8.02(a) Staff Member Activity

[Ryan Parry]

Quote

A controller is considered active provided they have completed at least one ATC session within the rostered division or sub-division of at least 1 hour duration within the preceding 12 calendar months, are an observer who is actively seeking training, or is a VATSIM Staff Member at any level performing duties for the network.

I know there is an entire other thread for activity, but I wanted to bring attention to this part in particular. The bold section should be removed or changed. This is basically a free pass for any VATSIM staff member to sit on their butt and be considered "active" despite not participating, at all. How does one track a VATSIM Staff Member "performing duties for the network"? All VATSIM Staff Members should be actively flying and/or controlling on the network on a regular basis. How can you expect to be in touch with the membership and state of the network so that you effectively lead the network when your participation is reading emails and forum posts? If you can't perform your VATSIM Staff duties and be an active participating member of the network you should resign.

Edited August 4, 2021 at 01:49 AM by Ryan Parry

[Matthew Bartels]

So an Instructor that spends all of their VATSIM time training new students to the point that they can’t sign on themselves should be removed for inactivity?

What about the supervisor who was going to control, but signs on as a supervisor instead because there were not other supervisors online. Should they be removed for inactivity?

Surely the local and division staff who dedicate their limited hours to running their facilities leaving not enough time to actually control should be removed for inactivity.

To say that any VATSIM staff member is just “sitting on their butt,” and not contributing is one of the most insulting things I’ve read in this discussion. This clause directly addresses that our staff members have lots on their plate and one of the last things that they need to worry about is something like an activity requirement. 

 

[Joshua Jenkins]

2 hours ago, Ryan Parry said:

How does one track a VATSIM Staff Member "performing duties for the network"?

Although Matt somewhat alluded to this in his response, I think this is the core of the question he's asking that wasn't fully answered. I don't think Ryan meant to call VATSIM staff "lazy" or to say they are incompetent at controlling/flying/performing their duties in any way, but rather asked an honest question about how they are kept in check.

[Greg Barber]

As far as I am aware, most staff groups hold their own activity requirements as part of their staff expectations.  I think the GCAP clause is sound and can be supported by local policy that does not impact the staff members network status but rather their staff performance.

Having said, that I'd expect there'd be no members maintaining a staff role that would not satisfy a 1hr login in 12 months.

Edited August 4, 2021 at 05:28 AM by Greg Barber

[Mateusz Zymla]

4 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

So an Instructor that spends all of their VATSIM time training new students to the point that they can’t sign on themselves should be removed for inactivity?

What about the supervisor who was going to control, but signs on as a supervisor instead because there were not other supervisors online. Should they be removed for inactivity?

These are still connections. Can, and should be counted, I fully agree with you on that, Matt.

On the other hand, one may defend himself, that he/she "develops" for vatsim (documents, training materials, apps, you name it), and it still would be considered "duties for the network". How would you be able to track these? While I appreciate the efforts put into the network (and myself I spent thousands man hours for my subdivision, developing SOPs and Plugins in last year), but many used an "other activities for network" argument, abusing it. It would be really difficult to judge, leaving on the personal judgement.

Edited August 4, 2021 at 07:54 AM by Mateusz Zymla

[Liesel Downes]

This is a pain but if someone really doesn't want to fly or control or supervise or whatever but does do background stuff, have them submit records proving as such to membership who adds an override for that check.

[Simon Kelsey]

I think the question here is what is the purpose of the "1 hour in 12 months" requirement? To me (and I stand to be corrected on the intent of the policy if I am wrong), this is not about currency or proficiency as a controller but more a housekeeping exercise of "who is actually around?".

With that in mind, on a network which runs on the basis of volunteers it would be insane to stop somebody who is, for instance, actively maintaining a website/producing documentation/developing and maintaining software/whatever for the benefit of VATSIM users etc etc purely on the basis that they haven't logged in to control on the network for an arbitrary period of time when it is clear that they are actively contributing to the community.

Now, clearly, staff members should not be exempt from any competency/currency/training requirements (for instance where there is a minimum hours requirement to retain an endorsement etc) as obviously these requirements exist to ensure controllers are in practice and competent to control the position/sector, and subject to the same proficiency requirements as any other member. 

