Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/25/22 in all areas

  1. It appears that, in spite of well-reasoned logic, most (though not all) many would agree with, this thread is quickly devolving into a "no-win" situation. Never mind no-win, we are not progressing as a community. As such, time to stop the nonsense and hope (and pray, for those so-inclined) it does not rear its ugly head again.... Some may perceive this as not nice, but... frankly, in the interest of the overall community... There is a way to push for continuous improvement, and there is a way to "pee in someone's sandbox".... If you don't want to be constructive and are just excited to start arguments that hurt the community, please find another sandbox. Those who cannot figure out the difference may be considered as fundamentally incompatible with our community....
    8 points
  2. Dear Members, There has been much discussion in various mediums recently about issues on our network relating to pilots using aircraft that they are unable to properly operate which in turn causes disruption on the network. The VATSIM Board of Governors has been monitoring this, and while this is not a new problem, it has been exacerbated recently by the release of some amazing new aircraft simulations. This post is to address this issue. In 2010, I bought my first PMDG product - the MD-11 for FSX. It was a complicated product, and even as an ATPL rated pilot, I flew it offline for a couple of months before connecting to the network with it. I have purchased numerous products since, and for each one, I mastered the systems offline before connecting to the network. As PMDG, Leonardo, Fenix, and other manufacturers bring their newest and most advanced products to the MSFS 2020 platform, it is important to remind all of our users that VATSIM is an environment for virtual pilots and virtual controllers to come together to simulate the real world of aviation. The absolute prerequisite to this is that pilots must know how to fly and property control their aircraft before connecting to the network. For these advanced aircraft, this is not limited to knowing how to fly a heading, an airspeed, and an altitude. If a pilot connects to the network using a simulated aircraft with advanced automation, they MUST also know how to use that automation. In almost every case, violating an ATC clearance and blaming it on your autopilot doing something you didn’t expect is a pilot problem, not a simulation problem. In a recent Facebook post, a VATSIM member and good friend of mine reminded us all what the “R” in “IFR” means. I would add that we all know what the “SIM” in “VATSIM” means. As I said in a post when I became President of the network, we are an educational network dedicated to members who want to simulate real world aviation. Connecting to the network to learn how to fly your aircraft is simply not why VATSIM exists. You cannot play in our sandbox if you don’t know how to use your shovel. Follow the Rules, respect the Simulation. The VATSIM Board of Governors is currently working on updates to our Code of Conduct to codify a stricter requirement for pilot competency on the network. Additionally, a pilot feedback program is in the final stages of development that will assist controllers in providing meaningful advice and education to pilots through our Pilot Training Department. In the meantime, network Supervisors and Administrators will be continuing to work hard to assist members. Please make note that if you connect to the network and are unable to adequately control your aircraft, you will be removed from the network and asked to either increase your skill level with your chosen aircraft offline before reconnecting, or connect to the network with a less advanced aircraft that you can adequately pilot without causing disruption to other members of the network. Ignoring these requests may require us to remove your ability to connect to the network for a period of time. As members of this amazing community, at all times I would ask you to please respect the enjoyment of everyone connected to the network. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to e-mail me president(at)vatsim.net Tim Barber, VATSIM President
    8 points
  3. Hi all, With very mixed feelings, I have informed the Regional Vice President that I will be stepping down as Division Director for VATEUD. Two years and 3 months ago, there was an agreement that I would take the position as acting division director to fill in the gap for which no people could be found and to offer the much-needed support to the division the role gives. During these years it has been a pleasure and an honour to serve the division and the network in this role. I don’t want to be my own judge, however, I feel like I can safely say that I am leaving the division in a better state than when I took it (not a perfect sate, of course, there has to be some work for my successor as well). Several vACCs have been reborn and the new local staff teams have done wonders for the communities of their countries. Web issues that we were facing beforehand are no more. The connectivity and communication within the division is better and local staff teams have more possibility to have direct contact with the EUD board and to hold them accountable, while also enabling the easy sharing of ideas, the creation of healthy debates and engagement from all corners of