Integrity of the Network

[Richard Jenkins]

Alex,

You and I have a mutual friend who was once the ATM of ZTL during SATCO days and a founding member of this network. Those of us posting in this forum are not the only ones who don't like the direction this network is going.....

Then he needs to open his mouth and say something, because it has been dead silence from him for quite some time. Instead of me constantly fighting with Collins about obfuscated training schema and coming off looking like a hardcore ATC nut, he could chime in and help.

Richard Jenkins
VATSIM Co-Founder
"I typed my way through Cal Scream 1"

[Richard Jenkins]

But if I understand this thread correctly and the thread on the VATSIM forums, they (the founders and the BoG) don't want the kind of realism that exists right now. Hence why they wanted to abolish it or to 'dumb down' the system that exist.

That's not correct. What we want is the efficient and timely delivery of training. People sitting around waiting weeks and months for initial training is not acceptable. Or the other famous method of not accepting a rating from one place to another. Which basically locked a member down to staying where he was trained. Understand the reasoning behind it, but find it unfair to the member.

As long as VATSIM is dependent on 1:1 training methods, the level of realism will be compromised to meet the demand for the service. Now I guess we could set a limit on new members, like some VA's do. Make a reservation for membership? Something to think about.

Mandatory training and testing for pilots? We can't even keep up with the training for controllers. How in the heck would we even begin to keep up with all the new pilots? Only about 3% - 5% of new members become controllers. So now we want to train and test the other 95%?
Richard Jenkins
VATSIM Co-Founder
"I typed my way through Cal Scream 1"

[Thomas King]

From a ZOB standpoint, We (ZOB) can further our training efforts if the the Founders and BoG would just let us run it our way.  For years prior to the GRP release you go and look at ZOB's training records and you will find that we had 10 people on staff and training was being conducted every night.  Now with this new GRP, we have had less active members mainly because we have 3 Class B fields, only 1 of them is considered a "major".  Now VATSIM is trying to tell us that we need to COMPLETELY redo our training outline (Which I did in about a month of late nights).

Essentially back in our hayday, we gave the student an option as to which airport they would like to start their training at.  Naturally, people who lived in the Detroit area would choose KDTW to start their training, same goes for PIT and CLE.  Now we cannot do this.  We have to say "Ok read up on the PIT and CLE SOPs and we'll go over lesson 1 tomorrow" type of deal.  People don't want to train at 2 airports simultaneously.  This is where the Major/Minor cert lacks for us.  We are simultaneously training students on 2 rather large airports in the National Airspace Sysytem (Real World) and VATSIM and the makers of the GRP will not give them to us.  They based the major certification on traffic levels.  You want to talk about Traffic Levels?  I dare you to compare KBUF and KDTW in the past couple days.  No events have taken place at all, just pure people getting on the network.  So why not make KBUF a major?  It has more operations in the past week than KDTW.

Also, rumor has it that they want to take away KDTW from the Major certification list.  You have no idea how livid this makes me.  Here at ZOB we have 3 Class Bravo Airports, I don't know if that means anything to anybody else, but that sure as hell means something to me.  Now they are going to take away our only Major airport.  Look at any other ARTCC that have 3 Class B Airports and tell me is only 1 of them is considered a Major. Something isn't right.

My whole campagin when I was the DATM was to let us (James Hamilton and myself) run ZOB how we want to, and not be bound by these GRP rules.  I have written emails to Staff Members of the network, only to go unanswered (suprise?).  I ended up getting so tired of the politics, and the constant emails we would recive saying "Someone has complained about your training program..."  Only to find that they were completely false and in some cases exaderated to the point where it was false.

So Richard, if you want to talk about this 1:1 training, I will show you the flow chart I made for the Training staff on the steps and lessons required to comply with the GRP and you can see that even you would not want to go throgh what the GRP is making us go through from a training Standpoint.

