Jump to content

Ed Tomlinson 1014292

Members
  • Content Count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. The way the change is written, for each intervening runway (excepting multiples within 1000') the controller must either issue: 1) an explicit runway crossing clearance, OR 2) an explicit hold short restriction. There will NO LONGER be the implicit case where the pilot does not receive an instruction.
  2. Hope not to read too far into your comments. From a pilot perspective, note that I'm happy with any best effort service on a workload basis from the top-down delivery model, ... but I would like that both Ground and Tower would try to implement this new terminology. That said, if the nature and variety of client behavior, and airport scenery, is such that this requirement actually appears to cause runway incursions, then the result would run counter to the intended effect, and could turn out to be even more problematic on VATSIM.
  3. Effective Date: February 11, 2010 http://www.faa.gov/docomeentLibrary/media/Order/7110.65T.pdf
  4. The emphasis is not just strictly on the NYC SFRA, but also in arriving and departing the SFRA area as well. In addition to what Bendan said, the Skyline Route over the Hudson is controlled by both EWR_TWR and LGA_TWR. Would kinda want to include these surrounding areas for all their complexity as well, and create a healthy mix of both VFR and IFR Traffic in one tight area. I'm hoping to dial in this ZNY Event on Saturday and give it a go.
  5. Thanks to all for their interest in these ideas! Great input and responses shed some light on this subject for me. I encourage everyone to participate in NY ARTCC’s Event this Saturday, and explore ZNY's heliports and the new New York Special Flight Rules Area! Good Teamwork!
  6. Stefan, The FAA has issued an amendment to 14 CFR part 93 Establishing the “Special Flight Rules Area”, and Defining operational procedures in those areas. I don’t know what happens in the case of non-compliance, but absolutely I agree with you that in the SFRA, see-and-avoid continues to apply. While I do not consider a visual display to be exactly on par with audible reports, the real crux of the question here is whether it is a suitable and agreeable substitute for everyone which allows for the inclusive participation of the hearing impaired. Mostly though, I believe the wholes
  7. Back on topic, We left off this discussion with a hypothetical question whether having a real-time “TIS like” simulator/client visual display gauge would be an acceptable solution for the hearing impaired as an alternative to receiving voice CTAF position reports (essentially “unannounced traffic”) in the NYC SFRA. Who knows whether this question has been researched for this particular based scenario, and whether a negative decision was reached based on XYZ? If XYZ exist and still have merit in an SFRA Event then we have reached the logical conclusion of this topic. Otherwise, t
  8. Alex, Do you have a link available to this Event with times and further details, etc...?
  9. So be it. And just for the record, the real interest and lure, not mine alone, of the scenic corridor goes back decades, not months. Can I ask you a rhetoric question, whether the Helicopter Tours have all ceased business operations too?
  10. My thing to do would be to help the guy out. Change to 122.8 and give him the SFRA CTAF 123.05 to switch to and welcome him to the Event. As far as that goes, any Event ATC on line would have advance visible notice and could certainly do the same, and even send a "Contact Me". And from a practical standpoint, that individual could either be a trained ATC or Supervisor silently "monitoring" 123.05, because the channel needs to be opened somehow, but not necessarily controlled, right?
  11. Ernesto, I agree with much of what you said in general. However, the focus here is on one specific frequency, in a very small airspace, single specific location of the world, for the duration of one Special Event, and all the meanwhile remaining inclusive of a specific group of members.
  12. Yes, that's safe to say. VATSpy and the like pull their data via the web. They make connections to VATSIMs web servers. They do not connect to the network of FSD servers that pilot and controller clients connect to. Drat . . . the "one connection" rule eliminates the option/mode of repointing the tools to the FSD servers for faster updates. [joke]Edit ... Oh wait I always thought we should be allowed two for redundancy [/joke] So what is needed are options for other Simulator/Client pairs. Got it now. If such options existed hypothetically, I wonder whether there would be othe
  13. Ross/Norman, I now have a clearer understanding of the delay issue and the implication for see-and-avoid. Now, is it safe to say the the 5-second feed counts as a "connection", whilst the delay-fed tools do not?
×
×
  • Create New...