VATSIM Global Ratings Policy Chapter 5 sub section 4

[Paul Dobear]

"5.1   An important objective of this policy is to make it easier to become a controller by removing VATSIM excessive restrictions and unnecessary local rules without adversely affecting controller standards.

5.2   On-line operations require a controller to be flexible and versatile therefore local rules must be carefully considered to ensure that they do not impair these important on-line qualities.

5.3   Notwithstanding paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, it is acceptable for Divisions to introduce Standard Operating Procedures to provide guidance to Controllers in respect of local arrangements such as runway configurations, clearance altitudes, handoff procedures etc. Such SOPs must be approved by the Division Director and must be published on Division/Facility websites for all controllers and pilots to read.

5.4   Local rules cannot restrict who can provide ATC services on any position that is not approved as Designated Airspace in accordance with Paragraph 6 of this policy for members rated S2 or higher.

5.5   Local rules cannot provide restrictions that would be in contravention of this policy."

I am visitor in 2 other ARTCC's one of which was as easy as sending a message to the ATM and being accepted.....the other took me like 2 months to get a visitor rating, and I only applied to control one minor class delta airport I enjoy.


The way I read the GRP Chapter 5 Sub section 4 is that any S2 or higher can control any minor field, as long as it doesn't violate anything in chapter 6

Can someone clarify this if I am reading it wrong.

[Brighton McMinn]

You are reading 5.4 correctly. It is also important to note though, VATNA Transfer and Visiting Controller Policy allows for the establishment of local rules on the acceptance of visiting controllers and a checkout procedure to ensure compliance with the rating competencies listed for each rating under GRP.

Acceptance as a visiting controller within a particular sub-Division is a
privilege, thus visiting controllers shall abide by all requirements, testing, and
procedures specified within that particular sub-division.

http://vatna.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Standard-Operating-Procedure-Template-VATNA-002.pdf

[Paul Dobear]

So who's regulations take precedent. VATSIM's or VATUSA's in the grand spectrum of things. 

Section 5.1  states An important objective of this policy is to make it easier to become a controller by removing VATSIM excessive restrictions and unnecessary local rules without adversely affecting controller standards.

I spent 2 months trying to get approved as a visitor in Honolulu.  Due to some BS made up rule at the time by the acting ATM who wasn't accepting visitors at the time, who sat on his rear end for 2 months telling me he would get to it.  I emailed him once a week until he finally stepped down, and Toby took over, Toby was in charge for about 10 seconds before he got me added.

So guess my question is who's rules supersede who's.  Does VATSIM policy supersede VATNA or VATUSA policy?

[Don Desfosse]

First, I'm sorry that you had issues in HCF.  That should not happen.  In rare cases, though, I will approve a facility's request to either slow or temporarily suspend receiving visiting controllers.  This is generally only in cases where the facility has a severe temporary shortage of training resources such that they are having a hard time training their own controllers to the extent that even a visiting controller checkout is difficult to accommodate.

VATSIM policy takes precedence.  Lower echelon policies may only clarify higher echelon policies.

What I think you may have inadvertently missed, however, and you're not alone as this argument has been made many dozens of times over the years, is that you are quoting the Global Ratings Policy, which deals with earning and using ratings.  You asked a question about becoming a visiting controller.  In that case, the Transfer and Visiting Controller policy applies.  Recall from that policy that:

- A Transfer Controller must demonstrate a standard equal to the local requirements for their current ATC rating, and may be required to undertake an appropriate local competency check.
- A Transfer Controller having satisfactorily passed a local competency check, or having been accepted as being competent, shall thereafter have the same rights and privileges as local members of the same rating.
- Where a Transfer Controller has not yet satisfactorily passed a local competency check in accordance with his or her rating, the local jurisdiction may impose an appropriate restriction until such time that the Transfer Controller is able to demonstrate full competency. If at any stage a Transfer Controller does not accept the proposed local induction plan, or the Transfer Controller does not attain full competency within 90 days of the transfer, then the transfer will become void and the Region Director will arrange to transfer the member back to their previous Region without any loss of ATC rating.
- The requirements detailed above for a Transfer Controller shall equally apply to a Visiting Controller

Hope this helps.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

I've asked these same questions to both division and region staff members, and the answer Don is providing is what I consistently receive in response.  While I still have some questions about the validity of the position given the supremacy clause in GRP, I have accepted it and am working on an initiative with other VATUSA facilities in order to remain in alignment with their position:  Automatic visiting controller status.  I believe this allows like-minded facilities to participate together as they wish without impacting others, while still playing within the bounds of all of the rules as interpreted.  The initiative has generally received positive feedback, even from those who aren't interested in direct participation.

We (ZHU) have agreements in place with two neighboring facilities at this time and have inquiries out to other facilities. We've only received one flat-out no, and a few others are currently being discussed.  Some facilities have concerns, but I do feel that they can all be addressed and the associated risks mitigated.  I take the position that we're here to have fun, and allowing controllers to float to wherever they can have the most fun and be best used benefits everybody and helps the activity of all facilities, the division, and VATSIM as a whole.  I sincerely think that we can do something good for all pilots and controllers on the network, even if it takes some out-of-the-box thinking.

If there are any other facilities interested in such an agreement with ZHU, feel free to drop me an email!  Or do something similar with your neighboring facilities!  It doesn't have to be with us!  Our most recent language can be seen in the ZHU/ZME LOA.  The highlights are:  Automatic mutual visiting status, does not include designated airspace, no minimum activity requirements, and individual controllers can be excluded from the program, as required.