the continent. We have expanded several division teams to provide better services to the membership and are looking to implement new “features”, if I may call them that, to better assist the newcomers (I’m sure my successor will be sharing more about this in the near future). Last but not least, there is a draft of a new division policy in the final stages of review. While this has been paused due to debates, the new division director, who would be the one working with the new policy, alongside the division and vACC Staff, will have the opportunity to pick this up, iron out the last issues internal debates have raised, and implement the document. This would not have been possible without the help of all staff members within EUD. Particularly, I want to say thank you to the people who have sat on the EUD board during my tenure: @Mattia Torti, @David Kirchner, @Matan Budimir, @Miguel Frias, @Arturs Vasiļjevs, @Nestor Perez , and all the vACC directors, current and past. Joined by all the staff in VATEUD, this truly was a team effort and without you we wouldn’t have gotten where we are today: from keeping everything running and keeping the stress for me minimal, through assisting experienced and new members alike, to all the discussions and debates we have had (one topic in particular that I can remember, the debate for which lasted a whooping 5 hours!!!). With this, VATEUD is not simply the biggest division by member numbers, but also by member engagement and enthusiasm. I will still be around, however, in my region capacity – it’s not easy to get rid of me! But whenever I look back on the experience, the contacts, the achievements we have all build, it will be with a smile! I feel comfortable that there is a team (EUD and vACCs both) in the division that is passionate about VATEUD, about aviation and most importantly the network! Keep it up folks, this is what makes VATSIM great! Thank you! A vacancy will shortly be posted about my position, and I will stay until my successor is appointed and I can do a handover with them.
    7 points
  4. I'm pleased to announce the reopening of the Morocco vACC after almost 2 years of inactivity on the network. With this new vACC comes a new staff team to take the FIR of Casablanca to new heights! Join us on their launch event happening on the 18th of June between 17:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC partnered with Royal Air Maroc Virtual. Their website will be released soon, however, you can join their Discord server here.
    6 points
  5. To be clear, we already (and have for some time) provide the facility for qualified (operative word!) pilots to have their licence recognised within VATSIM if they so wish: https://my.vatsim.net/pilots/train/upload. The main practical utility of doing so is that holding the relevant VATSIM rating allows such members to train others up to that level, for example, though obviously there are also many who do so simply to have it "on their profile" so to speak. As to why the pilot rating system exists -- as Alistair says, achieving a rating is a mark of recognition for those who have taken the time to further their learning and understanding, and provides a basic global standard for the ratings. If obtaining and being able to 'show off' the badge encourages more people to seek out and take advantage of said training who otherwise wouldn't have, then that is a good thing! Motivation comes in many forms - for some it may be primarily the quest for new knowledge or skills that drives them to learn more, for others it may be the desire to prove to themselves that they are able to meet a particular standard, for others it may be the desire to impress their peers by showing off a rating (and for yet others it may start that way and end up more like the first) - for many it may be some combination of all the above. Either way, if we are all agreed that greater levels of participation in quality training programmes is a good thing for both individuals and VATSIM as a whole, providing as many possible avenues to motivate people to get involved is a good thing, right? 🙂 Simon
    5 points
  6. Simply put, all of the reasons you have for allowing ghost mode are the exact reasons why we don’t have it. Don’t forget that whist VATSIM is free to all, there is a cost associated with providing the service. The people that pay the bills are more than happy to pay that cost for people who are actively participating in the network. They do not want to spend money on bandwidth that is not being used to enhance and enrich the experience for all users. If you’re ghosted, avoiding atc, etc, you are not participating in the community and should not be connected wasting donated resources. Remember that VATSIM is not a logbook. It is a platform to bring pilots and air traffic controllers together. It’s not a large ask by the people who provide the resources for the network. If you’re not actively using it, please disconnect. If you are, then they’re happy to allow you to participate.
    5 points
  7. Hi all, I have developed a VS radio toolbar app for FS 2020. It uses the various VATSIM feeds to present the nearby controllers, maps, distance and range info. It also allows you to set your Comm radios to the correct frequencies. I am going to need a few testers in the coming weeks , if you are interested let me know by return. Here is a short promo video , comments welcome.