If somebody is genuinely "sitting on their butt" and not being effective in their staff role, whatever that may be, then that obviously is dealt with separately.

In practice, as mentioned above, I can't imagine there are many situations where a member who is active and effective in a staff role is not connecting to the network for at least 1hr per year, so I suspect this is a fairly moot point anyway!

[Andreas Fuchs]

6 hours ago, Josh Jenk said:

Although Matt somewhat alluded to this in his response, I think this is the core of the question he's asking that wasn't fully answered. I don't think Ryan meant to call VATSIM staff "lazy" or to say they are incompetent at controlling/flying/performing their duties in any way, but rather asked an honest question about how they are kept in check.

On top of it, other members of staff will quickly find out if somebody of their team has become completely inactive, because being staff means doing a lot of work offline, in most positions. Personally, I'd even skip the requirement to be online for 1 hour within a 12 month period. In my times as VACC staff I remember that we had some staff members who still dedicated their time and money (e.g. server cost) to maintain infrastructure that "active" members of our VACC were using a daily basis, so we were happy keeping them as official members of staff (e.g. "assistant webmaster" etc.).

We have to be careful, please do not open Pandora's box! There are more "inactive" (=invisible) contributors to VATSIM who simply do not have time to take part as pilots/controllers, because real life "happened". I am very, very grateful that these members are still around somehow and keep supporting the network.

[Ryan Parry]

10 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

So an Instructor that spends all of their VATSIM time training new students to the point that they can’t sign on themselves should be removed for inactivity?

Surely the local and division staff who dedicate their limited hours to running their facilities leaving not enough time to actually control should be removed for inactivity.

An Instructor as well as local and Division staff are not recognized as VATSIM Staff members and thus this does not apply to them. I'm a Division Staff member and all I've been told is that the BoG does not recognize me, I exist because my DD says I exist and that existence  and any authority ends there. Are you officially stating that I am a recognized VATSIM Staff member based on my role within my Division? This activity policy within GCAP will supersede the activity requirement set by my DD? I would love some (official) clarity on the issue. 

There are activity requirements at the Division level for Division level staff. What is the point of having this in GCAP? Why can't a DD set the activity requirement for his/her staff and be the one to hold them accountable for it? Does the BoG have any evidence to support the stance that a Division Director is unfit to set an activity requirement?

10 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

What about the supervisor who was going to control, but signs on as a supervisor instead because there were not other supervisors online. Should they be removed for inactivity?

Once? No. Habitually, yes. Nobody is spending so much time as a SUP or anything else that they can't be bothered to fly or control for at least an hour or so every few months. That isn't asking very much, at all. The way it is written now, a "VATSIM Staff Member" doesn't even have to meet the ridiculous 1 in 12 rule, are you telling me that somebody is going to spend 100% of their free time as a SUP for an entire year? If you can't find an hour or two in 3-6 months to fly or control you need to cut back on the responsibilities you have volunteered for and reevaluate what you are capable of contributing to this hobby and network.

10 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

To say that any VATSIM staff member is just “sitting on their butt,” and not contributing is one of the most insulting things I’ve read in this discussion. This clause directly addresses that our staff members have lots on their plate and one of the last things that they need to worry about is something like an activity requirement. 

I'll be blunt, it sounds like a cop out so certain BoG members can sit on a roster and not participate in the network. This requirement isn't something that can be tracked easily, and therefore it is difficult to hold people accountable for. It really feels like this was slipped in to obfuscate whether or not some BoG member was "active" on the network as well as exempt them from the activity requirements the BoG is holding everybody else to, not to help an Instructor or SUP or anybody else. None of this "rules for thee and not for me" garbage, please. 

If you want time instructing to count as activity, say that in the policy. If you want time as a SUP to count towards a portion of activity, say that in the policy. Saying a VATSIM Staff member doesn't even have to meet the already low controller requirement just isn't going to work. Hence the "this should be removed or changed" in my OP.  

