Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/23/21 in all areas

  1. Dear All, As my second 2-year term serving as VATSIM’s President ends, I am writing to inform you that I will not be seeking a third term as VATSIM’s President. After four years of serving in in this role, I have decided to allow another member of the Board of Governors to take the reins and keep VATSIM moving forward. I joined this great community 15 years ago and it has been a massive part of my life ever since. I was honoured to be able to serve on the Board of Governors since 2014 and have enjoyed being a small part of bringing positive changes to VATSIM. Thousands of our volunteer members, driven by the same desire to make VATSIM a better place have brought us long needed changes such as Audio for VATSIM, the New Member Orientation course and knowledge check, a modern Code of Conduct, backend technology changes, and many other positive improvements to VATSIM. I want to thank all our volunteer members who dedicate their time developing, controlling, training, supervising, flying, or otherwise supporting VATSIM. We are still within one of the most challenging transition periods we have seen in VATSIM’s history with a 40% increase in membership over the last few years to the pandemic as well as release of a new simulation platform that brought flight simulation to a whole new market. You have risen to the challenge even when faced with the enormous real-world pressures that our current reality has put on our daily lives. As I step back from the role of VATSIM’s President, I have two reflections from my time in the position. Firstly, VATSIM is unique as it is a community that is large enough to be seen by many as a place that should be hugely efficient in delivering new features. The reality is that we are a volunteer organization which will always be driven by the productive output of our volunteers. We must drive better development by engaging with our members to contribute instead of being a closed shop. In the past few years, we have made great strides here by encouraging our volunteer developers by opening our traditionally closed development process and actively inviting people to help improve VATSIM. We have further to go, and I urge us all to continue to embrace the idea of member-driven input whist appreciating that because we are so big, we must set a clear direction of how we as members can contribute. Secondly, we must all remember that we are on the same team and truly have the same end goal. We all want VATSIM to succeed and be the best online aviation community in the world. We may have differed and passionate opinions on how we get to that goal, but it is through open and honest communication that we reach this goal. Too many times, we have had disputes via email or discord text which have driven wedges into our communities, causing irreparable harm or destroying our communities, when a voice conversation where everyone can be heard has resolved the dispute. I have personally spent many hours resolving such disputes. The amount of time we spend on these disputes could be better used to bring positive changes to the community. So, I challenge all of us to channel our passions and instead of doing nothing, build constructive relationships, especially when disagreements arise! I am looking forward to seeing what the future holds for VATSIM and excited to see Tim move into the role of President. He has served in his various positions on the Board of Governors fabulously and is a huge advocate for building on the success of this great community. Finally, I would like to again thank everyone who has supported VATSIM and myself over the years, especially my colleagues on the BoG and Founders who have been a source of guidance and support during my tenure as VATSIM’s President. My greatest thanks of all are to the behind-the-scenes volunteers performing the thankless jobs which keep VATSIM running; our division staff and their local volunteers, as well as our membership managers, supervisors, and technical teams who respond around the clock to technical hiccoughs and relentlessly pursue improvements to our infrastructure. We truly could not do it without all of you. I look forward to seeing you on the network.
