Integrity of the Network

[Pan Lalas]

Harold, during the last 2-3 years there is a continuous innuendo going on that most of the problems on this network arise from the "tyrannies of the ARTCCs". Please notice how ofter  the high ranks of the network imply that. Many of us feel that we get treated, like a few rotted apples (that DID exist), affected the whole garden and now there must be a massive, devastating cure for everyone. This is unfair. The guys in ZLA have put a lot of effort, countless hrs of commitment and a good amount of money for their server to create one model ARTCC that has proven out that IT WORKS AS IT SHOULD and should be used as a model for the rest. One would think that VATSIM should at least show the way and actually help the rest to move towards the direction of ARTCCs like ZLA. What really happens is the opposite. Paul Byrne gave a spot on explanation in the VATSIM thread we're all referring to. Most of the changes that are happening or that are announced actually make sense if you see them from Paul's perspective. I repeat this is happening for many years now. "LOWER THE STDS LOWER THE STDS". That's what I read behind the lines every single time.  And to clear this out I don't think that by raising the bar in an ARTCC you make the network exclusive. You need to motivate people to get better. That's how it always worked in human history. Whenever a radical change that lowers the standards is announced we always end up having posts like: "Yeah! It's boring to learn this, to read this, to work on that blah blah. Now that I can log on and play with minor effort is so much better!". I'm exaggerating this but I think we all get the point.

[Andrew Doubleday]

AJ,

What you've said is essentially what everyone else who controls regularly is saying, specifically in regards to pilot quality. It's a very disheartening trend to see how many pilots have no clue whatsoever as to what is going on in the most remote sense. While pilots used to model the habits of FS9/FSX Default ATC, I don't even see THAT anymore; it's turned into a conglomeration of confusion all over the scope. There are posts in the VATSIM Forums about it just about every couple of weeks. Though, instead of focusing on pilot training, it seems we're now focusing on controller de-training, if that's even a word. I just don't get it.

Well said... I'm at the point where, more often than not, I feel like I'm unable to be an effective controller with the declining level of competence. It's very difficult to get into a "groove" where you can feel the momentum built up on frequency with everything under control and everyone enjoying the professionalism of the environment (that "high" Gary speaks of). Again, it's been so long since I've last experienced that... I feel like I'm hopelessly hunting for it when I get on these days. Like an addict unable to get his/her fix...

I don't know about many of you, but I signed up to control on VATSIM, not to be babysitter having to hand-hold everyone that visits our sectors because they don't know how to fly. Did anyone ever consider this being a critical reason towards a number of people not wanting to become controllers here? This virtual job has become one more suited for a professional teacher now...

At the same time, I must re-iterate what I said in the VATSIM Forums that much of what we've heard thus far is hearsay. I see no point in mass-resignations unless there is hard evidence, like a notice of a policy change or something, that VATSIM staff will make major changes to the way ARTCCs and divisions are operated. Sure, I too take offense that some higher-ups have degraded the work we've done in improving our areas of VATUSA, but I'm sure they've had those feelings for quite a long time. Whether or not they will act on them is something I look forward to seeing. Usually what I've seen in the forums are discussions on various idealistic situations, most if not all of which never come to fruition. I wouldn't think this one is really any different.

Allow me to direct you to a recent quote from David Klain (VATSIM President) regarding off-peak certification removal:

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The VATSIM leadership totally agree with the idea that controllers should be able to work major airports faster. Bottom line is that off-peak solos are not authorized. Not part of GRP and they violate the intent of GRP and the network. GRP is a binary thing – you are either qualified or not. If qualified, you are qualified to work the airspace at any time. If not qualified, then you should not be working it at any time. Several ARTCCs/FIRS/VACCs in various divisions had brought in this “off peak” solo as a way of giving a student a “temporary permission” to control a major airport at “off peak” times (whatever the heck they are). There were (and are) a number of problems with this idea:

(1) when is off peak? Local times? Zulu times? Where published? Different for every airport around?
(2) Where is the list of who is authorized to control “off peak”…as compared to endorsed to control that major airport at any time? How do supervisors enforce the policy?
(3) The whole point of GRP is that if a person has the requisite knowledge to work the airspace, he should be authorized to control it. GRP 2.0 originally had no major airports or designated airspace. It was added during the review as part of a compromise because a number of review participants were insistent the world would collapse if anyone worked that airport/airspace without specific training. The compromise was that for designated airspace and major airports there would be a requirement for an appropriately-rated controller to also get an endorsement signifying he/she was familiar with the nuances of that specific airport/airspace. If a person is familiar with that airsapace (the SOPs, nuances, etc.) and the instructor is willing to sign them off for “off peak” times, then by definition they are familiar with it and should be granted the endorsement and able to work it at any time…period. Reality is that a newly-endorsed controller will make some mistakes…but VATSIM is a learning environment that is not “zero fault” and those mistakes are not only expected and acceptable, they are part of the learning process and learning environment.

