Jump to content

Jon Wilder 1268033

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Jon Wilder 1268033

  1. Just simply being an A320 does not make it RVSM capable.

     

    Also, aircraft will fly at inappropriate altitudes for a variety of reasons...traffic or for traffic flow.

     

    I'm aware of this as the aircraft needs to be certified for RVSM with an annual RVSM pitot/static test. The tolerances for an RVSM pitot/static test are much tighter, and even the skin of the aircraft around the static port is checked for excess ripple, the flushness of the static port flange vs aircraft skin, etc.

     

    Most commercial jets such as the A320 are RVSM certified.

  2. Just simply being an A320 does not make it RVSM capable.

     

    Also, aircraft will fly at inappropriate altitudes for a variety of reasons...traffic or for traffic flow.

     

    I'm aware of this as the aircraft needs to be certified for RVSM with an annual RVSM pitot/static test. The tolerances for an RVSM pitot/static test are much tighter, and even the skin of the aircraft around the static port is checked for excess ripple, the flushness of the static port flange vs aircraft skin, etc.

     

    Most commercial jets such as the A320 are RVSM certified.

  3. Just simply being an A320 does not make it RVSM capable.

     

    Also, aircraft will fly at inappropriate altitudes for a variety of reasons...traffic or for traffic flow.

     

    I'm aware of this as the aircraft needs to be certified for RVSM with a full pitot/static test. The tolerances for an RVSM pitot/static test are much tighter, and even the skin of the aircraft around the static port is checked for excess ripple, the flushness of the static port flange vs aircraft skin, etc.

     

    Most commercial jets such as the A320 are RVSM certified.

  4. Hi Jon,

     

    1. here on VATSIM we are a little bit like the UK parliament: We don't name people publicly - at least not in a negative aspect - and we also don't describe them in a way that makes them easy to identify (things like the callsign, especially when combined with the route). If you think you need to report a fellow member, you can send it to the VATSIM supervisors if it is about the Rules or Division/vACC/vARTCC/FIR-staff if it relates to ATC operations. In your case, you could have used a ".wallop" to report a pilot that is not responding and causing a conflict. A supervisor could have investigated the issue, if he is monitoring UNICOM or not or if he is just taken a short break, which is allowed by the CoC.

     

    2. Yes, most RVSM airspaces use the east/west rule to define the level, however, there are some exceptions like Italy with North/South rule and even some airways with different rules, because it fits the traffic better. I cannot tell you if that is the case with J80. Flight planning is really complicated and sometimes people do mistakes. I hope your flight was still a great experience.

     

    I've removed his call sign and VATSIM ID from my post. I wasn't aware of the .wallop chat feature so I will use that in the future.

     

    The flights were in the US so east/west rule applies.

  5. Hey mate. If your aircraft is RVSM approved, seperation is reduced to 1000 ft.

    I cannot actually see your screenshot so have not much idea of what would be going on.

    Thanks, Tristan.

     

    I'm an avionics technician in the real world so I'm very aware of what RVSM is. I was flying an A320 so no doubt it's RVSM approved.

     

    The long and short of it was that he was flying at the same flight level that I was while we were flying the same airway in opposite directions. My flight level was valid for my heading range (FL370 for a heading of 095) while his flight level was invalid for his heading (FL370 for a heading of 275). We almost collided head on because of him flying my flight level, which was invalid for his heading (he should've been at either FL360 or FL380, which would have satisfied the 1,000' vertical seperation minima).

  6. When flying on the VATSIM server in RVSM airspace (FL290-FL410), are the RVSM rules stated in 14 CFR 91.179 enforced?

     

    I was flying on airway J80 from KDEN to KBWI at a heading of 095 at FL370. Another pilot was flying on airway J80 as well, to KMCI at a heading of 275, also at FL370! According to 14 CFR 91.179 (b) subsection 4 (RVSM rules), FL360 or FL380 would have been valid for his heading. Not FL370.

     

    I had to dodge him really quick to prevent crashing into him.

     

    Several attempts were made to contact him, through private message as well as text and voice UNICOM, to inform him that he was at the incorrect flight level for his heading according to the RVSM rules set forth in 14 CFR 91.179. He did not respond nor did he modify his flight level, so I can only [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that he's not even monitoring UNICOM and/or he's someone who's just gonna fly by his own rules.

