VATSIM "Personal" Politics
Michael Ivan
I am truely sadden to see such a great organization as VATSIM allow the level
of "Personal" Politics go on.
Strange how a organization that promotes ideas and principles that would
raise the bar of standards then lower them.
I read the account by the former NY ARTCC Chief. I would have to say he is
a true Leader. He stuck to his guns and did what right. Now the leadership
of VATSIM plays this "personal" politics.
Now, I read where the individual who was "visiting" was not watching or conducting
any ATC. I believe that is violation of the Code Conduct rule:
9. When logging on to the VATSIM.net network, a member is not permitted
to leave his or her connection unattended for a period in excess of thirty
(30) minutes. If a member is unable to comply with this requirement, then
he or she must log off of the VATSIM.net network. A member who is found
to be unresponsive for more than thirty (30) minutes is subject to immediate
removal from the network. Members who are found to repeatedly leave their
connections unattended are subject to the terms of Article VI. of the VATSIM.net
Code of Regulations.
and the Controller rule:
2. Controllers who choose to work in regions other than the one they requested
assignment to must follow the rules and procedures in effect for such regions.
6. A local division and/or region may restrict certain positions in general
or during specific times to those controllers who have achieved a particular
rating. Controllers should consult the local rules to see if they qualify
to work a particular position prior to logging on at such a position.
and VATUSA policy:
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 circumstances.
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 Assistant 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 assigned 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 should be well-defined and published.
A supervisor, ARTCC Chief, Assistant 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.
and I would want you to read this:
http://www.nyartcc.org/atc/index.htm
look on page 4 about Visitors.
Now I feel that this organization is lacking in the leadership department.
It is a shame and stupid that a group of people use thier power improperly
to fit thier needs. Now if any of you who are in charge I am sorry I rub
you the wrong way but hey, I call it as I see it.
This organization was founded on some really good ideas and principles. I
see it falling down here because of a select few who feel they are above
the set rules or use those rules for their personal gain.
I leave with this statement:
VATSIM is an online community created for enthusiasts of flight simulation
and air traffic control. One of the main goals of VATSIM is to create an
environment which is fun and, at the same time, educational and a realistic
simulation of procedures followed by pilots and air traffic controllers everyday
around the world. To further these goals, both pilots and controllers logging
on to VATSIM must comply with the following Code of Conduct. This Code sets
forth how the pilot flying online as well as the person providing air traffic
control services are expected to conduct themselves.
Remember, the primary goals of VATSIM are to educate, to provide a realistic
simulation of flying and air traffic control and, most importantly, to provide
a fun environment for everyone to enjoy our hobby. By following the simple
rules set forth in this Code of Conduct, everyone is ensured of learning
and making new friends from around the world.
Enjoy!
-VATSIM-
Ernie Alston
>Now, I read where the individual who was "visiting" was not watching or conducting
>any ATC. I believe that is violation of the Code Conduct rule:
>9. When logging on to the VATSIM.net network, a member is not permitted
>to leave his or her connection unattended for a period in excess of thirty
>(30) minutes.
If the indvidual was not there, then how is it that the NY Chief was
talking to him ? By Mr Hoyle's own account he only waited about "15-20
mins" before terminating the connection. Which means the above rule
you cite doesn't even apply..
I read the account of this from the former NY Chief on the ZNY forum.
And curiously missing from his entire account was why the
individual(s) were there in the first place. The indviduals involved
were part of the World Flight for Charity event and had support from
Vatsim and Vatusa to do what they were doing. They didn't just do it
in ZNY but in any area they came across that did not have an ATC
position staffed at the time they came through.
The complete un-willingness to give a charitable event a little slack,
and the deploreable name calling I now see in his goodbye post on the
ZNY forum IMO merely vindicates the BoG in their conclusion that Mr
Hoyle has neither the attitude, temperment, nor the patience to be a
Supervisor.
Regards.
Ernie Alston.
ABQ_CHF.
Ernesto Alvarez
so does this mean whenever a VA or whatever group has an event we can go control
there just because its not staffed? i mean really, if the appropiate people
would have been asked before the event im sure they would have said ok, but
by simply ignoring or refusing to abide by the artcc's rules that shows some
disrespect.
Diego Pedraglio
Yes, if they will have contacted him to ask to do it, then there wouldn't
be any problem, but connecting without EVER asking...
Diego Pedraglio
"Simon Kelsey" <si...@fsinn.com> wrote:
>Surely the "appropriate people" in this case would have been Mr Hoyle
>himself?
>
>Simon
>
>--
>Simon Kelsey
>Reporter/Editorialist
>Flight Simulation Internet News Network
>http://www.fsinn.com
>
>si...@fsinn.com
>"Ernie Alston" <alst...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:u4unrvkmmh5oqeft6...@4ax.com...
>> >On 19 Nov 2003 22:29:44 GMT, "Ernesto Alvarez" <sus_...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >so does this mean whenever a VA or whatever group has an event we can
go
>control
>> >there just because its not staffed?
>>
>> If its a special Charitable event supported by Vatsim, why not ?
>>
>> Are you saying the precious rules and regulations of the local ARTCC
>> is more important than raising a few thousand dollars to help some
>> sick people ? I do not agree at all with this.
>>
>> Any reasonable SUP lets them continue once the admin has vouched that
>> what they are doing is proper and supported by Vatsim.
>>
>> But instead this IMO un-reasonable SUP starts zapping accounts.
>>
>> >"i mean really, if the appropiate people would have been asked before
the
>event im sure they would have said ok"
>>
>> How do you know the appropriate people were not asked ??
>>
>> The admin vouched for the event. The event details were posted on the
>> main vatsim page.
>>
>> How many VA fly-ins get posted on the main Vatsim page ?? **ZERO**
>> that's how many.
>>
>> I think you should begin taking that one-sided account being reported
>> on the ZNY forum with a few grains of salt.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Ernie.
>>
>> ABQ_CHF.
>>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 10/11/2003
>
>
Ernesto Alvarez
i have nothing against the worldflight group or any groups like this at all.
infact i joined them on one leg.
this however does not mean that the regs that are there can be tossed asside.
>Are you saying the precious rules and regulations of the local ARTCC
>is more important than raising a few thousand dollars to help some
>sick people ? I do not agree at all with this.
never said this at all. what i did say was that the persons involved should
have asked ahead of time. we wouldnt have this issue today if they would
have.
>How do you know the appropriate people were not asked ??
umm, lets see. if the chief of the artcc didnt know/had no notice about this
being allowed to come in and control then i somehow doubt they did ask.
>The admin vouched for the event. The event details were posted on the
>main vatsim page.
wich brings me to the whole point of asking the artcc before the event again.
>How many VA fly-ins get posted on the main Vatsim page ?? **ZERO**
>that's how many.
dont see the point here.
>I think you should begin taking that one-sided account being reported
>on the ZNY forum with a few grains of salt.
i have know brian for years, and this isnt really the first time i have heard
of an "old boys" group on the network. true or not i cant say but deffinitely
not the first report of such.
Jim Johnson
I don't know who's right and wrong in this situation. I don't think it's my
business to discuss it on the newsgroup. What does concern me though is
your statement that the rules should be tossed aside because VATSIM
sponsored the event.
The thing about rules and regulations is this. If you make just one
exception to a rule, then the rule loses it's force. Each rule must be
enforced the same way each time. We have to be consistent in this
enforcement, or people will be accused of getting special treatment.
Jim
"Ernie Alston" <alst...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:guunrvkcak2phijeb...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:21:02 -0000, "Simon Kelsey" <si...@fsinn.com>
> wrote:
> >Surely the "appropriate people" in this case would have been Mr Hoyle
> >himself?
>
> Well it would seem to me that the Event organizers would not have to
> be burdened with getting clearance from every single ARTCC Chief and
> every single region they flew in. It makes more sense to get clearance
> at the Divisional or Regional level and leave it to them to inform the
> indvidual ARTCC Chiefs.
>
> But still even if there was a failure to notify Hoyle. He was told
> right there at the time by the admin.
>
> If he didn't like the fact he was not informed beforehand then he
> should complain to his superiors not just go about zapping accounts as
> he pleases
>
> Regards.
>
> Ernie.
>
Simon Kelsey
himself?
Simon
--
Simon Kelsey
Reporter/Editorialist
Flight Simulation Internet News Network
http://www.fsinn.com
"Ernie Alston" <alst...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:u4unrvkmmh5oqeft6...@4ax.com...
> >On 19 Nov 2003 22:29:44 GMT, "Ernesto Alvarez" <sus_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >
> >so does this mean whenever a VA or whatever group has an event we can go
control
> >there just because its not staffed?
>
> If its a special Charitable event supported by Vatsim, why not ?
>
> Are you saying the precious rules and regulations of the local ARTCC
> is more important than raising a few thousand dollars to help some
> sick people ? I do not agree at all with this.
>
> Any reasonable SUP lets them continue once the admin has vouched that
> what they are doing is proper and supported by Vatsim.
>
> But instead this IMO un-reasonable SUP starts zapping accounts.
>
> >"i mean really, if the appropiate people would have been asked before the
event im sure they would have said ok"
>
> How do you know the appropriate people were not asked ??
