Who is the final authority?

[J Jason Vodnansky]

If I have a question about a policy, who do I speak to?  What method of communication?

I ask because I have been told the following;

1)  Emails are private (cannot be shared) and the opinions contained in them are those of the individual, and are only their interpretation.
2)  Forum posts are not required reading, and are therefore not enforceable
3)  Voice conversations, recorded or not, are not able to be used, as you cannot positively identify the people on the recording.

So, what is the method of communication that will allow for an interpretation of policy that will be backed up by all members of the chain of command, and we can get away from the "double talk".

I guess this begs the question.  Will the answer in this forum be the correct way, the "official" way?


Jason Vodnansky

[Scott DeWoody]

Jason, I can only offer you my opinion to answer your question, and here it is.

If I have a question of policy where ever I am at, I ask my immediate boss, I would pretty much want to get it in writing (or at least a reference), and then use that as an answer.   If I am then questioned on my behavior based on the answer I recieved from my boss, I should comply with whatever is being told at the time, and refer the one questioning my practice to my immediate boss who gave me direction on the practice that I was engaged in, and let the two of them duke it out, so to speak.

Of course this is VATSIM, and there are VATSIMisms that have to be taken into consideration, and like I said, this is MHO only.

[J Jason Vodnansky]

Jason, I can only offer you my opinion to answer your question, and here it is.

If I have a question of policy where ever I am at, I ask my immediate boss, I would pretty much want to get it in writing (or at least a reference), and then use that as an answer.   If I am then questioned on my behavior based on the answer I recieved from my boss, I should comply with whatever is being told at the time, and refer the one questioning my practice to my immediate boss who gave me direction on the practice that I was engaged in, and let the two of them duke it out, so to speak.

Of course this is VATSIM, and there are VATSIMisms that have to be taken into consideration, and like I said, this is MHO only.

Unfortunately, that makes entirely too much sense for VATSIM!  I agree that is the way it SHOULD work, but I think that the last 3, and certainly, the last 2 Division Directors for VATUSA would agree that it doesn't work that way.

Let's see what the "official" answer is.

JV

[Brian Pryor]

The answer in my opinion is you talk with your "chain of command", and get it in writing. This thread I predict will have a shelf life of a few hours before it turns into another pitchfork and torch fest against the BoG/EC.

We get it Jason, you and a few others are upset with the BOG/EC... Why do you have to throw more chaos into VATUSA with these threads and stirring of the pot. Let's get things fixed around here because of the voids left behind by the departing admin., and revisit these hotbed issues in a week or two when we have an administration in place.

[Bryan Wollenberg]

Jason, it actually DOES work that way, at least as far as I'm concerned.  If I have am providing my interpretation of something, I will usually notate it as such, and will always go "somewhere" to have that clarified.  I will normally seek out the person who should be best qualified to answer the specific question.  If it's a CR matter, I'll go to Norm, if it's a matter of Regional policy, I'll go to Roland.  Operations are either Terry or Dave, though I try to keep Dave's mailbox as free of clutter as possible.  In global matters, sometimes it's the EC or BOG (or both) that I seek out to provide an answer.

I realize that sometimes, there are all different interpretations from many different people.  Hopefully you'll get an official answer to this one that suits your needs.  I can only explain how I operate and conduct business.

[Ryan Geckler]

The answer in my opinion is you talk with your "chain of command", and get it in writing. This thread I predict will have a shelf life of a few hours before it turns into another pitchfork and torch fest against the BoG/EC.

That's what this question is... as are most posts by Jason recently.

[J Jason Vodnansky]

Jason, it actually DOES work that way, at least as far as I'm concerned.  If I have am providing my interpretation of something, I will usually notate it as such, and will always go "somewhere" to have that clarified.  I will normally seek out the person who should be best qualified to answer the specific question.  If it's a CR matter, I'll go to Norm, if it's a matter of Regional policy, I'll go to Roland.  Operations are either Terry or Dave, though I try to keep Dave's mailbox as free of clutter as possible.  In global matters, sometimes it's the EC or BOG (or both) that I seek out to provide an answer.

I realize that sometimes, there are all different interpretations from many different people.  Hopefully you'll get an official answer to this one that suits your needs.  I can only explain how I operate and conduct business.

Bryan, thanks for the response, I have several follow up questions.

Would you like them in this thread, or as separate topics?

JV

[Bryan Wollenberg]

Bryan, thanks for the response, I have several follow up questions.

Would you like them in this thread, or as separate topics?

JV

Might as well keep it in this thread.  Then if the name calling begins and it has to be locked again, at least it's all in one place.

