All VATUSA and ARTCC rules have been recinded?

[Daniel Hill 810430]

Dan you forogot to hit RUN

 

Dang!

[Richard Green 810012]

Marko...

 

VATNA is in charge of VATUSA and VATCAN... if they have issues that fly in the face of VATSIM rules and they refuse to fix them, he has to act.

[Richard Green 810012]

Dan you forogot to hit RUN

 

Dang!

 

Dan -

 

Sad to say I show my age.... but I remember COBOL/FORTAN/etc

[Chris Karras 821611]

I think that people are not reading what he is saying, but taking this as an attack.

 

For instance:

Since all policies that ANY ARTCC has written previously are invalid, and un-enforceable, since they were in fact created outside of this policy, I have come to the following questions...

 

1) Since no APPROVED policies exist, how is an ARTCC to be run?

 

2) Does this mean that a controller may control at ANY position in North America?

 

3) Are all LOAs recinded?

 

4) Are all SOPs invalid?

 

All he did was ask questions based on a new policy that was put into place by VATNA. What I will say is that I am fairly sure that the intentions were good on this policy, it was poorly worded and that is why this original post was made.

 

You really seem to think that the readers of this forum have incredibly short memories, can't connect the dots or are just plain stupid. "All he did was ask questions...". No he didn't. Who are you trying to kid? At one point, the original post in the following thread:

 

http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=17656

 

was so full of foul language that the forum filter could barely keep up. It's since been edited 5 times by the poster (way to rewrite history Mr. Vodnansky). You are asking us to believe that all of this (as well as the half dozen other posts made yesterday) was merely asking a question? Then there is the present thread which twisted the obvious intent of VATNA rules so much that it is laughable. No one with any sense whatsoever would ever reach the ridiculous conclusions you guys have with the VATNA rules. Maybe they could have been written better but it certainly wasn't as bad as you are trying to make it seem in this fallback position you are presently taking.

 

What is plain to virtually everyone reading these posts (almost all of which are from the ZAU staff) is that this is nothing more than a turf war and that someone's hands have been caught in the cookie jar. You seem to think that you have some right to do whatever you want in your airspace, impose whatever rules and policies you wish and that nobody better dare tell you otherwise. To quote Mr. Vodnansky,

 

"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!

 

From the "Popeye" thread "That's all I can stand, I can't stand no more" http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=17656

 

I think you guys are the ones missing the point. You don't seem to realize that you don't own the turf; you only get to play there. Can we put an end to these cr[Mod - Happy Thoughts] posts and the backpedaling which has now begun and get back to flying and controlling? It's all we can stand....we can't stand no more."

[Daniel Hill 810430]

Dan you forogot to hit RUN

 

Dang!

 

Dan -

 

Sad to say I show my age.... but I remember COBOL/FORTAN/etc

 

You're not alone!

[Richard Green 810012]

While Chris might echo my general feelings he might be going at it with more "pissnvinegar" than I would...

 

My only beef is that even though Craig has already said SOPs and LOAs aren't his concern the ZAU spin machine still wants to play it that way.

 

(In a more polite way than Chris) Lets cut to the chase...

 

ZAU has issues with being told how "their" ARTCC can or can't do things...

 

ZAU is not a fifedom... its part of VATUSA which is part of VATSIM.... VATSIM rules will be followed and at the end of the day. Those in charge will choose to follow them or else they will be asked to resign.

 

Pure and simple.

 

As far as Marko's attempt to say Craig can't say anything about VATUSA or ZAU... lets remember that in the end he is in charge of VATUSA and VATCAN and if they refuse to act in issues, then he has no choice. A lack of action has forced him to act.

Edited March 9, 2007 at 04:03 PM by Guest

[Chris Karras 821611]

I think you are right Richard in that I wasn't trying to be polite. Politeness doesn't seem to be working with the ZAU crew and they are now going too far with this spin of their flawed point of view. How many people need to tell these guys that VATNA's rules are reasonable and that they are otherwise making a mountain out of a molehill? They don't want to listen to differing opinions and seem hellbent on maintaining their turf with no oversight from VATUSA or VATNA.

 

I think they need to stop making this pile of forum posts and take a good look around at what nearly everyone else seems to be telling them.

[Lee Waldeck 866831]

If you have a rule that says (for example) No one under the rank of C1 may be a visitor at ZAU, then that rule would be in conflict with VATSIM and deemed exclusionary.

 

Richard,

 

Not trying to stir the pot anymore, but I can't seem to find anything in the CoC or CoR that suggests this. Perhaps I'm just missing it. Could you point me towards the section of whatever docomeent states this?

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

Yes, you are 100% right, there is a diffrence between Operation Procedures/LOAs and rules, but the VATNA policies fails to mention that. Here is what it specifically says:

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.

 

It says in there, "local rules/policies." There is nothing in there about rules previously existing are excempt of that, but simply says local rules written or established outside of this policy (including ones already established since it doesn't mention that) are INVALID and in NO WAY ENFORCEABLE.

