Jump to content

Oakland Oceanic is moving!


Ryan Parry
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Sean Harrison said:

Maybe we just continue with the agreement until the BOG or both the RVP’s make an announcement!

Exactly what the other parties to the agreement said.

Greg Barber

VATPAC3 - Director ATC Training & Standards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Greg Barber said:

Nobody is saying ZOA can't administer their airspace (in much the same way VATPAC and VATNZ administer theirs.  But to say, we are leaving the partnership for no good reason and unless you let us know within 2 months, you can't control here anymore is a bit rich and disrespectful to the other parties of the agreement.  Especially when it gets announced publicly before the parties to the agreement are advised.

I am curious to know why not being able to control Oakland radio, which is maintained by FAA regulations and not ICAO regulations. It is very simple to visit Oakland if you want, a quick application and probably a simple GRP check. Is that too much to ask? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alexandra Robison said:

I quoted the OP. I wish you would read 🤦‍♀️

The OP isn’t an agreement that we know of at this point.  Unless you know something.  Calling any post here an ‘agreement’ is far from professional.

Sean

C1/O P3

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is dangerous for people to assume that such disregarding of procedures is acceptable. It is not.

VATUSA had never really lost their airspace. Having controlled ZAK before and having to apply FAA phraseology I can see why such a change can be made to refine the overall service provided to be more realistic.

A problem though, watch the man time on ZAK-W and ZAK-E go on a freefall. 

Zain Khan NZAA - 1345074

 

Enroute Controller (C1)

Pacific Oceanic Partnership Oceanic Endorsed Controller (/O)

VATSIM New Zealand

 

http://www.twitch.tv/zkaviator

http://www.instagram.com/zkaviator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding to my post, the fact that VATUSA and VATPAC staff are contradicting each other as to what is actually in force and having a huge bickering between each other is not going to help things. Why the hell can't we be diplomatic about this?

  • Like 1

Zain Khan NZAA - 1345074

 

Enroute Controller (C1)

Pacific Oceanic Partnership Oceanic Endorsed Controller (/O)

VATSIM New Zealand

 

http://www.twitch.tv/zkaviator

http://www.instagram.com/zkaviator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bobby Melton said:

I am curious to know why not being able to control Oakland radio, which is maintained by FAA regulations and not ICAO regulations. It is very simple to visit Oakland if you want, a quick application and probably a simple GRP check. Is that too much to ask? 

https://stats.vatsim.net/search/ZAK_FSS Our internal review saw roughly 80% of connections to ZAK over the last few years being from VATNZ and VATPAC members, those members now have to apply to become a VC at OAK. Given the changes to policy capping the number of places you can be a VC at this could become an issue for many VATPAC and NZ members. As a member of the Board of Directors with VATPAC, we look to serve our members and this has been raised as an issue for them so it is an issue for us, alas we wait for a response from the VP's, until then it's just speculation. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Blair Shaddock
Acting Director of Membership | VATPAC6
ATC Training Staff - Mentor
E: [email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sean Harrison said:

The OP isn’t an agreement that we know of at this point.  Unless you know something.  Calling any post here an ‘agreement’ is far from professional.

I know nothing past what everyone in this thread also knows. Contrary to popular belief, I am not an official representative of VATSIM, I'm just a developer and an ARTCC ATM.

I fail to see how this really affects you though, since you have controlled ZAK 30 minutes in the past 2 years.

4 minutes ago, Zain Khan said:

It is dangerous for people to assume that such disregarding of procedures is acceptable. It is not.

VATUSA had never really lost their airspace. Having controlled ZAK before and having to apply FAA phraseology I can see why such a change can be made to refine the overall service provided to be more realistic.

A problem though, watch the man time on ZAK-W and ZAK-E go on a freefall. 

Same here, 2 hours in the past 2 years.

