Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/29/21 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
    5 points
  4. Mexico once again in Word Flight! Thanks everyone for flying, had a blast!
    5 points
  5. The final arrivals are landing for Cross the Pond Eastbound 2021. This is the 20th anniversary of the Cross the Pond event and the first time we’ve offered over 1000 slots to pilots. We made a lot of changes to our slot allocation process this year in an attempt to include as many as possible. Demand still outstrips supply when it comes to slots, however we are pleased 1055 of you were able to obtain one. We hope to see you in late March/early April 2022 for our next iteration. The event takes the coordination of a phenomenal number of people from many countries and timezones and we are so grateful for all their work and cooperation over the last few months. This includes our data analysis teams, facility and TMU staff, marketing teams and community members helping others in discord. This event always reminds me what a unique entity VATSIM is. We have over 2000 members interacting around the world on one day, flying in congested airspace and yet none of them pay towards the upkeep of the VATSIM network. Of course, the fact that we aren’t a multi-national corporation comes with the drawbacks that we have a few technical hitches, like the voice problems we had earlier in the event. We’re sorry for the disruption, but well done to everyone for continuing via our ‘old fashioned’ text while things settled. Cross the Pond is not without it’s challenges and things we’d like to improve on. The Planning Team already have lively discussions about the difficulties of timezones for eastbound events, something that we will continue to do in our post-event analysis. We have many other aims and wishes, but for now I’d like to hear yours. If you took part in the event I hope you’ll consider filling out our feedback forms. Controller Feedback: https://forms.gle/XfAh3ADPK5RX5gUZ7 Pilot Feedback: https://forms.gle/xdkcNEtjENUP7kjM9 We hope you enjoyed Cross the Pond.
    5 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. Isn't it great that it's not all about you? 😂
    4 points
  8. Traces of the flights from North America to Europe. Edited with new screeshot Shows all flights from all CTP Airports in North America, to all CTP Airports Europe between 10Z and Midnight Youtube timelapse animation :
    4 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. Why do you feel it was necessary to cross post that here?
    3 points
  16. Hello! We take immense pleasure in introducing to you the Moroccan Virtual Air Association, a non-profit organization founded with the mission of providing a supportive platform for Moroccan aviation enthusiasts and flight simmers. Identifying the lacks within this community was key to create a platform intending to tackle those deficiencies and make the Moroccan flight simulation community more united and accessible. We have crafted a strict code of conduct aimed to create a safe and accepting environment for everybody with an interest in aviation. Our initiative has been developing on different projects, which we are eager to share with you and the rest of this community. Please find below some of the main projects we have been working on: Creation of an Open Source Aviation Knowledge for MVAA members As you may know, even with the Internet, aviation knowledge can be difficult to access. We are aiming to create an Open Source space with aviation literature, video graphic material and more covering aviation topics, with the goal of achieving the equivalent of a PPL ground school course made accessible to all MVAA members. This Open Source space will be maintained by MVAA staff and will accept contributions from anybody willing to share knowledge with the community. We currently have material shared by aviation professionals such as airliners manuals, SOPs and ATC material. Creation of a multi-airline Virtual airline Months of surveying within the community concluded in the creation of vaMAROC, a multi-airline VA that includes current, historical and not launched Moroccan airlines and operators. vaMAROC provides over 1000 realistic routes, over 20 different aircraft types, aircraft liveries and configuration (for limited addons only) based on the vAMSYS interface. vaMAROC is not intending to compete with existing Moroccan Virtual Airlines and MVAA membership is open to all individuals, no matter which Virtual Airline they decide to be part of. We will never enforce vaMAROC membership to MVAA members. We worked hard to include relevant airlines, with accurate current & historical schedules and aircraft types. We are also creating a team to create liveries for these airlines (WIP). vaMAROC offers the following airlines: Groupe Royal Air Maroc Royal Air Maroc (current & 1981 schedule) Royal Air Maroc Express (current schedule) Royal Air Maroc Cargo (current schedule) Air Arabia Maroc (current schedule) Atlas Blue (Winter 2008 schedule) Jet4you (Winter 2011 schedule) Regional Air Lines (2005-2008 schedule) Royal Air Inter (1972-1974 schedule) Ocean Air Maroc (On-going schedule) Tingair (Proposed schedule during failed launch in 2009) More airlines are planned to be included depending