By David Zhong 1027224
#492699 To be clear, VATOCE doesn't "own" the Pacific Oceanic Partnership - as the name suggests, it's an agreement between the three divisions that cover much of the Pacific (VATPAC, VATNZ and VATUSA).

The Code of Regulations is quite clear that Guam is to be administered by VATNA. Unless the BoG agrees to amend the CoR to transfer Guam to VATOCE, we cannot take it over. Greenland has recently be moved from NA to Europe, but there are two reasons I can see for not doing something like that:

1. VATPAC hasn't had the best history with running it's non-Australian airspaces. The reality is that with limited resources, we have to focus them on the areas which see more popularity. I can't see us doing a better job with Guam than VATUSA, except that perhaps since we are a bit more centralised, the assignment of responsibility is a bit more clear and it is more obvious who to go to for sector files, documentation and training.

2. Guam ATC use all of the mannerisms of US ATC since they are under the jurisdiction of the US FAA. It makes sense for VATUSA to run it than VATPAC.

Finally, an FIR like Guam is really outside the scope of the Pacific Oceanic Partnership - that was really design to standardize training for Oceanic controllers - particularly for those from VATUSA and elsewhere (VATPAC and VATNZ already had shared syllabi) - and allow for multi-lateral controlling rights. Guam does not fit as it actually has everything except oceanic airspace!
By Sean Harrison 870618
#492712
David Zhong 1027224 wrote:To be clear, VATOCE doesn't "own" the Pacific Oceanic Partnership - as the name suggests, it's an agreement between the three divisions that cover much of the Pacific (VATPAC, VATNZ and VATUSA).

The Code of Regulations is quite clear that Guam is to be administered by VATNA. Unless the BoG agrees to amend the CoR to transfer Guam to VATOCE, we cannot take it over. Greenland has recently be moved from NA to Europe, but there are two reasons I can see for not doing something like that:

1. VATPAC hasn't had the best history with running it's non-Australian airspaces. The reality is that with limited resources, we have to focus them on the areas which see more popularity. I can't see us doing a better job with Guam than VATUSA, except that perhaps since we are a bit more centralised, the assignment of responsibility is a bit more clear and it is more obvious who to go to for sector files, documentation and training.

2. Guam ATC use all of the mannerisms of US ATC since they are under the jurisdiction of the US FAA. It makes sense for VATUSA to run it than VATPAC.

Finally, an FIR like Guam is really outside the scope of the Pacific Oceanic Partnership - that was really design to standardize training for Oceanic controllers - particularly for those from VATUSA and elsewhere (VATPAC and VATNZ already had shared syllabi) - and allow for multi-lateral controlling rights. Guam does not fit as it actually has everything except oceanic airspace!


Well stated. It was a bit of 'tongue in check', but you make a very good case for not taking it on. Fully agree.