Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Referencing this thread...

 

Request for definitions

 

Jason wrote to every member of BoG as well as posting here

 

I'll copy my email reply to Jason.

 

Global

Global rules apply everywhere within VATSIM and may be created by either the VATSIM BoG, such as the CoC, CoR, User Agreement, Privacy Policy, Approved Software etc, or by the VATSIM Executive Committee, such as the ATIS policy, Transfer & Visiting Controller policy etc.

 

Local

A rule or policy that does not apply everywhere (globally) within VATSIM is deemed to be LOCAL; the extent or coverage depends on the signing authority and the purpose for which it is intended.

REF: CoR §3.05; (A)(1), A(2) and (B)(3) also CoC; C(1), C(2), C(6)

 

Regional

A local rule signed off by a Regional Director to take effect throughout his or her region.

REF: CoR §3.05 (A)(1), A(2) and (B)(3)

 

Divisional

A local rule signed off by a Division Director under authority delegated by the Regional Director to take effect within his or her division. The Division Director is accountable to the Regional Director for any such local rule or policy within his or her division.

REF: CoR §3.05 (A)(3), A(4) and (B)(6)

 

Note: From the above you can see that a person at a level lower than Division Director has no official recognition or standing within the VATSIM Code of Regulations. Such persons therefore cannot have authority delegated to them, nor can they [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume such authority. A person at a level lower than Division Director cannot create a local rule or policy. Only a Division Director or Regional director can create local rules.

 

Sub-Divisional

A person at a level lower than Division Director wishing to have a local rule or policy must present it to the Division Director in order for it to receive proper authorization and sign off before it can be implemented.

 

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM - VP Regions

 

I wish to specifically quote the following...

From the above you can see that a person at a level lower than Division Director has no official recognition or standing within the VATSIM Code of Regulations. Such persons therefore cannot have authority delegated to them, nor can they [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume such authority.

 

1) Does ANY position below that of "Division Director" actually exist?

 

2) If these positions exist, what purpose do they serve?

 

3) If the positions that currently exist below that of the "Division Director" can have no authority delegated to them, nor can they [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume any authority, how can those positions below that of the "Division Director" perform the functions that are listed in each position's job description as defined here.

 

Food for thought, I look forward to your comments.

 

Thanks,

Jason Vodnansky

810003

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sub-Divisional

A person at a level lower than Division Director wishing to have a local rule or policy must present it to the Division Director in order for it to receive proper authorization and sign off before it can be implemented.

 

I think the answer lies in this directive. I read this as the DD has the authority to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign authority at a sub-div level if they so desire, or they can micro manage every decision made at the lower levels. For example, I'd suspect the DD has "granted" authority to all policies from VATUSA1, and "granted" VATUSA1 the authority to have their staff create "sub-policies".

 

However, the DD still has the power of veto and can step in whenever/wherever they feel necessary.

 

That's my $.02.

Jeff Thomas

VP-IT

https://joinava.org

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have it exactly right...and a mountain is being made of a molehill. This is a common relationship in the real world as well. In my command I as the Commanding Officer am the only one empowered to institute policies and procedures for my command. Navy Regulations and U.S. Code, Title 10 say so. Does that mean that none of the 300+ people in my command can make any decisions or do anything? Of course not. What it does mean is that when they want to institute a policy, they run it up the chain of command for approval before implementing it... Same thing here. Just like in VATSIM, at the end of the day, I am the sole person legally responsible and accountable for what happens in my command or what the people in my command do. In much the same way, the Division Director is ultimately responsible for what happens in his/her division. If someone in the division is doing something unacceptable, the DD is the one held accountable. The policy as explained is a way of protecting the DD because policies will not be created or implemented without his/her knowledge and consent.

