Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/09/22 in all areas

  1. Recruiting isn't the problem, retaining people is. Speaking from the perspective of my own vACC, the wait time from sign up to actual training can be a year long because there's so much interest, but unfortunately a lot of people in that queue are only mildly interested. Once it's their turn, they do the training because they've waited all this time, right? Great! But after having spent between 5 and 15 sessions worth (times 1 or 2 hours each) of their mentor's personal time becoming a decent VATSIM tower controller, they say thank you very much, control for a month, and disappear forever because they weren't really that into it in the first place. This very human, but taxes VATSIM specifically because everything is done voluntary without compensation. Noone really cares too much when someone gets their PPL and then never flies again, which is fairly common, because they only wasted their own time and money. Instructors and aircraft owners got paid, so the system kind of works. There's no simple solution to this problem, all you can do is try to make the training as easy and efficient and with as much self-study as possible to ensure minimum time is wasted on people who won't stay around. Stopping training because someone isn't cut out for it is really hard to do on VATSIM under the current rules (it is a hobby community where you try to avoid excluding people, after all), so many hours can and will be spent grinding the same basic theory and techniques over and over again. The last couple years I've trained between 10 and 20 people who certified, maybe two or three are still active. Most of the time I'd rather be doing anything else than mentoring due only to this fact, as it feels rather hopeless at times, but it's a way to give back to a network which not only have given me an amazing hobby virtually for free, but also led to a great career. And once in a while you get to train people who are passionate about it, stick around, climb the grades, and becomes resources to the network, and that is always a joy to see.
    6 points
  2. Whilst I do not own a VA myself, I am a member of several partnered VAs and represent a platform that hosts around a hundred VAs, many of which are either current VATSIM partners or are looking to become VATSIM partners in the future. Your department of all must know that running the VA and providing a quality service to its members should be at the forefront of the VA management's mind. The VA audit process, whilst it may not seem like it to VA auditors, is in a lot of cases a heavily manual process, requiring VA staff to compile not only a list of pilots that are also members of VATSIM, but pilots who are members of VATSIM and have flown in the last 90 days on the network. For VAs with 100 members this is relatively simple; for VAs with 10,000 members this is a lengthy process, and so the common solution is to ask VA members if they are willing to volunteer their VATSIM IDs for delivery to the VA audit team. Once a year this is fine, four times a year this will most certainly start to annoy pilots, VA staff, or both. VATSIM does not publish a way for VAs (or their platforms) to programmatically retrieve past statistics. It is a manual process for VAs to check connections within the last 90 days; for VATSIM, it is not. For large VAs, time moves relatively slowly. If a VA meets the partnership requirements at the start of the year, they're probably still going to meet the requirements in three months. Auditing VAs four times a year, whilst it may keep the department busy, will take up a significant amount of time on the part of VA managers having to compile statistics on network-connected members. Large VAs tend to be managed by people with careers, higher education, or both, so time spent preparing for these audits is time not spent on maintaining the VA and doing things that will make a difference to pilots. Why has the frequency of audits been increased? I'd also like to ask why VATSIM collects names of pilots when auditing VAs? How does VATSIM handle this data (which is personally identifiable information) properly. Do you retain the data? Who has access to the data; is it restricted to people that need it, or can the whole VA relations department see it? Why can VATSIM not match IDs to names on their side? The CID is also personally identifiable information; what processes do you have in place to ensure this is processed correctly? Thanks in advance for your response - I appreciate this is a strongly worded post but I have several people behind me who feel very strongly about this, and I want to make sure I get their points across.
    4 points
  3. Just to expand a bit on my previous reply and to say - I am in the same boat as George - I am the data controller of thousands of pilots, high thousands of whom have optionally submitted their VATSIM ID to us for us to store and use according to our use policy. My reply, which I will try to keep short is in 2 parts. Your reply, as new to your role as you have found it, left my mouth agape. Previous director left and took 80% of the data? I know it's not your fault, but the question has to be asked - just how lax are VATSIM data handling protocols if I can just get off and leave with not insignificant amount of data. Then you ask us to give you a list of IDs of people so you can match them up and keep a record of who they are VA members of? Not to sound too conspiratorial, but the lack of data handling policy, as George alluded to above, is just shocking and goes against the principles of a responsible organisation. Director, no less, walked away and took significant amount of data - be it internal, though I would not be surprised at all if some pilot IDs went away in tandem - and there is no announcement? No acknowledgement that undeniably bad thing happened? C'mon guys - you are way better than this and it ought to have been disclosed promptly and early. Responsible organisations behave this way throughout the world and usually such announcements come with a roadmap as to how this will be prevented in the future. We received none of that. VATSIM says it does not hold significant personal data and thus does not need data protection officer - this is just simply not true - You have my name, email, VAs I fly for as well as records of when I am online on your network, most definitely you track IPs connected from as well. That's about the all basic information you can extract from a user and VATSIM potentially deals in millions of them. If I walked away with, deliberately or inadvertently leaked/made public data of 80% of my customers of platform users (say by not BCCing them in a mass email) - I would be tied up in courts and the ico.org.uk would happily take action against me as director of the company and individual as well. It may be false equivalence, but the statement that VATSIM does not control vast amounts of personally identifiable and location based information is just bogus. I know it's not your department Antonio, but this is not good, responsible and maybe even in line with the laws and regulations. For the second part, George covered most of it - yes, VATSIM issues the IDs, we get to know some of them by people associating with us and providing those IDs voluntarily. Said ID can identify you personally - stats.vatsim.net existence is the reason why I can say that vatsim ID is personally identifiable information, protected by law in UK and rest of the EU, as with the said ID you can get a name of the person. It absolutely boggles my mind that VATSIM asks this list to be made public on an accessible roster, no matter what VA management software you use. I would rather loose customers and pilots before I expose PII in this way and break the law - yet