TK

[Richard Jenkins]

From a ZOB standpoint, We (ZOB) can further our training efforts if the the Founders and BoG would just let us run it our way.  For years prior to the GRP release you go and look at ZOB's training records and you will find that we had 10 people on staff and training was being conducted every night.  Now with this new GRP, we have had less active members mainly because we have 3 Class B fields, only 1 of them is considered a "major".  Now VATSIM is trying to tell us that we need to COMPLETELY redo our training outline (Which I did in about a month of late nights).

Essentially back in our hayday, we gave the student an option as to which airport they would like to start their training at.  Naturally, people who lived in the Detroit area would choose KDTW to start their training, same goes for PIT and CLE.  Now we cannot do this.  We have to say "Ok read up on the PIT and CLE SOPs and we'll go over lesson 1 tomorrow" type of deal.  People don't want to train at 2 airports simultaneously.  This is where the Major/Minor cert lacks for us.  We are simultaneously training students on 2 rather large airports in the National Airspace Sysytem (Real World) and VATSIM and the makers of the GRP will not give them to us.  They based the major certification on traffic levels.  You want to talk about Traffic Levels?  I dare you to compare KBUF and KDTW in the past couple days.  No events have taken place at all, just pure people getting on the network.  So why not make KBUF a major?  It has more operations in the past week than KDTW.

Also, rumor has it that they want to take away KDTW from the Major certification list.  You have no idea how livid this makes me.  Here at ZOB we have 3 Class Bravo Airports, I don't know if that means anything to anybody else, but that sure as hell means something to me.  Now they are going to take away our only Major airport.  Look at any other ARTCC that have 3 Class B Airports and tell me is only 1 of them is considered a Major. Something isn't right.

My whole campagin when I was the DATM was to let us (James Hamilton and myself) run ZOB how we want to, and not be bound by these GRP rules.  I have written emails to Staff Members of the network, only to go unanswered (suprise?).  I ended up getting so tired of the politics, and the constant emails we would recive saying "Someone has complained about your training program..."  Only to find that they were completely false and in some cases exaderated to the point where it was false.

So Richard, if you want to talk about this 1:1 training, I will show you the flow chart I made for the Training staff on the steps and lessons required to comply with the GRP and you can see that even you would not want to go throgh what the GRP is making us go through from a training Standpoint.

TK

Let's start with this first:

I'm and sick and tired of rumor control around here. I hear more incredible stories out of VATUSA than anywhere in VATSIM. So, right here, right now, who told you DTW was being taken?

Second,

"I have written emails to Staff Members of the network, only to go unanswered (suprise?)."

Who and when? If you have the emails send them on over.

Third,

Send me your flowchart.

richard AT vatsim.net

[Richard Jenkins]

Thomas,

I just read your resignation post in the ZOB forum. Can you provide me with the identity of the name caller? No reason for that stuff.

[Bryan Wollenberg]

Hi Thomas,

I'll address a few of your issues.

We are simultaneously training students on 2 rather large airports in the National Airspace Sysytem (Real World) and VATSIM and the makers of the GRP will not give them to us.  They based the major certification on traffic levels.  You want to talk about Traffic Levels?  I dare you to compare KBUF and KDTW in the past couple days.  No events have taken place at all, just pure people getting on the network.  So why not make KBUF a major?  It has more operations in the past week than KDTW.

Therein lies part of the problem.  See what I bolded above.  Part of the problem with a lot of the major airports that were submitted, was that the ARTCCs were basing their requests on real world complexity and traffic levels.  That has absolutely no bearing on VATSIM.  Well...the complexity does to a very little extent, but certainly not the traffic levels.  

I just looked at BUF and it averages about 5 ops a day.  Are you trying to tell me that any controller (without a major certification there) could not handle 1 aircraft every 5 hours??  How complex can it possibly be?  Even without reading the SOPs, I'm pretty certain I could jump on there and handle that one aircraft without any sort of difficulties, and I know nothing about the airport.

