Jump to content

Evan Reiter

Members
  • Content Count

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Evan Reiter

  1. A very tremendous surprise, and a significant disappointment for all of us. I hope VATSIM's BoG is able to pick up where FLAi left off and arrange something for the membership.
  2. In fairness to VATSIM, I should say that the network was not given a heads' up about this. I expect they will have something official to say in the next little while. Please give them some time to respond.
  3. From my perspective, I generally prefer when pilots make that request (or ask a question) on frequency. Totally appreciate this is down to individual preference but, in my view, there's nothing wrong with asking about a restriction on the frequency. It's easy for us to miss text messages via PM and even easier for people to misconstrue tone of voice on text vs. voice. I will get pilots occasionally not hear my instruction and instead of just saying "say again", they will PM me saying "what was that last instruction?" So I get nervous whenever I hear requests for more private messages. Fo
  4. @Dhruv Kalra, while you're checking on that, would be good to also clarify how/if the heading/speed data transfers between facilities and positions. If this is a real-world feature, it would be nice for it to be added to vERAM. Presently, only the free text transfers between vERAM clients.
  5. I can try to guess at a few things and see if they help. I'm in no way affiliated with the AFV Team and (to borrow a favorite phrase of Don's), I can barely spell "code", let alone write it. For me, the AFV client won't allow changes to settings after it's been connected. I need to choose a PTT once, before connecting. If I try to change the PTT, I usually have to close the entire client and start it again. Make sure you're running the AFV client as administrator. If you do manage to get connected, could you send us a screenshot of AFV when you're trying to transmit?
  6. Recently, VATSIM updated the online flight planning capability allowing for pilots to file ICAO flight plans (now used in most countries for IFR and VFR flight plans) instead of FAA-style flight plans. If you are interested in some background on how/why this happened: Unfortunately, many of the clients (including VatSPY) haven't received a corresponding update. As a result, equipment information you showed above is transmitted and appears as you've seen it. Personally, I don't think it reflects well on the network. And it's a major issue for controllers who use VRC, vSTARS, or vERAM.
  7. Here are BVA's recommendations for setting up MSFS with VATSIM: https://forum.bvartcc.com/uploads/bva/GettingStarted/MSFS/index.html?Page=setup_index.html
  8. @Tim Roden and @Jeremy Werderman, hope this might help: It (sort of) seems like it could be the issue you're describing.
  9. Fully agree with Rob; that's the feedback I've been hearing from several people across a few communities. I don't fly any simulator now, so I don't have a predisposition to one or another. I just report on what I hear! I wrote this opinion article for BVA's Logan Informer back in September. I think it's still as true now as it was then, and is based on a small poll of our members:
  10. I find in the U.S., ARTCCs are less likely to use VATBOOK or Qutescoop, which tend to be more popular in Europe. Here, we've gone back and forth several times over trying to publish ATC availability and generally have come to the consensus that, country-wide, there's just too much variety in individuals' opinions to be able to put something together. ATC being a hobby, there's a lot of people who don't feel comfortable with the idea of "booking". Some ARTCCs, like mine, have created their own systems. In our case, you can find published availability at www.bvartcc.com. I'd say it's about
  11. @Stephen Olwell, where in the world do you tend to fly?
  12. Thanks for the response Matt. I will say that I did receive the draft policy back on October 15 and provided the same feedback as on this thread. I didn't hear whether it went anywhere, which is why I suggested it here again. Ultimately, it's great to see the network looking for more input. I guess my comment is that publishing the policy as you did, but just with an effective date about 2 weeks after it's published publicly, might have been helpful. Your points around top-down ATC are well taken too. I can see the logic in the way you've done it. There is definitely value in being i
  13. I too am happy we have a policy now. I also agree that a few days' notice for implementation would have been helpful. Like you, ZBW had several questions come up on a Sunday evening. Fortunately, it not being 1am for us, we were able to put out a statement quickly. However, all it says is that we haven't had the chance to review the policy yet and that no changes will happen until we have. Some of our pilot members were asking what this means and they got "I don't know, we got the same info you did, at the same time you did", which makes us look a little under-coordinated. That said, giv
