ATC permissions and idea

[Bohdan Bessonov]

I'm vACC Ukraine ATC Manager and have some questions.

 

As I know from VATSIM docomeentation, a person, that has a rating can control all stations that his rating is compatible with. Sure, using Local Regulations vACC can disallow member to control in predefined 'Major' airports (like Moscow FIR or Stockholm Arlanda ESSA in Sweden FIR etc).

 

Imagine, we have Alice in vACC Example, Alice is STU3 and last time she was on duty in 2010. In 2010 she knew all Flight Rules, ATC Rules, Regulations etc to be STU3. But in 2015 flight rules changed and she don't know this rules in 2017, when she returned to vACC.

So, question is: can vACC Example using Local Regulations disallow member to control in vACC zone due to incompetence (in knowledges, in inadequate work on duty and so on)? Sure, if Alice study all the 2017's Docomeents and Procedures and then take exam, she will be permitted to control in this vACC again.

 

Idea is to reexam each person (theoretically and practically) who was controlling last time, for example, 2 years ago. Is it legal and why?

 

And more generalized question, can vACC in some way disallow vACC's member to perform ATC in this vACC? What is legal side of this question?

[Andrew Ogden]

In my opinion, anyone with an ATC rating, S1, S2, S3, C1 etc. is allowed to control the positions their rating says they control. Sure, you could give them a few refresher courses, but there is nothing stopping her logging on and controlling.

[Andreas Fuchs]

As Andrew wrote it.

 

What we do with these people is that we give them a refresher-course/meeting and some kind of "over the shoulder session" on an ATC-position. If you do such a session on TWR, you will also cover GND and DEL with it. There is no way that you can force them to take an exam, though.

[Joseph Jucha 1343412]

I am not staff, nor do I represent the views of the management in ZID.

Having said that in our local policy I see a 'currency' requirement. If the controller falls out of that requirment they are subject to monitoring, restrictions, and re-examination on return. I believe having a similar policy in place would cover the scenario you describe.

The same policy in our ARTCC covers those under performing among other issues.

The policy is in a public area. Perhaphs you may wish to look for ZID 7120.10C at http://www.zidartcc.org/ Under the Operations/Policy Tab at the home page.

[David Zhong]

Relevant provisions:

 

Global Ratings Policy

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.

 

Code of Regulations

1.01H Except as otherwise stated in this Rule, once achieving one of the ratings set forth in

Article I., §1.01(G) above, a Member shall not be subject to a lowering of his or her

rating (commonly referred to as a “downgrade”) unless it is pursuant to one of the

following:

1. A disciplinary proceeding under Article VI. of the VATSIM Code of

Regulations (under the authority granted to the Conflict Resolution

department by the Code of Regulations and the VATSIM Board of

Governors); or

2. To correct an error (under the authority granted to the Membership

department by the Code of Regulations and the VATSIM Board of

Governors); or

3. At the direction of the Founders of VATSIM.

 

The Code of Conduct also provides:

C6 A local division and/or region may restrict certain positions in general or during specific times to those controllers who have achieved a particular rating. Controllers should consult the local rules to see if they qualify to work a particular position prior to logging on at such a position.

however, the GRP provides that this only applies to "Designated Airspace".

[Bohdan Bessonov]

So we can use Local Regulations to disallow members from ATC for some reasons like not controlled for long time.

 

Great Thanks

[Andrew Ogden]

So we can use Local Regulations to disallow members from ATC for some reasons like not controlled for long time.

No. You can restrict ATC from providing services to some aerodrome, but you CANNOT restrict them from controlling, at airports they are not restricted at, full stop. And restricting them from all aerodromes counts as stopping them from controlling.

[David Zhong]

No you can't because that would have the same effect as downgrading the rating (only without actually performing the administrative action).

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

to put it even simpler, its the airports cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed as "major" that often are restricted to proficiency requirements as the folks above mentioned.

 

the EC, who are the ones who approve the airports for that list, arent about to allow your entire vACC to be cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed as "major".

 

these controllers will still be allowed to control at any of the non major airports in your vACC within their ratings

[Bohdan Bessonov]

But, as described before in Australia there are 'currency'

 

Is it legal?

[Nicholas Cavacini]

If you read Transfer and Visiting Controller Policy in conjunction with GRP, you will find that once you are removed from the roster in accordance with local policy, you become a transfer controller if you return. This means that, like other transfer and visiting controllers, a competency check may be performed.

 

Check with your local leadership.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Baban its sounding like youll really want to get in contact with your local regional director to help you create your policies. theyll make sure everything is correct (i was also under the impression they're the ones that approve those policies anyway unless things have changed and policy reviews are no longer)

[David Zhong]

If you read Transfer and Visiting Controller Policy in conjunction with GRP, you will find that once you are removed from the roster in accordance with local policy, you become a transfer controller if you return. This means that, like other transfer and visiting controllers, a competency check may be performed.

 

Check with your local leadership.

 

When you get removed from the roster, where do you get transferred to, does this place provide anywhere for the controller to control and is this action unilateral?

[Nicholas Cavacini]

Most areas have some sort of activity requirement. The best thing to do is to check your Region/Division to see how they handle these cases.

[David Zhong]

My question was general.

 

I know what our (VATPAC) local policy is and that is that there is no "inactive" roster. When I was on the Board we reviewed that policy and determined that mandatory recurrency training is not only a poor use of limited volunteer resources but also likely to be in violation of global policies.

 

The latter is the reason for my interest in how VATUSA et al justify their position. I have asked many times only to be met with a loud silence

[Don Desfosse]

Part of the reason for a separate roster of members not currently [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned to an ATC facility is simple span of control. With over 19,000 active members in VATUSA, it would be far too unwieldy to have them all on local facility rosters!

 

We also have over 1,500 active members in VATUSA holding a rating of S1 or higher that are not on an active facility roster. Over 300 of those have not controlled in over 10 years. A "wide open" stance that allows those folks to just pop on one day, start controlling without any recurrency training, and negatively affect the enjoyment of the network by pilots who received poor ATC service is not in the spirit of VATSIM. Nor is any unreasonable barrier to reentry. This has been discussed many times over the years, and frankly I have no appetite for another 30+ page discussion on the topic. VATSIM leadership at all levels of the organization push for reasonable balance -- balance between quantity, quality, and speed. That balance is hard to achieve, but so important to continually strive for.

[Nicola Felini]

The short answer is no, a local policy cannot require recurrency training for returning members. This is a topic that has come up very recently and is in the infant stages of the process.

[Nicholas Cavacini]

Ok, I stand corrected. I have seen this discussion previously and the answer I've always seen is that it was permitted.

[David Zhong]

Thanks for your responses, gents.

[Kirk Christie]

Ok, I stand corrected. I have seen this discussion previously and the answer I've always seen is that it was permitted.

 

In previous discussions like this one here viewtopic.php?f=9&t=71614 its only been local policy that has permitted this to happen.

 

Per the last EC meeting minutes a team has been created to go and check on all the local policies to ensure they are compliant with VATSIM policies.