it is something VATSIM insists on since day 1 and when I raised the complaint back in the day when vRYR was up for review and I was asked to provide a list of network IDs with full names, I received no reply and the VA was quietly removed from the list - well, I lost nothing, nor did the VA. I would posit that VATSIM lost something as it made me less inclined to advertise your events and invite our pilots to fly on your network. You also mentioned that the only tool is policy - so I assume by proving you a list of sequential network IDs starting at 126000 and ending in 1260100 will suffice? It covers 100 pilots and with no tools - we can both assume they flew online in last x days. I know this is very facetious, but that's the only conclusion of your argument. As George said, and I will reconfirm - I have a legal duty to provide as little information as is needed - without knowing how you check if pilot X Y or Z counts for the purposes of validation - my hands are tied and my official notice to my VA customers has to be to not to provide any data to VATSIM - because we do not know what they do with it, we do not know how long they retain it for, we do not know if we are providing more than we need to. I kindly ask you to explain to us all just how VATSIM VA relations division process the data and does their verification? Just before I wrap up, in the 2 linked policy documents it is said that pilots need to fly with appropriate remarks. This has me thinking that you already have all that you need - the policy states that multiple VAs sharing same name are not allowed - so if the ruling was that we all need to include the name of the VA - you already have all the data you need and more than we would willingly provide to comply with 20 pilot requirement - relinquishing us of the burden to compile a list and check if these people flew online in X days on an arbitrary timescale. To flip it around - VATSIM holds/processes more data than you think. And just to wrap up - my tone above notwithstanding, my hearty congratulations on your ascension to your role. I just wish your first post was not a rule announcement but a post where you - the link between VAs and VATSIM - introduced yourself to the community and laid out a roadmap as to how you will serve us - the people who use the network and help it make possible. People and VAs, who are slowly going extinct as we face competition from other trackers and lack of general interest. If your plan to help us is to load us up with more meaningless paperwork - goal achieved. (/s)
    3 points
  4. This can't be more false and is quite disrespectful for all the work staff puts in. As training staff for a subdivision on VATSIM (almost two years at the moment), we're working hard to improve the flow and training. Obviously not all is perfect, but change is not implemented overnight. We (Training Director + Deputy Training Director) meet every week for a few hours to work on the training program and go through emails and we even do things outside of those meetings. Easily a few hours each week on a volunteering basis. While it might differ in other subdivisions, we have spoken to a few and I know about how hard they all work. Obviously not all is visible for members. A lot is "behind-the-scenes"-work. But, a lot is happening. And it's always easy to complain unfortunately, while everyone is trying their best.
    3 points
  5. Seems to me we should create a solution that doesn't increase the burden on Partner VAs, who already get minimal return on affiliation, and also does not increase the bureaucratic footprint of VATSIM. Every 90 days is onerous for everyone concerned.
    2 points
  6. Thank you for your kind words, George. VATSIM hasn't provided us with any server access. I have already requested some minimal access in order to add some features we've been needing for years apparently, but that was a no-go by the tech department. As much as I'd love to have a little bit more advanced system of handling this, it is simply out of reach for the time being, even though we have something that's being worked on. Anything we do, is done either on google spreadsheets or google drive. Which is where we store everything. We do not store the pilot roster you send us. But we do store the amount of pilots you have had on your last audit. At least we're supposed to have those in audit documents, but we're missing that as well because of already mentioned reasons. I don't know if I mentioned this before, but anything that goes in details with user data such as CIDs, Names, emails, etc. is not stored. The only emails we store for example, are the ones we use to contact the VA owners on my.vatsim.net. The only names and CIDs we store are the names of VA owners on my.vatsim.net, and so on. The problem with the idea of "how you doing" is that we base 100% on the fact we expect the airline to be honest. I'm more in the mindset of trust but verify. And I believe that a better approach is to verify ourselves that the airline is still doing ok and not inactive and cluttering up the list. Although as previously mentioned, I hopefully Heritage VAs work out for larger VAs, while the smaller ones shouldn't have much trouble getting us the information we need. As previously mentioned; anything that goes in details with user data, is only seen by the person who does the audit. Not even I, or the VP know any of the CIDs from ExampleAirline that has been audited yesterday, but we just saw that the Audit Manager marked in the document that they meet the requirement. Therefore, I don't believe there is any changes needed there, because only 1 person has access to it, and it is during the auditing period. I will be reviewing all policy documents regarding our department with our VP sometime before we implement Heritage VAs, and we will make sure to be as transparent as we can in regards to any changes. I believe that communication is key between multiple parties such as VA department and VAs, therefore, I promise to make sure we do a better job on that one, even though, today that was not the best case! This should not have happened. I will make sure to explicitly state which information may be requested and that anything else the VA will not be required to provide. Pilot names are something we do not require, nor should anybody ask for them. The team has been re-briefed on how audits should be handled once I got on board, and I'm working on more internal resources to make sure Audit Managers understand their respective area of responsibility, what they may request, how they may communicate and when. Once again, thank you for all of your comments and suggestions. I really appreciate all of this! Unfortunately, I'm not really sure what tools the VA department can provide you with to make it easier for you. When it comes to Audit Managers, their job is to simply audit the airline and make sure they meet the requirements. I am open to any suggestions you may have as to what we can do to improve the process, but bear in mind, we're not VATSIM's tech department and we're unable to make any heavy modifications to how the procedure on my.vatsim.net works or what tools on it are available. I agree with you and George, depending on how the airline operates, it can really be difficult and a burden to deliver 10,000+ pilots (even though we don't require that many). But as previously mentioned, a Heritage status is being worked on, and we were planning to introduce it slowly, but are unable to right now due to VATSIM's tech department not having the resources or time to implement it into the current my.vatsim.net system. Rest assured, we're not planning on having big VAs that have a good standing be burdened with such frequencies, this was mainly supposed to be for small to mid size VAs that are partnered, and the rest was