Jump to content

Torben Andersen

Members
  • Content Count

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Torben Andersen last won the day on February 23

Torben Andersen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Probably already mentioned by others, but having a working knowledge of local language phraseology makes perfect sence. We as atc controllers should be able to service local non-english speaking members as well as English. The only reason I see to have an English-only speaking atc in a non-English speaking community is in areas, where local atc is non-existing. To help to establish a local VATSIM ARTCC unit might only be done in this way. Visiting controllers - well, they are nice to have, but not essential. So if a person really - I mean really WANT to control in a foreign place - he/she
  2. In essense CTR is supposed to provide top-down service for all airfields within his area. However, the service you can expect depends on the type of airfield. Uncontrolled/-manned airfields might only have traffic information. AFIS airports is an example of this (in Denmark an example of an AFIS airport is EKSB - S√łnderborg). Controlled airports will AFAIK always be controlled by CTR (unless a lower position covering the airport is online)
  3. Welcome to VATSIM! GSP is located within Atlanta ARTCC, so if ATL_CTR is online you contact him for clearence/info. If, however it was an approach controller, who was online, he doesn't cover GSP and you can takeoff and contact him (or he'll send a "contact me" to you) when reaching his area of control. In VATSIM we have top down coverage, which means that a center controller controls all airports within his area (some exceptions occur, but never mind). If an approach controller goes online, he'll control all airports within his area, etc. Tower obviously only handles traffic at
  4. If you're unable to follow a certain SID/STAR you'll need to inform ATC. Don't fly an outdated procedure and don't expect ATC to give you an outdated procedure. It is simply not possible to remember all changes over a period of perhaps a year, so ATC usually uses the newest ones only. You'll then be given vectors to the first waypoint on your route. Happy flying
  5. Unfortunately the Airbus in MSFS2020 has not yet matured into a high-end addon. Several problems has been mentioned such as problems with the MCDU/FMC not replicating the real one good enough. FsLabs A320 has been around for a longer time and is AFAIK the one to go with, if you want the closest MCDU to the real one. X-plane - dont know it, someone must chip in here. So you're are a kind of stuck and only you can deside, what 's best for you: Wait until MSFS2020 matures, so commercial jets' systems are better simulated or go with P3D (which btw is not a bad simulator at all) and
  6. ..so you'll need to be at least 13 years old.
  7. No question that the use of the national language is appropiate and legal to do. As English is not a first for all, it is nice that you can use your own language, when flying in your national airspace. Both IRL and here on VATSIM this enables more people to fly. The responce from the English speaking pilot (as presented here) was rude. However, I lack a bit of information here, as I can't see if the "English" pilot was in a Terminal environment. If so, there is a question on situational awareness to be considered by the French controller. Passing on traffic information is more vital, whe
  8. If you fly with Mach number, you'll need to convert TAS to Mach (or vice versa), which is temperature dependent. Either using a formula (google is your friend) or a table like the attached. RAM AIR - OUTSIDE AIR TEMPERATURE CONVERSION CHART.pdf
  9. Rules and regulations aside: In a busy airspace, particulary an approach sector with very little room for the controller to sort things out, when planes pop up from nowhere, this should also be avioded. I think it is a better suggestion to encourage pilots to do a whole flight than looking for loophole in the regulations to avoid certain parts of a flight. As I wrote to Per, it should also be a good experience for the controller - otherwise there is a risk of seeing less atc coverage in the future.
  10. I don't think I can find a regulation, which forbids you to do that. However, remember that this is a two-way street: It should also be a good experience for the controller and using resources on a pilot, who doesn't intend to do, what he/she is cleared to, is kind of counter-productive. It happens, that pilots have to logoff due to a number of reasons - computer crash, etc. I would rather suggest that you get the experience by flying online - yes, you will make mistakes, but hey - we all have AND we all do still!! I might smile at you, but only in the nicest kind of way: A remembering of
  11. Don't confuse visibility area with the area the controller controls. These are entirely different. The reason for a larger visibility area is more for the benefit of the controller, who needs to be aware of traffic outside his area of responcibility (AOR). The working distance of many (European) approach controllers has more to do with altitude and sid/star points. In EKCH the starting point of the STARs and the termination points of the SIDs are a little outside the approach controllers AOR. So perhaps in Europe it is a better choice to look at these point in order to get a rough idea of the
  12. I can't tell you specifically for the US, if the retricted areas are used. In Scandinavia the restricted areas are shown on the radar screen and are highlighted as active according to real world military notams. The can be turned off and it is up the the controller to use it or not. Large part of the North Sea area are used for military activities, so a fair amount of reroutings could be a consequence of using active areas. As this would involve cross-country coordination (eg. between Denmark and Germany) it is not normally used. But the abillity is there.
  13. As this involves multiple FIRs/vACCs I write it here in lack of other places. This evenings flight from EKCH to LEBL was a treat as there was atc from GND in Copenhagen to GND in Barcelona. Copenhagen, Bremen, Langen, Swiss, Marseille and Barcelona were all online - excellent!. My thanks to you all! Torben
  14. Sounds strange to me. Were you cleared for the SID by atc or did he issue vectors on the departure? And were you at the prescribed altitudes? I presume you followed the appropiate route according to which rwy you departed from.
  15. You can always have a look on vroute.net to see is a position has been booked.
×
×
  • Create New...