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

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

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.

 

However, the new VATNA Visiting Controller policy no longer allows ARTCCs to restrict whether you can become a Visitor based on Rating. I think that is the wrong direction as far as Visiting Controller policies go. Now, the only way someone can deny a visitor application is if they have disciplinary action on their record. Basically, you have to accept all Visitor applications (unless it falls under the New ATM exception).

 

As I already mentioned on one of these posts, very often Student level controllers decide to join visiting rosters of other locations. They shouldn't be meandering about VATUSA, rather, they should be focusing on getting training [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istance from their home-ARTCC. Once they get to the Approach level, and have at least some moderate amount of experience, then they should consider going "outside their norm." I've seen, far too often, S-1 controllers, and even S-3's wander about and join visiting rosters. They don't get the training done at their own ARTCC, and bounce around and live in the VATUSA limbo. Nothing gets accomplished there, they waste their time, the home-ARTCC's trainer's time, and usually end up causing problems for the ARTCCs they visit at (because they don't have the appropriate experience...and it shouldn't be up to the Visiting ARTCCs to provide the training).

 

ARTCCs should be able to limit Visiting Controllers based on their rating. If you can't restrict based on rating, the only other way is by a person's record. We need both. (unless some other standardized method of Certification is instituted, outside of ratings. That's not going to happen though.)

 

As far as the restrictions that you mentioned, I agree, that is wrong.

[Andrew Rogers 913862]

As I already mentioned on one of these posts, very often Student level controllers decide to join visiting rosters of other locations. They shouldn't be meandering about VATUSA, rather, they should be focusing on getting training [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istance from their home-ARTCC. Once they get to the Approach level, and have at least some moderate amount of experience, then they should consider going "outside their norm." I've seen, far too often, S-1 controllers, and even S-3's wander about and join visiting rosters. They don't get the training done at their own ARTCC, and bounce around and live in the VATUSA limbo. Nothing gets accomplished there, they waste their time, the home-ARTCC's trainer's time, and usually end up causing problems for the ARTCCs they visit at (because they don't have the appropriate experience...and it shouldn't be up to the Visiting ARTCCs to provide the training).

 

ARTCCs should be able to limit Visiting Controllers based on their rating. If you can't restrict based on rating, the only other way is by a person's record. We need both. (unless some other standardized method of Certification is instituted, outside of ratings. That's not going to happen though.)

 

I understand your point here but there are curently regulations in effect that protect the Visiting ARTCC's trainer's time (VATUSA Training Policy [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned ARTCCs and Promotion guidlines oultline the home ARTCC's responsibilities and requirments for each grade, in other words eventualy it winds up that the Visiting ARTCC ONLY has to Instruct visitors on local procedures

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

I understand your point here but there are curently regulations in effect that protect the Visiting ARTCC's trainer's time (VATUSA Training Policy [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned ARTCCs and Promotion guidlines oultline the home ARTCC's responsibilities and requirments for each grade, in other words eventualy it winds up that the Visiting ARTCC ONLY has to Instruct visitors on local procedures

 

I'm aware of that policy, and that's my point in stating that it can't be the Visiting ARTCC's burden. But then who is going to keep students in their home-ARTCC, and what happens when you get an S-1 who barely has Ground training as a visitor? My point is, Visiting ARTCCs can't stop it (unless that member has disciplinary action against him), AND they have to accept whatever level of training the person has, BUT they are not required to act as the primary-trainers for that student. The student can join however many rosters they please, at whatever level they want, but no one will have to be accountable for the student's training.

 

Once a student is on a visiting roster, the home-ARTCC has no way to force the controller back onto their turf to get the necessary training (unless they have an activity requirement). So then, all the student would have to do, technically, is log whatever required time by the home-ARTCC (which is, at most ARTCCs, appropriately lenient).

 

Hopefully you see where I'm going? It's much more than a problem of burden on the Visiting ARTCC, but a giant loophole for students who don't have the patience to sit down at one place. It puts everything on the honor system, really; On the honor that every student will follow the traditional convention of training at his home ARTCC before Visiting anywhere.

 

I wouldn't see this as much of a problem if every S-1 in VATUSA would be required to go through the Academy right now, however, there are still a LOT of S-1's who are on the general membership and exempt from attendance.

[Roland Collins 800023]

However, the new VATNA Visiting Controller policy no longer allows ARTCCs to restrict whether you can become a Visitor based on Rating.

