The VATSIM Executive Committee, as previously announced (
http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=67052), has implemented the update to GRP removing the provision for major airports in an attempt to speed the time for students to be able to control on the network and improve retention.
"The network sees the implementation of major airports to be a restriction to the access and enjoyment of student controllers. GRP v4.1 solves that by removing the onerous restrictions that have been holding people back, and lets them get on the network much faster" according to Matt Middleton, VATSIM Director of Access (VATDOA).
So what does this mean for VATUSA? Well, as indicated in the original 2014Q3 EC minutes, to ensure a consistent level of quality on the network, the GRP update mandates:
4.1.2: The training and assessment required for a student/controller should be reflective of them being able to control at any tower/airspace in their Division.
Unfortunately, as I feared may happen, this update has been released without any coordination between the EC and the Divisions, and an expectation of immediate compliance. But in order to bridge the gap and speed our compliance to the updated GRP, I met with Tom Seeley and Ryan Geckler to discuss the best implementation for VATUSA, and we agreed that to preserve the desired quality level on the network, with the side benefit of not setting our students up to go down the tubes during events or other heavy traffic periods, we would train all VATUSA students, through the soon-to-go-live VATUSA Academy, at one of the two most challenging airports/airspaces in VATUSA, either KLAX/SOCAL/ZLA or KJFK/N90/ZNY. These were selected based on data analysis that included "normal" traffic levels, FNO/Major Event level traffic levels, airspace complexity (including proximity to military facilities), and associated LOA complexity.
Although the eventual plan is to allow students to choose which facility they want to train at, and offer both as options, in order to comply with the GRP as quickly as possible, we will design just one into our suddenly-accelerated Academy release plans. We've also decided to give our members the ability to choose which one. Look for a post later today that will include a poll for the membership to select which of the two selections will make it into the first Academy release. Although simple votes are important, your comments and rationale are probably at least 10 times as important in helping with the selection; please feel free to include your comments, feelings, data, charts that show complexity, and graphics to explain the point (please do not post trademarked graphics, though). The poll will remain open for one week.
We also tried to get out in front of any concerns. After significant discussion, we figured the only real concern for ATMs and ARTCC staff would be the predisposition for students to want to choose either ZLA or ZNY as their home ARTCC, since that's where all their training was, which would create an unfair situation for the other 20 ARTCCs. In order to prevent against this, I have altered the VATUSA new member join code script to place all new members in the Guam FIR, which is where all new students will be homeroomed for their training until they have earned their certifications and are ready to be deployed. With Ryan's experience working for the RW FAA, including knowledge of controller assignment procedures, we will now solicit from students their top 3 choices of where they would like to be assigned upon completion of their initial Academy training, and will place them where the need is greatest. Facilities (ATMs) will also be able to check off a flag showing whether their ARTCC is open to new students or not, and the VATUSA Controller Assignment System will place the students where the greatest need is. This should keep it more fair for the non-ZLA and non-ZNY ARTCCs. For example, ZLA and ZNY both currently have 173 and 144 controllers on their roster today, compared to our "lowest staffed" facilities, six of which have fewer than 30 controllers on their roster today. We wanted to ensure that new students, just because they'd be comfortable at ZNY and/or ZLA facilities, because that's where they trained, didn't all select ZLA and/or ZNY. So this will be a tremendous benefit to the lower-staffed facilities that will receive a great influx of new students, based purely on their staffing numbers. With this methodology, statistically, all facilities should (over some number of months) end up with essentially the same number of controllers.
There is no change to the handling of Oceanic/FSS airspace; these are still considered major and require special endorsement.
I'm sure, just like every significant change, especially where we are racing to adjust our policies and methodology to comply, there will be questions. For those of you who, in general, get it, please hold off until tonight or tomorrow to assist the others after we've had a good chance to see all the comments, concerns and questions, and find a way to best answer them all in the most efficient manner. For those who don't really get it, by all means, post your questions, comments, and concerns, and after the dust settles a little today (and after I get home from work), we will do our best to address them all.
Just like every change to GRP, this one will take some getting used to, patience and cooperation. We can and will make it work for the betterment of the Division. Of course, my staff and I will do absolutely everything we can to provide the right advice and guidance to all to make it work for everyone. As we all know, the only constant in life is change. So let's embrace this new change as an opportunity to speed the time to network for our controllers, standardize training, ensure high-quality students, and improve the fairness of roster levels for all of our facilities. Although initially I was against this implementation, we're working hard to make sure this is a win-win situation for everyone.
