vZAU ARTCC

[Alex Goldstein 857161]

Just wanted to let you guys know that after many weeks of hard work by Andrew Miller, there is a completely renovated Chicago ARTCC website. This new website includes the lastest PHP technologies to make it easier to update by staff members and easier to maintain. We also have a new Pilot Feedback page for pilots to let us know how we are doing. Check it out at www.vzauartcc.org ! Thanks!

[Ethan Stein 890841]

Looks awesome!

[Ross Carlson]

Nice work!

[Andre Koch 852831]

Hi Alex,

 

looks great, but there is something that caught my eye. In the top right corner it says "upcomming events". Now, english is not my native tongue, so I may be wrong about this, but isn´t that one "m" too many? I don´t have a dictionary here so I can´t verify it, but just by looking at the word it kind of looks wrong, if you know what I mean.

[Andrew Miller 873677]

Hi Alex,

 

looks great, but there is something that caught my eye. In the top right corner it says "upcomming events". Now, english is not my native tongue, so I may be wrong about this, but isn´t that one "m" too many? I don´t have a dictionary here so I can´t verify it, but just by looking at the word it kind of looks wrong, if you know what I mean.

Andre thanks for pointing that out, I never would have realized that. That'll have to be fixed.

[Justin Wilcox 882814]

Looks good guys! Fantastic job up there.

[Ethan Stein 890841]

Now if only you guys would open up to guest controllers

[Josh Hjemvick 811983]

Well well. . . you guys sure have stepped up the ball. Great job getting out from under the old, old, old legacy website of many years. Job well done!

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

Now if only you guys would open up to guest controllers

 

Actually Ethan - As a VATUSA C1 you are qualified to work Chicago Approach as long as you are familiar with their local procedures.

 

I hate to open this can of worms but no one at VATUSA is enforcing their own policies and this specific one hits close to home as I was part of VATUSA when it was originally drafted based on some direction from the BoG (and thus understand its intent). Plus it has really been bugging me since day one. This post is not really directed towards the Chicago ARTCC - they are merely being used as an example. This message is intended to be a WAKE UP call to VATUSA HQ.

 

The "no visitors" policy at Chicago (and at some other ARTCC's) is completely out of line with the VATUSA policies.

 

Certain positions are not suitable for training new controllers. In addition, knowledge of local procedures is necessary in complex traffic flows, and especially during busy periods. There have been a few cases where trainees have logged on to a complex position without first learning basic ATC procedures. In other cases, experienced visiting controllers have logged on without first becoming sufficiently knowledgeable of a new area and their local procedures. This can be especially frustrating during busy traffic periods. It is not reasonable for a controller to expect on-the-spot training under such circomestances.

 

Each ARTCC, as an option, may publish restrictions for specific control positions. These restrictions and any subsequent amendments must be approved in advance by the responsible [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istant Director.

 

For example, restrictions could:

- require a minimum controller rating

- be effective at certain times

- require a certification test

- be effective only during "fly ins"

- be any other reasonable restriction.

 

Any restrictions must be applied equally to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned members of that ARTCC and visiting controllers from other ARTCCs or divisions. ARTCC membership must not be a consideration in defining or enforcing restrictions.

 

Scheduled training or testing should be made available when appropriate.

 

Procedures shouldbe well-defined and published.

 

A supervisor, ARTCC Chief, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istant Chief, or VATUSA Instructor may notify the controller if it becomes apparent that local procedures are not being followed or specific position requirements have not been met. No other ARTCC members should confront a trainee or visiting controller. The controller can be asked to vacate the restricted position, but in any case should be informed of where procedures and position restrictions are published.

 

If certification testing is required, a list of certified controllers should be maintained on the ARTCC website.

 

Online testing shall only apply to new controllers/new promotions.

 

Controllers who had been authorised 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.

 

Two things to consider:

 

A) Any restrictions must be applied equally to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned members of that ARTCC and visiting controllers from other ARTCCs or divisions. ARTCC membership must not be a consideration in defining or enforcing restrictions.