supposed to be moved over to Heritage status once that has been introduced. I agree that this could have been better communicated on my side, and I sincerely apologize because that didn't happen. Thanks for the lengthy response, Lukas. I really appreciate all the comments and input from everybody. I wouldn't say "took", but our spreadsheets were basically filled with missing information and/or empty by the time I got here, and unfortunately, there is nothing I can do about that. As to how VATSIM overall handles their data, I can not speak for. The VA Department keeps track using google spreadsheets and store audit documents on our storage. For some transparency, data from our spreadsheet consists of the following: VA Name - Name of the VA VA Contact Address - Primary contact address for the VA Date Granted - Date the VA was granted Partner/Associate status (we are missing a lot of this data) Accepted by - Person who accepted the VA (we are missing a lot of this data) Last Audit Date - The date last audit was done (we are missing a lot of this data) Audit Due - When the next audit is due (we are missing a lot of this data) Auditor - Person who audited the VA last time (we are missing a lot of this data) Status - Whether they Passed or Failed their last audit (we are missing a lot of this data) Additional information - Any notes left by the auditors AMS Data - Audit Management System data, which is being used by a bot I created to automatically deliver audits that are due to our audit managers Website Link - link for the VA's website The mistake where I cc'd instead of Bcc'd the email today, was 100% my fault and I fully take the responsibility for it. It was a major oversight, as I accidently haven't chosen the correct option when attaching recipients. I have already notified our VP about the issue, so I'm not sure what happens from here on. As much as it won't fix anything, I publicly apologize to everyone affected. Unfortunately, for anything else that concerns you regarding our data policies and how it is handled, you will have to get in touch with our department's VP (VATGOV12), as I am in no position to speak of our Data Policies. We will be looking into some alternatives as to what we can request other than pilot rosters with CIDs to make it more GDPR compliant.. Maybe PIREPs? If you have a suggestion, I'm happy to hear you out. When an Audit Manager receives a new audit to their DMs, they receive necessary information about the VA which is pulled from our spreadsheet where we store VAs. Audit Managers have been provided with a document that requires them to fill in Yes or No checkmarks inside fields with the list of minimum requirements. The Audit Manager does them one by one checking manually if the website is ok, if they have the VATSIM logo that points to vatsimi.net, if they have an accessible pilot rosters with more than 20 pilots, if they have at least 15 pilots that flew in the last 90 days. Next to that, the document stores the VA Name, audit date, and the name of the person doing the audit. In case the Audit Manager is missing something from this list, they attempt to make contact using the email address that we get when the VA sends in an application and is accepted. That email address is the primary VATSIM email address of the person sending in the application, and as much as I disagree with this, there is nothing I can do about it, as I am not a part of the tech department. What we can do is manually change the email address upon request. If there is communication and cooperation from the VA to provide us with needed details (for example, a pilot roster with CIDs), the audit is done as usual, rest of the document filled in, and sent in for review to me and our VP. If everything seems alright, we approve it, update the new details in our spreadsheet and upload the document to our storage. Note that any personal information that the VA would send to the audit manager, such as CIDs, names, etc. is not stored anywhere. That is how audits have been done since before I was appointed Director, and there will be a lot of changes over the next few months, as we work on improving the process so it is easier for audit managers to do their job, and for the airline to provide us with the needed details. That is correct. Although, I don't believe anybody enforces this, and we haven't been paying attention to that, since we would usually get the pilot roster upon request, or find it publicly available. I will make sure to keep this in mind, and thank you for bringing it up. I absolutely agree with you. I will be looking into writing up a post that would introduce the VA team, some transparency as to how we do things, future plans and we will make sure to get the policy up-to-date and sorted out. Once again, thank you everybody for your comments and suggestions, and I apologize if I missed something!
    2 points
  7. +1 to George's comments. Will VATSIM be auditing my partner VA (vspirit) using the statistics they have internally available, or do I have to turn over a report every 90 days with this information? It seems like the latter would be the case, but the communication also says "If your VA meets all the requirements for your current status, there is no further action required." so the signals are mixed.
    2 points
  8. Hello Antonio and welcome to the VA audit department. It is nice to see members with such little experience being given these opportunities. While I echo the comments above about your changes being manifestly excessive, I have a few further points to add. I have read you VA Partner policy, and nowhere in the policy (and especially not the section you have referenced) does it give you the right to change the audit frequency, nor does the policy give you the right to "reset" the audit status of airlines who are already compliant with the policy. A change in membership of your own department should also not necessitate the resetting of the audit clocks, as surely this data is held within the department and past audit information is available to the new members? Or have you been playing fast a loose with with this data and not keeping your own audits of who has access to data and where it is kept? You have asked that VA's verify they meet the requirements of the policy to remain as a partner VA, yet you provide zero tools that allow VA's to effectively manage this process. As this data is held by Vatsim, surely it is YOUR responsibility to audit your own data and verify if a VA conforms to the policy? For example, a VA only needs to provide their website address held in the remarks section, and you can process the list of active pilots yourselves? You also state that, if a VA verifies their status, then no further action is required. It doesn't specify who I verify this with, or who has to be informed. It is therefore reasonable to assume that a VA can verify themselves and take no further action, with the expectation that you will be contacting VA's who you don't think qualify, providing evidence as to why their status is being put on hold? The way I see the VA partnership is it's a two way street, you need the VAs on your network to survive, just as much as the VAs need vatsim to make flying enjoyable. Surely you should be working with VAs on how to make the relationships better, not do everything you can to upset and alienate the VAs and the platforms they operate on?
    2 points
  9. +1 - Since our VA is using an externally administered system as a "customer", having to do this every 90 days will be a major headache for us. Especially since we are not the owners of said data, so we have to resort to contacting individual pilots which then pose as volunteers into the list we are giving to VATSIM. And as the system in question is the most popular one, I expect many VAs to have this issue.
