Some concerns and suggestions for GCAP

[Bahaeddine El-Zarif]

After reading the entire GCAP, I have reached to the section where I have some concerns about ATC Training in specific, and the possibility of some suggestions.

As a vACC Director, I understand that we should have controllers who can provide services up to defined levels of service, and frankly, that's not where my concerns lie at. The main concern is with how powerless and voiceless sub-divisions are becoming on the network, and having to deal with the divisions for either approval or following standards, when most of the times, division is looking to set a "one size fits all" model that doesn't really work.

Now, with that said, I have noticed that divisions can and would delay training sessions and exams, even declare a failed practical just because they have the power to do so. I really think a clause protecting the sub-division in question from abuse in a way that affects the morale of the vACC when it comes to training, would be sufficient.

I mean when you staff such a critical position, you would afford the courtesy to sub-divisions by working with them to set a guided approach on how to handle the creation and maintenance of training materials paving the way to a much smoother queue and efficiency, but also offers significant reduction in failed examination percentage and easier workload when students are clear of what they're expected prior, during, and after the training process is officially complete.

Lastly, again, another point where the division has to dictate when and how we use the sweatbox, instead of offering a leveled playing field, by allowing more interaction / voice from the sub-divisions into how divisions implement the use of the core competencies to efficiently ease up the procedure between divisions/sub-divisions.

Thank you for your time.

Edited October 9, 2021 at 06:24 AM by Bahaeddine El-Zarif

[Matthew Bartels]

Can you please elaborate on what the actual concerns here are?

Much of what is in GCAP is designed to allow subdivisions and divisions to work within a framework that provides access to ATC positions for members that wish to provide it. 

You speak of having to meet standards and that the sub-division should be able to set their own standard. As an organization, this is a path we’ve gone down in the past and it has not worked for us at all. We acknowledge that we’re all different, but as an organization we need to better align ourselves so that the ATC that a pilot receives in the Lebanon vACC is similar quality to the ATC that a pilot receives in the Spain vACC and so on.  More important  is that a controller who has a rating is able to move about the network with far less obstructions than they currently have, or have had in the past. To avoid using a phrase that enrages everyone, lets just say that when everyone can set their own standard, we end up with a lot of division and exclusive practices in our ATC ranks. This is one of the hallmarks of GCAP, and obviously one of the most unpopular points, but one that is necessary as the exclusivity of some divisions and sub-divisions  is not in line with what VATSIM is all about. 

Many of the clauses that are being seen as too intrusive in GCAP have come about because of absolutely insane requirements that have been policy at various subdivisions. Those clauses in GCAP are worded to give a lot of flexibility to subdivisions, but also drawing a line in the sand about what is going too far and preemptively stopping such policies instead of having to sort them out on a case by case basis once they are in place.

[Bahaeddine El-Zarif]

26 minutes ago, Matthew Bartels said:

As an organization, this is a path we’ve gone down in the past and it has not worked for us at all.

I'm getting the vibe that, yes we're opening this discussion for review, but we're going to implement what's best for us not the membership, which is really concerning. But I hope I am wrong.

28 minutes ago, Matthew Bartels said:

lets just say that when everyone can set their own standard, we end up with a lot of division and exclusive practices in our ATC ranks.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement, as many times, I have experienced the same quality of service with different phraseology across the world. As airspaces are indeed different, however, can be implemented to provide the same ATC services which happens to be your concern here.

29 minutes ago, Matthew Bartels said:

Can you please elaborate on what the actual concerns here are?

The below statement is exactly what my concern is, having to work with abusive divisional leadership just because they have the power to do whatever they choose.

29 minutes ago, Matthew Bartels said:

Much of what is in GCAP is designed to allow subdivisions and divisions to work within a framework that provides access to ATC positions for members that wish to provide it. 

Again, when you say "based upon approval by division", it means that yes your division will dictate or approve your request before you implement such action, which again is my main concern here, having my operations dictated upon me and my staff, showing little to no trust at all in my abilities as a vACC director.

I hope my clarification makes sense.

[Matthew Bartels]

41 minutes ago, Bahaeddine El-Zarif said:

I'm getting the vibe that, yes we're opening this discussion for review, but we're going to implement what's best for us not the membership, which is really concerning. But I hope I am wrong.

Us here being the membership. If we look at the biggest concerns that have come about in this process, it’s been the things that are trying to be more beneficial to the members at large, as opposed to beneficial to the sub-division itself.  For example, the activity requirements discussions. We feel that the general controller member is hurt by activity requirements as life does happen and you can find yourself as unable to meet an activity requirement.  All of a sudden, we have a controller who can no longer control because of something like this. That penalizes the individual member and we would feel is not best for the general member.

 

50 minutes ago, Bahaeddine El-Zarif said:

1 hour ago, Matthew Bartels said:

 

I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement, as many times, I have experienced the same quality of service with different phraseology across the world. As airspaces are indeed different, however, can be implemented to provide the same ATC services which happens to be your concern here

We’re not talking about local variances in procedure and phraseology here. We’re talking about the core basics, like how to clear an aircraft for takeoff or give an approach vector. 

