Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/17/21 in all areas

  1. Honestly, how is that "back-seat moderating"? Please, do explain it to me. Is there a problem with what she said? You pointing out the obvious that it is someone's opinion is not required as we are in a discussion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Lastly, you pointing to a news article to apply as a Network Supervisor makes ZERO contribution to this thread and its primary discussion. A1 - Members shall, at all times, be courteous and respectful to one another.
    4 points
  2. Care to back that up with an argument? Again, like I said a maximum of 8 to 10 hours in 3 months. So if your division feels they only need one hour every three months that's entirely up to you. Just because the maximum is 10 doesn't mean that all divisions must enforce a 10 hour activity requirement. Hence the word maximum. This affords other divisions more flexibility. I fail to see the issue with this.
    4 points
  3. I submit that this kind of frustration surrounding the free-for-all booking process is exactly why it was primarily switched to a time-release lottery system...
    4 points
  4. Hey Andrew I agree. I think for clarity tho, we should really ensure we point out we are talking about the scope of ENDORSEMENTS here. Not ratings 🙂. So we can most certainly, if someone fails to read up on significant changes to a major or restricted minor and then makes a mess only, drop that endorsement until they have self educated or been guided. But the same cannot apply to a rating. There is another pathway to address that. Just for clarity <VBG> Phil
    4 points
  5. 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.
    4 points
  6. This, a simple "moodle" exam with 10 questions and a simple pass rate + plus a tickbox to confirm the controller has read the procedure change won't do it at all... You need to get the controller to put this into practice... Depending on the procedure you may not need 30 sweatbox sessions but also group seminars may be possible to do so.. That is efficient.
    4 points
  7. To get down to brass tacks here, we are all hobbyists and dedicate the amount to controlling that we personally would like to dedicate. This discussion has shown that there are quite varied opinions on what constitutes enough to remain proficient. We all agree that major (busy) airports require more time than non-major or less busy airports. I will say my personal opinion is that a facility requiring 8 - 10 hours per quarter, or forcing recurrent sweatbox sessions every time there is a change for me to continue to have the “privilege” of working “your airspace” is absolutely ridiculous for a hobby. You would need to start paying me at that point. To be honest, I don’t know how you would retain a single hobbyist controller under such rules. To be blunt, this would be exactly such a practice from which GCAP looks to protect the individual controller. In some ways it also prevents sub-divisions and divisions from being their own worst enemy by stopping them from putting in overbearing requirements that would be harmful to them. Any number is going to be an “arbitrary” one, but the GCAP would be defining what the governing body of the network thinks is too much. This gets back to the quality vs quantity argument. Just as controller’s number one issue right now seems to be pilot quality, Pilots number one issue is lack of controllers. With training queues and times long, why are we looking for ways to cut controllers at the first opportunity? Why are we imposing such strict requirements on people who dedicate their time to providing a service on the network? This further reduces the amount of ATC available to everyone. As someone who flys on the network and wants quality ATC as well as a controller who takes pride in providing a good service, I can appreciate the work facilities do and concerns they have regarding these changes. However there absolutely comes a point where quality is absolutely overblown. When we reach that point, you’re absolutely right that I’m going to put quantity over overblown quality. We are a learning network, not a proficiency network. Mistakes are going to happen. Controllers are not going to do it right 100% of the time. Facilities are going to receive *gasp* the occasional piece of poor feedback. We need to remember that all of us are learning here, even the most seasoned professional. Even in the worst case scenario, say a controller majorly screws up and launches an airplane from a minor field directly into an airplane at the major field, that’s not the end of the world. Educate and move on. GCAP allows for people to learn and provides pathways to education if problems are observed. We absolutely can provide a realistic ATC simulation service without crazy requirements and not become IVAO or MS Zone controllers.
    3 points
  8. Folks, let's keep the conversation civil, productive and moving forward please. We're here to advance the goodness of the proposed policies, not testosterone levels.... 🙂
    3 points
  9. @Mateusz Zymlais correct. It's common in RW to "shoot the ILS" while under VFR in VMC in CAS if given ATC permission.