Any form of rating, qualification etc should be based on competency; can the person do the job? That is fair, reasonable and practicable; and precisely how the Region Transfer Global Policy is written. The policy supports maintaining your rating so that you are no better and no worse off if you go elsewhere.

 

The Region Transfer Global Policy sets forth both the spirit and the rule in which a transferee will be considered. It does not guarantee acceptance but it does guarantee a fair treatment. The same spirit and rule covers consideration and acceptance as a visiting controller, but the rights of a visiting controller are clearly not the same as local member or a permanent transferee.

 

If you welcome visitors, and you should, then it will show up in having local rules promoting visitors rather than discouraging or preventing them.

 

There should never be [have been] a *rating condition* applied. It is equivalent to the Scouts or Guides saying you can visit our troop but only if you have p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed all proficiency tests and display the badges …otherwise get lost. Nice one!

 

The Region Transfer Global Policy has rules that are fair to the transferee and at the same time beneficial to the receiving authority; they get another controller. The policy is in no way harmful to the receiving authority since it is the *local standard* that is used in the competency check.

 

 

Now, the only way someone can deny a visitor application is if they have disciplinary action on their record. Basically, you have to accept all Visitor applications (unless it falls under the New ATM exception).

This is not correct. A transfer can be refused on any reasonable ground providing it is a factual matter that can be presented as a valid reason. This has always been the case. Reasonable grounds may relate to any aspect of 'history' including, behavior, recent transfers, lack of experience in the home location etc. I have previously refused visiting status in VATUSA on those grounds. The bottom line is that we must act in a way that is fair and reasonable and be able to show what we did and why it was necessary.

 

Keep in mind that the rules do not give unlimited rights to an individual since there is accountability on their part. If there is a fair and reasonable rule and a person doesn't measure up then that’s how it is.

 

Rules work for you rather than against you since it is the fair and reasonable rule that protects you from being disadvantaged or exploited.

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM - VP Regions

VATSIM co-Founder

[Nate Johns]

Rules work for you rather than against you since it is the fair and reasonable rule that protects you from being disadvantaged or exploited.

 

Roland,

 

With all due respect, there are tens of thousands of controllers right now in the US that are being disadvantaged and exploited from rules that the FAA thinks are fair and reasonable. Rules that were subsequently imposed upon them. Controllers, much like the general membership of this network, apparantly had little or no input on the creation of these rules before they were handed down. Perhaps the disadvantage and exploitation differs significantly, but to outwardly [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that a rule written that is believed to be fair and reasonable actually IS fair and reasonable is a false [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption, especially so without the consult of those people / sub-organizations the rules directly affect.

 

For as much as these rules are being touted for the greater good of the network (or at least VATNA), how are we supposed to be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ured they will be followed with the spirit they (seemingly) were written in? I mean, truly enforced along the lines that have been discussed, rather than in the VERY broad strokes that were painted in the writing of the docomeent itself? The apparant spirit of these rules simply does not seem to be reflected in the way they are written. Perhaps a re-write with additional specificity may help. In any case, however, the creation of a rule ALWAYS includes a fairly high probability that it will be abused, misapplied, circomevented, or the like.

 

Something on a fundamental level feels fishy about the creation VATNA's recent mandates, and I believe that is why you have witnessed a fairly interesting surge of protest in these forums, if not elsewhere. Certainly no one that has posted represents the entirety of the network; however, the fact that there seems to be some definite negative attitude toward the rules and changes made should warrant something more than a "take the rules that were created and help us make it work" type of response.

 

It sounds a lot like the FAA saying "if you don't like it, get out." And I KNOW that's not what VATSIM or VATNA wants.

 

Edited for clarification

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

Any form of rating, qualification etc should be based on competency; can the person do the job? That is fair, reasonable and practicable; and precisely how the Region Transfer Global Policy is written. The policy supports maintaining your rating so that you are no better and no worse off if you go elsewhere.

 

The Region Transfer Global Policy sets forth both the spirit and the rule in which a transferee will be considered. It does not guarantee acceptance but it does guarantee a fair treatment. The same spirit and rule covers consideration and acceptance as a visiting controller, but the rights of a visiting controller are clearly not the same as local member or a permanent transferee.

 

If you welcome visitors, and you should, then it will show up in having local rules promoting visitors rather than discouraging or preventing them.

 

There should never be [have been] a *rating condition* applied. It is equivalent to the Scouts or Guides saying you can visit our troop but only if you have p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed all proficiency tests and display the badges …otherwise get lost. Nice one!