[J Jason Vodnansky]

Might as well keep it in this thread.  Then if the name calling begins and it has to be locked again, at least it's all in one place.

Contrary to popular opinion, I am not out to hang anyone.  I want answers that I can depend on, and that don't change like the wind.  Let's start with this one.


Understanding that forum posts are NOT required reading, why should I believe the answers contained in this thread will be "official", and be the "law of the land"?  Please understand, I am not trying to be difficult here.  I simply want to know that the answers given here can be referred to and yes, be pointed to as fact when/if the time comes.

I would like for you, or the appropriate BoG member, be it the President, or VP of Operations, or VP of Regions to make a determination that the answers here are factual, and can be counted on NOT to change.

Jason Vodnansky

[Thomas King]

And I thought this was going to be a boring weekend

[Scott DeWoody]

The answer in my opinion is you talk with your "chain of command", and get it in writing. This thread I predict will have a shelf life of a few hours before it turns into another pitchfork and torch fest against the BoG/EC.

We get it Jason, you and a few others are upset with the BOG/EC... Why do you have to throw more chaos into VATUSA with these threads and stirring of the pot. Let's get things fixed around here because of the voids left behind by the departing admin., and revisit these hotbed issues in a week or two when we have an administration in place.

I do not agree with everything that Jason posts on these forums, however, he does ask/present some valid questions.  IF everyone sat back and acted as puppets, and just said "yes sir, whatever you say sir", then the questions he brings up would never be answered.  And remember, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if you don't agree with his, or anyone elses for that matter, be a man, and agree to disagree.

[Bryan Wollenberg]

Understanding that forum posts are NOT required reading, why should I believe the answers contained in this thread will be "official", and be the "law of the land"?  Please understand, I am not trying to be difficult here.  I simply want to know that the answers given here can be referred to and yes, be pointed to as fact when/if the time comes.

I would like for you, or the appropriate BoG member, be it the President, or VP of Operations, or VP of Regions to make a determination that the answers here are factual, and can be counted on NOT to change.

*** Caution:  OPINION ALERT!!!!! ***

Jason, I can't fault you at all for asking such a question, and it fact, it is one I have had an issue with a number of times.  For example, the only documentation of range limitations (to my knowledge) is in the main forum.  I have come across, numerous times, people who legitimately had no idea there were any guidelines for range, since they never read that particular forum post.  It's nothing I lose sleep over, but it certainly is a concern.  In fact, I recommended a couple times that something about the forum or even a link to the forum be included in the sign-up material.  Whether that change has happened or not, I'm not sure.  I haven't gone through the sign-up material in some time.

You're right that members aren't required to read the forums.  However, for staff members, those "requirements" are a little different.  Take the VATUSA forums, for example.  While there is no written policy (to my knowledge) that staff members read the forum, there is absolutely a reasonable expectation that it will happen, and in fact, every VATUSA1 in recent memory has gotten slightly irritated when staff members do not check the forums.  In fact, I think you were on the receiving end at some point.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect that staff members should visit the forums, and read the forums, and that important information be passed to staff via the forums.  

But again, that's just my opinion.

[Bruce Clingan]

I don't think that it is unreasonable that particularly staff members, but other members also read the forums on a regular basis.  But something to take into consideration is that it is nearly impossible to read every thread ever posted, particularly in the VATSIM forums, but in this forum also.  It is kind of like the courts telling you that you have to come and look through this pile of subponeas, warrants, and papers every week to make sure that you are not wanted, or being summoned.  Important information and guidelines need to be published in an easily visible place, and very important changes need to occur via email where an individials personal receipt is more likely, kind of like when you are served by a law enforcement officer or certified mail.

So I guess it is not unreasonable to have people check and participate in the forums, if they have something to add to the conversation (I think Jason and the VATUSA staff can attest to what happens when you require people to post in the forums and they don't have anything to add to the conversation), but policy and general guidelines belong elsewhere.  

At ZID we have a thing called Controller Worthiness Directives, which is similar to the idea of airworthiness directives for aircraft.  When something new comes out that everyone should review it is added as a CWD (the line up and wait change will be a good example of how we use them).  We use the forums to store these CWDs because it is just more practical for us than designing some sort of backend system which accomplishes it.  We expect our controllers to read them so on the front of our home page is an area which shows what the current controller worthiness directive is and provides a link.  If it is extremely important we would send a mass email out to the membership.  It is something that can easily be checked by controllers to see if there is something new they need to look at.

[David Jedrejcic]

...
I would like for you, or the appropriate BoG member, be it the President, or VP of Operations, or VP of Regions to make a determination that the answers here are factual, and can be counted on NOT to change.