  7. I've noticed for quite a while that controllers seem to like vectoring you in a fashion where you're capturing localizer and glideslope simultaneously. While this sounds cool in theory, this only works if you're hand flying the approach. If you're doing a CATIII approach, the autopilot wants to capture the localizer first, then capture the glideslope. Knowing this, it makes more sense to bring them in below glideslope, let them capture the localiser, then fly into the glideslope.

     

    Is this something controllers can work on in their vectoring?

  8. ...is there any way that we can set up a policy for controllers that they have to allow something like 10 minutes from login time for flights which are already in the departure/arrival phase at login time to get out of the way before they start contacting pilots? These two phases are the most critical of the flight when you have a lot going on, and when you've already set up the aircraft for a certain runway, you may already be holding short ready to roll or already on or about to capture the localizer, you're doing all of your pre-takeoff/approach/landing checklist, etc...and they're like "Please contact me on...".

     

    Some of them get huffy if you don't contact them straight away, or if you're already taxiing back to a gate after a landing there's no point in even trying to message them. Just leave them alone and give them a few minutes to get off the movement area. Some of them even act like they've been online the entire time and you didn't comply with some instruction that you should've known...but you were never given any instruction because they weren't even online until 30 seconds prior.

     

    Can we please get rid of the God complex that some of these controllers have? I think waiting 10 minutes after login time to allow departure/arrival phase flights to complete is a more than reasonable request.

  9. I think we're missing the point here.

     

    This has nothing to do with skill sets or otherwise. What this has to do with is the fact that I was inconvenienced by the controller when I was there first. ATC was not online so I came up with my plan and I was in the process of executing said plan when they decide to log on and change my plan at a point in the flight where there was little to no margin for error due to the amount of time I had left to touchdown.

     

    Can I do it? Yes. Do I have the skill sets to pull it off? Absolutely. But that's not the point. The point is that since I was there first and already had a plan execution in place I should not have had to do that unless there was some really good reason such as aircraft stuck on the runway or distance from other aircraft, etc etc. In this case there was absolutely no reason to do that other than the fact that I was landing on a departure runway (which when there's no ATC there are no departure/arrival runways).

     

    Had I had say been 100nm out and they decided to log on and change me to a different STAR or even a different runway it would not have been an issue. At that point in the flight I would have plenty of time to reconfigure everything as well as download/print a copy of the STAR chart. I don't mind making changes to a flight plan as long as there's a good reason to do it and I have ample time to make the changes.

  10. I do handfly most of my approach. However most real world airline pilots are usually lined up 10nm out, not "lined up 10nm out then have to switch runways 5nm out".

     

    On my VA forum, someone quoted a C1 controller as saying -

     

    "if there is no ATC there is no designated takeoff/landing runway and as such pilots can make their own decisions. UNICOM exists to coordinate arrivals and departures so they have minimal impact on other users irrespective of choice of runway".

     

    So going off of this, I had already made my own decision as to which runway I would land on and had set up on one runway prior to ATC being online and I was close enough to touchdown to where they should have just let me continue on, get down and out of the way while they worked with aircraft that were a bit further out on arrival. If I'm not a hazard to any traffic, there should be no reason to switch up my arrival when I'm that close in.

  11. This happened to me yesterday coming into KLAS, although I've had this happen with other centers as well and I feel it needs to change.

     

    Center was not online at the time at which I entered the GRNPA1 STAR. I had my FMC all set up for ILS rwy 25R and was established in my descent flying the STAR as depicted. I'm making callouts on UNICOM announcing my every move as I do. I'm already established within 5 minutes of touching down when I get the "Please contact me on 125.80" message.

     

    So I contact him and I'm thinking he's gonna just continue my approach as I've been calling it out. He gives me my squawk code and wants to change my clearance to 25L right as I'm about to line up on the localizer for 25R!

     

    So I did my best. I flew the heading he told me to fly to intercept the localizer, but I honestly didn't have time to fully reconfigure the approach in my FMC as close as I was to touching down so I ended up established on the localizer for rwy 25R. I contacted center to notify them of this, in which they did allow me to come down on 25R.

