Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/06/21 in Posts

  1. I don't know about the other mods, but I'm not deleting it.... 😉
    8 points
  2. I hope this issue is still up for discussion. Despite having over 20 hard-working volunteers on my training staff, my facility is still experiencing 2+ month backlogs for home controllers requesting training. Requiring a competency check to be completed in 14 days for visiting controllers will cripple the ZBW training department. I am willing to concede that transfer controllers should be prioritized because like Matt said, they don't have anywhere to control. But I am pleading with the BoG to please reconsider the 14 day requirement for visitors. I have serious concerns that this will create even more delays for our home controllers who are wanting to earn new ratings. We are currently getting our visiting controllers checked out in about 30-45 days; they are given the same priority for assignment of a mentor/instructor as home controllers, which we feel is only fair. Please allow us to continue in this way.
    7 points
  3. I just put out v2.8.4, which is just a simple workaround for an issue in MSFS where the lights sometimes don't work on other aircraft. More details on the workaround can be found in my reply here: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/vatsim-traffic-lights-dont-sync-when-connecting/463812/102?u=btvpilot
    6 points
  4. Mexico once again in Word Flight! Thanks everyone for flying, had a blast!
    5 points
  5. It appears that SIMBRIEF gives a route based on popularity, which is not nessasarily the best option. As controller in Denmark I've seen an increasing number of pilots flying e.g. EHAM - EKCH on the route : EHAM - ANDIK - N873 - BAVTA - T56 - TESPI - EKCH, which is the first route to popup, when using SIMBRIEF. While this is a valid route, it is NOT the most convinient route neither seen from a pilot's perspective nor from atc's. A better choice is number 2 in the list of suggested route: EHAM -ANDIK N873 JUIST DOSUR P729 TUDLO - EKCH From an atc's point of view the latter route gives a better flow into EKCH as you don't have to merge the planes normally using TESPI arrivals into EKCH ( arr. from W and NW) with planes coming from SW. IRL the first route will also penetrated areas with a lot of military activity as seen below, so you might get reroutes. A better choice is to have a look at RW route usage and implement it in you planning, instead of relying of what "others" (at vatsim) has done. Nobody said flightplanning is easy. Happy flying
    4 points
  6. I decided to do a quick update to fix this issue and a SELCAL notification issue. Version 2.8.3 is now available.
    4 points
  7. Dear all, After having successfully passed the interviews and the vACC Elections, it is my pleasure to announce that Oskar Berenguer will be taking over the position of Spain vACC Director. Oskar had taken over the vACC ad interim before applying officially and passing the elections of the members. Please join me in congratulating Oskar on his new position!
    3 points
  8. Hi all, For quite a while, I've been wanting to expand vPilot's model matching capabilities. Currently, it looks at the first three characters of the callsign to determine the airline. This works well for most situations, but there are some cases where the callsign prefix doesn't correctly identify which airline should be shown on the model, such as when a regional airline is flying for a mainline airline. For example, if the callsign is RPA123, the callsign prefix (RPA) doesn't indicate which mainline airline the pilot is flying for, and it could be Delta, American, or United. vPilot supports the ability to map a flight number range to a specific model, and this covers most of the regional airline situations. However, this flight number functionality is only available if you load a custom VMR file. vPilot's automatic model scanning does not support the flight number range capability. Since the FLAi project was shut down, model matching has been back to the way it was before FLAi ... it's a bit of a free-for-all, and you don't get decent model matching unless you make your own VMR file, or you use a model set that vPilot "knows about" such as the World of AI models or the payware My Traffic models. This leaves P3D v5 users and MSFS users out in the cold, and they have to use third-party tools like ModelMatchingMagic in order to get decent model matching. I want the process to be more automatic. To that end, I'm considering two major changes to improve the model matching process: First, I would expand the Connect window so that you enter not only your callsign and aircraft type code, but you can also enter an airline code and livery code. The airline code would be optional, of course, and you would leave