    3 points
  10. Keeping a pilot's license current has nothing to do with flying hours, so I'm not sure where you are getting this information from. In the preceding 90 days it is a minimum of either three take-offs and landings, a flight test, or a demonstration of competence to a flight instructor. Then on top of that you are required to annually renew your instrument rating (if you have one) with a flight test/sim check as well as undergo a 6-monthly check if you are operating turbine-engine aircraft above a certain MTOW. All this is irrelevant anyway, because we are talking about controlling, not flying, which require different skill sets. If you want to use the real world as an analog, controllers in the real world are required to maintain a minimum of 8 to 16 hours per month of controlling time to stay current, depending on the positions they operate. Yes. We have attempted to do so in the past but it has been denied for one reason or another. Now to the point, controllers cannot be expected to remain competent on a position with just 3 hours in three months. The traffic levels in some divisions and subdivisions simply do not allow it, as in some places you may only see one aircraft in that three hours. Divisions and subdivisions should be given more flexibility to decide what an appropriate number of hours is to be considered current. To keep these requirements within reasonable limits, the maximum should be set at 8 to 10 hours in 3 months for major facilities so you don't have people setting ridiculous 50 hour activity requirements.
    3 points
  11. In which case both a minimum and a maximum needs to be set. If you leave these out this will simply encourage rating mill divisions to process trainees as quickly as possible. By this rule, someone could in theory go from being an OBS to C1 in four days which I would not put past certain divisions to allow. I understand that the maximum is there to prevent divisions from setting unreasonable maximum hour requirements, however not every place has the same level of traffic as VATUSA. For example, if you had a person training on Addis Ababa, they would need a lot more hours on the network to gain the same level of exposure as someone would on New York. This maximum needs to be revised upwards to between 100 to 150 hours to accommodate divisions with different traffic levels and allow divisions and subdivisions more flexibility to set the hour requirements as they see fit. In addition, to stop rating mill divisions, I propose a minimum of 25 to 50 hours to be set.
    3 points
  12. After our recent VATMENA Divisional Meeting we strongly disagree with this. Why 36 hours? This seems like this number was pulled out randomly. This in our opinion should be increased to 72 hours depending on the rating that they are going for. S1-S2 = 24 hours minimum S3 = 48 hours minimum C1 = 72 hours minimum The higher the rating you go the more crucial you need to show you understand the theory. Having a much lower hour cooldown period allows people who don't want to put effort to "speedrun" through the exams. We currently have this set and we can clearly see who puts the effort in and who doesn't.
    3 points
  13. I'm going to bring this back up after our recent VATMENA Divisional Meeting which we discussed several parts of the GCAP. We all agreed that visiting controllers should be subjected to a competency check and if necessary provided training. The wording here allows a controller from a division/region with lower training standards to be added as a visitor simply by reading some documents. Will this be corrected/revised in future editions? In addition, would 7.03 be applicable to visitors as well? Since the Division sets the standards for the Core Comptencies.
    3 points
  14. No, if you are in IMC, you cannot see anything. How would perform a visual maneuver while flying in clouds? Seriously, how often do we have to repeat this? As Don mentioned: please do not confuse IMC with IFR and do not confuse VMC with VFR. These are two different things.
    2 points
  15. No, a circling approach is always a visual maneuver under IFR. If you go IMC during a circling approach, you need to perform a missed approach. Basic IFR knowledge.
    2 points
  16. Though Ross can likely provide a better reply, and though I do not know Malwarebytes' specific, algorithms, here are my thoughts: 1. I'm sure it's likely that Malwarebytes considers Ross' site a "relatively light traffic" site. 2. Ross recently changed the URL for his VATSIM software, so that may have an effect as well In case it's helpful, I've known Ross personally for 14 years and counting, can certainly vouch for his trustworthiness, and his track record donating thousands of hours of his time, developing great software, and giving it to us freely for the benefit of our community speaks volumes as well.
    2 points
  17. I am wondering if the pilot in question asked for circling on a specific instrument approach that does not allow it -- as some do not have circling minima published -- and was told in that case that canceling IFR and performing a VFR pattern entry was his only option to land on his runway of choice. Would that make sense for this scenario?
    2 points
  18. I guess it takes a certain degree of emotional maturity to understand how this works.
    2 points
  19. No offence to you in particular (I applaud you responding to so many things), but I'd almost think that all discussions regarding the GCAP are hostile to those trying to involve their genuine feedback and concerns. They are people too, not some lower class of citizen below the BOG.
