Jump to content

Matthew Spencer 1088911

Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Matthew Spencer 1088911

  • Birthday 06/23/1989
  1. Welcome to the USA forum folks, where this thread will die a timely and unfortunate death.
  2. So this is basically just about volume, not quality? Both of these are problems. It seems to me the VATUSA quality problem should be addressed before the volume issue. I thought we were working on the quality problem with the new training system, but that appears to be going in the direction of the least common denominator. It's sad to see the volume issue will be solved by combining m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive swathes of airspace and putting people on position who likely have no area knowledge, let alone local knowledge.
  3. yep last i remember people will have to get an extra certification to control the super center, its not going to be there for just anyone to jump on without knowing how to handle it Right, but you understand that enroute is more than just talking to airplanes, right? i sure hope so, otherwise i've been wasting way too much of my time on here It still seems like an absolutely horrible idea though. Even if you just make it high side, high side enroute still has to set somewhat of a sequence for the low side, and they still have to understand and apply good practices and unders
  4. Right, but you understand that enroute is more than just talking to airplanes, right?
  5. But a super center is a terrible idea as well. I wouldn't want to work ZFW and ZHU, with all those arrival procedures, without knowing what I'm doing. Enroute is a whole lot more than "Roger, climb and maintain FL***," "Leaving my airspace," as anyone who has worked an enroute position of course knows.
  6. I had heard rumblings about it, but hoped it was just another bad rumor. What's the deal with this? Why now?
  7. I agree with pretty much everything Will has said here. Further, I hardly see how it's a huge imposition to ask people to know where they are. Isn't that part of A-N-C? As far as a "practical" method, again, I proposed a practical method. If you tell me you're 10 miles west of GDM, but I only see a target 20 miles west of GDM and 5000 above the altitude reported, is that positive radar identification? No. But for VATSIM, it's close enough. Unfortunately, when five people check in all at once, interrupting each other and saying "With you at 5000" as a purportedly valid check-in, then yes, w
  8. For those folks who fly in the US, you've no doubt been flying when a center controller signs on. Sometimes, the airspace is really busy, and control information has to be disseminated very quickly, routes have to be corrected, and aircraft have to be identified. This means blank call ups, or call ups with just altitudes, like "Boston, Delta 2, with you at FL290," don't help unless you're being handed off. When the sector's busy, and a controller signs on, they send contactmes almost robotically. I hardly look at the callsign before they get a contactme instruction. When a contactme is sent,
  9. Tied to your login I believe. So it automatically configures when you sign in.
  10. Should've taken a picture. I had a huge DSR screen I was just using to watch the Boston traffic, had to jump in a few times and run SE due to connection issues.
  11. Yes, they watch the text scroll across in the FS message crawler at the top. But, obviously, trying to read and copy an IFR clearance on the equivalent of a Wall Street ticker is ridiculously stupid. Which is why they don't bother, and have you resend it again. And again. And again.
  12. Then suddenly... it all cleared up about an hour later. But what on earth could it be?
  13. I have more than a few tower trainer profiles that have over 25 aircraft. None of these are working at the moment, I'm getting disconnections of all the aircraft. I've tried connecting 25 aircraft and it works only if I'm not connected. When I try to connect, I get the VATSIM "Too many clients" error in VRC. This "limit" also seems to apply to added aircraft, so when I add aircraft #25 via TWRTrainer text, it disconnects that aircraft, or another random aircrafft. This does not happen with euroscope simulator, nor, to my knowledge, with ACSim. Has something changed? Is there a new
  14. Most of it's not though... the oceanic sectors are run with strip marking and non-radar procedures if reports are to be believed. One of my instructors works oceanic frequently, we had a really in depth discussion about non-radar separation, and he indicated that most of the area has no meaningful radar coverage.
×
×
  • Create New...