Jump to content

Rob Nabieszko

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral
  1. As a Toronto controller that has participated in over a dozen CTPs in the past, This one was the smoothest by far from the controller perspective. The issues were few and far between. Having easy access to slot times within our controller client was a game changer. Made prioritizing CTP traffic and getting them out on time easy. Traffic level at each airport was far lower than it 'could' be. The lower traffic levels made airport operations easy! Clear expectations to the community ("please avoid ocean hops or expect FL290 or below if no slot awarded") made everyone much
  2. FSEconomy is a great way to add some variety to your flying and explore the surprisingly detailed world in MSFS by visiting random airports, instead of the same ones over and over again. And as a controller, I like to see that as well. Seeing pilots visiting smaller airports we seldom see, or maybe have never even heard of, is great to keep us on our toes and keep life interesting for your controllers who have to pull up the charts to see what approaches are actually available to Neverheardofit Municipal Airport. And for those thinking of taking the plunge, I did a series of simple how-to
  3. I do concur that this is just a hobby, and that the barriers to entry should not be high. But the BoG themselves support the notion that controllers should be certified and trained, per the CoC. To then say that someone is fit to control in perpetuity without further training, research, or practice is to ignore a basic tenet of the human mind: that skills and knowledge begin to atrophy the moment they are learned. To maintain knowledge and skill in aviation require constant practice. Again, I do not support onerous currency requirements, but to say that we should not have any at al
  4. Certainly the news about a new version of FltSim came out of nowhere for most of us. I am intrigued by the possibilities, but lets avoid talking about the sim specifically. My question is more to the BoG though I think it sparks an interesting discussion. Has anyone approached FS about building a VATSIM client directly into the simulator? I know that VATSIM doesn't directly write client software. But given the mainstream reach this software is likely to have, putting the VATSIM name front and centre in the software could lure in users who may not even become aware of VATSIM otherwise.
  5. I think its wonderful to see so many people pleading with a single user to complete an upgrade and remain a part of this community. I have to agree that the time for the upgrade is nigh. But cudos Gary and teaam for trying to accommodate the die hards as long as possible. The sense of community here in VATSIM is a beacon or humanity in this troll filled Internet. Its one of the main reasons I enjoy this community so much. Thanks to all for making this community so inclusive and welcoming. Rob
  6. In the real world, runway [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignments at major airports are usually made automatically by software that balances load across multiple arrival runways. Since the situation is dynamic, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignments often fluctuate. As a result, for many airports, the software does not reveal the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment to the enroute controllers until a certain distance out from the airport (usually 50 miles) to minimize the chance of changes after a runway is [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned. In the US, enroute controllers often do not have any access to this informatio
  7. Thanks Matt. I think we are all happy that the team has heard us on this. I am sure I speak for the rest of the VATSIM community when I say we look forward to the trip back Eastbound! Rob
  8. Amen. I love participating in CTP. I have often bid around the date for my work schedule. I know Toronto had a difficult time finding controllers this year because many key controllers were N/A for that date since the date was announced at the last minute. I appreciate that the planning team puts in lots of work. I have participated in many aspects of the planning process. But I feel like we have perhaps become complacent. The planning team are not the only ones who have to prepare for CTP. The various FIRs and ARTCCs also must plan their resources, and this takes time. 2 weeks notice from
  9. +1 I found it and it seemed to be a Save the Date poster, yet was only published in one narrow social media stream. One would expect important event dates to be published across multiple vectors to reach a wide audience. Some of us keep a cautious distance from Facebook. I troll these forums more frequently than FB these days.
  10. Can I also offer one further suggestion to rookie pilots out there: if in doubt, ask! If you are unsure if your airport is controlled, but your pilot client lists a nearby online controller, send them a quick text asking if they control XYZ airport. If they are busy, their reply may be short out of necessity. But as a controller, I would rather field this question a hundred times over having pilots log in and depart an airport in my airspace without calling. We are all friendly, and were all rookies once upon a time. So we are all willing to help out, as far as our current workload
  11. Wow. What a bees nest I kicked up. First off: I am not part of VATSIM's tech team. I was just lucky enough to be invited to the test. So I am not setting VATSIM policy. Just trying to reiterate points I had read in various blog posts and forums. Second: From what I have been told and read, VATSIM is not seeking to exclude any sim platforms. However, VATSIM does not actually develop clients, only protocols for them to connect to. One thing that was made fairly clear is that the clients will all need an update for the new system. Clients that are not under active development will no long
  12. I believe this information is incorrect. While a special simple client has been deployed for beta testing, the plan AFAIK is to have the new voice system supported by existing clients. Unfortunately, the new system will render abandoned software unusable. If no one updates the FS9 client, it will be rendered text-only. This is not my decision, btw. This is the way forward. The new system will be incompatible with the old system. I would suggest putting FSX on your Steam wishlist if you are still an FS9 user and want to continue using voice. FSX often comes on sale for under $10.
  13. Also consider this: The current COC does not allow for voice transmissions on unicom. Since this support will be baked into our new voice system, COC amendments are being drafted to support this ability and others. This is definitely not holding up progress, but just another example of how revolutionary this new system will be, and how many different parts of the VATSIM organization are involved in these changes. This ain't your daddy's voice system.
  14. Ok. I think we all need to dial it back a bit (myself included). The only point I orignally wanted to make was that RVR was not to be taken as infallible or a perfect representation of runway visibility. Pilots should and must remember to exercise good judgement and not take any action based solely on a single aource of information. I will also gladly concede that different jurisdictions have varying training and procedure standards. I took issue with the statement that "No one counts lights, except the keeners." Some of us do, because some of us are required to. I enjoy this c
  15. I’m sorry, but what? RVR, the equipment that measures Runway Visual Range, isn’t located on the runway? Unless you’re referring to a scenario where you’d be on a non-RVR Runway at an airport where not all runways have RVR equipment, that statement is categorically incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_visual_range It is important to understand exactly how RVR is designed to be able to apply the information it provides in a useful manner. A sensor measures the incoming light from a light located a fixed distance away, and translates this to a distance the pilot should be able
  • Create New...