    2 points
  20. We strongly disagree with this point. It is simply not possible to keep yourself current on procedural changes at a major airport controlling only 3 hours over three months. This requirement should be increased to at least 10 hours for major airports. What if an airport undergoes major procedural changes that are completely new to the controller? This has happened before in the U.A.E with the airspace restructure of the WHOLE FIR.
    2 points
  21. Huh, since when is a circling-manoeuver a VFR-procedure?
    2 points
  22. Thats the point of this entire consultation to be entirely fair Kirk. Let's keep it on track instead of just pointing out the obvious?
    2 points
  23. Hey Martijn. To be fair. If we're only talking visitors. To be very honest, I don't see why there needs to be any timelimit whatsoever. As they have other places they can control, therefore there is no need for them to be attended to in a timely manner. If the facility training dept is busy, it's busy. I think my points are centered around transfer controllers. So it seems we're talking about different things 🙂 Phil
    2 points
  24. Phil, First of all, my concern is with visitors, not transfers. Dutch VACC 'owns' one of the busiest aerodromes on the network and most of our members speak English rather well, so I guess it is safe to assume that quite a few controllers will want to visit us. The number of actual requests in the past few years validates this assumption... The root cause doesn't need a lot of analysis: there is nothing 'broken' that can be fixed. Our subdivision is simply very small, and run by a small group (staff/mentors) of very dedicated volunteers. These are real human beings however, with real lives, real jobs etc. We can argue for hours how many comp checks it will take to clog the system, but I don't think that is very productive. At some point it will inevitably happen, and of course I am not talking about 1 or 2 visitor. What about 10 on day 1? And to make myself perfectly clear: I am not trying to 'butcher' anything at all. I am just trying to argue a rule that is based on false assumptions. A system that is flawed by design. There is no 'one glove fits all'. You may have noted I have also tried to make suggestions to improve this clause. A change to 28 days seems very reasonable to me, but I am sure other subdivisions will have trouble meeting even that requirement. Who am I to judge that, without fully understanding their situation? Hence, the 'as soon as reasonable' suggestion. Why not leave the details to the (sub)division? The intention of the rule is quite clear, let the sub(divisions) work out the details to the best of their (different) abilities. Cheers, Martijn
    2 points
  25. Why should divisions have to provide additional training for people who want to control elsewhere with priority? This makes no sense. The words "with priority" need to be removed.
    2 points
  26. To add to this, why should I waste time and resources on a controller who flunked a check elsewhere, who is going to contribute nothing to my division in return? This point is ridiculous and it needs to be removed.
    2 points
  27. I've said it before and I'll say it again. By asking VATSIM to allow the activity requirement to be more than 3 hours, you are asking them to impose stricter requirements than is required to maintain a real world pilots license. This is unreasonable and unnecessary for virtual air traffic control. Furthermore, if a controller does not review and make themselves familiar with local procedures before logging onto the network, they are in breach of C1 and C2 of the Code of Conduct. You should be reporting them to a supervisor or referring them to the DCRM. Lastly, if the entire controller cohort of a division is unaware of a major airspace change, then I suggest that the procedures used to implement the airspace change are at fault and must be reviewed. VATPAC implemented a major airspace change for AIRAC 2110. We provided multiple NOTAMs and announcements. We have had zero issues with compliance or understanding.
    2 points
  28. I would rather sweatbox the entirety of my vACC than see someone "read-up" on the new procedures, which literally anyone can do from the AIP or similar relevant sources and then get around 30 aircraft in their face on an event and don't know what to do. If you have enough coordination between people, all necessary practical re-training for new procedures can be done in 1-2 days regardless of vACC size, given that everyone can find 2 hours of their free time *just once* to study and practice.
    2 points
  29. SIDs and STARs don't just change and lead you from point A to B in a straight line. They could be crossing other departure or arrival flows for instance... Certain airspaces classes don't magically appear randomly for no reason, same applies to restricted, danger and prohibited areas. Restrictions on certain routes don't magically appear either... Common sense why have they been implemented by the REAL WORLD CIVIL AVIATION AUTOHORITY? We want to be as real as it gets right? Then spend the time reading up on those changes and putting them into practice.
    2 points
  30. 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?