 

Again (and we've had this discussion numerous times over the last year) this is making a mountain out of a molehill. How hard is it for an ATM to send a quick email to the DD saying "I propose to do this"? One of three things should happen:

 

1. Email back saying "go for it."

2. Email back saying "great idea, I'm implementing it Division-wide"

3. Email back saying "don't do this...Reason why (which you may not have been aware of) is....XXX"

 

This is exactly how things work in the real world and the continuing resistance to this concept floors me. Again, the guidance is with regards to policies and rules...it does NOT mean the DD's approval is required for runway configurations or operational matters. What it does means is that policies and rules need to be run by the DD...and this is to ensure the proposed policy/rule does not contravene or conflict with overarching guidance. We have over 100 FIRS/ARTCCs on VATSIM. Getting all the chiefs on the same sheet of music has been impossible. Getting the (much) smaller number of DDs on the same sheet of music is achievable.

 

Bottom line -- this is the way it is. More than that, this is the way it has ALWAYS been on VATSIM since the CoR was written. The fact that some DD's did not [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ert their authority or hold their ATMS/FIR Chiefs accountable for following the rules is a moot point. It is because those DDs didn't do what they needed to do and (consequently) the FIR Chiefs/ATMS created rules/policies that did conflict with overarching VATSIM guidance that we stepped in and told people to start following the rules as written.

 

Just because lots of people don't follow the speed limit does NOT mean that the speed limit isn't valid and a police officer can't cite you and hold you accountable for failure to follow the speed limit. Same situation here -- the DD's are now enforcing a rule already on the books. Get over it.

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites
You have it exactly right...and a mountain is being made of a molehill. This is a common relationship in the real world as well. In my command I as the Commanding Officer am the only one empowered to institute policies and procedures for my command. Navy Regulations and U.S. Code, Title 10 say so. Does that mean that none of the 300+ people in my command can make any decisions or do anything? Of course not. What it does mean is that when they want to institute a policy, they run it up the chain of command for approval before implementing it... Same thing here. Just like in VATSIM, at the end of the day, I am the sole person legally responsible and accountable for what happens in my command or what the people in my command do. In much the same way, the Division Director is ultimately responsible for what happens in his/her division. If someone in the division is doing something unacceptable, the DD is the one held accountable. The policy as explained is a way of protecting the DD because policies will not be created or implemented without his/her knowledge and consent.

 

Again (and we've had this discussion numerous times over the last year) this is making a mountain out of a molehill. How hard is it for an ATM to send a quick email to the DD saying "I propose to do this"? One of three things should happen:

 

1. Email back saying "go for it."

2. Email back saying "great idea, I'm implementing it Division-wide"

3. Email back saying "don't do this...Reason why (which you may not have been aware of) is....XXX"

 

This is exactly how things work in the real world and the continuing resistance to this concept floors me. Again, the guidance is with regards to policies and rules...it does NOT mean the DD's approval is required for runway configurations or operational matters. What it does means is that policies and rules need to be run by the DD...and this is to ensure the proposed policy/rule does not contravene or conflict with overarching guidance. We have over 100 FIRS/ARTCCs on VATSIM. Getting all the chiefs on the same sheet of music has been impossible. Getting the (much) smaller number of DDs on the same sheet of music is achievable.

 

Bottom line -- this is the way it is. More than that, this is the way it has ALWAYS been on VATSIM since the CoR was written. The fact that some DD's did not [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ert their authority or hold their ATMS/FIR Chiefs accountable for following the rules is a moot point. It is because those DDs didn't do what they needed to do and (consequently) the FIR Chiefs/ATMS created rules/policies that did conflict with overarching VATSIM guidance that we stepped in and told people to start following the rules as written.

 

Just because lots of people don't follow the speed limit does NOT mean that the speed limit isn't valid and a police officer can't cite you and hold you accountable for failure to follow the speed limit. Same situation here -- the DD's are now enforcing a rule already on the books. Get over it.

 

Dave

 

Dave,

 

Get over what? I'm confused here. Since when is asking questions for clarification / information / curiosity considered "continuing resistance"? The questions seem valid enough to warrant a member who has rights to access the forum to ask. Weather you or anyone else chooses to answer them is up to you.