 

The Region Transfer Global Policy has rules that are fair to the transferee and at the same time beneficial to the receiving authority; they get another controller. The policy is in no way harmful to the receiving authority since it is the *local standard* that is used in the competency check.

 

I think we are talking about two completely different things. Just to clarify:

 

I'm not talking about Transferring. By Transferring, I mean that you move from one ARTCC's Roster, to another ARTCC's roster (or by Region or Division, or whatever), and where you are no longer on the former. This means that you can no longer "officially" control in the former ARTCC (unless they grant some sort of special permission/request, for an event or something).

 

I'm talking about Visiting Controllers. Where by Visiting, I mean that you are on one ARTCC's roster, but ALSO on a "Visiting Member" roster of another ARTCC. This means that you can control at either facility at any time (per whatever other restrictions the facilities incur locally).

 

There is no rating condition for any transfer policy in VATUSA. By transferring to a different ARTCC, you are fully under their jurisdiction for training and promotion; I have no problem with how Transfers are conducted, nor do I see any unfairness with the policies or Global policies.

 

With Visiting, it's a different situation. I'm talking about the revised VATNA Visiting Controller policy:

 

http://vatna.net/docs/NA_Policy_0305.pdf

 

In which context, I was talking about Students who join several ARTCC rosters. According to the revised policy set forth by VATNA for Visiting Controllers, we cannot restrict who becomes a "Visiting Member" unless they have a docomeented disciplinary issue. This is different than dealing with transferring controllers.

 

When a Student transfers to an ARTCC, they are moving themselves to that ARTCC to conduct their training, to proceed through the ATC ranks, where that ARTCC is expected to provide necessary training for the student.

 

When a Student becomes a visitor at another ARTCC, they are moving away from their primary ARTCC, in a way that is often detrimental to both ARTCCs. The hosting ARTCC is not required to provide in depth training for the student (which is what the primary ARTCC is for), just the local procedures necessary. Students often join visiting rosters without enough practical experience, and prove to be a burden on that ARTCC's training team, when that student should be getting his primary training at his primary ARTCC, not as a Visiting Controller somewhere else.

 

Which is why I don't feel it is too harsh to use ratings as a requirement to become a Visiting Controller.

 

I completely understand that it would be completely wrong to bar a full "Transfer" to another facility because you haven't attained a certain rating or level yet, but I haven't been talking about full transfers, just "Visiting Members."

 

Unless you have been on my exact wavelength the whole time, in which case I might just have to leave it up to "I agree to disagree."

[Norman Blackburn]

When a Student becomes a visitor at another ARTCC, they are moving away from their primary ARTCC, in a way that is often detrimental to both ARTCCs.

 

Surely when a member (their status is irrelevant) becomes a visitor at one facility they are staying at their home facility. Otherwise they wouldn't be a visitor, they would be a member

 

If the same member wishes to progress through the ratings system they would surely need to do so at their home facility.

 

In regards to being detrimental, using myself as an example, I currently live in Europe and have visiting rights here but my home Region is VATPAC where I continue to control and would seek to get my next rating from. I couldn't be promoted in Europe unless I transferred. So detrimental? Heck no. I can control in the mornings at VATPAC (their evening) and in my evening here locally. This means:

* I get more time on the scope with traffic.

* Both areas get more ATC time.

 

In addition I can staff them up when they would otherwise be quiet, for example, if one was trying for the Iron Mic.

[Roland Collins 800023]

Thanks for your replies gentlemen.

I can see a couple places were we have been on a different page of music. I’ll unfold them and you can give comment.

 

Firstly I was, as you might expect, speaking globally in somewhat idealist terms. I was talking about the Region Transfer Global Policy which primarily addresses transfers and is ‘extended’ to cover visiting controllers as well. More on that later.

 

For as much as these rules are being touted for the greater good of the network (or at least VATNA), how are we supposed to be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ured they will be followed with the spirit they (seemingly) were written in? I mean, truly enforced along the lines that have been discussed, rather than in the VERY broad strokes that were painted in the writing of the docomeent itself? The apparent spirit of these rules simply does not seem to be reflected in the way they are written. Perhaps a re-write with additional specificity may help.

This is a good piece of feedback Nate. I believe the EC should first look at the Region Transfer Global Policy since it is the blueprint on which the local policies are modelled. If you wish to make specific suggestions I will p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] these to the EC.

 

Something on a fundamental level feels fishy about the creation VATNA's recent mandates, and I believe that is why you have witnessed a fairly interesting surge of protest in these forums, if not elsewhere. Certainly no one that has posted represents the entirety of the network; however, the fact that there seems to be some definite negative attitude toward the rules and changes made should warrant something more than a "take the rules that were created and help us make it work" type of response.