it blank if you're flying a General Aviation aircraft. If you're flying an airliner, you would obviously enter the ICAO airline code in the airline box. This airline code would be used by other pilots' pilot clients (not just vPilot) for the purpose of selecting a model to represent your aircraft in the other pilot's sim. This will improve model matching not just for vPilot users, but also for other pilot client users when they are displaying aircraft flown by vPilot users. If you leave the airline code blank, and your callsign looks like an airline callsign (three letters followed by one or more digits and then optionally one or two letters) then the airline code will be set equal to the first three letters of your callsign. If you fill in the livery code, that code will be sent to other pilot clients to allow for more fine-tuned model matching. Since we don't have a standardized database of livery codes, this will primarily only be useful for people that build custom VMR files for their VA. Eventually, I would like to build up an "official" database of livery codes, and provide a list of those codes in a dropdown for the user to choose from. This list would be filtered based on the aircraft type code and airline code that was entered. This would allow pilots to specify that they are flying the "Mosaic" livery for JetBlue, or the Fox livery for Frontier, or the Shamu livery for Southwest, to name a few examples. We could also establish standard livery codes for GA aircraft in order to represent the colors in the paint scheme more accurately. When you fill in these fields, you will have the option of saving the aircraft details in your "hangar" for easy recall later. There will be a dropdown on the Connect window where you can choose a previously-saved aircraft. Note that the callsign would not be saved with the aircraft, as it is subject to change each time you fly any given aircraft, but vPilot will remember that last callsign you used with each aircraft and pre-fill that callsign when you select the aircraft from your hangar. I may also have vPilot remember which aircraft you selected for each flyable aircraft that you have installed in the sim, and then automatically select the appropriate aircraft from your hangar when you select an aircraft in the sim. If vPilot doesn't recognize the aircraft that you selected in the sim, the Connect window fields will be blank and you'll need to enter the data. vPilot will then remember the values that you entered for the next time you select that aircraft in the sim, even if you don't save the details as a new aircraft in your hangar. I might have vPilot pre-fill the aircraft type, airline code, and livery code if the aircraft you've selected in the sim is found in the model database. Second, I would have vPilot utilize the database of model information that the developers of swift and the community have created and given me permission to use in vPilot. vPilot already has its own database of model information, but it hasn't been updated in a long time. The swift community have done a great job of populating their model database, including many of the models that are available for MSFS. Using this database to supplement the existing model scanning process will allow vPilot to automatically identify many more of the models that you have installed in your sim, especially for MSFS users. So, that's what I'm currently considering. Please let me know what you think and if you have any suggestions for changes. Thanks!
    3 points
  9. As for the OPs initial question: Your exact routing example should be filed as navaid identifiers if overflying a navaid, and navaid bearings+distances if routing via radial-distance-fixes. This one would be "DCT FGI225008 DCT AJO157006 DCT AJO232005 DCT". All points and departure/destination must be linked by either an airway, procedure, or "DCT", hence the added "DCT"s at the start and end. However, avoid this type of routing if you can. The best conventional way to fly from LFKF to LFKJ is to file "AJO DCT IS". You will leave LFKF on either AJO 3G or AJO 3N SID as assigned/selected based on the runway, and after flying to AJO you will route direct IS which is an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) and can be used as the final point in your route when STARs does not exist or does not apply to your flight. At IS you start the ILS Y full procedure to runway 02 as per the approach chart, first flying a teardrop entry to the IS published hold, then you can skip the hold and join the AJO 11DME Arc southbound, then join the AJO 232 radial to finally interecept the 02 localiser. It is weird that the AJO departures does not clearly specify safe levels, but we can look at the LFKF VOR approach charts to find the MSA inside 25nm to FGI, and both SIDs keep us in the 6000ft sector. Note