Integrity of the Network

Andrew Doubleday · « **Reply #30 on:** November 08, 2010, 08:39:31 PM »

Matt - Unfortunately, you beat me to it. I have far more I'd like to mention in regards to that facility and why I feel it ties into the present status of the network and where things are appearing to head, more so than what you stated and in a tad more of a constructive manner. I'll get there eventually.

Dan - This isn't necessarily current management's fault there, so I would like you to sit back on this just a bit for now before coming after ZMP. I know you are trying and I realize you have a rather significant mess to clean up...

And, for the record, I think ZMP has done extremely well. That facility has made so many improvements recently in terms to maintaining realistic standards and a well trained crew roster and unfortunately they aren't recognized merely enough for much of it. I remember when ZMP's roster was hardly active and pertained very little knowledge of air traffic control procedures in general, that's definitely not the case anymore. I'm officially visiting up there now and they've really got their S*** together! They don't receive enough credit for the work they've put in there (publicly anyhow). It should be a prime example of what all VATUSA facilities should want to attain on this network. They have a fantastic crew up there in terms of personality and activity (being composed of many previous members of ZAU plus many others) and are active on a near nightly basis with a firm following of quality pilots - exactly what many wanted for ZAU. I'll get into further details later on all of this, but for now I'll leave the rest to Dhruv to explain (as he's done already before in previous threads, but will apparently require re-addressing here now in defense of his facility after the previously mentioned comments). In fact, he's drafting a response now...

Justin - You're comments are great and should be taken seriously. I've seen it countless times at ZLA... Many don't make it because they simply don't want to put the effort in. They easily could, but would rather take the easy way out by complaining that it's "too hard". Now they're supposed to be the ones who are correct? Ridiculous. I feel controller standards are too low over a significant portion of VATUSA anyhow. Again, speaking from experience, I've seen the decline in quality over the years. Considering all of the complaints that now have come out of the woodwork between this forum and, even more so, the VATSIM forum, involving those concerned with quality here, you would think network management would want to shift their approach towards attempting to keep their most dedicated here interested and happy... Effort should be more focused on improvement of pilot quality rather than diminishing ATC quality further. Again, I see no reason why we'd want to retreat to where the network was ten years ago. The network is capable of so much more now days.

And, by the way, your idea for a new payware network is not as far fetched as some would like to think...

-AJ

Andrew Doubleday · « **Reply #31 on:** November 08, 2010, 08:49:10 PM »

Alex, thanks for your words... I thought somewhere along the line someone stated that network management was working towards improvement of transparency... I think it's fairly apparent that has been lost. Richard Jenkins was the first one (in the VATSIM forum) to actually state that things were actually being looked at... Why couldn't someone within the Founders or current BoG say just that 10-15 pages ago in that thread... lol.

The quote I took from Kyle was posted within the VATSIM forum, page 6 I believe of the thread I mention frequently here. He didn't delete it. If the intent of this was misinterpreted, then I feel that it should have been worded differently from the start because I surely wasn't the only one who took it this way. I'm in agreement that not all of the BoG or Founders are supportive of this push for simplification, knowing a member or two myself. I just wish they'd speak up a bit more.

-AJ

Dhruv Kalra · « **Reply #32 on:** November 08, 2010, 10:18:47 PM »

Quote from: Dan Leavitt

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.

It's funny, Dan. Every time someone at another facility looks at our documents, the issue of page count comes up. I'd be far more inclined to field concerns about the length/breadth of our policies and procedures if people would actually look into reading the documents instead of simply tying page count to complexity. Those documents were written to be a comprehensive reference to working any position under any imaginable traffic level or circumstance, and aren't meant to be memorized. Furthermore, the 113-page M98 SOP is, if you peruse it more closely, approximately 50 pages of diagrams regarding airspace flows and delegations for our 8 different runway configurations, none of which are expected to be committed to memory.

The 59 page specialist manual to which you refer is our training syllabus which is only of concern to our training staff and not required reading for our students/controllers other than to provide an insight into the way their training will likely progress. We have a fairly strong commitment to standardization amongst our training staff which allows for increased flexibility in instructor/student pairings, and our training manual allows us to achieve this with greater efficiency.

In closing, I've heard more complaints about the page count of our SOPs from you and other outside observers than I have from our own students and controllers. I'd say that's a fairly telling fact. That being said, perhaps you ought to heed your own advise and do your homework prior to calling out our policies. Feel free to apply for visitor status and prove me wrong .

Logan Gloss · « **Reply #33 on:** November 08, 2010, 10:32:41 PM »

Quote from: Dan Leavitt

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

Quote from: Dhruv Kalra

It's funny, Dan. Every time someone at another facility looks at our documents, the issue of page count comes up. I'd be far more inclined to field concerns about the length/breadth of our policies and procedures if people would actually look into reading the documents instead of simply tying page count to complexity. Those documents were written to be a comprehensive reference to working any position under any imaginable traffic level or circumstance, and aren't meant to be memorized. Furthermore, the 113-page M98 SOP is, if you peruse it more closely, approximately 50 pages of diagrams regarding airspace flows and delegations for our 8 different runway configurations, none of which are expected to be committed to memory.