 

Using your speed limit example....

 

If I were to stop on the side of the highway and ask a police officer what the speed limit was in that particular area because the sign is very dirty and unreadable, would he be in the right to think that I was "continuing to resist", or as others would say, "p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ivley resisting"?

 

Just because I may drive a red corvette does not mean I'm guilty of speeding, nor just because I happen to have a certain name does that mean I am nor will I be resisting.

 

Questioning someone does not mean that they are going to disobey. Maybe they want to make sure they completely understand the issue. Not everyone in this world has a genius level IQ and some are slower than others.

 

My new quote....

 

"Attack the post, not the poster"

 

Which, by the way I think you answered the three questions very well.

Matthew Temple

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,

 

1) Roland's post states specifically that the DD may NOT delegate authority, while your post suggests that you can delegate authority. I am confused, which is it?

 

2) You stated that you are the sole person responsible for your command. I get it, I totally understand it. It makes perfect sense to me, AND I HAVE no problem with that. Since you compared this to real life, allow me to ask the following.

 

Do you see EVERYTHING that happens in your command, or do you have people that you have delegated responsibilities to?

 

For example, at VQ-4, when I requested 72 hour liberty, the request only went to the Division Chief for approval. It never got to the C.O. Of course, the C.O. was responsible for that decision as it was her squadron. So responsibility was delegated to a lower level, so as to allow the C.O. to concentrate on "big picture" stuff. Do I have this correct?

 

Again, I have no issue with the DD being responsible for the division. I have a huge problem with the DD not being allowed to have a staff.

 

How would I change it...

 

Amend the CoR and/or CoC, to state something along the lines of...

 

"It is understood that the Division Director is ultimately responsible for their division, however, it should be noted that that responsibility may be delegated to any staff member that the Division Director desires."

 

With that simple sentence comes the complete authority to create any staff the DD desires, while still holding the DD responsible and accountable for the lower staff's decisions.

 

To my knowledge, this is STILL a discussion.

Thanks,

Jason Vodnansky

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason,

 

To answer your questions, nowhere did I say the DD can delegate the authority for approving policies/rules. Nor did I say Ican delegate that authority (I can't). I am the only person (as was your CO) who can sign an instruction for the command. I can delegate operational decision-making to my subordinates as long as they do so within the constraints of the guidance I give. In other words, (just like your CO) I could delegate the authority to approve a 72 special liberty chit...but I cannot delegate the authority to create the policy that IS a 72 hour special liberty chit. As matter of fact, I can't even do that -- a 72 hour special liberty is defined by Navy regs.

 

To take this back to VATSIM, the DD can delegate operational decision making and procedures down to a lower level (and should), but when it comes to approving policies, he cannot delegate that...said authority rests with him.

 

I do not view what I wrote as in conflict with what Roland said. If you drew that conclusion, clearly I was imprecise in my explanation. My apologies if I created the impression what I was saying was different from what Roland wrote.

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not all get so caught up in the politics that we forget what I hope we are all here to do... fly and control!

 

Not once in 10 or so years since I joined SATCO have I felt that my privilege of controlling or flying has been restricted unreasonably. I may have lost a few bucks in the SATCO funding scheme but that spilled milk has long since been mopped up. Since then I have no grievance that has caused me to question the big-picture of VATSIM.

 

I've been trying to follow this line of questioning for some time and can't find the real "beef" behind it all. In what real way has the prohibition against the DDs appointing a staff affected your enjoyment of VATSIM? The chess-players still gets crazy traffic last I checked and there seem to be plenty of controllers online there as well. Forgive me if I missed the thread that explained it all... link would be appreciated!

 

The above are strictly my personal opinions only! I do not speak on behalf of anyone besides myself here!