    30 points
  2. Dear Members, I would like to start by thanking everyone who took a few minutes to offer congratulations on my election to the position of President of the VATSIM Network. My colleagues on the Board of Governors have put their faith in me, and I look forward to working with them, and all of our volunteers in leading this network into the future. Under the leadership of Gunnar Lindahl, VATSIM has reached levels of membership and technology that previously were thought unattainable. Among the best tributes I have read described him as the most “stable, influential, and consequential President we ever had to date”, and this is especially true considering the challenges this world threw at us during the latter part of his four year tenure. This is certainly not to take away from the Presidents who came before him - Founders Harvey Stein and Richard Jenkins, followed by David Klain, Steven Cullen, and Kyle Ramsey...I truly walk in the footsteps of giants, and we all owe a lot to the six Presidents who preceded me. To them, I offer my heartfelt thanks for all you did, and continue to do to make VATSIM what it is today. During my time as a member of this network, I have always enjoyed hearing about the various “VATSIM histories” of our members. It is interesting to find out what brought someone to this network, and what keeps them involved. Many of the members I consider friends have taken their VATSIM experience and turned it into an aviation career, while others have started streaming content thus raising the visibility of our network. Some, like me, have brought their aviation careers to the network. This is my story - records show that I joined VATSIM in August of 2001, but my involvement in flight simulation dates back to 1983 when my father opened the first personal computer store in our town. It was at that store that an employee introduced me to Microsoft Flight Simulator v1.0, and I was hooked. By 1990 at the age of 18, I had my Private Pilots Licence, and in 1997 I graduated from an aviation college with a fresh CPL and a job towing advertising banners and flying traffic patrol over the cities of Toronto and Vancouver. In 1998 I returned home and over the next 9 years I earned my ATPL while flying a Cessna 421B on predominantly air ambulance missions across the Province of Ontario - with some charter work thrown in for good measure. I have some really good stories from my work as a pilot, so just ask if you are ever interested. When I retired from piloting in 2007, VATSIM took a more important place in my life by keeping me involved in, and feeding my passion in all things aviation. This, in turn, led me to roles within VATCAN, VATNA, and then the Board of Governors. VATSIM is a simulation network, not a game - there, I said it. This really should not be a polarizing statement because that was the intent of the Founders of this network when they created it a little over 20 years ago. For many it is a passionate hobby, for others a place to learn, and for still others, a place to teach. Above all however, VATSIM should and must be a safe place for all members, regardless of background or personal history, to feel safe, protected and welcome while celebrating all that virtual aviation has to offer. For me, there is simply no compromise on this. Membership in VATSIM is a privilege, not a right, and those people fundamentally incompatible with the network are simply not welcome. There are many exciting projects currently under development for our network, and I look forward to sharing more about them in due time. As a group, your leadership team is always looking for ways to enhance the experience for our members, and we are also always open to hearing your suggestions. If you have an idea we should consider, please email me at president(at)vatsim.net and I will make sure we have a look at it. Next week I will be in San Diego for FSExpo and I invite you to please come and introduce yourself if you see me wandering around. If you catch me at the right time, you may find me sharing a couple of bags of In and Out burgers with the other VATSIM members and volunteers in attendance. (IYKYK) Also, if you see me online controlling in my two current homes of ZYZ or ZMA, or flying in my favourite study level sim, please don’t hesitate to say hi. Again, thanks to all for the honour of leading this network. Let’s continue to enjoy it together.
    23 points
  3. Hello All, This is an important discussion, however the posts here have reached the point of not being helpful to the process. To be clear, the VATSIM Board of Governors has not addressed this topic in a meeting, and no motions have been proposed or passed regarding this topic. If it is determined that a BoG discussion and vote is required, then it will be added to the agenda of our next meeting. In the meantime, I have emailed the parties and offered my assistance in resolving any outstanding issues. For now, I will lock this thread and would ask everyone to be patient while this is worked through. Many thanks,
    12 points
  4. Seems to me like the RVPs for their respective regions (AMAS and APAC) made a decision that affected only their regions. Why would that need a full BoG vote? Do RVPs not have executive control over their respective regions? Do you have to ask the other 6 department managers at work when you want to make a change that affects only you and one other department? Or do you just coordinate it with that other department? Why does finance care if operations and support agree to do something that only affects them in a particular way? Seems to me some people in here don't understand how a management structure operates.
    6 points
  5. I draw the parties attention to the Agreement signed by Mark Richards, Shannon Wells, Alex Bailey, Terry Scanlan, and Bryan Wollenberg: https://pacificoceanic.vatsim.net/docs/Oceanic LOA rev1 090710.pdf Can someone point out to me where the mutual agreement or vote to terminate occurred, for my own peace of mind, as an interested and affected controller?
    6 points
  6. Perhaps you have not yet had a chance to read the VATSIM Code of Conduct, Restricted Callsign Policy (https://www.vatsim.net/restricted-callsigns), or the dozens, or perhaps even hundreds, of forum posts on the topic. Those, like me, who still place particular value on the concepts of reading for understanding and taking personal accountability to do so are likely thinking, "Really?!?!?!?" or even "Are you _____ kidding me?!?!?!?!?" So I'll save you the trouble. NO!