Bottom line: off peak endorsements are not permitted and that word should be filtering down to the various divisions and then the facilities in those divisions. At that point there any and all references and use of "off peak endorsements" should (and will) go away. Anyone who runs into a facility that is still imposing them should notify the appropriate staff (obviously starting at the division level and then escalating to the RD if necessary).

GRP is about INCREASING controller's access to airspace and getting more controllers online...off peak endorsements are actually a way of DELAYING a controller from doing just that out of some fear that the controller will make a mistake. Given the fact that VATSIM has ZERO risk to people or equipment, those mistakes are part of life and the facilities that don't get that need to get over it and get with the program as articulated by the Founders.

Dave[/quote]

I think this should definitely be evident enough that they've decided to do away with it.

Kyle Ramsey, another BoG member:

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The "quality uber alles" crowd are on a path not supported by the Founders or BoG. You can continue to rant in these forums about it, you can hold on, for now, to your staff positions. But know your agenda is not going to continue to influence VATSIM and your way is going away.[/quote]

The general feel I'm getting after reading posts like this is borderline militant... Either we get with the program articulated by the founders hiding in their ivory tower and their brilliant understanding of things at the facility-level... Or we get out. Coming directly from network management at that... Impressive, to say the least, no?

The recent resignations of ZLA staff should not be taken lightly with regards to this either. ZLA has been a powerhouse facility of VATUSA for a long time and the off peak certifications have been _critical_ towards the success of training in that facility due to the massive influx of students and limited training staff. Before you jump to the conclusion that the problem must be as simple as I just wrote it (referencing "limited training staff"), you should know more about the principles of ZLA. ZLA has built itself on the principles of training knowledgeable, well trained, professional controllers - this takes a while to achieve for many, but is an extremely rewarding experience once you get to that level. It gives many the motivation to work towards that level. Taking away that motivation by opening the proverbial "flood gates" will likely wreck what's been created there. Training off-peak was the motivating factor towards obtaining the full certification so you could control during busy periods/events. This system worked well towards fulfilling ZLA's needs with the extreme popularity. Did anyone bother to check with ZLA before making the decision to kill off-peak? I'd be surprised with the resignations that have just occurred...

After many discussions I've had with people from multiple facilities over the past few weeks regarding this topic and others, I'm quickly discovering there are plenty of us here fed up with the present status of VATSIM and network management. All of them feel that the network is capable of much more, yet being restricted from progress not only by politics that have developed here, but also from this attempt to simplify controller training. I'm speaking on behalf of many of them because I no longer have anything to lose (I already lost my staff position years ago, sorry Kyle). I've witnessed the political crap, I've dealt with backstabbing (one of the few things I can thank this network for now; teaching me at an early age how to protect myself from this in the real world) amongst other ridiculous things you'd expect to see in the White House (having managed a facility for 15 months, and been removed due to political reasons). I'm slowly realizing it's honestly not worth it to dump time into VATSIM anymore if it's going to continue down this road. And I hate to say this, but I've already begun to pursue alternatives to VATSIM along with a number of these others...

I could easily delve more into specifics on wonderful stories of the gruesome politics I've experienced here in many more posts. I'll reserve comment, for now, but will likely come back to this soon to discuss specifics on a certain facility I've witnessed, and used to be a proud member of, go down the tubes as I feel it applies to this topic and the present status of the network in many ways.



-AJ

[Bob Carmona]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]At the same time, I must re-iterate what I said in the VATSIM Forums that much of what we've heard thus far is hearsay. I see no point in mass-resignations unless there is hard evidence, like a notice of a policy change or something, that VATSIM staff will make major changes to the way ARTCCs and divisions are operated.[/quote]

This is not hearsay. I got my official notification from VATUSA that we are to stop using our student, off-peak certification program immediately. No grandfather clause for the 12 members we have that have this rating. We were not even asked how it works, what our opinions were, nothing... Division staff were not even consulted on this.