    4 points
  8. While I agree that its not conventional to fly with LH instead of DLH, I disagree with the ground controllers approach to the situation. The ground controller has no authority to tell some one to leave the network and change their call sign. This happens all the time, I often see QF and QANTAS123 etc when I'm controlling, and I am guilty of doing it myself back when I joined the network I have never told some one to log off and change their callsign, nor was I ever told to log off. There is no harm, nor impact on anyone else on the network if that person continues their flight with that callsign. You can of course point the person to the relevant section about choosing a callsign in the my.vatsim.net training academy, but as a polite message. Something along the lines of. "Hey before you fly next time would you mind having a read of this about choosing a callsign" This allows the person to continue their flight this time, and prompts them to read up on the preferred process. I say proffered because there is no correct or incorrect way to select a callsign. Its simple, non confrontable and usually gets a better response from the pilot. Telling some one to log off and change any thing, implies authority that some one doesn't have, and results in a bad first experience, it doesn't allow people to grow.
    4 points
  9. Thanks for everyone repsonding to this thread; we have had a great respe and some amazing testing and feedback from a really knowlegeable and enthuiastic team . The private beta is now closed, we have one more release to go and then we will move into public beta, the tool will then be publically available to download . I'll provide links in the near future
    4 points
  10. Just leave feedback on the website of the vACC, FIR, or ARTCC where it occurred. Complaining about it here only further compounds the negativity you experienced.
    4 points
  11. I guess the 1500 hours I've logged flying General Aviation, both VFR and IFR, has been against the CoC? I'm sorry, Tim, but I think your assertion is patently ridiculous.
    4 points
  12. Or the vPilot dev holds the opinion that the vPilot interface should be used as little as possible, ideally not at all during flight.
    4 points
  13. It's really really simple: VATSIM is not an online flight log / flight tracker. If you want to track your flight while offline (for which I guess there are valid use cases, like monitoring your flight progress while doing other things away from the computer), there are plenty of ways to do that outside of VATSIM; I don't see what good could possibly come from VATSIM doubling in that role.
    3 points
  14. Okay so, what's the point of tracking your aircraft when you are away from home sorry? I honestly fail to understand that. Kindly,
    3 points
  15. Mhmmm, This topic was already brought up but in a different way. When I control I see a lot of pilot bothered by me. Like they are on the ground and when I connect, they disconnect immediatly. This would just reduce pilot presence on the network. In a possible scenario when a pilot is flying and they see, let's say, Langen Radar coming online, they would just ghost, cross the airspace, unghost all with hours counted. There is no point in flying online if you don't actively partecipate to the network in my opinion. Kindly,
    3 points
  16. The issue can be more profound with slower aircraft. While your top speed may be 120, you may in reality be only going 60 knots ground speed and that will affect controllers far more. The reason for 20 seconds and not 2 to 3 minutes as you mentioned is that anyone who knowingly has issues could easily just reconnect every 2 to 3 minutes especially during an event which create a whole slew of other issues. The truth is that no matter how long you are below 20 fps, ATC will lose more separation and it will negatively affect the experience of ATC and aircraft around you regardless of the aircraft type, speed or altitude.
    3 points
  17. I am advertising the vacancy for the VATSIM Europe Division Director role. Here are the details Responsible to - VP Regions - Europe, Middle East and North Africa Responsible for - Division Management Team and Sub Division Leadership Duties Ensuring that an online presence of ATC is maintained which encourages maximum coverage, looking for growth opportunities Creating and maintaining an environment that pilots enjoy flying in Reviewing ATC progression with the relevant Divisional Training/Membership Director(s), ensuring that upgrade recommendations are acted upon promptly Maintaining partnerships with Virtual Airlines, developing relationships for continued collaboration Working to ensure adequate pilot training provision within the division, either through service delivery from the division or through existing partnerships (subdivisions and Virtual Airlines) Ensuring that events are arranged regularly, both within the division and in cooperation with adjacent divisions and regions Quarterly preparation of the Division Report to the VP Regions for EMEA Provision of adequate web services, to include items such as aeronautical charts, sector files, contact details, training information Work to improve the efficiency of the joining and progression processes including (but not limited to) introduction and possible enhancement of welcome email systems and evaluation website usability Pursue matters raised in relation to membership issues such as training delays, member exclusion and new/returning member induction Coordination of matters arising in relation to 'real world' events and mediating as necessary, e.g. Politically Sensitive Areas (PSA) Person Specification Must show awareness of Air Traffic Control operations Must show awareness of Pilot operations Must be a member in good standing with the network Expected to be able to commit at least 7 hours per week to this role Previous staff roles or other experience/awareness of management aspects desirable Ability to communicate clearly through different mediums to different people of different cultures Fluent in the English language A Division Director is expected to be able to commit to at least 2 years and should take this into consideration before applying. Please send an application detailing your VATSIM experience and your vision for the role to [email protected] The closing date is 2359z on Sunday 26th of June.
