Request for clarification from VATUSA administrators

[Jason Harris 877712]

[Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming you read these forums, you will have noticed some controversy regarding visiting controller restrictions. The problem seems (as I've been able to ascertain) is this:

 

1. A few ARTCC's have implemented a "No visiting controller allowed" policy with a charge that they have VATUSA's blessing.

2. VATUSA's own printed policy found here states that:

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.

 

The written policy is, obviously, at odds with some current actions taking place in VATUSA ARTCC's. Due to this, I formally ask that VATUSA published a written position statement regarding visiting controller restrictions as it relates to current VATUSA policies so that this confusion can be rectified.

 

I also ask that you read this post by Mr. Ian Elchitz. It is the 9th post down and is a very well written and thought out request that preceeds mine.

 

I thank you for your time and promptness in attending to this request.

 

Sincerely,

[Craig Moulton]

*Crickets*

[Steven Perry]

PERSONAL OPINION to follow.. [this isn't the official VATUSA position]

 

I don't see why a published written position statement is necessary here. The same policy docomeent which you, Jason, refer to states "these restrictions... must be approved ... by the responsible [Mod - Happy Thoughts]itant Director." If the policy is put into effect, VATUSA has [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ented to it.

 

As for whether or not VATUSA should approve it in light of its own policies, well... even if the policy is struck down, there's always a loophole to get it done. An ARTCC that allows visiting controllers but requires certifications of one sort or another may have a backlogged training department that for some reason can't find time to train those visitors. This position might fall apart as soon as a new controller signs up with the ARTCC and seeks certification but I'm sure there are other creative ways of accomplishing the goal, but I just don't have the urge to think of them.

 

SP

[Jason Harris 877712]

Mr. Perry,

 

I respect and appreciate your opinion. My post requested a position statement from the VATUSA admin's, therefore, I ask that those that would like to share their opinion (such as you and I) post them here or here where many other's are doing the same.

 

I thank you for your consideration.

[J Jason Vodnansky 810003]

Insert Jeopardy theme here...

 

And VATUSA wonders why they have the reputation they do...

 

 

J. Jason Vodnansky

[Marc Glorioso 810788]

Jason,

I don't think the quote you are using has anything to do with allowing or not allowing visiting controllers. It simply states that the same criteria must be met for staffing positions. An ARTCC cannot force a visiting contoller to be a Controller to staff a tower when its own members can staff it at the Student level. If you look into the "Position Restrictions" policy, it gives examples of what restrictions could be put on. I feel that the blanket "no visitor policy" does violate VATUSA policy because it does not permit visiting controllers staffing position based on ARTCC membership. One way to circomevent having a no visitor policy stated is to have a "checkride" on a position before you are allowed to control. If you don't p[Mod - Happy Thoughts], you don't get your ticket. Although most of what I have read about the ZJX ARTCC policy has been discussed in forums, I cannot find any statement made in the form of a policy or procedure on the ZJX ARTCC Website, at least not as of today.

 

Former ZJX Chief Jason,

I don't think we need to open up a discussion here about reputations.

Edited September 21, 2005 at 01:58 AM by Guest

[Jason Harris 877712]

Mr. Glorioso,

 

As I pointed out to Mr. Perry, I do appreciate your opinion, but I have specifically asked that VATUSA admin's answer this question with a position statement on how the policy shall be applied. I ask that we save the posting of our personal opinions on this subject for the two forum threads I posted in my reply to Mr. Perry. I thank you for your understanding.

[Marc Glorioso 810788]

Mr. Glorioso,

 

As I pointed out to Mr. Perry, I do appreciate your opinion, but I have specifically asked that VATUSA admin's answer this question with a position statement on how the policy shall be applied. I ask that we save the posting of our personal opinions on this subject for the two forum threads I posted in my reply to Mr. Perry. I thank you for your understanding.

 

You may get a response if you e-mail your question rather than post it here.

 

VATUSA1 Director Dane Penington mailto:[email protected]

VATUSA2 Deputy Director Craig Merriman mailto:[email protected]

VATUSA5 Director of ARTCC Operations Roger Curtiss mailto:[email protected]

[Jason Harris 877712]

Mr. Glorioso,

 

As I pointed out to Mr. Perry, I do appreciate your opinion, but I have specifically asked that VATUSA admin's answer this question with a position statement on how the policy shall be applied. I ask that we save the posting of our personal opinions on this subject for the two forum threads I posted in my reply to Mr. Perry. I thank you for your understanding.

 

You may get a response if you e-mail your question rather than post it here.

 

VATUSA1 Director Dane Penington mailto:[email protected]

VATUSA2 Deputy Director Craig Merriman mailto:[email protected]

VATUSA5 Director of ARTCC Operations Roger Curtiss mailto:[email protected]

 

Thank you for your suggestion.

[Todd Cox 814690]

To all,

 

I have just recently taken over as Regional Director, VATSIM North America. I know that there are many concerns and issues, and I ask all of you for your patience and support as we work together to address these various items. Many of these issues are not going to be fixed overnight, but, they are also not going to languish somewhere to die. In other words, the days of blowing things off is over.

 

With that said, here is what I have already sent out to the VATUSA staff and the ARTCC Chiefs regarding the visiting controller policy. The Readers Digest version is as follows:

 

1. Since there is no written policy regarding visiting controller bans, they cannot be legally enforced, and are to be lifted.

 

2. I agree that there are very legitimate reasons for temporary suspensions of visiting controllers, but until we establish a fair and equitable procedure and policy that addresses that, we must do what is legally right.

 

3. I have asked all Chiefs to work with myself and VATUSA to establish a uniform policy to address all points and issues regarding visiting controllers, and have attached deadline dates as well.

 

4. I have also expressed that if we cannot establish a basic policy because of inflexable or nonchalant attitudes, then I will establish the policy.

 

To all of you:

 

I have read the forum posts. I want to personnally thank you as many of these comments show the concern that many have regarding the "whole organization", and not just a single entity.

 

Since the ban is to be lifted, I also ask that all of you work with ZJX to allow him a opportunity to get things worked out in his facility. Taking over a new organization can be a daunting task sometimes and instead of chastising, we need patience to allow a new Chief to do the things they feel are important to provide a better product to you, the members.

 

Thank you again,

[Jason Harris 877712]

Mr. Cox,

 

Thank you for your reply. I think we all appreciate the fact you took the time to not only give an answer with no ambiguity; but to also to let us know what steps are being taken on the administrative side to address this issue in the future.