 

Respectfully,

 

Steve Perry

Content SATCO/VATSIM member from the very beginning

Steven Perry

VATSIM Supervisor

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave,

1) Roland's post states specifically that the DD may NOT delegate authority, while your post suggests that you can delegate authority. I am confused, which is it?

 

2) You stated that you are the sole person responsible for your command. I get it, I totally understand it. It makes perfect sense to me, AND I HAVE no problem with that. Since you compared this to real life, allow me to ask the following.

 

Do you see EVERYTHING that happens in your command, or do you have people that you have delegated responsibilities to?

 

Jason,

 

The word *delegate* is being used as a verb; “to transfer power and authority to someone."

 

There is provision in the CoR for BoG to delegate power and authority to a Regional Director. There is provision in the CoR for a Regional Director to delegate power and authority to a Division Director. There is NO provision in CoR for a Division Director to delegate power and authority to a person at a level lower than Division Director. It is quite clear.

 

This does not mean that a Division Director cannot trust a staff member with certain *duties* and *responsibilities* however, these are carried out WITHOUT the person having the power and authority transferred to them. The power and authority still rests with the Division Director and those tasked with *duties* and *responsibilities* are accountability to the Division Director.

 

The Division Director must sign off on the rules and policies that empower others to perform their tasks. They cannot sign off on it themselves.

 

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM - VP Regions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

This is an interesting topic.

 

One question though in relation to the points brought up.

 

Since the only person with any "power" delegated to them is the DD and everyone below him only has responsibilities and duties does that mean as Instructors or as an ATM we cannot actually promote anyone? Or when we "Promote" a student, is it just a promotion request that is forwarded to the DD who then makes the descision and then manually promotes the student?

 

My point would be that if the promotion system is automated so that the DD doesn't have to review every promotion before granting it, technically the DD is granting the INS/ATM with the power to promote a controller which by the sounds of it here is in violation of the CoR.

 

Could someone clarify this for me?

 

Cheers!

Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

 

Again the CoR is quite clear. The authority which cannot be delegated below the DD level is making policies and rules (or actually APPROVING policies and rules). There are plenty of things that people below the DD have the authority to do...operational procedures, promotions, etc.

 

Issue that has some people spun up is the fact that the ATMs have been told they no longer have the authority to create policies and rules and implement them without getting approval from the DD. That's it.

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,

 

In my particular case, that is NOT the issue.

 

Some issues that I have are...

 

1) Policies being made that contradict each other

2) Policies being made that appear to have no regard for unintended consequences.

3) No communications to those whom the policies affect, thus giving them no chance to see what impact to current projects said new policies will have

4) No responses to questions about such policies in an attempt to understand how they will work.

5) No notice that a policy exists, or was recently adopted.

 

Those are a select number of issues that I personally have. I am certain there are others that have differing issues. There are also numerous examples of these issues.

 

My last question still stands regarding hierarchy.

 

Thank you,

Jason Vodnansky

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave,

 

Again the CoR is quite clear

With all due respect, it actually isn't that clear. I only came across a couple of mentions of promotion(advancement) in the CoR :

 

§1.01 Membership

H. Advancement: Members of VATSIM.net are encouraged to apply and test for

advancement of their rating. The rules and requirements for application, testing and

advancement are to be determined and adopted by the various divisional directors,

regional directors and ARTCC/FIR chiefs, subject to the general guidelines adopted

by the VATSIM.net Board of Governors.

 

 

§3.05 Executive Committee – Authority and Duties of Regional Directors

B.

3. Creation of Uniform Rules Within a Region: A Regional Director is vested

with the authority to develop uniform, general rules for conduct of operations

within his or her region. These general rules should be broad in nature and are

subject to the provisions of Article III., §3.05 (B)(4) below. This authority

would include, but is not limited to, establishment of rules for the creation and

maintenance of websites by divisions, establishment of procedures for

reporting promotions within a division and establishment of procedures for

reporting and implementing suspensions and expulsions of members for

violation any of the rules of VATSIM.net. Any such uniform rules must not

be in variance with any section of the Code of Regulations.