[Simon Kelsey]

5 minutes ago, Ryan Parry said:

I'll be blunt, it sounds like a cop out so certain BoG members can sit on a roster and not participate in the network. This requirement isn't something that can be tracked easily, and therefore it is difficult to hold people accountable for. It really feels like this was slipped in to obfuscate whether or not some BoG member was "active" on the network as well as exempt them from the activity requirements the BoG is holding everybody else to, not to help an Instructor or SUP or anybody else. None of this "rules for thee and not for me" garbage, please. 

I'm not here to be defensive but considering...

• The network activity requirements BoG members are held accountable to are 96 times more stringent than 1 hour in 12 months
• Every BoG member's network activity is tracked and published for all to see in the BoG meeting minutes and that most significantly (by dozens and hundreds of hours) exceed the above threshold

 ...I don't think it is either fair or even close to accurate to make that assertion.

As I mentioned above, I think the question is what the intent of the 'active' defintion is and the purpose of maintaining a roster of 'active' controllers. I completely agree that staff members of all levels should absolutely be required to comply with any form of proficiency requirements (major airspace endorsement requirements, event endorsement requirements, general quality control requirements per 8.03-8.05 etc), but if a member is spending hours churning out material, engaging with other members, is always available to fix a technical problem whenever they are called upon etc -- are you saying you'd rather lose that input and have somebody less effective and less committed to the staff role just as long as they're controlling all the time? Is that not cutting off your nose to spite your face? Presumably if the staff member in question was not performing effectively in their role they would be removed from that role in any case, thus losing any 'protection'.

[Jeremy Peterson]

1 hour ago, Simon Kelsey said:

you'd rather lose that input and have somebody less effective and less committed to the staff role just as long as they're controlling all the time

This presumption, that it's a zero sum game, is faulty. Furthermore, the latter part of this presumption suggests that a staff member can either contribute to the network without an online presence or control on the network without contributing to the network. This scenario is absolutely achievable, but would you yourself desire a staff member to do either of those things? I wouldn't.

The above is a visual depiction of the amount of time out of the year taken up by controlling an equivalent of 1 hour every month (in fact, this visual indication overestimates the actual proportion because if you do the math, you would be missing 5 or 6 days out of the year; consider them bonus days).

        

These two visual depictions show the annual BoG requirement (24 hours per quarter or 96 hours annually) on the left (in yellow) versus the actual average annual controlling contribution by BoG members in 2020 (about 129 hours annually) on the right (in cyan). It is evident that BoG is meeting their more stringent requirement, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, it is the belief of many (including myself) that BoG currently remains relatively disconnected with its membership despite it being active on the network, according to controlling hours. What this doesn't mean is that I think nothing the BoG has done has been good for the network (in fact, if I thought that, I probably wouldn't even be here).

This thread isn't here to exhaust the list of ways I (or anyone else) think BoG could do better; however, it does exacerbate the sentiment that BoG is disconnected, and desires to stay that way. To wit: 

14 hours ago, Ryan Parry said:

How does one track a VATSIM Staff Member "performing duties for the network"?...How can you expect to be in touch with the membership and state of the network so that you effectively lead the network when your participation is reading emails and forum posts?

I am a proponent for Ryan's request because in its current wording, it makes superior the contributions of VATSIM Staff to those of others.

"The most important part of the network is you: our members. You are free to enjoy VATSIM in the way you want to enjoy it, by flying, controlling, or both. VATSIM is a network for all to enjoy, and it can be whatever you make it." If the BoG desires this to mean you can enjoy it "by flying, controlling, or both (unless you are a VATSIM Staff member, in which case you are only required to control __ hours in __ months)," then the wording as is is good enough for that. If this is not the case, then I want you to ask yourself two things:

1. How are my network duties making a measurably positive impact on the network?
2. What are the specific factors (specific to you) that prevent me from having an active online presence?
   • Am I organizing my time in a way that leaves absolutely no time to maintain a connection to VATSIM membership?
   • Are my duties so frequently urgent that I cannot set aside a reasonable amount of time to dedicate to connecting directly with VATSIM membership?
   • Do I know exactly how I can start connecting with VATSIM membership, and if not, is there someone who can help me do that?