  14. Hi Dustin - not sure (and can't speak to) what the future of AFV will allow, but I've worked around this by using a program called VoiceMeeter. You set the audio output from AFV to VoiceMeeter and then you can choose (in real time) which output device you want. I'm not sure if the same is possible with input devices. https://vb-audio.com/Voicemeeter/index.htm More detailed instructions in this document, starting on Page 6: https://atchub.bvartcc.com/atcfiles/BVA_AdditionalSoftwareGuide.pdf.
  15. From a domestic U.S. ATC perspective, this was the first CTP I can remember that we were not absolutely hammered. And when we're hammered, Moncton, Gander, and Oceanic have it way worse than the rest of us. Having spoken to several of our controllers from Boston Tower through to the enroute controllers, the feedback is that this year's event was so much more manageable in the past. Having fewer pilots on frequencies (the result of both adding more airports and reducing the number of non-event aircraft) really improved the system for everyone. It meant no delays for slot aircraft, reasona
  16. We've talked quite a bit in this thread about the availability of pilot slots and the vast interest in flying the event. It's nice to see there is so much excitement and for the 50% of people who weren't lucky enough to get a slot: sorry. Hope you can join in the fun next time. It's good to see the team acknowledging that and giving those who entered this year an improve chance of a slot next time. As Morten says, there is a significant capacity limitation on this event. It's not just on the number of controllers: it's also about the availability of runways and airspace. In real life, Bos
  17. We've seen this error reported 2-3 times on Facebook with no clear solution. We have never been able to duplicate. Some things that might help based on what people have told me: Do not install into your simulator's folder but instead into a directory in Documents or similar. "I think it's a matter of different security settings for .net in the first place (I think my version is "too new") and afterwards I followed the suggestion to install it to a separate folder which made it work. I googled for the error message and found out what to edit in the registry. It's about .net s
  18. I posted about this issue here: I have seen this happening very regularly of late. It's been several airports and so it isn't just affecting KSEA. I have been told from a non-BOG that it's a VATSIM-wide issue and have not heard anything further on a resolution.
  19. Thanks Justin! @Dhruv Kalra 1182570tells me "ATIS voice dropouts are a known issue with AFV servers - that issue isn’t isolated to vATIS. Euroscope has the same issue. That’s high up their fix list, but afaik the AFV dev team hasn’t been able to nail down the issue as yet." Perhaps you are already aware but I thought I'd pass on his note. I think that would help tremendously. For what it's worth, it isn't immediately obvious that the voice drops. You would have to be monitoring it and/or have a pilot report that the voice isn't working. In my case, when I'm on position for 2
  20. Hi everyone, just following up on this thread. Have other facilities experienced this issue or is it just us in ZBW? Is vATIS' developer aware of any of this? Is VATSIM aware of any of this?
  21. Over the past several months, we have seen several examples of inconsistent behavior from vATIS. This seems to affect controllers at all levels and at multiple facilities within ZBW. We routinely get reports from pilots and need to restart vATIS on a fairly regular basis over the course of a long session. The issues are as follows: After an hour or so, it seems vATIS will stop broadcasting the "voice" portion of a non-recorded ATIS. The "TX ATIS" button remains selected and the "TX" light is on, but nobody can hear the audio (myself included). A restart of vATIS is required to re-
  22. It's difficult to troubleshoot this stuff when it's not real-time. Guessing here, it's possible you might have been outside the visibility/audio range of the controller(s) when you were attempting to fly. But there could be several other possibilities. Firstly, I'd strongly recommend making your goal to have voice working; the experience is much more engaging when you're speaking on the radio. Perhaps once you receive the new mic, things will get easier. If you are switched to the radio of the controller and using text radio messages, there is no reason the controller shouldn't reply
  23. Since the VATSIM audio is now range-based, it's possible that you were too far from the controller for them to hear you. Have you tried moving to another location and/or to an airport serviced by Ground/Tower? Of course, if you were at the controller's airport, this wouldn't be the issue.
  24. I haven't looked into this in the FAA AIM but in my experience, the altimeter setting or wind is almost never read back in a landing/takeoff clearance. I have never heard a controller query a pilot and request a readback of an altimeter setting in Canada or the United States. Interesting to know that is a requirement in Europe. If anyone is worried about this, let me know and I'll have a look through the AIM.
×
×
  • Create New...