Jump to content

Tobias Dammers

Members
  • Content Count

    247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Tobias Dammers

  1. IRL, "pilot deviation" means that a pilot has deviated from mandatory procedures, or otherwise violated the rules, and there will be some aftermath to this - paperwork, investigation, questioning, and possibly disciplinary action, depending on the findings. We don't do any of that aftermath on VATSIM, so if an ATCO says "pilot deviation", then that's just a way of saying that you did something wrong that would have serious consequences IRL, like turning the wrong way, landing on the wrong runway, busting your altitude clearance, flying VFR into controlled airspace without clearance, flyin
  2. Also note that at many European airports, the GA apron is uncontrolled, which means that you can start your engine, pushback, and taxi on the apron, at your own discretion (but you are also responsible for making sure you're not causing any problems by doing so). So you'd start your engines as needed, call Delivery for your IFR clearance, and then just pushback and taxi as needed, and call up Ground (or Tower, as the case may be) when you reach the limit of the uncontrolled apron (usually a designated apron exit point).
  3. It's not a big deal anyway; "flying hours" are purely decorative, they don't give you any advantages or anything on vatsim. ATC won't even look at your flying hours.
  4. Indeed - being 3 degrees high at 3000 means you'd be on a 6° angle from the runway, which means that you're at a point where you should be down to 1496 ft on the correct glideslope. At this point, you're 4.7 miles out, which means you have passed the outer marker a good while ago, and that alone should have been a red flag. If the visibility isn't lousy, you should also have the field in sight by now, and it should look weird, because you're looking at it from way too high.
  5. Capturing from above is somewhat problematic for another reason. If you capture from below, then you will be in level flight, or in a stable shallow descent; capturing the glideslope, then, will have you nose down, which will temporarily increase your airspeed, and the autothrottle then reacts by gently retarding to bring you back to your selected approach speed. By contrast, if you capture from above, you will also be in a stable descent, but at a fairly steep angle, so probably at a low power setting (if not idle), and when you capture the glideslope, the autopilot will pull up. Your ai
  6. There are several working solutions to this problem already, all reasonably close to what you might want. TeamSpeak seems popular; Discord would work; there's Mumble, if you want something open source. I think the problem is a social one more than a technical one - getting everyone to agree on a single communication channel for this stuff. I don't think writing yet another VoIP-ish solution for this would help.
  7. The physics simulation algorithm is not actually all that relevant. There is no reason why you couldn't perform two or three updates of that Blade Element algorithm for each rendered frame - even a complex simulation like this is usually limited on rendering, not physics, which means that frame skipping would be a perfectly viable way of sacrificing perceived performance (number of frames shown per second) for correctness (accuracy and stability of physics simulation). Yes, XP11's physics simulation relies on the time step delta to be small enough, but the same also applies to literally e
  8. This comes up every now and then, and AFAICT, the bottom line is always that the benefit (enforcing a certain quality standard among pilots) is not worth the cost (losing as large portion of the pilot population, many of them for good). It's different for controllers: right now, pilots outnumber controllers roughly 10:1, and that's a decent ratio. Imagine what happens when that ratio shifts to something like 2:1, or even 1:1. It gets silly fast, and no amount of pilot competence can make up for that. If you only ever get to control 1 or 2 aircraft at once, then there's not much to it anym
  9. Not to mention that pilot ratings, unlike controller ratings, are purely decorative; they don't "unlock" anything on VATSIM, except training courses for higher ratings. Anything you can do as a pilot, outside of the training system, can be done with a P0 rating, and I believe there are no plans of changing this either.
  10. The problem isn't FPS itself, but the fact that XP11 (unlike all the other sims) will slow down simulation rate when FPS drops below 20. VATSIM doesn't really care if you're seeing a slideshow on your end; what we do care about is that when you report 240 knots, you will cover roughly 4 miles per minute - but XP11 running at 10 fps will slow down sim time by 50%, so your airspeed indicator will still show 240 knots, while you're really moving at 120 knots, 2 miles per minute. Now, that hardware isn't exactly top notch; but it being a laptop, just buying, say, a used GTX1050Ti is not
  11. My recommendations would be: Aim to do full flights. Once you're in the air and TWR has handed you off, the worst is behind you, might as well keep flying. Disconnecting is 100% fine at any point, people do it for all sorts of reasons, and controllers will prefer that over getting in over your head and messing things up for everyone. Reconnecting is also allowed, but it's considered good etiquette to try and minimize the disruption. I'd reconnect well before my top-of-descent, to give ATC a fighting chance of working me in gracefully. A useful trick when reconnecting is