  

1 minute ago, Blair Shaddock said:

https://stats.vatsim.net/search/ZAK_FSS Our internal review saw roughly 80% of connections to ZAK over the last few years being from VATNZ and VATPAC members, those members now have to apply to become a VC at OAK. Given the changes to policy capping the number of places you can be a VC at this could become an issue for many VATPAC and NZ members. As a member of the Board of Directors with VATPAC, we look to serve our members and this has been raised as an issue for them so it is an issue for us, alas we wait for a response from the VP's, until then it's just speculation. 

This is the wrong callsign, most connections to ZAK are ZAK_E_FSS or ZAK_W_FSS

Edited by Alexandra Robison
  • Sad 1
ALEXANDRA ROBISON
Air Traffic Manager, Albuquerque ARTCC
VATSIM Senior Developer
 
## [email protected]
Facebook Twitter Instagram
VATSIM Logo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Blair, I think it’s more about control, rather than any reasonable factor.  I used to do more hours on PGUM, but kept getting booted from visiting status.  I gave up, if they don’t want services provided, then make it hard for people to help.  Guam is hardly active now, but that’s what they want.  Same with ZAK.

  • Like 2

Sean

C1/O P3

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alexandra Robison said:

I fail to see how this really affects you though, since you have controlled ZAK 30 minutes in the past 2 years.

So why are you discussing it if you've logged zero hours  on it? As you say, it doesnt affect you.

  • Like 2

1164162

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alexandra Robison said:

I know nothing past what everyone in this thread also knows. Contrary to popular belief, I am not an official representative of VATSIM, I'm just a developer and an ARTCC ATM.

I fail to see how this really affects you though, since you have controlled ZAK 30 minutes in the past 2 years.

Same here, 2 hours in the past 2 years.

And none for you it seems?

Can't call someone out when you do even less than them.

Oh, and I've done 10hrs, 10 minutes. So I wouldn't bother searching that one.

Joshua Micallef
C3 Senior Controller | I1 Instructor
VATPAC Director, Events| ATC Training Instructor
E:
[email protected]

3000+ Hours on the Network

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue here has nothing to do with Oakland taking ownership of the airspace. It has everything to do with due process for how they are leaving the partnership.

 

As has been pointed out by many people above. They currently have not (according to the COR) satisfied the termination section Of the agreement. We must await the BOG response before moving forward.

  • Thanks 1

Joshua Micallef
C3 Senior Controller | I1 Instructor
VATPAC Director, Events| ATC Training Instructor
E:
[email protected]

3000+ Hours on the Network

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sean Harrison said:

I agree with Blair, I think it’s more about control, rather than any reasonable factor.  I used to do more hours on PGUM, but kept getting booted from visiting status.  I gave up, if they don’t want services provided, then make it hard for people to help.  Guam is hardly active now, but that’s what they want.  Same with ZAK.

Requiring people to maintain visitor status with oakland should increase time. See the below information found on the oakland artccs website

Quote

A certified visiting controller that does not control for at least 2 hours per calendar month, with at least 1:00 (50%) being logged on their highest rated position,is considered inactive and will receive a warning.

 

Looking at the oceanic partnership website I am not seeing an activity requirement at all. Having the requirement will make for better quality and more uptime. I am struggling to see the bad sides about this whole thing. Same kind of battle we had with GCAP a couple months ago not requiring GRP checks and activity requirements leads to less service for pilots and lower quality of controlling.

 

 

lets not forget, these planes are fake....

Edited by Bobby Melton
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bobby Melton said:

Looking at the oceanic partnership website I am not seeing an activity requirement at all

Because activity requirements cant be enforced by any ARTCC/Division.

Kirk Christie - VATPAC C3

VATPAC Undercover ATC Agent

Worldflight Perth 737-800 Crew Member

956763

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bobby Melton said:

lets not forget, these planes are fake....

Then why make it more stringent for people to provide ATC Services to them?

Poor Hawaii is going to have a lot of dead space around them now...

