That's all I can stand, I can't stand no more!

[J Jason Vodnansky 810003]

http://vatna.net/docs/NA_Policy_0105.pdf

 

VATSIM NORTH AMERICA

POLICY NUMBER: 05/05

DATE ISSUED: 3/4/2007

SUBJECT: VATSIM NORTH AMERICA (VATNA) LOCAL RULES POLICY

PURPOSE: To better manage local rules established with the Canada (VATCAN) and United States (VATUSA) Divisions the following process has been put in place. This approval process is mandatory and local rules / policies written or established outside of this process are invalid and in no way enforceable. The purpose of introducing this requirement is to:

• Ensure that at all times members are treated fairly by VATSIM North America.

• Ensure that members wishing to operate within VATSIM North America are fully aware of what is expected of them.

• Establish fair and reasonable local rules that are essential for operations within VATSIM North America.

• [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist online Supervisors who are expected to monitor compliance with VATSIM North America local rules.

• Support staff in North America when upholding properly designed and fully authorized local rules.

BACKGROUND: The VATSIM Code of Regulations (CoR) gives a Regional Director (RD) a regional airspace to manage. The RD then appoints Division Directors (DD) and delegates authority to the DD to manage the division and its’ airspace. With any delegated authority there is accountability back up the line to those that are accountable for it under the VATSIM CoR. The VATSIM CoR does not recognize staff below the DD level, therefore these staff members are not afforded any autonomous authority whatsoever, including writing local rules. It is the responsibility of the DD and RD to establish or approve any rules that a local manager may wish to have put in place. For local staff it is a simple matter of putting up a ‘proposal’ and getting it ’signed-off’.

LOCAL RULES APPROVAL PROCESS: All ARTCCs and FIRs within the VATSIM North America Region must comply with the following process. Any local rule / policy that is not posted on the region website is considered to be invalid.

1. Submit your rule or policy proposal to the Division Director (DD).

2. The rule / policy will be checked against the VATSIM CoR and VATSIM Code of Conduct (CoC) for compliance by the DD, if it is in compliance, the DD will advise that it is being processed for implementation. If it is not in compliance, changes will be made until the local rule is satisfactory, or the matter will be rejected and a reason for the rejection given.

3. The DD will forward the local rule to the Regional Director (RD) for a final check and written authorization prior to its implementation.

4. After receiving RD authorization, the rule / policy will be ready for release at the local level and a copy of the rule / policy will be kept on file and posted on the region website for future reference. The local agency may also post the rule / policy, as approved and unchanged, on their local website.

 

OK, exactly what the %^$# is this [Mod - lovely stuff]! Are you guys in VATNA and VATUSA off your damned rockers?

 

How about this...

Let's eliminate the chiefs from the sectors now, since they are apparently useless. VATNA and VATUSA may as well just run things.

 

Case in point...

In ZAU, a LOCAL (in every sense of the word) policy was created establishing the MKE TRACON, clearly spelling out the boundaries, and creating procedures for working traffic into and out of a TRACON.

 

I would like to know exactly HOW this is anyone's business other than the LOCAL sector! This micromanging [Mod - lovely stuff] needs to stop now! It is utter BS!

 

I am certain that this policy was approved by the BoG right? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

Ohhh, there is soooo much more to follow! I just need some time to write. Talk about a dictatorship being formed!

 

Before you come into my house and tell me how screwed up it is, you had better be sure that YOUR house is in order, and I have only begun to touch on the subject.

 

I have to take a dump now, so I submit my request to head to the bathroom to empty my bowels. I am awaiting your approval, I sure hope it doesn't take much time to get approved! Not that it is any of your business, which is the whole damned POINT!

 

More to follow,

James Jason Vodnansky

810003

Edited March 8, 2007 at 07:32 AM by Guest

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

I might recommend this conversation would be better served in private emails or PMs.

[Andrew Doubleday]

Kyle, believe me when I say this has been attempted to be handled privately and has quite obviously (with the implementation of this policy) gotten no where...

 

They might as well just pull me out of office... I can no longer enact any policy for my facility on my own… no need for ATMs, DATMs, or TAs anymore… hell there’s no need for VATUSA regional directors anymore either!

 

Let me ask you this question… where did VATNA get the authority to micromanage my facility?