6. 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. However, absent any showing of abuse of discretion in the exercise

of this authority, the decisions made by a head of a division within a region

shall not be modified or overturned by the Regional Director.

 

 

§3.07 Executive Committee – Access to VATSIM Ratings File and Member Database

A Regional Director may, in the sole discretion of the VATSIM Board of Governors, be

permitted to have access to the VATSIM Ratings File and Member Database. Such

access shall be limited to those portions of the VATSIM Ratings File and Member

Database which relate to the particular region which a Regional Director heads. A

Regional Director shall access the VATSIM Ratings File and Member Database for

purposes of promotion of the rating of a member of a division which is in his or her

region and for any other purpose which may be authorized by the VATSIM Board of

Governors.

Access to the VATSIM Ratings File and Member Database is restricted solely to the

Regional Director. The ability and/or right to access the VATSIM Ratings File and

Member Database may not be transferred or otherwise given to any other person or

entity. A Regional Director may not allow a staff [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istant to access the VATSIM

Ratings File and Member Database unless said Regional Director has first received the

approval of the VATSIM Board of Governors.

 

1.01 tells me that the RD, DD and ATMs can determine the rules and requirements for testing and promotion. Ironically, this means that sub-divisional staff do have a mention in the CoR and do have authority delegated to them to at least create their own training and testing programs, albeit within the guidlines of the BoG. However, it doesn't mention anything about the delegation of authority to physically promote a member.

 

3.07 Tells me that the RD and only other people approved by the BoG may access the members ratings file and database for the purpose of promotions.

 

3.05(3) Only mentions that the RD must establish a method of reporting promotions within a division.

 

3.05(6) Now, this states that the RD can delegate authority to a DD to manage the day to day running of the division. I would [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that controller promotions would fall under the day to day running of a division? Therefore, the only person in the CoR within the divisional level that has the authority to promote a controller is the DD.

 

This is where my question stemmed from as it is not entirely clear whether ATM/INS can actually promote a controller without falling foul of the CoR since the CoRs only mention of who is delegated the authority of promoting someone is the DD(in my [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption). I know I haven't been given specific BoG approval to promote a controller.

 

Issue that has some people spun up is the fact that the ATMs have been told they no longer have the authority to create policies and rules and implement them without getting approval from the DD. That's it.

 

Again, with all due respect, I don't think it's as simple or black and white as that. I know that is not my issue at all. My issue is simply being able to maintain a standard of controlling ability within my ARTCC and I've noticed some worrying trends that could affect that. I also have concerns with the management on the regional/EC level. I have stated these in previous threads and Jason pretty much matches my concerns with his post above mine in relation to this.

 

Finally, I have concerns about the 50 shades of grey that seem to be within the CoR and other policy docomeentation available to us and the lack of transparency coming from the hierarchical structure within VATSIM. This lack of clarity within such important docomeents leaves a lot of room for interpretation that can either benefit or degrade someones position depending on a point of view. We also have a system where the sub-divisional level of membership seems to be completely left in the dark about future policy and plans so none of us really know where VATSIM is heading. I won't go into specifics now(this post has been long enough), but will later on, if you would like me to.

 

Please see this as constructive discussion rather than destructive. These are my concerns and I believe them to be valid.

 

Cheers!

Paul.

 

[edit for additional info]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason et al,

 

Judicial systems are typically pyramid shaped. At the top are the "Parliamentary Acts" or the "Constitution". These set out the power and authority to create courts, appoint judges, create laws etc. Much lower down you get the more detailed rules that stem from the authority granted higher up in the pyramid structure. It is a strict structure with regulation of power and authority, has accountabilities, and provides checks and balances to make it failsafe. I've greatly simplified it but I'm sure that you get the picture.

 

Our pyramid is VATSIM CoR, which establishes the power and authority, sets forth the Regions, Divisions, regulations etc, and establishes the two-tier system of rules; global and local.

