Jump to content

Nick Warren

Members
  • Content Count

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Nick Warren

  1. Because competency can be evaluated against a standard. Proficiency on the other hand is a subjective evaluation of performance that is in the eyes of the evaluator. That said however, I don't take exception to evaluating or being evaluated to some level of proficiency. The evaluated represents a face of that subset of the organization. Would one rather present a crew who proves they can merely check the boxes, or one who is truly skilled and growing in their proficiency? Maybe that choice is just left to the indivudual.
  2. I think the broadcast for live traffic is merely to solicit a little more traffic than would normally be present in day to day operations. I don't really find this to be the same as scheduled event level traffic. Events aren't necessarily the time for training and evaluation, but rather a time to try and shine the best one can as a cohesive group. So if not evaluating under against some test above the "normal", how can one be expected to adequately perform when the event does come around? After all, what p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing the test says, is that I am now ready to move forward and [
  3. I mean no disrespect or discouragement, but honestly in my opinion this is a symptom of a larger issue that is often experienced on the controller side. That being, pilots who want to immediately jump in one of the most complex machines that flight simulator has to offer and go with limited knowledge or abilities to handle mere basic flying skills. In this case, the author humbly cites their own inability to even hand fly an approach. Instead we're talking about complex procedures, planning, etc.? On the controller side, conditions permitting, I am going to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] out visu
  4. I think the point is, that the option to enter "VFR" is not currently available in the client. Otherwise, I respectfully disagree in that if you are filing a VFR flight plan utilizing it for what it's intended for (cross country flying), one should have an altitude attached. If communicating with ATC, the controller is going to, or should ask for your altitude request. It can be changed and ammended during the flight by either side noting provisions I stated in my post above.
  5. Reference to the other discussion, I am rather neutral on this. That said, I would support the option of having a "VFR" option as an altitude as it doesn't hurt anything. But that said, I still question the overall logic behind it. I'll use real world here, and as I need to preface with, in the US. If I'm just out flying around boring holes in the sky, I will vary my altitude quite a bit. That said, in doing so, I'm generally monitoring but not talking to ATC, and I certainly do not file a flight plan for it. However, this would be the part where having a "VFR" altitude statement w
  6. I know you weren't saying it was a requirement, and I didn't mean to insinuate that you were. That said, there have been and are controllers who do. This is just a training issue. But we are perfectly good Andreas, and again it's just controller preference to desire it being there as it is pilot preference whether they file one or not (something I myself, very rarely do too)
  7. Yes, we are talking about Vatsim. Land of "we can't do that, it's not realistic" and "we can't do that, it's too realistic" and the struggle to come out somewhere in the middle. Whether my sectors or busy or not is inconsequential. Again, it only takes 10 seconds tops to do. So really, it's all about preference. I really don't care if a pilot files a VFR flight plan or not. It's not something we should require or ask of pilots and it's not going to affect or change the way I handle them, and I'm happy to have them in the mix. I'd say the scopes would be much more lively with a few unv
  8. Replying from a US procedural mindset... It really takes all of 10 seconds to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign a beacon code and once tagged up, enter in the essential data. That info will follow the target from controller to controller. Quite frankly, I prefer that method rather than individuals filing a VFR flight plan, then calling for flight plan clearance. I realize that represents an educational topic. If striving for realism, and in the US, then Nicholas is absolutely correct. ATC will never get see flight plan unless it is opened by FSS. Furthermore, even with an open VFR flight
  9. Fair enough. I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umed US airspace.
  10. Option C: Don't file a VFR flight plan. Cold call on the ground or airborne and let ATC enter it. I understand that people like to file based on their own reasons. There are also the controllers who are say, challenged, when an aircraft doesn't file. None the less, it is a viable option.
  11. I don't know if it violates any software agreements, but is replacing the .wav with something more subtle or running the existing .wav through a sound editor and decreasing the volume an option for you? I don't want to dictate how you personally conduct your flights, but I believe that there is a degree in maintaining situational awareness in monitoring the frequency, even if messages aren't specifically directed towards me. At the same time, I can understand one not wanting it so annoying, that it takes away from the enjoyment. Nick