>
> The admin vouched for the event. The event details were posted on the
> main vatsim page.
>
> How many VA fly-ins get posted on the main Vatsim page ?? **ZERO**
> that's how many.
>
> I think you should begin taking that one-sided account being reported
> on the ZNY forum with a few grains of salt.
>
Ernie Alston
>himself?
Well it would seem to me that the Event organizers would not have to
Ernie Alston
>there just because its not staffed?
If its a special Charitable event supported by Vatsim, why not ?
Are you saying the precious rules and regulations of the local ARTCC
is more important than raising a few thousand dollars to help some
sick people ? I do not agree at all with this.
Any reasonable SUP lets them continue once the admin has vouched that
what they are doing is proper and supported by Vatsim.
But instead this IMO un-reasonable SUP starts zapping accounts.
>"i mean really, if the appropiate people would have been asked before the event im sure they would have said ok"
Flying High
I could not agree more and think that the type of attitude demonstrated by
Mr Hoyle is no better than a 6 year old unwilling to share his toys. Vatsim
is better off without him.
A couple of times now a group of us have been online in the US when everyone
was asleep (one of the problems with living in NZ) and we have been
threatened with being booted off for using our own ATC. What makes me even
madder is that on both occassions our request for the supervisor to control
was met with no, come back another time if you want to fly in US airspace
with ATC! What the F****?
Bad, bad attitude guys! Why do some of these guys think they own the virtual
airspace as well? Are they really so shallow that they cannot recognise that
rules are generally there as guidlines BUT simple commonsense has right of
way provided it does not abuse the system or affect anybody else?
The sooner we see the obnoxious attitude demonstrated by Mr Hoyle stamped
on, the sooner VATSIM will be a better, flexible and fun place.
ANZ121
Simon Kelsey
Event or not, good cause (which it undoubtedly is) or not, local
restrictions still apply.
As a C1 myself, regardless of what event is happening, I am not permitted to
staff a C3 position, because that would be breaking the rules.
In the same way, any other person is required to adhere to local
restrictions. Whilst these may not be directly related to their rating,
other such restrictions are just as valid. To ignore such restrictions is
breaking the rules, just as would staffing a position that you are not rated
to do so.
For example, there was recently a UK-based flight in support of a charitable
cause. If I had decided to open London CTR, I would quite rightly have been
removed, because I do not hold the correct ratings. To claim that the rules
do not matter because I am supporting an event, charitable or not, is
ludicrous.
Whilst restrictive ratings are obviously not the issue here, as I said
above... other restrictions are just as valid. The event was planned months
in advance -- surely the individual members of the ATC support team would
have had plenty to time to research the policies in place and obtain the
necessary waivers?
Simon
--
Simon Kelsey
Reporter/Editorialist
Flight Simulation Internet News Network
http://www.fsinn.com
"Ernie Alston" <alst...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:guunrvkcak2phijeb...@4ax.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 18/11/2003
Jim Johnson
these policies, then I would suggest that you take it up with the BoG, or
the region/ARTCC in which you would like to control.
The only point I'm trying to make is that unless the policies ARE changed,
you must follow them regardless of your agreement with them. Failure to
follow VATSIM policy will result in disciplinary action.
Jim
"Flying High" <som...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3fbc...@news.simflight.com...
> Hmmmm
>
> Another example of a dictatorial and inflexible attitude.
>
> My point was, maybe the rules need to be looked at to accomodate the fact
> that VATSIM as a network is open 24 hours a day!
>
> Nobody expects you to provide 24 hours a day service just on the off
chance
> that a group of 15 flyers may be entering a US field outside of normal
> hours, but the rules should be such that such flyers should be entilted to
> the same usage of the network and make their own arrangements if local
> coverage is not available or willing.
>
> It really is quite simple if you look at it from a global and team
> perspective.
>
> ANZ121
>
> "Jim Johnson" <jim.jo...@verizon.net.nospam> wrote in message
> news:3fbc0b36$1...@news.simflight.com...
> > You can't expect any ARTCC, anywhere to provide 24 hour staffing. Sure,
> it
> > would be nice, but we do have real lives beyond online controlling. The
> > simple fact is, rules are rules. Just because you don't agree with them
> > doesn't give you the right to break them without consequence.
> >
> > If you want 24 hour continuous ATC, it is available to you. It's called
> > FS2002 or FS2004 ATC.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > "Flying High" <som...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:3fbc...@news.simflight.com...
> > >
> > > "Simon Kelsey" <si...@fsinn.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3fbc...@news.simflight.com...
> > >
> > > > As a C1 myself, regardless of what event is happening, I am not
> > permitted
> > > to
> > > > staff a C3 position, because that would be breaking the rules.
> > >
> > > If the regions in question provided 24 hours a day, sevens day a week
> > > coverage then I can understand the rules applying. Likewise I can
> > understand
> > > rules that should apply during normal staffing hours. The key here is
to
> > > design a flexible set of rules that allow for use of the airspace when
> > > nobody else can be bothered working it.
> > >
> > > Quite simple really.
> > > ANZ121
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Jim Johnson
would be nice, but we do have real lives beyond online controlling. The
simple fact is, rules are rules. Just because you don't agree with them
doesn't give you the right to break them without consequence.
If you want 24 hour continuous ATC, it is available to you. It's called
FS2002 or FS2004 ATC.
Jim
"Flying High" <som...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3fbc...@news.simflight.com...
>
> "Simon Kelsey" <si...@fsinn.com> wrote in message
> news:3fbc...@news.simflight.com...
>
> > As a C1 myself, regardless of what event is happening, I am not
permitted
> to
> > staff a C3 position, because that would be breaking the rules.
>
Flying High
Another example of a dictatorial and inflexible attitude.
My point was, maybe the rules need to be looked at to accomodate the fact
that VATSIM as a network is open 24 hours a day!
Nobody expects you to provide 24 hours a day service just on the off chance
that a group of 15 flyers may be entering a US field outside of normal
hours, but the rules should be such that such flyers should be entilted to
the same usage of the network and make their own arrangements if local
coverage is not available or willing.
It really is quite simple if you look at it from a global and team
perspective.
ANZ121
"Jim Johnson" <jim.jo...@verizon.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:3fbc0b36$1...@news.simflight.com...
Flying High
> As a C1 myself, regardless of what event is happening, I am not permitted
to
> staff a C3 position, because that would be breaking the rules.
If the regions in question provided 24 hours a day, sevens day a week
Ernie Alston
<jim.jo...@verizon.net.nospam> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:35:30 -0800, "Jim Johnson" <jim.jo...@verizon.net.nospam> wrote:
>
>I don't know who's right and wrong in this situation. I don't think it's my
>business to discuss it on the newsgroup. What does concern me though is
>your statement that the rules should be tossed aside because VATSIM
>sponsored the event.
>
>The thing about rules and regulations is this. If you make just one
>exception to a rule, then the rule loses it's force. Each rule must be
>enforced the same way each time. We have to be consistent in this
>enforcement, or people will be accused of getting special treatment.
>
Jim,
I think such a premise only applies fully when the rule is the highest
rule of the land (ie like a Constitution or in our case the CoR).
When persons posess authority to approve such regulations then they
also implictly posses authority to temporarily or even permantly toss
them aside. Unless there is a higher regulation that expressly states
they cannot.
The current Global Ratings restrictions put in place by the EC is
solid proof that in Vatsim this is true.
Local ARTCC regulations are approved by the Region Supervisor, if the
Region Supervisor should no longer approve of a regulation he can
render it null and void at any time. If he can render the rule null
and void then he can also make exceptions to it.
It seems quite proper then that the Division Director can for reasons
he feels is proper temporarily make exceptions to any local rules and
regulations. Like for Instance a Charitable Event.
The thing to do however is communicate to all affected in advance that
such an exception will occur.
Regards.
Ernie
ABQ_CHF.
Flying High
ANZ121
"Jim Johnson" <jim.jo...@verizon.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:3fbc...@news.simflight.com...
Ernie Alston
>
>Event or not, good cause (which it undoubtedly is) or not, local
>restrictions still apply.
>Only if someone higher up in the command structure does not apply an exception.
>
>
>As a C1 myself, regardless of what event is happening, I am not permitted to
>staff a C3 position, because that would be breaking the rules.
True, because you have no authority to change nullify the rule.
But there are people in Vatsim who do have this authority to nullify
local rules. They are the Region Supervisor, the Division Director,
the Regional Director and the Executive Committee. (Note for Region
Director that means only within his region not outside of it.)
If the Region Supervisor says that for tomorrow only C3 rule shall not
be observed in this Region. Then you would tomorrow be able to log
onto an C3 position as a C1.
The Regional or Division Director has the same authority here. He
implicitly has this authority because his position as superior to
both the ARTCC Chief and the Region Director implies that he does.
The only case in which I think this would not be true is if there were
some article in the CoR's or the Division Policy that expresly stated
the DD and the RS cannot bypass local regs.
>For example, there was recently a UK-based flight in support of a charitable
>cause. If I had decided to open London CTR, I would quite rightly have been
>removed, because I do not hold the correct ratings. To claim that the rules
>do not matter because I am supporting an event, charitable or not, is
>ludicrous.