 

Despite what you may think, VATSIM does not have a lot of rules. Most VATSIM rules are there mainly to protect and preserve the network, regulate on-line behaviour and to protect the rights of individuals.

 

With such few overarching rules you have to look at these in conjunction with the *spirit* of an organization in order to get the true flavor. For example, consider the rules that relate to controllers; those with a rating of Student or higher. There are very few rules for controllers in the VATSIM Code of Conduct.

 

A.10 – Details that VATSIM is a learning environment therefore pilots and controllers should cut each other a considerable amount slack. This clearly establishes that VATSIM is more about participation and learning rather than perfection before commencement.

 

C.1 – States the need for a controller to become familiar with the airspace in which he or she operates and establishes the need for study.

 

C.2 – Establishes the VATSIM desire for controllers to be flexible and dictates the need to follow local rules when away from HOME.

 

C.3 – States that observers are not permitted to provide any air traffic service.

 

C.4 – Sets out the need for controllers to use a proper callsign.

 

C.5 – Sets out the principle of filling ATC positions on a “first comeâ€

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

In the past 2-3 years I have encountered local rules that:

 

Make it difficult for a member to become ATC.

Establish entry standards for ATC that are excessive for a hobby environment.

Prevent a member with a Student rating from being able to control.

Require a controller to have a certain rating and p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] a test before being able to use voice (Pre C.10).

Require 500 hours of ATC before being awarded a Controller (C1) rating.

Excessively restrict controller positions.

Restrict the movement of controllers; either to or from a facility.

Prohibit or restrict visiting controllers.

Limit a visiting controller to a 3-month period.

Apply a blanket policy to strip the rating of a transferee with no regard for competency.

Remove or lower a controller rating without just cause.

Etc

 

The interesting thing about these local rules is that if you asked a ARTCC or FIR leader about

these local rules they would vigorously insist that they were being completely fair and reasonable and

that everyone was happy with the policies.

 

Even in some cases when it was clearly apparent from an outside observer that was not the case.

 

You can indeed get so caught up in your local goals, desires and objectives that you no longer can see

the effect they are having on the overall organization (ie the big picture).

 

A statement from Paul I found very interesting...

 

My issue is simply being able to maintain a standard of controlling ability within my ARTCC

 

And that in some ways was part of the underlying problem. Nobody ever established a baseline standard.

There was really no limit how high you could make your standard. If the ATM wanted to be exactly like the .65 in every way there was really nothing to stop him.

 

One effect of having different individual controlling standards has been the failure of some ARTCC's to

recognize the ratings earned in another ARTCC. Because the standards in each ARTCC were different, the ratings earned by visitors and transferee's in many cases could not be trusted by their new ARTCC.

 

Thus the ARTCC's have spent an in-ordinate amount of time training and re-training people to in effect

re-earn the same controlling privileges in their new ARTCC that they had already earned in their previous

ARTCC.

 

A real waste of already limited training resources IMO.

 

 

What is happening now is really a 'long overdue' policy adjustment to bring the local goals and objectives

more in-line (or in-synch) with the Vatsim's or the Divisions goals and objectives.

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston.

alcsig1b.png
Link to post
Share on other sites

After pouring through this thread for the past days (like someone observing a train wreck), this thread and others like it are finally starting to make some sense to me.

 

Thanks to Roland and Ernie for the extremely well written and informative explanations. I applaud your efforts!

 

John Chambers

ZAN C1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the many different qualifications from each ARTCC due to the difficulty and number of Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B/C airports in these ARTCC + regular traffic levels?

 

When a controller transfers or visits a new ARTCC, say as a C-3, there are still local procedures (SIDS, STARS) that are unfamiliar to the new controller.

 

Why does not VATUSA create a blanket policy on # of hours required for the next level?? (ok, i am a Federalist).