And that's the very problem with a lot of the submissions we received.  I say "we" as in VATUSA.  The EC and I did not reject any major airport that was approved by VATUSA.  The major submissions were supposed to be based on extenuating complexity or traffic levels, and instead, we received applications for airports with 4 or 5 movements a day and no particular complexity to speak of.  The ATMs simply wanted to protect every bit of airspace from "outsiders" that they possibly could.  It's not that I necessarily disagree with that idea, and can understand to some degree why ARTCCs would want to do that.  But airspace was being locked down in VATSIM and nobody was able to control anywhere without going through an incredibly lengthy training process.

To put things into perspective, in many places, it takes/was taking longer on VATSIM to get certified than it does in the real world!  Now I realize that's apples to oranges and I don't particularly like making that comparison myself, but you can't help but think that taking 3 or 4 years to get certified on VATSIM...a hobby network...is a little silly no?  There were brand new people on the network who couldn't even work a position by themselves because it was taking a month, two, or three just to get certified to work someplace on their own.  Not only did you have the online sessions, but literally 5 or 6 written tests (that is not an exaggeration).  And we wonder why we were losing new controllers?  

If everyone would just be reasonable in their approach to setting up the ARTCCs in the first place, the GRP would not be here today.  It is a direct result of power-hungry folk who wanted to lock down their ARTCCs and impose ridiculous rules and regulations.  Why not just get rid of those people?  I don't know either, but this is where we are, as a result of their behavior.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Also, rumor has it that they want to take away KDTW from the Major certification list.  You have no idea how livid this makes me.[/quote]

I'm not really sure where you heard that.  There are 6 people who can remove DTW from the list of majors, and unless one of the other 5 EC members told you they want to see it removed from the list, I'm not sure where you are getting your information.  You certainly didn't hear it from me.  

In fact, the only mention of major certifications (and no specific facilities were ever mentioned) was Dave Klain mentioning that major airports seeing no traffic were not going to keep their status.  And with this, I concur.  The yearly review of the GRP is coming up, and the lengthy list of major airports is certainly something I will be looking at.  If these "major" airports are getting 4 or 5 movements a day, you can bet they're going to be looked at a little closer than some of the others.  If DTW falls into that category, of 1 movement every 5 or 6 hours, then yes, it's going to be looked at.  I honestly don't know if it falls into that category or not; I didn't look.  Of course, traffic is not the only factor, but it's certainly a major factor.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I have written emails to Staff Members of the network, only to go unanswered (suprise?).[/quote]

Again, I hadn't received any emails from you.  If you want to specifically discuss the GRP, the requirements, or why it was put into place, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.  But you have to write.   I answer every email I receive normally within hours, at the latest a day or two (rare) at the most, if I'm travelling.  If you wrote and haven't gotten a reply within that timeframe, I never received it.

[Thomas King]

Hi Brian, thank you for replying, I understand and agree with everything you have said.  But to clarify, I was talking about BUF in the past couple days.  Mr. Sal Barcia handled more than 5 planes in the past couple days I can assure you that.  I was watching.  It was more like in the 12-20 range in that shift for him.

But yes, I do appreciate a lengthy explination from you and agree with you.  I think there is stuff going on behind closed doors because if you guys are trying to get to the bottom of it, and didn't know about it, then there is something going on.

[Alex Bailey]

Then he needs to open his mouth and say something, because it has been dead silence from him for quite some time. Instead of me constantly fighting with Collins about obfuscated training schema and coming off looking like a hardcore ATC nut, he could chime in and help.

Richard Jenkins
VATSIM Co-Founder
"I typed my way through Cal Scream 1"

Richard,

He would have an ulcer if he returned to this. I'm pretty sure he was sick and tired of things when he was on VATUSA staff and how we were treated by the BoG during that time period, it could only be magnified now. You sat in his living room, so I think you know his character. When somebody like him throws in the towel, it means something.