Its not ludcrous at all, it makes perfect sense if you simply apply
the chain of command.
Regards.
Ernie.
Christopher Trott
well, and your restriction are JUST AS STRICT as VATUSA's. If you want
things to change, start in your own region, don't come over here acting like
you're own home region doesn't have the same sort of rules and VATUSA is
somehow different or more opressive than the other regions, because WE'RE
NOT.
Sorry, but if you've seen that kind of attitude, then you've not been flying
in Australia during similar periods for the US. I've had several occasions
in the past where I was out controlling the Woomera Range in support of
SimNASA(and before that SASO) operations and an Oceana Region SUP or ADMIN
has come and told me I can't control because of local regulations, even
though I was staffing a non-ATC position (Woomera Range Control) in support
of a documented LOA (with the proper authorities in Australia) that allowed
SimNASA/SASO members to log into that position without prior communication
as long as we didn't shutdown the Woomera range before coordinating with the
respective FIR chiefs for permission to do so. Otherwise, if we were just
observing/controlling traffic in and out of Woomera's test facility, we were
fine withouth any other coordination.
Sorry dude, but you're barking up a tree that isn't unique to just VATUSA.
"Flying High" <som...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3fbc...@news.simflight.com...
>
Christopher Trott
Division director, thus they CAN'T suspend that regulation because it's not
within their authority. Just because you're an Admin doesn't give you
worldwide exclusion to local operating procedures. If you actually read the
statements by Brian, he was NOT told that Mr. Scanlan was on for the
WorldFlight event until at least 15 minutes after initial contact. That is
wrong. VATUSA has a policy that major fly-ins should contact each ARTCC's
Events Coordinator, Chief for ATC or the VATUSA Events Coordinator to
request controllers in the ARTCCs that they will be flying through/into. If
WorldFlight contacted any of these people (apparently not Mr. Hoyle), then
the communications were not propogated and the necessary arrangements were
not made for NY ARTCC ATC to be online. As far as Mr. Hoyle knew when he
initially contacted Mr. Scanlan, he was simply controlling a group of pilots
in NY without a Visiting Controller status, which is not only against ZNY
regulations, but VATUSA, *AND* VATSIM CoR rules as well. What I see here is
that a miscomunication or missed communication occured and instead of the
proper people being contacted and the issue being worked out, it appears
that Mr. Scanlan and Mr. Hoyle ended up fighting over it and Mr. Hoyle, in
what he believed to be a proper move (read the events) considering what
information he had.
"Ernie Alston" <alst...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:5b3orvk2g46mnv8a4...@4ax.com...
Jim Johnson
Jim
"Flying High" <som...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3fbc0df3$1...@news.simflight.com...
Greg Phelan
same level of service to anybody else flying through that airspace? And is
that service of the same calibre as the resident members of that ARTCC
provide day in and day out? Probably not, because these people train for a
fairly long time on the regional aspects.
Some regions place a higher priority on quality - that might not be the best
way to put it - some regions expect higher quality from their controllers
then do others, and therefore these regions will demand that visitors are of
a certain calibre. They may request that visiting controllers register
beforehand with the ARTCC Chief, so that the quality of the control to be
provided may be known beforehand.
I am not commenting on the alleged events in ZNY - I do not know all the
facts, and will not make a judgement on partial information. However sir,
from your comments, it is you who VATSIM would not miss if you leave.
Greg Phelan
"Flying High" <som...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3fbc...@news.simflight.com...
>
Ernie Alston
<ch...@flygma.com> wrote:
>Issue here Ernie is simple - Mr. Truitt nor Mr. Scanlan are the VATUSA
>Division director, thus they CAN'T suspend that regulation because it's not
>within their authority.
Chris,
Neither Truitt nor Scanlan suspended the regulation.
>Just because you're an Admin doesn't give you worldwide exclusion to local operating procedures.
Agreed, but what I said was within the context of the division, not
includng external divisions. So my references were for the VATUSA and
VATNA positions regarding the authority to cast aside local regs.
>If you actually read the statements by Brian, he was NOT told that Mr. Scanlan was on for the
>WorldFlight event until at least 15 minutes after initial contact. That is
>wrong.
First of all Mr Hoyle did not at all even mention this involved the
Worldflight event. I was the first to even mention it publicly.
Secondly Chris you are mistaken, Hoyle's ZNY forum post clearly
implies he felt he was talking to Terry Scanlan from initial contact
on (see the quote below).
Hoyle:
"...Terry Scanlan, an administrator with VATSIM, decided that he was
above and beyond VATUSA policies and
New York policies, and came and logged on as NY CTR. Having put my
chief hat on, and my supervisor hat on at the
same time, he was requested to remove himself..."
That right there describes initial contact, not 15 minutes later. The
'he' Brian is referring to can only be Mr Scanlan, as it was the only
name he mentioned previously.
>VATUSA has a policy that major fly-ins should contact each ARTCC's Events Coordinator, Chief for ATC or the VATUSA Events >Coordinator to request controllers in the ARTCCs that they will be flying through/into.
> If WorldFlight contacted any of these people (apparently not Mr. Hoyle),
Obviously they made contact with the Events Coordinator because the
World Flight event was on the VATUSA Events calendar. Not to mention
being on the main Vatsim.net page.
>then >the communications were not propogated and the necessary arrangements were
>not made for NY ARTCC ATC to be online.
>As far as Mr. Hoyle knew when he initially contacted Mr. Scanlan, he was simply controlling a group of pilots in NY without a >Visiting Controller status,
That may be so initially, but clearly somewhere along the line Mr
Hoyle was informed about the World Flight Event by Scanlan. At that
point they should have been allowed to continue as the Admin confirmed
what they were doing was approved and proper.
>What I see here is that a miscomunication or missed communication occured and instead of the proper people being contacted and >the issue being worked out, it appears that Mr. Scanlan and Mr. Hoyle ended up fighting over it and Mr. Hoyle, in
>what he believed to be a proper move (read the events) considering what information he had.
Sorry it was not a proper move, simply zapping them off the server was
an overeaction and totally improper.
The proper thing to do was to let them continue because the Admin
(Scanlan) had already taken responsibility for them, then contact his
superior (Guilford) and get to the bottom as to why they were there,
why his regs were exempted for them, and why he was not informed about
it.
Regards.
Ernie.
Michael Ivan
Ernie,
Now I can argue with you the pro and cons here about this but I am not.
You say the Code of Conduct section I quoted does not apply? I think it
does. Because if you read the account Mr. Hoyle wrote he stated when he asked
the "visitor" to remove himself, the "visitor" stated to him that he was
busy doing something else in the room. So, he was logged on in a position
at the ARTCC, NY_CTR, and not doing any controlling? or even watching his
screen? Hmmmm????
Sir, I have read and been told that no one should log on unless they intend
to work that position. That visitor should of logged as a observer not in
the position. And if wanted to ATC then he should of filed the proper requests
first before doing what he did. I believe you and some others are missing
the point here. Do you think if I had a title such as that would like me
to log on as ABQ_CTR? With out even asking your permission prior to logging
on?
I am speaking out here because I feel that the situation was not properly
handled by both parties involved in some way or another.
There are some good people here in VATSIM. And, yes, some bad apples.
If you are going to enforce the rules, regulations, and policies then enforce
them fairly. Not because you were offended in some way or another.
Christopher Trott
that of Mr. Scanlan. Not of any of the aircraft flying in ZNY at the time.
Also, just because Mr. Scanlan was supposedly providing ATC coverage for the
WorldFlight event does not give him the right to refuse to sign off when
asked by the Chief of the NY ARTCC. Brian had no reason to contact Gene or
anyone else. He was perfectly within his right to remove a controller who
was not following established VATSIM policy that any controller must observe
local ATC restrictions, which Mr. Scanlan was not. You may not think it
correct, but that's your opinion. Your right about the WorldFlight thing,
you are the first to say anything about that being the reason. EXACTLY MY
POINT, Brian didn't know that Scanlan was on because of the WorldFlight
because he wasn't aware that WorldFlight was occuring that night, which was
articulated by Brian in his post on the NY ARTCC forum. Also, you're only
agreeing with my point Ernie on the suspension of the regulation. They
didn't suspend it because they can't, yet Mr. Scanlan's actions during the
incident in question are equilvalent to him attempting to do such a thing,
which he does not have the power to do. That was my point and you helped me
prove it.
"Ernie Alston" <alst...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:72aorv05g6v5gmm8j...@4ax.com...
Tom Schroeder
There is one side being displayed publicly here, and I personally consider
the matter to be between the BoG and Mr. Hoyle. However, I will state here
that the action taken against Mr. Hoyle was *solely* based upon his actions
as a Supervisor. Supervisors, for very good reason, are held to a very high
standard, with an additional Code of Conduct and guidelines. Supervisors
have the ability to remove and temporarily suspend individuals and as such
must be bound by rules governing removal conduct, online demeanor and professionalism,
among other policies. This was an administrative removal as a Supervisor
only (he was not removed as Chief), as outlined in CoR (Rule 2.06 (A) (6))
as follows:
§2.06 Board of Governors – Powers
A. Specific Powers: The Board of Governors as a whole is hereby
vested with the following exclusive powers:
6. The power of appointment and removal of all individuals with the
rank of Supervisor (SUP). In addition, the Board of Governors is vested
with the authority to create a Code of Conduct for all such supervisory personal.