 

Follow me here a second…

 

Delegation of Authority: A Regional Director should not attempt to dictate or

run all aspects of day-to-day operations in the divisions which comprise his or

her region. Therefore, a Regional Director has a duty to delegate authority to

the heads of the divisions making up his or her region and should grant such

individuals broad discretion to run the day-to-day operations within their

division, subject to any uniform general rules in place for conducting

operations throughout the entire region. The exercise of this authority by the

heads of the divisions is subject at all times to review by the Regional

Director.

 

VATSIM Code of Reguations. Page 17 Section 3-05 Part B Subsection 6

 

Lets take a closer look at this…

A Regional Director should not attempt to dictate or run all aspects of day-to-day operations

 

I’ll have more…

[Andrew Doubleday]

My next question... how can all of the ATMs sit here and tollerate this abuse?

 

AD

[Steven Rogers 901202]

I think this has gone far enough, with "JJ" Vodnansky posting both here and in General Discussion about how apparently [Mod - lovely stuff]py the rules of the network are.

 

From an 81xxxx member id, I would have expected he's been around for a fair while, so why an outburst now?

 

Maybe he lost a winning lottery ticket or something. He should try something I heard off the TV, write down all your wrongdoings in the past and try to set them straight.....

[Nate Johns]

Aside from what appears to be a clear-cut CoR statment regarding the implementation of rules of this nature, I offer the following:

 

Personally, I guess I don't understand why VATNA feels that they must, for all intents and purposes, directly regulate policy for ARTCCs, FIRs, etc. within VATNA's jurisdiction. They are basically skipping at least two layers of the management structure. In a US ARTCC's case, it practically byp[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es VATUSA1's authority, and ergo byp[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es each DAT's authority to ensure that policies implemented are fair and proper. At best, it still skips any DATs or their Canadian equivalent. If USA1 is the person to make all decisions regarding compliance with the CoRs, why have a USA7/8/9/10? And, moreso... unless VATNA intends to act solely as a rubber stamp to the opinion of USA1, indeed even USA1 has no authority.

 

If this VATNA policy is truly meant to supersede and force approval of the writing of any local policy, why have a VATUSA at all? VATNA is choosing to micromanage the situation. It effectively strips anyone in the VATUSA management ranks of any authority to administer policy. The policy goes so far as to interpet the current CoR to offering no authority to staff of a lower level than a 'DD.' This ostensibly includes every ATM, Instructor, Mentor, and other ARTCC-specific positions short of non- staff roster controllers. What good is the process of delegating responsibility if you don't intend to allow your delegates the authority to establish structure and policy they want, and moreso further delegate responsibility in a reasonable way? To take a strict constructionist view that basically states because the CoR doesn't recognize lower level staff that they have no authority... well, it's like saying a Lieutenant in the armed forces must get approval from the Commander in Chief prior to executing a decision, rather than the Commander in Chief trusting his officers to faithfully carry out their duty.

 

Maybe VATNA feels changes need to be made, maybe they are just bored stiff with nothing to do, but if they are going to go so far as to read and approve EVERY local policy that is sought for implementation, then decisions will be made slowly, and most probably in a manner that prevents local staff from running their ARTCCs in an effective, time-sensitive manner.

 

I get the impression this was written with good intent to ensure the CoR is followed, but VATNA should be ensuring that it "employs" people they can trust to enforce the regulations as already written. VATNA is an oversight organization, and should not be in the business of regulating local ARTCCs in quite such a direct manner. In its essence, this policy undermines the purpose and structure of the VATUSA and VATCAN organizations as a whole, and erodes the ability for individual ATC units from establishing necessary policy that is unique and taylored to their particular situation.

 

My opinion extends beyond the newly imposed (and I emphasize the word imposed) "Local Rules Policy" and includes the newly revised VATNA Visitor Controller Policy, where wording was changed that eliminates an individual ARTCC/FIR from establishing their own visitor policy. Again, an undermining of long-established local authority.

[Bo Gercke 845743]

I think this has gone far enough, with "JJ" Vodnansky posting both here and in General Discussion about how apparently [Mod - lovely stuff]py the rules of the network are.

 

From an 81xxxx member id, I would have expected he's been around for a fair while, so why an outburst now?

 

Maybe he lost a winning lottery ticket or something. He should try something I heard off the TV, write down all your wrongdoings in the past and try to set them straight.....

 

In your attempt to be funny, and humorous, you missed the most important part of the new policy: Its date. Maybe a little attention to detail will [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist your efforts at humor. The new policy was enacted 3/4/2007.