 

Basically - you CAN NOT restrict any VATUSA controller by saying "visitors can't do this or that". You must apply position restrictions equally to EVERY VATUSA controller - regardless of if they are a visitor or not.

 

Thus - If you are required to be a C1 and p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the VATUSA C1 exam in order to work Approach. Then that applies to EVERY C1 in VATUSA. If you require a written local procedures examination, a rating of S1, and an over the shoulder examination (with published standards) to work Delivery, then an I3 from BlaBla ARTCC has to take the written and p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the Over the shoulder to work Delivery.

 

Since Chicago's position restrictions state that to work Approach you need to be a C1 - that means any valid C1 with FULL knowledge of local policies and SOP is qualified to work approach (it also means that you yield to members from the home ARTCC that want to plug into that position).

 

B) Controllers who had been authorised 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.

 

This is the famous "grandfather clause". It means that once you are certified to work ABC position in ARTCC XYZ. They can't force you to take a special currency examination (they could of course ask you to do so and if you are an actual controller of any quality you will agree).

 

Anyone familiar with the "ZLA Civil War" of 2002 will understand why and how this clause in the policy came into effect. For those of you who do not remember - new examinations were put in place across the board for specific positions. The exams were tough but fair and for myself a challenge to prove that I was still current and on top of things. Almost all of the senior controllers took the exams (including the entire staff). A small handful of controllers refused to take the exam on principle. Although I personally disagreed with their decision, they had a valid argument and they stuck with it. A m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive cycle of [Mod - lovely stuff] ensued which escalated until it completely spun out of control. Many people were hurt by it, some were driven away from the hobby, some were even forcibly driven OUT of the hobby (permanent ban), and most importantly friendships were ended.

 

This policy was a direct result of the incident and was partially drafted by our friend on the Board of Governers who were pretty upset (not mad - upset) to see the "spirit" of Vatsim completely missed.

 

I don't know if you were ever certified for any position at Chicago, I know that I was on the publically posted list of certified approach controllers (for years) available on the Chicago website. This should mean that I'm still certified to work the position.

 

-------------

 

The whole point of these restrictions are to allow ARTCC's protection from people who do not understand local procedures and are pure traffic chasers/$h1t disturbers while at the same time allowing controllers in VATUSA the ability to control in different areas without being shut out by ARTCC's with ridiculous visiting controller policies.

 

I completely understand that ZAU has been working their butts off to rebrand, resectorize, and rebuild an ARTCC (with 100% of my support which has been well docomeented in public) that suffered under the previous "regime" of control (could not think of a better word), but to go against such an important policy without being challenged by ANYONE at all and especially by the VATUSA HQ who's responsibility it is to uphold and enforce their own policies (absolutely ridiculous) is something I could no longer hold off on.

 

VATUSA - enforce your policies. It's someone's job up there to review the SOP and policies. Either no one ever reviewed these or they simply don't know their own policies. This one NEVER would have seen the light of day on my watch.

 

There's a few other centers out there with "no visitors" policies. Time to get rid of those too. Time to clean up the mess boys.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Ian Elchitz

[Craig Moulton]

Interesting post Ian!

[Justin Wilcox 882814]

Before this goes on and people start posting long replies to this whole bit, I'd like to high light one item:

 

This post is not really directed towards the Chicago ARTCC - they are merely being used as an example. This message is intended to be a WAKE UP call to VATUSA HQ.

 

This is an example, not pointed at ZAU. Any posts should be directed at VATUSA and not the ZAU staff.

[Josh Hjemvick 811983]

The ZLA civil war of 02' . . . nice touch IE

[Jason Harris 877712]

I agree with Craig, very interesting and eye openning post Ian. What are the chances we will get an official response to this from the VATUSA admins (not that they don't want to, but more do they read this and feel it's important enough to respond too?)??

[Ethan Stein 890841]

Don't want to cause problems - if they need more time working with their native controllers, I have no problem with that and I don't see why anyone else should. Besides, I'm not a C-1 yet

[Mark Zameda 810257]

I'll make one response to this topic, being the creator of the "no visiting controller" policy at ZAU.