    2 points
  31. Hello all, I'm unsure what causes the bug, but I know it seemingly occurs randomly. This evening, me (EHAA_W_CTR), EHAM_W_APP and EHEH_APP were online and we had the bug at the exact same time. So maybe it's not as random as I think it is, and has to do something with either a bugged plane, something with the data, or anything else. The bug: Normally you can draw a quick distance line by double clicking a place and dragging the mouse. At some point, the bug might occur and you won't be able to draw this line. It will (for us) always be in the position as shown in the screenshot below. Same heading, same distance. So far, we just 'fix' it by restarting Euroscope, but it's quite annoying to assume everything again, restart AFV, set everyone's temporary altitude again, etc. We run beta 26.
    1 point
  32. Incorrect. You may want to read up on this.
    1 point
  33. True, but please remember the distinction between Flight Rules (xFR) and Meteorological Conditions (xMC). 🙂
    1 point
  34. 30 days for at least a response confirming you will get a competency check is fine enough. It provides accountability while being flexible at the same time, which I hope is the aim. For transfers it is already a standard to allow someone to control some minor (in GCAP language, I wouldn't EGCC a minor airport lol) airports while waiting for a transfer competency check. This lessens the issue with a transfer controller waiting for that check.
    1 point
  35. Yes. How about some extra breathing room for starters to give facilities more time to actually process through all the requests and for them to actually be able to find someone to take care of the competency check? 28 days is nothing for visitors to "rot on the vine". I'm a visitor at ZBW and have to wait for exactly that, if not longer, to get validated on the next endorsement. I'm not complaining because I know that VATSIM, and especially ZBW, are full of training requests already and don't have enough mentors that are volunteers, to complete and facilitate those training requests. Not to mention the fact that there's not many visitors at ZBW right now, at least not as many as local ZBW controllers. 14 days isn't enough breathing room. 28 days is at least somewhat better, as a start. As said before, there's always a reason as to why facilities do so - in a lot of cases, it's because of instructor shortages. So now, we have a conflict and we need to find a middle ground. But 14 days just isn't enough and puts way too much pressure on facilities to be able to facilitate something that a lot of facilities won't be able to facilitate. In the end, I'm just worried about the satisfaction of our volunteers that put their time and effort into doing something for their facility and I really wouldn't want them to face such enormous pressure. I would strongly suggest taking all facilities' opinions on this into account and actually asking them - are you able to facilitate a visitor comp-check within 14 days? I mean, in cases like ZBW - nobody is restricting me, as a visitor, from progressing to the next endorsement. But I'm waiting in-line like everyone else is. There's no guarantee that visiting will become less of a burden. There's still loads of S3+ controllers out there that are more than interested in becoming visitors in places that currently don't allow visitors due to a huge training backlog - Dutch vACC, Scandinavia, just to name a few. If anything, S2 students not being able to visit somewhere else means they will start to focus more on actually getting their S3 rating - not a bad thing for them, but it might also mean more pressure on current training facilities, and can also promote rating tourism.
    1 point
  36. Thanks to everyone for their input! I ended up doing a flight into Heathrow on Monday, following a YouTuber’s route. It was awesome! The controller vectored me around a lot as the Heathrow airspace was crazy, and he gave me a thank you for following instructions and a well done after. Which was great feedback. Really happy and can’t wait to do more!
    1 point
  37. This of course is just your opinion. Who's to say that 8 to 10 hours in 3 months is not ridiculous also.
    1 point
  38. ....and don't forget that this is just a hobby and nobody will his head bitten off if a SID/STAR is filed/omitted. There are more important things that our virtual pilots should really know.
    1 point
  39. I don't think this is an oversimplification at all. You hit the nail on the head. We volunteer our own time, experience, and energy to train new controllers, and it is always my expectation that: a) new controllers commit the training that they have requested, and b) that veterans willingly stay current and up-to-date with changes. It shouldn't be my problem to personally worry about whether a major-endorsed controller has read up on the changes. I have a responsibility to maintain the controlling integrity of my FIR, and to keep my instructors available to serve the people who are committed to their training (putting aside extraneous circumstances). Both of those concepts are fairly easy to understand to me, and I don't see any problem with enforcing them and dropping a controller if necessary until they do their required recurrency training. Especially in the context of a major facility, deemed so because it requires certain knowledge and skills above the level given through the normal training process.
    1 point
  40. Phil - it really is that simple. You have summed up exactly the point I was trying to make! 🙂
    1 point
  41. Having read the CPT requirements I think those are also entirely fair and should be a component of representing 'seniority'.