 

So what if VATNA failed to mention the SOP/LOA on purpose? It doesn't NEED to be mentioned, because it simply isn't covered in that rule, which CLEARLY means that VATNA isn't going to regulate SOP/LOA. LOL, seriously, we need RULES to tell us that we're NOT going to regulate something?

 

So send your policies to VATUSA2 and get them approved! It is now March 9 EST; 4th day of opportunity to have policies approved by the DD and RD.

[Norm Hare 907837]

I don't want people to forget about it. That is the whole point! I quite honestly could care less what people think of me.

 

I do this in an attempt to make things better for all involved. Too many people have forgotten where they come from, and far too many refuse to hold the managers, and directors, and yes the BoG accountable for their actions, or inactions, whichever the case may be.

 

The bottom line is that numerous policies were broken and are being broken still as I write this. Worse part is, no one seems to care but a select few of us who actually read the rules as they are written.

 

Apparently, ignorance really is bliss!

 

Good luck,

James Jason Vodnansky

 

At the moment I am extremely ignorant as to what your point has been, and am feeling extremely blissful. Am I ignorant about what goes on behind the scenes at VATSIM....probably. More importantly...do I care??? Not a lick. Am I a poor citizen of the world for thinking this way? I would have to say no.

[Andrew Rogers 913862]

If you have a rule that says (for example) No one under the rank of C1 may be a visitor at ZAU, then that rule would be in conflict with VATSIM and deemed exclusionary.

 

Richard,

 

Not trying to stir the pot anymore, but I can't seem to find anything in the CoC or CoR that suggests this. Perhaps I'm just missing it. Could you point me towards the section of whatever docomeent states this?

 

VATNA Policy 03/05

Section 3

 

Ordfer as in to what is important:

a. VATSIM Code of Regulations

b. VATSIM Code of Regulations

c. VATNA Regional Polices

 

That policy is valid becuse the CoR gives Craig the final autoritiy over the VATNA airspace, lucky for me Craig was nice enough to allow, the USA division to exist were it does and give the DD the ability to let me RUN the Honolulu Airspace

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

If you have a rule that says (for example) No one under the rank of C1 may be a visitor at ZAU, then that rule would be in conflict with VATSIM and deemed exclusionary.

 

Richard,

 

Not trying to stir the pot anymore, but I can't seem to find anything in the CoC or CoR that suggests this. Perhaps I'm just missing it. Could you point me towards the section of whatever docomeent states this?

 

Lee here you go. I really am not familiar with the policies at any specific ARTCC except my own so couldn't tell you who was or wasn't in compliance - but here are two policies that are NOT NEW and I bet if we looked around we would all realize how they aren't being followed.

 

I recall when both of these policies were put into play, and I fully understand and support why they were put into play. We need to make sure we are following them.

 

I've added my own little "Footnotes" to provide commentary.

 

Vatsim Executive Committee Region Transfer - Global Policy

 

 

REGION TRANSFER – GLOBAL POLICY

 

The following policy was determined by The Executive Committee on January 26 2004 and is now in effect.

 

A VATSIM member with a rating greater than PILOT/OBS wishing to transfer to another Region/Division shall contact the Regional Director and be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned to a relevant Division, ARTCC, FIR, or vACC where local staff will be responsible for his or her integration as a transferee.

 

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. 1

 

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€

[Tom Seeley]

Ian, I very respectfully interpret item #8 on the VATUSA policy quote to have a different meaning and intent than you have included in your remarks.

* Online testing shall only apply to new controllers/new promotions. Controllers who had been authorized to control at those positions within the previous six months shall not be required to take new tests in order to retain the ability to control at those positions.8

Taken as it is written and in the context of the complete section, I believe the intent of this part was to disallow "recurrent" testing, not to disallow testing for new or visiting controllers being added to the roster. Although it is admittedly not written in the best form, and is easily subject to misinterpretation, I think the intent was to protect inactive controllers already on the roster from being subject to retesting after periods of inactivity. "New controllers" in the context of the line refers to controllers being added to the roster, again as I interpret the language.

 

This is in keeping with item #7, which provides for equitable treatment of both visiting and regular member controllers. Item #6 allows for a certification test, certainly reasonable to ensure knowledge of local procedures, and item #7 applies that requirement to both cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es of controller.

[Kristofer Pierson]

My only beef is that even though Craig has already said SOPs and LOAs aren't his concern the ZAU spin machine still wants to play it that way.

 

I find it highly disrespectful that you are characterizing the controllers at ZAU as a "spin machine". I think that the gentlemen at ZAU are perfectly in their right to question and seek discussion on this topic. However, whenever they try to make their point, thier detractors seem to only try and villanize them.

 

It is my understanding that one-on-one communications over this issue have occured, and the proper channels are being followed to *hopefully* resolve this issue. It would be nice if everyone just dialed down a bit. Reading the threads [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with this grievance has been very disheartening...mainly due to the blatent personal attacks. Just like Andrew Doubleday has said, "attack the issue, not the person" (I am paraphrasing). Wise advice from someone half your age, Richard.