What is lost here, or not reported is that it is entirely within the VP of
Supervisors pervue to make a determination of Supervisor conduct and to make
a recommendation to the BoG as to how to resolve the matter.
What this boils down to is that removing Mr. Hoyle's Supervisor rating
was entirely based upon conduct as a Supervisor, nothing more, nothing less.
His status as ZNY Chief was unaffected by this decision.
I will not go into the specifics as to why Mr. Hoyle was removed as a Supervisor
other than to say that CoR 2.06 (A) (6) was invoked, as the matter, again,
is between Mr. Hoyle and the VP of Supervisors, with the support of the BoG.
Tom Schroeder
Dave B
level of service that is NOT as good as NO service at all because the rest
of the world is sleeping? No, in some corners of the world I very much doubt
it. Also has anybody else considered that it may be inconvenient to fly
online when a center is fully staffed? Due to time zone differences the
world is a big place and not centered on one area. The rules do not reflect
this.
Mr Hoyle by his very language and attitude has demonstrated quite simply
what an egocentric wanker he is and that he shows a general lack of
maturity. That is the kindest way I can put it and if you do not like it, or
do not happen to agree, tough shit. We are all entitled to different
opinions.
Oh I can just see it now, he is aware that the charity flight is passing
through HIS airspace and the word has gone out with an offer to provide ATC.
So in the middle of the night (early morning) he logs on and gets pissed off
that somebody else is controlling in HIS airspace even though he or any
other controllers cannot be bothered to be there, for whatever reasons, even
after another invitation.
So he spits the dummy, outraged that somebody would dare do that and makes a
big issue of it? His attitude really is quite pathetic and one that is often
talked about with concern in many other corners of the world.
Now I do not have any issue with your reasoning about quality, but in
fairness to your opening question, the answer is a very honest yes in many
circumstances qualified by "but not always". But as I said, some service is
better than none.
The fact is the rules need changing because some people have a "grunt like"
attitude and are unable to make a reasonable decision based on good old
commonsense and courtesy. I think you demonstrated that by your final
(unoriginal and boring) comment.
"Greg Phelan" <gregp...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3fbc2e7e$1...@news.simflight.com...
Dave B
On another note and out of curiosity, if I fly out of LAX why do so many
controllers not know where NZAA? It is a major pacific destination from that
gateway.
ANZ121
"Jim Johnson" <jim.jo...@verizon.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:3fbc26a0$1...@news.simflight.com...
Dave B
If the same thing happened to you down here (where we do recognise that the
world is indeed round and varied) I would be urging you to complain loudly
and would be fully supportive of your reasons - and just as vocal.
When people start to realise that they do not own this fr*****g airspace and
the server bandwidth is donated from all around the world AND that Vatsim
was set up to allow EVERYBODY to enjoy it 24 hours a day then it may become
a better place.
With regards to VATPAC restrictions, I am sorry but I have to disagree and
suggest you look at the local regulations more closely and the obvious
differences should quickly become apparant to you. The reasoning for that
would go over a lot of peoples heads. But I can assure you, the quality (and
importantly) the overall experience is as good if not better than many parts
of the world.
Again, if you have had any VATPAC person or SUP treat you with the utter
comtempt shown by "that guy who spat his dummy and ran off with his toys"
then get into them.
Oh and I rarely "come over there" very often nowadays. Too much text for my
liking.
ANZ121
"Christopher Trott" <ch...@flygma.com> wrote in message
news:3fbc22d1$1...@news.simflight.com...
Dave B
That should read "level of service that is NOT as good but BETTER than No
service at all"
"Dave B" <imathome@xtra_cutouthere_.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3fbc66ca$1...@news.simflight.com...
Michael Ivan
Mr Schroeder, I totally agree with what you said. Putting aside this issue
completely.
But, As A Member of this Organization I feel that there is one sided approach
going on here too.
When someone speaks out here, they are labeled as siding with one party or
the other. Then all hell breaks loose with words being tossed back and forth.
Isn't that part of what this forum is about? To allow people to speak out
and discuss about a issue, concern, and ideas. Now I have only been a Member
of VATSIM for a short time. But what I have witnessed in this short time
is very interesting. I have noticed that anytime someone vents out about
something here it is labeled as dispute between that person and the Management
of VATSIM.
A forum should be a release for people to vent off a little. Let them vent.
I believe that sometimes you allow someone to vent, they will feel a lot
better and start to forget the whole thing. But when others continue that
venting by posting stupid things that just fuel the flames.
I suggest that when someone vents here then let it happen. Keep it in check
yes. But let us stop the people who fuel the flames by telling them to stop
it.
Now some will think that is what I am doing here but I am not.
Jim Johnson
because I do usually work what would be late nights here on the west coast
of the USA. I'm sorry that you've encountered some controllers who don't
know where NZAA is, and don't look it up. I guess you may have received
that "cleared to destination" at one point or the other ('Destination' must
be a very popular spot judging by the number of people who get a clearance
there <VBG>).
I always encourage my students to look up the airport name, and give it as
part of the clearance, simply because that is how it's done in real life.
We do like to stick to our motto of "as real as it gets" and certainly do
appreciate the overseas traffic we get. To get onto a more pleasant topic,
I assume you noticed the post about the Oakland Oceanic FIR being open more
often. This is great news for both pilots (who will have more consistent
coverage) and controllers (who finally get to practice their oceanic
procedures).
Judging by the fact this topic is well read here, I can't help but throw in
a plug for Oakland Oceanic (http://www.csgm.org/kzak/). Check them out and
come fly the Pacific. See how easy it is to stop fighting and start flying
=)
Jim
"Dave B" <imathome@xtra_cutouthere_.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3fbc6ceb$1...@news.simflight.com...
Matt Johnson
> I'm sorry, but I've seen similar attiudes inside the Oceana Division as
> well, and your restriction are JUST AS STRICT as VATUSA's. If you want
> things to change, start in your own region, don't come over here acting like
> you're own home region doesn't have the same sort of rules and VATUSA is
> somehow different or more opressive than the other regions, because WE'RE
> NOT.
I don't think there is any argument that the restriction regulation was
broken, albeit reportedly inadvertantly.
However, the entire problem is rooted in how one particular supervisor
reacted to what has been reported as an inadvertant breach of the rules,
and his apparently willingness to remove the user from the network.
Would this supervisor have done the same if a student or controller
level controller had violated the local regulation? More to the point,
would another supervisor have reacted the same way?
My view: in cases of inadvertant violation of local rules, the
supervisor should broker a solution between the plaintiff and the
violator. However, unless the user breaks other disciplinary regulations
(e.g. the discussion between supervisor and violator rapidly turns
sour), forcibly removing the user from the network for an inadvertant
breach of a local regulation seems unwarranted.
Ernesto Alvarez
my final word on this is basically if brians conduct by doing his job and
removing this person because he basically did not follow regulations and
when confronted about it basically decided to ignore these same regulations.
then the other party should also be punished aswell by having there supervisor
status or whatever it is removed aswell.
all this looks sorta like the whole BOG is going on to brian for doing his
job and enforcing the very policies that were implented by vatusa and the
artcc's. for some of the members of the BOG to say that these regulations
can be simply tossed asside pretty much whenever they see fit is totally
wrong. it also makes it look like favortism towards the other party simply
cause they have friends high in the ranks. the reply the other party made
to the warning email sent to him after the action was taken only enforces
this feeling of favortism because of that affiliation.
simply put we cannot expect the members of this community to stick to the
rules if the people who are there to enforce them can simply toss them asside
whenever they want to.
there was never any notice of the visitor request/approval sent to NY at
all. im pretty sure about this because to this day not one of the NY staff
has stated that they recieved any such information. if such approval/request
was made prior to this event then someone sure as heck faild to do theyre
job and notify the artcc about it and really holds some responsibility for
the actions that were taken.
Ernie Alston
>
>Now I can argue with you the pro and cons here about this but I am not.
>
>You say the Code of Conduct section I quoted does not apply? I think it
>does. Because if you read the account Mr. Hoyle wrote he stated when he asked
>the "visitor" to remove himself, the "visitor" stated to him that he was
>busy doing something else in the room. So, he was logged on in a position
>at the ARTCC, NY_CTR, and not doing any controlling? or even watching his
>screen? Hmmmm????
Micheal,
The section you quoted refers to an position that is un-attended for
more than **30** minutes. Again Mr Hoyle's own account states he
pulled the plug a short time after waiting approx "15-20 mins".
Well below the 30 minutes requirement. So even if the person was doing
something else in the room the connection was not un-attended for the
minimum 30 minutes required to be in violation of the CoR Article you
quoted.
>Do you think if I had a title such as that would like me
>to log on as ABQ_CTR? With out even asking your permission prior to logging
I would not have a problem with it. As far as I'm concerned an Admin
or a Sup can work any position in my ARTCC anytime he wishes without
my approval.