I think this is your problem right here.  I understand that managing a fluid situation with many differing directions from multiple authorities is annoying at best, but that's the situation.  Ask for an answer in the forum, and likely you will get an answer from someone that differs from something else you saw in a policy, and that is also not related to what you read in the meeting notes from the BoG.  This is a situation that you need to be able to handle.  Each of the inconsistencies is a problem, yes - and although we might collectively strive to eliminate some of the ones we have at this moment, they will never go away entirely, and we will never have this utopia that you speak of, where all the rules are perfectly written down, and where there is never any confusion or disagreements on any of the points, so I don't see why you keep trying to achieve that.

If you follow the direction of your immediate supervisor, you are doing everything you can to comply with the current rule set.  If you are trying to fix a system wide problem single handedly, you are wasting your time, as you can not represent all of the stakeholders at once.  These sort of issues will be worked out through the people who are reponsible for each of the roles involved... e.g., if the RD said something that differs with what was said my the DD, then those two people need to deal with it, end of story.  Your involvement in the issue is over, as you are not the DD or the RD.  You can rest peacefully if you simply do what the DD told you to do, as that is the person to whom you are responsible for your actions.  If you want to participate meaningfully in these conversations, then you need to be one of the stakeholders.  Otherwise, you are just a pundit.  Of course, you have every right to be a pundit if you like, but then I fail to understand what goal it is you are trying to achieve with these inquiries; the answers seem plain to me.

[J Jason Vodnansky]

*** Caution:  OPINION ALERT!!!!! ***

Jason, I can't fault you at all for asking such a question, and it fact, it is one I have had an issue with a number of times.  For example, the only documentation of range limitations (to my knowledge) is in the main forum.  I have come across, numerous times, people who legitimately had no idea there were any guidelines for range, since they never read that particular forum post.  It's nothing I lose sleep over, but it certainly is a concern.  In fact, I recommended a couple times that something about the forum or even a link to the forum be included in the sign-up material.  Whether that change has happened or not, I'm not sure.  I haven't gone through the sign-up material in some time.

You're right that members aren't required to read the forums.  However, for staff members, those "requirements" are a little different.  Take the VATUSA forums, for example.  While there is no written policy (to my knowledge) that staff members read the forum, there is absolutely a reasonable expectation that it will happen, and in fact, every VATUSA1 in recent memory has gotten slightly irritated when staff members do not check the forums.  In fact, I think you were on the receiving end at some point.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect that staff members should visit the forums, and read the forums, and that important information be passed to staff via the forums.  

But again, that's just my opinion.

Bryan,

Thanks for offering up an opinion. Though, I must admit, I don't believe I was asking if forums should be required reading.  What I am looking for is someone, who has the power to do so, to state that categorically, this thread contains the proper way to ask questions, and that the "subordinate's" efforts in clarification and/or creation, once performed, relieves said subordinate of "responsibility" once a superior determines that an action taken by said subordinate is a valid action, and complies with all policies.

Here is a "for instance"...

As ATM, vZAU created an activity policy that was sent through the chain of command.  We asked VATUSA8 (Then our ATD) to "ENSURE it is approved in accordance with VATNA 0505".  Within hours, yes HOURS, we had policy approval.  Credit to our ATD for approving said policy so quickly.  I believed that our ATD knew what he had the authority to approve, and what he didn't.  Who were we to question what he could/could not do?  Later, it became quite the source of anger by a few members of the facility.  We received more than a few questions regarding its legality, and has been used to remove a BoG member from the facility.  While to some, this may seem extreme, but you have to understand as well, that all of the ATMs have been hearing that all members must be treated equally, and that there could not be exceptions to that rule.  I understood that there were more important things going on, and that if anyone deserved an exception, he did!  I was prepared to overlook the inactivity, and was doing so, until I was asked by another member that had been removed for inactivity why he was still on the roster.  Anything I said in response would have been a lie or an admission that this member WAS being treated differently.  This has happened on multiple occasions.

Since this was approved by the ATD, is it the ATMs job to ensure his ATD is doing their job correctly?  To be fair, this policy as I understand it, remains in place, but am unsure as to whether it would stand up to a conflict resolution hearing, given the VATNA 0505 policy.  No, I am NOT busting on 0505 right now, using it as an example only.

How about the thread regarding the RNAV departure prohibition in ZAB in the forum below?

Now, I am not being sarcastic here, but again, why should I believe you Bryan, or anyone else for that matter when down the road, when it counts, one of the three points above will be thrown into the mix, and any rule that is in question has no backing.

Look forward to the response.
JV