Partnered Virtual Airlines S1's Controlling

[Dan Leavitt]

Section 3.03, ramp control, says that with an agreement by division or sub-division, partnered VA's that have an S1, can open ramp control. This seems to be a slippery slope,  as it doesn't count against a controller's 3 visiting facilities.  If a division signs an agreement, and there are multiple sub-divisions, they can be saddled with having to allow a controller, who theoretically has no knowledge of the region, division, or facility procedures.  I understand that an LOA in place can prevent this, but I feel it should only be handled at the lowest level. ie: if there are sub-divisions, do not let a division override the desire of a sub-division to have a procedure in place to potentially allow a VA controller to open a position.

[Matthew Bartels]

The term “division or sub division” throughout the document is referring to the “owner” of the airspace. So in a case with a subdivision. It’s on the VA to make the LOA with the subdivision. They can only work the ramp ares delegated to them via LOA. They’re not getting free reign on the entire airport.

[Matthew Bartels]

The bigger concern here is the terminology “being saddled with,” “division override,” etc.

Are you saying if a VA came to you with a plan on how they would conduct ramp operations you’d show them the door because you didn’t want them to do it? If so, this is rightly where division leadership and you should have a bit of a chat.

[Thimo Koolen]

Why has this even a place in a global policy? This is one of those things that happen only in America (and maybe like 1 or 2 other places in the world). Doesn't need to be in this policy, and should be more in a divisional / regional policy.

[Collin Koldoff]

3 hours ago, Thimo Koolen said:

Why has this even a place in a global policy? This is one of those things that happen only in America (and maybe like 1 or 2 other places in the world). Doesn't need to be in this policy, and should be more in a divisional / regional policy.

It is in the global policy because the global policy says that divisions and sub-divisions can not enforce restrictions not in the global policy.

 

[Erik Quinn]

38 minutes ago, Collin Koldoff said:

It is in the global policy because the global policy says that divisions and sub-divisions can not enforce restrictions not in the global policy.

 

True... But in this case, the global policy says (paraphrased) "VAs and divisions/subdivisions can collaboratively create ramp control positions". This is not a restriction, it's a statement of the obvious. So the explanation of "you can only enforce a restriction if it's in global policy" doesn't apply, as this is not a restriction at all. All it is is an encouragement for ATC facilities to make more agreements like this with VAs.

---

Dan's issue (with which I agree) is about the phrasing of "VAs in agreement with the division or subdivision are authorized to create ramp control positions". @Matthew Bartels's explanation that "division or subdivision" == "owner of the airspace" is the appropriate outcome, but the document can easily be interpreted to give the division the power to make the agreement without involving the subdivision, which is the objection.

Why not rephrase to "VAs in agreement with the subdivision are authorized..."? The places where subdivisions do not exist will clearly conclude "I am the division and the subdivision, so they're talking about me", and the places with subdivisions will clearly conclude "they're talking about the ARTCCs/FIRs and not VATUSA/VATCAN/etc". Problem solved! 🙂

Edited July 24, 2021 at 02:06 PM by Erik Quinn

[Thimo Koolen]

3 hours ago, Collin Koldoff said:

It is in the global policy because the global policy says that divisions and sub-divisions can not enforce restrictions not in the global policy.

 

Then, that's:

- Not a restriction, but actually something less restricting

- A problem with the global policy

 

A global policy should allow for divisional variations, because not every region is the same. Allowing local regions (America) to implement this, should be fine and this should definitely not be in a global policy.

[Collin Koldoff]

7 hours ago, Thimo Koolen said:

Then, that's:

- Not a restriction, but actually something less restricting

- A problem with the global policy

 

A global policy should allow for divisional variations, because not every region is the same. Allowing local regions (America) to implement this, should be fine and this should definitely not be in a global policy.

I do not agree with it, but this is directly from the Scope and Purpose of the document

Quote

No Region, Division, Sub-Division, or Local Facility may apply any restriction to operating a control position that is not defined within this policy. Application of the defined restrictions shall only be used when absolutely necessary to protect the quality of Air Traffic Control on VATSIM.

 

[Rick Rump]

On 7/24/2021 at 10:03 AM, Erik Quinn said:

hy not rephrase to "VAs in agreement with the subdivision are authorized..."?

Not everywhere has sub-divisions. I think the better language is "VAs in agreement with the airport/airspace owner" or something like that.

[Erik Quinn]

2 hours ago, Rick Rump said:

Not everywhere has sub-divisions. I think the better language is "VAs in agreement with the airport/airspace owner" or something like that.

Of course, hence my explanation in the sentence following that quote.

But I think "airport/airspace owner" would work well! As long as it doesn't say "division", that resolves Dan's concern.

[Greg Barber]

If you start using terms ike "airport/airspace owner" you have to completely rephrase the definitions of "division/sub-division".

Guys,  remember this is a policy to set the boundaries.  If a division or sub-division doesn't have the need for ramp controller rules, they don't have to use them.  If a division/sub-division is in a region of the world where ramp control is common, and a "partnered" VA can approach the local facility (sub-division or in the absence of that, division) for an agreement to allow a ramp controller under whatever limits and rules that agreement sets out.  If the region doesn't use ramp controllers, then the request from the VA can be denied on those grounds.

The current wording describes that quite well.

[Callum McLoughlin]

Hello, we agree with the proposal from BAVirtual's perspective. Firstly, we would not permit anybody without the appropriate knowledge to undertake these duties, nor I suspect would VATUK. In our instance we would be using it for stand assignment, slot management, last minute changes, troubleshooting and so on during specific events only. We would not use it as an ATC position - instead more of a company dispatch frequency. 

[Jiancarlos Paredes]

At vBlue we love the proposal of allowing our members to control the ramp. Both the ATC facility responsible for the airport and the VA interested in controlling a ramp position should develop a set of requirements and procedures to control said position. My question is who would be responsible for training? And wouldn't that impact an ATC facility training department?

[Sean Harrison]

I’d have to rejoin FedEx because KMEM has everything north of the 09/27s as Non-movement area.  “The Red Zone”.  If it is VA based does that mean you wouldn’t have to be a resident controller?  

[Matthew Bartels]

The way I see it working here is that the approved Virtual Airlines would go to the individual subdivisions to create a letter of agreement with the subdivision to operate the ramp.  The VA would be responsible for all training activities for the ramp areas they control and would need to maintain a roster of Ramp Control Qualified members. You would not need to be on a subdivisions roster to control a ramp, instead you would need to be on the VA’s roster for the approved ramps.

Top-Down still applies, so If United Ramp at O’Hare is not covered by a VA, then Ground would control the ramp area in instances where it needed to be controlled. So on and so forth.

[Sean Harrison]

7 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

The way I see it working here is that the approved Virtual Airlines would go to the individual subdivisions to create a letter of agreement with the subdivision to operate the ramp.  The VA would be responsible for all training activities for the ramp areas they control and would need to maintain a roster of Ramp Control Qualified members. You would not need to be on a subdivisions roster to control a ramp, instead you would need to be on the VA’s roster for the approved ramps.

Top-Down still applies, so If United Ramp at O’Hare is not covered by a VA, then Ground would control the ramp area in instances where it needed to be controlled. So on and so forth.

That is excellent news.  I’m also guessing that ramp control would only be doing SMC and NO airways/SID clearances.  
 

As a C1 (from VAT Asia Pacific) doing Ramp at KMEM for FDX in the “Red Zone” I don’t think they would like me doing a CRAFT.