Visiting Controllers within the Division

[Steffan Dawe]

I hold the position of ATC Training Manager in the Vatsim Sub-Sahara Division. We are trying to grow the division and all of its sub-divisions on the network and increase traffic and ATC coverage, however,  we have limited resources in terms of instructors/examiners so we rely on our small group of instructors being utilised across the whole Division to help with training and exams. Which is where this issue lies with only being able to be a visitor in 3 sub divisions.  I think it has to be limited to 3 visiting sub-divisions  OUTSIDE your home Division then it’s up to divisional policy on how many places you can visit internally within the division. This will allow highly experienced controllers with correct local training (including Instructors and S3+) to help out other, less populated, areas of the division with events and general staff ups. With the policy in its current state it deters controllers from using up their 3 visitor rights from helping out less popular neighbours. I have also heard suggestions that we just have less sub-divisions but VATSSA covers 40+ countries split into 4 sub-divisions there’s not much more we can do.

Thank you

Steffan Dawe

VATSSA3

[Mateusz Zymla]

8 minutes ago, Steffan Dawe said:

 I think it has to be limited to 3 visiting sub-divisions  OUTSIDE your home Division then it’s up to divisional policy on how many places you can visit internally within the division

While I understand your point, you have to consider then, that there are Divisions that are already bigger than some of the Regions (at least by number of subdivisions/members of the division), and I think it came from this point of view (VATUSA/VATEUD in mind).

Edited July 28, 2021 at 10:22 AM by Mateusz Zymla

[Steffan Dawe]

3 minutes ago, Mateusz Zymla said:

While I understand your point, you have to consider then, that there are Divisions that are already bigger than some of the Regions (at least by number of subdivisions/members of the division), and I think it came from this point of view (VATUSA/VATEUD in mind).

Absolutely that’s why it’s then limited by divisional policy rather than Vatsim itself, or at least have it so the rules are split (so visit 3 within home division and 2 or 3 outside the home division). Because in its current state all but 1 or 2 sub-divisions will suffer with the lack of support that they require.

[Matthew Bartels]

@Steffan DaweIf SSA has 4 subdivisions then you every member could visit within the entire division. You get your home plus 3 others for a total of 4.

The idea here is to prevent serial visiting which is a massive problem in larger subdivisions and a drain on training resources in which people visit at 6-10 different places and end up not controlling at almost all of them.

[Steffan Dawe]

9 minutes ago, Matthew Bartels said:

@Steffan DaweIf SSA has 4 subdivisions then you every member could visit within the entire division. You get your home plus 3 others for a total of 4.

The idea here is to prevent serial visiting which is a massive problem in larger subdivisions and a drain on training resources in which people visit at 6-10 different places and end up not controlling at almost all of them.

That would then limit our controllers as they would not be allowed to visit outside SSA, so some may not be able to help other SSA subdivisions as their Visiting endorsements are elsewhere in the world. The problem you mention that bigger divisions would have an issue would be fixed if visiting rights within a division (small or large) would be covered by divisional policy. I.e. a large divisions could limit how many visiting endorsements  can be held internally.

[Erik Quinn]

On 7/29/2021 at 5:29 AM, Matthew Bartels said:

@Steffan DaweIf SSA has 4 subdivisions then you every member could visit within the entire division. You get your home plus 3 others for a total of 4.

The idea here is to prevent serial visiting which is a massive problem in larger subdivisions and a drain on training resources in which people visit at 6-10 different places and end up not controlling at almost all of them.

This is starting to get so unbelievably old. @Matthew Bartels you are again focusing your entire attention on explaining "what the idea was", when everyone already fully understands. In fact, the motivations behind 95% of the policies have the support of 95% of the facilities. It's in the details of HOW those motivations are actualized where the issues arise, and it is in those details which you are refusing to engage in discussion. This thread is not about "I don't like what you're trying to do here", it's about "how does that work in a situation like this?", and focusing the response on the latter hasn't been happening very much.

Steffan has a very valid concern here. If training staff need to be utilized across many subdivisions, the policy prevents it at large scale. VATCAR is another example: they currently have a single TA for Piarco, San Juan, Santo Domingo, and Port Au Prince FIRs (I assume they also share the training staff). Though unique, some of those FIRs are VERY small, and GCAP would mean the training staff (a) would not be able to visit elsewhere, or (b) would not be able to train at all four FIRs.

If it takes time, that's fine, but please explain if and how the committee plans to address this problem.

[Rick Rump]

Erik,

Personally I think we need to look at if there is a need for super small Sub-Divisions. VATCAR could re-categorize those Sub-Divisions into a singular one for administrative purposes. But that is not on point to your question.

 

We need to give more leeway in a few of these areas to the Region Vice Presidents (As a sole authority, not delegating) to use their best judgement on what works in their Region. In this case, I would say we can "open skies" (This is a proposal I presented sometime back when we had this topic come up, basically these places would be free visiting for anyone holding a C1 Rating and not count against their total) these small places so do not count against the number which is an RVP authority to setup. It allows anyone to visit these smaller places, not count against their total, and ideally increase activity at these smaller places.

As an alternative, we could also look at allowing the RVPs to provide for intra-Division mutual visiting for super small facilities administered by the Division Director.

[Matthew Bartels]

What about something as simple as this

Quote

6.05(j)(viii) CAOC, Oceanic Control Areas, and Virtual Airline Ramp Controller positions as well as divisional training staff conducting training in multiple sub-divisions do not count towards the limit specified in 6.04(j)(vii)

 

[Erik Quinn]

Looks perfect to me! @Steffan Dawe?

[Steffan Dawe]

On 8/1/2021 at 2:39 PM, Matthew Bartels said:

What about something as simple as this

 

I’m liking that! Much better for sure.  Would help out a lot of people!

Thanks!