    3 points
  18. I'm getting the same feeling in this thread that I get in the one about Russian flights: that some people are putting too much work into thinking of or believing "reasons" for a particular flight. This in itself is unrealistic. In the real world, a DC-6 can most certainly fly across the Atlantic. It doesn't need to give a reason to do so. It's simply another aircraft, flying from A to B. No one cares why. It's just another piece of traffic. So the concept that allowing this on Vatsim requires some sort of "suspension of disbelief" just doesn't track. Same with test flight profiles. In the real world, the SR-71 flew in and then above ARTCC airspace for years before the USAF ever acknowledged its existence. Methods were used that ensured this worked just fine. The problem I could see on Vatsim is if dozens of people were trying to do this at once. That seems highly unlikely, but it would cause some chaos. An occasional "unusual" flight like this, though, would actually be MORE realistic, not less, because this stuff does happen out there. I would never be the person on Vatsim flying one of these flights, but I would enjoy having to cope with one occasionally... it would add a little more real-world dynamicism to the airspace.
    3 points
  19. All, Exciting news thanks to fantastic work from Craig Farrell in developing a vPilot plug-in, we now have a connection between the front end and VATSIM direct messages via vPilot Early days but the proof of concept works with clickable frequencies too - more to come
    3 points
  20. Nick, Thank you for the time and effort you have put into the role. You leave EUD in a great place and your successor will have big shoes to fill. Thanks for agreeing to continue in your region position.
    3 points
  21. Maybe the biggest issue really is the "immersion" bit. Most of us are here to simulate real-world civilian aviation as closely as the circumstances allow. A couple anachronisms, like the airworthy Concorde here and there, a DC-6 in transatlantic passenger revenue service, or a Pan Am 747, are OK - this much suspension of disbelief most of us can muster, and I believe it resonates enough with the kind of nostalgia most aviation enthusiasts share. But allowing entirely fictional aircraft, with out-of-this-world performance, would be stretching it a bit too much, and I deeply question why one would want to fly a Mach 10 experimental stealth fighter aircraft on a platform whose primary purpose is so radically different from that. If you want to go pew pew zoom zoom in a spaceship, there are dozens of multiplayer games out there where you can do just that.
    3 points
  22. Another problem with fictional aircraft is that ATC cannot be expected to know anything about their performance characteristics. There's a finite number of current and historical types, so a performance database for these is not unreasonable. But when anyone can come and fly whatever they or someone else made up, then that goes out the window, and ATC would have to accommodate literally anything. Like, I made a fictional and fairly unrealistic SSTO transport - it's about as big as an A380, it has two rotating engine pods on the wingtips, so it can hover and do VTOL, it reaches Mach 5 or so in the lower atmosphere, and then proceeds to accelerate further after passing FL600 or so by firing its rocket engines. Reentry is initially ballistic, then when aerodynamics kick in, it flies passively, much like the Shuttle did, bleeds off speed, and eventually transitions to conventional powered flight. Imagine the kind of disruptions this would cause in between all the airliners, and how much this would disrupt everyone else's immersion - not to mention that nobody has that thing in their model mapping, so it would just show up as a white A320 that flies super weirdly for everyone else. Just, no, let's not.