    2 points
  10. As of today, I've been on this network for 18 years. I've been controlling and visiting ARTCCs and FIRs around the world, actively for this entire period, and I do not recognize this at all. Bull. At least not in any of the major ARTCCs. This might have been the case for you in one situation, but most ARTCCs and FIRs pride them selves in keeping scenario files up to date. Are there ARTCCs with limited staff and the ability to fix scenarios? Yup, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. Yes, a lot scenarios include errors that you are responsible to fix. Why? Because we have documentation that you're supposed to read and know, to know the routine situations. On this network, we get non-conformant situations in almost every single session, so we drill in what things you need to look at to ensure it is correct, every time. I don't expect a new S1, S2 or S3 student to know everything by heart - I don't know everything off the top of my head either, but I expect them to know when something is wrong, and where to go to look it up. I have never, in 18 years, experienced this. Most ARTCCs/FIRs don't do syllabus training in that way. I expect you to show up to a session prepared, having already read the materials so I don't have to read it to you. If you haven't done so, then that is an entirely other conversation. Yeah, a lot of this network lives on teenage mentors. Why? Because we don't have anyone else. By your statement, I assume you're of an older generation, and to be frank: people over 25-30 don't want to deal with training, so if you don't want to deal with teenage mentors, do something about it - suck it up, then come help us and contribute as a mentor yourself, I'm sure nearly every single subdivision on this network would greatly appreciate extra help - I know we sure as heck would. Bull. Are there people that do this? Absolutely. The ZNY TS usually have people talking about 18-20 hours a day, 7 days a week, since we have members from all over the world. But do I expect people to? Not at all. Not even close. Out of the 250+ active members and visitors in ZNY, only a small handful are actively on TS daily. There is about a quarter of the members that show up semi regularly, but most people just show up when they control, then hang around for a few minutes, before disconnecting. There is absolutely zero requirement to do so. Are there mom jokes when people hang around for hours at a time? For sure. But if there are things like homophobic references or other discriminating or offensive talk, I expect you, and anyone else who would be a part of such a conversation to report it, immediately to either the ARTCC/FIR staff or to a VATSIM SUP. ABSOLUTELY NOT. With the current GRP it is really difficult to pull someones cert after they have been certified for a position, but it does happen if people do not meet our standards or do not follow policy. I cannot emphasize enough how false this statement is, and this goes for the entire network as far as I have seen. You clearly haven't been around on this network for long, so I understand that you might think this, but it's absolutely wrong. VATSIM centrally, has been trying to standardize a training process for ages, especially with the latest version of the GCAP policy. The big problem is that Air Traffic Control is done very differently around the world, not just on VATSIM, but real world as well. Procedures, scopes, you name it, nothing is the same from one country to the other, hell, even in the US it varies from ARTCC to ARTCC. People have been complaining that it's too hard to become a controller in the beginning of this thread too. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you strongly here. You're talking about trying to make things easier, for a job that in the real world takes 2-4 years for you to get on a scope depending on your facility. If you want to become a controller quick, there are plenty of smaller, less complex ARTCCs in the US that will get you up to C1, very quickly, but if you want to control ZNY, ZLA, ZBW or ZTL, I'm sorry, these are insanely complex facilities that you need to work top down, something a controller, real world, would never, ever do. vZNY is fortunate enough that we now have a significant number of real world ZNY, N90 and PHL controllers as our members as well, controllers that have worked their sectors for years, yet they struggle when combining it all from a center position, when you need to cover not only ZNY Area A34, but also the entire area A, and B, C, D, E and F. Oh, and on top of that, you also need to cover the TRACON that have a 70% washout rate. We have made huge strides in making things simpler. Trying to move people up faster. The problem is that it is a lot of materials to memorize for most ARTCCs, and that just comes with practice.
    2 points
  11. 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
    2 points
  12. There is a plan to transfer it to the VATSpy github project.
    1 point
  13. Hello @Ken Fenton 995086, You probably didn't realize it, but you just learned how to test your headset/radio if you ever suspect that they're not working. Listen for that echo on com2, another tool in your flight bag!
    1 point
  14. Thanks for the reply, Andreas You were right I had my secondary radio on the unicom freq also. Once I switched it to a different active freq. the echo stopped. I thought com2 was inactive because I didn't have the com2 switches on. Thanks again for your help
    1 point
  15. Make sure you don't have the same frequency set active on your second radio! In swift you can also switch off RX2 for your other radio too avoid hearing yourself talk on the same frequency.
    1 point
  16. The short answer is: none of the above. It is an ICAO recommendation that no ATC speed control should be imposed within 4 miles of touchdown and most countries adhere to this but even so it will be explicitly stated (e.g. "maintain xxx knots to 4 DME"). Otherwise speed restrictions apply until explicitly cancelled by the controller.
    1 point
  17. Besides all the above, which all are excellent suggestions and without knowing exactly what you are struggling with, let me give you a couple of pointers that really has helped me. Have pen and paper nearby. Have pen and paper ready! This may seem a bit dumb, but tune in to liveatc's different stations (cld, gnd(apron),twr, dep,arr, etc) again, depending on what you are struggling with, and listen to what is being said. Personally, I struggled a hell of a lot with the readbacks, so I did it the hard way and invested in Pilot2ATC (also because I often need to fly offline, due to personal circumstances) to train the readbacks. The point being, while listening to a clearance, ground or tower channel, try to hook on to one of the exchanges and write down for example the clearance given. Try to find a good way to write it down quickly enough, while still being readable. Then read it back. Always remember that clearances, taxi instructions, etc. always have the same basic structure. Departure clearances are usually something with: 'callsign' is cleared to 'destination' via 'SID'. Expect departure runway xx. Climb to xxxx, expect higher clearances xx minutes after departure. XXXX frequency is xxx.xx, squawk xxxx. The text in italic is not always said, because they are implied in the SID. So, write down in short form. Destination (you already know that), SID (you don't always know this, but at least in Europe, it is usually named the same as you entry waypoint. For example, if I ask for the SIMEG8C departure at EKCH, my route starts with Simeg. If the runway is changed, you can still expect a SID with SIMEG in it.), Next frequency (which of course can be 122.8, unicom) and finally the Squawk. Sometimes you can even read the departure frequency on the charts. So, essentially, the only things you don't know is the exact SID and the squawk I usually write down like this. Let's say I want to fly from Kastrup (EKCH) to Naples (LIRN) with the SIMEG8C departure for rwy 22R as SAS2681. Naples SIMEGxx, (xx rwy, xxxxx alt, xx min) Next: xxx.xx(in case I get a next frequency) sq: xxxx Then I can quickly fill out the missing parts and I know how to read back. Scandinavian 2681 is cleared to Naples via the SIMEG8C departure, after departure monitor unicom 122.8, squawk 2671 or if I am giving the altitude (which rarely happens at Kastrup) and new runway: Scandinavian 2681 is cleared to Naples via the SIMEG1E departure, climb to FL120, expect higher clearances 10 minutes after departure, after departure contact Copenhagen Center on 129.475, squawk 3158. The same goes with taxi instructions. You can usually get an idea on where the ATC will have you go. Again, write in shortform. If the ATC instructs me to: Taxi to runway 22R via Q, F, Hold short runway 12, then A to holding point A1, I write: Q,F,HS12,A, HPA1. Then I can read it back quickly in that order. The rest is relatively simple, because they are usually short instructions like "Climb to xxxxx" or turn right/left heading xxx, although when given both altitude and directions to fly, I can mess up the two numbers. But the final part that might be a bit tricky, is the arrival clearance, bug again, remember that is always has the same basic structure, similar to the departure clearance. You already know the exitpoint of your route, meaning that your STAR will usually have the same name. Meaning that you can write down this clearance the same was as the departure clearance. These are suggestions I have found out works for me. What is really going to help you out, is developing your own system for writing these things down. I can promise you, after doing this the first 5-6 times hacking your way through it with a lot of "eh" and "uhm", it will quickly become easier. Hope you can use this. Sincerely, Michael