LA is not the only facility that uses/used this method. There are many facilities that use this method effectively. And guess what, we were doing it years before "GRP". Why? My estimate is that off-peak certs get a student on the network controlling said "major field" a minimum of 5 hours of training staff time earlier than if we did not do this. We and many other facilities that employ this program, have used this as a means of lowering the load on our training staff(Which is as thin as I have ever seen it by the way. Not just ZMA, but across the network.) and getting our students controlling solo faster. We keep hearing about the "spirit of GRP". Does anyone honestly expect people to believe that the "spirit" is being upheld here? What exactly is the motive here for this?

Honestly, I have no idea why I am even writing this post. It is painfully obvious that the opinions of the members do not have even the slightest bearing on decisions made by the BoG.

 

[Ryan Geckler]

I know, for me, that it's sad to see both Ian and Mike go. Both of them were great guys and helped establish ZLA as one of the premier ARTCC's. Will this open the "flood-gates" as someone already stated? Absolutely. We will continue to see, quite frankly, horrible pilots and ATC has to walk them through each step just to get them off the ground. Once they actually start flying, it's another story. That's not what I've volunteered my time for. I volunteered to control with realism (as much as VATSIM allows); not babysitting. Hell, being on VATSIM has significantly influenced my life. I'm now going to school to get a CTI certificate and actually control for real. That's what this network has allowed me to do.

This hardline stance by the BoG is showing me that they are, simply, out of touch. They appear to not want to work with division staff on finding ways to better both sides, pilot and controller. While the pilot ratings are the first step forward, its essentially less than a baby step. These ratings are not mandatory, and honestly, I'm not sure how many people want to spend the time on them. I know I'm not. I feel that I'm at a good enough level as a pilot to listen and respond to orders correctly.

This fundamental shift in thinking should be a wake up call to the BoG/Founders. If you want to continue to lose some of your best USA controllers, keep going down this path, and see where it takes you.

[Bob Carmona]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Kyle Ramsey: The "quality uber alles" crowd are on a path not supported by the Founders or BoG. You can continue to rant in these forums about it, you can hold on, for now, to your staff positions. But know your agenda is not going to continue to influence VATSIM and your way is going away.[/quote]

The arrogance and disrespect of this statement... Coming from a guy that has not controlled a position on the network in over 4 years or been a pilot since the release of GRP... Mind numbing! Not sure if I am mad, amused, saddened, or disgusted...

[Bruce Clingan]

The arrogance and disrespect of this statement... Coming from a guy that has not controlled a position on the network in over 4 years or been a pilot since the release of GRP... Mind numbing! Not sure if I am mad, amused, saddened, or disgusted...

Wow Bob - I missed that quote from Kyle that is pretty telling.

[Derek Hood]

Wow Bob - I missed that quote from Kyle that is pretty telling.

I think he got scared and deleted it.  Either way its very "Chairman Mao" in my eyes.  What happened to the REALISM this network is suppose to emulate?

Flame Suit on!

Derek

[Matthew Bartels]

If you want to gaze into a crystal ball of VATSIM's future headed in this direction look no farther than Chicago. A once proud flagship ARTCC in VATUSA. Now it lies in shambles. In its heyday the controllers were very knowledgeable and could vector airplanes like there's no tomorrow. The unique nature of ORD pretty much required this. When I started, I chose ZAU not because I knew it had traffic, i didn't, but because I lived in the airspace. After graduating from the VATUSA Academy ,which was a phenomenal experience by the way, I saw my classmates at other facilities moving up though the ranks. I however was receiving the best training in VATUSA on radar and because of that I had no problems working the (at that time) complex airspace around ORD.

A founder once told me "There is nothing more exciting on VATSIM then to see another airplane parallel to you on approach for another runway." During my tenure at ZAU, I received multiple compliments, and pilots guaranteeing me they would come back because I had set them up with another aircraft on a converging approach. To see the other aircraft coming towards them was exciting and fun!

Then an ATM who would "Let the facility burn to the ground to prove his points about GRP," took over. He stripped any shred of realism from the facility, fired staff members and all instructors who wanted to teach realistic procedures. His thinking, was in line with what I'm now seeing from the higher ups.