The 59 page specialist manual to which you refer is our training syllabus which is only of concern to our training staff and not required reading for our students/controllers other than to provide an insight into the way their training will likely progress. We have a fairly strong commitment to standardization amongst our training staff which allows for increased flexibility in instructor/student pairings, and our training manual allows us to achieve this with greater efficiency.

In closing, I've heard more complaints about the page count of our SOPs from you and other outside observers than I have from our own students and controllers. I'd say that's a fairly telling fact. That being said, perhaps you ought to heed your own advise and do your homework prior to calling out our policies. Feel free to apply for visitor status and prove me wrong .

As it has been stated countless times before and as Dhruv has had to mentioned yet again here. I would appreciate questions to be asked and assumptions not be made.

Ira Robinson · « **Reply #34 on:** November 09, 2010, 08:05:41 AM »

"We have met the enemy and he is us" (Pogo)

Bob Carmona · « **Reply #35 on:** November 09, 2010, 08:28:41 AM »

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Furthermore, the 113-page M98 SOP[/quote]

WHAT!!

113 pages? 50 or so pages are pictures? And they don't even make them learn it, all they have to do is become familiar with it and learn how to use it? Oh my gosh! You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. You are actually expecting people to spend a few hours to learn how to use something that probably took over 100 hours in developing? The nerve of you guys!

I can't believe how lazy some people are today.

I just looked at this document and must say, I am very impressed. It is as good as any I have seen on the network. You guys did a great job and should be proud of your work. It looks like you took the real world SOP and made it VATSIM usable. If I wasn't so busy making SOP's for lazy people to whine about, I would not mind learning that airspace and controlling it. Looks like some fun airspace.

Graeme Florance · « **Reply #36 on:** November 09, 2010, 11:06:57 AM »

AJ,

What mess at ZAU are you referring too? Please enlighten us.

Bob Carmona · « **Reply #37 on:** November 09, 2010, 11:48:46 AM »

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]What mess at ZAU are you referring too? Please enlighten us.[/quote]

I believe he is referring to the complete shambles the last ATM there put it in before he was removed. A once premier ARTCC was burned to the ground. There is no denying that. That place used to rock. Look at it now, average at best.

I don't think he is saying it is in shambles now... The current staff is making progress reviving it but honestly, it will take time to undo what can only be described as total devastation.

Derek Hood · « **Reply #38 on:** November 09, 2010, 01:27:56 PM »

Bob,

I know this is off topic, but Dhruv and Logan and all the staff at our facility do an amazing job keeping the SOP's and Sector Files/Maps up to date and they work their a$$ off doing it. Spending their own time and effort after they teach / work all day to make this the most interactive experience possible. Thank you for someone actually realizing it!

Derek
ZMP

Graeme Florance · « **Reply #39 on:** November 09, 2010, 03:21:48 PM »

Quote from: Graeme Florance

AJ,

What mess at ZAU are you referring too? Please enlighten us.

Bob,

Specifically what did the past ATM do to create such a shambles? Who gives you the right to say that myself and my fellow controllers at ZAU are average at best. I am deeply offended..

Bob Carmona · « **Reply #40 on:** November 09, 2010, 04:49:28 PM »

Quote from: Graeme Florance

Bob,

Specifically what did the past ATM do to create such a shambles? Who gives you the right to say that myself and my fellow controllers at ZAU are average at best. I am deeply offended..

Damn, I forgot how specific you have to be in these forums.

The TRAFFIC there used to rock to the levels that you see at ZLA and ZNY. The TRAFFIC levels there are now average at best. It is improving though.

As I remember, and keep in mind that I was right next door at Cleveland watching it all unfold from start to finish, that facility went from ultra realistic to ultra game nearly overnight. From the day it became a game zone the traffic levels started decreasing to the levels they are today, average at best.

What he did was strip that facility of every single shred of realism it ever had. As a result, and there just is no denying it, the place burned to ground.

Since I have moved to ZMA I am not there to see exactly what is happening now. Though word around the campfire is that the current administration is making strides towards reviving what was once a "premier" ARTCC.

That is all that was meant so don't be offended.

Matthew Bartels · « **Reply #41 on:** November 09, 2010, 04:52:11 PM »

Quote from: Graeme Florance

Bob,

Specifically what did the past ATM do to create such a shambles? Who gives you the right to say that myself and my fellow controllers at ZAU are average at best. I am deeply offended..

Still drinking that JV Kool-Aid eh Graeme You know darn well the problems that that caused the dissent and divide within that facility.

Gary Millsaps · « **Reply #42 on:** November 09, 2010, 08:09:50 PM »

Guys,

Let's take a short break here...the title of this thread is titled "Integrity of the Network"...as if integrity was some abstract ideal. It's not. We are...each and every one of us are the true integrity of the network. This gutter-sniping isn't reflective of the integrity I know every member of VATUSA possesses.

Let me put this in a context that most of you may not have considered.