When we talk about variable standards across subdivisions that we want to bring a bit of standardization to, we’re talking about the places that give anyone that can say cleared for takeoff correctly once an S2 as well as the places where you’re not getting that S2 until you can walk into the real tower and work traffic. Both of these practices did and in some places still do exist. It brings a toxic elitism to those individual community’s and many times keeps people who wish to pursue ATC out. We absolutely can not have that. 

 

[1341101]

With this in mind, I think a strong area of focus here has and must be the quality of training (mentors/instructors and examiners) that is provided by the local facility and not the local policies. I can definitely see where you are coming from but I also know places that are indeed being laughed at, because despite a student's obvious mistakes during exams and the student's lacking skill of controlling a position, certain places that I know of issue the ratings and consider the exam a "solid pass". In the end, it's actually the sub-division and the division and their staff that are causing the issue of not following proper procedures, which is where the toxic elitism comes from. So if we really want to crack down on this, something has to be done by higher-ups to better oversee sub-divisional and divisional training staff standards.

[Bahaeddine El-Zarif]

53 minutes ago, 1341101 said:

With this in mind, I think a strong area of focus here has and must be the quality of training (mentors/instructors and examiners) that is provided by the local facility and not the local policies. I can definitely see where you are coming from but I also know places that are indeed being laughed at, because despite a student's obvious mistakes during exams and the student's lacking skill of controlling a position, certain places that I know of issue the ratings and consider the exam a "solid pass". In the end, it's actually the sub-division and the division and their staff that are causing the issue of not following proper procedures, which is where the toxic elitism comes from. So if we really want to crack down on this, something has to be done by higher-ups to better oversee sub-divisional and divisional training staff standards.

I respect your opinion David, however, the reality of the problem relies within the divisional training staff not both as you stated.

The way VATSIM is currently mandating things, leaves the sub-divisions to clean up the mess when divisions refuse to help just because they have every power to do so.

So I'll make it clearer even more, my main concern is not with the kind of standards or even working with them but rather the way they handle issues regarding training.

Hopefully this time around it's much clearer, and let's not paint innocent sub-divisions with the same brush.

[1341101]

37 minutes ago, Bahaeddine El-Zarif said:

I respect your opinion David, however, the reality of the problem relies within the divisional training staff not both as you stated.

The way VATSIM is currently mandating things, leaves the sub-divisions to clean up the mess when divisions refuse to help just because they have every power to do so.

So I'll make it clearer even more, my main concern is not with the kind of standards or even working with them but rather the way they handle issues regarding training.

Hopefully this time around it's much clearer, and let's not paint innocent sub-divisions with the same brush.

There's more than just one division on VATSIM. I was referring to the overall situation that is currently taking place and what I have seen myself. 

[Bahaeddine El-Zarif]

2 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

Us here being the membership. If we look at the biggest concerns that have come about in this process, it’s been the things that are trying to be more beneficial to the members at large, as opposed to beneficial to the sub-division itself.  For example, the activity requirements discussions. We feel that the general controller member is hurt by activity requirements as life does happen and you can find yourself as unable to meet an activity requirement.  All of a sudden, we have a controller who can no longer control because of something like this. That penalizes the individual member and we would feel is not best for the general member.

 

We’re not talking about local variances in procedure and phraseology here. We’re talking about the core basics, like how to clear an aircraft for takeoff or give an approach vector. 

When we talk about variable standards across subdivisions that we want to bring a bit of standardization to, we’re talking about the places that give anyone that can say cleared for takeoff correctly once an S2 as well as the places where you’re not getting that S2 until you can walk into the real tower and work traffic. Both of these practices did and in some places still do exist. It brings a toxic elitism to those individual community’s and many times keeps people who wish to pursue ATC out. We absolutely can not have that. 

 

Matt,

So what you're really saying is that, as long the membership grows, that's the main benefit. Great! I like to see that as well.

The way you're saying things, isn't giving me the right vibe but rather concern of my future on the network as a member of this network first, a Controller second, and a staff member last. So, I am hoping this reply would clear up the confusion that you have, when I say, that my concern is that, sub-divisions such as the one I'm in, has no voice or power in terms of ATC training, and in no way I meant it to have different things from the core competencies that the network requires, as I have never had a problem with meeting their levels of service, yet all I have seen is abusive methods of dealing with the issues that are presented to them for help. I hope it's now clear.

With how things play out in GCAP, things aren't perceived the same way you see them, eg: "Division for approval" meaning that I have to waste time for waiting for approval on simple things that as a vACC could have done to add more realism. So that said, you can't really just focus on growing the membership itself without being fair to those that generate the activity for them to enjoy the network as well, eventually push them away from providing even more to the division just because they felt that they are left out in the dark and being expected to literally follow the regulations passed on from divisions, regardless of the outcome. 

I hope you understand that the way GCAP is worded, isn't penalizing anyone but the vACC staff, as from what I understood, you wanted a network which is fair for the members, yet the fact of it being unfair to those that are in the training queue when you put controllers coming back ahead of them.

I hope my remarks are not taken in the wrong direction, as I am grateful to be a member of VATSIM and a staff position, however, some things may be fair to one but not to another is what I am saying.

Thanks for your time.