[Manuel Manigault]

MK, I think that is a fantastic idea.

[Don Desfosse]

It is a great idea.  One of the legacy concerns has always been "their standards are different than ours."  I find that no-boundaries approaches like this aid in standardization across the regions, and across the Division.  Running a Division is like walking a razor blade.  Having been an ATM for several years, I recognize how important standards and facility pride are.  And I would have been one of the ones screaming, "Not only no, but HELL NO!"...  Running a Division I recognize how important standardization is.  The sweet spot in the middle is where the magic is.  The more borders that come down, eventually the more standardized we'll become, hopefully raising the water line at the same time.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

It is a great idea.  One of the legacy concerns has always been "their standards are different than ours."  I find that no-boundaries approaches like this aid in standardization across the regions, and across the Division.  Running a Division is like walking a razor blade.  Having been an ATM for several years, I recognize how important standards and facility pride are.  And I would have been one of the ones screaming, "Not only no, but HELL NO!"...  Running a Division I recognize how important standardization is.  The sweet spot in the middle is where the magic is.  The more borders that come down, eventually the more standardized we'll become, hopefully raising the water line at the same time.

Frankly, I'm hoping that Mark's standardized training initiative will be a huge driver to breaking down the standardization barrier argument.  When we train to the same standards, we'll all be natively capable of working all non-designated airspace.  If you ask me, if it requires anything more than GRP competencies (or our base rating), it should be listed as designated airspace so you can require additional training and endorsements.  Given that all of our center airspace is inherently designated, once S3 material is done and being utilized, I think we'll be mostly there.

Beyond that, I understand the value of facility pride, and such agreements could always include additional stipulations such as right-of-way for home controllers, or something else that could allow a facility to maintain that pride and culture.  That being said, while pride is important, I don't think that it should get in the way of providing the highest levels of professionalism and availability of service.

So long as the same level of professionalism and competency is presented to the pilot, nobody outside of our side of the house would ever know the difference... except they may get ATC services more often :-)

[Paul Dobear]

Brighton, Don, Kosmo thanks for the input.

[Mark Hubbert]

Matt Kosmoski,
One of the most positive posts that I have seen in this forum.  I think you are well on the way to understanding what the VATUSA Division has been striving to promote. 

[Tony Jeppesen]

It is a great idea.  One of the legacy concerns has always been "their standards are different than ours."  I find that no-boundaries approaches like this aid in standardization across the regions, and across the Division.  Running a Division is like walking a razor blade.  Having been an ATM for several years, I recognize how important standards and facility pride are.  And I would have been one of the ones screaming, "Not only no, but HELL NO!"...  Running a Division I recognize how important standardization is.  The sweet spot in the middle is where the magic is.  The more borders that come down, eventually the more standardized we'll become, hopefully raising the water line at the same time.

I personally have been a little confused by this "different standards" thing.  Mainly because VATSIM has set standards for each rating.  To my knowledge we are not allowed to go beyond the standards laid out in the GRP, so I'd think everyone not just VATUSA but VATSIM wise should be using the same standards to rate controllers. 

I think "different methods" might be a better term to use than standards.  The standards are laid out for us already by the powers to be for earning ratings.  However, each ARTCC is different, with different airspace and different flows of traffic.  Obtaining you C1 at ZSE would much different than doing it at ZLA, ZNY, or ZDC where you have a super complex airspace with so many procedures to learn its not even funny.  So there has to be some local restrictions to some extent, as a C1 myself I know it would probably take substantial time to learn and airspace like ZNY and how ZNY runs their airspace.

What MK and the crews at ZHU/ZFW/ZME have been working on is fantastic and I agree fully this is a shining example of hopefully where our Division is headed.

[Brin Brody]

I've asked these same questions to both division and region staff members, and the answer Don is providing is what I consistently receive in response.  While I still have some questions about the validity of the position given the supremacy clause in GRP, I have accepted it and am working on an initiative with other VATUSA facilities in order to remain in alignment with their position:  Automatic visiting controller status.  I believe this allows like-minded facilities to participate together as they wish without impacting others, while still playing within the bounds of all of the rules as interpreted.  The initiative has generally received positive feedback, even from those who aren't interested in direct participation.

We (ZHU) have agreements in place with two neighboring facilities at this time and have inquiries out to other facilities. We've only received one flat-out no, and a few others are currently being discussed.  Some facilities have concerns, but I do feel that they can all be addressed and the associated risks mitigated.  I take the position that we're here to have fun, and allowing controllers to float to wherever they can have the most fun and be best used benefits everybody and helps the activity of all facilities, the division, and VATSIM as a whole.  I sincerely think that we can do something good for all pilots and controllers on the network, even if it takes some out-of-the-box thinking.

If there are any other facilities interested in such an agreement with ZHU, feel free to drop me an email!  Or do something similar with your neighboring facilities!  It doesn't have to be with us!  Our most recent language can be seen in the ZHU/ZME LOA.  The highlights are:  Automatic mutual visiting status, does not include designated airspace, no minimum activity requirements, and individual controllers can be excluded from the program, as required.

This is an interesting idea I hadn’t thought possible. I am definitely excited and willing to look into this in the near future with my staff... Thanks Kosmo.