ARTCC Consolidation

[Andrew Doubleday]

I want to redirect attention to an earlier post I had made in this thread since it has complete applicability to the entire nature of the thread...

 

Work on these issues and I think you'll see improvements in pilot quality, controller retention rates, and overall division-wide standardization and quality. Then the idea of a "super-center" might not be that unreasonable to consider... Too many other things need attention right now.

 

Here's the link:

viewtopic.php?p=447659#p447659

[Steven Bartlett 1106450]

Terrible Idea! To me it takes the individual ARTCC's identity away!

[Kevin Rush 1212482]

Terrible Idea! To me it takes the individual ARTCC's identity away!

I'm inclined to agree

[Scott DeWoody]

Terrible Idea! To me it takes the individual ARTCC's identity away!

 

As stated before, I can go either way, however, I don't see how it would take the individual ARTCC's identity away, because as soon as an En Route Controller signs on, the "mega" center relinquishes that airspace.

[Andreas Fuchs]

I am still amazed about how some people want to judge things that they have never tried out before. It's a bit sad, I have to admit.

[Harold Rutila 974112]

I am still amazed about how some people want to judge things that they have never tried out before. It's a bit sad, I have to admit.

What happens if the trial is a failure? When's the last time we had a "trial" of anything on the ATC-side of this network? It's either we have it or we don't.

[Steven Cullen]

I am still amazed about how some people want to judge things that they have never tried out before. It's a bit sad, I have to admit.

What happens if the trial is a failure? When's the last time we had a "trial" of anything on the ATC-side of this network? It's either we have it or we don't.

 

Actually, there have been a few trials of different ATC positions over time, the latest being the ASEA_FSS just a few month ago. Another example was the was the trial to see how the "super centre" would work in VATPAC. They do happen, the participants and local staff are invited to comment on the success or failure of the trial.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

I am still amazed about how some people want to judge things that they have never tried out before. It's a bit sad, I have to admit.

What happens if the trial is a failure? When's the last time we had a "trial" of anything on the ATC-side of this network? It's either we have it or we don't.

 

Actually, there have been a few trials of different ATC positions over time, the latest being the ASEA_FSS just a few month ago. Another example was the was the trial to see how the "super centre" would work in VATPAC. They do happen, the participants and local staff are invited to comment on the success or failure of the trial.

 

And don't forget all the trials with the ratings and off-peak stuff that has been happening in Europe for months.

[Daniel Hawton]

Sorry... I see this being useful in other areas that don't have consistent staffing. But the US? This isn't an issue. Use it where staffing isn't an issue, not here.

[Brian Pryor 810138]

I am still amazed about how some people want to judge things that they have never tried out before. It's a bit sad, I have to admit.

 

Andreas we don't often agree when it comes to debates, but i'm 100% with you here.

 

To have "the sky is falling" attitude during the discussion and data gathering phase is childish at best.

 

There is nothing that should prevent the exploration of this idea, but based on many attitudes here if it isn't "ADDING" realism then out come the torches and pitchforks (or plastic shovels and safety lighters).

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

I'm going to go ahead and pull out my spork here then, and say the goal should be to add realism

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

let us know the next time you decide to fly an airliner so they can stop you. whats realistic about having unlicensed and underage members flying airliners? we've made concessions to that "realism" and then some.

 

if we want to play the "realism" card, why stop there? the next time someone gets a conflict on the scopes, lets pull them and have a full on investigation and possibly "fire" them for having too many deals.

 

i can keep going

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

let us know the next time you decide to fly an airliner so they can stop you. whats realistic about having unlicensed and underage members flying airliners? we've made concessions to that "realism" and then some.

 

if we want to play the "realism" card, why stop there? the next time someone gets a conflict on the scopes, lets pull them and have a full on investigation and possibly "fire" them for having too many deals.

 

i can keep going

 

To be totally honest, Bryan's post just had me looking for a substrate for the spork joke.

[Ryan Geckler]

They do happen, the participants and local staff are invited to comment on the success or failure of the trial.

 

I'm glad we were notified of any trials.. we found out after the fact.

[Steven Cullen]

Sorry Ryan, I might be a bit thick or something, but I can not see a reason to contact the Cleveland staff for trials in the Australian, Asian or European regions. If you mean trials for this "Super Centre" I was of the understanding only limited testing had taken place so far, and from what I have read in this thread Gary has made contact with the correct people as the needs arise.

 

Maybe, just maybe, if people had waited until the project was ready to be presented, the notifications would have been made, guidelines developed and a broad call for feedback would have been made. As it is, all I see is a group of excited people running around calling "the sky is failing, the sky is falling", because they got hit with a half truth and panicked.

[Dhruv Kalra]

Sorry Ryan, I might be a bit thick or something, but I can not see a reason to contact the Cleveland staff for trials in the Australian, Asian or European regions. If you mean trials for this "Super Centre" I was of the understanding only limited testing had taken place so far, and from what I have read in this thread Gary has made contact with the correct people as the needs arise.

 

Maybe, just maybe, if people had waited until the project was ready to be presented, the notifications would have been made, guidelines developed and a broad call for feedback would have been made. As it is, all I see is a group of excited people running around calling "the sky is failing, the sky is falling", because they got hit with a half truth and panicked.

 

None of the ARTCCs involved under the proposed Midwest Center airspace were notified of its existence prior to trials taking place. I believe that is what Ryan is referring to.