that to avoid terrain you will have to climb at a rate as specified in the SID Chart, and if you're on the AJO 3G you will have to cross FGI at or above 6000ft. In other words, 6000ft is a sensible cruise level for this flight. Due to the long distance flown from IS NDB to final, it is not necessary to descend lower than 6000ft before reaching IS. Reviewing the French AIP GEN1.5 and the AD for LFKJ, there is nothing prohibiting non-RNAV flights to LFKJ. The only restriction is that France does not allow non-RNAV IFR above FL115, or on any RNAV airway below FL115. It would likely be a painstaking process to phone the relevant offices and ATS units to get a flightplan through if you wanted to do it IRL, and the easier option would probably just to attempt to book it out from the plane on the ground or in the air without a full flightplan. Anything more regular than a one-off would probably require the operator to work with the ATS unit(s) to create company specific procedures for their type of operation. In short, there's no blanket ban on non-RNAV IFR ops, but for anyone other than military/state aircraft it is heavily regulated in many countries. In practice, almost noone flies completely non-RNAV and as such it is a moot point. On VATSIM: File a flightplan which makes sense for your equipment and capabilities and have fun. Select routes and cruise levels which ensures required terrain clearance, don't plan SID/STAR/Procedures you cannot use. Plan conventional SID/STAR if available, and if not link your initial waypoint with "DCT" and make your final waypoint an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) for a conventional approach. If presented with RNAV procedures by ATC, simply state "Unable due to non-RNAV, request [as filed/direct <point>/conventional procedure/vectors]. Don't let the "You can only fly LNAV/VNAV to a Precision Approach" crowd dissuade you from having fun with conventional navigation.
    3 points
  10. Adding to previous: while operating VFR, was the aircraft in airspace requiring clearance or two-way radio communications. Pilots may consider: 1. Canadian domestic airspace table (class A through G) For Class B, C, D ... VFR operations permitted with two-way radio communications, and/or additional clearance requirements. i.e. in controlled airspace, online ATC might send a contact request to VFR aircraft 2. For airspace (lateral and vertical), refer to information in NAV Canada's Designated Airspace Handbook, [next issue] including Edmonton FIR (section 3.2), Transition Areas, Control Area Extensions, Terminal Control Areas, Control Zones -For information about 'who to contact', VATCAN's Edmonton FIR includes "View Our Airspace" map with ATC enroute position/frequencies. -VATCAN's pilot-specific forum may also help for questions about VFR, airspace requirements or to learn "why did a controller contact an aircraft when flying VFR?"
    3 points
  11. I was trying to set up a new computer and you're right I think most ATC are a nuisance, ergo I'll no longer fly here.
    3 points
  12. Opening and closing VFR flight plans (in the US) are done through flight service stations which aren't simulated on VATSIM, so logging off is perfectly fine.
    3 points
  13. My opinion is that if two aircraft are in the air separated by more than 30nm, there isn't much coordination that needs to be done.
    3 points
  14. 3 points
  15. Isn't it great that it's not all about you? 😂
    3 points
  16. This is a virtual ATC from Italy. I'm glad that isn't something which happen only in my airspace. The Italy Free Route Airspace have some specific rules, which some of them are really significant, others could be technically "ignored". DCT between 2 fixes could be done in my country but, ONLY if you fly above FL305, which is the border between airways airspace and free route airspace and it must be done only inside the national airspace, and with the route which will not fly too much closer and with similar direction, to the ACC borders. I saw a lot of pilots, expecially on the route between Warsaw and Roma, which use a route from simbrief which use a direct between two fixes, but it pass over the border between Italy and Croatia Airspace for 2 times, which make this route not valid. If we could definetely ignore that a pilot doesn't use the right waypoints for his/her flight to a destination which is a big airport, some mistakes required without exception a replanning from the ATC. Of course, everyone can make mistakes, luckly ATC can help you when is the case 🙂
    2 points
  17. By all means, advise the controller that you're not ready yet. If you're not ready, it's not safe to fly! So even if it's busy, you have to configure what you have to configure. You can say something like, we'll be ready in a minute. Just don't enter the runway.