I don't mean to belittle the BoG or be condescending, but it really is a doable task and a task worth doing. What do you have to lose?

I've also included below an estimation of how much I'm on the network due to supporting VATUSA FNO stuff (in blue), how much non-network time that takes (planning, coordinating, etc., in pink), and how much CTP usually takes up (Eastbound and Westbound total, in dark blue). Conveniently enough, a 1 hour every month equivalent requirement would fit in perfectly to account for less than 10 days out of the year (which, if you know me, only encompasses a portion of what I'm doing in the background). The gist is, how much of a burden is it to require VATSIM Staff to somehow engage with the membership?

 

Edited August 4, 2021 at 04:44 PM by Jeremy Peterson

[Jeremy Peterson]

TL;DR what is it that's taking up so much time that you think VATSIM Staff should be exempt from activity requirements? Why can't these requirements be met by modifying your day-to-day to fit it in? How can membership actually determine whether network contributions are being made regularly?

[Matthew Bartels]

@Jeremy Peterson Your comparisons here if I can even remotely understand your graphics are showing all the hours in a year in a vacuum that doesn’t  account for every member of this organization being a volunteer and having real lives. 

So first things first. Let’s lop off 4 of your big blocks immediately for being asleep. Full time job or student? Lop off another 3 big blocks. So right off the bat, we’re left with 5 blocks out of 12.  I’ll round up here and give you extra available time  by saying every month is 31 days. So we have 3,720 hours (155 days) left in our year. 

Commuting to or from work? Call that anywhere from 30 mins to 2 hours. Simple living requirements like eating, showering, etc. Let’s be extreme here and call that 2 hours a day.  Lop off another big block. Happy wife? Happy Life? Even if I dedicate only 1 hour a day to family time, highly unlikely, This all adds up to 620 of those hours now gone. We’re left with 3100 hours, left to dedicate to all of our other pursuits. 

Guess what, I”m taking a couple of vacations every year. I’ll be gone about 10 days each go given travel to and from my destination. Sorry, I’m not going to think about VATSIM while on holiday.  2,620 hours left. 3 and a half blocks.

I would say that I spend an average  2 to 3 hours a day on various VATSIM related staff things offline. So 910 hours a year.  Only 1700 hours remains in my entire year. 

Out of that 1700 hours, I have to balance my other interests, maintain my online presence as required by the BoG, working overtime, seeing extended family,  dedicating time to VATSIM projects outside of my portfolio, and just living my life.  

I know I’m not the only one. All of our staff members give enormous amounts of their limited time to help this network and thusly should be allowed some discretion when it comes to something like being mandated to staff a position x amount of hours a month.  Note that we didn’t eliminate the requirement to remain current, so no. We can’t just jump on and not know what we’re doing.

[Jeremy Peterson]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Bartels said:

Out of that 1700 hours, I have to balance my other interests, maintain my online presence as required by the BoG, working overtime, seeing extended family,  dedicating time to VATSIM projects outside of my portfolio, and just living my life.  

I know I’m not the only one. All of our staff members give enormous amounts of their limited time to help this network and thusly should be allowed some discretion when it comes to something like being mandated to staff a position x amount of hours a month.  Note that we didn’t eliminate the requirement to remain current, so no. We can’t just jump on and not know what we’re doing.

The reason I didn't fill up the rest of the blocks was because all the rest is left for non-VATSIM stuff, no matter what it is. It's not to show that that unfilled space is something that should be filled up by VATSIM stuff... perhaps my point is missed. It would be a slippery slope to fill up any more than a reasonable amount of anyone's time for a hobby. That said, I believe Ryan's point is that it really isn't that much to ask VATSIM Staff to regularly engage with membership. You're all presumably professionals with robust enough resumes and a backpack of different skills. In that backpack should be something like time management that would allow you to structure in community engagement in whatever way you'd like. Now, perhaps that would require some shifting around in your current normal day-to-day, but would this community engagement not be worth it? Wouldn't you yourself benefit from being closer to what's going on in various communities? Maybe you already have a pulse on many communities, but shouldn't your colleagues? This is why I read the OP's predicament as a documented way for VATSIM Staff to shirk this opportunity.