[Harold Rutila 974112]

There are a lot of negatives involved with this proposal, but the worst of them all is that not one creator of it has stepped forward either publicly in this forum or privately in our staff forum and explained the reasoning behind it. Instead, they left it up to 44 ATMs and DATMs to apparently hammer out, leaving us with no choice but to base our opinions on our own predispositions with regard to our breadth of experience in VATUSA.

 

An overwhelming majority of ATMs in the division oppose this proposal, and being one of them, I can say there has been no solid evidence presented to any of us in an attempt to sway us in the other direction. Solid evidence does not include the opinions of a few fellow ATMs here and there who support it, seeing that their support is also grounded in their own personal opinion, too. I respect their opinions, as most respect mine.

 

In my initial response in the VATUSA staff forum, I asked three simple questions with regard to the establishment of a super center, but repeated requests for the creator of the proposal to explain his/her/their point(s) of view continue to be left unanswered.

• 1.) What is the origin of the proposal? Is there a "market demand" for a high-altitude center operation?
  2.) What is the proposed benefit to the community in having a high-altitude center operation?
  3.) What are the operational challenges presented by the proposed high-altitude center operation?

It is truly disappointing that we have been denied an explanation for such a m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive undertaking that a supercenter would require. Speaking from a purely logical point of view, nobody in their right mind should expect this gig to last that much longer under these types of circomestances. We're not minions. We're volunteers.

[Ryan Geckler]

Sorry Ryan, I might be a bit thick or something, but I can not see a reason to contact the Cleveland staff for trials in the Australian, Asian or European regions. If you mean trials for this "Super Centre" I was of the understanding only limited testing had taken place so far, and from what I have read in this thread Gary has made contact with the correct people as the needs arise.

 

Maybe, just maybe, if people had waited until the project was ready to be presented, the notifications would have been made, guidelines developed and a broad call for feedback would have been made. As it is, all I see is a group of excited people running around calling "the sky is failing, the sky is falling", because they got hit with a half truth and panicked.

 

None of the ARTCCs involved under the proposed Midwest Center airspace were notified of its existence prior to trials taking place. I believe that is what Ryan is referring to.

 

Yup, that's it. Trials of Midwest Center occurred, and then we were told they occurred..

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Ryan,

 

if I understood Gary's posting earlier on correctly, this "trial" was not really a "trial", but a simple test, whether it would work at all (technically). That was a single occurrence, not a "trial". A "trial" is an official phase were all or parts of these sectors get used under certain rules, including an analysis of the outcome. Before such a "trial" would have taken place (or will take place), all ARTCCs that would/will be involved, will be heard and asked for comments. You guys are in panic-mode, although it is just a thing that still seems to be in the "idea-phase".

[John Cierpial 1008209]

Hi Ryan,

 

if I understood Gary's posting earlier on correctly, this "trial" was not really a "trial", but a simple test, whether it would work at all (technically). That was a single occurrence, not a "trial". A "trial" is an official phase were all or parts of these sectors get used under certain rules, including an analysis of the outcome. Before such a "trial" would have taken place (or will take place), all ARTCCs that would/will be involved, will be heard and asked for comments. You guys are in panic-mode, although it is just a thing that still seems to be in the "idea-phase".

 

Sorry Andreas, I need to disagree with what you wrote, not your fault as I don't think you saw this PDF: http://forum.vatusa.net/index.php?showtopic=3213&pid=17345&st=0entry17345

 

4 separate sessions occurred, this wasn't a one off thing.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi John,

 

thanks for that! But this is exactly what I have been talking about:

The attached docomeent is a DRAFT ONLY and is NOT considered active in any way.

 

NO MEMBER OF THE VATSIM NETWORK IS AUTHORIZED TO IMPLEMENT THESE PROCEDURES AT ANY TIME IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VATUSA1.

It is just a draft and I wouldn't call four test-sessions a "trial", but simply a test to check out the technical basics.

[Ross Carlson]

This thread has devolved into a semantic quibble.

 

Andreas, I agree with everything else you have said in this thread, but if they "tried" something, it's a "trial" ... doesn't matter how formal or how lengthy.

 

That being said, some folks here need to realize that they simply aren't part of every decision or test done on this network. Involving everyone in every decision would guarantee nothing gets done. Then they'd *really* complain about VATSIM never changing.

[Ira Robinson]

I just love this place. I mean how can you not? First we all complain that our Division Director never does anything. Then we all you-know-what and moan when he does do something because he didn't solicit our opinions or ask for permission first.

 

Yea yea, I know. Wouldn't it be nice if he mentioned that he was thinking of doing something so we could all discuss it first. Heaven forbid he should exercise some initiative and quietly test some idea to determine if it is even plausible before wasting our time.

 

But no, we want to be able to have input and get a chance to pick it to death before any idea ever gets off the ground. Sounds similar to a recent conversation regarding training to me.

 

Ira

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Ross,

 

I really did not want to go into semantics! I simply wanted to show - bear in mind that I am not a native speaker - that 4 isolated test-connections hardly are a full trial. Before you can run an organized trial, you need to make sure that even the trial can be run somehow. I hope I could convey my message a bit clearer now

[John Cierpial 1008209]

Hi Ross,

 

I really did not want to go into semantics! I simply wanted to show - bear in mind that I am not a native speaker - that 4 isolated test-connections hardly are a full trial. Before you can run an organized trial, you need to make sure that even the trial can be run somehow. I hope I could convey my message a bit clearer now

 

Likewise, semantics wasn't the intent. Simply, I knew Andreas was going to be called out on saying only a single occurrence so I tried to inform him before he got bashed about it. Should have sent that PDF to him in a PM instead of posting here. Mea culpa.