    2 points
  18. From my experience flying in VATUSA you acknowledge the PDC by inserting the squawcode in your transponder, as proof of you've read and approved the PDC. No need for any other code unlike the TMI for Oceanic clearences. Welcome to VATSIM
    2 points
  19. ive noticed some real world airline pilots/twitch streamers will use the fms' cdu scratchpad to copy down clearances (in some sort of shorthand) so that may work for you in VR
    2 points
  20. There's no real proven method to get better at ATC communications other than experience. What I would recommend is to bite the bullet and start doing some flights under voice comms, but just make sure you are starting in regions where there are controllers but not too many planes -- where a few "say again"s won't bother anybody. The more you do it, the better you get at knowing what to expect next, which makes comprehending the radio transmissions a lot easier.
    2 points
  21. Dear all, Please join me in congratulating @Rashid Raikhy on his appointment as ACCPAK1 - Director Pakistan vACC. Rashid is very passionate member at Pakistan vACC, having keen interest in the flight simulation hobby, actively participating in ATC services and assisting Pakistan vACC operations in sector development for ATC client. Rashid, welcome aboard and congratulations on your new role!
    2 points
  22. Offline is a fantastic place to test things, not the middle of a class C airspace while on the network. I honestly am not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not, but if you’re being serious, I’m sorry to say this but good riddance (mods feel free to delete this part of my message if it’s deemed to be a CoC violation). ATC are here to have fun in the same way you are so if you don’t ever want to interact with ATC or think that we’re always a nuisance, there is really no point to using VATSIM. edit: that being said, I am always open to explaining things to pilots who don’t understand why a contactme was sent to them or answer any other questions they may have. ATC are also humans and we also make mistakes from time to time so being able to respectfully talk to them and work it out is always going to be the best option as only they really know why they did something. tl;dr ATC is not an evil overlord trying to make your life miserable but we’re just here to have fun too. Don’t like it, leave.
    2 points
  23. VATSIM Congratulates our friends at Asobo Studios on the Game of the Year Edition release! We remind all VATSIM members that most military operations on VATSIM may only be conducted by approved Special Operations Organizations. These operations include but are not limited to dog-fighting, interceptions, air to air refueling, etc. Essentially anything that that is not "point a to point b flying" under IFR or VFR rules. Members who conduct operations on VATSIM who are not a part of an approved VSOA organization could be found in violation of VATSIM's Code of Conduct Section A13 Find out more at https://vats.im/vsoa
    2 points
  24. Yes. And there are some SIDs and STARs meant to be flown by smaller, slower aircraft -- but certainly not as many. Read the "Notes" on the chart and see whether it specifies turbojet aircraft only.
    2 points
  25. Hi John, think you were right. In Xplane itself I still had the PTT assigned to the same yoke button. Replaced that by a 'do nothing', reassigned the PTT button in Xpilot and had no more issues this evening's Flight. This forum rocks...
    2 points
  26. I also had this problem after a Windows update. Took me a while to figure out. Not quite sure exactly what I did to resolve the problem. Performing the following fixed the problem. Make sure nothing else is assigned to that button. Also make sure you don't have a key or another button assigned to PTT. Bring forward the xPilot window (Alt+Tab) There is an indicator to show if your transmitting while pushing the assigned PTT button.
    2 points
  27. Cause R29 still hangs around... It should be taken down from the website and clearly communicated not to use it unless solved!
    2 points
  28. if you prefer to not pre-determine your route, just fill in "VFR" in the route box. The same is applicable to the altitude/level box of your flightplan: just insert "VFR". best make a comment about this either in your route field (scenic flight) or in the remarks section (RMK/SCENIC FLIGHT). As Clemens wrote, it can even be more brief: "traffic patterns" it all depends on the country that you are flying in! You will need to research VFR airspace rules for each country. In Germany airspace ECHO ends at FL100, above it is CHARLIE and requires clearance from ATC, except when operating in the Alps area, where CHARLIE begins a little bit higher At VATSIM Germany you can find a number of Pilot Training Manuals and one of them is specific to VFR operations: https://de.wiki.vatsim-germany.org/Piloten_Trainingsdokumente
    2 points
  29. There's no requirement to fly with real-world weather active. There are some etiquette-related considerations, as pointed out above -- and as always, if you want to do something that's contrary to the flow of traffic, the answer from the controller should be less like "no" and more like "yes but expect a significant delay." That's my take on it, anyway.