on demand. Educating members about the aviation industry The Moroccan Virtual Air Association is structured to act as leverage for any person interested in an aviation career. The Board of Directors and other volunteers have shared extensive experience in real-life aviation, and we are eager to share our inputs to counsel the next generation of the Moroccan aviation workforce. Within our plans is to provide free of cost consultations for select individuals with an evident interest in working towards an aviation career, provide insight into career opportunities in Morocco and abroad. Cross sharing Moroccan Addons The Moroccan Virtual Air Association will provide a platform for hardworking Moroccan creators of addons products for flight simulation. Creators will be able to connect with other creators, promote their work and receive feedback or requests from MVAA members. ATC Training and GMMM FIR Knowledge database MVAA is supporting the establishment of proficient virtual ATC for the GMMM FIR on the VATSIM & IVAO network. Knowledge database about operating on the Moroccan airspace will be shared with all MVAA members. These are just some of the ideas we have cooking at the MVAA. We fervently hope that through this letter you and your team will have a clearer insight into our movement. Please note that MVAA is an ongoing endeavour and that is still adapting to feedback and suggestions from fellow community members. Please do not hesitate to pop up by our Discord server. We will be pleased to meet you and get your insights. Also, don't forget to visit vamaroc.com for more information about our organization. Feel free to share this letter with your staff or members. Regards, The MVAA Team
    3 points
  17. 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!
    2 points
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Cause R29 still hangs around... It should be taken down from the website and clearly communicated not to use it unless solved!
    2 points
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. yeah i really dont see why people are announcing top of descents, CLIMBS, etc. etc. the FAA recommendation is only:
    2 points
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. Myself and another visitor have been controlling a little there of late. Anytime we've been on, we've had reasonable traffic levels too so hopefully if more people actually control rather than talking about it, things will get busier.
    2 points
  33. 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
  34. Two other factors may have contributed: At some point during the event, servers were overloaded, which caused all sorts of communication problems; the situation was resolved in due time, but in the meantime, many controllers had little or no connectivity. The number of connections during the event was extreme, and it's possible that whatever viewer you used simply couldn't cope with the sheer number. I was watching SimAware while flying, and my own flight disappeared on several occasions, despite everything looking normal in my pilot client, and I saw other flights drop out and come back too, in a more or less random fashion. So basically, I don't think you can draw any conclusions from this. From what I saw, all stations were adequately staffed, I had full ATC throughout as promised, and so did everyone else I talked to.
    2 points
  35. IIRC the Clearance Request UI is only visible when you are logged onto VATSIM with an active flightplan.
    2 points
  36. You get all of this for free, completely from dozens of hours of donated time from people who work full time jobs in IT. Could you not be grateful for that? You are one of hundreds of people every year who don't manage to get a slot, and it's attitudes like this that make it worse. You are not entitled to this network any more than anyone else.
    2 points
  37. Congrats @Óskar Berenguer 🎉
    1 point
  38. As Lars said, nothing has changed. This is simply a step in the plan to implement it in the future. 🙂 The membership will be greatly informed and educated on when such a transition were to happen, along with tutorial videos etc.
    1 point
  39. I agree Andreas. I was getting very frustrated needlessly. I apologize.
    1 point
  40. Check out this video. It was a BIG help for me:
    1 point
  41. Thing to keep in mind: effective voice Unicom range is 30 miles (15 miles on either side), so announcing your intended landing runway and STAR on voice from TOD is not very helpful - those who might be interested may very well be at the airport, or arriving from the other side, so they could easily be 50-100 miles away, and won't hear your voice transmissions.
    1 point
  42. Hello Felix, I started my ATC carrer there. Also if is still under vatsim italy now, there is a group interested to rebuild the community.They have also a Discord. Check HERE
    1 point
  43. And I'd rather do stuff properly than control a bigger sector and give poor service. Sometimes, this is inevitable, but if I can prevent a 💩-storm on my frequency and not diving clearances only to find that the route was wrong and it's causing me more troubles once the A/C is airborne, before it all happens by judging from the present situation, I'd rather log on to a smaller sector/lower position.