     

    My complaint is that normally when they give and/or change a clearance, first off they're logged on and have been for quite awhile and you're way early on the STAR at a point at which you have time to change your FMC configuration...not within 5 minutes of being on the ground. I feel that if there are aircraft that are already established on an approach and will be on the ground in a very short amount of time at the time that controllers log on they should just wait and give those aircraft a few minutes to get down and out of the way while they work with aircraft that are further out on their arrival.This I feel would make more sense and eliminate the inconvenience of possibly having to hold or go around when you're already established on an otherwise perfect approach. For those of us pilots who like to fly as real world as possible, this sort of thing (i.e. controllers being offline, pilots setting up their own approach flying the STAR's as depicted then all of a sudden having controllers pop up out of nowhere and wanna completely change your arrival in a way that may require a hold and/or go around) NEVER happens in the real world and is a huge convenience to VATSIM pilots and perhaps may be one thing that chases pilots away from introducing themselves to the wonderful experience known as VATSIM.

  12. you need to disable FSINN's weather. theirs a bug between it and simconnect in FSX. youll find the air remains hot at higher altitudes, not good.

     

    Thanks for the tip!

     

    I tested the fix file from Flyaway Simulation, but that file tracked me down the right side of the runway. So I pulled up Airport Design Editor and fixed it myself. Any FSX pilots who wish to fix this issue can download my fix here -

     

    Dallas-Fort Worth Runway 36L ILS Fix

     

    Unzip the folder, then copy/paste the file into your Flight Simulator X\Addon Scenery\scenery directory and make sure the Addon Scenery directory is present and enabled in your Scenery Library.

  13. Hey, thanks for the feedback. DFW was not IMC at the time though with a ceiling of 4200 OVC and 10SM visibility.

     

    I offered you the visual approach at first since I was going to drop you to 3k and then clear you for the visual but then you requested the ILS. I guess if you just accepted the visual then there wouldn't be any problems after all .

     

    Thanks for flying into DFW this evening and looking forward to seeing you on my scope again.

     

    If DFW was not IMC at the time, then FSInn's weather code must not know how to properly interpret the received weather information as I had the server weather selected.

  14. Hi all. I'm a seasoned Flight Simulator pilot as well as a real world student pilot, but am new to VATSIM and the Virtual Airline community. I currently fly for American Flight Airways.

     

    I flew flight 341 out of San Francisco International into Dallas-Fort Worth this afternoon. Christos Kokkinomagoulos was my controller in Fort Worth Center today. He initially cleared me for a visual approach on runway 36L, but I asked to change to instrument approach as it was IMC over Dallas-Fort Worth what with building thunderstorms and whatnot, which he kindly granted me the clearance for.

     

    Upon coming in on final, I was established on the localizer, yet the runway was way off to my right! I double checked my instruments and ILS frequency settings and all was right. At the inner marker I decided to go around and try again as I was nowhere near lined up. He vectored me for the go around.

     

    Came in a second time and the same exact thing happened! Again, I called missed approach at the middle marker, but asked to be vectored to 36R instead. He kindly granted me the clearance and vectored me around for ILS approach runway 36R.

     

    Coming in on 36R was uneventful and very smooth landing with perfect line up.

     

    Upon researching this issue, I came to learn that at the time Flight Simulator X was coded (I prefer FS2004 but can't find my copy of it for the life of me), the real world 18R/36L was under construction as they were lengthening the runway. In order to prevent the construction equipment from impeding the localizer signal, they actually relocated the localizer and glideslope antennas off to the left of 36R. In conjunction with this temporary relocation, they had actually published a side step procedure for ILS landings on that runway as well as issued a NOTAMs that 36L/18R was not certified for Cat II/III approaches. Apparently when Microsoft obtained the information for KDFW, they copied it to the T all the way down to the relocated ILS antennas on that runway in FSX.

     

    There is a freeware fix for this for those of you who fly FSX available on Flyaway Simulation, which I'll be testing tonight. But for those of you who don't have this fix file, keep in mind that the ILS for runway 36L/18R at KDFW is semi-lined up with a taxiway and not the runway itself.

     

    Getting back to the topic at hand, I want to give Christos Kokkinomagoulos a big thank you for being patient with me enough to provide the proper clearances and go around vectors until he got me down on the ground safely. He went above and beyond IMHO, and this is what an awesome controller will do for you. He even Google searched the issue and lead me to the thread on FlightSim.com that talked about that exact issue.

     

    So because of him, I congratulate Fort Worth Center for doing a superb job at getting me and my p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]engers down on the ground.

×
×
  • Create New...