 

In addition, I appreciate you coming to the aid of VATSIM, and VATUSA, Steven, but believe me when I tell you that the network is not even CLOSE to what it once was. In addition, I am not the only one who feels this way, either. There have been so many quality people who have come, and left, not out of boredom, or lack of interest, or desire, or loss of p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ion, but because of actions such as this. We have legislated ourselves right out of interest. People are simply tired of the politics, new policy, and beauracratic BS that has fallen on VATUSA. Interestingly enough, no other division in VATSIM has these issues. Why does VATUSA?

 

If this is a step to unify everybody on the "team" of VATUSA, than I agree with the spirit of the new policy. There are an insane number of rules in various ARTCC's that create an eletist, intolerant, exclusive attitude, and creating an unrealistic experience on the network. That it takes more time to qualify in a facility on VATSIM than it does to checkout in the REAL facility is to me absurd, ludicrous, and asinine. This is a hobby. This is a simulation. This is not real, and it is not reality. Some of the ATM's have lost perspective of that. In addition, most of the ATM's don't like each other, and don't like working together. This attitude was encouraged under the old regime. If this policy is an attempt to stem some of that, and to bring in people who can, and will work together, than I support it.

 

*Edited because I just ate my shorts, and my rep went out like a fart in the wind.* I understand the desire to get your knickers tied in knots, but I don't believe that this is Craig's attempt at a "pwer snatch". I beleive that there are more things coming down the pipe that are deisigned to get VATUSA back to what it once was. That will take some time.

 

And if I'm wrong, and Craig turns out to be a power hungry, controlling, manipulative dictator, than I'll eat my words, and my shorts, and my reputation, or what little I ever thought that I had. We'll see, though. Time will tell.

Edited March 8, 2007 at 11:49 AM by Guest

[Alexander Zayas 852099]

I agree with you Bo, but there are points that I disagree with...Us as an ARTCC (ZAU) we love the way things are running and to have VATNA intervene is a travesty. We have an ambitious ATM who loves this ARTCC and we have worked hard TOGETHER as an ARTCC to be where we are today. My view stands as this...we should let our ATM's make that decision...if theres a problem we enact a petition for change...its OUR airspace and WE are working (Visiting controllers and our community) as one TOGETHER. These are just my thoughts. Thank you guys for the points you have brought up...I have but the utmost respect for you all.

 

AZ

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

A) Craig Merriman has never been part of ZLA. We'd be glad to have him but he's been a Boston and DC guy for as long as I can remember. The closest thing he ever did that could [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociate him with ZLA was to be the facility leader for the KZAK FIR.

 

B) I can understand some of the outrage at being micromanaged. I don't think anyone wants to be micromanaged. It would be absolutely ridiculous.

 

C) Craig isn't a power hungry freakazoid. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. I've never known him to have a "hidden agenda of power over all beings" of any type. Not the power freak type.

 

D) If you re-read the policy sent down and think about it, it actually makes a lot of sense. It's there to protect people from what is commonly known as "the ATC Nazis". Now before I go there.. let me explain my interpretation of the policy, and its intent.

 

The policy asks that all RULES/POLICIES are approved by VAT-something. What people have to understand is the difference between POLICY and PROCEDURES. I don't care what anyone digs up from wikipedia or the dictionary - it is pretty simple.

 

A policy is something that dictates a rule. Examples of this might be Position Restrictions, How to become a Guest Controller, How you might get removed from a Roster, or what the guidelines are to become a Mentor. These are policies.

 

A Procedure is something that dictates How a certain position is run. We often call these Standard Operating Procedures. They aren't rules. They aren't policies. They dictate how we do things. They define things such as a certain tracon's vertical boundaries, or specify the frequency that someone would use while working that position. They might specify that center XXX hands off to Approach YYY on the ZZZ arrival between 0800 - 1600 Local at waypoint BELZEBUB descending to 13,000. A letter of agreement between two facilities on how they want their traffic routed is another example.

 

Vatxxx isn't interested in determining whether we hand off CIVET5 arrivals to SoCal approach level at FL180/280 knots or descending to FL190. They ARE interested in rules we make that say who can be part of this or that ARTCC/FIR and how they are restricted from working this position or that position.

 

Let's face it, many of our facilities have simply become fortresses - where it is next to impossible for anyone to get inside, where inside means working a busy approach or center position. For some places, having restrictions makes sense, because of the complex nature and heavy traffic that is always in those areas. However - you can be the busiest most complicated place in the entire history of the universe, but that doesn't mean jack if no one can ever control there.

 

Many of our facilities have built up position restrictions, but don't have the infrastructure to support it. There are places out there where there are NO (yes ZERO) instructors - and people end up working Ground or Delivery for 100 hours plus without getting promoted to S3. The centers have no staffing, they have no mentoring, and they have no traffic. On top of that there are places that are so scared of guests, they make up new rules that hold guests to a higher standard than their own people. This is absolute insanity.

 

Let's think about it. We all want quality. We all want our students to learn so that they can provide GOOD ATC. We don't want some joe just jumping on center and making a fool of the facilities that many of us have worked VERY hard to create. Yet we are so worried about this that we have honestly started to policy and rule ourselves out of existence.

 

The point of the policy (as I understand it) is to protect all of us from people making up policies (or changing them on the fly) so that they exclude people for unfair reasons.

 

Craig isn't interested in reviewing the fact that aircraft going from PHX to LAS are restricted to FL280 as per the LOA.

 

One last thing. The approval of policies is NOT NEW. When I served on VATUSA under Dane Pennington, I reviewed EVERY SINGLE ONE of the policies that were drafted by the Centers I was responsible for. Of the dozens I reviewed, I can't think of many changes that I ever asked for. If I did ask for them, it was simply because they weren't in line with vatsim's global policies. Please feel free to step forward, those of you who were chiefs out west during this time. Was it really so bad to get approval of your policies?

 

The problem that VATNA is trying to solve here, is simply that THERE ARE PEOPLE out there who are creating policies that are not only unfair and exclusionary, but also are not in compliance with other vatsim regulations. Why is this happening? Simply because no one is reviewing them.

 

Just please chill out people. This is a good thing not a bad thing. No one is trying to take over your facilities.

[Alexander Zayas 852099]

Ian, I would love to have you check out Chicago sometime and meet the controllers I'm blessed with teaching/working with. Every single one loves doing what they do...not to mention the comradery between us all...thats really why I am here...Its not because we run O'Hare to standard, rather its because of the friends I have made and as for the policy not being new...why is it all of a sudden that we are getting confronted about everything we have changed within the ARTCC. Up till now things have been hunkey dory...there was no warning until we got the posts from multiple VATUSA/VATGOV members. To take away what we as a community have worked so hard for...what we have spent our time working on hurts...it hurts a ton. It tears at the fabric that keeps us close...those annoying lil LOA's and SOP's that make our world turn...pending the winds

 

So why not question? We are not saying that Craig is a bad man...not whatsoever what we are trying to say is we want this policy to be looked over a few times...and if it comes across as that I apologize for us all...this is not an attempt to burn bridges rather its meant as a reality check...that we are still here and we have a voice. If somethings wrong were here to voice our opinions without worry or fear because we care. Thank you guys for hearin me out.

 

Regards,

 

AZ

[Tom Seeley]

The approval of policies is NOT NEW. When I served on VATUSA under Dane Pennington, I reviewed EVERY SINGLE ONE of the policies that were drafted by the Centers I was responsible for. Of the dozens I reviewed, I can't think of many changes that I ever asked for. If I did ask for them, it was simply because they weren't in line with vatsim's global policies. Please feel free to step forward, those of you who were chiefs out west during this time. Was it really so bad to get approval of your policies?

 

The problem that VATNA is trying to solve here, is simply that THERE ARE PEOPLE out there who are creating policies that are not only unfair and exclusionary, but also are not in compliance with other vatsim regulations. Why is this happening? Simply because no one is reviewing them.

Ian, while I can't remember ever disagreeing with anything I've seen you write, I'd like to re-emphasize a point here. VATNA oversees VATUSA, which in turn appoints DATs to oversee the ARTCCs. By so doing, VATNA delegates the authority, through VATUSA to its DATs to review and approve local rules, policies, procedures, whatever. That is an effective method of managing, universally employed by all manner of business and industry, and ensures or should ensure adherence to the C of R.

 

If that's broken, then fix it where the defect lies. But this is a sweeping change that on its face really does paralyze those below the RD level, when you take it verbatim. At this point, concurring with your characterization of Craig, I'm content to await some clarification as to intent, but I have to admit the original post is pretty sobering for those of us who have been trusted in the past to administer our respective facilities.

[Steven Perry]

This thread is going to be a good one. But before it gets out of hand, maybe the following distinction would be useful. It makes sense in my mind but maybe I'm off base, as I'm not privy to any VATNA/VATUSA/VATCAN staff discusssions.

 

 

A policy/rule is not the same as a procedure!