It wasn’t meant to sound that way Nate, but I have to accept that is how it seems to you; and probably others. I believe that this has come about in part because the big tug to get things back on track has created a lopsided negative impression. I have obviously made the situation worse by speaking in terms of the idealism within the global docomeent; which did not connect with your local situation. From your point above Nate, there may be a need some extra brush strokes; the positive ones that were taken for granted and omitted. Again any suggestions can be taken back to the EC for their consideration.

 

 

When a Student becomes a visitor at another ARTCC, they are moving away from their primary ARTCC, in a way that is often detrimental to both ARTCCs. The hosting ARTCC is not required to provide in depth training for the student (which is what the primary ARTCC is for), just the local procedures necessary. Students often join visiting rosters without enough practical experience, and prove to be a burden on that ARTCC's training team, when that student should be getting his primary training at his primary ARTCC, not as a Visiting Controller somewhere else.

That’s a pretty good account of the situation Steve, which brings me to my second point. I believe the major problem is that everyone has a different concept of a visiting controller. As I said earlier, the Region Transfer Global Policy is ‘extended’ to cover visiting controllers but that is only true in terms of the spirit of it being fair and reasonable with equal opportunity. The term *visiting controller* has not been defined and is therefore somewhat vague. It will be interpreted differently in different parts the world. I am happy to take this back to the EC for their consideration.

 

My understanding of a *visiting controller* and all that it entails is very much along the same lines as your version Steve. A person has a HOME base that provides training, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment and rating. HOME is where a person should do the majority of their controlling. In dealing with members operating in different divisions I have always maintained that the person should be based where he or she does the majority of their controlling.

 

The original concept of a *visiting controller* is to allow a person to be able to provide occasional service to another *division*. It is intended that a visiting controller will come along and give support to local controllers, staff empty locations or be on hand when local controllers are not able. I would not expect a person to have visiting rights here there and everywhere since that diminishes the return on investment for the HOME division that must continue to provide training [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment and rating, and it also over-stretches the individual controller. There is also an additional burden [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with multiple host facilities having to perform competency checks and keep visiting controllers up to date.

 

 

If you are applying *visiting controller* rules to a person moving around between facilities within the same division (same real world jurisdiction) then that is different yet again and may need separate guidelines.

 

I believe that we are getting down to the cause of the unrest in relation to visiting controllers. Now that it has unfolded a bit more; what are your thoughts on these matters?

 

Do you believe that visiting controllers should have fair and reasonable restrictions on where and when they can exercise their visiting privilege?

 

I am certainly willing to take any of your comments to the EC.

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM - VP Regions

VATSIM co-Founder

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

Surely when a member (their status is irrelevant) becomes a visitor at one facility they are staying at their home facility. Otherwise they wouldn't be a visitor, they would be a member Wink

 

If the same member wishes to progress through the ratings system they would surely need to do so at their home facility.

 

In regards to being detrimental, using myself as an example, I currently live in Europe and have visiting rights here but my home Region is VATPAC where I continue to control and would seek to get my next rating from. I couldn't be promoted in Europe unless I transferred. So detrimental? Heck no. I can control in the mornings at VATPAC (their evening) and in my evening here locally. This means:

* I get more time on the scope with traffic.

* Both areas get more ATC time.

 

In addition I can staff them up when they would otherwise be quiet, for example, if one was trying for the Iron Mic.

 

That part isn't the problem (and a nice play on the words , you are right hehe). Let me extend to what Roland expanded on in his next post, this is apparently a confusion as to what kind of "Visiting Controller" I'm discussing here (and of what is regulated by VATNA).

 

I, in no way, wish to unfairly deny Visiting status from anyone from another region or division who wishes to be a "Visiting Controller" in the U.S. or Canada.

 

But, as Roland got to, I am concerned about how the VATNA policy is extended over what ARTCCs can enforce for intra-Division Visiting Members. A VATUSA member is only entitled to control in his "HOME" ARTCC, whichever that he is a rostered member. (You can call it "[Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned," however we get a choice...so it's not really [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned, in the definition of the word).

 

For instance, I am [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned to KZOB (Cleveland ARTCC). I can only control at KZOB, and according to the local Certification policy we have. To control at another ARTCC in VATUSA, I have to apply as a "Visiting Controller" (Similar in the sense of Region to Region, except on a far more local level).