 

When a ARTCC creates policies and procedures for each position, then the Regional Deputy Air Traffic Director must approve those before posting and where the ATM can then expect and enforce compliance as well as use for advancement training?

 

One can delegate authority , but not the responsibility...so who (or at what level) has responsibility for ARTCC policies/SOPs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic knowledge and skill set for a particular type of Air Traffic Service, Tower for example, is the same no matter where it is carried out. As ernie intimated, the wide variation in local rules has come about largely because no guidance has ever been provided.

 

This is being addressed with the various changes that are in progress.

 

The Global Standards for ATC is based on the core competencies for the three real world Air Traffic Services:

 

Local = Tower

TMA = Approach radar

Enroute = Centre

 

I have prepared a complete set of basic competencies for each type and these will be made available though the VATSIM Executive Committe when I return home next week.

 

The implementation of the Global Standards for ATC allows for a two-tier model of locations; minor or major. Typically a major location would be an ARTCC central location in the USA airspace model. It may differ elsewhere.

 

A controller awarded a new rating, TWR, APP or CTR, would be able to immediately commence delivering their service at a minor location. To operate at a major location requires completion of a local familiarization package for that particular major location and being signed off as competent by local training staff.

 

To accompany the rating competencies it may be desireable to establish guidelines in relation to restrictions that affect controller progress. These should be kept to an absolute minimum since competency-based [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment should be the key to advancement; you are signed off when you can do the job and not on how long you have been doing the previous task.

 

I trust that this helps folk better understand the competency-based model for rating and progression.

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM - VP Regions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roland,

 

Why is this new "Global Standards" policy being implimented? Is there something so wrong with the current system in which we have to renovate it?

UND ATC Major

ZAU MS

GO FIGHTING SIOUX

"Success isn't really a result of spontaneous combustions. You must set yourselfs on fire."

-Arnold H. Glasow

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marko,

 

The answer is "yes" the current system is completely out of whack. We have

  • places where controllers are not allowed to even work clearance delivery without 25 hours OTS training by another controller.
  • places where a person becomes a C3 within a few weeks of becoming a controller and is barely able to work ASRC/VRC.
  • Places where standards have been created at the ARTCC/FIR level that actually exceed real-world knowledge standards.
  • Places where the local ARTCC staff have created standards that are so difficult that no controller can meet them and the only people approved to work the center positions are the ARTCC staff and their friends (read members of their clique).
  • Places where there is basically NO ARTCC coverage (based on VATSIM data records) because no one is qualified to control there or no one WANTS to control there because of the actions of the ARTCC staff.
  • Places where people can't get promoted because there are NO or only a couple of instructors and the wait for an OTS session is OVER six months.

All of these are problems...and they are the result of policies/rules created at the ARTCC/FIR level that are NOT in consonance with the spirit and intent of the VATSIM COR. As a result, the BoG asked the EC to look into a way to address this issue and the EC came up with a set of global standards.

 

To use an example, when a controller at Chicago ARTCC meets the minimum standards to work tower, he would be able to work tower at the minor faciliities (read Green Bay, Milwaukee, Rockford, Gary, etc.). The ARTCC could require him to demonstrate knowledge of the procedures for O'Hare before working that since it is a major airport and he could disrupt VATSIM operations working O'Hare without the knowledge. The new global policy allows him to qualify as Tower and work Tower with a basic level of knowledge. Same goes for qualifying Approach -- he could work Green Bay, Milwaukee, Rockford, Madison, etc. when he meets the initial qualification standards. That lets him/her work approach and learn how to do it in a smaller, less difficult environment and then learn how to work approach by DOING (the best way to learn) before ultimately being qualified to work Chicago approach.

 

Bottom Line: There were places in VATSIM (and this happened at various places around the world, not just any one Division or Region) that were WAAY out of whack from the BoG's perspective. The EC has worked hard to develop a policy that will rectify the situation...and the various Regions, Divisions and FIRs/ARTCCs will have around six months to transition to the new scheme.

 

Dave

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...