When the last straw was pulled for me in Chicago, I moved to the "Eagle that Perches Over ZAU" (ZMP). Our radar ranges go out far enough to see aircraft going into the Chicago area, and traffic has dramatically decreased since I was there. I have had multiple pilots in my airspace that when I ship them off to Chicago, they disconnect. The amount of times I see this can't be a coincidence. It has to be because Chicago controllers no longer meet their expectations. These pilots, are the well versed ones    that are every controllers dream. So if we remove all the standards from VATSIM as a whole, not only will you see mass resignations from controllers, myself included, but also those prized jewels, the pilots, will leave the remaining controllers with a lot of blank screen to look at.

[Dan Leavitt]

If you want to gaze into a crystal ball of VATSIM's future headed in this direction look no farther than Chicago. A once proud flagship ARTCC in VATUSA. Now it lies in shambles. In its heyday the controllers were very knowledgeable and could vector airplanes like there's no tomorrow. The unique nature of ORD pretty much required this. When I started, I chose ZAU not because I knew it had traffic, i didn't, but because I lived in the airspace. After graduating from the VATUSA Academy ,which was a phenomenal experience by the way, I saw my classmates at other facilities moving up though the ranks. I however was receiving the best training in VATUSA on radar and because of that I had no problems working the (at that time) complex airspace around ORD.

A founder once told me "There is nothing more exciting on VATSIM then to see another airplane parallel to you on approach for another runway." During my tenure at ZAU, I received multiple compliments, and pilots guaranteeing me they would come back because I had set them up with another aircraft on a converging approach. To see the other aircraft coming towards them was exciting and fun!

Then an ATM who would "Let the facility burn to the ground to prove his points about GRP," took over. He stripped any shred of realism from the facility, fired staff members and all instructors who wanted to teach realistic procedures. His thinking, was in line with what I'm now seeing from the higher ups.

When the last straw was pulled for me in Chicago, I moved to the "Eagle that Perches Over ZAU" (ZMP). Our radar ranges go out far enough to see aircraft going into the Chicago area, and traffic has dramatically decreased since I was there. I have had multiple pilots in my airspace that when I ship them off to Chicago, they disconnect. The amount of times I see this can't be a coincidence. It has to be because Chicago controllers no longer meet their expectations. These pilots, are the well versed ones    that are every controllers dream. So if we remove all the standards from VATSIM as a whole, not only will you see mass resignations from controllers, myself included, but also those prized jewels, the pilots, will leave the remaining controllers with a lot of blank screen to look at.

Matt,

Before you go opening your mouth about ZAU, how about we do a little fact checking.

1. Before you go around slinging accusations that the facility is in shambles. I recommend you take a look at how the facility currently runs. You're talking as if the last ATM is still running the show. He's not, we've righted ship, and are making progress. You can't expect changes to happen overnight. In the 10 months or so that I've been the dATM, we've instituted new policies and LOA's that get us back to the middle ground of simulation vs. arcade. I agree with you that when you were here, the pendulum was shifted all the way to the arcade side, but that is not so anymore. Drop by some time and you may be surprised.

2. You say the previous ATM fired all staff and INS that wanted to teach realistic procedures. If you really simplify it down, you can get away with that half-ass excuse. Realistically though, he fired staff and INS because they wouldn't comply with his directives. His directives were to halt teaching realistic procedures, so the staff was fired for insubordination, and let's not forget, you were one of these staff members. Remember as a staff member of an ARTCC, including Instructors, you serve at the whim of the ATM, if you don't like how it's being run, you always have the option of leaving. If you don't follow the ATM's rules he always has the option to fire you. The reason that these directives were put in place is because ZAU was an FAA training grounds before he came in. It would take months for students to get any sort of training, and if their phraseology wasn't spot on to a T they wouldn't be passed. If they gave a pilot the wrong taxi routing they wouldn't be passed, hell, even if the controller stammered through 1 clearance the whole day they wouldn't be passed. Is any of that in the spirit of GRP? ABSOLUTELY NOT. We all may not agree with the content of GRP, why it was put in place, or just the general concept of it, but our superiors decided it was needed, so therefore we MUST follow it. I'm willing to bet if the powers that be took a "tour" of your training facility, they'd find another FAA proving ground. I mean really. Who in Gods name needs a 33 page ARTCCAM, a 136 page operations manual, a 113 page M98 specific SOP, and a 59 page specialist manual. And all of this is required reading for new controllers to ZMP??? I don't quite think that is in the "spirit of GRP".

