Rahul Parkar Posted March 2, 2012 at 04:42 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 04:42 PM We won't kill you But I do wish to ask, Which would you rather have more, control inside the terminal area (APP etc.) or En-route control (CTR) Cheers! Rahul Rahul Parkar "On second thoughts Nappa, catch it, catch it with your teeth" -- Vegeta Professional Nerd. (Professionally not professional) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Millsaps 830104 Posted March 2, 2012 at 04:53 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 04:53 PM ...When I built things for ZJX, as things were drafted everyone was informed. The senior staff were discussed with about changes, and then once the general idea was understood and it wanted to be tested or implemented... Daniel, I'll borrow your post here... This is EXACTLY what has occurred. As I said above, I contacted the next senior management level, the ATDs, and then progressed further to the ATM/DATM forum. No one was or is going to be "left in the dark" about this. When I believe the time is appropriate to expand the "gene pool" on this, I will. Gary Millsaps VATUSA1 "I knew all the rules but the rules did not know me... guaranteed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Rodgers 910155 Posted March 2, 2012 at 05:58 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 05:58 PM When I believe the time is appropriate to expand the "gene pool" on this, I will. ...but that's exactly the problem (and similarly, issues all over the public sector and government here in the US): There's this [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption that the management or higher ups should come to a consensus, and only after that point, tell the underlings, or those directly involved. Why not get feedback from those controlling day-to-day, not just management? Involve those directly involved, first, or at least take a sampling of them. Talk to those who are going to actually be affected by it most in the operational environment. In a network of volunteers, why would you exclude your most important resource from the decision-making process? Kyle Rodgers The content of this post, unless expressly written, refers only to those procedures in the United States of America, following the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Hawton Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:00 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:00 PM ...When I built things for ZJX, as things were drafted everyone was informed. The senior staff were discussed with about changes, and then once the general idea was understood and it wanted to be tested or implemented... Daniel, I'll borrow your post here... This is EXACTLY what has occurred. As I said above, I contacted the next senior management level, the ATDs, and then progressed further to the ATM/DATM forum. No one was or is going to be "left in the dark" about this. When I believe the time is appropriate to expand the "gene pool" on this, I will. I didn't know about this until it was leaked to me by others, so I am forced to completely disagree that this is not what happened here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum McLoughlin Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:04 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:04 PM (edited) why would you exclude your most important resource from the decision-making process? I would do that because often operational staff are not in receipt of all of the facts, the strategic aims of the company/organisation and often cannot see the bigger picture. This method is what most of the (successful) companies across the world use. It just relies on the leaders having firstly the right plan, then secondly the danglies to get it through despite all of the negativity that is guaranteed to go alongside it. Should this p[Mod - Happy Thoughts], a few people may leave (but they probably would have done anyway - there are lots of malcontents who leave then a few months later, reappear to repeat the process when the next change they don't like takes place). It would take a few months, but the hoo-har would soon be forgotten and this super-centre or whatever it's being called would be accepted as the norm. Edited March 2, 2012 at 06:07 PM by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrol Larrok 1140797 Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:05 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:05 PM In a network of volunteers, why would you exclude your most important resource from the decision-making process? And it's this habit of VATSIM management keeping it's members in the dark, that often makes me wonder if they're power tripping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Alvarez 818262 Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:17 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:17 PM gotta say this topic has been better then going to the movies. chock full of conspiracy theories and all. i need more popcorn now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:20 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:20 PM Guys, we can't possibly expect Gary and others at his level to involve everyone from the beginning. Nothing would get done ... too many cooks in the kitchen. The real issue, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not the key people (ATMs) are brought in for feedback at *some point* before the super centers become policy, and that's exactly what Gary has stated will happen. We're just not there yet. The fact that it was leaked and some folks found out sooner than they originally would have, does not indicate that Gary isn't doing exactly what he is saying he's doing. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrol Larrok 1140797 Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:23 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:23 PM gotta say this topic has been better then going to the movies. chock full of conspiracy theories and all. i need more popcorn now Hey, when people want information, and don't have it, they invent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Geckler Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:44 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:44 PM The real issue, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not the key people (ATMs) are brought in for feedback at *some point* before the super centers become policy, and that's exactly what Gary has stated will happen. We have been. Arguments have been about the same. Ryan Geckler - GK | Former VATUSA3 - Division Training Manager VATSIM Minneapolis ARTCC | FAA Miami ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Kolin Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:46 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:46 PM I would do that because often operational staff are not in receipt of all of the facts, the strategic aims of the company/organisation and often cannot see the bigger picture. This method is what most of the (successful) companies across the world use. Companies, yes. Volunteer organizations, since they cannot pay their staff, tend to use information and consultation instead of money to give people the feeling of being included and involved. Cheers! Luke ... I spawn hundreds of children a day. They are daemons because they are easier to kill. The first four remain stubbornly alive despite my (and their) best efforts. ... Normal in my household makes you a member of a visible minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cierpial 1008209 Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:47 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:47 PM Guys, we can't possibly expect Gary and others at his level to involve everyone from the beginning. Nothing would get done ... too many cooks in the kitchen. The real issue, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not the key people (ATMs) are brought in for feedback at *some point* before the super centers become policy, and that's exactly what Gary has stated will happen. We're just not there yet. The fact that it was leaked and some folks found out sooner than they originally would have, does not indicate that Gary isn't doing exactly what he is saying he's doing. Ross, couldn't have said it better. Guys, as much as you don't like the idea, you don't nor can you have complete control over everything that happens. Think about your local ARTCCs, you personally do not vote to approve every single change made to SOPs or sector files, do you? Food for thought. CTP Planning Team Member Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Doubleday Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:52 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 06:52 PM Ernesto, It's already been said so many times... The culture in general just needs to change. You need to include the day-to-day people who work traffic on this network in this process of policy making at some stage. It's ridiculous how long I've seen this [Mod - lovely stuff] go on on VATSIM - half the reason I don't participate as much as I used to. The communication process is just totally broken. We can only hope that Gary actually is doing something to change that... Again, I thank the person that leaked it from the bottom of my heart for at least forcing some sort of action out of it (and I will in person). Call it conspiracy all you want, I've seen enough political [Mod - lovely stuff] on here to believe that anything is possible. I've been an ATM of a facility and experienced all the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated garbage with said position. It amazes me how it still continues even 6 years, plus, after the fact. Call my perspective "skewed" all you want, but until you've walked in these shoes... Andrew James Doubleday | Twitch Stream: Ground_Point_Niner University of North Dakota | FAA Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) Graduate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum McLoughlin Posted March 2, 2012 at 07:29 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 07:29 PM Companies, yes. Volunteer organizations, since they cannot pay their staff, tend to use information and consultation instead of money to give people the feeling of being included and involved. The issue is that people prefer a status quo which is not driving the organisation forward. People dislike change, especially where it concerns perceived realism. The fact of the matter is there are only a handful of people contributing to this thread and I'll hazard a guess that less than 10% are pilots who solely participate in that way. Since pilots outnumber controllers quite substantially and that most of them do not post or even visit these forums, this is not true consultation and by "listening" to those in this thread, you're only hearing the few who are shouting most loudly. It is the silent majority who matter, but reaching them is difficult. So consultation is great if you can consult everybody and get a true reflection of the membership's opinion, but we can't, so I'd prefer not to pander to the extremists who tend to frequent these boards and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Hawton Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:02 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:02 PM The issue is that people prefer a status quo which is not driving the organisation forward. People dislike change, especially where it concerns perceived realism. Good thing that realism isn't the main points raised in this thread then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum McLoughlin Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:18 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:18 PM The issue is that people prefer a status quo which is not driving the organisation forward. People dislike change, especially where it concerns perceived realism. Good thing that realism isn't the main points raised in this thread then. It was the first thing you and many others mentioned. The other issues are just convenient to your underlying cause for concern. HORRIBLE idea. In VATUSA, pilots already have a hard enough time figuring out who to call.. now add in an unrealistic, uncharted ATC position and our pilots are going to go bonkers. At least if they see ZLA as the airspace they are in, they know to look for LAX_CTR. But "West Coast Center"??? Totally unrealistic, very arcade-ish. I really hope this "idea" doesn't actually happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Hawton Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:28 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:28 PM The issue is that people prefer a status quo which is not driving the organisation forward. People dislike change, especially where it concerns perceived realism. Good thing that realism isn't the main points raised in this thread then. It was the first thing you and many others mentioned. The other issues are just convenient to your underlying cause for concern. Well actually... In VATUSA, pilots already have a hard enough time figuring out who to call.. That is the first thing I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum McLoughlin Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:45 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:45 PM Let's not go down the facetious road, it does nothing for your cause. I've read the thread in full, what I get from it is that people are mainly expressing dislike because this is unrealistic and there is potential for this change to be brought upon them without their consent. This is unfortunate but this has mainly been the same since before any of us were members of VATSIM. We knew what we were signing up for. Find the silent majority and show your management and the Founders that they are not in support of the effects of these changes, then I'll agree that it would not be in the best interests of VATSIM to continue looking at this policy. Until then the current arguments are based only on the opinions of a sprinkling of vocal controllers, (nothing new there - happens in VATUK as well) who make [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ertions on behalf of others (such as the pilots) without any hard evidence to back it up. To succeed on either side, you need real facts. Not emotions or [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umptions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Doubleday Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:26 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:26 PM This was mentioned before, pilot quality is a big issue. Sure, ask the pilots all you want for their opinion but its not likely to be beneficial as a significant number of them need major improvement (in VATUSA at least). That is one of the major issues that needs addressing before this topic of a super center... I'm actually not convinced it even can be at this point with the lack of any requirements. They don't pull their own weight... I wouldn't trust their opinions (the silent majority) on ATC all that much... Plus we're a network of ATC as well so our opinion should matter. It's a two way street where tge knowledgeable are basically unable to thrive right now. The blind lead the blind everywhere. This just backs up my point about how broken the communication is. Make the forums required reading (or parts of the forum anyhow). Or figure some way to reach out to people better. Sent from my HTC Inspire 4G using Tapatalk. Andrew James Doubleday | Twitch Stream: Ground_Point_Niner University of North Dakota | FAA Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) Graduate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Hawton Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:28 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:28 PM Callum, you may want to read the entire thread again as you missed many more points than than realism. You're also confusing what pilots in VATEUR are like versus VATUSA. Having controlled both, I can tell you the difference is night and day over maturity and desire to learn. VATUSA pilots, in general, haven't learned/won't learn the current system which is docomeented and supported in literally dozens of places.. but now you add another level of over-complication and you will confuse them even further. I welcome you to read Kyle Rodger's post on page 5. Remember, what works for VATEUR doesn't necessarily work for VATUSA just like systems for VATUSA don't necessarily work for VATEUR. While EuroControl helps provide coverage for FIRs that have little to no coverage, VATUSA doesn't have that problem. We have a bigger problem of keeping/retaining C1s in VATUSA. Pilots step away on frequency much more often in the US than I have ever seen/heard both flying and controlling in Europe. Top that with pilots who have a difficult enough time flying when you have a smaller (and easier to control) airspace and triple that. I see a larger number of C1s burning out quicker under this scheme, not to mention the large number of "older" C1s and above that WILL walk out if this happens. I'm not trying to start a fight here, just pointing out that you say realism is the only thing/the first thing being fought when in fact, it's everything else that are our primary concerns. Our problems lie with training, retention, and various other issues that should be known to the guys upstairs in VATSIM. The issues need to be resolved in the lower spectrum before something like this is considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Barnaby 1067268 Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:43 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:43 PM I really think Super Centers is not the right thing to solve the issue. If you have 3 ARTCC's staffed at night, and most pilots aren't in them, why is that? If people wanted ATC a lot wouldn't they fly... well where ATC IS? More coverage doesn't address the problem: pilots would rather fly a certain route with no ATC than a different route with ATC. You don't need a survey, you need VATSPY and other things to show all the numbers - it's very clear. Why on earth would we want to say 3 to 4 things to people who don't even want us to be there. Then of course, is the dilemma of the Virtual Airline. I hate to bring this up, but I think VAs are the root of most problems (surprisingly) on VATSIM. Let's look at just one example relating to this thread: Clocking in hours for VA's encourage people to fly certain routes with no ATC even when there is ATC. I could go on about this but I think VAs can really hurt the quality of VATSIM sometimes and catering to people who are only on VATSIM for the VAs is just purely wrong. Of course, maybe people hope ATC