Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/07/20 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.
    17 points
  2. I would like to take this opportunity and thank Norman Blackburn for his service to the VATSIM network as Vice President of Conflict Resolution. Norman, your contributions have been immeasurable and am grateful for to have had the opportunity to work with you, and also for your department. Every time I asked for your help, your advice or a second opinion on a matter, you were always there and happy to help. After 13 years of service as VPCRM, you have earned your retirement many times over. I wish you all the best. Your successor has big shoes to fill! Thank you, sir!
    3 points
  3. No. It does depend on whether people just offer their help or if they really step up and deliver results. There are enough "advisors" and "commenters", but there are not enough people who are capable and willing to get the job done in the end. One big reason for people not being motivated are the toxic "comments" that are being written here on this forum, on Facebook or via private messages/emails: why didn't you do this or that although I had asked for it? this software is sh*t, it does not work for me (but I did not read or follow the manuals) I demand an answer!!! Now!!! I have a right to be heard, I am entitled to this etc. Can you imagine that this drags down people's motivation? We need more positive comments from those who are actually satisfied with a product and not only negative, toxic input. No serious developer will refuse constructive criticism, but what I have seen in all the years with VATSIM, is sometimes very embarrassing and upsets me a bit. It is no wonder why so few developers are willing to commit to projects when they receive and read such comments every week. We should feel blessed and honoured that we still have people who enjoy developing and publishing software and websites for our use at VATSIM. Please do not forget that this is all done in their free-time and that they are not receiving a penny for it. As a consequence there's nothing that anyone of us pure consumers can ask for or even demand. Yes, make requests and suggestions, but don't expect them to be implemented until there's time and capacity. It's not the end of the world if something's not ultimately realistic or a bit dated. Usually there is a good reason why things do not get changed overnight. As explained above the flightplan information cannot just be changed overnight, because all radar and pilot clients need to be compatible with it. I do not like the obsolete FAA format too much either, but in the end it gets the job done: type of aircraft, from A to B via route C, type of equipment for airliners (90% of our pilots) is normally "/L" (RNAV capability with GNSS, including GPS or WAAS with en route and terminal capability, and with RVSM). Nobody here needs endless information about how many GPS you have, whether your MNPS approved or what type ADS-B you have installed. And now, burn me, hit me, I can take it. But please do not hurt our developers with demands that nobody here is entitled to make. And stop those conspiracy theories that only people with a title will be heard. I know it is not true, you just have to choose the correct channels to communicate and bring some real knowledge and expertise to the conversation. In the background there are projects being done without anyone knowing, because developers want to be able to work in peace without toxic input.
    3 points
  4. Wait a minute, do you mean something like this? 😋 ICAO flight planning has long been on my personal wish list - it's a work in progress but it's happening 😄
    3 points
  5. 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.
    2 points
  6. I would like to talk about a thing, that may seem non-existent to many, but it's growing within community, that is truly taking old-but-gold motto "As real as it gets" still seriously. With enhancing the quality of the service, adding support to many mods & changes, and trying to adjust to changing real-world aviation, I'd like to talk about switching from old FAA Flight Plans to ICAO Flight Plan Form. Why is it even a concern in our virtual aviation world? Let me point out just a few advantages and disadvantages of the change: FAA form is valid form only in US, and also under several circumstances. (look at the Mats Edvin Aaro post below) In the rest of the world it's the ICAO Flight Plan in use. Even in FAA-land, international border crossing flight plans have to be filled out with ICAO format, Increasing amount of A/C equipped with S-mode transponders, even though not officially supported by VATSIM (which is also an old remain from 90's), is being introduced and simulated by several divisions based on Equipment code in FPL form. FAA Form does not provide info about Type of transponder included on board of ACFT, Introduction of RNAV/RNP and entire PBN idea solutions are being more and more simulated by pilots - you can spot acfts with "Basic RNAV", or "NON-RNAV" RMK inside of FPLs, or those generated/filled by real enthusiasts including "PBN/". Thus should be simulated via proper Flight Plan Item, not a RMK, FAA Form includes not-so-clearly understood "EDT" as "Estimated Departure Time", while ICAO Flight Plan Form clearly states it should be "EOBT" (Estimated Off-Block Time). This is crucial during events, high workload and running and designing slot/CTOT plugins. These solutions are not yet very popular, but you can find out that people are asking for such solutions, and me - personally, as an amateur developer, I find it confusing on how to interpret the timing included in current FPL, because people understand it differently. With proper form, we can give a clear advice on what timing should be filled out there. ICAO FPL included in VATSIM wouldn't need to be fully ICAO Form - therefore we do not need the info about Dinghies or Emergency/Survival equipment supplements. I understand, that change would involve in changing multiple software developments, beginning with VATSIM servers, then VATSIM-prefile page, Connection clients (both Pilots and Controller software), 3rd party users etc, and might be overwhelming to VATSIM human resources, thus I would really put this onto discussion board. With Over-the-air updates, and notification possibilities to be sent, connection with the community by Social Media, it shouldn't be an user-side (pilot/ATC) issue. If we could do such a major change as AFV. Proper implementation of mode A/C/S would be another benefit, but I get that VATGOV / ADM might find it too complicated for beginners. I think VATSIM shouldn't stop on one huge change in a decade - and I am fully aware of the words I am saying, as I am part of the community since 2009, I grew up here, it gave me a lot, and VATSIM was an originator of my professional career later on.