    1 point
  18. I appreciate the sentiments and observations being presented here. Let me provide some comments and context in an effort to clarify a few things: - One of our goals in maintaining a list of Virtual Airline Partners is to provide a reliable resource for VATSIM members who are interested in joining a virtual airline. As such, we seek to keep this list up-to-date and restrict inclusion on it to VAs that are strong enough to maintain operations, have developed a substantial base of pilot members, and demonstrate a commitment to the network. In order to ensure that these qualities are met, we put in place the requirements as stated in our Partner Policy for acceptance as a Partner. In order to ensure that these requirements are maintained, we have found the audit system to be the most effective tool. Might there be more advanced technologically innovative ways to perform this process? Quite possibly, however, within our department we do not have the latitude to institute such tools unilaterally and any system put in place that ties into the greater VATSI network must meet the demanding approval of those VATSIM entities responsible for managing the technological side of the network and they are in turn limited in their ability to help develop and implement such tools as their workload is considerable and limited to being dealt with by a small group of dedicated and trustworthy individuals. Thus, we utilize for the present time our "traditional" method of audits to ensure compliance. -The audit process is conducted in a rather methodical manner. The most labor intensive aspect of it is the verification of compliance with the online participation requirement. In many, if not most cases, the VA does have a roster on their website that lists a pilot name (or at least a partial name) and a VATSIM CID. This is sufficient for an audit manager to then utilize the VATSIM Statistics Center, input the CID-verify that does belong to the individual so stated by the VA and then seek flights flown within the preceding 90 days under the VA's callsign prefix. For those VAs that do not maintain a public roster the audit manager will contact them and request that name information and corresponding CIDs be sent of either the roster or of at least 15 pilots who have met the 90 day requirement. There is no requirement that an entire roster be sent if the VA is able to provide the 15 pilot identifiers. This is in accordance with the stated Policy requirement 2.3.1.1.3 that there be an ACCESIBLE roster (either publicly or upon request of an audit manager). The information utilized to successfully conduct an audit is not kept-there is merely a notation made to the VA's record as to whether it passed or did not pass the audit without the specifics being referenced. -A comment was received that "nowhere in the policy (and especially not the section you have referenced) does it give you the right to change the audit frequency, nor does the policy give you the right to "reset" the audit status of airlines who are already compliant with the policy." While it is certainly true that the Policy does not state that we have the right to change the audit frequency or "reset" the audit status of airlines already compliant, it also clearly does not state that such actions cannot be taken. Policy is subject to change at the discretion of the needs of the department and to respond to changes in the operating environment for which it has been created. Notice is provided to members that policy changes are being implemented and such changes are then placed into the Policy when an updated/revised version is published. This is being accomplished and a new version will be published and announced. VATSIM has very recently moved its documents to a new system and access to edit them is still being arranged. Additionally, the "audit status reset" is due to the loss of historical data of when VAs commenced their Partner status (see next note). -The comment by Antonio concerning the previous Director may have mistakenly given the impression that said person took 80% of our data. Such is not the case and there was no potential breach of information. Prior to that Director leaving, we had been using a data management and record system known as VASOPS. With the move of VATSIM operations to myVatsim, VASOPS was deemed incapable of being transferred and our operations had to devise a different record-keeping system. This was being evolved when the previous Director departed. The situation Antonio inherited was that due to Covid, we had suspended audits for over one year, therefore, with the VASOPS records no longer available and the suspension of audit operations for a prolonged period, we were dealing with data that was missing some components so there were gaps in our storehouse of previous information. -The discussion about 'Heritage'VAs. This was a term used a few years ago when this program was initially introduced. With its anticipated rebirth now and adjustments being considered for requirements to qualify a VA for inclusion, that name will likely be changed to be more closely reflect the status. -
    1 point
  19. I have to agree here, and let me be honest. When comparing the benefits of being a VA Partner, and having this additional burden, I can say right away, that considering what system our VA is using (the one which George represents) and what it would take for us to accomplish it, that it is not worth the effort. Once a year is doable, but every 4 months? Nope.
    1 point
  20. A policy is not a tool that helps VAs. The policy puts additional burden on VAs for very little or no benefit. I'm not sure you understand who George is. He runs one of the largest VA platforms there is. If he tells you it's a manual process, it's fairly safe to assume that most large VAs don't have this functionality
    1 point
  21. Many thanks for your response. I'll reply to each paragraph in turn (and it might be a long one so please excuse the formatting - I'll try and separate bits as appropriate). As a sidenote, don't worry about English not being your first language - you do a fine job of speaking the language (better than some native speakers I know). I consider it implied by your position, but these aren't comments directed at you personally; more so at the department you now represent (which I'm more than aware you probably didn't inherit in a brilliant state). The issue with publishing a roster to the internet is that for all intents and purposes the VATSIM CID, even if not attached to a name, is personally identifiable information, so the rules as to what can and cannot be done with the data are extremely strict. Sure, large VAs can automatically get a list of VATSIM CIDs for all their members, but when the VATSIM VA audit asks for only a small amount of CIDs, providing them all is excessive. Just like how it's the responsibility of VATSIM to not ask for too much information, it's the responsibility of the VA (or data controller) to not provide excessive information. If a VATSIM VA auditor asked me for a list of 20 CIDs, I would not feel comfortable handing over 10,000. The problem seems to be that these members have to be active network members that have recently flown a flight - in the absence of a way of checking flight history automatically for a CID the VA would need to manually check items on the list against VATSIM Statistics. I also have concerns over how VATSIM handles the data when VAs hand it over. Ideally, you'd use the data to perform an audit, perhaps summarise some statistics and then delete the data from your servers, as you have no reason to keep hold of it. This is the best solution for all involved - it removes the obligation on VATSIM to store (read: and protect) the data properly and gives VAs peace of mind that PII they provided won't be lying around on VATSIM servers for years. I can understand wanting to audit smaller VAs more frequently and maintain an active list. This is key to users trusting this system to find VAs - nobody wants a list of old VAs. However, I don't think a full audit every 90 days is the best solution to this. Most members are not deliberately dishonest, and discerning whether a VA still exists at any given time simply requires a check in with the VAs contact. A simple email asking "is your VA still around, is there anything we can do to help" (or something similar) can check if a VA is still operating whilst adding minimal admin workload to both the VATSIM VA relations team and