    3 points
  23. Irrelevant, deconstructive and useless comment. Anything else you want to add?
    3 points
  24. Hello all, the VATEUD ATC Training Department is looking for new members. Please see the below TWO separate vacancies (Regional Managers & Division Examiners). If you have any questions, please reach out to [email protected] Regional Manager(s) The VATEUD ATC Training Department is looking for new Regional Managers (1-2)! The Department The VATEUD ATC Training Department oversees ATC Training activity throughout the VATSIM Europe Division and creates guidelines to ensure high and similar quality standards for ATCos division-wide. Role description As a member of the VATEUD ATC Training Department you will be responsible to the VATEUD ATC Training Director. Manage contact to a set of vACCs. This includes (but is not limited to) keeping track of vACC ATD staff changes and vACC ATC training activity. Enforce VATEUD, VATEMEA, and VATSIM.NET policies. This especially includes finding policy-compliant solutions together with the vACCs for the vACCs. Support VATEUD ATC Training Department projects Examine CPTs VATEUD-wide Bring in any ideas you have to make VATSIM an even better place for its members. The candidate… shall be motivated to work towards high and similar ATC quality standards as well as high training efficiency VATEUD-wide. holds at least a C1 rating, higher ratings are beneficial. has time to check VATEUD emails multiple times a week and to commit at least 3 hours per week in total to the role. is an active ATC mentor and examiner and will continue these local tasks (maybe less actively than before) if he was accepted as a Regional Manager. VATSIM staff experience is beneficial. has the ability to communicate clearly through different mediums to different people of different cultures. is fluent in English, other languages are an advantage. is a member in good standing with the network. If time of the candidate allows it, the candidate may hold another VATSIM staff position as well. A VATEUD ATC Training Department Regional Manager is expected to be able to commit to the role for at least 1 year. Should you be interested in the role, please send a motivational letter alongside your VATSIM-related CV to [email protected] Applications will be accepted until 10 June 2022. Division Examiners The VATEUD ATC Training Department is looking for new Division Examiners! The Team The VATEUD ATC Training Department oversees ATC Training activity throughout the VATSIM Europe Division and creates guidelines to ensure high and similar quality standards for ATCos division-wide. The Examiners Team is part of the VATEUD ATC Training Department and takes over any exams, checks or other tasks which require the VATEUD ATC Training Department itself to examine or train trainees. Role description As a member of the VATEUD ATC Training Department examiners team you will be responsible to the head of our Examiners Team. Examine CPTs VATEUD-wide as a Division Examiner. Depending on your rating this will include C3 exams. Whenever possible you will have a local mentor or examiner to assist you. Support any additional “on the ground” activities. This includes but is not limited to particular cases where the VATEUD ATC Training Department lead/Regional Managers see a need for training sessions or exams provided to trainees/vACCs directly by the division. Support VATEUD ATC Training Department projects Bring in any ideas you have to make VATSIM an even better place for its members. The candidate… shall be motivated to work towards high and similar ATC quality standards VATEUD-wide while respecting local differences. holds at least a C1 rating, higher ratings (especially C3) are beneficial. has time to check VATEUD emails multiple times a week and to commit at least 1 hour per week in total to the role. This could mean 1 session/exam per month plus administrative work. is an active ATC mentor and examiner and will continue these local tasks if he was accepted as a Division Examiner. is fluent in English, other languages are an advantage. is a member in good standing with the network. A VATEUD division examiner is expected to be able to commit to the role for at least 1 year. Should you be interested in the role, please send a motivational letter alongside your VATSIM-related CV to [email protected] Applications will be accepted until 10 June 2022.
    3 points
  25. There have been many recent questions about whether certain experimental or fictitious aircraft operations are allowed on VATSIM. Whilst many civilian experimental aircraft operations are allowed and provide a unique and rich contribution to our community, many experimental aircraft operations and all fictitious aircraft operations are either not allowed or restricted to approved VSOA Organizations. Additionally, many of the operations that would be conducted with experimental aircraft are restricted by VATSIM's Code of Conduct A13. This is because high speed or high-altitude operations can have an immediate negative impact on other users’ VATSIM experience. A list of all restricted operations can be found in the VATSIM Special Operations Policy and Procedures Manual found here. Examples of aircraft which are not allowed on VATSIM include but are not limited to unmanned aerial vehicles, the space shuttle, a space station, the Darkstar, the Millennium Falcon, etc. Misuse of these and similar types of aircraft can easily have a negative impact the enjoyment of other VATSIM pilots and Air Traffic Controllers. We thank you for your understanding.
