Jump to content

Stephen Keskitalo 977981

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Stephen Keskitalo 977981

  1. 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, it has a lot more buttons than my old joystick, and I like the resistance level. I only wish it had a HAT switch so I could look around more easily. Still, it's a huge improvement over the old Gravis Destroyer Xtreme joystick that I was using before.

  2. Nope, I'm afraid I don't. This isn't your personal blog, Steve. The attitude of your replies speaks louder than the core of the words written. As the old wise man once said, "you win more flies with honey than vinegar."

    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 are not valuable contributions to this discussion.


    If you insist on continuing this conflict, I think that we should continue it with DCRM, and not in this thread.


    Oh, and before anyone starts quoting the CoC "Members should, at all times, be courteous and respectful to one another," allow me to cite a few examples of those who have broken this rule against me.

    I have to chuckle at the original post (and follow up whining).
    Otherwise, stop whining

    Jim Davey, even if you perceived me as "whining" it was neither courteous nor respectful for you to declare this. You offended me. I should have said so earlier, but didn't catch it as I've only skimmed through some of the postings, including yours.


    You win. This definitely has ceased to be a productive discussion.


    In the future, don't post a topic and expect people to simply "see your way" and then throw a tantrum when they don't.

    Again, even though you may perceive my behavior as childish, it was discourteous for you to declare that I threw a tantrum. I personally believe that I kept my behavior in check until you provoked me, Sir Marcus.


    Truly, two wrongs don't make a right, but everyone has limits to their patience and I'm quite a bit past mine.


    I hope this thread is locked soon.

  3. You win. This definitely has ceased to be a productive discussion.


    In the future, don't post a topic and expect people to simply "see your way" and then throw a tantrum when they don't. It's a FORUM, Steve.

    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 would have been worded much differently.


    I admit that my first post was wrong, but it is also wrong for you people to only focus on that and fail to see how my position changed in my subsequent posts.


    Do you understand my frustration at this point?

  4. Wow, I can't even begin to break that reply down. You really need an attitude adjustment, Steve.

    The only thing wrong with my attitude is that I'm sick of folks like you dragging this out unnecessarily.


    Lets not forget that these "hypocrites" have spent countless thousands of hours training to be the best they can be, sitting at the scopes and keeping the iron apart -- both experienced and greenhorn -- often with little traffic to speak of while the pilots get to have all the fun just so people like you and I can fly with the full realism of ATC.


    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.


    But of course, go ahead and point fingers and stomp your feet. After all, it makes perfect sense to tear these poor fellows apart because you didn't get your way.

    Who am I pointing my finger at? Stop this nonsense. Just another baseless accusation and deflection from the issue.


    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.


    I'm not stomping my feet, I'm drawing a line in the sand. And you're not even reading what I'm saying so there's no point to this.



    Someone please lock this thread.

  5. 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 issue.


    I will not stay and listen to you people demand that I be flexible, when you ([Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming that most of you are controllers) aren't willing to do the same. It's hypocrisy to tell me to be flexible, when you won't allow even the tiniest flexibility or exceptions when it comes to routing.


    I will, and do, accept reroutes at least 90% of the time, probably more. But if I feel that my route is more realistic and that the controller is being too rigid in adherence to an LoA (such as during a period of very low traffic), then I'll fly my route when the controller leaves. I could just choose to never accept a reroute, and wait for the controller to leave in all cases, but I don't and won't do this, because I am flexible. I'm not the infelxible villain that some of you are trying to paint me as. If you reread my first post, you'll see that I did accept the reroute, but in future situations, under the same circomestances, I won't.


    I cannot understand why some of you continue to keep this thread alive over an issue that is not going to change based on what you post here. Go ahead and post if thats what you insist on doing, but I will do as I will, regardless.


    Oh, before I go, I'll respond to some of you. Especially those who are flinging baseless accusations.

    If you want to fly where you like... stay out of controlled airspace.

    And that's what I said I'd do in such a situation where I wanted to fly without being rerouted, admittedly not in those exact words, but close enough.


    It’s a shame that a controller gets beaten up because he followed the procedures set forth by his ARTCC and the other ARTCC's involved in the LOA.

    Please tell me where I have "beaten up" any controller. If you look at my past posts, I have not been hostile to any specific controller. Keep your baseless accusations to yourself, please.