the VA staff team itself. You can then leave audits for once or twice a year depending on the VA size and how long it has been around. A heritage VA status is a great idea (although I am not sure modern, trendy VAs will like the name 😉). In general, whilst CIDs are relatively low risk PII, I am of the opinion that any personal data should have access restricted on the principle of least privilege. For example, if I'm a VA audit manager, I should be able to see data relating to VAs I have decided to audit, but not data related to VAs another VA audit manager has decided to audit; the latter information is not necessary for me to do my job. As discussed above, the information should then be deleted when it's no longer needed (i.e. when the audit is done, save for maybe a small grace period in case the data needs to be looked at in the short term). In the long term, the data isn't going to be up to date anyway, so if it is needed again then the VA should be asked for an updated copy of it. This gives control of the data to the VA that collected it; it is ultimately the VA that is accountable to its membership for how the data is handled, so it will give them peace of mind to know the data isn't being kept somewhere else for years and years. Absolutely! Congratulations on your new position - I highly doubt anyone expects instant changes, I'm more looking for willingness to change, which I think you've demonstrated with your message. I think many of these problems stem from a lack of rigid policies, and inconsistency in how these policies are applied. The current VA partner policy (and I fully appreciate it was probably written before your time) does not provide much in the way of telling VAs how things will happen or when they will happen, and is quite vague even to what will happen. In a future rewrite, it'd be good to see the responsibilities of the VA and the responsibilities of the VATSIM VA relations team more clearly set out, as well as how both parties can/will go about fulfilling those obligations. Transparency is (nearly) always a good thing, even more so in a voluntary organisation like ours. I notice you mention that you do not ask for the names of pilots - as I say, I'm not a VA owner, but the last time I was involved in a VA audit I think the audit manager did ask for names. It's likely accidental, but I think it could be pertinent to remind the entire team of what they should ask for, what they actually can ask for (as it's easy to deem a request for names as excessive, VATSIM holds that data itself) and what their obligations are under data protection regulations. All in good time, of course... George
    1 point
  22. I think you have more internal statistics than you think -- could you not ask each VA to provide what text they ask their members to include in their comments, and search flight records for those comments? The platform that my VA uses for our website + ACARS tracker considers turning over a list of CIDs to be a GDPR violation as the CIDs can be used to uniquely identify an individual and thus are PII, which would require an opt-in to our sharing that with you, which was not done when our members joined. This would seem to put us at an impasse with regards to the audit. I'd like to suggest this: assign each partner/associate VA a unique alphanumeric code, and ask the VAs in turn to tell their members to put that in their remarks. You could then search for that code to check each VAs status. I had this thought anticipating your response to my first suggestion above that you ask VAs to tell you what they've been telling their members to put as having too much possible variability.
    1 point
  23. I think you would struggle to find the list if you even looked for it these days. Since the website redesign I've not been able to find it. Ever a search for "vatsim va partners list" doesn't return the list...
    1 point
  24. In echo all of the above - the VATSIM VA auditing process has always been burdensome, intrusive and against GDPR. Instead of developing tools to make the process easier - you just made this even more burdensome. Is the goal of the policy to root out inactive VAs? If so, I applaud you - the list is woefully full of poor and inactive VAs. However, what you're doing is alienating a ton of other VAs who will find this overreach burdensome. What does VA get from being a VATSIM Partner? A mention in a long list of VAs - my google search of 'Virtual Airlines' does not feature VATSIM VA list in the first page and I believe that increased auditing will result in people just dropping out from your list as it's just not worth the hassle. It's 2022 for crying out loud - some reasonable technology could be put in place where either this becomes lot less cumbersome with pilots following a VATSIM link to 'join up' a VA for your records or some common sense - what are the odds that the giants of VA world like BAW or vRYR or vEZY and many many others with pilot rosters of 1000+ pilots will fall out of 20 pilot requirement?
    1 point
  25. Hello Matthew, Being that you have limited free time to "sim", why not fly both VFR and IFR. Let your mood that day determine how you fly. Sometimes I don't want to spend a tone of time planning a full IFR flight, so I file a VFR flight plan and enjoy a little more freedom as well as the beautiful sim scenery. The VATSIM environment is inviting for all, as long as you perform your responsibilities before connecting. IFR flights are very structured and complex at times. Some days you might just want to have fun (with appropriate planning of course). Generally, ATC controllers are receptive to both IFR and VFR flights. Nothing wrong with flying VFR! 🙂
    1 point
  26. I think ATC coverage is pretty good these days... it's certainly better than it used to be! Could we always use more? Sure! But the network in its current state is pretty decent. To the OP's point about it being difficult to plan around ATC - this is definitely true. I really wish more controllers would utilize an "expected online until" time; it would dramatically help pilots plan. Controllers want pilots to file flight plans (even while VFR) for THEIR planning purposes... it seems that controllers giving us something to go on in return would be a nice reciprocation. Of course no controller - just like no pilot - is bound to honor anything they file... real life happens and people log off early for a variety of reasons. But having something, *anything* to go on for planning purposes is sure nice.
    1 point
  27. Thanks Tim for the response 👍.
    1 point
  28. All the software is now in public beta and can be downloaded from https://github.com/daveblackuk/VSR Please join the discord for feedback and comments https://discord.gg/dD79AWg8cv thanks /DB
    1 point
  29. Hi Andreas, Tested now with swift - same result. As soon as there is one aircraft nearby and if it is moving, the frames are going down massively. So this is not related to the pilot client. Next trials: Reinstall P3D client and eliminate AI models step by step. Rgds Reinhard
    1 point
  30. The easiest way to change that tab is to scroll your map over to where you're interested, right-click, and select "XXXX Details" where XXXX is the FIR code. Ensure you have "Show FIR/ARTCC Boundaries" turned on so you can see all of them, even if not staffed, on the map
    1 point
  31. Cross the Land: Eastbound 2022 Airport Voting Results The voting period has closed earlier this morning and we are delighted to announce the results for this upcoming edition of Cross the Land happening on the 3rd of September 2022. Event Airports:Departures: Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas - LEMD Hannover - EDDV Luxembourg - ELLX Nice Côte d'Azur - LFMN Salzburg - LOWS Václav Havel Prague - LKPR Arrivals: Cairo International - HECA Hamad International - OTHH King Khalid International - OERK Imam Khomeini International - OIIE Due to their contributions over the last few years (we can't host CTL without their help) we have decided to award Istanbul - LTFM a special participant status. This means, that although they have not been selected through the voting process, they will be hosting departures and arrivals for pilots interested in shorter flights. The results of the voting stage can be found publicaly on our GitHub repository which can be found here: https://github.com/amosngSP/CTL_STV/blob/main/22E/README.md Note: Muscat has pulled their application for the event. After running the voting system again Imam Khomeini Airport has been selected as the final arrival airport in the Middle East. Keep yourselves updated over the next few weeks through our social media platforms. We will be releasing the slot bookings on the 14th of August 2022. This edition we will also be bringing another confirmation system where pilots will be required to confirm their booking 24-hours before the event. Bookings that are not confirmed will be released for other members to book. More information regarding this will be released as we get towards the booking stage. Make sure to follow our twitter @vatsimctl and join us on our very own dedicated Community Discord Server for Cross the Land!