  • Confused 1

Joshua Micallef
C3 Senior Controller | I1 Instructor
VATPAC Director, Events| ATC Training Instructor
E:
[email protected]

3000+ Hours on the Network

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joshua Micallef said:

Then why make it more stringent for people to provide ATC Services to them?

Poor Hawaii is going to have a lot of dead space around them now...

I can't remember the last time i flew and saw ZAK on anyways... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so lemme get this straight, 

So VATUSA/Oakland ARTCC want to withdraw from the agreement and they want their policies and rules enforced in ZAK airspace. But in doing so, they have not respected the requirements of the Pacific Oceanic Agreement of coordination with at least a good amount of notice and agreements before breaking off this agreement?

Now that's problematic. But what I don't understand is that if they want to do it for the good of their airspace, why is adjacent divisions having a big sook about airspace that is not their jurisdiction?

Edited by Zain Khan

Zain Khan NZAA - 1345074

 

Enroute Controller (C1)

Pacific Oceanic Partnership Oceanic Endorsed Controller (/O)

VATSIM New Zealand

 

http://www.twitch.tv/zkaviator

http://www.instagram.com/zkaviator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joshua Micallef said:

Then why make it more stringent for people to provide ATC Services to them?

Poor Hawaii is going to have a lot of dead space around them now...

This is a stretch and I think you know that. This is really not gonna have a huge impact on activity. The core of the argument here is ZOA left the agreement incorrectly, not whether ZOA made the right choice for themselves and VATSIM. It seems there was a total communication breakdown here if you read through all the facts and it absolutely stems from VATUSA Division and potentially the BoG. Not to put either one under the bus but VATPAC was blindsided obviously. But raising points about coverage don't contribute to this discussion. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zain Khan said:

Now that's problematic. But what I don't understand is that if they want to do it for the good of their airspace, why is adjacent divisions having a big sook about airspace that is not their jurisdiction?

Not sure what you are getting at here, Zain - can you make it more explicit? Im working on mind reading, but as you can tell I havent gotten it down pat yet!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

1164162

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bobby Melton said:

I can't remember the last time i flew and saw ZAK on anyways... 

I'm all for it to be changed. I am just confused why it was not seemingly done by the requirements of the policy which you are no longer wanting to be apart of.

Once the BOG releases a statement saying they have voted on this matter, and it was decided by at least 3 of 5 members present (COR 2.07G) then we have an answer.

Until that time. Everyone is just going to put fuel on a fire hoping for a bite....

Edited by Joshua Micallef
  • Thanks 1

Joshua Micallef
C3 Senior Controller | I1 Instructor
VATPAC Director, Events| ATC Training Instructor
E:
[email protected]

3000+ Hours on the Network

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, William Teale said:

Not sure what you are getting at here, Zain - can you make it more explicit? Im working on mind reading, but as you can tell I havent gotten it down pat yet!

 

What I'm talking about is VATUSA managing their ZAK airspace and they like to do it that way but then here's VATPAC and they have no administration over ZAK and they're on a uproar about the restricting of airspace. Maybe it makes sense in the sense that the moves don't respect the Agreement, but in terms of time or service, it's not VATPAC's problem isn't it?

Zain Khan NZAA - 1345074

 

Enroute Controller (C1)

Pacific Oceanic Partnership Oceanic Endorsed Controller (/O)

VATSIM New Zealand

 

http://www.twitch.tv/zkaviator

http://www.instagram.com/zkaviator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joshua Micallef said:

So why change it then 😂

I'm all for it to be changed. I am just confused why it was not seemingly done by the requirements of the policy which you are no longer wanting to be apart of.

Once the BOG releases a statement saying they have voted on this matter, and it was decided by at least 3 of 5 members present (COR 2.07G) then we have an answer.

Until that time. Everyone is just going to put fuel on a fire hoping for a bite....

I am not in Oakland nor have ever controlled oceanic. I do not speak for anyone in the Oakland ARTCC or for VATUSA at all.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...