Before you go calling out another facility, make sure you do your homework, and better yet, make sure your facility is in good operational order and in compliance with all policies and directives, and not about to crumble to bits and pieces.

DL

[Justin Friedland]

Here's a thought:
It might be time to re-evaluate VATSIM.
There appears to be enough unhappiness expressed in these forums to justify a re-evaluation.
My own personal experience has been telling me this as well.  
Some background:
As a kid, all I wanted to do was fly.  The Air Force would have been my home, but my eyes couldn’t make the cut back in the 50’s, when 20/20 was the absolute rule,  my family didn’t have the money to pay for private lessons and plane rental, so that was that.
Cut to the 80’s, when Microsoft came out with Flight Simulator for Apple.  Little more than a video game, but advancement came quickly, spurred on by people like me, who wanted to taste and experience as much as possible of what flying was really like.  MSFS added sophisticated navigation, ATC, and then third party developers took it the rest of the way.  I was along for the ride and it was fun, but when I discovered VATSIM it took on a whole new dimension.
On VATSIM, I could interact with live controllers, learn to plan and execute flights, fly procedures, FLY—in an environment where proficiency, knowledge and execution mattered .
It got so that flying without controllers was just no fun anymore.   It just meant aimlessly messing about the virtual sky to no purpose.  It was then that a controller suggested if I understood that, I might want to give back a little of the fun I was having, by becoming a controller myself, providing a taste of reality for other enthusiasts.
“But doesn’t it take a lot of knowledge to become an Air Traffic Controller,” I asked.  
The answer was, “yes, but we’ll train you, teach you, help you teach yourself, and when you’re ready, you’ll be on the scopes.”
Now compared to most of you, I’m a pretty old dog, but the instructors in my ARTCC were dedicated, the flash classes and other materials provided were logical and understandable, and hell, I CAN read, so with a little effort and a little time, I got my certs, and became a controller.  
A little later on, through no fault of my own, I was asked to be the DATM of the ARTCC.  In accepting, I became privy to a completely different view of what is going on.
The new paradigm I’m seeing seems to be following that of the rest of the country:  “it’s too hard to aspire to excellence.  It takes too much time and requires too much effort.  Make it easier and give it to me now.”  Certainly, I don’t see this from every new applicant, but it is a pretty prevalent attitude.  
With all the free resources literally at their fingertips, these folks barely look at the flash classes, barely read the SOPs, barely learn the airspace, and barely pass the UNTIMED, OPEN BOOK exams.   Then they want to control Center by lunchtime.  
Now, do you seriously want to turn these folks loose on whatever airspace happens to take their fancy?  Not me-- but as I read the recent forums, it seems there are those who do, in the name of “fun” and “fairness” and “openness,” all while making “excellence” a dirty word, to be equated with “discriminatory” and “unfair.”
But for me, the fun comes in the learning, and then sharing that learning in practical ways, either by flying or controlling with other live human beings who enjoy learning, as in “learning how to do it right,” as well.
If all you want to do is fly around or talk to pilots, you just need FS9 or FSX or the new Zone, and a Skype hookup with all your buddies so you can shoot the breeze.  No need to get on VATSIM.
In the end, if this is where we’re going, if this is what the Founders had in mind (though I can’t believe it is), if this is how the Board of Governors is interpreting those early guidelines, if this is the purpose of the GRP then, as I said earlier, it might be time to re-evaluate VATSIM.
Maybe it is time to get the like-minded people together and form a new network dedicated to the old principles of excellence and performance.  Maybe “quality uber alles” (thanks for the Third Reich reference, but there is nothing pejorative about aspiring to be good at what you do) is the way to go.
I’m betting that we have the technical and managerial expertise to get it done.  Hell, I’d pay for the privilege.  In fact, maybe charging $20 a person per year for access would make people really consider their level of commitment before joining up.  And don’t tell me that $20 will make it too exclusive.  Show me a 10-year old who doesn’t have an allowance of $20 anymore.  
Anyway, that’s my two cents (or $20) worth.  Can VATSIM be saved from its own success, or is it time to make the wheel round again?

Justin Friedland
DATM - ZNY

[Derek Hood]

"The quote is taken from another forum. There is nothing here in VATSIM that scares me, ever, nor should there be."

Thanks Kyle I appreciate the message....We will see you on the scopes, oh wait that won't happen.  Im not surprised that nothing scares you on here, you have to be active on the network for that to happen.