    1 point
  32. To add to what Liesel and Andreas said, please don't fly out of Mid Summer Madness today if you don't know how to operate the aircraft with confidence. This is a busy event with over 340 movements yesterday during opening hours, three stacks in use for most of the event, stack swaps and additional en route holding. The controllers simply won't have the time to help you out with any issues. As Liesel says, practice offline or when a sector is quiet and get confidence in the aircraft you're flying first. I've got nearly 6,500 hours as a pilot on the network and still took the MD80 in MSFS up offline for a few flights first to get familiar with it despite already owning the P3D version. it will help enormously and serve you well.
    1 point
  33. Avoid any large airport that is busy with ATC and many pilots at the time, not just "London". Go step by step and follow the advice of Liesel.
    1 point
  34. Hi Jack, The self deprecation here is only going to keep you into a limited mindset that will make it harder to learn and feel comfortable on this network. I promise it's not nearly as bad as you may think 🙂 I suggest you go into your aircraft of choice and do some repeat flights on the same route to practice all of these things you're struggling with. Either do this offline, or during a quiet time, so that ATC is able to help you. Avoid London for this if you can. Something that helps me when learning a new aircraft is to follow a streamer VOD alongside or a proper tutorial alongside my own flight. This gives me points of reference for major steps in flying the aircraft. Good luck with your VATSIM journey!
    1 point
  35. Kevin, I'll do my best to provide my perspective. I can't speak to Tim's experience, don't know what facility he's talking about, and I don't know when (leaders change, people change/move on, culture changes (albeit somewhat slowly)). But I can tell you that between the facilities that I've controlled at, and visiting all VATUSA Teamspeak servers during my five years as a Division Director, and having had to deal with complaints that would have come from behavior like that, I never saw any such requirements or any such behavior. That said, I'm not naïve enough to think some folks/facilities might have been on their better/best behavior when the boss was around. And I'm also not going to say that on occasion there isn't behavior that rivals 8th grade behavior, but in my experience it happens only on occasion and is not the rule. Heck, I'm guilty of it on occasion too. But it's certainly not normal. Just trying to be completely honest. The training I've participated in and witnessed has been top notch. The facilities I've trained with have always updated their tools, files, and ensure the most realistic procedures (as reasonable for VATSIM, of course). I've never been "read to". Frankly, the instructors and mentors that I had the pleasure to work with (as a student and then as a peer mentor or instructor) expected you to read and come prepared so they could maximize the effectiveness of training time. No facility that I know of has ever expected/demanded you to hang out needlessly in a Teamspeak. No facility that I know of has ever trained to a high standard and then had no expectations after certification. Quite the opposite, most facilities that I have been associated with or aware of treat certification as a license to learn, gain experience, and really get good. Again, I'm not saying Tim's wrong, or that he didn't experience what he describes. I do not, however, appreciate him representing his experience as something all students can expect at all facilities across the globe. I'd also say that there is a chain of command and personal choice that are also tools that any individual can use. Questionable behavior or poor tools/process? Bring it up to the facility staff. Or to the staff's leadership (for example, in the USA, a facility reports into a regional staff, which reports into the Division Director, who reports into a VATSIM Vice President for the Region). Then it can be dealt with. Or, alternatively, one can simply transfer to another facility. Sorry, long post, but you asked.... 🙂
    1 point
  36. Your friend hit the nail on the head, I'm afraid. The VATSIM training path to controller is riddled with pot holes. -- Sweatbox training is done with out of date, broken, scenario files. The trainers in these sessions focus on the exceptions, and the "gotcha" situations, which is the complete opposite of how to train someone on a technical skill, instead of driving home the routine situations, and practicing those, -- You have to endure training session where a teenage mentor, reads verbatim from a syllabus to you. They understand the words, but not the meaning behind the words, because they have no real world experience to draw on. It's excruciating to be honest about it. -- The ARTCC's expect you to hang out in TeamSpeak, even when not controlling. Not everyone has the luxury of sitting in a voice chat for hours. Not to mention, when you get a bunch of teen to early 20's boys together, you end up having to listen to mom jokes, d**k jokes, and homophobic references, while you're in the TS voice chat. Think 8th grade all over again....LOL. -- During the training, it's not uncommon to have to "meet a standard," only to have your instructor say that once you're certified, you can pretty much control how you want. Unfortunately, there is no real incentive, nor desire for VATSIM to streamline the controller training process. All the power is with the individual ARTCC's, and they are kinda like the greek system at a university. Every controller has gone through the current "hazing" of sweatbox, and over the shoulder exams where you pile on the traffic, so nobody wants that system to stop and go away, just like every new frat brother can't wait for the next pledge class to come in. I was in TeamSpeak, in an ARTCC during a VATUSA event, that showed just how well a new approach to training could be done. Too long to type it out at this point in my post, but it was pretty eye opening.
    1 point
  37. All good points. Yeah, I wish we had coverage for all facilities all, or at least most, of the day. Many variables seeking a delicate balance. More quantity can be gained by reducing our quality standards, but then again we pride ourselves on our quality standards. Given a choice, we, as a network, have given the nod to quality over quantity. Nothing is perfect, there are "VATSIM-isms", but we'd rather have fewer folks on that are interested in a quality simulation vs. more folks on that are looking to "play" and care less about quality. Really good points, though. Our facilities, in general, are still trying to catch up with pent up demand from the pandemic. We rely on our instructors and mentors as the backbone of our training and certification arm, but the pent-up demand has been burning out a lot of folks. Very delicate balances around a lot of variables. That said, I really appreciate your well-reasoned input and suggestions, and hope that our folks at various facilities are listening and are willing to self-reflect and course correct as prudent. Thank you, stick with it, look to fly in as many events as you can where more staffing is "more-or-less-guaranteed", and my best wishes for continued tailwinds! (side note: I earned most of my ratings in the 90s also! 🙂 )
    1 point
  38. Jax or Mia. Learned to fly at KPIE, which is like right on the border between the two. Challenge accepted. How do I start? Kev PS... I thought someone might say that, but I have avoided it because I'm not so sure I'll be any good at it.