    2 points
  30. yeah i really dont see why people are announcing top of descents, CLIMBS, etc. etc. the FAA recommendation is only:
    2 points
  31. I did some testing, found that if I send the SimConnect command to set the lights immediately after the aircraft model is created, the command seems to be ignored by MSFS. I have to wait a few seconds before sending the command. I am reaching out to the developers to see if this is something that can be changed such that it accepts the commands immediately. If not, I will build some delay into the system as a workaround.
    2 points
  32. Just my opinion and experience, but calling within 15 miles is plenty enough *most of the time*. I can imagine it might not be enough *all of the time*, but I think *most of the time* is good enough for, well, most of us...! 🙂 🙂 When flying airliners or bizjets, I typically make 10 mile final and 5 mile final calls. So far, I've never had an issue. Again, I'm sure it's not perfect, but I'm sure that it is good enough, most of the time, for most folks.
    2 points
  33. Good to see the enthusiasm to revive Malta again 😀 We are currently in the process of renewing the VATEUD Division Policy, so until then all new vACC openings are on hold. Have a good evening!
    2 points
  34. I recognise that "inclusivity" is a primary political aim of these policy changes. While I agree that creating a network where anyone can come on and control regardless of ability is a good one, the idea of "inclusivity" is being applied to other areas at the potential detriment of the target areas. In this case, it is the requirement for divisions to accept visiting controllers. To clarify, I am not at all referring to transferees; that is a key component of inclusivity. Someone on the VATSIM Discord brought up an excellent point in regards to VC: Considering this, there has not been any substantial data backed evidence that shows a benefit for visitor controllers. Anecdotal evidence is of course there, but it isn't entirely reliable, and it even paints a picture against mandatory acceptance of VCs. In many divisions, VCs are trained onto major positions and never control there again when the novelty has worn off. What good is that to major and busy divisions? I recognise the GCAP aims to address this by limiting the number of places you can visit, and enforcing some sort of hour requirement. However, this ceases to be enforceable when the member no longer lets it be enforced. The only rule that will have an actual impact is the VC limit... they can just withdraw from the one they forgot about. There are also several divisions where VCs contribute very little to the division in terms of controlling hours, and where hour requirements are not the norm. Should these divisions bare the brunt of a VC coming every few months, taking up training resources, and then disappearing? Probably not, not until data shows that there is a consistent demand and retention. The proposal in the end is to just allow divisions/subdivisions to close visiting applications directly, and not via the "throw them to the back of the queue" loophole. Allow divisions to bring VCs in when it will provide benefit to everyone involved. I think that furthers the aim of inclusivity better than forcing divisions to bare the brunt of an overall negative experience.
    2 points
  35. On Unicom, as everywhere on the network, voice is preferred. It's easier and more realistic. However, some members may not be able to use voice, which is why if anyone requires text for coordination, then text is required where a member would benefit from Unicom coordination and that member requires coordination via text. On a personal level, likely 99% of my Unicom transmissions are on voice, but when another member transmits text on Unicom, I assume it's because they require text for coordination, and I revert to text coordination (or ask if they really need it -- amazingly, some members still don't know yet that voice is preferred on Unicom).
    2 points
  36. Hello Burak. Unfortunately multiple members are affected by an error not allowing them to access myVATSIM if their accounts are inactive. Our tech team has been notified and is working on a solution to this issue. Apologies for the inconveniences caused and thank you for your patience while we work on resolving the matter.
    1 point
  37. I will try it tomorrow and i will give you a short update then! Thank you and good night 🙋‍♂️
    1 point
  38. I don't think you can retake the test once you've passed it. But if you enjoy tests (like I do), why don't you apply for a VA that has an entrance test, or get into ATC training, there you'll have plenty of theoretical and practical tests. 😁 P.S. I joined Boston Virtual ARTCC just because I was curious to see if I could pass their entrance test. 😁
    1 point
  39. Which bit though? The data itself is one thing. The curation, validation and compilation of said data in to a format readable by an FMS, perhaps with the addition of supplementary data etc quite another (as pointed out in the case you quote). Data for US (only) navigation aids and terminal procedures is available for free, if you are able to compile it in to a useful format, which I suspect is where most people will struggle.