  6. Hmmm seems to conflict the intention of being on vatsim if you're waiting for controllers to leave before flying.

    Not really, it's the virtual air traffic simulation network, after all. Nothing about controllers or ATC in the title.


    I do think when you look down in an entire FIR/ARTCC and see only 2 planes, this insistence on observing LoA's over approving a so-called non-standard route is just being plain in-flexible.

    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 admittedly worded poorly and I realize that I brought most of the hostility on myself. But yeah, this is settled, if I absolutely must fly my route, I'll just wait for them to leave.

  7. 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 continue to file these plans, since being rerouted takes up time.


    So, I was only asking that I be allowed to fly the real-world IFR at least some of the time, as opposed to always being rerouted by a controller based on an LoA.


    It doesn't matter anyway, because if I want to fly the route that badly, I can just wait for the controllers to leave. This way, everyone's happy. So, please, just drop leave this alone.

  8. 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 exceptions made to allow for realistic flight plans which conflict with unrealistic, out-of-date LoA's.


    The issue is resolved, it's beyond the capabilities of VATSIM to allow realistic flight plans because of LoA's. Nothing can be done about it, so just let this thread die.

  9. However, "This is no place for unrealism. We are not The Zone". Do ya need that in there? Really?


    You don't think we're all busting our humps to do the best we can? Cut some slack now and then.


    Send you suggestion...privately. Post a nicely worded note here instead of in the tone that was used, have a cool drink and a nice flight.



    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 yourself David Klain, "you clearly don't realize how disruptive it is to the network to deviate from the LOAs that are established." And you were right. I didn't realize that when I first posted, but now that I do, I know that my becoming a controller won't change that, so there's no point.


    If it's beyond the capabilities for ARTCC's to allow realistic flight plans on VATSIM, then I'll speak of it no further. Thanks for the comments.


    Edit: Indented part added.

  10. I understand what you're saying Stephen..but at the same time, just like I stated above, how is giving you a reroute for the purpose of meeting an LOA not realistic? It does happen all of the time in the real world.

    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.

  11. 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 demanding that they be more flexible in allowing me to fly realistically. I think it was an unnecessary decrease in realism.

  12. 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 acceptable.


    VATUSA LoAs should not preclude the use of real-world flight plans and should not cause out-of-date terminal procedures to be required.


    I ask that all ATMs please double-check to make sure that your LoAs do not interfere with realism. I think it is important that all ARTCCs allow current, real-world flightplans to be used, even if the real-world flightplan does not comply with a VATUSA LoA. (Since the LoA is the problem, not the flight plan.)


    Oh, and I have already issued similar feedback for the corresponding ARTCC, but wanted all ARTCCs to understand that real-world flight plans should not be prohibited. We are not The Zone, this is no place for unrealism.


    Thank you for your time,




    P.S. Leave comments if you want, but this was more of a "me addressing a problem/rant" type of post.

  13. 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 already reached the pinnacle of achievement within their ARTCC/FIR and their only contribution should be ensuring that their ARTCC is well-run and that they keep training new controllers. If they aren't doing this, then they shouldn't be ATM.


    2)I agree with, and have said all along, that students shouldn't be able to just hop on the scopes. It's a recipe for a virtual air disaster. They need to get signed-off by an instructor (not a mentor) so that they don't start vectoring airliners into hillsides or cause some other mess.


    3)A mentor should be any controller capable of teaching a student in a position for which that student is working toward qualifying. So, this would mean that anyone who is certified for tower should be capable of being a mentor to others learning tower. The only other qualification is a willingness to set aside time to help other controllers, which should be encouraged by the ARTCC staff. Maybe some sort of monthly gimmick prize for the most hours mentoring or something like that. A mentor should not be an "official" position like an instructor.


    4)Using Jason's proposal, there would be a lot of I-1's. People should be able to mentor based on their position qualification, not based on an I-1 rating. Therefore, I disagree with that proposal.


    5)An instructor is above and beyond mentor, because an instructor is the one who sign-offs and recommends/gives controllers a rating upgrade. Instructors have more authority and responsibility than mentors since an instructor is the one who declares that a controller qualifies/is certified for a certain position.


    6) I see the problem as an under-utilization of all controllers. To re-iterate what I said in (3), anyone who is qualified for a position should be mentoring students for that position. Mentors should be like "big brother/sister's" to student controllers, doing a lot of the teaching when instructors aren't around. That should definitely help with the apparent instructor shortage.