    3 points
  26. Such a database has been desired and discussed many times over the years. I think the complexity is what has prevented it from becoming a reality. As I see it, there are two primary complications. First, it's not a simple one-to-one association between a controller and a chunk of airspace. The way the various sectors combine and decombine when controllers log on and off can be very complicated with many variables and permutations. Second, the shape of the airspace covered by each sector often changes based on which runways are active at one or more airports, so there would need to be a way for controllers to specify the active runways. It is technically possible, but it's a very heavy lift, and it's not something you can do piecemeal or half-baked. In order for it to add value to pilots and controllers, it has to be accurate, else it's no better (perhaps even worse) than what we have now.
    3 points
  27. Mark, not sure why you’re being so hostile. Being a real life ATCO teaches you the concepts needed and expected by the respective pilot ratings, however that is absolutely not applicable the other way around, and if you have an ATP I would assume you are aware of that. That’s not even mentioning knowledge of radar scopes, LOP, coordination etc. that you are required to know when you get a controller rating. Pilot ratings exist to give an expectation of knowledge and abilities for controllers, but a controller rating is far more than that. This isn’t about «discrimination», and I have a feeling from this and your previous posts that the point of bringing this up is to incentivize to heated debates or arguments about «double standards» or «pilot/atc segregation», but that is not the case or the topic here at all, so I’d ask you to refrain from that please.
    3 points
  28. Honestly, the rating changes absolutely nothing at all to what is done, no one looks "new" because of the P0 rating. People here got 5000hrs and more with the P0, you can have a P0 rating and have a excellent level. It means nothing.
    3 points
  29. Dear VATSIM Members, I am posting this evening to report that Federico Navarro has announced that he will be retiring from the VATSIM Board of Governors. Fed will be officially stepping down upon appointment of his successor to the Board. Fed joined the VATSIM Board of Governors in October of 2020 as Vice President, Americas, and prior to that he represented South America on the VATSIM Executive Committee. He has spent many years and hundreds if not thousands of hours volunteering his time to the betterment of the VATSIM Network, and he will very much be missed around the board table. Fed intends to remain an active member of the network, and will continue helping the network when and where needed. On behalf of the entire Board of Governors, I sincerely thank Fed for his dedication to VATSIM, and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.
    3 points
  30. I think perhaps VATSIM's sign-up process could / should do a better job of explaining that the words "event" and "new pilot" generally do not mix.
    2 points
  31. Controllers usually do not actively read those equipment codes, because (at least Euroscope) our radar programs do this and then handle the aircraft tags/data one way or the other. If they behaviour is "unexpected", we have a look, of course. You'd expect an A320 to be able to RNP, RVSM etc., but when people do not fill anything or something different, assigned SIDs/STARs etc. will look odd (for this type of aircraft). Actually, we can assume that all pilots in VATSIM are using Mode-S transponders, not just "A+C". Also, we should introduce an equipment code specific to our clientele at VATSIM that will indicate "FMS/GPS equipped, but unable to operate it" 😄
    2 points
  32. What ever those reasons are, good or other wise if a pilot doesn't want to interact with ATC, there is a simple "ghost" mode button they can use, its called disconnect. It seems you are missing the point of the function of the network. For what reason do you need to maintain a connection to the network when you are not at your computer?
    2 points
  33. Welcome to VATSIM! Adding to what’s said above, I’d highly discourage you from doing your first flight during an event. Full staffing means lots of traffic, and less opportunity to help beginners get familiar with the network. I’d rather choose a slightly less crowded place, and work my way from there! 🙂
    2 points
  34. As a 100% VR user, this would definately be welcome, specifically for the nearby controller list and also messages through Vpilot. Probably one of the reasons I don't go online as much as I used to. Looking forward to the release.
    2 points
  35. I've added a new option for the output format. Obviously as my tool doesn't work with altitude values, I've skipped the the variant with altitude. Regarding the xml output, the documentation of vatSys is not yet conclusive to me. While the description of Line and Infill element says, it's children are <Point> elements, your example as well as the default profiles of vatSys says different. And in fact, their content is just the sequence of coordinates without any further structure. Additionally, my tool does not specify if an output is to be used as a line or a polygon, hence it's not clear if the xml export should use Line or Infill elements. Maybe if we elaborate further on this and once the details are clear, I can implement another type of download format.