    5 points
  7. This is a stretch and I think you know that. This is really not gonna have a huge impact on activity. The core of the argument here is ZOA left the agreement incorrectly, not whether ZOA made the right choice for themselves and VATSIM. It seems there was a total communication breakdown here if you read through all the facts and it absolutely stems from VATUSA Division and potentially the BoG. Not to put either one under the bus but VATPAC was blindsided obviously. But raising points about coverage don't contribute to this discussion.
    5 points
  8. Dear members of VATSIM, Please see a statement from VATPAC and VATNZ regarding this change. https://vatpac.org/forums/topic/19064-oceanic-partnership-us-to-leave/?do=findComment&comment=133188 Regards, Zach
    5 points
  9. Hey there! VATprism is a new data explorer for VATSIM, similar to VAT-Spy. VATprism has been developed from the ground up to offer a no-fuss experience into VATSIM data like current traffic and controllers. VATprism offers heaps of information about current flights and controllers, airports and more. VATprism offers detailed, sortable and filterable tables for many types of data, for example airports and current flights. The UI of VATprism is highly customizable. As you might be used to, many information layers, like Airports, FIR borders and flights can be toggled on and off via buttons. Additionally, VATprisms UI and map colors are adjustable. Almost every elements color can be changed, as well as some elements size or look. For more information, please visit vatprism.org which contains more information about the project as well as download links. If you have questions or suggestions, the best place is the projects GitHub repository. But I also appreciate your feedback on the VATprism Discord server. If you neither like GitHub nor Discord, of course I'm also happy to take your feedback, suggestions and questions in this thread! Quick links: Website Download GitHub Discord
    4 points
  10. https://stats.vatsim.net/search/ZAK_FSS Our internal review saw roughly 80% of connections to ZAK over the last few years being from VATNZ and VATPAC members, those members now have to apply to become a VC at OAK. Given the changes to policy capping the number of places you can be a VC at this could become an issue for many VATPAC and NZ members. As a member of the Board of Directors with VATPAC, we look to serve our members and this has been raised as an issue for them so it is an issue for us, alas we wait for a response from the VP's, until then it's just speculation.
    4 points
  11. By the way thanks for reinforcing my point. So what you are saying is, my post stating that your post is inaccurate is accurate? 😄
    4 points
  12. 4 points
  13. I am sure the VATPAC and VATNZ board will be eagerly awaiting an email from VATSIM to let them know that a decision has been made for the termination of this agreement. I am also looking forward to seeing the meeting minutes where this was discussed and more importantly the number of VP's who voted for this. COR 2.07J requires a simple majority to "pass or reach a determination on any matter or proposal before the Board" with a minimum of 3 votes from a group of 5 members with 3 days notice as written in COR 2.07G.
    4 points
  14. A patch was applied to the AFV voice server yesterday that should have addressed the voice ATIS issues. Unfortunately, the patch didn't fix the voice ATIS issues.
    4 points
  15. Again, this isn’t always the case. Many instructors and mentors take on that responsibility to give back to the network. They want to see their divisions and sub-divisions succeed and have controllers online. Instructing is very rewarding when your students get certified and start controlling. It’s a necessary duty, and one that these volunteers are owed everything for taking on. While it is rewarding, it’s not really fun and can be immensely frustrating when a student doesn’t come to a session prepared.