    1 point
  7. Published on the #VATSIMEVENTS calendar and VATSIM Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/vatsimevents/ https://www.vatsim.net/events/berlin-palma-or-back
    1 point
  8. Shalom and greetings all my pals, Presenting a beautiful early morning cargo fight from KILN Wilmington Air Park which is main DHl cargo hub airport two nautical miles southeast of the central business district of Wilmington, Ohio, United States to KBGM Greater Binghamton Airport located eight miles north of New York state city Binghamton which is home of one of major IBM centers On airborne and on climb to F310 after take off from runway 04 with background view of highway route number 73 With background view of the same highway still on climb to Fl310 carrying heavy loads of supplies, business letters, and computer parts bound for IBM Making right turn to start the route APE LLONG CIP CFB Now heading to east following highway route 71 Still climbing to F310 Check out beautiful night sky with many stars You can see that the plane is still following highway route number 71 Check out nice combo of tail and sunrise Cruising along the same highway route number 71 P[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing western section of city of Columbus, Ohio Because of regulations of the forums not permitting more than 10 screenshots per post, please be kind enough to go to this hyperlink below to view rest of exciting cargo trip Here is hyperlink: http://tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/9648/beautiful-sunrise-departure-start-service Thank you for viewing/ Stay tuned for next exciting flight!! Regards, Aharon
    1 point
  9. Aye! We are planning to do that. We have been having issues with our website and we are trying to roll out a new one. In the mean time, you can find it on the home page if you scroll down a bit. https://prnt.sc/svbcel
    1 point
  10. Hey Robert, We do have plans to do some blog type posts with information regarding the changes we have been implementing. A decent part of the software stack running Vatsim is starting to be replace with software written recently. Some of our tooling does dates back to early vatsim days. When we work to implement changes that shouldn't cause impact they are tested ahead of time but we can't always test every edge case. Regarding older data, most people aren't looking at data older than a year. Storing this data becomes costly which is why we decided to archive a large chunk of the flight plans table in our database. Regarding keeping things "less ... behind-the-scenes", what format would you like to see for this kind of information?
    1 point
  11. Danice, on top of what Dace mentioned, when you're unsure of why you're doing something or are concerned, you should question the controller. When you initially took off and made some negative comments how you were being vectored into an obstacle, you should have questioned that. You would have, in that case, found that there was no obstacle since you were well above the minimum vectoring altitude. When you were getting vectored on the downwind, you could have asked for a shorter approach. In the case of MHR, there is terrain which prevents you from being descended below certain altitudes depending on where you were. Because of the MVA and the angle you were approaching the airport from, a shorter approach is not always possible. Reiterating what Dace mentioned, if you had the field in sight, you could have mentioned that and you would have been cleared for a visual approach.
    1 point
  12. Amazing event tonight, thanks to everybody involved 🙂
    1 point
  13. I am more into EASA-land rather than FAA, didn't do a proper research about that. However, this is giving my argument another confirmation, that the change is not something "cool". It something - in my personal opinion - we need.
    1 point
  14. Being cleared a visual approach does not mean you cant use Instruments.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...