 

A procedure is what was describe in the original post specifying the boundaries of a sector and procedures for working traffic. Determining the boundaries of delegated airspace is actually more of a letter of agreement topic than a procedure. When I was running Cleveland ARTCC there was no approval required by anyone but me to enact and publish procedures or LOAs (given the other facility agreed to it!).

 

A policy/rule is something that sets limits on members. For example, I instituted a program in which VATCAN controllers could control at a specific Canadian airport inside VATUSA airspace. This had to go up the ladder for approval since it set limits on controller's activity (although it was less restrictive than the previous visiting controller program).

 

There has been quite a bit of discussion among supervisors about what regional, divisional, and local rules are enforceable or not. I think this new policy is an attempt to add credibility to all local rules (i.e. no S3 can control ABC_TWR between 5 and 11 pm local time) by giving all policies the blessing of the chain of command. My regional director always signed off on my policies and rules before I published them, but I think it was a practice that was often worked around. This may just be a reemphasis of that existing procedure.

 

ATMs, your rules and policies will probably not catch flack unless they diverge from the letter or spirit of the VATSIM CoR. I do not see why the big fuss about all of this!

 

Respectfully,

 

Steve Perry

[not speaking on behalf of anyone!]

 

Edit: Clarity on VATCAN/VATUSA situation. Only applies to a single airport, not a blanket agreement!

[Lee Waldeck 866831]

Interesting topic. This is my first time seeing this policy. I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume VATNA can enact policies that affect us but not notify us of these new policies or changes to existing ones?

 

Since we’re on the topic…let’s take a gander at the VATNA visiting controller policy as well. http://vatna.net/docs/NA_Policy_0305.pdf

 

Essentially, this policy states that unless a controller has a history of disciplinary actions, we must accept them as a visitor no matter their rating. I’m strongly against accepting S1’s as visitors as they may have ZERO hours on the network. Several of us have voiced this opinion, but I've yet to hear anything further regarding the subject.

 

I have no issue with someone reviewing policies to ensure they are not in violation of the CoC or CoR. However, having someone review each and every SOP, LOA, or telling me an intra-facility LOA shouldn’t be called such is just a bit much.

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

Hello,

I am a guest here, found the topic interesting. I quoted parts of Ian's message because I found a few ideas I liked. Please allow me:

a. There is no news here, just a reminder of policy in effect. All regional directors of Vatsim received this policy reminder, since it had recently been breached by local authorities, with unfavorable outcome. In my home region a similar letter was disseminated, without protest. Probably because some of us there follow EC and BOG proceedings, to better understand the environment we operate in.

b. Vatsim is now a 113,000 member organization, requiring smooth proactive management at the top, to provide us all the environment we like to fly and control in.

c. In large organizations, policy is usually developed at upper level management, administered by intermediate level management, and definition of procedures and performance of operations are carried out at mainly the working levels. This is fine as long as all levels work together towards a common end, using open communications to undertsand each other.

d. Many would instinctly vouch for no law and no law enforcement, and unlimited freedom. It works until someone more powerful has conflicting interests. The study of egoism, part of philosophy and ethics, concludes that it is rational, but the most rewarding egotistic form of communal life, is one where the individual, supports his local community at his own expense.

e. I believe in simplified procedures, decentralized and delegated powers wherever possible, and as much freedom as can be afforded while guarding our values.

 

 

 

 

A policy is something that dictates a rule. Examples of this might be Position Restrictions, How to become a Guest Controller, How you might get removed from a Roster, or what the guidelines are to become a Mentor. These are policies.

 

A Procedure is something that dictates How a certain position is run. We often call these Standard Operating Procedures. They aren't rules. They aren't policies. They dictate how we do things. They define things such as a certain tracon's vertical boundaries, or specify the frequency that someone would use while working that position. They might specify that center XXX hands off to Approach YYY on the ZZZ arrival between 0800 - 1600 Local at waypoint BELZEBUB descending to 13,000. A letter of agreement between two facilities on how they want their traffic routed is another example.

 

Vatxxx isn't interested in determining whether we hand off CIVET5 arrivals to SoCal approach level at FL180/280 knots or descending to FL190. They ARE interested in rules we make that say who can be part of this or that ARTCC/FIR and how they are restricted from working this position or that position.

 

Let's face it, many of our facilities have simply become fortresses - where it is next to impossible for anyone to get inside, where inside means working a busy approach or center position. For some places, having restrictions makes sense, because of the complex nature and heavy traffic that is always in those areas. However - you can be the busiest most complicated place in the entire history of the universe, but that doesn't mean jack if no one can ever control there.