    3 points
  16. Fillippo. So in your example. I can possibly get behind that. As you are talking about a single rating and only 8 hours of instructor time expended. So in that case, should you then wish to transfer somewhere then the division could look at waiving the requirement given the low hours used in training. Which is why that possibility exists. However, if you had attained C1, I think we would be talking MANY more hours of time investment by an instructor and thus the 200 hr requirement would be more applicable. Keeping in mind all the points already said. The instructors are volunteers and despite opinion to the contrary. It's not always "fun and enjoyable" to be training folks in their spare time. It may possibly be rewarding, however not when they see folks they have invested a lot of time into moving to other areas which do not benefit the division they were instructed in. That is demoralising to the instructor. There is always multiple angles on these things and while it is all very well to be thinking from the student angle, I think a little thought around the instructor angle is also warranted. The policy needs to be a guardrail with the potential for, in reasonable circumstances, for a division to waive the requirement, which I think it has achieved. The use of the waiver would need to be assessed on a case by case basis. Phil
    3 points
  17. After a recent forum software licensing update, all the badges/etc. are a bit wonky. I'm not one that needs all the badges, so I'd say just hold your head up high knowing you're a long-term valued member of the community, and ignore the silly badges. Reminds me of an old movie line... "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
    3 points
  18. Don't feel awkward for asking atc to repeat - it is MUCH MORE AWKWARD, when atc see you doing something, you were not told to do, beleave me 🙂 . You can even have it on text if needed. regards
    3 points
  19. The announcement posts are closed, but I for one really felt the need to comment on the amazing job Gunnar has done for VATSIM. Over the term of Gunnar's tenure, incredible things have happened to and in VATSIM and I simply cannot believe that these would have happened as smoothly as they have without Gunnar's hand at the helm. Gunnar, i wish you well. If I could speak the language of your forefathers, I would raise a skull in celebration of your contribution.
    3 points
  20. It's inconceivable to say that these restrictions are more relaxed than the current GRP. Per your own words, you're "lucky to be able to control 1 hour every few months" but now you're also suggesting that it's reasonable to expect people to put in upwards of 4 hours per day in order to be able to transfer within two months of using live training resources. If they want to transfer within 3 months, they would need to put in over two hours per day. If you put in your "1 hour every few months" (let's say 1 hour every three months, for a total of 4 per year), that would take you 50 years in order to be eligible for a transfer. Even if you don't use live training resources, it would still take you 25 years to be able to transfer. I hope you really like controlling where you are currently... I'm all for attempting to increase efficiency of training resource usage, but if someone really wants to transfer, making them sit on positions they don't want to control for 200 hours isn't helping anyone. If I don't like the airspace I have to control in, I'm much more likely to stop controlling than put nearly 200 more hours into the airspace I wish to get away from. Even if I don't use training resources, 100 hours is still a massive amount of time before being able to transfer. The current transfer requirements instituted in §1.3 and 1.4 of the TVCP (50 hours to consolidate + 90 days) are perfectly reasonable. I could see a slightly lower hour requirement (25 hours or so) being added for transfer controllers not receiving a rating change, but 100-200 hours is ludicrous and will likely cause more controllers to quit rather than put in the multiple hours per day required if they want to transfer within a few months.
    3 points
  21. Sorry I missed these two paragraphs when I had my first read as I was focused on the bits that replace GRP and not on these significant changes to the Visiting and Transfer Controller Policy. I have to agree with the OP here. Requiring 200hours before transferring is a ridiculous requirement. I get that sub-divisions who do the training want some return for their work but why does this requirement have to affect genuine requests for region transfers? We already have a requirement to "consildate your rating" so if a Subdivision/Division feels this hasn't happened then deny the transfer. We have included a third paragraph stating that this requirement can be waived "in exceptional circumstances". How exceptional are excpetional circumstances? Shouldn't it be up to the departing division to decide if the controller has "consolidated their rating"? I fear that such demanding requirements are contradictory to what the rest of this document aims to achieve, and that is to increase access to ATC. Consider a scenario where someone who has their S2 and 40hours from VATPAC physically moves to the UK and wants to become a VATUK member. They should be allowed to, not restricted by red-tape about how pissed off the VATPAC training department is that they only got 40hours out of the 4 hours they put into training them. Keep the old language. Remove stupid restrictions on allowing people to control because training directors don't like it. And before anyone starts flaming....I"M A TRAINING DIRECTOR and I think this part of the policy is rubbish and has been generated by selfish people who don't have the best interests of VATSIM at heart, they only care about about their own interests or their home facility's interests. PS: 200hours at 2 hours per week will take 2 years to complete. If I was faced with this requirement, I would simply stop controlling. I don't think that's what anyone wants. It's a hobby, not a job.
