Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. I never claimed for it to be certain, that's why I said it's my belief that i speak on behalf of the majority of VATSIM users, not all. This wasn't my only point against Eurocontrol so not sure what you are getting at here? This exemplifies the point that I have just made, If small London sectors have an issue with traffic numbers how on earth can anyone sit here and back the use of EURx over areas 20 x the size! More to this - recently restrictions have been placed on what sectors can be opened when for London to try and prevent such high workload on a single frequency, things
  3. What happens when the EUR position covers multiple UIR positions? How should EUR position react when only one of those UIR position becomes active.
  4. Today
  5. First problem - we actually do not know this. It's you belief, but noone have tried to make some kind of survey on this. On this we can agree - in a sense 🙂 You are absolutely correct - off cause there will be issues. Especially if you expect EURx to mirror one-to-one the services given by local ctr. If you on the other hand acknowledge that limitations exists, then it is possible to make a working solution. But only stating that EURx is unreallistic - implying that the rest of our great network is realistic, is not a fair comparison. Plenty of issues exists, if you compare RW
  6. Andreas, Earlier in this post you pleaded for your opinion to be recognised before a decision on EURI was made although now you have made a sarcastic comment after Bill has stated his opinion? The service provided by EUR control on a busy day is abismal.. There is my opinion 😉 Ta
  7. When I say this I believe that I speak on behalf of the majority of VATSIM users (both ATC and pilots) but the whole ideal of Eurocontrol is flawed from the outset. Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole idea of these quite frankly mega unrealistic positions (on what is supposed to be a realistic simulation network) was to improve ATC coverage in Europe in the days where traffic was much quieter and ATC much more uncommon. These days the majority of divisions/vacc's are much more active which makes Eurocontrol in a sense redundant. From the ATC perspective controlling adjacent to Eurocontr
  8. I don't think he is against ATC. I think he is against unrealistic ATC on VATSIM, which is where I find myself into. I never flew with EURI online or even controlled alongside, but people who did always complained that people who were approved on this sector never followed the standard agreements and would just descend everyone to FL240. The London FIR is one of the busiest in the "virtual world" and having someone not respecting those standard agreements puts pressure on the other sectors, and further on the Approach controllers. I don't know why everyone is making such a big deal o
  9. I think Andreas put it very well: "But sometimes we send you direct somewhere, instruct descents/climbs, even headings happen in case of potentially conflicting traffic. "
  10. Some facts for the Singapore mishap: http://avherald.com/h?article=445873f3/0001&opt=0 Luckily we don't simulate this in any of our FS software.
  11. That's very nice of you. Always at your service... How can you be against ATC services when you are a member of VATSIM?
  12. if you are lucky you'll have only two calls, right. But sometimes we send you direct somewhere, instruct descents/climbs, even headings happen in case of potentially conflicting traffic. And some really enjoy listening to all the ATC/pilot chatter on a busy frequency, surprise surprise! Apparently some members prefer flying without ATC, it puzzles me.
  13. As a pilot I will definitely not accept a "no" in such a case. I will not increase my drag/fuel-flow just because of a holding pattern. Nor here or in the real world.
  14. Hi Rene, as you are using a current pilot client, you won't need the standalone application of AFV, because its codec is already integrated into your pilot client. At present, only ATCOs need the standalone app until AFV will be integrated into their radar clients.
  15. As Andreas says, interference from aircraft (or vehicles) can very much affect the localiser and glideslope beams -- this is why the CAT II and CAT III holding points are much further back from the runway. At Heathrow I seem to recall it is/was standard for aircraft following an A380 on approach to be given the RNAV (weather permitting) rather than the ILS as a matter of routine because for whatever reason the size of the A380 was causing disturbances to the ILS for following aircraft (whether during the approach or maybe whilst vacating etc, I'm not sure). This video is an excellent demo
  16. Hi there! I do not find any downloadlink to get the audio 4 vatsim standalone version. There should be also an android version that i need. On the Website of the tool is nothing do download. My vPilot has got the newest version. Greetings René
  17. For me to understand @Torben Andersen you like making two very short chats with atc while getting an 500nm direct. One checkin chat which gives you the direct and a checkout when leaving the sector.