[Simon Kelsey]

Hi Jeremy,

My counter-point would be that you seem to equate 'engagement' with 'hours spent controlling/flying on the network', and I'm not sure that the two are necessarily the same.

1 hour ago, Jeremy Peterson said:

These two visual depictions show the annual BoG requirement (24 hours per quarter or 96 hours annually) on the left (in yellow) versus the actual average annual controlling contribution by BoG members in 2020 (about 129 hours annually) on the right (in cyan). It is evident that BoG is meeting their more stringent requirement, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, it is the belief of many (including myself) that BoG currently remains relatively disconnected with its membership despite it being active on the network, according to controlling hours.

So - if despite the fact that the BoG are significantly exceeding the self-imposed 24 hours/quarter requirement for network activity, you still don't feel they are well 'connected' to the membership - does that not suggest to you that controlling/flying hours are perhaps not a great measure of 'connectedness' or 'engagement'?

I'm obviously a very new member of that specific group and I can't speak for the BoG as a whole, but speaking personally -- I actually feel that you and I having a conversation here on the forums probably benefits me better in terms of understanding your thoughts/feelings/problems etc with the network than if I were to simply be logged on as a controller in my specific locale for a few hours. If anything, I should probably spend more time browsing and engaging with more regional/local forums etc than I do at present -- because surely being 'engaging with the membership' is about speaking to a wide range of members from across the spectrum and not solely about how many hours as a pilot/controller anybody has logged? Would you consider a staff member who never read or posted in any VATSIM forum but logged 50 hours a month as a controller more or less engaged with the membership than one who hasn't connected to the network but engages with and speaks to members across various media (a wide range of local forums, Discords etc) on a daily basis? One is certainly going to be more proficient as a controller or pilot than the other, but is that the only criterion that matters?

That is absolutely not to say that I don't think that there is any value in participating as a pilot or controller -- and after all it is why were are all here in the first place. At the end of the day I enjoy flying on the network! But I do think that there needs to be a degree of pragmatism, and it is clearly more important for some roles than others. For instance, I will freely admit that I do very little controlling on the network and haven't done for many years -- and if I were VP ATC Training then I would entirely agree that would be a problem. However, I do fly regularly, which fortunately happens to be my role (for what it's worth, personally speaking as far as this particular clause I couldn't care less whether I'm retained on an ATC roster somewhere or not!).

My point is that historically it is difficult enough to attract volunteers to carry out the often menial and thankless tasks that are nonetheless required to keep the network running (at any level -- I'm thinking to be honest more at local ARTCC/vACC level than anything else). If somebody is performing those tasks diligently and effectively (processing member support tickets, for instance, or maintaining a website) but doesn't happen to control or fly then why would we arbitrarily stop them from doing so? How does that benefit the members of that sub-division if their tickets are no longer answered or their website is no longer updated?

1 hour ago, Jeremy Peterson said:

This presumption, that it's a zero sum game, is faulty.

Well - the reality is that to a large extent it is a zero sum game. I (as you, and everybody else) have a finite amount of time available to dedicate to my hobbies/VATSIM, and so that time has to be divided accordingly. If I have a couple of hours in an evening, I can choose to either fly, or spend a couple of hours going through e-mails, working on some of the projects I have under way for pilot training at the moment, working through the backlog of licence transfers, meeting with people contributing to those projects or within the PTD etc etc etc. This afternoon I've spent the last hour or so reading through this forum and writing these posts precisely for the purpose of engaging with you and other members on these topics, instead of logging on and flying which I probably would have done if I didn't hold any staff responsibilities. Sure, sometimes it might be possible to do both simultaneously, but not always (and personally I'd prefer to devote my full attention to doing one of the two well rather than being distracted and doing at least one of the two poorly and less enjoyably).