    1 point
  42. Hi Suprojit. It occurs to me, in this instance. If you observe this kind of behaviour, then you would escalate this to the RVP for that division. I don't think a global policy needs to dictate a minimum in order to deal with one bad egg if they exist. That is punishing the whole for the errant behaviour of one. I feel it would be far more appropriate to escalate it and allow the RVP to work with that division to resolve the issue. Phil
    1 point
  43. Ahh dang it, I guess I was trying to be generous for you. Thankfully you've just backed up my argument and you're right. 3 circuits takes roughly 0.5 of an hour? So in that case. To maintain an IRL pilots license and carry passengers I only need to do 0.5 flying hours in 3 months! Even less than the original 3 that I quoted! This is exactly my point. Imposing limits that meet or exceed requirements of real-world controllers (or pilots, reference my previous comment) is unnecessary and not appropriate on this network, in my opinion. I'm sure other divisions around the world will gladly accept controllers from division who are unable to fulfill unreasonable requirement of divisions that choose to do so. I think the focus on hourly requirements needs to be shifted to "maintaining competency". A controller must be competent on the position which they are intending to operate. Just because you hold a rating, doesn't mean you maintain competency. Just because you've done 50 hours in the last month, doesn't mean you maintain competency. I can think of a few people who have recently returned to our division after a 10 year hiatus. People who would not have returned if we had enforced checks or hourly requirements. People who have not lost any of their skills over the past 10 years and are some of the most skilled controllers in our division. I can also think of some people in the division who took a 12 month hiatus and return knowing nothing, requiring retraining. Will a blanket hourly requirement solve the above issue? No. Will a requirement for a controller to be 'competent'? Yes. If they aren't competent, well that's another discussion altogether. How can a division prevent someone who is not competent, but holds a rating, from logging into the network and providing a service that they a 'rated' but not 'capable' of providing? Do they loose their rating? Do they keep their rating but loose the ability to login to a position? Are they removed from the controller roster (is that even enforceable under the CoC or GCAP)? Does CoC C1/C2 apply? Enforcing Competency - not currency - that is the real issue here.
    1 point
  44. Hello everybody, encouraged by the super-positive feedback to my "transitions in Germany" posting yesterday I'd like to follow-up will another topic that seems to leave some pilots unsure on what they are supposed to do and what they are allowed to do - vacating the runway. At first glance this sounds totally easy - vacating? So just get off the runway and everybody should be happy or? But how far shall you go then on the taxiway? And which turn-off should you have used in the first place? Airport layouts vary extremely all over the world and same applies for the taxiways leading to and from the runways - from high-speed turn-offs to just a single connection enforcing a back-track after landing nearly everything is possible. So I definitely can't go into each one of them - and for some it's either written in the charts or advised by the controller if it's ok to use a (non-) active crossing runway for taxi or not. But there are some assumptions and common features that you can always apply. First of all - always have a look at the airport layout when you are doing your little approach briefing - what is the runway setup, where are the terminals, even without knowing which gate you might end up with - get an overview: How long is the landing runway, how much landing distance will you likely need -> what are the possible taxiways for vacating - does it make sense to break hard to catch an exit prior a longer stretch without any or are there high-speed turn-offs and you can stay rather fast? This mental picture will help you a lot later-on when things might get busy after landing. Let's start with the first decision you have to take - which turn-off to take? Sometimes it's easy - ATC simply will tell you via which taxiway to vacate during the approach - either because there isn't much traffic and he/she wants to make it at smooth as possible for you or there are other reasons like blocked taxiways with departing traffic etc. Picture? yeah let's look at an example: This is Nürnberg, EDDN - landing direction in this case in rwy 28 (the blue arrow) - and as you can see there is a smaller GA turbo-prop waiting at taxiway C for takeoff. So if you are now coming in to land I as tower would tell you to "vacate via D or later" just to make sure that you don't end up head-on with the outbound and you don't smash into your breaks hard as it might initially have looked like a shortening of the taxi to the gates just to realize that C is blocked and then rather slowly continue to taxi on the active runway to the next exit. As atc my priority is to get the runway free as soon as possible so I can use it again for departures or following arrivals. Let's look at another example: This is Munich, EDDM - landing direction here rwy 26R - and you can already see this airport is suited for way more traffic than Nürnberg - there are taxiways designed to allow arriving traffic to quickly leave the active runway to ensure really rapid departure and arrival sequences. These taxiways have no real speed limit but most airlines have some defined in their procedures - you can easily use them with 60 kts. Here also as tower I might tell you "vacating via A4 approved" if I have low traffic and want to shorten you slower taxi to Apron 1 (which is in the west) but usually I would expect you to leave the runway as soon as possible and as quick as possible so I can release the next departure or the next arrival might already be close to the threshold when you get off the runway - we only need 2.5 nm spacing on the final if conditions are right - so that trailing aircraft might already be flashing the landing lights for you to get off. 