  18. Yep - you can definitely do this. For some holds, we're always happy to waive the speed limits on request - especially for distance-based holds. This would include TIMBA (within reason) for me, at least. However, there are some time-based holds which are too close together for us to do that. You may also find that the speed limit prevents you from entering another controller's airspace. TL;DR - Never be afraid to ask, but please don't be surprised if the answer is no.
  19. Let's just agree to disagree. I'd rather have atc when flying online, than not. Back in the days when EURI was made, upper sectors over UK, was not often manned. Now it is a lot better, but I still fly into UK airports (or overfly the UK) with no atc coverage. EURI does only cover areas not covered by local atc already, so EURI does not take any traffic away - perhaps on the contrary. What I've always seen on VATSIM is, the more atc, the more traffic. Having as many area "lit up" as possible is not a negative thing to achieve in my book. regards
  20. I totally agree that there should be far more genuine "customer" consultation with decisions, in fact any at all would be nice. I don't agree with your pilot's views re EUR though, EURI was unwanted by the UK pilot membership when it first appeared (there was far more pilot input to the UK fora back then). I well remember the efforts people went to to avoid EURI completely! The demise of EURI is very welcome IMO as a pilot-only.
  21. Hi Torben, My message was not specifically directed to you, but to everyone. You are right, the decision has been made - but that does not mean that feedback can't be taken into consideration anymore should anything change in the future. The decision, as Nick already explained, was not made by a unique person but agreed by all involved parties. Asking the community, yes I agree, but that is the job of each vACC Director as they are the first point of contact for the members of every vACC. It is up to them to judge whether the entire vACC community is to be informed of such events.
  22. ....but if the minimum clean speed of your aircraft is higher than 220 KIAS, simply seek ATC-approval for a higher than normal holding speed. The last thing you want to do in a holding is extend your slats/flaps just to respect an ATC speed limit - you'll be burning a lot more fuel!
  23. Oh yes, they do! I see fluctuating LOC and GS indications all the time in the real world. That's why LVPs have to be in force, before CAT II or even CAT III approaches can be flown in the real world. Aircraft near the antennas definitely do affect the beams of localizers and glideslopes. LVP means that "protected areas" are created to avoid aircraft obstructing the signals, especially of the glideslope atenna. And that's also the reason why you need bigger lateral separation on finals when LVPs are in force: the preceding aircraft must be well clear of the runway before the succeeding pla
  24. Could you please explain how to come with "constructive critisism/feedback" on a subject, which clearly has been decided, without discussion amongst "the other half", eg. the pilots ? If you want involvement from pilots, you need to ask them as well as the ARTCC. Naturally a decision has to be made and the Division is the "office" to do it. While some persons (controllers as well as pilot) will be disapointed and some will be happy, it would be prudent to ask the community (and not only the ARTCCs) for oppinions before claiming "all involved parties" has been heard. Nick's answer is sufficient
  25. A small note on "points are taken onboard". Please do provide us with the constructive criticism/feedback if that's what you're looking to do, useless comments will not be that helpful for the future. Thanks
  26. As requested <?xml version="1.0"?> <Airspace xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"> <SystemRunways> <Airport Name="BIKF"> <Runway Name="10" DataRunway="10"> <STAR Name="[A-Z]{4}\dM" ApproachName="ILSZ"/> <SID Name="[A-Z]{4}\dB" /> </Runway> <Runway Name="28" DataRunway="28"> <STAR Name="[A-Z]{4}\dH" ApproachName="ILSZ"/> <SID Name="[A-Z]{4}\dD" /> </Runway> <Runway Name="01" DataRunway="01"> <
  27. Under involved parties, all the involved FIRs are understood. It is expected that FIR staff, as those closest to the pilots, are aware of the views for their respective local facility. However, point is taken onboard,
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...