Jump to content

Document Outlining What's going on VATNA


Recommended Posts

Please read the following. It is a docomeent that I wrote today that explains in detail the policies that Jason has been arguing about. It also outlines the problems and violations that Craig Merriman has done.

 

"Craig Merriman has violated 5 of 9 COR regulations relating directly to Regional Directors."

 

Read here (Correctly Formatted) : http://flyiso.com/petition.pdf

Sign here, if you feel this way: http://petitionspot.com/petitions/savevatna

 

If you're going to argue, for or against this, don't do it here. It's not the place. If you want to bash/flame me, please send me an email at atm at oakartcc.com .

"TF", ZMA

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you're going to argue, for or against this, don't do it here. It's not the place.

 

Not the place to discuss, but apparently the place to post? Sometimes I wonder...

 

You are aware that Craig is the head of he EC as well?

Lee Waldeck

 

XXX CTR: Are you equipped for the XXXX arrival?

NWA DC9: Negative, we are equipped for radar vectors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said argue. If you want to discuss this in an organized manner. Feel free, that's what forums are for. The problem is when people bring their personal feelings into something.

 

I'm well aware of that, and I'm also aware that the past 6 months of meeting's minutes for the EC haven't been posted on the VATSIM website.

"TF", ZMA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the most valid point in the petition is approving local policies. I would agree approving local policies

has traditionally been the job of the DD delegated to his local staff. And that still seems to be

the appropriate place to implement this.

 

But I would say Craig has the authority to set the 'standard' by which local regulations would be

approved. And right now there is no standard and that has been a problem for a long time IMO.

 

No doubt these changes will ruffle the feathers of local areas who before have had almost total autonomy

regarding the rules and regulations they made that have greatly impacted our membership.

 

As a former Chief/ATM I certainly can sympathize with opposition to these measures. When I held the position I disliked

anything regional or global policy that cut into my authority.

 

But some of those local regulations and policies have just gone too far and very much need to be reviewed.

 

We can quibble with the methods, and even quible with whether that's within his actual authority, but I believe Craig

is doing the right thing, and really its long overdo.

 

You have my full support Craig.

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston

Vatsim Supervisor.

alcsig1b.png
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ernie,

 

We can quibble with the methods, and even quible with whether that's within his actual authority, but I believe Craig

is doing the right thing, and really its long overdo.

 

It's not what he's doing, it's the way he and the rest of the EC are doing it. No planning or thought is going into these policies that are being voted in.

 

These are policies that affect every single controller in VATSIM and yet there wasn't even an attempt at commuication with any of us to explain or debate anything about them. It's just not good managment, pure and simple.

 

Now we seem to have a policy that has been voted in but doesn't actually have any text or substance to it yet. What exactly have they voted in? No one, not even the BoG knows!

 

As I said in another thread, no one seems to be against the intent of these policies, it's the application that sucks big ones. Please don't make this about sour grapes again, it's not, it's about bad managment.

 

Cheers!

Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are policies that affect every single controller in VATSIM and yet there wasn't even an attempt at commuication with any of us to explain or debate anything about them. It's just not good managment, pure and simple.

 

Paul,

 

I think that's a legitimate point, and the local ARTCC's have been as guilty of this as VATNA is.

 

Opening this up to public discussion is most definitely the right thing to do. If it can't hold up

to public scrutinty and debate then maybe it shouldn't be implemented.

 

Though I think considering the big picture, what Craig is doing is right, regardless of the implementation method.

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston

Vatsim Supervisor

alcsig1b.png
Link to post
Share on other sites

The BoG is aware that there are issues of concern going on in VATUSA/VATNA as well as similar issues in other regions. We are looking into it. That said, reducing this down to a debate over whether or not emails are on a site obscures what I understand to be the real point of contention -- the guidance coming down to ARTCC Center Chiefs with regards to member and visiting controller qualification, certification and currency.

 

This is being looked at by the BoG...not just for VATUSA but for all of VATSIM. That said, there are a number of ARTCCS/FIRS around the world that are violating the intent of VATSIM's leadership with regards to this issue. I think a big part of the problem is that there is not articulated guidance and things become open to interpretation...and that leads to misunderstandings and arguements. Especially when the guidance received from above doesn't match up with "what we have always done/how we have always operated." In at least SOME of these cases, this is because "what we have always done" is NOT in accordance with what the VATSIM leadership's intent has ALWAYS been...and now people are being called on it.