Quite frankly, many of us no longer have the desire to participate in this network in its current state. The management of VATSIM have simply pushed people away, both in word and in action. You have the current President who tells people to leave if they don't like it (and they do leave). I still have a shred of compassion for this network so I tend to (attempt) to keep up on what is happening, and I do have concerns for where this place is headed. There are plenty of people who will just leave and never look back.

Since you mentioned Collins... the entire GRP and much of the current "status quo" was modeled after Oceania's policies and how they conduct business. I said this in the GRP forum and I'll repeat again: You can not take procedures that work for a division of a whopping 40 members and apply them to a division consisting of hundreds, if not a thousand, controllers and expect it to work. My administration with VATUSA did a lot of work to relieve some of the 1-on-1 training, thanks primarily to Mike Hodge, Rob Prescott, and Alan Hensley. We communicated this with the ARTCC staff and started a training website to be used for basic training so that ARTCCs could focus on teaching the intricacies of their airspace. But nobody above would recognize this or the progress made, the collective management only show their faces when something is done wrong or when they can stake someone to the wall.

But, you're here now Richard. You have to fix the top before you can come down here and fix the bottom. I would venture a guess that most of the resistance you meet here and in other divisions would reduce dramatically if your board members took a different approach with handling business. The way VATSIM management goes about communicating and managing the network could improve significantly. I think you could agree that many disagreements and conflicts stem not from what was said, but how it was said. The President telling people to leave if they don't like it is probably a good place to start, because after a while, people will start taking the advice.

Oh, and I can disagree with how VATSIM treats its members and its staff publicly now that I no longer hold any positions that they can threaten me with.  

[Bryan Wollenberg]

I wanted to note that Thomas just PM'ed me a copy of an email he sent me back in June/July on this matter, that apparently I didn't receive.  Thanks for clearing that up Thomas!  And I apologize for inferring that you didn't write me.  I realize how frustrating it can be to not hear back from anyone.  I wish I would have gotten it, with the proposal it entailed.

As I mentioned, it usually takes me no more than a day to answer any email.  Coincidentally, I just received a second email from a member who sent me one a few days ago (never got the first one).  So if you don't hear back, please, please send me a second email or try getting a hold of me via the contact form on the VATNA site (always works, from what I have seen).  I definitely don't ignore emails, and even if I don't have an immediate answer for you, I'll at least let you know I got your email.

[Richard Jenkins]

Richard,

He would have an ulcer if he returned to this. I'm pretty sure he was sick and tired of things when he was on VATUSA staff and how we were treated by the BoG during that time period, it could only be magnified now. You sat in his living room, so I think you know his character. When somebody like him throws in the towel, it means something.

Alex,

Think we're talking about two different people. Andrew mentioned the person he was talking about as being the ZTL ATM in SATCO and a founder of VATSIM. That is Joel Lesser.

The communication thing....you're right. How the message is delivered is key. I also think there is an element of mistrust between the BoG/EC/USA. ATM's are convinced that VATSIM is here to dumb it down to IVAO and the Zone. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they want is quality training delivered in a timely manner with a minimum amount of delay that serves no relevant purpose.

The BoG/EC also have an issue in that they don't totally trust some of the ARTCC staff. When they find a staff member lying to them or playing games under the radar, it just reinforces their belief. Right now, we know about a DATM that is using double connections with a fake account to boost the stats at an airport he wants to make a major. If you're reading this..knock it off!

Don't always assume the worst. Those guys don't wake up each morning wondering how they can "F" with the guys in VATUSA. Like the off-peak thing. For whatever reason it was never discussed during the GRP review and GRP doesn't really allow for it as practiced now. So the common sense thing to do is put things in a holding pattern and get it resolved at the yearly review. I feel the off-peak issue is different than say a plain and simple GRP violation that just needs to stop. This issue has circumstances that sets it apart.

[Alex Bailey]

Alex,

Think we're talking about two different people. Andrew mentioned the person he was talking about as being the ZTL ATM in SATCO and a founder of VATSIM. That is Joel Lesser.

