Jump to content

Mateusz Zymla

Members
  • Content Count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. These are still connections. Can, and should be counted, I fully agree with you on that, Matt. On the other hand, one may defend himself, that he/she "develops" for vatsim (documents, training materials, apps, you name it), and it still would be considered "duties for the network". How would you be able to track these? While I appreciate the efforts put into the network (and myself I spent thousands man hours for my subdivision, developing SOPs and Plugins in last year), but many used an "other activities for network" argument, abusing it. It would be really difficult to judge, leaving on
  2. How about mark them as "Inactive C1", then? Everywhere, on forum, membership, API data, etc?
  3. Nice and respective... Now, remedial training isn't a bad thing, but it shouldn't stop on there if somebody lost skills so much, that retraining would require longer process/or somebody is not willing to take retraining, as keeping them with the rating just create mess of "who can or who can't" do certain things/take certain positions. Just because something wasn't there before, doesn't necessarily mean it can't be introduced now. That sounds like we should be pleased by what's been released and keep quiet? They asked for feedback, and they receive massive, mainly one-w
  4. So we're once again not pointing out ICAO, and then from a few local whiners I'll say that "I should not use IRL documents for vatsim, because certain things are vatsim specific", LOL. Yes, I've heard that already few times, from old grandpa's of vatsim, who lost their "as real as it gets" motto, because they are lazy enough to educate themselves, or rude enough not to admit they were doing something for last 20 years on vatsim in wrong manner. 🙂
  5. Squawk 2000 for IFR, 7000 for VFR (2200, 1200 for US respectively).
  6. 1. Actually lol'ed and surprised, I'm pretty sure about a year ago it was still MVA for many airports (but i. e. 6.7.1-0 for GDANSK TMA says SMA since 2019...), seems like I didn't pay close attention to the chart details 😉 sorry bout that then! 2. I know, but I guess that flying into WAM airspace requires you to own a transponder/mode S/ADS-B out? 3. I know it would be limited to S3 then, but that's what I'm saying - "officially" it would be "S2 on solo train to S3". That's my suggestion, as your main motivation is based on traffic amount on given airports (and I get it), but defi
  7. Just explain to some of the subdivisions, that requiring almost B2/C1 proficiency level is nowhere close to "basic phraseology knowledge". I would support, to force divisions/subdivisions to write at least "simplified SOPs" in English (details can be nicely and more or less easily checked via Google Translate), and division could specify (by listing) what "basic phraseology" means. So subdivision wouldn't croak around about imaginary and unrealistic language requirements.
  8. While I understand your point, you have to consider then, that there are Divisions that are already bigger than some of the Regions (at least by number of subdivisions/members of the division), and I think it came from this point of view (VATUSA/VATEUD in mind).
  9. I understand your point, and I agree it's a valid one, I just say that "Procedural Tower" endorsement doesn't fit given example. Out of curiosity, why you want to allow people to serve APP (as you mentioned, even IRL they have APS), "without having to train the controllers up to full S3 level"? They actually utilise S3 skillset, as far as I can understand. If you want to "limit" them, at least at beginning, why not utilising it by allowing them control this, in fact, minor (way less occupied?) airports via SAV, and then, let them get the rating, but utilising Restricted/Major/Events endor
  10. It's not this case. If you have a single ATS unit, providing SSR services for bot CTR and TMA, then you'd need to design _APP for it, because S2 are not eligible to provide Approach Radar services, as it's part of the S3 training. Please, bear in mind that Approach control with surveillance service differs from TWR aerodrome surveillance control service within CTR (8.9, 8.10 DOC 4444), and you can teach and allow S2 to use ATS SSR within aerodrome control. In this case, introduce given positions as APP and allow these people to train as Solo Approach Validated trainees for given
  11. Bringing on EUC is a bad example, because itself it's a disastrous "CAOC" that I, personally, as well as many other people do, wish it will be deleted one day, but I guess, getting division-specific examples in this matter actually is a bit off topic since "GCAP" suppose to cover entire VATSIM, and these specific requirements will be transfered to divisions themselves.
  12. Nice, and what about other controlled airports? What would happen if APP controller suprisingly disconnects?
  13. Off-topic: Just a little, depending on the region and time frame. Peak sessions on PAC/EUR/USA are nicely staffed. I wouldn't make this problem that large enough, to be a drowning man clutching at a straw.
  14. I'm in touch with Andrew regarding software related topics and can confirm, euroscope gives up when certain amount of radar targets are shown.
×
×
  • Create New...