Derek

[Kyle Ramsey]

Nice to know how private messages are handled by you, sir.

Since we're here, I'll elaborate.  The quote, as I mentioned above, wasn't deleted by me, wasn't hidden by me, etc.  It was from another forum.  By this I mean those who will take their realism to the point of violating other members' rights to enjoyment of this network.  We still have staff members who claim to hold this position, for them the words stand.  This is really a pretty small group overall.

Most of the rest of you are trying to do the right thing for VATUSA in general.  You aren't being ignored.  Don't do anything that prevents you from helping solve the problem.  If you quit, someone else will get to do that.

My time on the network is somewhat limited by personal situation and I'd love to fly more than I get to; I am a pilot, real and virtual, not really a controller - my S3 is from the time when they gave them out with much less rigor than today and was to facilitate TWR for my VSOA at KMOB.  But I give back by getting on VRC to help out Sups by taking a newbie pilot and spending the time with them so the Sup can go help elsewhere and to be available to anyone who wants to talk, to complain, to offer suggestions, or just be friendly.  I am in no way suggesting my time on the network is more valuable than anyone else's, and the controllers who plug in are the point of the spear and what all of us are focused on supporting.

[Derek Hood]

Nice to know how private messages are handled by you, sir.

Since we're here, I'll elaborate.  The quote, as I mentioned above, wasn't deleted by me, wasn't hidden by me, etc.  It was from another forum.  By this I mean those who will take their realism to the point of violating other members' rights to enjoyment of this network.  We still have staff members who claim to hold this position, for them the words stand.  This is really a pretty small group overall.

Most of the rest of you are trying to do the right thing for VATUSA in general.  You aren't being ignored.  Don't do anything that prevents you from helping solve the problem.  If you quit, someone else will get to do that.

My time on the network is somewhat limited by personal situation and I'd love to fly more than I get to; I am a pilot, real and virtual, not really a controller - my S3 is from the time when they gave them out with much less rigor than today and was to facilitate TWR for my VSOA at KMOB.  But I give back by getting on VRC to help out Sups by taking a newbie pilot and spending the time with them so the Sup can go help elsewhere and to be available to anyone who wants to talk, to complain, to offer suggestions, or just be friendly.  I am in no way suggesting my time on the network is more valuable than anyone else's, and the controllers who plug in are the point of the spear and what all of us are focused on supporting.

What you have nothing to hide like you just stated correct?  I will do with MY private messages as I wish, thanks for questioning me.

Derek

[Matthew Bartels]

@ Dan
  My intention was not to call out ZAU. It was to provide an example of what the current direction I'm seeing has done at a local level. As you acknowledged, ZAU was not in a good spot prior to your administration.
 You guys inherited quite a task, and if you are making progress then I am thrilled. It nearly killed me to see what happened to that facility as it was where I got my start, and made a bunch of life long friends.

As far as our procedures go, what is the problem with having them available should controllers want to better themselves. Aside from MSP, which is our Major facility, All that information is there for reference.

[Alex Bailey]

Boy I didn't think I'd return back to the forums, but some good friends ushered me back in this direction. I, too, left VATSIM for many of the reasons stated in this thread, although my view wasn't as popular back when I chose to make the decision. Everything said in this thread is entirely the reason why I resigned the Division Director position, and my dissent lead to my dismissal from the pilot training staff. I really feel bad for Gary, because as a former staff member I know exactly how it feels to not be considered as part of the solution to many problems. The BoG and Founders ARE out of touch with this organization and will continue to be until they actually listen to the constituency.

I would caution those applying the carte blanche principle to this debate. I can promise you that the entire BoG is not corrupt or out of touch, and I'm afraid Kyle Ramsey's remarks are being applied out of context. Kyle's experiences make him a valuable asset to VATSIM, and I would encourage everyone who has issues with VATSIM to speak with him because he WILL support a valid opinion that is supported by evidence. I worked with him for quite some time and I stand nothing to gain by the public praise, so take that for what it's worth.

Hopefully the upper management will recognize that David Klain's advice of "If you don't like it, then leave" is actually being taken. You've lost people who once had a passion for this hobby and for this organization. You are NOTHING without your volunteers, and this is something to think about as you see those of us who have left and those who are currently packing their bags. You're losing your playground.

[Insert all of AJ's post here, as he said it better than I could.]

- Alex