Jump to content

Mike Cassel 849958

Members
  • Content Count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. I do say "radar services terminated" in this situation, but it's just one of those situations where the 7110.65 has no phraseology applicable. It's pretty clear from the context that radar services are terminated if there is no next controller, so I don't think its particularly consequential either way. ZLA as an ARTCC doesn't require controllers to say it, or to not say it.
  2. As the author of that post in the ZLA Forums, I'll try and shed some light on this. My understanding of the current LOA was that a number of facilities objected to the wording in the previous LOA that required Oceanic Clearances to be obtained on the ground. As anyone familiar with this process knows, guesstimating a time for an aircraft to reach a fix from their gate is a tricky process, and frequently inaccurate at best. In addition, with normal VATSIM traffic levels, the need for the process is minimal at best; even in real life, my understanding is that Oceanic Clearances as described
  3. Will, See AIM 3-3-3. 3-3-3 refers to IFR flight in Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airspace. See also FAR 91.179, referring to cruise altitudes in Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airspace for IFR, FAR 91.126, referring to proper lost communications procedures if under IFR at a Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airport, compare FAR 91.173, which requires clearance and a flightplan only in controlled airspace.
  4. That's exactly right. Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airspace in the United States is limited, and Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G above 1200 AGL is rather rare. In the US, you don't need an IFR clearance to operate IFR in Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airspace, but pilots ask for "IFR clearance" since pilots will nearly always be in controlled airspace shortly after departure at the latest.
  5. Here's the Recap for those of you just tuning in: This thread was started way back in January 2008, almost a year ago. It died in Feb 2008, and the underlying, rather small technical issue that prompted this thread was resolved when the VATUSA3 job changed hands, as the test question at the start of the thread is no longer in use. This thread was revived again this month to talk about Air Force One, as if there weren't enough threads on that already, and apparently the issue of VFR/IFR priority, which was also not the point of this thread. Please let this thread rest in peace.
  6. Anthony, They moved the "runway transitions" from the STAR chart to the IAP charts when the RIIVR2/SEAVU2/OLDEE1 came out recently. The reason for that was that FMCs had difficulty with the previous style of runway transitions. As an example of this, here is the ILS chart for runway 24R: http://laartcc.org/charts/00237IL24R.PDF And here is the RIIVR2 arrival, http://laartcc.org/arrivals/00237RIIVR.PDF As you can see, RIIVR is now an initial approach fix for runway 24R, and the arrival terminates at RIIVR. RIIVR and SEAVU are now IAFs for all 4 runways, so the procedure
  7. Another option is to run a second(or third, fourth, whatever) window in simple radar mode focused in on an airport. When I'm working LA Center, I run two rather small windows on the right side of my screen for LAX and LAS so that I can quickly determine which side of an airport an aircraft is on, and to watch the runways when required. It isn't especially useful for separation of traffic on the taxiways(although that is really hard to do from a radar position anyway), but it is great for a quick glance so aircraft taxi to runways that are most efficient for their position on the airport.
  8. Congrats TR! Good luck in your endeavors at ZAB.
  9. Nobody is getting pink slips here. That is rather funny you'd think that though. Actually, I come more from the perspective, like everyone else at ZLA, that we all try and get better every day, and learn new things. Appropriate action is not, hand me your badge, you're fired. Appropriate action is probably more like, "some guy on the VATSIM forums mentioned that he was flying around ZLA while you were controlling, and got .contactme'd while VFR...apparently didn't have his transponder on...remember anything about it? No? Ok, thanks". Mistakes happen, nobody is out to get anyone. In an
  10. Feel free to send me the details- [email protected] Believe it or not, I care about that, and appropriate action will be taken if there is any substance to it. Looking forward to your e-mail, Mike C[Mod - Happy Thoughts]el ZLA Training Administrator
  11. At least in ZLA, you will get exactly that-uninterrupted flight. I've flown in and around the west coast many many times, into small airports that aren't controlled...and guess what? Nobody .contactme's me, or anything else of the sort. ZLA also has an active group of pilots that go fly VFR, and they get the same exact same treatment as I do. Just because some controllers treat it as a "game" or "want to have a good time" and demand VFR pilots call them, doesn't mean that there aren't places where controllers, who take the game seriously, know exactly what to do with VFR aircraft and will
  12. Congrats on the appointment Kyle, I think you'll do great.
  13. Wade, You Rock! I'm so glad that someone has finally improved XSquawkBox even a little, and anyone who spends 5 minutes improving VATSIM(forums not included) has my enduring thanks and respect. I'll be sure to test this out when I take a flight tonight! Thanks again Wade, Mike C[Mod - Happy Thoughts]el
  14. Yes..no...NO! I didn't say that! Wait a minute... Bryan, put down the bottle. It isn't good for you. Wait, you already lost it once and that didn't work out so well did it?
×
×
  • Create New...