Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/06/20 in all areas

  1. Norman Blackburn retires from the Board of Governors After 13 years as the Vice President of Conflict Resolution, Norman Blackburn has announced his retirement from the Board of Governors. Norman joined in the BoG in June 2007 and has been a stalwart in promoting excellence in online behaviour and ensuring that when members have been referred to the Conflict Resolution process, that they have been dealt with in a fair and timely fashion. Norman has developed many Division Conflict Resolutions Managers (DCRM) during his tenure and has been an active participant in BoG discussions and decisions since his appointment. Norman plans to continue to play an active role on the VATSIM network as time commitments allow so we expect to see his name around our virtual skies for many years to come. As an interim measure, VP Operations Mark Richards, will look after the Conflict Resolution portfolio as well to ensure a smooth transition to the new VP Conflict Resolution in due course. We are now working through the finer points for the appointment of a successor for Norman. On behalf of the Board of Governors, Founders, Executive Committee, Conflict Resolution team and all members, I would like to thank Norman for his 13 years of dedicated service to VATSIM and wish him all the best in his retirement.
    5 points
  2. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/642269265 I was the controller in your stream. In my opinion I was nothing, but helpful throughout your whole flight. I have not raised my voice once and I only engaged/asked a question. I noticed how new pilots are based on their responses and that increases my leniency on the frequency (ie. I will speak slower and enunciate or will try to explain what I'm doing) despite how busy I am. I will let other forum members read, watch, and tell us what they think. In the beginning of the flight till nearing the end you got frustrated because you didn't understand how the procedures work out in our airspace; your debriefing clearly showed that frustration. Before I even explain, you resorted to .wallop's and went directly to my superiors to complain about my service instead of simply messaging me at the end to ask why I did what I did so we can be on the same understanding. My superior comes back with a hammer head bias simply because we care about the professionalism and quality output without even divulging and getting both sides. A discussion wasn't even attempted yet you reached to the peak. I hope you're not one that goes after to tarnish controllers' reputations just because you're frustrated and learning yourself. Allow me to address your issues mentioned in the video I took you off of the ODP because in my judgement, you're in complex airspace and are climbing above my minimum vectoring altitudes so I gave you a shortcut instead of letting you fly the long route I vectored you off before SAC because I was setting you up for a square visual approach. Things changed when you couldn't see the airport while abeam it so I gave you the ILS. It doesn't help to see the airport head on nor is it smart to set you up in the departure corridor around other airports. That was a 3-4 mile abeam the airport- downwind, not 10. I simply told you the airport METAR was SKC, so if you're IMC you should expect the ILS. Hence why I asked your flight conditions- which apparently was > 30sm in vis, not 3 like you said. You were just under a cloud layer and the airport was clearly seen in the video. The best way to get you in was to vector you to the final approach course. You made the mistake of loading the procedure and directing yourself to the FAF. I cannot allow you to present position direct the FAF or IF along the approach at that angle. Regardless, I walked you through. I have to vector you beyond the FAF for legal interception on my part and allow myself more time to balance other priorities. The situation still got the best of me and I allowed you to get past the LOC, I got you back on and asked if it was okay to be vectored to the FAF because the 7110.65 requires me to have pilot concurrence to be vectored that close inside the approach gate. You responded with "Well I'm just doing what I'm told which was to join the LOC" I didn't have time to explain what I meant by the question because I had more planes to deal with. See? Not so hard was it. You just had to ask and I'll gladly explain to you whatever I did and the reasoning behind it. I could learn from something, you could too. Countless pilots ask me after they landed and apologize for the inconvenience they've caused, to which I always answer "we're all learning, that's why I'm here". PS. I was not the controller the OP mentioned about asking people to disconnect.
    2 points
  3. Nestor, I have honestly given up volunteering help via an official title. I have thrown my name up for numerous positions, AND always try and provide comment With a view to making the place better. If I can help in any way, I am here. If there is guidance with set and clear outcomes, I’m the man. Maybe I’m tainted. But when things need doing, and they aren’t done because someone with a title didn’t do it, then I feel worthless. So Nestor, ask away in any form you wish, and I will help. I think we have generally got to a point that unless you have a VATSIM title no-one within VATSIM respects your comments. In my opinion we are a community with people of our community selected to provide guidance, not rule. Every person in a community should be a helper, or in my opinion they aren’t truely part of the community.
    1 point
  4. The controller was a bit quiet so I might have missed something but I didn't see any wrong in what he did except for sending you through the localizer and a bit late descent clearance but I'd put it down to him being very busy (obviously, when there is a Friday night event next door). The downwind was a bit long for a C172 but since you were IFR for an ILS approach, this was necessary as I understood from what the controller wrote. I think, Danice, you were concentrating too much on "this is the guy who argued with me about the weather", so you got the feeling he was somehow trying to hurt you when he was just being busy. I was recently left at FL290 where I should've been at FL60 by a busy controller, then he let me fly almost 100 nm away from the airport while descending. Finally he realized he wasn't able to service me, apologized and sent me to unicom for my landing (I was the only arrival to a smaller airport in his airspace). I just chuckled and did what I was told to do. When they're busy, they're busy, nothing you can do. It's not on purpose. 🙂 Also you could have called the field in sight when you saw passing it and he would've been able to change your approach to visual again. @Dominic Nguyen I know you're a great controller and I'm sure your superiors know this, too, so your reputation is not easily tarnished. 🙂
    1 point
  5. Not anymore, per the 27th of August 2019, FAA formatted flight plans are no longer accepted, and flight plans needs to be filed in an IFP (International Flight Plan) format, in order words, ICAO all over the world. 🙂 I am not sure how easy this process would be to implement on the network, it might be hard coded in FSD... I know some people active on the forums which know a lot more about this, they will probably tune in soon. 🙂
    1 point
  • Create New...