😉 Let's look a bit closer to that part in the middle with the unmarked taxiway 90° to the runway: I put the red X there for a reason - this taxiway is closed in RL but that's not reflected in some sceneries (especially default) - but also if it would be open - don't use such a turn-off if you have the option between such a 90° (or more) turn on the runway after landing compared to a high-speed exit via one of the high-speed taxiways. Again - the goal is to get you off the runway as quick as possible. Here it is closed for real but also at other airports - the controller will always appreciate it if you pick the quick exit versus the slow one (except he told you differently). You will have spotted the little red lines on the taxiways in the screenshots above and you for sure will also have seen lines in your scenery at this position - what about them and connected the question "where to stop?" - "how far shall I go on my own then?". Let's have a look now at the simulator: Every now and then I see pilots stopping at this position - just landed on runway 26R, vacated via A6 and now there is this line on the ground so "better stop here...or??". No, don't stop if you are going in this direction! This is the holding point marker for departures. In the close-up you can see the difference in the marking - for the departure-direction you have 2 solid lines which indicate "STOP!" (unless cleared to cross/line-up/takeoff) - but for you as an arrival in your direction there are two dashed lines which indicate to not stop here as this line isn't applicable for you. If you stop at this position you are still so close to the runway that you are inside the protected area. So continue on until you reach the next real stopping point or taxiway junction where it would be possible for you to take at least 2 different paths. So we continue on our taxiway until we come to another line - what's now this? You have found a CAT II/III holding point - this is only relevant for low visibility procedures. Departures will be cleared to taxi only until this point when CAT II or III ILS approaches are done (so mainly during fog) as the area between these lines and the runway has to be clear to not impact the precision of the localizer. So also for arrivals under such weather conditions it's important to leave this area asap to enable the next aircraft to land - so continue also here. Now we reached a point where it is no longer clear where you shall go - straight-right or hard-left on M? - continue on A6 in the middle to then go left or right on N? - that's where you stop if you didn't get any further instruction - but also really don't go further on your own as there might be traffic crossing on these taxiways etc. - if ATC is busy you can take the waiting-time now to clean-up your aircraft (flaps etc.) - for him/her you are now a slightly lower priority and he/she will first issue takeoff, landing or line-up clearances but will also try to get you away from this position quickly as behind there might already be the next 1 or 2 aircraft vacating via the same taxiway... so if you get an instruction while "cleaning up" - taxi first and then continue with the flaps etc. when you are on your way. Even in RL you sometimes see aircraft turning into the gate with flaps just moving to the up position if the taxi-in went real quick and the FO was busy doing the radio. Just a little look back to the runway - as you can see you already made a lot of room there compared to stopping too early. This was now a look at a rather simple example - there are places where due to very close-by parallel runways it is crucial to stop earlier - let's have a look at the Vatsim-Germany ground chart for Berlin Tegel (EDDT) for this (https://vatsim-germany.org/pilots/aerodrome/EDDT): Imagine you land on rwy 26R and vacate via the high-speed turn-off RW - the parallel runway 26L is very close and there could be a departure going out while you are still in the roll-out. So make sure you check the lines in front of you on the taxiway - if the double-solid line is on the side you are coming from -> Stop! if not otherwise instructed. That's about all that came across my mind when thinking about this topic - let me know if you have (further) questions - it's well possible that out there are way more complicated situations with crossing runways and taxiways but the general principles should be the same - and if in doubt - just ask the controller - always try to be some steps ahead of your aircraft by asking yourself "what will I have to do next and might there be something unclear?". So far - stay healthy and safe and always three greens! 🙂 Cheers Michael
    1 point
  45. The example that I brought up only had around 5-6 people that had to do sweatboxes, all of whom completed them with no difficulty. Group sessions and seminars can resolve this if there is a large number of people that need to be introduced to the session. That way, procedures can be explained in a "lesson" environment, with everyone having the ability to ask questions and to clarify on things that may be unclear. This is much better than trusting someone to read up on "updated procedures", which as we already mentioned, isn't a reliable option if people don't even update controller clients.