But this is not the point because a Chief has the right to restrict
even Admins if he wishes. But the Admin can receive approval from the
Chief's Superiors which then overrides any local rules or regulations.
If the Chief does not like this override of his local regulations ,
then he should go complain to his superiors about it, not just go
zapping accounts.
Regards.
Ernie.
Ernie Alston
<ch...@flygma.com> wrote:
>Your use of "them" is misleading Ernie. The only connection terminated was
>that of Mr. Scanlan. Not of any of the aircraft flying in ZNY at the time.
I used the term "them" because the termination affected the World
Flight Crew not just one person.
But you're splitting hairs on this point which is irrelevent anyway.
>Also, just because Mr. Scanlan was supposedly providing ATC coverage for the
>WorldFlight event does not give him the right to refuse to sign off when
>asked by the Chief of the NY ARTCC.
If the Admin had approval from the Chief's Superiors (which apparently
he did) he was within his rights to refuse to sign off.
>You may not think itcorrect, but that's your opinion.
Obviously it is not just my opinion.
>Your right about the WorldFlight thing,you are the first to say anything about that being the reason. EXACTLY MY
>POINT, Brian didn't know that Scanlan was on because of the WorldFlight
>because he wasn't aware that WorldFlight was occuring that night
Mr Hoyle was made aware of it at the time by the Admin, who then
confirmed he had approval.
Mr Hoyle however still choose to zap them. That was improper once the
Admin had informed Mr Hoyle of the situation and asked the Chief allow
the World Flight crew to continue to use the ZNY position in the
absense of any other local ATC in the area.
>Also, you're only agreeing with my point Ernie on the suspension of the regulation. They didn't suspend it because they >can't, yet Mr. Scanlan's actions during the incident in question are equilvalent to him attempting to do such a thing,
>which he does not have the power to do.
Again if Mr Scanlan Had approval from Mr Hoyle's Superiors in
Vatusa/Vatna/Vatsim (which appears to be the case) then
Scanlan was not in effect suspending the local regs. It was Hoyle's
superiors in Vatusa/Vatna/EC who suspended the local regs temporarily
to support the World Flight event.
Regards.
Ernie.
Greg Phelan
service from people who simply didn't know the local airspace, and so to
make up for their lack of knowledge they stacked holds to keep the traffic
flow down (and we aren't talking a major event, we are taking having more
than 5 aircraft at once). This person really didn't know what they were
doing in the general sense either, they wanted me to hold at 230 KIAS or
less at FL330 in a B732 - not going to happen. When I tried explaining to
them that this restriction is applicable to jets at 14,000 and below, he
tried to have me suspended, expelled, and probably castrated. Thankfully
the supervisor had some common sense, and realised that it was an individual
in way over his head on the control side. Ultimately, it would have been
better to have no control at all, then to have what I had that flight.
Again, I'm not making any comments on the alleged events in ZNY - this is
simply with regards to restrictions in general - that they are both proper
and necessary.
Greg P.
"Dave B" <imathome@xtra_cutouthere_.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3fbc66ca$1...@news.simflight.com...
Christopher Trott
regulations, inadvertently or not. I've SEEN him do it before from both
sides of the scope. Also, your definition of "inadvertant" is kinda odd as
well. VATSIM's Code of Regulations states that all controllers much observe
local position manning restrictions and visiting controller regulations. If
an ADMIN didn't take time to read those restrictions, then I can't agree
that it was "inadvertant". Someone of Mr. Scanlan's experience should know
better than just log into a position without looking at the local
regulations first, if he doesn't, then he's at fault and any violation is
due to his error. I treat this kind of violation just like the pilot who
flies through restricted airspace (real world here) and doesn't know it
because he didn't take time to look at or have the briefer advise him of the
NOTAMs in effect for that day. The FAA doesn't rule that as inadvertant,
they rule it as negligent since he didn't do as he's been trained.
"Matt Johnson" <ma...@avsim.com> wrote in message
news:3fbc9a77$1...@news.simflight.com...
Christopher Trott
> he did) he was within his rights to refuse to sign off.
> Mr Hoyle was made aware of it at the time by the Admin, who then
> confirmed he had approval.
>
> Mr Hoyle however still choose to zap them. That was improper once the
> Admin had informed Mr Hoyle of the situation and asked the Chief allow
> the World Flight crew to continue to use the ZNY position in the
> absense of any other local ATC in the area.
Okay, here's the deal Ernie, I still don't see where you're getting this
information. Just because an event is posted on the VATUSA website doesn't
automatically mean that Mr. Scanlan had permission to operate outside the
VATUSA and ZNY regulations in place. That's where my contention is with
this entire situation. Even if Mr. Scanlan told Mr. Hoyle that he was
controlling for the WorldFlight event, this was apparently after telling Mr.
Hoyle that his primary concern was not controlling the sector, but doing
other things.
I don't claim to know everything about this situation, but whatever the full
story, the major issue here is an apparent lack of communications to the
ARTCC Chiefs and their staffs. I think that the major thing that the EC
should look at is how events are scheduled, especially ones like this. Just
communicating with a division is not enough. I know this from being on both
sides of the issue. I've already talked to several people about this issue
in the past, and I think it's time it be brought up again. Events should be
scheduled with each individual ARTCC involved (not just e-mail the division
and expect it to be done). Hopefully this will avoid any future situation
like what occurred during World Flight. By having the ARTCC Chiefs directly
involved and their staffs fully aware of what's going on, I think that
WorldFlight would have had the needed ATC online from ZNY and this would
have never happened. I know that ZLA nor ZDV (two ARTCCs involved) were
ever advised of what specific time that WorldFlight would be passing through
those airspaces, so if no ATC appeared for the WorldFlight it was because no
one knew when the flight would pass through that airspace for ATC to be
available.
Simon Kelsey
"Ignorance of the law is not an excuse..."
Simon
--
Simon Kelsey
Reporter/Editorialist
Flight Simulation Internet News Network
http://www.fsinn.com
"Christopher Trott" <ch...@flygma.com> wrote in message
news:3fbd2338$1...@news.simflight.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 18/11/2003
Simon Kelsey
Directors, thus having zero power to alter these regs.
If the regulations WERE altered by the regional/divisional director, then
there should have been a very clear indication of this down the chain of
command to ALL ARTCC Chiefs etc.
If this is the case, and Hoyle had not been informed, he is NOT at fault
here. It is whoever neglected to pass the message down the CoC.
Simon
--
Simon Kelsey
Reporter/Editorialist
Flight Simulation Internet News Network
http://www.fsinn.com
"Ernie Alston" <alst...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:up4orv0pmjphjdefm...@4ax.com...
Matt Johnson
Christopher Trott wrote:
> Matt, I KNOW that Brian would have removed anyone who violated local
> regulations, inadvertently or not. I've SEEN him do it before from both
> sides of the scope.
So, is that necessarily what he should have done? Personally, I believe it is a
gross over-reaction, and possibly even overstepping his authority as a
supervisor. However, as one who has never really liked the insane patchwork of
restrictive ratings across the VATSIM network, I'm biased in my views on this.
> Also, your definition of "inadvertant" is kinda odd as
> well. VATSIM's Code of Regulations states that all controllers much observe
> local position manning restrictions and visiting controller regulations. If
> an ADMIN didn't take time to read those restrictions, then I can't agree
> that it was "inadvertant".
You've lost me. If someone genuinely does not know that a local position manning
restriction existed in ZNY, how could he have looked at it?
I agree that it would probably have been wise to research it, but both you and I
are speaking with the 20-20 benefit of hindsight.
> Someone of Mr. Scanlan's experience should know
> better than just log into a position without looking at the local
> regulations first, if he doesn't, then he's at fault and any violation is
> due to his error.
Nobody said that Terry Scanlan's actions were NOT a violation of the appropriate
rule, least of all me!
> I treat this kind of violation just like the pilot who
> flies through restricted airspace (real world here) and doesn't know it
> because he didn't take time to look at or have the briefer advise him of the
> NOTAMs in effect for that day. The FAA doesn't rule that as inadvertant,
> they rule it as negligent since he didn't do as he's been trained.
And, yes, the FAA FSDO folks will probably have a less-than-friendly chat with
the pilot and maybe mark his ticket, because the pilot has had training, with a
qualified instructor, who has said "You see these areas on your sectional which
are marked 'RESTRICTED' or 'PROHIBITED'? You need to pay attention to these" and
probably some stronger verbiage to boot.
Aviation in the real world has rules regarding restricted airspace for two
reasons, in general: safety of flight, and security of the ground installation.
Neither of those apply on VATSIM.
We want VATSIM to be "as real as it gets", but if for every minor technical
infraction, such as someone genuinely not knowing a local regulation, we kick
people off the servers or suspend their certificates, it's not fun anymore.
Hell, if we did the same as the FAA does for runway incursions we'd probably not
have anyone left on the network!
The supervisors by and large do a very good job, and the oversight of their work
in both Conflict Resolution and by VATSIM's supervisory hierarchy is ample.