 

The moment I took the Chief position, I told VATUSA that in order to try to change things for the better, we had to work from within. Anyone who's done any type of restructuring of an organization can tell you that this is impossible if there are outsiders coming in and doing things "the old way." These policies were approved by VATUSA before they were posted on the forums or on the Chicago ARTCC website.

 

Why do I enforce the no visiting controller policy? Simple. We're introducing so many new things to these poor controllers at ZAU, that unfortunately it may seem like we are bombarding them with information. Top that with the fact that out of 30+ active controllers we currently have 2 active instructors, and we just signed on two mentors last week. I am more concerned with making sure the ZAU controllers can work traffic effectively within their home sector than I am with appeasing those who wish to come and join us. Mind you, I love seeing new people, but a reconstructive period is not the time or the place to introduce a visitor.

 

Will the policy change for us? Of course, and very soon (most likely by the end of the month). But it won't change until we have some sort of testing procedure set up for our local controllers, and a method of testing those who wish to become visiting controllers.

 

Ian, in regard to the VATUSA clause that grandfathers old controllers in, would you seriously object to taking at least a written test to show that you have read the new procedures for working C90?

 

I apologize if this sounds like a rant, I understand ZAU is not being subjected to the spotlight. I however wish to explain why such a drastic measure was necessary.

 

Mark Zameda

Chief - Chicago ARTCC

[Jason Harris 877712]

I'll make one response to this topic, being the creator of the "no visiting controller" policy at ZAU.

 

The moment I took the Chief position, I told VATUSA that in order to try to change things for the better, we had to work from within. Anyone who's done any type of restructuring of an organization can tell you that this is impossible if there are outsiders coming in and doing things "the old way." These policies were approved by VATUSA before they were posted on the forums or on the Chicago ARTCC website.

 

Why do I enforce the no visiting controller policy? Simple. We're introducing so many new things to these poor controllers at ZAU, that unfortunately it may seem like we are bombarding them with information. Top that with the fact that out of 30+ active controllers we currently have 2 active instructors, and we just signed on two mentors last week. I am more concerned with making sure the ZAU controllers can work traffic effectively within their home sector than I am with appeasing those who wish to come and join us. Mind you, I love seeing new people, but a reconstructive period is not the time or the place to introduce a visitor.

 

Will the policy change for us? Of course, and very soon (most likely by the end of the month). But it won't change until we have some sort of testing procedure set up for our local controllers, and a method of testing those who wish to become visiting controllers.

 

Ian, in regard to the VATUSA clause that grandfathers old controllers in, would you seriously object to taking at least a written test to show that you have read the new procedures for working C90?

 

I apologize if this sounds like a rant, I understand ZAU is not being subjected to the spotlight. I however wish to explain why such a drastic measure was necessary.

 

Mark Zameda

Chief - Chicago ARTCC

 

Of course the question isn't WHY you are doing it (or other ARTCC for that matter); but whether IF it is permissible to do. If the rule should be intrepreted the way Ian has presented it, then as long as a visiting controller obeys the same SOP's and regulations you require "roster" controllers to, then they should be able to controll at ZAU or ZMP, etc, with no h[Mod - Happy Thoughts]le.

 

Again, I understand your reasoning (and am in almost full agreement with why). I would just like to get VATUSA's opinion on how that rule is to be intrepreted and, more importantly, enforced.

 

No attack on ZAU. Mark, you and the rest of the guys are doing a heck of job rebuilding the ARTCC. Keep it up

[Logan Gloss-Ivory 812647]

The moment I took the Chief position, I told VATUSA that in order to try to change things for the better, we had to work from within.

whether IF it is permissible to do. If the rule should be intrepreted the way Ian has presented it, then as long as a visiting controller obeys the same SOP's and regulations you require "roster" controllers to, then they should be able to controll at ZAU or ZMP, etc, with no h[Mod - Happy Thoughts]le.

