8.06(a), 8.06 (b)

[Dylan Lundberg]

Quote

 

8.06(a) In these rare cases, based upon an observed trend of severely deficient performance coupled with poor feedback from pilots and controllers, a Sub-Division or Division may petition their overseeing authority (Division or Region) to suspend the controlling privileges of said controller to the rating level where they are proficient, and the overseeing authority may require remedial training to rated proficiency.

8.06(b)  This requires substantial documentation and all other avenues of encouraging the controller to improve must be explored prior to forwarding the issue to the Division or Region.

 

Questions and concerns:

8.06(a): What does the GCAP consider a "trend"? Why does the division or region need to authorize such controlling privledges being revoked (Certs being pulled because lack of currency) if the division staff (those with VATXXX#'s) aren't the ones on the scopes with said controller operating under an Instructor role? Obviously remedial training is required. Although, this scenario has happened multiple times within VATUSA alone and has had different outcomes: John smith is a visiting controller in ZDC (Washington D.C), and a home controller in ZSE (Seattle). John Smith shows he is not competent at his current C1 rating in ZDC. His controlling privledges at ZDC are suspended, pending a remedial training plan by his home facility. Then, John Smith decides to transfer to ZID (Indianapolis) while waiting for remedial training, then his transfer request is accepted. Who is now responsible for his remedial training? His former ARTCC (ZSE) or his new home ARTCC (ZID)? This has happened time and time again and there are different outcomes each time. Sometimes even, these controllers under a remedial training plan get to the new facility and don't get the remedial training at all! Now what? I think we need to look at 8.06(a) and take into account these circumstances. Don't tell me these don't happen and are rare, because I'll need more than two hands to count how many times this has happened YTD in my home division, and I'd say something similar happens elsewhere.

 

8.06(b) - So tell the controller "read the SOPs and competencies again" while we await your fate from the division or "overseeing authority", but in the meantime go ahead and continue to control even tho you don't meet the competencies? This needs to be expanded further. What avenues of encouraging the controller to improve must be explored?

[Andre Almeida]

Apologies Dylan for hijacking this topic and adding a question to it, but as it concerns 8.06(b) I thought another topic might not be needed.

What is considered "substantial documentation"? Testimonies of pilots, of other controllers, complaints from pilots to Supervisors? And how many? 1, 2, 5, 10? Recordings of the radar-screen and the frequency? 

Substantial documentation is slightly (just slightly :P) vague.

[Dylan Lundberg]

5 minutes ago, Andre Almeida said:

Apologies Dylan for hijacking this topic and adding a question to it, but as it concerns 8.06(b) I thought another topic might not be needed.

What is considered "substantial documentation"? Testimonies of pilots, of other controllers, complaints from pilots to Supervisors? And how many? 1, 2, 5, 10? Recordings of the radar-screen and the frequency? 

Substantial documentation is slightly (just slightly :P) vague.

No worries!

[Alexandra Robison]

35 minutes ago, Andre Almeida said:

Apologies Dylan for hijacking this topic and adding a question to it, but as it concerns 8.06(b) I thought another topic might not be needed.

What is considered "substantial documentation"? Testimonies of pilots, of other controllers, complaints from pilots to Supervisors? And how many? 1, 2, 5, 10? Recordings of the radar-screen and the frequency? 

Substantial documentation is slightly (just slightly :P) vague.

This is my exact concern. We need something quantifiable to hit, or the response is always going to be "you need more proof". @Matthew Bartels has made it abundantly clear that they want to "remove restrictions", so that someone who is "good enough" can continue to control. 8.06(b) is just lip service at this point.

[Matthew Wurzbach]

In general the GCAP contains too much subjective language. This is just one of many offenders.

The policy should read:

"8.06 VATSIM will never downgrade an ATS Rating earned by an Air Traffic Controller for nondisciplinary reasons but may suspend some or all controlling privileges allowed by each rating temporarily. This will only apply in cases of severe documented deficiencies which affect multiple pilots and controllers. Only a Division or Region may suspend controller privileges. The Division and/or Region will set written, public policies detailing the requirements for a suspension. Division policy can be no less strict than Region policy."

Delete (a) and (b).

[Tom Kilpatrick]

4 hours ago, Matthew Wurzbach said:

In general the GCAP contains too much subjective language. This is just one of many offenders.

The policy should read:

"8.06 VATSIM will never downgrade an ATS Rating earned by an Air Traffic Controller for nondisciplinary reasons but may suspend some or all controlling privileges allowed by each rating temporarily. This will only apply in cases of severe documented deficiencies which affect multiple pilots and controllers. Only a Division or Region may suspend controller privileges. The Division and/or Region will set written, public policies detailing the requirements for a suspension. Division policy can be no less strict than Region policy."

Delete (a) and (b).

I agree with this. However, I would also think that the Division Department responsible for the conduct of ATC should have reached out to the Controller beforehand, instead of just jumping straight to removing their Controller privileges. Would it also make sense to add something along the lines of "This is intended as a last resort, after additional training or mentoring has been made available."

[Rick Rump]

The Region and Division are suppose to set what they think meets the requirements -- I like @Matthew Wurzbach's re-write a lot to cover just that in much clearer language.

@Dylan Lundberg 1118012the accepting facility is responsible for continuing the RMP, and always should have/be. You took the controller on, you are responsible for ensuring it is completed as required by the overseeing authority (Division/Region). Now if the accepting facility had no idea that they were accepting someone with a RMP, then thats a bigger issue.