 

What we have always had trouble with in the past is when Student level controllers basically abuse this ability to control at multiple ARTCCs right after they joined, or without getting the appropriate training. This does not affect Regional Visitor Controllers, or even Divisional (Like a visitor from Canada), just intra-Division. They may not have had any disciplinary action against them, but we would find that they lacked much training or experience when Visiting at another ARTCC. To regulate this abuse, many ARTCCs would not allow members to join if they had not reached a certain rating, or would monitor a visiting member's level of competency. If they had a very low amount of experience, we would remove them as a visiting member, and suggest they get more training and experience at their Home base, first.

 

Now, as the revised VATNA policy is applied over VATUSA, it would seem that we can no longer use these rating requirements, or basically have any other restriction. I'm generally not concerned about the Regional or Divisional version of "Visiting Controllers," because those visitors (as I have seen them), have never abused that system as such, and have always been responsible and professional.

 

What I see as a potential problem is a loophole for intra-Division members to force themselves on another ARTCC. I would suggest that some sort of intra-Division policy be set up to regulate who can move about to other ARTCCs. Even if it's not a specific rating requirement, something that would allow an ARTCC to remove/deny a Visiting Member on grounds they don't have the necessary experience yet. Certainly something fair, but at least something to throw the ATM a bone, so that he doesn't have to be stuck with an inexperienced Visiting member.

 

Presently, the only thing the VATNA policy allows for is disciplinary issues...but what about when someone becomes a visitor and has no experience, or very little training? That is where my concern lies...with intra-Division members, who join several Visiting ARTCC Rosters in VATUSA, and then don't get the training they need, and cause undue problems on the ARTCCs concerned.

[Matthew Temple 880167]

I'm pretty much with Steve on this one.

 

To expound on something he said:

 

"I would suggest that some sort of intra-Division policy be set up to regulate who can move about to other ARTCCs. Even if it's not a specific rating requirement, something that would allow an ARTCC to remove/deny a Visiting Member on grounds they don't have the necessary experience yet. Certainly something fair, but at least something to throw the ATM a bone, so that he doesn't have to be stuck with an inexperienced Visiting member."

 

Since we are getting back to a "global" mindset here, I have a couple suggestions along the lines of Steves thinking.

 

1. Make a new VATSIM policy, rating, endorsment, or whatever you want to call it.

 

Basically, make a standard test that every VATSIM controller would have to take and successfully p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] to be able to "qualify" to be a visiting controller. This test would cover things like the use of a radar client, vatsim rules and regs, etc.

 

OR

 

Since other countries real world procedures may be different, have each Division take the basic VATSIM test (radar client questions, rules, regs, etc..) and then have the division add X amount of questions relating to ATC within their country. VATSIM would determine the maximum number of questions that a Division can place in addition to the VATSIM questions. The Division part of the questions should cover up to the ability to successfully work a Tower in my opinion.

 

2. After successfully p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing the test, the visiting controller now has to work through the position restriction filter which is local to each ARTCC. Keep in mind that this position restriction filter is applied equally to both visiting, and home controllers.

 

I feel that a 30-50 question written exam would be enough to deter the "traffic chasers", prove to the Division that a particular controller is ready, and not hold an S1, who may be a real world controller, back from visiting other regions. After a potential visitior jumps through this hoop, the only potential thing to hold them back is their cert record.

 

Also, while on the VC subject, where it says "docomeented disciplinary problems occuring within a specified time period as established by individual policies". Why not just have VATSIM make a policy where it says something like "disciplinary problems occuring within the last X months/years gives the local ARTCC the right to deny the Visiting Controller application." I feel that if you leave it open, there are going to be varying numbers from ARTCC to ARTCC, which to me is inefficient in making things more standard across the board.

 

Thanks for your ear.

[Stephen Keskitalo 977981]

How exactly are these student visitors causing trouble? What specifically are they doing? Are controllers being certified for positions that they are not able to man?

 

Punishment should be meted out to discourage visiting controllers who deliberately cause trouble. But don't place restrictions on visitors according to their rating. It's not fair, and if that's is what has been going on, then this new policy was long overdue.

 

If this consolidation of power helps ensure fairness, then I'm certainly all for it.

Edited March 19, 2007 at 02:03 AM by Guest

[Roland Collins 800023]

Matthew,

 

The Region Transfer Global Policy has been around a few years and it already contains the items that you have suggested. A 'transferee' is checked locally against the local competency standard. Local rules automatically apply to a 'transferee' or ‘visiting controller’ and there is no exemption..