 

KP

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

I find it highly disrespectful that you are characterizing the controllers at ZAU as a "spin machine". I think that the gentlemen at ZAU are perfectly in their right to question and seek discussion on this topic. However, whenever they try to make their point, thier detractors seem to only try and villanize them.

 

It is my understanding that one-on-one communications over this issue have occured, and the proper channels are being followed to *hopefully* resolve this issue. It would be nice if everyone just dialed down a bit. Reading the threads [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with this grievance has been very disheartening...mainly due to the blatent personal attacks. Just like Andrew Doubleday has said, "attack the issue, not the person" (I am paraphrasing). Wise advice from someone half your age, Richard.

 

I understand your point, but you're pulling his quote out of context. It was a very quick debate and solution, so just about everything you read now is going to seem silly. It was made at a time when the issue was pressed, even though the concern had already been addressed.

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

Tom,

 

I completely agree. Being certified to work center at ZLA doesn't give me any rights to work center at ZOA, but once I have the certification, they can't force me to take new tests that they might make up.

 

You are 100% correct that this specific clause was added to address a number of incidents where people were "forcing" controllers to take new tests for positions they were already certified for.

 

Great rule I think, and of course it applies to visitors too.

[Matthew Temple 880167]

Tom,

 

I completely agree. Being certified to work center at ZLA doesn't give me any rights to work center at ZOA, but once I have the certification, they can't force me to take new tests that they might make up.

 

You are 100% correct that this specific clause was added to address a number of incidents where people were "forcing" controllers to take new tests for positions they were already certified for.

 

Great rule I think, and of course it applies to visitors too.

 

Question for some to ponder and hopefully clear up for me....

 

What if I were to apply for a visiting controller at ZLA, for example, today. Then tomorrow Ian, in his amazing skills gets me proficient in local procedures all the way up to and including center. Then, life gets busy for me and I cannot get back to ZLA for quite some time, but in the meantime, ZLA has changed up their local procedures to an extent that I am now not a competent visiting controller, because I know the "old way".

 

Or, to throw another wrench into the issue, what if I am of the mindset that I've been around here a long long time, and therefore I am exempt from whatever updates some new hot-shot administration may decide to put in. Who cares if they think that it is best for the ARTCC, I've been here a long time and I know what is best even though I am a barely active member looking to get back to the old days.

 

I only bring these up as I have seen both types of issues. I am under the impression that the ARTCC staff CANNOT reduce the ratings (C3, C1, etc), but if it is demonstrated by a controller that they do not have the ability to function at the position level (CTR, APP, etc) with the current ARTCC requirements, that a controller can then be restricted from working such position until a time that they either learn the procedures, or as in the other case, learn the procedures.

 

I feel that if a controller is demonstrating practices that could present a bad image of the ARTCC to the rest of VATSIM, then yes, re-testing / certification should be required for such controllers.

 

True it is a hobby, but some of the stuff that I am witnessing with how well the ARTCCs are attempting to model their real world counterparts, requires more than a "hobby" attitude. The basics of flying an airplane may not change much (just applying logic, not a real world pilot), but with such turnover in the ARTCCs the procedures and the administrations goals tend to change quite frequently.

[Richard Green 810012]

Matt -

 

I would think that an ARTCC can restrict a person from controlling if they can't p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] an OTS and that USA3/USA1/NA1 would back up the TA at that ARTCC if the person can docomeent reasons for a failure.

 

ie.

Controller missed crossing restrictions on 8 planes:

USA3180

AAL214

PAA100

etc

 

Controller missed the SOP hand-off points to APP with:

USA3180

etc

 

I think the issue is docomeentation pure and simple.

 

A rating doesn't always = expereience and I will agree that if a controller can't p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] a SOP/OTS then a TA should be allowed to restirct a person to a lower position that they CAN p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the test at.

[Matthew Temple 880167]

Richard,

 

I would be game for that. My only issue is that I would like to see things like that spelled out very clear in VATSIM / VATNA policy. Sometimes reading this stuff, in my opinion, can have many different meanings, depending on who you ask.

[Richard Green 810012]

Thats the problem with the law and people writing legal-sounding things.

 

Intent almost always is lost in the translation from human to lawyer. (Sorry GSM no offense intended)

 

They say "The devil is in the details..." but what they don't say, is that in subparagraph 3, subsection 14, that all details must be signed in triplicate by the devil or a duley authroized demon listed in the aforementioned subsection before all details will be considered binding.

 

Lesson -

 

Don't judge the rules unitl you understand them, and if you have a question about them... ASK the person who wrote them...

 

Don't start 3 - 4 threads on the forums making bold/wild/etc statements.

Edited March 11, 2007 at 02:32 AM by Guest

[Stephen Keskitalo 977981]

Edit: I am sorry. I'm letting my personal problems affect my judgment.

 

I need to sort out my problems before I end up making any more aggressive postings.

[Matthew Temple 880167]

Looking back in time, is the point of view really flawed?

[Tracy Workman 918905]

let it die matt

[Matthew Temple 880167]

I would, but Jason and others have a valid point and it needs addressed. When that goal is completed, then it will die a natural death.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Or, maybe now.