    7) VATSIM mentors should be like real-world instructors and VATSIM instructors should be more like real-world designated examiners, but also instructing when they have the time. But definitely the first priority of a VATSIM instructor should be give practical examinations to check the competencies of controllers and upgrade ratings and certifications based on those examinations.



    I add this disclaimer: these are my opinions, not facts. The views represented in this post are my own and reflect my own ideas of how the system should work, not how it does work. These are not necessarily VATSIM's views and should not be used to cause confusion later. Thank you.


    Edited #7, as it didn't come out right.

  14. I think this may have been what my friend I had lunch with the other day (a fellow flight simmer) was eluding to when he said the reason he doesn't use VATSIM is the people are "anal retentive". In regards to the controlling side of things, I don't agree....but I could see where the impression could stem from the way these forums are run at times. Personally I could give a flying rat's backside.....but it might turn some people away from the service.
    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.

  15. 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 when this current wave of policies is finally sorted out.



    Btw, I don't think I've made any comparisons to real-life in this thread, so I'll [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that last part was addressed to others.

  16. Can a division have a policy that is MORE restrictive then VATSIM, EC, or VATNA?


    1) If the answer is yes, then that creates its own issue. Which policies are going to be allowed to be more restrictive, and why those?


    2) If the answer is no, then how can a division write an "intra-division" policy.


    I am asking because, visiting controllers are, dare I say clearly defined as...

    A â€

  17. 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.

    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.



    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 contribution to formulating those ratings, then I realize why you might be attached to them, and I'm not trying to diminish your contribution.

  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 see why you claim that it is not a CBT.


    You're right, an S1 should be able to control, and I think that the VATEUD proposal does allow that. But all S1's should be signed off to control and not just be able to hop on without some sort of preliminary evaluation and sign-off from an instructor or mentor.

  19. That's right Stephen; in Martin's model TWR competency isn't properly established until S3, therefore an S1 is not yet fully competent. It leaves S1 in a sort of *competency-limbo* and is the reason why Martin needed to move everything up a level. This resulted in CTR competency not being properly established until C3.

    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 of service that particular controller is capable of providing.


    Under the current scheme, where S1's are qualified to man a tower, they may not actually be capable of doing so. Let S1's man the tower, yes, but only if they are really able to do so. I don't want to be cleared to land on top of some other guy in IMC because the tower wasn't competent.


    Let S1's work tower, but only under the approval or direct supervision of a mentor/instructor, and only on the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption that they will soon take the practical test to become an S3 and fully qualified to work the tower under Martin's proposal.



    I see the VATEUD proposal as helping to preserve quality, and while still maintaining quantity. I don't see it as being likely to scare potential controllers away.

  20. 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 advanced warning of when they will be logging off.


    Non-forum readers are VATSIM members too, after all.



    That info was also on the boston website.


    And again, not required reading.

  21. In addition, are you prepared to see VATUSA's CTR rated controller staff reduced by about 33% and Europe's reduced by over 50%?


    Those already qualified for center could be promoted if necessary to continue working center. I still see no problem with the proposal.


    For the record, there are a number of problems with Martin’s model. Some of these are:

    • It has 4-steps from Pilot/OBS until a person becomes a fully qualified controller able to operate in all control positions. To use Martin’s words to me: “It makes full use of the total range of VATSIM ratings, starting with S1 and up to C3.â€
  22. Let´s just shift up all career steps by one rating level!

    S1 = introduced to the basics of VATSIM ATC (software, regulations, elementary TWR/GND controlling necessary to go live for the first time)

    S3 = trained and examined on Tower position

    C1 = trained and examined on Approach position

    C3 = trained and examined on Center position


    VATEUD has filed this as a request for revision of the EC Global Ratings Policy to the Executive Committee on July 3rd, 2007, and we hope that such a proposal will find acceptance not only across the members of the EC, but generally on VATSIM.

    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 advanced warning of when they will be logging off.


    Non-forum readers are VATSIM members too, after all.

  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 Boston to leave when they said they would on the forum (I respect that they stuck to their times), but it was quite tasteless for them to leave without consideration for the pilots who don't read the forum.


    However, if they did give adequate (5-10 minutes) warning to the pilots prior to leaving, then it is your complaints which are unjustified.

  • Create New...