    3 points
  22. Hi all, I thought I would post a summary of design decisions that have been made since my last long post in this thread. And it's not just design at this point ... I have actually started coding. The first release version is still many months away, but progress is being made. So the plan is still very similar to my previous long post. FEs will build an "ARTCC Data File" using an "ARTCC Editor" application, to be developed by Nathan Rankin, ZBW FE. (Thank you, Nathan!) The ARTCC Editor will be a separate executable from the actual CRC client. The ARTCC Data File will contain all of the data for an ARTCC, including a single ERAM facility definition, any STARS facility definitions, and any ATCT (tower) facility definitions. Every towered airport in the ARTCC will need an ATCT facility defined, however the ATCT facility definition is just an airport ID and one or more video maps, so it will be very easy to create the necessary ATCT facility definitions for all towered fields in the ARTCC. The data file will contain a single collection of video maps. When creating the ERAM facility definition, those video maps can be grouped into "GeoMaps" as you can do now with vERAM. The video maps can also be assigned to any of the STARS facility definitions. Same for ATCT facilities. For ASDEX displays, one of the video maps in the master map collection can be assigned to each airport that supports ASDEX. The video map format will include syntax for identifying polygons as various elements of an ASDEX map. The list of elements includes Runways, Taxiways, Aprons, and Structures. When the user creates an ASDEX display, they'll be able to set it in day or night mode, and the client will render the polygons in the appropriate color based on which of those four element types the polygons are assigned to. Video maps will be categorized, so that when the user pulls up a list of video maps in Generic mode displays, the list will be grouped by category with expand/collapse buttons, to make the list manageable. Each facility in the ARTCC data will include a list of "Position Definitions". These are analogous to POF entries. One key difference is that instead of a single "sector ID" entry as with POF files, there will be a 2D matrix of facility ID to sector ID. This way, for a given position entry, different sector IDs can be defined for each relevant facility in the ARTCC. For example, an FE might want "Boston Center Sector 47" to appear as "47" for any ZBW controller, but "C47" for any A90 (Boston TRACON) controller. If there is no matching entry in the list, the current logic will be invoked. (Where the client just generates a suitable sector ID.) Squawk code ranges will be removed from the facility definitions, and the ranges defined in the position list will be used. (Same as VRC.) Each entry in the position list will have a visibility range associated with it. This will determine the visibility range used by the client. If no matching entry is found, then the max visibility range (per VATSIM policy) will be used, based on the callsign the user specified when connecting. ARTCC data files will also contain "external" facility definitions. These are nothing more than a facility ID and a list of positions. (Essentially just POF entries for neighboring facilities.) The position list for external facilities will not need to include a squawk code range or visibility range, since they will not be "staffed" by the user. (These external facilities will not be selectable when creating a profile.) For primary frequency selection, CRC will use the AFV position database for fetching the frequency that matches the callsign that the user connected with. The user will be able to override this frequency if necessary, or if there is no matching position defined in the AFV position DB. ERAM, STARS, and ASDEX displays will have a user-configurable option to enable "Generic Mode" tools, such as the right-click menu and the double-click-and-drag ruler. Top-down mode will still be a thing in ERAM and STARS modes. The right-click menu will always be enabled for TDM datablocks. TDM datablocks will be shown for all targets not within radar coverage, regardless of distance from an airport or altitude. ARTCC data files will be hosted on ARTCC web sites, using a special URL format: crcartcc://www.artcc.org/path/to/file ... clicking on such a link will launch the client which will download the file to the user's computer, making it available for use in CRC profiles. Each time the client is launched, it will check the same URL for updates to the ARTCC data file. When creating a profile, the user will first choose which ARTCC to use. Then they will select which type of display to use for the primary display (ERAM, STARS, ASDEX, Generic.) Then they will select which facility to use for that primary display. As I mentioned earlier, only certain facility types will be available for each display mode. ERAM display modes will only work with the single ARTCC facility. STARS displays will only load TRACON facilities. ASDEX displays will only load ATCT facilities, and only those ATCT facilities that have an ASDEX video map configured. Generic displays will be able to load any facility type. Once a profile is created, it can be expored as a JSON file. FEs can create standard profiles and upload them to their ARTCC's web site. Another special URL scheme (crcprofile://) will be used to allow users to click a link to download and import the profile into their local CRC installation. These profiles will not be automatically updated, since the user is likely to make significant changes to the profile (adding more displays, changing settings) after initially importing it from the ARTCC web site. So, that's where the design currently stands. Any feedback is appreciated!