    1 point
  44. I think it's becoming pretty clear that something broke for everyone and if possible, this should be fixed. In any case, whilst this is a problem, I would recommend for everyone to open a new instance of EuroScope, and connect and control via proxy. The new instance should display "normal" behaviour, though you will have 2 instances of ES open.
    1 point
  45. It's not stupid, and you're not required to have up-to-date FMC data, though it is of course highly recommended. If you're low on cash, you may consider buying a monthly Navigraph subscription and cancelling it immediately; this gives you 1 month to download the current AIRAC cycle, and after that, you can coast on it for a couple months, because things don't change radically all that often, and being a couple cycles behind is usually no big deal. If Navigraph is completely out of the question, there are still a few things you can do to make things pleasant for everyone involved: Get the charts for the airports you want to fly out of and into. FMC data isn't available for free, but charts for most countries are - skyvector has the US charts, most European countries publish their actual eAIP's for free, and there's also chartfox, which grabs these from the public sources and makes them searchable in a unified, convenient UI. (Which also means that if you do decide to buy a continuous Navigraph subscription, the "FMS Data Only" one will be fine - Navigraph charts look nicer than the free ones, but the information in them is the same). Given charts and outdated FMC data, you can check which procedures are still more or less the same - often, changes are small, like a changed altitude restriction, changed obstacles, or radio frequencies. Such changes can easily be dealt with. If you're not married to flying RNAV, you can just pick non-RNAV procedures, and navigate them the old fashioned way, with VOR, DME, and NDB. It's more work, but also a fun challenge. Depending on where you're flying, how busy it is, and how predictable, you may also get away with programming the newer procedures from the charts by hand. Of course this will blow up if ATC assigns a different one, so this isn't a foolproof thing. If you put "AIRAC 1234" in your remarks (where 1234 is the AIRAC number you have), some controllers may be able to accommodate - most don't have all historical procedures on file for you, but an experienced controller who knows their airport well may still know what those procedures looked like, and clear you for an outdated one. Failing all else, you can always request vectors. You may experience delays as a consequence (putting someone on a SID or STAR is hands-down less work for a controller than vectoring them), but you'll get there eventually.
    1 point
  46. 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
  47. Revision 1 of the GCAP After Public Review is ready for the final comment period. You can find the full text with change bars attached. Key Changes Section 2: Definitions for Activity Requirement, Currency Requirement, Live Training, and Practical Examination, Terminal Facility added or changed. 4.02 Sub-Divisions and Divisions guaranteed at least 1 Restricted Airspace with the total number not to exceed 30% of all controllable aerodromes and approach facilities (rounded down). 4.03 Divisions guaranteed at least 1 Major Airspace with the total number not to exceed 20% of all controllable aerodromes and approach facilities (rounded down). 6.01 Removed global mandate to utilize solo endorsements. 6.03 Mandated Solo Endorsement be made available for sub-divisions to use at their discretion. 6.05(h) Small clarifications to use of Solo Endorsement. 6.05(j) Increased maximum allowable Visiting Controller Endorsements to 3, added waiver for divisional training staffs who are conducting training in multiple sub-divisions. 6.05(j)(x) Disallowed language proficiency requirements as a means of restricting visitors. Granted waiver ability of this rule to Regional Vice Presidents. 7.07 Refined allowed requirements of Restricted Familiarization Courses. Section 8: Major Revisions: 8.02(b) A division or sub-division may set an activity requirement but it may be no stricter than 6 hours on any control position within that division or sub-division within the previous 6 calendar months. 8.04 Major and Restricted endorsements may be subject to an activity requirement no stricter than 3 control hours on the endorsed major, or any restricted airspace within the division or sub-division within the previous 3 calendar months. 8.07 Divisions are tasked with developing written policies and procedures for suspension of controller privileges 8.08 Defined when a division or sub-division may conduct a competency check on a controller and how such a check must be conducted. 9.01(d) Reduced the required hours prior to transfer to 50 (100 if they have utilized live training). GCAP Public Review Rev 1.pdf
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...