For all of the perceived value, well thought of improvements, advanced capabilities or heightened realism anyone has ever tried to bring to VATSIM, one basic factor underscores it all. None of it has ever been required, mandated or requested by VATSIM. Each and every software package, SOP, LOA, video map, traffic flow, etc. has been volunteered into the system by someone (singularly or by group) who felt that insertion might in some way "improve" the system. Now before you get all ruffled...there is no doubt a vast majority of participants at all levels agree with what has been accomplished over the years; and those members who have made these contributions should be thanked and shown great appreciation. However, within the context that is VATSIM, there is no requirement that they exist and are, for all intents and purposes, expendable.

As there is no prescribed requirement that certain levels of complexity, reflection of their real-life counterparts or technical capability be established, then judgments of their use or non-use are unwarranted and moot. This is especially true when such judgments are proffered by those whose own operational workspaces are not unduly affected. No one in any ARTCC within this division has the right to dictate to or make unwarranted judgments about the operation of any other ARTCC within this division.

Short trip around the barn gentlemen, this crap-slinging needs to stop. Those of you carrying some self-picked sore you won't allow to heal need to find the betadine and bandaids...let the damn sores heal...the putrifaction is getting unbearable!

Derek Hood · « **Reply #43 on:** November 09, 2010, 08:52:51 PM »

Okay Gary, to right the ship back on track, what is the bottom line here? I think we can all agree that with all the hard work that us, the network as whole, put into this day in and day out with the free time we have outside our normal lives, feels like it is going down the drain upon deaf ears. We don't do this as a "game" I think we can ALL also agree on that. If it were a game I would just sit on atc_sim and control AI traffic. We do it for the realism factor and the human intetaction amongst friends, pilots, strangers alike. But like I stated in my first post, when we log on and get people that A. Have NO clue whats going on B. Act like you dont exist C. Could care less about all the hard work behind the scenes, how do you think we feel (hopefully yourself included) when the BoG or VATSIM in general could really care less if this turns into a "GAME". I know I didnt spend all the countless hours on sweatbox and live training sessions to just have that all go away.

I mean what happened to the days that CoC was follwed for pilots that were away from there computer too long or unresponsive? I know that I HAVE been kicked for it, even suspended because of it. Now Im lucky when I control (usually at 11-2AM PST) to get a response from 2-3 pilots becuase the rest are asleep. My point is the realism factor is not there anymore with small things like this and pilots not having even a fraction of an idea of whats going on.

Sorry for my rant that is all over the place. Its like anything in life, you put hard work and effort into for no compesation besides the gratitude of knowing that you provided the best / most accurate experience and you feel like you are getting dumped to the wayside. Its very frustrating and sad too see a thing that I have been a part of slowly wither away. I wont be here to see it burn down in flames.

Derek

Brian Pryor · « **Reply #44 on:** November 10, 2010, 05:39:57 AM »

Derek VATSIM has existed for long enough that I don't in my opinion feel that this will burn down in flames. I wish you and the others the best in your future plans by the sounds of it.

As Gary said many people have done great work and made strides in the hobby and specifically to the division.

The realism factor has been a problem since day 1 of VATSIM and I in my heart of hearts believe that the founders knew this and have done the best they can while working to keep a balance.

As has been said previous while many have gained a career or grown to be the best darn controller in the virtual world the scale is always sliding. For every person that reaches mastery if you will at controlling there are several in the wings just starting up. The same goes for pilots as we have experienced pilots we have also gained the new and inexperienced.

With due respect to everyone who didn't come into this with real world experience, who the hell are we to suddenly raise the bar higher and push out people who lack the level of skill to be professional. If someone had done that to you 1, 2, 5, 10 years ago when you started my guess is you'd have a different opinion. What we have here people is a disconnection from where we came from and that is not an excuse to push progress and tighter restrictions onto the backs of new and future members of this network.

At the end of the day no matter how well intended a network is designed there will always be someone making a mistake. It happens IRL all the time in the aviation industry or else the NTSB wouldn't have a job. If those demanding ultra realism were actually held to the standard and made a mistake, would they be ok with being fired, in some countries thrown in jail? I'm being extreme here but that's what ultra realism becomes right?

People need to at the end of the day accept VATSIM for what it is, it is a place where people come to enjoy aviation. On a technical scale it's a computer simulation network that provides virtual ATC to virtual pilots.

It was never designed at it's core to be an professional ATC or Pilot training tool. To provide ultra realism for a select few.

It's about sharing the hobby of aviation with anyone who enjoys it using flight simulators and radar clients to facilitate giving a world of ATC to what would be a computer generated voice.

If someone learns a thing or two along the way then that's great, a lot of us are here for the community and that is what separates us from any of the competitors past, present, or future which try to give a niche to an already niche market.

For those that wish to have ultra realism I challenge you to seek out a career in that field, take college courses as some already have and embrace real life for what it is. Take it to the next level.

To that same group I ask this, rather than become jaded towards new members embrace them and teach them. Remember where you came from and don't try to steal what we have made here as a community.