will show up at some point in time along their flight... but when I've signed on as ATC before I've had people literally disconnect and reconnect after they are away from the airport. I guess a plus of super centers is that it scares away people who don't want ATC AT ALL. Agreeing with some others here, would I rather have a top-down center control, or a center control FL240 and above? Well I'd rather talk to the controller a whole bunch than a little. Which is better: more pilots having extraordinary low amounts of ATC interaction, or less pilots have more ATC interaction? Noone here has to agree with me, and if I ever left VATSIM it wouldn't be specifically because of "super centers", but things do pile up. Little thing after little thing and people will permanently leave. I think what is really holding people around is that while they might not think VATSIM is great, it's the best thing out there (of the particular style). VATUSA, vZAU S2 / ORD Major Cert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:48 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:48 PM The real issue, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not the key people (ATMs) are brought in for feedback at *some point* before the super centers become policy, and that's exactly what Gary has stated will happen. We have been. Arguments have been about the same. I'm not [Mod - Happy Thoughts]erting otherwise ... I couldn't possibly, since I'm not an ATM. The point I'm making is that the fact that this idea was leaked, and some people found out about it before planned, in no way supports the accusation that Gary isn't following his plan as to when people would be made aware of the idea. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Fuchs Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:01 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:01 PM I see that many people here on this thread are not in favour of this idea. Some may know me, I am more or less active in VATEUD's EuroControl VACC since many years and we had to overcome similar concerns. I think what you guys need to appreciate is the fact that pilots (our customers!) do want to have seamless ATC-services. Even in Europe this seamless service, that we try to provide through EuroControl, is not based on the real world. On top of it we only cover the airspace from FL246 and above. This way we make sure that our ATCOs do not get overloaded with [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning STARs, SIDs and the like. If a local CTR-controller opens his sector, this sector will automatically be owned by him, top-down! This way there is no danger of some "sneaky kid" playing king by controlling a huge area, that is made up of a number of local CTR sectors. These sectors belong to the respective ARTCCs (we call them VACCs in Europe) and that's the way it will always stay. Super-centers cannot override local centers. As I am not involved in this project (I don't even know if it exists at all!) whatsoever - in fact, this is the first time that I heard or read about it - I would suggest to just make a test. Pick an area of the USA and combine a few ARTCCs to make up a "super-center" that can be manned by all C1-rated ATCOs of the ARTCCs that are part of this "super-center". This way you make sure that ATCOs know about the procedures, more or less and you can also come up with direct feedback. Communication is the most important thing in connection with such a project. I promise you that the majority of pilots will appreciate your effort to offer a seamless service. If you have a lack of controllers, this way you can staff a few center-sectors with just one controller and rather us the other 3 ATCOs to provide APP-services at the underlying fields. Pilots would like to switch frequencies, they prefer clearances from "local approach controllers" and not from a "center controller". At least that's how I feel and that's how most people feel that I know here personally. Keep your minds open. Stay critical, but at least give it a try. If it turns out that it sucks, leave it alone again, at least you trialled it. That is my honest opinion, based on many years in VATSIM and from manning the busiest EuroControl-sector "Maastricht". PS: Another important thing to attract pilots and fellow ATCOs is by announcing your position. Make a reservation through VATBOOK, give pilots some stability for their plans. It will be rewarded after some time, I promise. Cheers, Andreas Member of VATSIM GermanyMy real flying on InstagramMy Twitch streams of VATSIM flights and ATC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Ramsey 810181 Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:04 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:04 PM Andreas, can you speak to the training and certification for the controllers you guys use for this effort in EUD? There seems to be a concern about the training load implementation might place on local facilities. Kyle Ramsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Caffey Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:19 PM Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:19 PM To chime in on a difference between US and EU, in Europe the pilot must request descent (as I understand it) While in the US, the pilot can request lower, but typically will be given a descent by ATC before they have to ask. This alone will add a lot of responsibility and need for procedure knowledge to this type of position in the US. "West Coast Center" would need to know the initial descent restrictions for about 5 ARTCC's worth of airports. The biggest issue I see that I don't think has been brought up is this: does anyone who can (C1+) even want to control this position? Another issue is let's say one of an ARTCC's more active CTR controllers controls 100hrs a month (as an example). Right now he controls those 100hrs providing top down coverage to his home ARTCC. If he winds up controlling 75 hours at his home facility, and 25 hours at Midwest CTR, then that's 25 hours that his facility (and the pilots that fly there) are losing. Steven Caffey (SY) ZLA Controller "A mile of highway gets you one mile, but a mile of runway can take you anywhere." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts