Jump to content

Gunnar Seljeseth 883677

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Gunnar Seljeseth 883677

  • Birthday 05/12/1986
  1. I know ATC will be caught every once in a while as well, but because ATC does attract some traffic they are less likely to get away with it...
  2. The point about ATC is that if the ATC leaves the position there will be complaints from pilots. Remember, the traffic attraction of a Tower out in the middle of the bush may not attract a lot of traffic, but the few pilots that does eventually show up will surely notice... With a pilot prize, it will be a lot easier for pilots to gamble that ATC "won't be there" by flying through airspace that (almost) never sees ATC coverage... I've even caught pilots like that myself while staffing "uncommonly staffed airspace" in Scandinavia (that was before I moved over to the UK division)...
  3. There is allways two sides of a coin. You say that the intercepting and identification in the example given by Per Kristian is "[Mod - Happy Thoughts]isting a level of political tension". Now, would you please demonstrate to me how flying just barely outside a nations border with millitary combat aircrafts is not achieving the same result? Bearing in mind your very own comments about VATSIM being "apolitical" (your words, not mine), I see only two alternatives (bearing in mind the Norway example); - Refuse permission for any Russian callsign mil-ops along the Norwegian coast down towards
  4. Oh my... Just went back through the stats around my first VATSIM flight, and discovers that I, during that flight, achieved just about every newbee error I can think of. I were doing a flight with the airline Norwegian, and had just become a member of the Virtual Norwegian airline. At least my very first action were correct; I did connect to the nettwork while at a Gate instead of standing on a runway... But that's pretty much it for doing things right. My next move would be a not-so-common mistake, yet all to common; most newbees are not too familiar with ICAO codes, and neither were I. H
  5. Oh well, I'll just keep visiting you on my long haul flights, then, and hope to learn a little about the Japanese airspace that way...
  6. I've been trying to find information as to how I might join VATSIM-Japan as a visiting ATC, yet I've been unable to find any such information, be it through different VATSIM-Asia region forums, or trying to google the subject. What are the requirements, and who do I contact? On the last question, I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume the VAT-Japan training director would be the correct answer...
  7. Changes in the Norwegian FIR-structure have now been implemented in VACCSCA. As a result, what used to be the ENTR (Trondheim) FIR is now a part of the ENBD (Bodø) FIR. For ATC wishing to control in what used to be the ENTR FIR, it is recomended to log on as ENBD_S_CTR. In the real world, this sector shares it's southerns border with ENOS (Oslo) and ENSV (Stavanger), with the north border cutting across ENVA (Værnes) and ENOL (Ørland). Regrettabely, we are unable to get theese changes implemented in ServInfo. Important: Please do note that ENBD_S_CTR will not provide ATC services
  8. I've now checked the POF file, and can't find any reason as to why ENBD should show up in the controller list at KMEM. Setting the visibility to 4000nm is not something easily done in either VRC or ASRC, either, so... I think I'll head for the theory of server problems of some kind. At least temporarely...
  9. That sounds ineed very strange... I will talk to the norwegian group of ATC's and see if they noticed anything unusual while they were on. I guess it happend today (November 15) based on the date of the postings, and the information about ENBD_CTR and ENBD_C_CTR being online at the same time, so I have a an idea of who it was that staffed thoose positions... I'll be back with more information when I've got an answer from the group...
×
×
  • Create New...