    2 points
  36. quick updated screenshot on the messaging interface. Craig has done an amazing job and we now have two message types and icons on show here, at the top is a radio message on a frequency (in this case Unicom) , and the yellow messages are from a private message chat with Tom at EGCC_GND - you can click through to the full message and details - i am likely going to make the radio message a bit lighter, but have chosen yellow for the direct message as this stands out
    2 points
  37. It's always good to look back and feel the sensation of mission accomplished when we are given the opportunity to demonstrate the value and quality of our work and our commitment and that is the only factor that transforms the result that is obtained into a fact that cannot be contradicted, otherwise it would only be an assumption. Our relationship for reasons external to ourselves was not the best, however, and despite everything I wish you the best of everything you want most, I just leave you the advice for the future to bet more on people's work, even those that you dont like for any reason, because just like you today, these people even with little knowledge but a lot of commitment can be as good members of staff as in many areas you were too. A hug. Tiago Vicente 1273225 Former Regent Director of Portugal vACC
    2 points
  38. I'd say you can suggest it in a friendly manner (e.g. "Welcome to VATSIM, I suggest you log off and familiarize yourself with the basics of VATSIM and flying your plane before flying online. Check out https://my.vatsim.net/learn as well. Welcome back!")but obviously you can't decide for them. Anyway, pay no mind to barking controllers, real life or VATSIM. Frustration can get to anyone, sure, but the ones who have made a habit of it should really find something else to do.
    2 points
  39. I can only speak regarding Gander and Shanwick, but those are not operating as FSSs per se -- those are using the FSS suffix because it allows them sufficient radio range within the FSD protocol to reach the entirety of their control responsibilities.
    2 points
  40. Talk about hypersonic, I notice how quickly a discussion goes off topic heading subject matter😄
    2 points
  41. Management is fine, and quite honestly, necessary. I guess the hypersonic sonic flight issue could be boiled down to a special operation issue in general. Let's look at this from another angle. Every day in the U.S., there are hundreds of actual HEMS helicopter flights, and hundreds more currency training HEMS helicopter flights. These flights are considered special operations on VATSIM, yet in the real world, controllers facilitate their movement. The Washington DC area is rife with helo ops every day. So, if I want to fly a helicopter, and simulate some HEMS operations on the network, I have to join an approved VSO. If there isn't a VSO that meets my needs, I then have to go through the process of creating one, and have it recognized by VATSIM. Now, any Joe Blow can grab an airliner, jump on the network, and try to fit in as an ace pilot. Why not require all airline operations to be conducted by virtual airlines then? Require everyone who wants to fly an airliner, to be part of a partnered virtual airline, just like everyone who wants to do a helicopter HEMS flight has to join a VSO. The enjoyment of the network is clearly slanted toward airline operations, but the enjoyment of the more niche pilot operations is no less important. I find it kind of off putting that some pilot members are so self centered, they're afraid their personal enjoyment might get degraded, if real world ops that happen every single day, are allowed on network, without a bunch of arbitrary, and frankly silly restrictions, of joining a secondary organization if one even exists for your desired type of flight. These are the same pilots who miss ATC calls repeatedly, "can't find" a waypoint in their FMC, show up to do pattern work at a heavily attended event, and have a TV on in the background while transmitting. 😆 For my HEMS flights on network, I'll ask the controller if they're down with it, and are OK with the ops. Most are fine with it, and enjoy the different aspect of helo ops, including both on, and off airport movement. But, having to do this "back alley coat hanger" type of operation, shouldn't have to happen. It should be an operation open to all members, without restriction, without joining a VSO, other than following IRL procedures. So should other types of "special operations" like hypersonic flight; open, not restricted, expected operations matching IRL procedures, and personal responsibility.