 

Just as an objective observer to this discussion, since Mark informed VATUSA HQ about this BEFORE starting the rule, wouldn't that make VATUSA HQ responsible for announcing a descision?

 

I feel one should have been made so that way we would have known that VATUSA HQ did in fact allow a temporary exception or denied it.

 

The question is a valid point however, is it within the ARTCC guidelines and also after this is resolved, what we as A DIVISION need to do to correct this problem so that there are no more future occurances. Would VATUSA want to explore a waiver system and if so what are the guidelines/proceedures to conduct a meeting to consider a waiver...

 

Like I said just an idea from an objective observer.

 

-Logan

[Greg Phelan 810114]

Ian,

 

A well-articulated and well-reasoned post.

 

I would think, however, that during a time of a m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive amount of re-structuring and new policy generation, you wouldn't want to have new people coming in, who have to not only know their own system of doing things (for their home ARTCC), the old Chicago ARTCC (or any other ARTCC) polities/procedures, and the new policies/procedures.

 

In the VATUSA policy you quoted, it says in part, " Scheduled training or testing should be made available when appropriate ". In this case, the testing is under development, and therefore it would not necessarily be appropriate to be giving (non-existant) testing to new controllers. Providing something in the interim to existing controllers would be appropriate, as it is a requirement for their home controllers to know what is going on, lest the reputation of the ARTCC drop.

 

As far as the grandfather clause, there is at least one way around that - call it a new "position". For example, when you guys out in ZLA re-organized your airspace into the TRACON system you have now (didn't it used to be more airport-specific? It's been a while, and it's a long view to sunny California from up here in Winter-Peg!), somebody qualified on "LAX Approach" might not be automatically certified in the surrounding TRACON - they are certified to operate a non-existant position.

 

An ARTCC (well, FIR in my case) re-organization means growing pains - some people like the status quo, others like reasoned change. In making radical changes operationally, there will end up being rules bent slightly - I can think of a few examples real-world which would back that up. If these specific VATUSA policies were to be followed to the letter (and in spirit), then the transition might never finish. I hate trying to use the argument, "The ends justify the means", but sometimes, that's what's got to happen.

 

Greg Phelan

Former Edmonton FIR Chief - now a happy low-level drone

[J Jason Vodnansky 810003]

There is nothing written that says a chief must allow visiting controllers. The policy states...

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certain positions are not suitable for training new controllers. In addition, knowledge of local procedures is necessary in complex traffic flows, and especially during busy periods. There have been a few cases where trainees have logged on to a complex position without first learning basic ATC procedures. In other cases, experienced visiting controllers have logged on without first becoming sufficiently knowledgeable of a new area and their local procedures. This can be especially frustrating during busy traffic periods. It is not reasonable for a controller to expect on-the-spot training under such circomestances.

Each ARTCC, as an option, may publish restrictions for specific control positions. These restrictions and any subsequent amendments must be approved in advance by the responsible [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istant Director.

For example, restrictions could:

require a minimum controller rating

be effective at certain times

require a certification test

be effective only during "fly ins"

be any other reasonable restriction.

Any restrictions must be applied equally to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned members of that ARTCC and visiting controllers from other ARTCCs or divisions. ARTCC membership must not be a consideration in defining or enforcing restrictions.

Scheduled training or testing should be made available when appropriate.

Procedures shouldbe well-defined and published.

A supervisor, ARTCC Chief, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istant Chief, or VATUSA Instructor may notify the controller if it becomes apparent that local procedures are not being followed or specific position requirements have not been met. No other ARTCC members should confront a trainee or visiting controller. The controller can be asked to vacate the restricted position, but in any case should be informed of where procedures and position restrictions are published.

If certification testing is required, a list of certified controllers should be maintained on the ARTCC website.

Online testing shall only apply to new controllers/new promotions. Controllers who had been authorised 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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The policy contradicts itself anyway, if I make a policy and restrict in ANY way a visiting controller, then the following line is not being followed...