    3 points
  23. In light of all that has happened we are suspending the September 1 date to transition and a meeting is being planned between the partnerships Division Directors to hash things out. I would like to take a moment to offer some clarification and provide an update on this thread. There is a lot of misinformation being spilled out, and things have changed. First, I see ZOA being accused of a lot of things and having the fingers pointed at them unfairly. The only place ZOA has in this discussion is with the future of ZAK, not the current status nor the past. Under the current Pacific Oceanic Agreement ZOA has absolutely no say or authority with ZAK. It is VATUSA and the VATUSA Division Directors designee (that would be me) that manages ZAK in the partnership. This is just one of the issues we sought to change, ZAK is controlled by ZOA controllers in the real world and we felt they should have the ability to manage their own oceanic airspace just as other VATUSA ARTCC's are able to manage their oceanic airspace. The idea that VATUSA is unilaterally withdrawing from the agreement without any process is not accurate. There has clearly been a failure in communication and we are working to correct this now. The process thus far has been this. I wrote an initial proposal offering several different ways ZAK could be managed, which included staying in the partnership, making ZAK a visitor only VATUSA facility, and giving ZOA full control. We opted for giving ZOA full control to bring them inline with the other oceanic airspace within VATUSA, as well as on VATSIM. From there another more detailed proposal was created detailing the what, when, and why we wanted to do this. I sent that proposal to my division director, who signed off on it and sent it to our RVP who also signed off on it. I know this proposal also made it to the other RVP involved and we were under the assumption it was agreed upon because we got the all clear to proceed. A letter of withdrawal was drafted and sent to our RVP to be disseminated to the other partners (this was done through the RVP because 1. we had difficulty fining other partners contact information, and 2. it should be officially done through the RVP). During the process we received very little communication from the other partners. I received one email from VATNZ that did not oppose the withdrawal, but requested a Discord be made so that FE's and staff could liaise in. We finally heard from the VATPAC Division Director 15AUG21 which was in support of ZOA taking over ZAK, but also a new LOA being drafted. This seemed to be part of the communication break down, VATNZ and VATPAC didn't get information earlier when they should have. VATUSA had set a September 1 date and there was no indication we could not move forward with that date, so we did. It is VATUSA's position that we want to have good working relationships with the other Divisions in the Pacific and agreements that benefit everybody. It is also our view that ZAK is sovereign American airspace that ZOA should be in control of. We'll be working closely with VATPAC and VATNZ to work something out and information regarding a new agreement will be posted when available.
    3 points
  24. Guam is not Oakland ARTCC or POP jurisdiction. It’s Pacific Control Facility’s (formerly Honolulu Control Facility’s, a separate VATUSA faculty) area. So that’s irrelevant to the staffing concerns with Oakland taking control of San Francisco Radio/Oakland Oceanic.
    3 points
  25. I was curious about the veracity of the claim "Hawaii is going to have a lot of dead space around them", so I queried the database. Since 2020-01-01, VATUSA members have the highest number of connections to any ZAK position with 242, followed by VATPAC members with 43. Take that for what it is worth.
    3 points
  26. General reminder to make make sure we keep this discussion civil and constructive and not turn it into personal attacks. Thanks,
    3 points
  27. I mean, it is called Oakland Oceanic...
    3 points
  28. You've got the burden of proof on the wrong foot there. It should be VATUSA's responsibility to show that this did occur, not VATPAC and VATNZ's responsibility to prove it didn't. We are yet to receive this evidence, or any evidence that any discussion actually occurred.
    3 points
  29. This post is inaccurate.
    3 points
  30. Sweatbox can be hella fun (EDYY - BRU sector group)
    3 points
  31. All rather a lot of wishy washy rubbish for what should be a really simple thing: being a staff member shouldn’t make you exempt from a requirement that applies to the rest of VATSIM, especially when it’s such a measly one! Controlling for an hour in a year to stay on a controller roster seems bloomin’ reasonable. Nothing in GCAP suggests you can’t be staff by not meeting this requirement, you just can’t be deemed an active controller. They’re completely different things. So get rid of the clause and shall we stop worrying about the hours in a day, month and year and commuting and contributing and what not… because we’re literally talking about an hour in a year to make sure that staff don’t think they’re above everybody else.