King Hoyle is/was a kick-ass ARTCC chief, no question about it -- and his
indomitable personality put ZNY where it is today. However, that indomitable
personality proved not to be the right temperament for continuing to be a VATSIM
Supervisor, and having been told that, Brian jumped on his sword. Undoubtedly
far from pretty, but pretty understandable.
Let me ask you this, Chris: how would you have handled the situation better, put
in Terry or Brian's shoes?
Regards,
--
Matt Johnson <ma...@avsim.com>
Technology Manager
AVSIM Online
Christopher Trott
manning
> restriction existed in ZNY, how could he have looked at it?
>
> I agree that it would probably have been wise to research it, but both you
and I
> are speaking with the 20-20 benefit of hindsight.
Well, here's the problem, I ALWAYS check to see what local restrictions are
before attempting to plug into another ARTCC's post. That's SOP for me
because the CoR and VATUSA Regs require it. At minimum, Mr. Scanlan was
required to read the Visiting Controller restrictions that VATSIM itself
says that all ARTCCs/FIRs should have in place. Mr. Scanlan, Administrator
or not, is still a visiting controller when not controlling in the Oceana
region, and even that is an overstatement of the facts. As Jim Johnston
pointed out earlier, ZLA recently had an Admin go through a full checkout
for ZLA as a visiting controller, and he followed the published procedures
for becoming a listed Visiting Controller with ZLA, just as I did several
months ago. No one should be exempt from an ARTCC/FIR's Visiting Controller
restrictions, even Admins. The idea behind them is one of quality. A
person who doesn't normally control in that area won't provide the same
level of service as a person who normally does, thus you put in place a
Visiting Controller program that helps those who wish to control in that
airspace the training and checks that they need to provide service as good
or better than the normal controllers on the roster. You may not agree with
that, but once again you run into the issue that each ARTCC/FIR, region, and
division has a separate set of needs for their Visiting Controllers and
Rostered Controllers because of the varying complexities of their airspace.
ZNY is one of the most complicated airspaces in the world, not far behind
ZLA, London FIR, and ZAU to name a few. I know that the London FIR
restrictions for visiting controllers is as strict or more strict than ZNY's
for good reason, its airspace is extremely limited.
> Let me ask you this, Chris: how would you have handled the situation
better, put
> in Terry or Brian's shoes?
In Terry's shoes, I would have asked for a waiver from Brian the minute he
asked what I was doing and requested I unplug, explaining my purpose. From
the information given, Terry didn't do that for more than 15 minutes, all
the while refusing to unplug. That doesn't exactly make a Supervisor
sympathetic to your situation. I would have also checked the local
restrictions AND pre-planned this whole thing. As I said to Ernie in an
earlier post, there appears to have been no notification to the individual
ARTCCs from anyone from WorldFlight of when they'd be passing through their
airspace, just that it'd be happening between 2 dates as specified on the
VATUSA Events Calendar. As such, no one knew when to have ATC online for
the event. This was the root of the issue, and the part that the EC needs
to look at rectifying for the future.
In Brian's shoes, from the information I have seen, I would have done
nothing different. He worked wit the information he had at hand at that
time, and he acted in what he felt the only correct action as prescribed by
the CoR, removal of the connection in question for violation of the Visiting
Controller Policy outlined in the CoR and ZNY position manning restrictions.
You're right, hindsight is 20-20, and I think that unfortunately it appears
that the BoG and Supervisory Corps leadership are looking at this situation
with that 20-20 sight and knowledge of the bigger picture instead of looking
at just the facts involved and throwing out everything else, which any good
judge or leader must do when considering disciplinary actions against a
person. I will tell you now that I know of several Supervisors that held
that position for far too long which didn't deserve it, and I yelled very
loudly about it. I stopped yelling becuase it was obvious that nothing
would be done, no matter how much evidence I had of my claims. Now an Admin
is removed from the server for (from what we know) valid reasons, and the
Supervisor who removed him has his Supervisor Rating stripped. What kind of
face does that show to the membership? That's the other question that needs
to be addressed.
Dave B
>
> You're right, hindsight is 20-20, and I think that unfortunately it
appears
> that the BoG and Supervisory Corps leadership are looking at this
situation
> with that 20-20 sight and knowledge of the bigger picture
Good boy, now you are learning!
>instead of looking at just the facts involved and throwing out everything
else, which any good
> judge or leader must do when considering disciplinary actions against a
person.
Ooops ...... no you're not.
In fairness, judging by your website I suggest there is a lot of potential
to be there. Now if you can just take those blinkers off .............
han_solo
anyone is owed an explanation for why Hoyle was stripped of his supervisor
rating when absolutely noone making those calls has all of the facts.
The one person who posts an official statement (Tom Schroeder) is completely
ignored. Noone seems to care that the only action taken has seemingly
nothing to do with the discussion that has taken on a life of its own.
Only a couple of insightful souls seem to wonder why the NY ARTCC forum
post by Hoyle is as vitriolic as it is if he's telling the truth. Hmmm.
Maybe it's because he is not. Maybe his post is total rubbish. Maybe
his time abusing pilots, controllers, prospective ZNY members and anyone
else unfortunate enough to cross his path caught up with him by being
deemed unworthy of supervisor status.
Nah, it couldn't possibly be that.
Ernesto Alvarez
let the force be with you solo. wheres chubaka and the droids?
cant take a person seriously who posts under a false name and then tries
to critic someone.
better luck next time.
better run, java's looking for you again
Matt Johnson
Christopher Trott wrote:
> Well, here's the problem, I ALWAYS check to see what local restrictions are
> before attempting to plug into another ARTCC's post. That's SOP for me
> because the CoR and VATUSA Regs require it.
Fine, so you do that. Tell me though, how many people do you think
ACTUALLY read the CoC and CoR? Yes, the vast majority is, as always,
composed of "common sense", but there are interesting elements, like CoC
C2 and C6, which will get missed.
So, yes, it was a problem, and Terry *should* have looked. I said that
last post. And, yes, a violation took place.
> No one should be exempt from an ARTCC/FIR's Visiting Controller
> restrictions, even Admins. The idea behind them is one of quality
*yada yada yada*
Yes, Chris. You don't need to convince me of this. I'm not arguing
against Visiting Controller Restrictions. I might not like them, but
they exist and are codified in the CoC.
> In Terry's shoes, I would have asked for a waiver from Brian the minute he
> asked what I was doing and requested I unplug, explaining my purpose. From
> the information given, Terry didn't do that for more than 15 minutes, all
> the while refusing to unplug. That doesn't exactly make a Supervisor
> sympathetic to your situation. I would have also checked the local
> restrictions AND pre-planned this whole thing.
Fairly reasonable. However, bear in mind that there's still only one
side of the story out in the open here, and that the Supervisor in
question happened also to be the chief of the ARTCC being violated. As I
said last time, Brian Hoyle has an indomitable personality.
> As I said to Ernie in an
> earlier post, there appears to have been no notification to the individual
> ARTCCs from anyone from WorldFlight of when they'd be passing through their
> airspace, just that it'd be happening between 2 dates as specified on the
> VATUSA Events Calendar. As such, no one knew when to have ATC online for
> the event. This was the root of the issue, and the part that the EC needs
> to look at rectifying for the future.
Congratulations. That's one of the things that needs to be learned.
> In Brian's shoes, from the information I have seen, I would have done
> nothing different. He worked wit the information he had at hand at that
> time, and he acted in what he felt the only correct action as prescribed by
> the CoR, removal of the connection in question for violation of the Visiting
> Controller Policy outlined in the CoR and ZNY position manning restrictions.
No, it was not the only correct action in the CoR or CoC for violating
the visiting controller policy. CoR 6.2, regarding online enforcement of
the CoR and CoC, it say: "Failure to comply with the terms of these
documents **may** result in a member’s removal, temporary suspension,
formal suspension, administrative removal or permanent expulsion from
VATSIM.net." My emphasis. It does not say "shall", or "must". It says
"may", because it is anticipated that Supervisors will use their common
sense and position to avoid a temporary suspension.
So, Terry screwed up by not looking at the local regulations; no
contest. Someone screwed up by not percolating the WorldFlight
information to where it needed to be; pretty much no contest.
Did Brian Hoyle react in a fashion befitting a supervisor when faced
with a local regulations violation? Did Terry Scanlan react in a
suitable fashion when approached by a VATSIM Supervisor regarding said
violation? Both range from "doubtful" to "probably", depending on your view.
> Now an Admin
> is removed from the server for (from what we know) valid reasons, and the
> Supervisor who removed him has his Supervisor Rating stripped. What kind of
> face does that show to the membership? That's the other question that needs
> to be addressed.
Perhaps it shows that the particular supervisor was at fault for being
so ready to use the powers entrusted to him by the VATSIM Board of
Governors. There are four possible outcomes to a Supervisory intervention:
* a correct/fair, popular decision
* an incorrect/unfair, popular decision
* a correct/fair, unpopular decision
* an incorrect/unfair, unpopular decision
Violation of a local rule alone should NEVER lead to a supervisor
reaching for .kill, in my opinion. If, in the discussion between
supervisor and violator, the air turns blue and other, general VATSIM
regulations are broken, then .kill is fair game. Local rules violations
should be negotiable between supervisor, plaintiff, and violator. Most
of these will result in the violator logging off, with no other action
taken. In other cases, I would hope that, depending on the circumstance,
more leniency would be applied.
