Jump to content

Alex Ying

Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Here's a typical clearance out of JFK (this does not include things like route amendments, or cruise level amendments, all things that add more time) "AAL123, cleared to Boston Logan Airport, Kennedy 5 Departure, Canarsie Climb, radar vectors MERIT, then as filed. Climb and maintain 5000, expect FL210 10 minutes after departure. Departure frequency 135.9. Squawk 1123." That takes 20-30 seconds for an experienced controller to read on its own. Then the pilot has to process, make sure they understood the clearance, and read it back. Call it a minute or so. Tack on any corrections becau
  2. As mentioned above, sending a PDC is a huge timesaver in the US where it can take a 2+ minutes to give a clearance over voice if the departure procedure requires vectors or climb restrictions. I'm not particularly familiar with other parts of the world, but I know in a lot of Europe, clearances are a lot shorter than in the US. If I can send a PDC that you can asynchronously read, it saves me tons of time when I'm vectoring 10 planes in the air.
  3. This is a regular occurrence at ZNY/N90 so at least in my opinion this would be worth doing. I regularly cover only parts of N90 while on ZNY and send point-outs to N90 TRACON controllers for climbs, descents, and aircraft flying places other-than-where they should be. If this is too complicated to implement, is there a good reason not to just allow point-outs between all facilities like VRC does?
  4. I like it. And it reminds me of my favorite aircraft, the triple 7. "Calverton" 😄
  5. To me it sounds like the captions are a little off. The controller first says "Depart SFO heading 140, vector for the visual approach runway 28L" which the pilots read back so the controller is assigning visual 28L and "prepare" is a caption error. Then some time (maybe immediately) later, the controller changes it and says "and DLH454 actually expect ILS 28R" and therefore changes the approach assignment. "Expect" is the FAA phraseology for assigning a runway if you're not giving an instruction to immediately go with the runway assignment (like a vector or a STAR transition assignment).
  6. If you're flying in the US, the FAA has a preferred route database query that most if not all US facilities on VATSIM follow: https://www.fly.faa.gov/rmt/nfdc_preferred_routes_database.jsp Some ARTCCs also publish their own copies of the PRD as well.
  7. Rob already gave some great answers, so I"ll just add on some additional context SimBrief sometimes generates some non-sense routes. In the US, many ARTCCs have Preferred Route Databases (PRDs) that you can search. ZNY and ZBW for example. You'll see on there that it also shows altitude and aircraft type restrictions for each route as well. Another source for routes is the FAA's Preferred Route Database. For some longer routes, there may not be a preferred route. In that case, you can serach FlightAware for real-world routes. In the US, SIDs have a short code depicted on the chart.
  8. I'll echo what Evan said and emphasize that it's highly situation dependent. If it's just another day on the network then there probably isn't likely to be a need. However, if it's an FNO or some other massive event? There's a lot of traffic management and flow planning going on the background that is not readily apparent to pilots. In the real world, sequencing and flow management for LGA or JFK can start as far west as Chicago and Minneapolis. VATUSA's FNO events in particular can regularly exceed real-world demand, so it's very common to see flow management even hundreds of miles away from
  9. Alex Ying

    Dev Mode

    Awesome! Thanks for the info.
  10. Alex Ying

    Dev Mode

    This is a bit of a feature request: For airspace and sector boundary development, it'd be useful to be able to have a Dev Mode where we could load a custom datafeed file in order to test how different boundaries light up when controllers are online without having to actually log on to VATSIM and wait for the datafeed to update. It would also enable testing and debugging of multi-sector interactions without having to find multiple people to log on.
  11. Many large airports now also have surface movement radar which requires Mode-C to work, so you should always check the airport charts and ATIS for information on how that's handled.
  12. I noticed this as well, I believe the "advise you have info [X]" is now built into the format by default, so it doesn't have to be included in the configuration text anymore.
  13. "Descend via" is used in many (most?) parts of the US with FAA procedures, however, it's only used when there are published altitude restrictions and ATC still has to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign with the "descend via" phraseology. On procedures with published restrictions but no "descend via" clearance or on charts that only have "expect" altitudes published, the clearance only applies to the lateral portion of the STAR. One of the more frustrating things is when pilots don't comply with these rules and descend when they don't actually have clearance to do so because they misread or don't unders
  14. I'm not sure, I'm not the pilot. It was reported to me by one of our controllers who was logged on to the HF station.
  15. The HF/VHF thread is locked it seems and I can't reply there. Controllers logged on as ZWY_CTR on 5520 with VHF alias 130.000 and ADR_CTR on actual VHF 130.000. Pilot tuned to 130.0 in Adria Radar airspace tuned to HF instead of the VHF frequency.
×
×
  • Create New...