Jump to content

Torben Andersen

Members
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Torben Andersen last won the day on February 23

Torben Andersen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

21 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. You can always have a look on vroute.net to see is a position has been booked.
  8. I would be VERY cautious about popping up on an approach controllers screen - and only after talking to him (not always possible I know). But imagine a scenario where pilots imerges from nowhere ruining the plans the controllers have made for the known traffic. At least choose an airport with little or no traffic. If you want to practice on a specific approach/airport with lots of traffic, I suggest as Robert that you take off from that airport (or one close by), so the controller has a chance of merging you into the traffic. If it is just for practising your handling of the plane, it is best
  9. IF the center was able to hear you, I don't think this was the best intro to the VATSIM community. "Aviate Educate Communicate" should be more than a slogan. This would be the perfect example on how the controller could communicate some education to a beginner on the network. All replys above could have been given be the controller. At least (if the controller was about to log off) the controller could have made a reply like "I'm about to close. No atc is available. Monitor Unicom on 122.8", acknowledging he heard the pilot. But other circumstances may be involved here, that we are not aware o
  10. This seem to be a HOT issue - and we are probably not agreeing on the issue. I've stated my point of views, so I'll leave it at that, so refraining from further discussion. cheers
  11. My text was "But only stating that EURx is unreallistic - implying that the rest of our great network is realistic, is not a fair comparison." because EURx does NOT provide the same level of control as a local controller. Perhaps the APP sectors in EGxx are higher than what I'm used to, but in EKCH app only covers up to FL195. So EURN does not give inb clearences to APP, unless coordinated so. You are welcome to argue. But is is still the pilot, who flies the plane. It is naturally a coorperation between the two and any request from either should be considered. But each
  12. Not an issue - planes flying through a sector contact that sector and when leaving the sector contact the next approbiate controller, EURx or whoever.
  13. First problem - we actually do not know this. It's you belief, but noone have tried to make some kind of survey on this. On this we can agree - in a sense 🙂 You are absolutely correct - off cause there will be issues. Especially if you expect EURx to mirror one-to-one the services given by local ctr. If you on the other hand acknowledge that limitations exists, then it is possible to make a working solution. But only stating that EURx is unreallistic - implying that the rest of our great network is realistic, is not a fair comparison. Plenty of issues exists, if you compare RW
  14. I think Andreas put it very well: "But sometimes we send you direct somewhere, instruct descents/climbs, even headings happen in case of potentially conflicting traffic. "
  15. Let's just agree to disagree. I'd rather have atc when flying online, than not. Back in the days when EURI was made, upper sectors over UK, was not often manned. Now it is a lot better, but I still fly into UK airports (or overfly the UK) with no atc coverage. EURI does only cover areas not covered by local atc already, so EURI does not take any traffic away - perhaps on the contrary. What I've always seen on VATSIM is, the more atc, the more traffic. Having as many area "lit up" as possible is not a negative thing to achieve in my book. regards
×
×
  • Create New...