 

"Any restrictions must be applied equally to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned members of that ARTCC and visiting controllers from other ARTCCs or divisions. ARTCC membership must not be a consideration in defining or enforcing restrictions. "

 

This sentence alone states that I may not restrict visiting controllers in any way shape or form. I can not prevent them from work a position etc. Therefore, since I was not required to have visiting controllers, I chose to eliminate visiting controllers in my facility.

 

Is this really a road worth going down or is it a general complaint?

 

Seee Ya,

Jason Vodnansky

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

Jason,

 

Sorry brother, I think you are misreading the policy - and I completely disagree with you. "Eliminating" visiting controllers is blatantly against VATUSA policy and is not with the spirit of Vatsim in general.

 

If you have position restrictions for controllers who's "home" artcc is yours - then those same restrictions apply to ALL VATUSA members.

 

For example if all you require for a controller to work XXXX tower is that they hold an S3 rating. Then ANY controller with an S3 rating in VATUSA is certified to work that position.

 

If your requirements to work center are a C1 rating, 17 written examinations and an over the shoulder examination - then ANY C1 in VATUSA can work that position as long as they p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the 17 written exams and the over the shoulder.

 

"Any restrictions must be applied equally to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned members of that ARTCC and visiting controllers from other ARTCCs or divisions. ARTCC membership must not be a consideration in defining or enforcing restrictions. "

 

This means exactly what it says. If you put up a restriction - its valid for ANY controller.

 

This IS a road worth going down. What's the point of having policies and guidelines if the Chiefs think they can just do whatever the heck they want?

 

Aside from that - why the hell would you not want people to visit your center and control? Aside from a nice way to meet people, it's a good opportunity for people to try out something new and perhaps make a qualified decision before transferring.

 

Don't get confused between Visiting Controllers and Traffic Whores.

 

I've spent time controlling in LA, Oakland, Albuquerque, Chicago, Vancouver, Edmonton, Miami, Hawaii, Boston, and other international centers. Does that make me an undesirable visitor? I've never chased traffic, always adhered to local procedures, and treated the locals with the respect they deserve. After being part of the network (and the previous one) for 6 years now, I like to get a change of pace every now and then. I don't want to transfer from Z to X, I just want to learn about the airspace and control there once in a while. Placing restrictions on me to control at your center that are different than anyone else who controls there - either once in a while or every night for the past 6 months - is unfair and discriminatory.

 

I'm still waiting for VATUSA to step in a say something about this. So far all we hear are the crickets. This is the exact reason we have people with ridiculous SOP that don't meet VATUSA policies - or perhaps conversely this is why we have VATUSA policies that don't meet the actual needs of the centers.

 

How about a response from VATUSA on this issue?

[J Jason Vodnansky 810003]

Ian,

 

Not arguing or "raising my voice" here at all, just want to raise the following point by moving thru the mud... You and I see things differently in this matter and that is part of life!

 

If any C1 can work any position that a C1 is authorised to work in ANY center, then why bother having ARTCCs? Why not just have a controller [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned to VATUSA able to control in ANY position in VATUSA. Same could be said for any position in VATUSA.

 

I too would like to see a response from VATUSA.

 

See ya,

Jason Vodnansky

[Craig Moulton]

If any C1 can work any position that a C1 is authorised to work in ANY center, then why bother having ARTCCs? Why not just have a controller [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned to VATUSA able to control in ANY position in VATUSA. Same could be said for any position in VATUSA.

 

This is clouding up the debate though. Ian is not saying that ANY C1 can work any position a C1 is authorized. What IS being said is that visiting C1's MUST adhere to those same policies and requirements that XYZ ARTCC C1's must adhere to. In most cases, I'd suspect that there are written tests as well as over the shoulder exams that would have to be done. Instructors are limited, so they would tend to their own students before being able to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist visitor requests for training.

 

I believe Ian is more than capable of speaking for himself, but he is not arguing that controllers should be able to just plug in anywhere other controllers of his rank are able to plug in, UNLESS they meet the same requirements required of an ARTCC's controller.