 

As I mentioned previously, the individual’s complete ‘history’ [not just disciplinary] is considered and may be taken into account. A request may be refused on any reasonable ground providing it is a factual matter that can be presented as a valid reason. Reasonable grounds may relate to any aspect of the individual’s history including, behavior, recent transfers, lack of experience in the home location etc. That is how it is and provides reasonable opportunity to refuse a request as long as it can be shown why it was refused; and this must be docomeented and given in writing to the requester.

 

I believe this discussion has revealed that the global policy may need to add words to expand on the concept of a ‘visiting controller’ but is otherwise OK for region transfers and visiting controllers from another division. However, the global policy may NOT be suitable for transferring or visiting between facilities within the same division; that is really a matter for a division to regulate and may need a separate division guideline or policy.

 

If they had a very low amount of experience, we would remove them as a visiting member, and suggest they get more training and experience at their Home base, first.

Sounds fair and reasonable Steve, in fact the EC believe a person should have at least 50-hours of satisfactory operation at that particular rating level in their HOME facility.

 

Whatever you do you must consider the impact on resources and the practicality of implementing any proposed scheme.

 

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM - VP Regions

VATSIM co-Founder

[Josh Clement 960168]

Quite frankly this entire post is pointless.

[Brian Beach 915973]

Think of Vatsim as the US government. One division has certain abilities, while another has others. VATNA is the main governmental body, so they can manage things like region/division changes, policies between divisions (VATUSA and VATCAN), and disputes between divisions. However, the division (VATUSA will be used as the example) should be able to regulate policies within the division, officials within the division (VATUSA1), and disputes within the division.

 

There should be checks and balances between the region and the divisions. For example, VATNA has the ability to approve appointments to VATUSA1.

 

I hope that this either clears everything up, or just makes it worse

[Norm Hare 907837]

Quite frankly this entire post is pointless.

 

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....you'll wake the trolls.

[Roland Collins 800023]

Quite frankly this entire post is pointless.

I'm sorry that you feel that way Josh. You may not have seen that there was healthy discussion in which different points of view were expressed, concerns raised, and suggestions made.

 

I have suggested that:

 

• A ‘visiting controller’ actually means one that has come from another division, either inside the same region or elsewhere, and this needs to be properly defined in the Region Transfer Global Policy in order to make that docomeent more accurate in its application in relation to visiting controllers.
   
  In the Region Transfer Global Policy the acceptable reasons for refusing to allow a transfer or visiting already include any aspect of an individual’s history and not just disciplinary matters. This is already the case and extra words can be added to make this clearer for everyone.

I have taken these matters on board and, having participated in this thread, I am confident that these two items can be satisfactorily picked up in the docomeent.

 

 

As far as intra-Division visiting controllers are concerned, the Region Transfer Global Policy is not written with these in mind and is therefore not a suitable policy to use. Intra-Division visiting controllers are really a matter for a division to regulate and require a separate division guideline or policy. I am happy to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist any region or division in developing suitable policies for visiting controllers.

 

As a starting point for the thinking on visiting controllers:

 

• A person has a HOME base that provides training, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment and rating.
   
  The concept of a ‘visiting controller’ is to allow a person to be able to occasional operate outside of their HOME facility.
   
  Training facilities have invested time and resources in helping an individual attain a rating and should quite rightly receive some local benefit from that.
   
  HOME is therefore where a person should do the majority, more than half, of their controlling.
   
  A controller should first consolidate their rating level at HOME with 50-hours of satisfactory operation before being ready to serve elsewhere.
   
  A division may have fair and reasonable local rules or policies that allow a facility to refuse a 'visiting controller' request for any adverse item shown in an individual’s history and not just disciplinary matters.
   
  A controller who satisfies all of the requirements should not be prevented from operating as a ‘visiting controller’

As VP Regions I have already started moving these matters forward.

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM - VP Regions

VATSIM co-Founder

[Christopher Trott]

Guys, I sense that some people think this issue came from within VATUSA. It did not. This whole thing is in response to the BoG being made aware of a situation in another VATSIM Region and the actions that were taken by a staff member of that Region. The memo was supposed to be re-enforcing the point that those in the Division have their authority at the discretion of the Division Director (and ultimately VATSIM VPs). I think that the memo as written definitely does not convey that, and I think that the VATNA staff should consider revising it, since it doesn't properly convey what the issue here is.

[Steven Black 813373]

May I jump in here? This issue is, as mentioned above, broader than VATUSA so I'm going to chance posting here.