 

Many of our facilities have built up position restrictions, but don't have the infrastructure to support it. There are places out there where there are NO (yes ZERO) instructors - and people end up working Ground or Delivery for 100 hours plus without getting promoted to S3. The centers have no staffing, they have no mentoring, and they have no traffic. On top of that there are places that are so scared of guests, they make up new rules that hold guests to a higher standard than their own people. This is absolute insanity.

 

Let's think about it. We all want quality. We all want our students to learn so that they can provide GOOD ATC. We don't want some joe just jumping on center and making a fool of the facilities that many of us have worked VERY hard to create. Yet we are so worried about this that we have honestly started to policy and rule ourselves out of existence.

 

The point of the policy (as I understand it) is to protect all of us from people making up policies (or changing them on the fly) so that they exclude people for unfair reasons.

 

One last thing. The approval of policies is NOT NEW. When I served on VATUSA under Dane Pennington, I reviewed EVERY SINGLE ONE of the policies that were drafted by the Centers I was responsible for. Of the dozens I reviewed, I can't think of many changes that I ever asked for. If I did ask for them, it was simply because they weren't in line with vatsim's global policies. Please feel free to step forward, those of you who were chiefs out west during this time. Was it really so bad to get approval of your policies?

 

The problem that VATNA is trying to solve here, is simply that THERE ARE PEOPLE out there who are creating policies that are not only unfair and exclusionary, but also are not in compliance with other vatsim regulations. Why is this happening? Simply because no one is reviewing them.

 

Just please chill out people. This is a good thing not a bad thing. No one is trying to take over your facilities.

Edited March 8, 2007 at 04:00 PM by Guest

[Aaron Crawley 935316]

"ATMs, your rules and policies will probably not catch flack unless they diverge from the letter or spirit of the VATSIM CoR. I do not see why the big fuss about all of this!" --> steve perry

 

 

And here in lies the problem. Whose spirit are we talking about? VATNA's or every member of vatsim as a whole, because right now, I'm only seeing VATNA's spirit while the rest of us are trying to be forced into saying yes. With policy you only have face value. Thats all you can go by. Its a written contract not meant for interpretation. My dad's been in contracts for well over 30years and he could tell you this. Look no deeper then what has been written-->

 

"LOCAL RULES APPROVAL PROCESS: All ARTCCs and FIRs within the VATSIM North America Region must comply with the following process. Any local rule / policy that is not posted on the region website is considered to be invalid."

 

This statement is binding. No interpretation needed or allowed.

 

This statement in laymens means just what it says. That Nobody except VATNA can can create a rule, be creative or anything else.

 

I've been with this network for 2 years this coming july. I've been through the zameda years, and now doubleday. I've been through the good and bad times of this center, maybe not as long as most of my comrads on the chicago staff, but enough to know that we are a dedicated bunch of guys that love this hobby, that enjoy helping others understand what vatsim is and what air traffic control is like. We provide a niche to the FS community unlike anything else out there, all of us, in each artcc, fir, and approach. We all put in many hours of volunteering into this hobby to make it both fun and a challenge for all. We all come from different parts of this country and put our own little procedures in place to make it "home". This makes each center special to those that volunteer to be a put of it and to those that fly in and out of our center's nightly. Its these procedures that makes people want to fly on vatsim. Pilots like the varity of procedures, star's, sid's. It makes flying online challenging versus just climbing direct to destintion and flick the a/p on after takeoff. This VATNA procedure hampers this spirit, dampins the ability of all of us to keep this hobby fun and challenging.

 

 

THE SPIRIT OF VATSIM RESIDES IN ALL ITS MEMBERS, WHY SHOULD ONE PERSON BE ALLOWED TO DICTATE THE SPIRIT

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Aaron Crawley

Zau's TA INS 3

 

ROC ATCT Rochester NY FAA/DOT controller.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

I have searched and searched the VATSIM CoR, etc., and nowhere do I find the procedure to resolve issues such as this listed as "Go into the forums and vent your spleen for all to see. Garner some fashion of public support - take the 10 or so folks who respond to your post(s) and agree with you and claim they represent the bulk of VATSIM. Demand that democracy rule."

 

There are some sections of the regs, however, that do outline a process to have issues such as these reviewed and a decision made.

 

If you REALLY want to advance your issue, I'd follow those regs, because the BoG is under no compulsion whatsoever to respond to anything in the forums in an official manner.