    1 point
  46. Hi, good question! You can absolutely continue your flight, as long as you're not paused. This information is found in the VATSIM Code of Conduct, article B(1): If you're in busy airspace, it's considered courteous to first connect in observer mode in your client and check if you are conflicting in the path of another aircraft (type .aircraft in your client and see distance). Generally speaking it should be no problem if you were only gone for a few minutes. 🙂
    1 point
  47. Mistakes happen, though, and sometimes particularly a less experienced APP controller might insist on contact with a VFR target below their airspace floor. As suggested, the best course is to comply with the contact request but ask them whether you're reading the sectional correctly indicating you're below their airspace. If you disagree with the result of the conversation, feedback on the facility's website is usually the way to go.
    1 point
  48. This is an example of parts of the BoG being completely out of touch with the sub-divisions. It is not reasonable to say to me, as a sub-division leader that when a visitor wants to branch out beyond the confines of their home facility that I need to tell my instructors to prioritize them over an OBS who hasn't even touched the scope. VATSIM is and always has been a hobby of specialization, from what I can tell the goal of this community is to have an accurate simulation of ATC around the world. When VATSIM comes to it's membership and says "We want to break down borders and let it all go" it's makes us think that VATSIM wants to be more like IVAO where there is significantly less oversight of controller training and standards. I am not gonna sit here and say there needs to be no restriction because some accountability is useful, but 14 days? From a network wide policy, this reaches too far. I personally thought 90 days was fine as a division wide policy, that prevents people from sitting too long and waiting and also gives the divisions the latitude to shorten that time for their sub-divisions. It makes no sense to me that a visitor from another region can come to my facility and demand a comp check within 14 days of joining, when I have OBS-S3s who have been waiting months to steal a precious second with my instructors because they are so off the wall busy. Yes I am going to stick by Comp checks need to happen, but this huge oversight from the BOG is absurd to me and needs to reevaluated. Even from not my perspective, if say I a VATUSA controller, visited VATUK and then demanded they evaluate me to the minimum standard within 14 days, are the 40 OBSes that have been waiting a year for a intro session going to be happy? Of course not. I'd be livid, and I'm sure they would be too. My official proposal is restore it back to 90 days and put language to allow divisions latitude to shorten. This document is trying to do the job of too many division staff members at once. Let your divisions make policies that are most beneficial to them. The bestest regards, Shane
    1 point
  49. I already outlined my opinion on the discord, but I'll outline it here as well. I've interacted with a lot of vACCs, both those that do mandate the local language (in my case, Spain as an example) and others that do not. As much as I hate saying this, it's really really hard to fit in for those that do not speak the language. Even when you're speaking English with those members and using English phraseology, it's fairly hard to fit in with the community when everyone is speaking in their local language, especially when this is the language which is mandated due to phraseology. A lot of training takes place in the local language, briefings as well and etc. and the cultural and language barrier is something that is very difficult to manage and has often caused issues and conflicts across the sub-division in many cases. I have experienced this cultural and language barrier during some of my time on VATSIM and it's not exactly the most pleasant experience for a controller. In addition, the thing about community, places that require the language due to phraseology have a lot of traffic using that local phraseology (in my case, Spanish). It's not really a pleasant experience for the pilot to have to switch to using English when flying domestic Vueling or Iberia, as we want to provide a service that is as realistic as possible and these airlines do speak Spanish in real life. It would also be a big burden for ATC, who would have to explain to every pilot that they don't speak English and that just discourages pilots from flying and can be complicated on frequency. Places that mandate the knowledge of the local language already have a lot of students and local members (e.g. in Spain, all of whom speak Spanish) and are able to successfully staff up big events, so those places do not have an issue in terms of lack of members. There are already loads of places across the world of VATSIM where controllers can go, where they won't have to experience the issues outlined above. So in my opinion, if a specific regulation is ever implemented, it should be that sub-divisions should be able to choose whether or not they want to keep the knowledge of the local language as a requirement for local controllers and visitors.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...