Jump to content

Stephen Keskitalo 977981

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stephen Keskitalo 977981

  1. Yeah, I know what you mean man. Well, thanks for your contributions, Martin. We'll miss you. Best of luck in any future endeavors.
  2. I have had the CH Yoke and Pro Pedals for about 2 & 1/2 years now, and a really ancient joystick (maybe one of the first USB models). I almost never use the CH Yoke because I think the springs are too strong. Having flown real Cessna 152 and 172's I can say that it's much easier to move a real yoke than the CH Yoke. I'm either going to sell my CH Yoke or give it to a relative since I never use it, and don't plan to use it anymore. This Christmas I received the Logitech Attack 3 and so far I love it. I can use it with either hand, depending on whether I'm flying right seat or left seat
  3. Congratulations Captain Obvious. Your keen powers of perception have lead you to the conclusion that a forum thread is, in fact, not a personal blog. If you believe that I think this is anything other than a forum thread, then that's your problem, not mine. Also, I prefer to be addressed as Stephen, but if you won't grant me that courtesy, then I shall continue to refer to you as Captain Obvious, champion of the apparent. Don't place yourself above me. Your replies and those of a few others have been just as belligerent as, if not more so than, mine have been. You and your hollow adages ar
  4. I agree my original post was wrong-minded, but all of my subsequent posts have been focused. I'm not throwing a tantrum. I'm making my intentions known. I'm telling you how I feel about this issue, and people like you are talking about things which don't even relate to that issue. I will think more carefully before I make new threads. But you have to understand that I was not fully informed about the complications of crafting LoA's when I first posted. If I had been aware of the difficulty of resolving conflicts between LoA's and real-world flight plans prior to posting, my original post w
  5. The only thing wrong with my attitude is that I'm sick of folks like you dragging this out unnecessarily. You're not even focusing on the issue! The experience level and hours that controllers have has no relation to this discussion. I'm no longer demanding "full realism" like I was in my first post. I only demand a compromise once in awhile. Such as during low traffic periods. If exceptions to LoA's can't be made in such situations, then I won't fly with ATC. It's as simple as that. Stop convoluting this issue. Who am I pointing my finger at? Stop this nonsense. Just anothe
  6. Can we lock this yet? This issue is resolved. You guys continue to reiterate that you agree with everyone else, that's great. But I've already stated that, unlike when I first posted, I now understand the limitations of VATSIM and I've declared what actions I'll take. What you continue to reiterate will have no further effect on me. My mind is resolved on this matter. I have no interest in being a controller. I explored that option and it bores me. Please stop suggesting that route. As I've already said, there is no amount of volunteerism on my part that will resolve this specific issu
  7. Not really, it's the virtual air traffic simulation network, after all. Nothing about controllers or ATC in the title. And yeah, I was the only aircraft flying that route at the time (and I think the only one inbound to that destination at the time too). I could understand having to fly according to an LoA with a few more planes inbound to that destination, but if controllers can't be flexible, that's okay with me. They can't stay logged in forever. Anyway, let's just leave this alone now. The whole situation leaves me with a bad taste and I really regret my initial post, which I adm
  8. My first post was on the wrong track, and I didn't know as much about the difficulties of rewriting LoA's when I first posted. But, if you read my subsequent posts, you should have seen the point I was trying to make, which I will restate, below. I'll go through this point by point in the hopes that this will finally be laid to rest. 1) Flight-aware is what has been filed by IFR aircraft in the real-world. 2) Filed-flights are quite often modified. 3) Filed flights are flown "unmodified at least some of the time." If this wasn't true, then pilots or airline dispatch would not c
  9. So many are missing the point. Unlike the real-world, a VATSIM LoA is a guaranteed reroute when using a real-world flight plan. I agree that reroutes are realistic, but not when they always preclude the use of a real-world flight plan. In the real-world, if I file the flight plan that I showed in my first post, I'll be able to fly it without being rerouted at least some of the time. On VATSIM, there are no exceptions for this realism, and therein was my complaint. What it comes down to is, who will have to sacrifice realism, the pilot or controller. It seems that there can be no except
  10. Matthew, I was just ranting, my intent was to raise awareness, not to offend. Perhaps I could have said it better, but I also was in a hurry to get it off my chest. I can't raise awareness for all of VATUSA in a private message. Oh, and if I truly believed that by becoming a controller I could actually make a difference in the furtherance of this issue, then I would. My becoming a staff member in an ARTCC would be like a drop in a bucket. It would not allow me to make change on as wide a scale as I'd like. It would only affect my flights in that single ARTCC. But as you said yo
  11. Because the flight plan that I wanted to use is realistic. In this case, the LoA was not realistic, otherwise, it would not have conflicted with the realistic flight plan.
  12. My biggest complaint was just that I wasn't able to fly a real-world route. Anything additional, like out-dated terminal procedures, was ancillary. In this case, my complaint was that I wanted to fly a real-world route, even though it would be against the LoA. I wanted an exception for the sake of realism, I was not demanding that they keep current as I realize how much extra work that would be. That's all that my rant boiled down to. Oh, and I disagree that realism has to be sacrificed in this particular case. Like I said, I'm not demanding any extra work from controllers, I'm merely