 

Isn't it reasonable to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that a visiting controller may require a briefing, an over the shoulder check and other training modalities to be brought in line with local prefered routes, airspace, SOPs and LOA? Even if general knowledge for each rating is common across the board, specific knowledge in one's airspace is special and unique in each ARTCC or FIR.

 

In my experience, controller training demands as much time learning local procedures and how to use them as for general, universal principles. Why would someone trained in Seattle have the knowledge to guest in Miami? I think it is reasonable for all guests to be required training in the new area and also to be restricted in position as they get to know the airspace and local procedure. I'm based in Toronto, and I hate to think how a SOCAL controller would manage our arrivals for example. Nor would I myself expect to be able to plug into SOCAL APP just because I'm an I3.

[Roland Collins 800023]

Guys, I sense that some people think this issue came from within VATUSA. It did not. This whole thing is in response to the BoG being made aware of a situation in another VATSIM Region and the actions that were taken by a staff member of that Region. The memo was supposed to be re-enforcing the point that those in the Division have their authority at the discretion of the Division Director (and ultimately VATSIM VPs). I think that the memo as written definitely does not convey that, and I think that the VATNA staff should consider revising it, since it doesn't properly convey what the issue here is.

Christopher,

 

There is nothing new in your post. I have been open in conveying to everyone that this is not a VATUSA problem per se, and made sure that readers of this thread were aware that the same thing is happening in every division within VATSIM. Transfer and visiting controller issues are related to rating standards and local rules. All of these matters have been causing problems for quite some time. I convened a special combined meetings of BOG-EC to address these and other matters in December 2005 and again in January 2006. There has been steady progress in all of thr discussion and what is taking place now is the result of agreement to act on issues of grave and common concern. That is not a revelation. Here is what I have said earlier in this thread, in fact I think it was my first post here:

 

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.

 

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.

 

I am happy to answer any reasonable question but my answers are not likely to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist anyone with a 'join the dots theory'.

 

I am moving forward to ensure that all regions, divisions, and sub-divisions uphold the true spirit of VATSIM and have policies and rules that treat everyone openly, honestly and fairly. Where these can be picked up in global rules this has been done and the work is subject to ongoing refinement.

 

As far as local rules are concerned, these are absolutely essential and I am working with local staff to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist in putting in place polices and rules that will work for them and at the same time achieve the same goal of being open, honest and fair.

 

You can see it in my previous post above, where I have invited comment and/or question.

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM - VP Regions

VATSIM co-Founder

[Christopher Trott]

Christopher,

 

There is nothing new in your post. I have been open in conveying to everyone that this is not a VATUSA problem per se, and made sure that readers of this thread were aware that the same thing is happening in every division within VATSIM. Transfer and visiting controller issues are related to rating standards and local rules. All of these matters have been causing problems for quite some time. I convened a special combined meetings of BOG-EC to address these and other matters in December 2005 and again in January 2006. There has been steady progress in all of thr discussion and what is taking place now is the result of agreement to act on issues of grave and common concern. That is not a revelation. Here is what I have said earlier in this thread, in fact I think it was my first post here:...

 

Roland, I request that you re-review the entirety of my post, in complete context, and then reconsider your response. Even after reading the entire thread, there is still a lot of sense that people believe the memo was singling out VATUSA members by VATNA. I am re-enforcing the fact that it is not and adding that VATNA needs to re-word their memo to address the issue at hand and not some over-arching memo that really has nothing substantial about the issue that is being addressed. You are the VP Regions and the memo came from VATNA thus VATNA needs to fix their memo. It shouldn't be your responsibility to have to explain why a region failed to properly address the issue in their memo and cause a lot of anger within their region.

[Roland Collins 800023]

Thanks for your post Christopher; I appreciate it.

 

Within the role and duties of VP Regions I have a clear mandate to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist regions and divisions to the utmost of my ability. This has to be balanced against the need for them to be self-governing and run their own affairs. Regions and divisions must be fully accountable in the same way that I am accountable to the VATSIM BoG.

 

In my post I was simply making it clear where the directives were coming from and why these were necessary whilst at the same time making sure that members understand that the forum provides an opportunity for direct access to VP Regions (BoG) so that I can become aware of and answer any questions or concerns.

 

I believe this thread has done that very well and has been quite good in helping us all understand common problems and come together in a way that will help us move forward in our attempt to reach excellence in what we do.