 

As I stated above, Jason, this forum is not the place to resolve this. This approach will do more to damage your cause than help it. When/if you do file this issue in the appropriate place to the appropriate people, you will find that this approach has already caused your credibility to diminish. If you do not file it with the appropriate authority but contine to carp about it here in the forum, your credibility in this forum will reach a new low.

 

I see already a few posts that have gotten personal. This conversation needs to stay away from that to prevent being locked.

[Keith Smith]

A great place to talk about this would be an ATM forum, but one no longer exists. All we have is a mailing list, which simply does not scale.

[Lee Waldeck 866831]

A great place to talk about this would be an ATM forum, but one no longer exists. All we have is a mailing list, which simply does not scale.

 

We've been promised a forum for over 6 months now...

 

We've voiced concerns via email in the past, only to hear back "Your request will be forwarded on, expect a reply shortly"; Days, weeks, and months have gone by with no response.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

A great place to talk about this would be an ATM forum, but one no longer exists. All we have is a mailing list, which simply does not scale.

 

We've been promised a forum for over 6 months now...

 

We've voiced concerns via email in the past, only to hear back "Your request will be forwarded on, expect a reply shortly"; Days, weeks, and months have gone by with no response.

 

Let me work on that.

[Andrew Doubleday]

A great place to talk about this would be an ATM forum, but one no longer exists. All we have is a mailing list, which simply does not scale.

 

We've been promised a forum for over 6 months now...

 

We've voiced concerns via email in the past, only to hear back "Your request will be forwarded on, expect a reply shortly"; Days, weeks, and months have gone by with no response.

 

Keith and Lee,

 

Case in point with me sending out the letter to all of you ATMs via the VATUSA email system... since we no longer have a place to communicate amongst each other in an effective manner – really no place else this can be done is there?

 

 

 

 

Kyle,

 

I don't believe we're looking for a reply... I'd expect this matter to be handled in private and frankly would be quiet surprised if it was not.

 

However, I will say I agree with this type of approach because it gets people to "think" about where things are going... where this network is headed... get YOUR opinions out on it because now is the time to do so. That's the whole point. The reason this has been "aired out" is to get everyone thinking... to let everyone know that there are some "little guys" that are watching (believe it or not) what's going on above and not afraid to voice an opinion about it.

 

We're not trying to round up support by any means... hell I could care less if no one supports where I or any of my staff are coming from – you’ve got to share what is at heart. I'll "fight" this "battle" entirely on my own if necessary.

 

The reason being is I CARE just THAT much about this hobby. I’m not prepared to sit here and watch where things are going right now…

 

I simply see no justifiable cause in things that have happened lately (within my facility and outside of it) and I'm voicing my opinion because I've been quiet for way too long. I’ve tolerated a lot of nonsense lately at my facility and believe when I say I’m truly very tired of it.

 

AD

[Andrew Doubleday]

Just a side note about my statement about voicing your opinions; Make sure the issue is addressed and not the person...

 

We all know this will turn into a flame war if we let this happen and thats not the intent of this.

 

AD

[Jeff Turner]

A great place to talk about this would be an ATM forum, but one no longer exists. All we have is a mailing list, which simply does not scale.

 

We've been promised a forum for over 6 months now...

 

We've voiced concerns via email in the past, only to hear back "Your request will be forwarded on, expect a reply shortly"; Days, weeks, and months have gone by with no response.

 

Promised? Show me that email or conversation Lee... Show me the responses of "forwarded on and expect a reply shortly"

 

I said that it will come back, but it was low on the priority list as we were attempting to do a complete re-write of the database... That continues to this date... This was stated in the December 2006 VATUSA meeting... When Kyle completes the minutes for that meeting, I'm guessing that will refresh your memory.

 

When the new Director is selected, he can prioritize things the way he/she sees fit in accordance with their goals... My goal was, As stated multiple times was to get a database free system in place since the old one had been band aided for so long...

[Lee Waldeck 866831]

A great place to talk about this would be an ATM forum, but one no longer exists. All we have is a mailing list, which simply does not scale.

 

We've been promised a forum for over 6 months now...

 

We've voiced concerns via email in the past, only to hear back "Your request will be forwarded on, expect a reply shortly"; Days, weeks, and months have gone by with no response.

 

Promised? Show me that email or conversation Lee... Show me the responses of "forwarded on and expect a reply shortly"

 

I said that it will come back, but it was low on the priority list as we were attempting to do a complete re-write of the database... That continues to this date... This was stated in the December 2006 VATUSA meeting... When Kyle completes the minutes for that meeting, I'm guessing that will refresh your memory.

