Jump to content

Simon Kelsey

Board of Governors
  • Content Count

    373
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Simon Kelsey last won the day on July 13

Simon Kelsey had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

2 Followers

About Simon Kelsey

  • Rank
    Vice President - Pilot Training
  • Birthday September 12

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Richard, We're working through the backlog at the moment - it's all a manual process and there's only a couple of us who can do it but we're getting there 🙂 Simon
  2. Hi Christian, Don't get me wrong, I can completely appreciate your point of view (and to be clear the change to the pilot ratings and the way in which it was implemented was well before my time in this role so in many respects I'm merely playing the hand I'm dealt in this regard) -- there are and were arguments from either side and in my role as an ATO CFI at the time I successfully argued for our candidates who had completed their P5 ratings to be awarded CMEL ratings under the new scheme rather than IR as was orginally the plan, since I was able to demonstrate that the course they had c
  3. I have no doubt this is true, but as Robert and Tomas have both pointed out it was never a requirement nor expectation of the old P1 syllabus. The way in which the changes were reflected and how existing ratings were converted as described in the part of the post you have quoted, could only be based upon the standards as laid down by the VATSIM PTD at the time - the fact that some ATOs chose to “gold plate” their P1 courses at the time is unfortunate for you in some respects because whilst on the one hand you will have benefitted greatly from the extra training and knowledge you will have gain
  4. FSINN and Squawkbox are no longer approved (largely because they are also no longer supported by their developers and therefore cannot be updated to accommodate technical changes to the network). They therefore will not connect to the network.
  5. Hi Markus, As per the note on the approach chart: Hope that helps 🙂
  6. Hi Claudiu, As Dustin says, this is very much a feature of the real world as much as VATSIM. I wrote a post on a similar topic here which you may find a useful read: Winds (and thus runways) can indeed change at short notice and just an unfortunate thing - that said, being aware of local weather patterns/meteorological phenomena may assist (for instance, for airports located near the coast, like Nice, especially during the summer months you will often get a rapid reversal of wind direction around sunrise and sunset, with a "sea breeze" coming in from over the water during the day s
  7. No, a visual approach is an IFR flight manoeuvre. Per the AIM: ”A “visual approach” is an approach by an IFR flight in which all or part of the instrument approach is not completed.” Of course it is your prerogative as PIC to decline but it is certainly the norm in the USA for visual approaches to be used by default if the weather is conducive. My understanding is that the main benefit to ATC is that it permits tighter separation than would be possible on an ILS because responsibility for separation can be transferred to you as the pilot rather than requiring radar separation mi
  8. Good effort with the calculation! 🙂 The problem however, occurs if, for instance, the vector provided was likely to result in localiser intercept inside D8.6 (which may be a slight error, or may be intentional for spacing etc). In this situation, as we shouldn't be descending on the glidepath before we are established on the localiser, we end up in an awkward situation where we perhaps slightly miss the GS and then end up having to intercept from above - in such a situation there are four possible outcomes: 1) A proactive pilot will notice this developing and request a lower altitude
  9. No, I mean you should be descending towards 2000 ft as you have been cleared and instructed. But that can be a gentle descent that will result in you intercepting the glidepath at some point between 3000ft and 2000ft.
  10. Hi Marc, You should descend to 2,000 feet as instructed (obviously you don't have to go screaming down with idle thrust and the speedbrakes out, you can modulate your rate of descent so as to achieve a continuous descent and glidepath capture without levelling off). This is likely why you were desecended - to ensure that you didn't level off before capturing the glidepath. The minimum radar vectoring altitude in the area is 2,000ft so this is perfectly fine (you can refer to the MRC chart if you want to cross-check any ATC cleared altitudes).
  11. Don’t overthink it. You don’t need to be wait for ages to be “perfectly” on the localiser. Once you have have made the turn on to the localiser (ie you are no longer on the intercept heading) and a convenient gap on the frequency arises, it’s fine, even if you’re half a dot off. In a radar environment it’s pretty redundant since the controller can see whether you have established anyway — controllers working large top down positions on VATSIM where they may not be able to devote full attention to you may use it as a prompt basically to remind them to give you a landing clearance. Obv
  12. In addition to the excellent advice above -- late runway and approach changes are something which happens, in real life perhaps even more so than on VATSIM, and they are part of the challenge of flying in to a busy, large international airport. With that in mind, if I were briefing for an approach in to somewhere like Frankfurt I would consider this a threat. Threat and error management (TEM) is a major part of flying a modern airliner - just as important, if not more, than the mechanics of actually flying and operating the aircraft itself. What is a threat? Basically, it is anything whic
  13. As Andreas says, interference from aircraft (or vehicles) can very much affect the localiser and glideslope beams -- this is why the CAT II and CAT III holding points are much further back from the runway. At Heathrow I seem to recall it is/was standard for aircraft following an A380 on approach to be given the RNAV (weather permitting) rather than the ILS as a matter of routine because for whatever reason the size of the A380 was causing disturbances to the ILS for following aircraft (whether during the approach or maybe whilst vacating etc, I'm not sure). This video is an excellent demo
  14. In a word: no controllers are not restricted from being text only. As I mentioned a little further up the thread, I know of at least one deaf controller who is text only and very good indeed!
  15. Like so many things in aviation... it depends. IFR flights from controlled aerodromes pretty much always have to request start because they may be slot restricted etc, although you don’t necessarily explicitly request startup (your phraseology example is basically correct although assuming you are in the UK based on your choice of airport remember you need to state the QNH you have, ie from the ATIS — because altimeter settings are a mandatory readback so you have to give this in addition to the ATIS letter). Having received your clearance the next thing would be to “report ready” at whic
×
×
  • Create New...