As I say - I'm not for a second suggesting that any staff member, at any level should be exempt from, for instance, the 8.04 requirements to retain major airspace or event endorsements for instance -- nor, if they are not competent as a result of their lack of controlling, should they be exempt from 8.05. Likewise, for some staff positions (anything to do with training/assessment/operational matters for instance) there absolutely is a requirement for those staff members to ensure they are appropriately current, proficient and qualified. But is that 100% essential for more administrative or technical roles, the latter of which are especially difficult to recruit for? I'm not convinced.

1 hour ago, Jeremy Peterson said:

How can membership actually determine whether network contributions are being made regularly?

The answer to this is surely that it is the relevant (and I hate to use these terms!) "manager" in the heirarchy. At the end of the day, the only reason "staff" positions exist is to facilitate certain critical administrative and technical functions to be carried out. If somebody isn't performing those tasks then there is no value to them holding that role and that will be immediately apparent to their "line manager" who has recruited them to carry out those tasks. If I don't produce any measurable output in my role as VP Pilot Training then Gunnar and the rest of the BoG will quite rightly hold me to account for that and sack me if that doesn't change. The same way that if you aren't performing your functions in your role as VATUSA9, I'm sure Mani would be on your case, and the same as any ARTCC staff member would be accountable to their ATM etc etc.

Perhaps the answer is that this doesn't need to be in GCAP at all but instead left to the discretion of local divisions/"managers" -- I guess if you want to sack somebody from a staff role that isn't directly connected to controlling or flying for not doing either of those things then that's a choice for you to make!

Best,

Simon

[Harry Sugden]

All rather a lot of wishy washy rubbish for what should be a really simple thing: being a staff member shouldn’t make you exempt from a requirement that applies to the rest of VATSIM, especially when it’s such a measly one!

Controlling for an hour in a year to stay on a controller roster seems bloomin’ reasonable. Nothing in GCAP suggests you can’t be staff by not meeting this requirement, you just can’t be deemed an active controller. They’re completely different things.

So get rid of the clause and shall we stop worrying about the hours in a day, month and year and commuting and contributing and what not… because we’re literally talking about an hour in a year to make sure that staff don’t think they’re above everybody else.

Edited August 4, 2021 at 06:00 PM by Harry Sugden

[Jeremy Peterson]

I really like Simon's response because it captures the difficulty faced when trying to ensure staff members are active, engaged, and performing their duties.

1 minute ago, Simon Kelsey said:

So - if despite the fact that the BoG are significantly exceeding the self-imposed 24 hours/quarter requirement for network activity (which is obviously significantly higher than , you still don't feel they are well 'connected' to the membership - does that not suggest to you that controlling/flying hours are perhaps not a great measure of 'connectedness' or 'engagement'?

It does suggest this. But I was trying to work within the confines of the OP. Perhaps it could be new-thread material, but this one is titled "staff member activity," so maybe it's better to keep it here. Regardless...

8 minutes ago, Simon Kelsey said:

Perhaps the answer is that this doesn't need to be in GCAP at all but instead left to the discretion of local divisions/"managers"

I would be supportive of this.

I'm still concerned about how the contributions can be accounted for, but perhaps that's something to explore further?

[Jeremy Peterson]

5 minutes ago, Harry Sugden said:

being a staff member shouldn’t make you exempt from a requirement that applies to the rest of VATSIM, especially when it’s such a measly one!...we’re literally talking about an hour in a year to make sure that staff don’t think they’re above everybody else.

Harry said what I meant way better than I did.

 

 

[Rob Nabieszko]

On 8/4/2021 at 1:59 PM, Harry Sugden said:

being a staff member shouldn’t make you exempt from a requirement that applies to the rest of VATSIM, especially when it’s such a measly one!

Exactly. While Staff Member contributions are always gratefully appreciated, I agree they shouldn't get you a free pass from the activity requirement, especially given that it is a pretty lax requirement. If you can't even meet that requirement, then you shouldn't be on the controller roster. Period.

If you have time to contribute offline to performing staff duties (managing the roster, writing documents, etc.), THANK YOU. We always need that.

But doing those offline duties does not exempt you from basic functioning of the human brain. If you do not regularly use your controlling skills, you will lose them. No matter how much you write about them, if you don't practice the skills, they will get rusty.