 

As I said, this problem goes far beyond VATUSA or VATNA and we are looking into it.

 

As far as the petition goes...knock yourselves out. Of course it means absolutely nothing and has no impact on VATSIM whatsoever, but whatever floats your boat. The issue is now on my scope and the rest of the BoG...but it would have been more productive and effective to simply email me or another member of the BoG with your concerns. Not a single peson in this thread or who has signed the petition has emailed me voicing any concerns about VATUSA/VATNA. Can't speak for the rest of the BoG, but I have a suspicion I know what the answer to that question is...

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

 

This morning I read the final draft of the EC Global Controller Ratings Policy and for the most part have no serious complaints about it. In due course this docomeent will be sent to the various facilities around the VATSIM world. Most of you will find there will be very little change to how you run your facility and it will generally be business as usual. The key thing here is that final implementation of the policy is not scheduled until January 1, 2008. This will give facility staff more than ample time to make adjustments as needed.

 

I have spoken with a few of you by email and phone and can [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ure you that we take your concerns seriously. Could the delivery of the policy been better? I don't think there is any argument that we could have done better. For that you have my sincerest apologies. That said, lets put away the ropes, there will not be any hangings today or tomorrow.

 

The key thing here is that the BoG and EC are extremely concerned about fairness to all members and rating portablity is a key issue concerning fairness. VATSIM has a place for just about anyone and we want to ensure that all members have the same opportunity as older members, and by ensuring that ratings are better defined and responsiblity for training standards are met in a universal manner, ensures everyone is on the same page, we will see many benefits to VATSIM.

 

If I can be of any further [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istance, please do not hesitate to contact me at president (a) vatsim.net

Richard Jenkins

richard(a)vatsim.net

"It's all fun and games until the cops show up."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have seen the drafts, and I have several questions. Most have been asked several times of our superiors, and the requests go unanswered.

 

How many copies of those emails would you like? Matt Temple, and Tom Ferry also asked for clarifications on our behalf. Yet again, they are ignored. Instead, we our told that our opinions do not matter. Yes, that email exists as well!

 

Question, since apparently they are only addressed here...

 

1) Why, if the policy is not to be implemented until Jan 08, does it have an effective date of 11 JUN 07?

 

2) Why is the EC releasing a policy, that they admit is full of holes?

 

Finally, on a personal note. What a fine statement to those members who took it upon themselves to effect change. To say the petition will have no effect does nothing but prove our concerns that if a group of people feel wronged we have no recourse to rectify the situation.

 

Jason Vodnansky

ZAU dATM

Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue is now on my scope and the rest of the BoG...but it would have been more productive and effective to simply email me or another member of the BoG with your concerns. Not a single peson in this thread or who has signed the petition has emailed me voicing any concerns about VATUSA/VATNA. Can't speak for the rest of the BoG, but I have a suspicion I know what the answer to that question is...

 

Dave

 

Dave,

 

At the last Division Staff meeting we had both a Founder and A BoG member present and we expressed our concern to them.

Andrew Rogers

Senior Controller -HCF

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it should be clear that I was invited to that meeting just to sit in as a p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive observer, and I came in on the tail end. I was at one point asked if I knew anything about any global rating standards that were about to be made policy, and I gave the truthful answer that I did not know of anything other than some draft proposal that the EC was working on. If you were lead to believe that my sitting in on the tail end of that meeting was any sort of official solicitation of concerns with the intention of those concerns being p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed on to the BoG for action, then you were mislead.

Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy

Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ross,

 

That's not entirely true. I was chatting to you during the meeting and I did specifically say to you that at least you were aware and that you could voice these concerns to the BoG if they were not aware of this feeling amongst the local staff. You did agree with me.

 

The point is you were invited in by me to make you(a BoG member) and a founder aware of these facts. What you did with those facts was entirely up to you, but I would hope, with the seriousness of the emotion during the meeting that it should have been brought up.

 

Cheers!

Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, you obviously read a lot more into our chats than I did. You presented it to me as your just wanting me to sit in and hear the concerns so that I'd have some understanding of the ATM/TA's side of the story, if and when these issues were officially discussed or voted on by the BoG.

 

If you review our IM chats as I just did, you'll see that it was quite informal.

 

If you or anyone else was hoping I would be your representative on the BoG, then it was very poorly handled and represented to me. At the very least I should not have been brought in after the meeting was already well underway. There is no way that the small portion of the meeting that I heard was enough information for me to make or follow through on any commitment to raise your case to the BoG.