 

When the new Director is selected, he can prioritize things the way he/she sees fit in accordance with their goals... My goal was, As stated multiple times was to get a database free system in place since the old one had been band aided for so long...

 

From an email dated 9/17/06:

The VATUSA staff forum will be coming back as requested, soon hopefully.

I do apologize, "promised" was the wrong word of choice. But it's now been almost 7 months since that message. I find a forum a much better way to communicate with my peers than wading through 50 emails a day.

 

December of '06 meeting minutes? I was unable to attend, so I have to wait until 'whenever' to see what was discussed?

 

On a side note: We all need one of these - http://www.duke.edu/~jwc13/beerlauncher.html

[Roland Collins 800023]

Jason et al,

 

Whilst the VATNA policy may be new, the rules are certainly not; these particular one having been in place since the very beginning of VATSIM.

 

VATSIM rules are fair, reasonable, honest and completely open. The spirit of the VATSIM rules can be seen in the introduction to the VATSIM Code of Conduct.

 

One of the main goals of VATSIM is to create an environment which is fun and, at the same time, educational and a realistic simulation of procedures followed by pilots and air traffic controllers everyday around the world.

 

VATSIM opens its doors to welcome new members and provides an opportunity to join in the FUN with a chance to learn and grow at the same time. Many VATSIM members have done this and it is the aim of VATSIM that this will continue.

 

As with any large organization, over time things change and the original aims and objectives can become forgotten or lost. When that happens and goes unchecked there is an urgent need to return to the original plan.

 

VATSIM is no different to any other large global organization. Scouts and Guides set out to teach values such as self-esteem, citizenship, friendship and at the same time create exciting challenges with recognition of achievement. They have a handbook that sets out how to behave; rules and policies if you like. Sound familiar?

 

If a local troop were not adhering to the Scout or Guide Handbook then it would be pointed out to them and they would be given encouragement and support to correct the situation; all within the true spirit of the organization to which they belong. That is what is happening here in VATSIM and members can expect encouragement and support in dealing with any problems.

 

The Handbook, rules, regulations, policies or whatever you want to call them serve to keep us all on track over time and have certainly worked very well for the Scouts and Guides. VATSIM founders, governors, staff and members are all bound by the same rules.

 

There are many instances in divisions around the world where the original plan to welcome new members and include them has been lost and replaced by a local environment that has become very exclusive. This may seem to serve local members but it does not sit well in terms of the original aims and objectives of VATSIM.

 

This is not in the best interest of VATSIM; therefore I have asked ALL Regional Directors to ensure that those members under their care have a copy of the VATSIM guide on how VATSIM activities will be conducted.

 

I have also asked the Regional Directors to ensure that local copies of ‘the handbook’ do not contain anything that is in variance with VATSIM and to provide encouragement and support to those correcting any errors.

 

On behalf of VATSIM Founders and the VATSIM Board of Governors I am asking all members to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist the Regional Directors, Division Directors and other staff in carrying out the important task that has been set them.

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM – VP Regions

VATSIM co-Founder

[Andrew Rogers 913862]

Kyle, believe me when I say this has been attempted to be handled privately and has quite obviously (with the implementation of this policy) gotten no where...

 

They might as well just pull me out of office... I can no longer enact any policy for my facility on my own… no need for ATMs, DATMs, or TAs anymore… hell there’s no need for VATUSA regional directors anymore either!

 

Let me ask you this question… where did VATNA get the authority to micromanage my facility?

 

Follow me here a second…

 

Delegation of Authority: A Regional Director should not attempt to dictate or

run all aspects of day-to-day operations in the divisions which comprise his or

her region. Therefore, a Regional Director has a duty to delegate authority to

the heads of the divisions making up his or her region and should grant such

individuals broad discretion to run the day-to-day operations within their

division, subject to any uniform general rules in place for conducting

operations throughout the entire region. The exercise of this authority by the

heads of the divisions is subject at all times to review by the Regional

Director.

 

VATSIM Code of Reguations. Page 17 Section 3-05 Part B Subsection 6

 

Lets take a closer look at this…

A Regional Director should not attempt to dictate or run all aspects of day-to-day operations

 

I’ll have more…

 

Andrew, after discussing some of these aspects with Craig he said

The idea behind this policy and process is to make sure all members are treated fairly. There are a number of policies that existed in our region that were unfair to our members and were exclusionary.

TH biggest example is the way we treat Visiting Controllers. There are ARTCCs out there that restict Visiting controllers greatly, in both the Times they are alowed to Control, and If they are alowed to control at events.