    1 point
  39. I have been looking for a tool that shows me the vatsim frequencies in VR. Just came across this forum thread and by the looks of it, this tool exceeds my expectations. I've been holding off on Vatsim for quite a while because I felt that I was missing this feature in VR and flying without proper multi-monitor support is just not enjoyable for me anymore. That said, I can't wait for this tool to go into public Beta. It looks amazing David! Is there a discord link to follow your progress more closely?
    1 point
  40. Following an operational review of Divisions and vACCs in the Region, I have decided to move the Ukrainian vACC from the Russian-speaking division of VATSIM (VATRUS) to VATSIM Europe (VATEUD). The move has been agreed in consultation with both Division Directors and members of the Ukrainian vACC. All current airspace standing agreements and LOAs will remain in place. The move will take place on 0001z on August 1st 2022 and will be subject to a 3 monthly review by VP Regions (EMEA) and the Division Directors of VATEUD and VATRUS.
    1 point
  41. ??? SHT is a long-standing callsign from the real world. It is "Shuttle" which is reserved for British Airways' domestic flights within the UK. There is nothing to be banned. Please make your research before spitting out accusations. There are other callsigns/registrations that are 100% legal to be used, because they also exist in the real world, such as D-ILDO, D-ICKS, G-AAYE etc...
    1 point
  42. FWIW as one of the mostly silent majority I think your suggested approach is great with liveries, and anything that simplifies the model matching process ongoing for both the devs and the users is great.
    1 point
  43. Simply enter the ICAO code of the FIR you're looking for in the search field. This will change the FIR/ARTCC tab. Principally the same procedure how to change the airport tab.
    1 point
  44. Hi Don, A good guide would be as follows: APP: Approximately halfway along the STAR where there is a height restriction (ie Lorel1B star into EGSS at HAZEL) TWR: When establishing on the LOC GND: Having vacated the runway If a controller wants you on frequency any earlier they will send a "Contact Me" message, as some APP controllers will call you earlier than expected, especially into the busier airfields (EGLL & EGKK) in order to better manage the ensuring chaos. If you think you are heading towards someones airspace, call up the controller and they will advise if you need to speak to them or not. Don't [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume you will always get a "Contact Me" If you fly in the same areas you'll soon get to know which controllers you need to contact and which you can ignore. Hope this helps Shaun (EGLL APP Controller)
    1 point
  45. These FSS positions are made as an effort to provide air traffic control to pilots over a larger area and to help generate traffic. They are also efforts to provide control in regions that are currently in the development stages and trying to provide air traffic control over these regions to serve pilots. You also don't have an obligation to take the direct routing. GULF_FSS in its earliest conception was actually my idea along with Ilan Jonas in July of 2005 as an attempt to provide air traffic control over a large part of the middle east to foster growth of the region and attract pilots. It would appear to have worked, as of today VATAME & VATME is a growing and thriving region and division. While some of these facilities are "unrealistic" and aren't real facilities in the real world, it manages to provide pilots with continuous enroute air traffic control in an area where they otherwise would have been on UNICOM for almost their whole flight. You don't call it real controlling, but the controller is still providing radar separation over a huge area and does indeed still have to do work. The controller also has to have earned their C1 rating, which means they've been put thru the training on local control, and then moved up to approach control, then moved up to their local center, and then finally out of their own desire earned their FSS rating to control these large areas. A controller controlling a FSS doesn't mean they are scared of top down. It means they've voluntarily chose to earn the FSS rating and the desire to serve the pilots of VATSIM over a larger area. They are perfectly capable and competent to provide top down. They don't skip from TWR or APP straight to FSS. The reason VATSIM exist is to provide an opportunity for pilots to fly with ATC, and they are providing this exact service and making an effort to extend that service to you in an area where you may not normally have the opportunity to have a controller online. In terms of the quality of the controlling, that falls back directly on the FIR and Division that they received their training in. If you have feedback on the performance of the controller, then let the FIR know. We're all only human, and we're all only volunteers, and many aren't directly involved in the aviation/air traffic control fields in their normal lives, so they do the best they can with the material they are given. If you feel you could do a better job, I challenge you to, and that's not a sarcastic or belittling statement, and that's a statement that I not only apply to VATSIM, but the real life. If you feel you could do better, then make every attempt to try to do so and to learn your craft, be it air traffic control, flying, or whatever career or hobby you've chosen. In the long run it will most certainly benefit you, and it will benefit those you come in contact with. The next step after that would be to give back and help to share your knowledge and skill with others to make a difference. These FSS positions aren't designed to sacrifice quality, but to take strong controllers and place them into a role they can provide service over a large area, but please do keep in mind the large geographical area they are covering, and they can sometimes get busy and will do their best, but again, they are only human. Their zoom level also requires them to be zoomed out quite a bit more than whats normal, so it is easier to loose proper separation because of this, but you have to ensure you set your conflict alerts a larger distance apart to help combat this and ensure separation is maintained before it becomes "illegal"
    1 point
  46. It is with very heavy heart that the Virtual United States Navy (VUSN) announce the unexpected passing this week of the VUSN founder SCPO Todd Cox (ret.). Todd, along with fellow US Navy veteran Mark Di Domenico (ret.), was instrumental in the establishment of military operations under the now Special Operations Administration on the Vatsim network. The VUSN and the VUSAF were founding VSOA members back in 1999, following their activity on the SATCO network. Todd spent his Navy career as an air traffic and CATCC controller and retired at the rank of Senior Chief. He then moved into a successful career in airport management and consulting. Todd was an incredible person and friend, and he will be greatly missed by the VUSN and by all that knew him. The VUSN was created under his vision, and we continue to honor his vision. The members of the VUSN will be conducting a Vatsim flight in his honor in the next several weeks.
    0 points
  47. Already done - latest driver - older driver (nVidia) - no success so far. Rgds Reinhard
    0 points
  48. Dear Ross, Same result w/o these files. I also reinstalled the P3D client component. I tried with all AI models completely removed. It's always the same. As soon as I connect to VATSIM and an aircraft nearby is moving, the frames drop dramatically. Independent, if this is vPilot or swift. So I think, the next (hard) step will be a complete re-install of my sim PC. Rgds Reinhard
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...