April Fools! GRP Updates Released

[Ira Robinson]

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.

You know, taking a step back for a moment,  I hate to say this but this is probably the most practical response to whatever the EC turns out that I've heard yet.  Now how scary is that!!

[Bradley Grafelman]

Wanna talk about scary? All of this was viewed by many of us as a hilarious joke/prank to pull on April 1st. The scary part is... the EC is/was actually seriously considering all of this GRP crap.

[Ira Robinson]

Wanna talk about scary? All of this was viewed by many of us as a hilarious joke/prank to pull on April 1st. The scary part is... the EC is/was actually seriously considering all of this GRP crap.

What makes you think they aren't still??

[Bradley Grafelman]

What makes you think they aren't still??

Hence the "is" in the "is/was". (I added the "was" just for wishful thinking )

Honestly, most of Don's post seemed so very nearly plausible that I, too, forgot for a moment (or two) what day it was. Hats off to you, Don. I look forward to the potential copy-paste of this thread after the next EC meeting.

[Chris McGee]

Again proving that checking these forums is a complete waste of life!  

[Kenneth Bambach]

I'm telling you right now that knowing the ZNY Training Staff as I do, they will turn out nothing but robots preprogrammed so that it won't matter which ARTCC you assign them to.  In 90 days they will make application to transfer home again  

I think I've heard some of your students before.  Their the ones who broadcast the AWOS, right?  If so, they are doing a fine job.......

[Ira Robinson]

I think I've heard some of your students before.  Their the ones who broadcast the AWOS, right?  If so, they are doing a fine job.......

See. Like I said, robots. It's cheaper to add this to their programming than to spend the money on VAISALA or All Weather and add that to the system    

But thanks Ken. Yes, we do ask our controllers whenever possible to announce changes when they occur with the hope that once in a while a pilot will pick it up and use it the way they should.

[Fred Michaels]

Now where did I put that webcam...

I can see it now. First, vATIS. Next, vCAM (Watch your controller watch you!)

[Nicola Felini]

On a side note: VATNA is doing a domain transfer, so my E-Mail has been down the past few days. I am hoping it will be back up soon.

More importantly, VATNA was not in support of this initiative, however you see the end result. Thank you Don for taking the time to outline it. Let's see how this all pans out.

We are expecting a HUGE influx into the popular facilities such as LAX, MIA, JFK, etc. now that the control over these facilities will be extremely limited.

[Davor Kusec]

Wanna talk about scary? All of this was viewed by many of us as a hilarious joke/prank to pull on April 1st. The scary part is... the EC is/was actually seriously considering all of this GRP crap.

Who said this was a joke/prank?  

[Bradley Grafelman]

Who said this was a joke/prank?  

The body of the post.

(Granted, the header - containing the date - didn't hurt, either.)

[Dave Mayes]

"Homeroomed" huh Don ??  I will get our staff to line up desks all along RWY 06 and see if they show up on the ATC's radar bahahahhahahaha  
 

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.

[Sergio Lopez]

If all being said here is true, I believe there will be more people walking away from this than joining this. Just my two cents, again if it's real. Also, if I understood it right.

[Zachary Beard]

"PGZU S1"

Most used signature coming to a forum near you.

[Don Desfosse]

OK, it looks like most of you got it....  But a couple of you clearly didn't, and may still be actively believing that we're actively installing radar scopes and quintupling the size of the tower in Guam... and there may be a couple in the "undecided" camp,  so I'll let you all off the hook....

[size=]Happy April Fool's Day!![/size]

 

Apparently, according to the feedback I've gotten, this one was even better and more believable than my post 2 years ago where we were allegedly going to start teaching the FAA how to do top-down ops since they were abandoning a number of towers due to sequestration and lack of funding....  For those that I hooked, and worse, ticked off, today, my apologies --- it was really all meant in fun!


As I've done in the past, I'll post how many "tells" there were that this was an April Fool's Day joke....
1.  Posted at 4:01am (my time, anyway) on 4/01....
2.  GRP v4.1.... (we're currently on V2.2014.1, and wouldn't jump that far ahead....
3.  VAT DOA (this policy would be DOA for sure!)
4.  The alleged new sentence from the alleged new GRP is numbered 4.1.2 (4/1 too)
5.  The alleged new sentence from the alleged new GRP doesn't match what was in the original EC minutes
6.  Soon to go live Academy.  Yeah, I know....
7.  Train everyone to the hardest airports/airspace....  Yeah, that would be popular and get people online fast...  NOT!
8.  The poll asked you to publish graphics, but not trademarked graphics....  A nod to the recent, well-intentioned but unfortunate "New VATUSA Logo" poll where the #1 offering included an illegally-used trademarked image.....
9.  Please include your feelings.  Kum bah yah!
10. Yeah, the "only" concern is concern for not having everyone flock to ZLA and/or ZNY....  Only concern.  Yep, no other concerns.....
11. How many times have I said that I'm not even allowed to spell the word code, never mind attempt to commit the act!
12. Guam?  Really?  (No disrespect meant to ZHN who administers the Guam FIR!).  Maybe VATUSA HQ Holding ARTCC or something like that, but not homeroomed (marooned?) in the middle of the ocean....
13. We'll ask for your top 3 choices but ignore them all and then deploy students based on roster numbers....
14. Like 97+% of the students would settle for being put somewhere, especially someplace they don't want to work!
15. In our BoG-mandated "Inclusivity at all Costs" world, do you think any ATM could ever check a box excluding new students?
16. Like there wouldn't be a revolt when we completely take away a facility's opportunity to train their students....
17. All facilities should soon end up with the same number of controllers....  Yeah, maybe ZERO!
18. If you read all my posts when this garbage first came out, you know I'd never embrace this BS!

Thank you to everyone who played along, especially Tom and Ryan, who I did NOT let know anything about this before I posted it!

Again, my apologies if I offended anyone or got folks worked up too badly.  Sorry!  Hopefully you can look back on this in a few days and laugh!

Hopefully I didn't get anyone's blood pressure up enough to cause permanent damage, and I hope you had as much fun with this as I did.  For the couple of guys who emailed me tonight (I've been in a classified, no electronics environment for the past 5 hours, so couldn't let anyone off the hook sooner, sorry!) that were pretty ticked off, I hope I haven't ticked you off TOO much.... and you'll forgive me.  Sorry!