    1 point
  40. Just a quick message to thank you’ll again. By now have 5 hours logged in VATSIM, all of it IFR as it was a bit more familiar but already bought the DC-6 which I’ll probably use for VFR flights. For now I’ll probably stick a bit with the CJ4 and maybe the A320 although I can’t wait till PMDG brings out their 737 for MSFS as that’s a plane I logged more than 400 hours in. TL;DR: thanks a lot for the help!
    1 point
  41. I mean, if the question is how you can update your navigation data without paying for a subscription to a navigation data service, the answer is that you can't -- not, at least, through any moral or ethical means. If the question, rather, is -- how can you fly in airspace with outdated procedures, then the answer is simply that you need to coordinate with the controllers and make sure they know that whatever you have loaded into your plane is an older version of the procedure (or that you simply don't have the one you've been assigned). That may involve being cleared to follow the outdated version, reassigned a different procedure, or, may involve flying vectors and altitudes instead. In some places, the US being one, it is still possible to fly using conventional (i.e. radio-based) navigation only -- it's getting more difficult with each passing AIRAC cycle, but it's still doable. That would require some knowledge about how that kind of navigation works, and some research on how to construct non-RNAV routing from point A to point B (because SimBrief and other online sources surely won't do it) -- but if you're into that kind of thing, it's a fun challenge to plan and execute.
    1 point
  42. John released a fix earlier today for this issue. Grab version 4.977 of FSUIPC.
    1 point
  43. Congratulations Oskar! A for a better VATSPA Go for a better VATSPA!
    1 point
  44. I suppose that with 1.5 million members there will be some who can simply not be satisfied, no matter how hard we try.
    1 point
  45. Nepal vACC Sector file with AIRAC 2111 has been released & available for download at http://files.aero-nav.com/VNSM. From the immediate effect use of any old sector file should be disregarded. No update package is included with this release as this requires a full clean install of the sector files! Important Changes: -VNSM Split sectors callsigns has been revised to VNSM-E_CTR & VNSM-W_CTR instead of _E & _W. -TopSky Plugin has been configured to the sector files. More Details, Please check the AMDT11/2021 AIRAC 2111 news available on http://files.aero-nav.com/VNSM. If you want to send us any report/suggestions, Please visit https://nepalvacc.com/feedback-area Regards -Nepal vACC Operation Team
    1 point
  46. VFR and IFR have rules and guidelines. Then there's VMC (visual meteorological conditions) and IMC (instrument meteorological conditions) which determine if you can fly VFR or IFR. VFR should only be flown under VMC. IFR can be flown in both VMC and IMC. SID and STAR are designed for commercial jets for the most part (see the altitude and speed restrictions in many. A Cessna 172 can't meet them for most part). IMO you would only need to be concerned with flying either a visual or instrument approach. IFR must always file a flight plan in VATSIM. Technically VFR does not require one but it's very helpful to ATC to be able to have an idea of where you'll be flying. I've been given helpful advice here to put "VFR" or "Scenic" in the route and remarks boxes along with departure and arrival airports (can be changed OFC).
    1 point
  47. I agree Andreas. I was getting very frustrated needlessly. I apologize.
    1 point
  48. Check out this video. It was a BIG help for me:
    1 point
  49. We are concerned with the 14 day requirement as well in 8.08(c). It just isn't possible to do it in 14 days for facilities that have a training backlog. We have wait times of approximately 3-4 weeks to be assigned training from the time it is requested for our HOME controllers. Does this mean we will be expected to prioritize our mentor/instructor's time with visiting controllers vs. home controllers? Should we pull training staff away from home controllers because we need to get a visitor checkout done?
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...