Jump to content

Jeff Clark

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm flying the FlyByWire A320 in MSFS2020 a lot lately, and have noticed that if I change radios in vPilot using the '.com1' command, while it changes the COM1 frequency in vPilot itself, the radio panel in the aircraft doesn't change to the new frequency. I've switched off the 'AI assists with radios' option, so not sure whether it's supposed to do this or not?
  2. Absolutely nothing installed except for FS2020 itself and fresh install of vpilot.
  3. Noticed that when I 'end flight' and go to main menu in MSFS2020, I get a lot of 'failed to create aircraft XXXX using model" errors. Does this mean that I should have downloaded some sort of model library? (I had to do something like this for the xplane client) but didn't see this mentioned in the installation documents for vpilot?)
  4. Paul, I'm not sure this forum has any particular, special moderator, and it probably falls under the moderation of -all- the VATSIM forums, which are collectively monitored by several people who have MOD privileges (including myself). I'm also not particularly sure that we have someone whose job it is to read each and every single post on every single sub-forum. Normally if there's a problem that needs "modding", we get an e-mail from someone who's concerned, and that directs us to the thread in question. Perhaps Ruth McTighe might be able to shed a bit more light on the subject
  5. Tell me which country you live in and we can discuss it further. In the United States, where I was a controller, there -is- a hierarchy of controllers. Approach controllers get paid more than Tower controllers, and usually start out at Tower and then get promoted to App. That's because I am talking about the requirements to separate two airborne IFR aircraft from each other. It is a "layer" of separation that must be applied in addition to the other kinds of separation that must also be applied like the rules about not having two aircraft on the runway at the same time. Yes inde
  6. I understand that the difference is subtle, but there are -different- kinds of separation that must be applied, and different roles for different controllers. The difference I am talking about here is one between runway separation, and IFR-IFR separation. The Tower controller's primary job is ensuring runway separation. This is to ensure that two aircraft are never on the same runway at the same time, or that two aircraft never meet in a runway intersection at the same time. As part of this job, he is also responsible for making sure that the aircraft coming into the runway come down in
  7. How about if I rephrase it and say that, "at the vast majority of towers, the ultimate legal responsibility for ensuring that appropriate IFR-IFR separation exists between two airborne aircraft belongs to the CTR or APP controller who owns the airspace above the field, and is normally not delegated to the tower controller." This follows the principle that IFR separation is normally delegated to the ARTCC, which is in turn devolved through Letters of Agreement to any relevant Approach Controls. While at some major airports, letters of agreement (and the appropriate training) is put into pl
  8. Few examples: At KBUR, the west parallel taxiway is too narrow for large jets to use it, and therefore large civilian turbojets (they do exist) often need to "back taxi into position and hold". I think London City airport is another very good example of a busy field without a parallel taxiway.
  9. Step back and look at it from a "big picture" point of view. What information does the departure controller actually need? In the case of an IFR departure, he needs to know several pieces of information - the route that the flight is on, the type aircraft, the equipment on board, and the altitude he wants to climb to. This has already been provided to him through the flight plan, and there is always a LOA which makes sure that the TWR will clear the aircraft in a particular way so that DEP knows what the a/c will be doing. When the aircraft departs, the departure controller need
  10. It doesn't happen. As Ruth pointed out, there are times when an authorisation may need to be granted in advance of launching a plane, but actually calling up approach and saying "I've just told him to call you" is not done, and not needed. Approach will find out when the plane calls him. I don't really understand why you think that this needs to be done over a landline, and perhaps you could explain what part you're not getting so we can help give you a better explanation of why the system is the way it is. I can't imagine a situation where ATC would even WANT a call from another c
  11. Personally, I have always been strongly against the use of any radar function by most towers, again mostly for the realism considerations already mentioned. I worked in a real ATC tower for 5 years, and although it was a "limited radar" facility which had the ability to radar identify targets and to make and receive handoffs, it was generally not our job to do this, and a tower controller's job doesn't need to use it: here's why... Except in situations where advance permission is required to launch an aircraft (for example in situations where approach has not permitted tower to automa
  12. Nashir, Pakistan is starting to come alive with traffic in the last few months, and you will usually find someone open there on the weekends. There is not yet a formal ACC located there, but Karachi FIR is often opened by some of our members, and a good flight would be from there to Mumbai, where some new ATC is also beginning to control there. You would be welcome at either location, and hope to see you soon! Jeff Clark
  13. I'd like to suggest that in the current situation, we'd try extra hard to understand each other's positions. If I recall correctly, after 9/11, there were a number of American members openly questionning the future of VATSIM - specifically whether or not the fact that we were teaching amateurs how to fly planes and use the ATC system may have inadvertantly contributed to that incident. I personally know that some of our real-world controllers actually felt real pressure to no longer participate in our network specifically for that reason, and have never returned. In light of that, I don'
  14. I'd agree that it's getting close to the line as well... Before the second Gulf War, we didn't allow anyone to enforce "no-fly-zones" over Iraqi airspace because some people disagreed with the American policy at that time, and it didn't serve our primary goal of enjoying the simulation of air traffic and ATC. During the Gulf Conflict, we didn't allow people to simulate bombing runs over Baghdad as it would not only be in incredibly bad taste, but some of our members' were being directly affected by that conflict in ways that some of the rest of us hadn't really considered. The real
  15. curious... I ran my first sweatbox scenario with a student today, and the planes I was controlling kept changing the transponder codes to 2000, although I had changed the code in the box, and for a few seconds they appeared to tag correctly - but after about 20-30 seconds they changed back... any idea why?
  • Create New...