The communication thing....you're right. How the message is delivered is key. I also think there is an element of mistrust between the BoG/EC/USA. ATM's are convinced that VATSIM is here to dumb it down to IVAO and the Zone. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they want is quality training delivered in a timely manner with a minimum amount of delay that serves no relevant purpose.

The BoG/EC also have an issue in that they don't totally trust some of the ARTCC staff. When they find a staff member lying to them or playing games under the radar, it just reinforces their belief. Right now, we know about a DATM that is using double connections with a fake account to boost the stats at an airport he wants to make a major. If you're reading this..knock it off!

Don't always assume the worst. Those guys don't wake up each morning wondering how they can "F" with the guys in VATUSA. Like the off-peak thing. For whatever reason it was never discussed during the GRP review and GRP doesn't really allow for it as practiced now. So the common sense thing to do is put things in a holding pattern and get it resolved at the yearly review. I feel the off-peak issue is different than say a plain and simple GRP violation that just needs to stop. This issue has circumstances that sets it apart.

Richard,

Why can't the whole gang think, act, and be like you?  

Now, if your last paragraph was how the issue was approached from the beginning you wouldn't have staff falling on their swords or spilling their kool-aid.

[Bob Carmona]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Right now, we know about a DATM that is using double connections with a fake account to boost the stats at an airport he wants to make a major. If you're reading this..knock it off![/quote]

You have got to be kidding us! I have only one question here. If you know it, what in the hell is this guy still doing as a DATM? That is like one of the cardinal sins of the network and in my eyes is grounds for immediate dismissal of any staff member, especially a DATM or TA. So instead of making policy changes every time one of these jerks breaks the rules, how about canning him instead of making life harder for those of us that are truly trying to it right? I assure you that if any of my staff pulled this stuff, you would not need to can him, he would be gone. Just curious, does his ATM know this?

In my eyes, we have a working system of rules. Just does not seem that they are being enforced here now does it?

[Brian Pryor]

I have to agree with Bob 110%, the person should be 86'd as a staff member, the dup account closed down. Going further beyond that into the CoC realm isn't all that out of the question either.

I know RJ you can do it but if you want i'll be more than happy to dup out the account in question!

[Matthew Bartels]

Richard,
  Thank you so much for maintaining an open line of communication between us and the founders. Getting this information has definitely eased some some of the concerns that us in the trenches have. I do agree with the previous posters concern about DTW. Regardless whether or not it is being considered for removal as a major, the mere thought that it or any major can be removed is very concerning.

I'm not one for locking down every molecule of airspace within a facility, however regardless of traffic levels / complexity, I strongly believe every facility requires at least one major facility. This for both pride and recruiting.  People like to feel important, a major designation lets that facility know that, "Yes, we think this airport needs some extra effort and should be classified as a major." (Even if it really dosen't.) It just makes us feel good in some odd way.

If you remove all majors from a facility, then the current membership who put in the time to learn the facility and its intricacies will feel cheated, become frustrated when new controllers come up on position with zero training in the procedures, and ultimately leave furthering the bottom heavy divide between new and senior controllers.

More important than that is recruiting. Obviously we have the traffic chasing new controllers whom just pick their facility based off of just that and head to your ZLA's, ZNY's, etc. However, should it be a controller who is genuinely looking at all of his options and weighing out where he want's to go, a facility will most likely get passed if it doesn't have any major airports. The may be thinking, well, why bother going here there's nothing special to work towards here. Again, you will find controllers leaving with the why bother attitude, and no new ones coming in, then a facility with zero membership that won't be staffed.

[Scott DeWoody]

You can put this in the "for what it's worth" catagory.

The way I see it, you have three different groups on here, 1. the far left, 2. the far right, and 3 the middle.  Sounds to me like typical group dynamics, and btw, yes I did take group dynamics 101.   And alot more.

So is the network going to the dogs... I think not, mainly because the largest group of the 3 is the one in the middle, who are happy to be here, appreciate all the hard work that goes into providing this "free" service, and will continue to stay, and some will contribute, and that's all good.

my .02