--M
UAL660
A valid point Han.
It is rather interesting that so many have emerged from the woodwork, who
whilst have no first hand knowledge of this incident seem perfectly comfortable
usurping the role of judge, jury and executioner. Without faith in VATSIM
and her processes, folk readily clutch to their interpretations and prejudices
acquired from second, third and fourth hand sources in an effort to ride
the moral high-ground.
The only valid comment to emerge from this festering debacle that has consumed
this forum is from Shroeder who concisely infers this has nothing to do with
anyone but VATSIM and Hoyle and it is not fair to any party to cast judgement
in the public domain.
IMHO, the only subjective comment I would make relates to Hoyle's announcement
posting on the ZNY forum. Subject matter aside, I beleive that the objectionable
language and references made in that post are an utter disgrace and completely
out of tune with the character many have professes Hoyle to posess. We have
such a wide demographic amongst our membership and I beleive it entirely
unbecoming of a VATSIM certified site to host such trash. As an day-to-day
VATSIM member I was appauled and can't help but feel that it does such a
respectible organisation as ZNY no favours in hosting it.
I know at least I have more faith in VATSIM and her procecces...
660.
Ian
concerned, that is requesting clearance to control in someone else's area if
there is no other controller online for the particular position. In this
case it appears that no direct request was made to the person in charge of
the particular area, and so the VATSIM rules have been broken by someone
that should know better.
Ian
"Flying High" <som...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3fbc...@news.simflight.com...
Ernesto Alvarez
so what you guys are saying is that just cause he cursed in it, its basically
a lie? hope not, cause if it is you guys really need to go outside and take
a look around and welcome yourselfs to the new world.
i would be ticked off aswell if what was done to him happend to me. especially
if i was giving any time at all to help out this organization. for it to
turn around and bite you in the butt just because someone has friends at
the top is a total slap in the face and a disgrace to this organization as
a whole.
put yourself in his shoes and see what would you do. some may hold it back
better then others but i guarantee i would raise hell myself if this were
to happen to me.
Chewbacka
has ever logged in using a NY callsign?
The statistics don't lie...
Dr. Phil
Well, the actual callsign was KNZY_CTR, but Scanlan doesn't have any stats
there either? Maybe because Scanlan was not the controller! The controller
was actually someone else. But hey,,why let the truth get involved in the
circus ! ! ! It ruins the drama....
Ernesto Alvarez
or could it be that hes been suspended or removed? tried searching for "scalan"
and got 0 results. no records at all of ever logging on ANYWHERE even as
an observer wich kinda tells me hes been removed or his records erased.
Ernesto Alvarez
checked again. its actually not spelled scalan. its scanlan.
i dont see any record of logging on to NY, wich now tells me that records
been erased cause even the admins have said he was on if you read the other
posts.
someones covering something up
time for MIB to come check on you aliens
Ernie Alston
>
>checked again. its actually not spelled scalan. its scanlan.
>
>i dont see any record of logging on to NY, wich now tells me that records
>been erased cause even the admins have said he was on if you read the other
>posts.
You're mistaken, if you review all the posts so far,
It is only Mr Hoyle in his original ZNY forum post that has stated
that it was Scanlan who was actually logged on the "NY CTR" position
at the time.
Regards.
Ernie.
Daniel Slocum
"Dr. Phil" <nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>Well, the actual callsign was KNZY_CTR, but Scanlan doesn't have any stats
>there either? Maybe because Scanlan was not the controller! The controller
>was actually someone else. But hey,,why let the truth get involved in the
>circus ! ! ! It ruins the drama....
Looking at the usage statistics, callsign KNZY_CTR was never used. Callsign
KZNY_CTR has not been used in months.
If these stats were actually deleted, it is a sure indication of the level
of personal integrity of the VatSim board. It is also a sure sign that VatSim
is going the way of Satco. The sooner that happens, the better off we'll
all be.
ed_wood
Daniel, look again. KZNY_CTR certainly has been used in the past month.
Dr. Phil
Well Daniel, I suggest you look again. Because it is there. Sorry to put a
damper on the conspiracy....
Dr. Phil
Might interest you to know that the statistics database uses European date
format.
day/month/year
Ernesto Alvarez
well ill leave it at this. ive known brian for years, hes not the type to
say someone logged on somewhere and lie about it. hes not going to risk the
reputation of the entire artcc and its members on a lie like that. i dont
know what type of games vatsim is trying to play but apparently now theres
a "cover up" of some sort going on.
i guarantee you if this was an entire lie on brians part i will deffinitely
not be in the NY ARTCC membership any longer and im sure many will follow
for such a disgraceful act. so i seriously doubt he would do such a thing.
Ernie Alston
wrote:
>>
>>Well, the actual callsign was KNZY_CTR, but Scanlan doesn't have any stats
>>there either? Maybe because Scanlan was not the controller! The controller
>>was actually someone else. But hey,,why let the truth get involved in the
>>circus ! ! ! It ruins the drama....
>
>Looking at the usage statistics, callsign KNZY_CTR was never used. Callsign
>KZNY_CTR has not been used in months.
You're mistaken, the stats show the KZNY_CTR was last used on Nov 5th
2003.
Which is in line with Hoyle's time statement of "about 2 weeks ago ",
and is within the time period of the World Flight Nov 3 to Nov 9th.
Regards.
Ernie.
Diego Pedraglio
If uyou see on Mr. Scanlan's connections, you can see he has logged as MANY
"_CTR"... so unless he has contacted EVERY single ARTCC, he has broken the
rules of many places....
It also extrange the fact that his connection as KZNY_CTR isn't there...
specially because it has been admitted that he was actually connected...
Diego P
Dr. Phil
Why didn't I think of that.....It is so obvious...Geez
Chris Jarshant <cj2...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>Anyone care to comment on the potential linkage
>of the vatusa website defacement in connection with
>the scanlan scandal? It sounds like the two could
>have something in common!
Chris Jarshant
of the vatusa website defacement in connection with
the scanlan scandal? It sounds like the two could
have something in common!
Dr. Phil
OMG...you're right...he has logged on as CTR in Australia. THE NERVE! !
And where has it been admitted that Scanlan's ID was logged on as KZNY_CTR?
Please show me ...
Ernie Alston
>
>If uyou see on Mr. Scanlan's connections, you can see he has logged as MANY
>"_CTR"... so unless he has contacted EVERY single ARTCC, he has broken the
>rules of many places....
Sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree here.
The callsigns shown for Scanlan are mostly within the Oceanic
Division (of which he is the Director). Australia and New Zealand
mostly and a few Asian positions which likely do not have position
restrictions.
>t also extrange the fact that his connection as KZNY_CTR isn't there...specially because it has been admitted that he was actually connected...
Who made this admission ? Name one person besides Mr Hoyle who has
made such an admission.
Regards.
Ernie.
Matt Johnson
> If you are now saying that it wasn't Mr. Scanlan, then why Mr. Scanlan hasn't
> said that he wasn't? Why is he staying on this silence?
Maybe because he has more of a clue than the rest of us -- even me -- when it
comes to how this situation should be being handled.
Let's just say that I'll hang my hat on the bet that the BoG and the tech folks
in VATSIM have *far* better things to do with their time than to meddle with the
stats on data.vatsim.net, despite what some members of ZNY are claiming.
--M
Diego Pedraglio
>The callsigns shown for Scanlan are mostly within the Oceanic
>Division (of which he is the Director). Australia and New Zealand
>mostly and a few Asian positions which likely do not have position
>restrictions.
Yes, you have just said "most", what about the others? Im not accusing anyone
on this subject, but it looks a little extrange that he logs in other places
besides his own places.
>Who made this admission ? Name one person besides Mr Hoyle who has
>made such an admission.
Besides Mr. Hoyle (which for me is enough), WorldFlight, in its letter,
admitted there was someone connected with "basic ATC knowledge". Lets see...
Mr. Scanlan was part of WF, and then, if it is true that someone was connected:
Why there isnt any records of this?
If you are now saying that it wasn't Mr. Scanlan, then why Mr. Scanlan hasn't
said that he wasn't? Why is he staying on this silence?
Diego P
Dr. Phil
So it is strange that someone might login somewhere besides their own ARTCC?
But you are taken it a step further and trying to say that because he has
these other callsigns he has obviously broken the rules many times. Basically
you are desperately trying to show a pattern of abuse by Scanlan, but it
just aint there!
Diego, you are ignoring the facts in front of your face.
Now as for the controller online as KNYZ_CTR...look at the times.....that
should give you the information you need. Or do I need to spell his name
out for you?
Luke Skywalker
After having read all the threads on the forums, including Mr. Hoyle's colorful
description of the events, I decided to do a little research...
The simple fact of the matter is that Hoyle was only interested in causing
trouble! He didn't care where the flight was, it wasn't going to take place
in "his" airspace!
Was this "dangerous, rogue" controller working New York Center (NY_CTR)?
NO!
Was this "dangerous, rogue" controller working flights inside New York Center?
NO!