  12. I think at this point it's a good idea to clarify the difference between FREQUENCIES and CHANNELS, and why 8.33 spacing makes it all such a terrible mess. In the old 25 kHz days, things were simple. You had channels spaced 25 kHz apart, and you would refer to them by their exact frequency. 118.00, 118.025, 118.050, 118.075. Easy peasy. But with the frequency space getting ever more crowded, and the precision of radio equipment improving, a new standard was devised that packs more channels into the same frequency space: "8.33 kHz channel spacing". The idea is simple: just put 3 times
  13. I don't have any inside information for you, but in general, I don't think adding fields to a JSON data structure would require upgrading a version number - after all, your code should still work unchanged, and just ignore those extra fields. That's how JSON-consuming code is usually written. It might not be a great idea to *depend* on those fields until the documentation explicitly mentions them, but you can surely *ignore* them.
  14. VATSIM's infrastructure doesn't currently support Y (begin IFR, switch to VFR) or Z (the other way around) flight plans. To fly a Y flight plan, file as IFR, and put "VFR" in your route at the point where you intend to transition.
  15. FWIW, even if you make it as easy as EHAM, people STILL use all the wrong runways.
  16. Plus IRL it's safe to assume that pilots are competent enough to judge whether the tailwind is within limits, and if so, perform a perfectly safe tailwind landing. Whereas on VATSIM, ...
  17. It all hinges on what you were cleared for. As a general rule, fly the clearance, not the plan. If your IFR clearance says something like "ABC123, you are cleared to destination KABC via the DOTSS2 departure, then as filed, initial climb 5000 feet, expect flight level 240 after 10 minutes, squawk 1234", then they want you to fly the SID. If however it says something like "ABC123, you are cleared to destination KABC, after departure maintain runway heading, climb 5000 feet, expect flight level 240 after 10 minutes, squawk 1234", then you are not cleared to fly the departure as published, b
  18. These two airports have had large-scale overhauls of their arrival procedures in recent AIRACs. The procedures that used to be called "transitions" are now published as "GPS/RNAV ARRIVAL CHART / TRANSITION TO FINAL APPROACH (OVERLAY TO STANDARD RADAR VECTORING PATTERN)", like this one: https://aip.dfs.de/basicIFR/scripts/getPage.php?part=AD&id=40749FD23E58E92F12F6F945F20D7399&title=AD 2 EDDM 3-1-1 I don't know why they're not on vatsim-germany, but DFS publishes them, and you should be able to find your way from https://aip.dfs.de/basicIFR/ to find whichever charts you need.
  19. You can request a specific approach, but this isn't mandatory, and if you're flying a relatively standard airliner, ATC will give you the most appropriate approach they can. As an example, when I fly the Embraer Lineage 1000 (a bizjet conversion of the E190), I generally want to park near the GAT, and at some airports, this means I would benefit from landing on a different runway than the airliners - e.g., at EHAM, I generally prefer runway 04/22, because I can taxi right off onto the GA apron, and skip the lengthy taxi. So when I fly into EHAM, I'll usually request that runway proactivel
  20. Oh boy... yes, now that I think about it, that does make sense, after all an aircraft is a big metal tube... Though technically the signal doesn't get interrupted, "only" disturbed, so the NAV equipment will still pick up *something*, it will just be a bit wrong.
  21. Aircraft getting in the way don't interrupt an ILS signal IRL either - otherwise, having multiple aircraft on the same ILS approach at the same time would not be possible.
  22. No. "D1.5" means "1.5 DME", and defines the point in the MAY holding where you have to turn left in order to leave the holding; it has absolutely nothing to do with the TIMBA holding. The TIMBA holding is a standard right-hand holding pattern, which means the straight legs are standard 1-minute legs.
  23. Ground is above delivery, so that's who you would contact. Top-down goes DEL -> GND -> TWR -> APP/DEP -> CTR. (There are sometimes additional positions in between, and above, but you don't normally have to worry about those). GND is above DEL, so the ground controller will also cover DEL when no DEL controller is online. It may look like a lot, but that's exactly how it works - when GND is the highest staffed position at an airport, then the CTR controller covering the area will provide TWR and APP/DEP for that airport. And in fact, if no position at the airport is staffed
  24. Yes, and we are talking about "smaller aircraft that don't require push-back" here, so that seems appropriate.
  25. Took a quick look at the parking / docking chart, but there doesn't seem to be any stand from which you could do a taxi-out, they're all nose-in, except for the GA/Business aprons, which don't have any precisely designated parking areas. The airport briefing says this on the matter of taxi-out / power-back: (Source: https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/Publications/2021-01-28-AIRAC/html/eAIP/EG-AD-2.EGCC-en-GB.html#AD-2.EGCC) I don't know how it's normally done at EGCC, but I would expect that if you're on a regular stand, you would normally be cleared for pushback, unless y
×
×
  • Create New...