    3 points
  32. Just to add to what Andreas says above, I checked a couple of LL-OMDB routes from the EDI GLA site (real world flightplans) and the last three I checked at the time didn't validate - but they were filed and were used... Don't get overly hung up on validation, especially on VATSIM provided it's not throwing LOTS of errors...
    2 points
  33. Sadly all my cats are long gone. We now have a Labradoodle called Frank. he is the biggest friendliest labradoodle in the world. here is with my wife last weekend
    2 points
  34. I agree with Harry, though I would argue that the requirement should actually be more stringent. If the policy here is to maintain competency and remove inactive/barely active controllers from waiting lists, 1h in 12 months isn't gonna keep you competent, especially when that hour can take place in the middle of the night. Furthermore, aside from the argument that staff should be subject to the same requirements as the rest of us, doing admin and vectoring planes are not the same thing and doing one does not keep you competent at the other. Training new students is something else entirely, because you're actively in a controlling role. However, being the Membership Director or Webmaster of a division is not related to controlling and, no matter how good you are at the job, doesn't mean you know how to move planes efficiently.
    2 points
  35. This issue should now been fixed in the Audio for VATSIM code. Now it's up to client developers when they decide to push an update for each of their clients 😄
    2 points
  36. While this is an incorrect interpretation of the post, I shall reply, it is an easy 2 minute form to fill out and a quick GRP check. It is not hard to do 🙂
    2 points
  37. Not sure what you are getting at here, Zain - can you make it more explicit? Im working on mind reading, but as you can tell I havent gotten it down pat yet!
    2 points
  38. So why are you discussing it if you've logged zero hours on it? As you say, it doesnt affect you.
    2 points
  39. I agree with Blair, I think it’s more about control, rather than any reasonable factor. I used to do more hours on PGUM, but kept getting booted from visiting status. I gave up, if they don’t want services provided, then make it hard for people to help. Guam is hardly active now, but that’s what they want. Same with ZAK.
    2 points
  40. Nobody is saying ZOA can't administer their airspace (in much the same way VATPAC and VATNZ administer theirs. But to say, we are leaving the partnership for no good reason and unless you let us know within 2 months, you can't control here anymore is a bit rich and disrespectful to the other parties of the agreement. Especially when it gets announced publicly before the parties to the agreement are advised.
    2 points
  41. Nothing is being transfered anywhere. Under the paciffic Oceanic partnership ZOA, VATPAC and VATNZ have all been responsable for their own oceanic airspace. However all oceanic rated controllers in each division, plus some visitors had un restricted access to control in any of the positions listed. ZOA have decided, on their own accord, to leave the Partnership, thus ending the partnership.
    2 points
  42. Per the agreement, Brisbane and Auckland are not being transferred to ZOA as far as I know. It's just ZAK.
    2 points
  43. The other positions in the agreement are called Brisbane Radio and Auckland Radio. thank you for your service.
    2 points
  44. Crazy that the BOG would suspend an agreement, but not make any statement about it, but allow an effected party to announce it. Seems very one sided. On what date does the suspension take effect? Eg when can’t we assist with services.
    2 points
  45. Let's be clear. VATUSA unilaterally decided to leave the Pacific Oceanic Partnership effectively ending it. It was not agreed to by the other parties.
    2 points
  46. It may be suspended by the BoG - so, where is the minutes from the BoG meeting that voted to suspend it? The members of the BoG individually are not the BoG.
    2 points
  47. This is post is not inaccurate.
    2 points
  48. Just a shout out to Daniel Button who was manning the EGHQ_APP during my first flight. Thank you very much for putting up with a new pilot and being very helpful during my flight. Thank you MRD66 😄
    2 points
  49. I have just been IRL to a smaller (backcountry) airport in Egypt. The local TWR controller was not able to understand and say much more than the basic English phraseology... unfortunately, sending .wallop Need some help in HExx did not help on our ACARS 😄
    2 points
×
×
  • Create New...