So what was the big deal? This "dangerous, rogue" controller was logged
in as KZNY_CTR. What's KZNY_CTR you ask? It's New York Oceanic!
The times that Mr. Hoyle and supposedly Terry Scanlan were online appears
to have been between 1645 and 1715 UTC on 11/5/03. Where was the World Charity
Flight (of which Mr. Scanlan is involved) at that time on that day? They
were either flying from Montreal to Bermuda, or from Bermuda to Africa!
I'm not sure which. Don't believe me? Here's their flight schedule: http://www.worldflight.ozflight.com.au/operations/fullroster.php
So, if they were indeed someplace out over the ocean when Mr. Hoyle noticed
them, who were they harming?
Ernie Alston
<ghos...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>Yes, you have just said "most", what about the others?
If you find a position on record he manned without approval we'll go
from there, until then....
I'm not doing your research for you.
>>Who made this admission ? Name one person besides Mr Hoyle who has
>>made such an admission.
>
>Besides Mr. Hoyle (which for me is enough), WorldFlight, in its letter,
>admitted there was someone connected with "basic ATC knowledge". Lets see...
>Mr. Scanlan was part of WF, and then, if it is true that someone was connected:
>Why there isnt any records of this?
Someone 'was' connected in that KZNY_CTR position, we've already
proven there is a record of it.
Regards.
Ernie.
Dave B
"Luke Skywalker" <u...@theschwartz.net> wrote in message
news:3fbe9427$1...@news.simflight.com...
>> So, if they were indeed someplace out over the ocean when Mr. Hoyle
noticed
> them, who were they harming?
Just Mr Hoyle's enourmous ego.
Diego Pedraglio
"Dr. Phil" <nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>So it is strange that someone might login somewhere besides their own ARTCC?
>But you are taken it a step further and trying to say that because he has
>these other callsigns he has obviously broken the rules many times. Basically
>you are desperately trying to show a pattern of abuse by Scanlan, but it
>just aint there!
If you read my post, I say "it looks extrange", and also "Im not acusing
anyone". It looks extrange, but I 100% agree I can't raise any conlusions
from it.
Dave Fitches
"Dave B" <imathome@xtra_cutouthere_.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3fbc66ca$1...@news.simflight.com...
> Has anyone considered for one minute that some pilots may be happy with a
> level of service that is NOT as good as NO service at all because the rest
> of the world is sleeping? No, in some corners of the world I very much
doubt
> it. Also has anybody else considered that it may be inconvenient to fly
> online when a center is fully staffed? Due to time zone differences the
> world is a big place and not centered on one area. The rules do not
reflect
> this.
I have to agree - If it's 3am local time in NY and there is NO ATC LOGGED
ON WHAT-SO-EVER, what harm does it do for someone to jump in as ATC for the
area??
IF a controller who IS qualified for that position wants to jump in as ATC,
then they have three choices.
1. Ask the non-qualified controller to move to another position (which
should be complied with)
2. Jump in to another position themselves to provide increased coverage for
the area
3. MENTOR the non-qualified controller to help them improve the quality of
their work in that sector
IF however someone is NOT wanting to take that position, then why kick the
visitor out??
Like Dave B said: ANY ATC is better than NO ATC...
From the information I've seen this whole thing is a giant bitch-fest. The
sense called "common" is apparently not that common at all. While we all
want it to be "AS REAL AS IT GETS" people lose sight of the whole "hobby"
aspect of it.
As far as the Scanlan/Hoyle situation goes, from my understanding, Terry was
providing OCEANIC coverage from KZNY-CTR which is the New York Oceanic
Center position. NOT a sector position over NY itself. He was not absent
from his keyboard for a period in excess of 30 mins. He was providing ATC
for an online charity flight and NO-ONE was going to take over the position
if he vacated as requested to by "King" Hoyle.
For people to spit it over visiting controllers, expecially when no-one is
willing to/wanting to FILL the spot they're asking the visiting controller
to vacate, but just wants them OUT because they're in someone else's region
and allegedly NOT qualified for the area, seems childish in the extreme.
Incidentally, I'd have taken "King" Hoyle more seriously if his rant (and
that's the only word for it given the content) hadn't descended into abuse
and profanity of the basest level. I assure you, if that behaviour had
occurred in a REAL LIFE ARTCC, the person in question would undoubtably be
sent off for anger management counselling.
GET OVER IT PEOPLE. We're supposed to be a global community. We're supposed
to be able to help and support our fellow hobbyists. We're supposed to be
able to converse in a civilised manner. We're supposed to be able to act
like mature, sensible, reasoning people!! If you want to whinge, bitch and
moan, go play CounterStrike or some other kiddie game where your childish
attitudes will be more in line with the normal behaviour of those around
you.
Dave Fitches.
Diego Pedraglio
"Dave Fitches" <davedotnospam@fitchesdotcom> wrote:
>
>"Dave B" <imathome@xtra_cutouthere_.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:3fbc66ca$1...@news.simflight.com...
>to be able to help and support our fellow hobbyists. We're supposed to be
>able to converse in a civilised manner. We're supposed to be able to act
>like mature, sensible, reasoning people!! If you want to whinge, bitch and
>moan, go play CounterStrike or some other kiddie game where your childish
>attitudes will be more in line with the normal behaviour of those around
>you.
I haven't read your whole post, but then if you want to "get over it", then
why do you bring up this?, nobody was takling about this subject anymore.
Diego P
Dave B
"Diego Pedraglio" <ghos...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3fcd193f$1...@news.simflight.com...
>
> I haven't read your whole post, but then if you want to "get over it",
then
> why do you bring up this?, nobody was takling about this subject anymore.
>
> Diego P
Diego
It is with a great sense of disppointment that I feel compelled to reply to
your post for the following reasons:-
1. You state quite clearly that you "did not read the whole post," therefore
your reply to Dave Fitches is totally out of context and does not take into
account some of the valid points he made.
2. You make the point that nobody is talking about this anymore. Does this
take away a persons right to put their thoughts down if they have just
happened to come across the original post and feel compelled to reply? Got
news for you young fella and that is in the REAL free world that some of you
appear to value dearly and then take great pleasure in contradicting, it is
often more productive to discuss, agree or disagree than it is to bury one's
head in the sand and wish it would go away.
3. Maybe you do not want to see Hoyles name discussed again which surprises
me as you yourself apologised for the comments you made once you became
aware of the facts. I remember quite clearly how people congratulated you
for your apology and maturity in the matter, myself included.
4. In the NY ARTC forum you yourself wrote "I wanted to apologize for only
basing my judgement on one position, which according to the facts is not
very accurate". This was followed by "Please take into account these facts
and with that make your own conclusions". Again I question why you chose to
tackle Mr Fitches for doing what you yourself suggested and coming to his
own conclusions.
Maybe you take issue with the fact that Mr Fitches may have a different and
more liberal, flexible or realistic point of view than yours. Or maybe you
have fallen into line behind Mr Hoyle after he immediately followed up on
your apology in the NYARTC Forum as follows:-
"The usegroups are a useless cesspool of hyper emotional crap ...... etc"
and suggested that you do not discuss the issue here.
To which you replied:-
"I wont be posting anymore on the Vatsim forums regarding the above
subject".
It seems that you have NOT been true to your word, but I do not have an
issue with that. I do however think that your belief of self impossed
censorship is more damaging and destructive than good old fashioned open
discussion - although some politicians would disagree!
In closing you may wish to consider that maybe, just maybe, Mr Fitches
decided to look into the whole situation before forming an opinion. You may
wish to consider that Mr Fitches read Mr Hoyles comment in the NY forum "you
people have to learn how to use this newsgroup to your advantage and not as
an anonymous way of attacking people, policies ...etc" You may also wish to
consider that Mr Fitches read the same anonymous attacks by Mr Hoyle (aka
Truth Be Known and Devil's Advocate - IP 68.36.68.100) and Mr Gene Guilford
( aka Devil's Shadow - IP 24.2 .227 119) to "the idiots lost in the dark" in
this forum shortly afterwards.
Mr Fitches is quite right ...... there is a lot of extreme childishness in
some areas. I suggest it is more like selfishness and an opportunity for
some of lifes failures to rebuild their ego.
So yes, regardless of the fact that he was replying to an earlier post of
mine and more or less agreed with my way of thinking, I think it is far
greater and of better character to have an opinion (whether right or wrong)
than it is to bury or expect everybody else to bury their heads in the sand
as if it does not exist.
Best
ANZ121
Diego Pedraglio
Sorry if you got the wrong message about this...
What I mean is that, this is a very old topic, which now on this forums it
was almost forgotten. I just thought that bringing this topic "back to life"
on this forums wasn't the best thing to do, since all the discussions it
caused. I know he is free to express his opinion, just IMO its not worth
to continue talking about it (on this forums). Of course if he wants to
say something, he can. I just expressed my opinion with the above post.
About the "I will not be posting more about this subject", I mean I wasn't
going to express my opinion about who's right and who's wrong. That is also
why Im not making any comments if his post is right or wrong. If he has actually
read the whole post and the form his opinion, then Im glad he did it and
didn't made the same mistake I did.
Diego P