    2 points
  42. Those screen shots look great!
    2 points
  43. The funny thing is, in vpilot, you can mouse click to get a controllers details, start a private message session with a controller, or display ATIS. These are all things you'd do during a low work volume time as a pilot. During the very busy time of departure and arrival, when mouse click comm tuning and transfer would be very beneficial, it's not seen as important. This calls back to the recent pilot indictment by the VATSIM president. The current state of VATSIM is so broken, there are no changes large enough that will meaningfully fix much of anything. All that is left are small things. Flying a multi crew aircraft, as a single pilot in a VATSIM event, during a busy departure, or arrival, and being able to change frequencies with a double mouse click, does more than you think. It gets the pilots head out of the cockpit, instead of trying to scroll over multiple small click spots. In the mean time, while focusing on furiously scrolling digits, the pilot is missing radio calls, or delaying acting on ATC instructions, in turn, causing issues for ATC, and other pilots. Something as simple as a double click to tune comm one, could actually have a positive impact on pilot performance, by reducing pilot workload at critical times, and improve the overall VATSIM experience for everyone. Or maybe the dev doesn't hold the opinion that there's any need to improve the VATSIM experience for the members?
    2 points
  44. I think you are BOTH missing the point. VATSIM is neither a network of controllers nor a network of pilots. It is a network of BOTH. And the ratings we issue to either do NOT need to indicate the equivalent of real-world proficiency. They need to instill a reasonable amount of faith that the person is good enough to perform the indicated role ON VATSIM. My S2, which I've held for three and a half years and logged 568 hours on, is BY NO MEANS an indication that I could walk right into the Tower cab at Reagan National Airport and perform the job at a level which wouldn't get me fired or someone hurt within the first half-hour. Nor is my P3 an indication that if I were piloting a twin-piston and lost an engine mid-flight, I'd be able to save the lives of everyone on board. My controller rating is simply an indication to pilots flying into whatever airport I'm staffing on VATSIM that they should have a reasonable expectation that I'm proficient enough to provide a decent virtual ATC experience for them. Likewise, all that a pilot holding a VATSIM P2 (Instrument Rating) needs to be able to do, in my opinion, is make their blip on the controller's scope move in a reasonably predictable manner when given a clearance by ATC. I said in the other thread that the rating doesn't indicate whether someone is a good pilot -- just an educated one. And while I was being a little whimsical in saying so, I was indeed making a point that the standards for a VATSIM Pilot Rating checkride should be MUCH, MUCH lower than its equivalent real-world rating. For that matter, back when Boston Virtual ARTCC's Pilot Ratings Program (modeled after Keith Smith's ZLA Pilot Certs) were around and could be converted to VATSIM Pilot Ratings, the controllers never even looked in the cockpit of the pilot performing them. If their blip went where it was supposed to, they passed! And yes, Mark, yes -- I ABSOLUTELY have faith that a real-world commercial air carrier Dispatcher, fully certified as such, is MORE than capable of taking a single-engine piston plane on the network and performing an instrument approach, precision and non-precision, to the level of proficiency required by VATSIM. (In the agreed equivalency they are awarded a P2, not a P3 or 4.) Only in the extreme edge-case of a VATSIM controller with 0.0 Pilot Hours would I doubt that in the least. THIS IS NOT THE REAL WORLD and we do NOT need to try to hold pilots OR controllers to real-world standards. Each side simply needs to be good enough to provide a pleasant, cooperative experience for the other on VATSIM. We are deluding ourselves if we think the ratings we issue go ANY further than that.
    2 points
  45. Absolutely not, and you know that.
    2 points
  46. Whatever works for you, then great. Personally I fly in VR; it can be a challenge with a pen and paper flying in VS today I heard 4 pilots read back the frequency incorrectly in the space of 15 minutes with one controller. So perhaps it’s not an issue for experienced pilots, but it’s certainly one for newer pilots
    2 points
  47. There is in fact a consequence when flying with a "wrong" callsign - apart from the otherwise allready mentioned on you expecting one call sign (Lufthansa) and the controller using another (Lima Hotel): In euroscope the automatic gate assignment is/can be based on callsign. When you fly into an airport using DLH ("Lufthansa"), the automatic gate assignment will give you a free gate amongst those normally used be Lufthansa in the said airport. If you fly LH, the program is not able to asign you a gate, which then places the task on the tower/gnd controller. Having said that, it is in my viewpoint not the biggest of problems for a controller to handle - but nor should it be a major problem for you to handle. So I think it is making it a storm in a glass of water to abandon VATSIM on this ground. But it's for you to decide. Believe me - you'll encounter more challenging task on VATSIM than this.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...