  13. Today (technically yesterday), I was told to modify my flight plan. Normally, this would be totally acceptable to me, except for the fact that I was using a real-world flight plan that had just been flown, within the last 24 hours, by multiple real-world aircraft. Isn't VATSIM all about being as real as it gets? As for what the flight plan was, I was told to change my plan from "BLGRS8 IIU PXV QBALL6" to "WHWTR5 VHP VLA5" in order to conform with an LoA. (Yes, I was issued an out-of-date STAR, too; VLA6 is current.) The LoA caused a decrease in realism for my flight. This should never be a
  14. Ideally: 1)The ultimate responsibility for getting controllers trained and certified should rest on the ATM. If they can't handle that responsibility, then they shouldn't be ATM; no one's forcing them to stay as ATM. I say put the figurative gun to their head, because the people who can hack it will stick around and those who can't, well... good riddance, they were doing a disservice to student controllers. Remember, there is a deputy ATM so the ATM doesn't have to always be there and can take vacations, etc. Why so harsh? Student controllers are the future of VATSIM, ATM's have alread
  15. Stephen (nice name btw), I disagree very much with you and your friend. Personally, I find rules and laws very useful at keeping order and fairness, so long as they are enforced anyway. The longer that a rule goes unenforced, the sooner that rule becomes meaningless. Just as an example, look at America's illegal immigration problem. The laws were there, the enforcement was lacking. In this case, I see Norman's reminder as a helpful nudge toward enforcement of existing rules, and therefore, a good thing.
  16. Not intentionally trying to pick a fight btw, but why ask if you knew the answer? Even though the terminology might not always be clear, Roland's quote was clear. You cannot argue against the policy on the basis of semantics. Try it, and see how far it gets you. It's the spirit and intent that currently matters, not the technical phrasing, which can be fixed over time. I anticipate that we will continue to hear inconsistency because fixing and re-aligning VATSIM policy is the main focus for the moment. I believe that "seemingly contradictory" terminology will be dealt with later wh
  17. As I explained before, that would be true if we were starting afresh and only had to look forward and not take the historical ratings into consideration. The historical ratings are a significant amount of previous work over many years and we are not going to dump that. Roland Well, my opinion is that we shouldn't get so steeped in tradition that we become afraid of a little change. Just my opinion though. I think that it is what the ratings indicate that should matter, not the process that went into formulating the ratings themselves in the first place. And if you were a major c
  18. Let me explain why I'm not understanding thus far. How I see it: To me, the C1 C3 S1 etc. are all meaningless by themselves. We could just as easily say that a controller qualified to fill the center position will have the "FT14" rating or a tower controller has a "7R" rating. Totally made up, and that's the point. The ratings in and of themselves shouldn't matter, it's what the ratings indicate (competency and qualification) that matters. Are you seeing my point? Rolland, I see the VATEUD proposal as fulfilling the above requirement of having ratings based on competency. I cannot
  19. Roland, I am feeling a little dense about this, so could you spell it out to me exactly why this is a problem? So what if CTR is not until C3? The way I say it the proposed C3 title only means that a person is capable of properly working a center position. I'm sorry but I'm just not understanding why that's a problem. What specific parts of Martin's scheme disqualify it from being a CBT by your definition? Please, help me to understand. One of the reasons I like Martin's proposal is because when I look at a controller's rating under his scheme, I can immediately know what level
  20. That info was also on the boston website. And again, not required reading.
  21. Those already qualified for center could be promoted if necessary to continue working center. I still see no problem with the proposal.
  22. Since no one else has commented on this yet, I will hop in and give my enthusiastic agreement with this proposal. I think that this is how the controller positions within VATSIM should be setup. In my opinion, and for the same reasons that Martin listed in his post, it doesn't make sense for S1's to just hop right into tower. I think that S1 should be where the foundation is laid for learning to be an ATC. Martin, please keep us informed of the response from the EC if they do not keep us informed themselves. Hopefully they will see the wisdom of implementing this change.
  23. Yes, it was a good event from the huge turn-out I observed via ServInfo. The Boston ARTCC is truly one of the most well run ARTCC's, and I don't recall ever having a bad experience in the Boston area, unlike some other places. Please continue to stick to your time tables for future events as well. I wish all events in all areas would be run like that so pilots would get used to it and not expect ATC to stay longer than they claim they will. But just keep in mind that not all pilots may read these forums, so please don't forget to have all controllers notify pilots with a little bit of
  24. I was not flying in Boston at the time, but [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming that there was no 5, 10, etc. -minute warning by the controllers, then I agree. They should have announced that they would be leaving in 5 minutes before their log-off. Not all pilots read the forum, (I had been flying around for a month or so before I started reading the forums, and I think some pilots never do because it's not a requirement for VATSIM members), so, some pilots may have been quite confused as to why all of the Boston ATC would vanish without any (or with very little) warning. It was right for Bost
  • Create New...