  12. Text comms between pilots and controllers maybe? That would be the squelch noise I think of.
  13. Unable is just unable. In real life, could I make a LAHSO landing? Probably; but do I necessarily want to chance it depending on the circomestances? So I'll either accept the instruction or say "unable". It's perfectly acceptable. I guess, if it feels better, then you can say, when cleared direct, "If able, request planned route." In most cases, there isn't any more reason to deny that request than there is clear someone direct. It's to the pilot's benefit.
  14. No, that actually doesn't work in your behalf, but as a terminal controller, once you're airborne, and traffic permitting, I'm may be inclined as a friendly and expiditious gesture to give you direct to the first waypoint outside of my airspace. I'd encourage to listen to LiveATC, especially later at night and you would see how commonplace this is. With enroute controllers the "direct to" can and will extend even further. Is it because you feel you've invested so much time entering waypoints? Is it because you really wanted to see the Grand Canyon from the air that makes this inconvenient?
  15. And that is absolutely nothing I can help with. Haha. Sorry about that.
  16. Oh to know when to pull the recording from when you get cleared "direct" on Pilotedge. Maybe the biggest thing you need to take time to visit, is your attitude. From your [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ertion that you disconnect when you haven't gotten your way, and will continue to do so, to your general demeanor in this discussion. I pretty much have come to the conclusion that you just feel that it's really all about you. You posted a statement in this forum, which was very politely and constructively addressed even by those with "real world experience". Yet because it wasn't what yo
  17. While I understand your [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ertion that VATSIM pilots often lack the skills to manually control their aircraft, the problem you are naming is not an argument for better manual skills, but rather an argument for better education on the automation of the aircraft. It was both actually. Wrong turns, overshoots, over-climbs, under-decents, etc. more often than not in the Vatsim world = "My FMC and/or Autopilot is not functioning correctly". Poor traffic patterns, poor approaches, misunderstanding of basic aviation 101 often = poor manual skills. We recognize it as it be
  18. Simon, I appreciate you taking the time to provide some discussion on the matter. Full disclosure for myself is that while I am a pilot, I am not an ATP in real life, nor have any ratings in jet aircraft. In that, I appreciate the response and the article you submitted. In reading it though, it struck me that the constant theme throughout was the inherent struggles with automation. Problems caused with automation are often due to circomestance of training and or misuse at least from what I gauged by the article. I think this is where the two articles meet. Where your article st
  19. Hand fly? Stick and rudder? I don't mean to be curt or simplistic in my response, but it seems to be so much of a lost art and in this case with the automation challenges is even more beneficial. I just posted a link to a great article on this very topic in this forum https://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=72621 but it really didn't generate any discussion.
  20. Came across what I thought was a very well written article on cockpit automation vs. stick and rudder. I share it because often the frustrations of Vatsim controllers and pilots alike are attributed to automation blame. Additionally, I have always found some symptomology in the Vatsim pilot who begins their flying endeavors solely with automation. Anyway, if anyone would like to read it, it is here: Sky Kings: Are Pilots Losing Stick and Rudder Skills? http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/proficiency/sky-kings-are-pilots-losing-stick-and-rudder-skills?con=TrueAnthem&dom=fb&src=SOC&am
  21. I've had a ground controller get very upset with me once for not contacting him. Note, I was several thousand feet above the field over flying the on field VOR. Think I was good on that one
  22. As a GA pilot who mostly flys VFR (in the US), I rarely, if ever file flight plans. I guess to say, I would gauge it by saying if I would file in real life with FSS, then I'd probably put something on Vatsim just to emulate that level of communication that would occur. Otherwise, not necessary or required.
  23. For a topic with the term "funniest" in the title, it sure is serious in here.
  24. I realize IFR procedures can sometimes be a bit "challenging", but I guess there are inherent expectations with the simplicity of VFR...... Aircraft: Nxxxx request vectors for VFR approach Me: (Deep sigh) Nxxxx Make left traffic runway 16R, report downwind Aircraft: Roger quasi repeats instructions Aircraft diverts off path to airport, circles around a bit.... Aircraft: Approach, Nxxxx is unable to locate downwind. Me: Facepalm and chuckle. Took a little more work and some hard heading issuance but, got him where he needed to be in the end.
×
×
  • Create New...