 

Obviously this is just a case of miscommunication and differing interpretations. The bottom line is that my limited participation in that meeting should not in any way be counted as raising the concerns to the BoG.

Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy

Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ross,

 

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't about having a "representitive" on the BoG. It was, as you said informal. All that I asked was that you made yourself aware that there were "grumblings" in the camp and p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] that info through to the BoG. There was no expectation of actionable moves whatsoever, you know I wouldn't expect that from you. As you said, you joined in a good half way though the meeting. I wasn't expecting you to be fully briefed on exactly what was going on.

 

It wasn't about the specific concerns, just the fact that there were a lot of people unhappy and annoyed at the EC, that's all.

 

Hope that clarifies my position.

 

Cheers!

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good ... as long as it is clear that I made no commitment to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] anything on, and as long as nobody thinks that my sitting in on the tail end of that meeting constitutes "bringing these issues to the BoG" in any formal or recognizable manner, as Andrew hinted above. That simply isn't the case.

 

If it is going to be suggested that having a single BoG member listen to the tail end of a VATUSA meeting equates to formally raising concerns to the BoG, then in my mind that's no different than the accusations leveled at the EC regarding "handling it the wrong way." Sitting in on that meeting was good in that it gave me additional perspective on the issue which will better prepare me for when these issues are formally discussed among the BoG, but that's it.

 

As Dave Klain suggested, the right way to bring something to the BoG is through a detailed email to ALL BoG members.

Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy

Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ross,

 

Respectfully, and I do mean that, nowhere did Dave Klain suggest sending an email to ALL of the BoG. He stated that no one had emailed him.

 

However, you stated that in order to get anything in front of the BoG, that we now have to email ALL of the BoG.

 

Do you have the address where one can send an email, and have it forwarded to the members? I certainly can't believe that you just suggested that I send an email to each member.

 

Tell me I am mistaken, please.

 

Jason Vodnansky

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason,

 

As Vice president Communications, I would be more than happy to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] on an e-mail to the rest of the BoG if requested.

 

Ruth

VATGOV7

Ruth McTighe

Heathrow Director, Essex Radar, Thames Radar, London Information

[Mod - Happy Thoughts]t webmistress CIX VFR Club http://www.cixvfrclub.org.uk/

Webmistress Plan-G http://www.tasoftware.co.uk/

Now not a VATanything

Link to post
Share on other sites

As VP of Operations I am always available. I'm generally online a few nights per week and answer all emails within 24 hours of receiving them (although I sometimes go a few days without checking the email when on travel). Please feel free to email me and I will also take for action or p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] on to the BoG as appropriate.

 

I believe those members who have emailed me on issues will attest I have listened to their concerns, looked into the issues and gotten back to them, even if the answer wasn't what they wanted.

 

I also agree with Ruth. There is no need or requirement for you to email all members of the BoG. Emailing the relevant member should be enough. At the end of the day, I'm the guy responsible for the network's operations and the buck stops here.

 

all the best,

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ross,

 

Respectfully, and I do mean that, nowhere did Dave Klain suggest sending an email to ALL of the BoG. He stated that no one had emailed him.

 

Yeah, I didn't word that well. What David said was that no one had emailed him, and he suspects none of the other BoG members were emailed either. I mixed his recommendation with mine. His recommendation is to email a BoG member. My recommendation is that it would be much more effective to email them all. That way you know everyone will get it, instead of relying on a single person to forward your email to everyone.

 

However, you stated that in order to get anything in front of the BoG, that we now have to email ALL of the BoG.

 

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I don't really see any other effective way to let the entire BoG know about your concern. The forums certainly are not the right way, since not all BoG members read them. There is no form on the web site appropriate for this ... so to me, email is the way to go, and emailing all BoG members is certainly going to be more effective than emailing just one, IF your goal is to have the entire BoG made aware of your concerns.

 

If you are unwilling to address your email to all ten addresses listed on the website, then you can certainly just pick one and send it to that person, with the request that he/she forward it to the BoG mailing list. That's perfectly fine, it's just not what I would recommend.

 

Do you have the address where one can send an email, and have it forwarded to the members? I certainly can't believe that you just suggested that I send an email to each member.

 

Tell me I am mistaken, please.

 

I don't understand ... it's a simple matter to send an email and Cc: nine other addresses. I'm not trying to be mocking here ... I just don't see how that's asking a lot of you.

 

To my knowledge there is no single address that forwards to all the BoG members.

Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy

Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...