 

I am often reminded of a long-departed friend whose tireless efforts for the community are well docomeented. He always signed his name along with the meaning of Excelsior; “Onward and upwardâ€

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

[Lots of excellent points]

 

Steven,

 

I completely agree with you, and YES this is a VATNA issue not just a VATUSA one (as some of us know too well).

 

Just because a controller has obtained a rating or certification in one place - does not mean they have the skills or knowledge to plug in anywhere they want. Anyone who expects of demands that they automatically get a certification at ZZZZ just because they are a SuperSeniorKick[Mod - Happy Thoughts]Controller+ at YYYY is sadly mistaken.

 

If I wanted to control at Toronto Centre, I should first have to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] some local competency checks to make sure that I understood your airspace, your policies, and local rules and regulations.

 

This could be as simple as a few quick sessions with the Training person at Toronto, or as complicated as starting at clearance delivery.

 

Once I gained that certification to control at Toronto, I should be held to the same standards and regulations as everyone else in Toronto. This means that I should have to plug in at the same rate as everyone else to retain my currency, and I can't have my currency "yanked" from me at the whim of the chief or chief instructor. It would also mean that Toronto could not restrict where and when I plug in, unless others at my certification level had to adhere to the same restrictions.

 

In the end it all comes down to what is "fair and reasonable". Many of the restrictive rules here in VATNA were originally introduced to protect the facilities from people who actually paid no respect to anyone in the facilities they were visiting. People would plug in and do what they wanted when they wanted, without many consequences. Now years later, these same policies are negatively impacting the controllers who DO show respect to the facilities they are visiting, and would never do anything to tarnish the facility's reputation. So now the actions of the few bad apples, are affecting the majority of the good apples.

 

So.. if I wanted to be a guest at CZYZ, I would expect to go through some sort of training first. Once I received my certification to control there (let's say at centre) I would expect to be treated like everyone else at CZYZ. This is how I would treat you if you wanted to be a visitor at ZLA. That's all I think most of us are looking for - doing what is "fair and reasonable".

[Roland Collins 800023]

Ian, Steven, Matthew et al,

 

The basic premise of a visiting controller, whether from another division or intra-division, is that a visiting controller must meet the same standard of proficiency as a local controller. There will be a local proficiency check and support to reach the required level of competency. This is important not only to ensure a proper standard of controlling but also to adapt the person to the local environment. This part is already docomeented and we all seem to understand and accept that.

 

In terms of fair and reasonable restrictions, I previously suggested a guideline that has rested in this thread without comment. I'll quote it below, to save going back to it, and perhaps you or others would like to comment on the suitability in terms of your own local needs. Please feel free to shoot it down if you disagree with it.

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM - VP Regions

VATSIM co-Founder

 

As a starting point for the thinking on visiting controllers:

 

• A person has a HOME base that provides training, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment and rating.
   
  The concept of a ‘visiting controller’ is to allow a person to be able to occasional operate outside of their HOME facility.
   
  Training facilities have invested time and resources in helping an individual attain a rating and should quite rightly receive some local benefit from that.
   
  HOME is therefore where a person should do the majority, more than half, of their controlling.
   
  A controller should first consolidate their rating level at HOME with 50-hours of satisfactory operation before being ready to serve elsewhere.
   
  A division may have fair and reasonable local rules or policies that allow a facility to refuse a 'visiting controller' request for any adverse item shown in an individual’s history and not just disciplinary matters.
   
  A controller who satisfies all of the requirements should not be prevented from operating as a ‘visiting controller’

[Steven Black 813373]

Yes, I saw that, Roland. But there is no mention specifically in that text, that the visitor must satisfy local proficiency or training standards. The only reason for a visitor to be denied as written, is that the person has issues perhaps related to disciplinary matters. So a specific statement needs to be included about reasonable local briefing/training as well as an over-the-shoulder test via sweatbox or on the network. Some clarification in this matter will help us out a lot as we try to work this through with the FIRs.

 

This particular lack of clarity is at the heart of whatever quarrel we might have with VATSIM regulations regarding guest controllers.

[Roland Collins 800023]

OK, we were all off on different pages of music at the start but eventfully came together.

Now we need to take stock in order to keep us all on the same page.

 

The overarching global policy already details:

 

• A transferee will automatically be subject to any local rules but will retain his or her current rating whilst learning the new ATC environment and fast-tracking through any local [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment or endorsement in order to become fully operational as quickly as possible.

 

A transferee must demonstrate a standard equal to the local requirements for their current ATC rating, level, or endorsement, and may be required to undertake any appropriate local “competency checkâ€