  That just ensures that local SOPs are indeed posted somewhere.  Else, how would the global controllers be able to find SOPs to look at?  It was worded that way specifically for Divisions whose local facilities do not have websites.

[Ian Elchitz]

I am a firm believer that if, over the past 10 years, VATUSA did a better job of overseeing its facilities and ATMs specifically, and took the necessary action when required - then we would never have needed policies such as the GRP or those regarding visitors, transfers, and removals.

We need a VATUSA Director, but it needs to be someone with Leadership, Communication, and Vision.
We need VATUSA RTDs, but they need to be people who will monitor, collaborate, and provide guidance for the facilities they are responsible for. They must also be able to remove an ATM as required.
We need a VATUSA Training Director, but it needs to be someone who can administer a training program and provide the division with much needed materials (like the one that just resigned)
We need a supporting VATUSA staff to keep the web site running, answer questions, and maintain the events calendar - but in all cases they should act as a supporting resource only.

I was quite pleased with what I was seeing with the previous administration, and have a hard time believing that we will see that level of communication, collaboration, and advocacy in the near future. The senior staff at our facility is becoming quietly concerned about what might happen without an advocate at the VATUSA level to communicate with the EC/BOG on our behalf.

[Andrew Doubleday]

The senior staff at our facility is becoming quietly concerned about what might happen without an advocate at the VATUSA level to communicate with the EC/BOG on our behalf.

Not just limited to the senior staff... There's at least one controller there who's been watching this and developing concerns as well...



Hoping for the best,

AJ

[John Cierpial]

As stated by David, Ian, AJ, and I'm sure in many others' thoughts, the VATUSA staff can only do so much without VATUSA1 as their leader.  Bryan, if changes are beginning to occur (at least at the regional level), I would assume that some of these changes would trickle down and affect the divisions as well.

If that is the case, wouldn't you agree that it would be best to have a DD for VATUSA in place who can sit down and discuss matters, which may later affect him, with you?  This affords them the opportunity to have a voice in the policies, rules, standards, etc. that would be in effect when they would eventually step up to run the division.  To me, this would serve as a better and more productive opportunity for you and for the new DD to discuss matters and reach conclusions together, instead of the DD being handled a pile of papers and expected to go through them and follow them.  This also allows for the DD to have a better understanding of WHY such regulations, procedures, etc. are in place.

As I personally believe, it is always best to discuss with people policies, procedures, etc. which affect them so that they are aware of the how's and why's behind them, ultimately allowing for better communication and coordination amongst all ranks.

[Andrew Podner]

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?

[J Jason Vodnansky]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I'm starting my full review of the VATNA policies tonight (including 05/05 just for you Jason!)...

and

However, as I mentioned above, I am (tonight) begining a review of all the VATNA policies, particularly the ones that were in effect since long before I got here. 05/05 is the big one, and will most likely be removed entirely. I have no intention of micromanaging any facility to the extent that every little change has to be run by me first, however, there are some changes that are going to have to take place within local policy. Those will be addressed when the time comes.[/quote]

Good, then my work here is done.  While waiting on this review, I will move on to the next topic of contention, Transferring and Visiting Controllers in the coming days...

JV