If a Division chooses to help the staff member who's currency elapsed by throwing them to the head of the training queue when they are ready to get current again, that is at the Division's discretion (and a suitable reward for the work done). Just because you perform duties for your Division doesn't mean you need to be on the controller roster at all times. You can work in the background as a non-controller if you wish. Your contribution is still welcome.

Edited August 17, 2021 at 04:26 PM by Rob Nabieszko

[Lenny Colton]

On 8/4/2021 at 6:59 PM, Harry Sugden said:

All rather a lot of wishy washy rubbish for what should be a really simple thing: being a staff member shouldn’t make you exempt from a requirement that applies to the rest of VATSIM, especially when it’s such a measly one!

Controlling for an hour in a year to stay on a controller roster seems bloomin’ reasonable. Nothing in GCAP suggests you can’t be staff by not meeting this requirement, you just can’t be deemed an active controller. They’re completely different things.

So get rid of the clause and shall we stop worrying about the hours in a day, month and year and commuting and contributing and what not… because we’re literally talking about an hour in a year to make sure that staff don’t think they’re above everybody else.

I agree with Harry, though I would argue that the requirement should actually be more stringent. If the policy here is to maintain competency and remove inactive/barely active controllers from waiting lists, 1h in 12 months isn't gonna keep you competent, especially when that hour can take place in the middle of the night.

Furthermore, aside from the argument that staff should be subject to the same requirements as the rest of us, doing admin and vectoring planes are not the same thing and doing one does not keep you competent at the other. Training new students is something else entirely, because you're actively in a controlling role. However, being the Membership Director or Webmaster of a division is not related to controlling and, no matter how good you are at the job, doesn't mean you know how to move planes efficiently.

[Greg Barber]

Honestly,

On 9/13/2021 at 11:39 PM, Lenny Colton said:

However, being the Membership Director or Webmaster of a division is not related to controlling and, no matter how good you are at the job, doesn't mean you know how to move planes efficiently.

Logging on for 1 hour per 12 months doesn't mean you can move planes efficiently either but you have to draw the line somewhere.  Move on to something important please.

[Lenny Colton]

On 9/22/2021 at 11:48 PM, Greg Barber said:

Honestly,

Logging on for 1 hour per 12 months doesn't mean you can move planes efficiently either but you have to draw the line somewhere.  Move on to something important please.

 

On 9/13/2021 at 2:39 PM, Lenny Colton said:

1h in 12 months isn't gonna keep you competent, especially when that hour can take place in the middle of the night.

 

[Gunnar Lindahl]

This thread was a happy throwback to what all VATSIM forums used to be like in 2008. So thanks everyone, it gave me a smile.

For the record, I would be fine with removing the "staff duties" clause (although training and Supervising probably should count). I remember having a big row with Chicago ARTCC about this many years ago, who wanted to exempt their staff from what were otherwise insane activity requirements for the rest of their members.

[Harry Sugden]

Glad to hear it!

On 10/2/2021 at 7:05 PM, Gunnar Lindahl said:

although training and Supervising probably should count

Training, perhaps. I would've thought it's quite difficult to easily distinguish between mentor connections (e.g. EGLL_M_APP) and controller connections (e.g. EGLL_N_APP) anyway, given all the global variations of callsigns.

Supervising though... this can surely be carried out without having to be deemed an 'active controller'? So in a similar vein to staff contributions, I don't see why a SUP session should make anyone exempt from "complet[ing] at least one ATC session" to remain an "active controller". Supervising is not controlling; active controlling does not need to be a requisite for supervising.

[Christian Kovanen]

I agree with Harry. Training online already appears as a controlling session in stats, let's just treat it as such. Training in SweatBox or doing theory etc. outside of the network is currently not monitored and I don't see any reason to start doing so, let's just stick to counting online controlling hours. Supervising has nothing to do with controlling, therefore, it should not be included it in something that's about being current in controlling. You can have 100's of hours online as a supervisor and still be in need of a refresher for controlling.

Edited October 16, 2021 at 09:16 PM by Christian Kovanen