Jump to content

Matthew Kosmoski 891361

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. I mean, if you arrive at an airport where pilots are all lined up for 26 and you are lining up for 8, then you are the one who needs to plan around the other airplanes. The uncontrolled environment is about working with each other and going with the flow. If for operational reasons you need a different runway, that's on you to stay out of the traffic flow until there's an opportunity for you to land how you need or want to. Aircraft on final has right of way over aircraft on the surface, however.
  2. In uncontrolled ops, whatever runway you want to use is operating That being said, right of way applies. In the US, that is defined by 14 CFR 91.113 - Right-of-way rules: Except water operations. Yeah, but it's not published for pilots. If they read the AF/D, there may be a calm wind runway noted, but that's going to be about it. For controllers flying in airspace they know on network, sure, but preferred configs have no bearing on uncontrolled ops. Err, I suppose the preferred wording is Airports Without Operating Control Towers, anyhow.
  3. Glad to hear it! When are we thinking this might be generally available? What's the transition plan look like? Will the new clients be backwards compatible? Will the old clients be backported?
  4. I'm not sure why the announcement folks are waiting for would even begin to address these particular grievances.
  5. You raise a good point -- Per UK law, an aircraft on the ground shall give way to aircraft in the air (as is the case in every country), so perhaps you might need a refresher. Adding to that some education on there generally not being such a thing as a "right" or "wrong" runway at an uncontrolled field.
  6. FORT HOUSTON LIVE #4!! Come join ZFW and ZHU as we host our busiest event of the year. Staffed Fields will include KDFW, KIAH, KDAL, KHOU, and many more!! 2300-0400z (1800-2300 CDT). A premier event which will see over 35 controllers congregating in Dallas, TX to control together for the evening. Let's just hope the internet doesn't crash like last year https://forums.vatusa.net/index.php?topic=7731.0
  7. And on VATSIM, we [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume all aircraft are RVSM capable since we don't have the ability to certify airframes or crew
  8. Much appreciated! I thought we had week 5 tower in the bag, but I guess we missed it by a hair.
  9. Awesome, thank you! I can't wait to see what the final numbers for a couple of weeks look like compared to my napkin math.
  10. The short answer is no. You may be able to "make" it work using emulators, virtualization, or the like... but it's not going to be one-click by any means. Or even docomeented.
  11. Sure, but sometimes you still want human eyes on the final product regardless. Automation is great, but it's not always the final solution or some magic bullet. Additionally, "language" choice is like choosing a tool -- quick picking them by name and start picking them by traits. Since we aren't privy to the process involved, we can't intelligently speak to what is and isn't possible. P.S. Perl doesn't take masochism. As a guy that's been using perl professionally for well over a decade, I would like to note that white space shouldn't be syntactically relevant ;-)
  12. I sure hope not. The EC would hopefully find somebody to run Iron Mic in the event Mark is no longer able to. Like I said before, it's a VATSIM institution to the boots on the ground. Killing it would make no sense. As an ATM, I can tell you that we rarely see the kind of camaraderie that is born in the fire of a fierce Iron Mic battle lol.
  13. Iron Mic as a weekly competition is a VATSIM institution. While a monthly competition may be great, Iron Mic is a different animal. There are spikes of activity as a result when facilities battle to claim the trophy. To remove it would remove that spirit and competition... A month is far harder to coordinate 24x7 hour coverage over.
  14. Since there are no services that freely offer this (yet), then please explain why downloading and parsing the datafeed is ineffective and redundant? We have been doing this at ZLA for over a decade and it hasn't failed us yet... Because everybody has to retain full copies. Everybody is trying to replicate the source of truth with 2 minute slices, but every minor error results in additional loss of precision. It's great you've been doing it that long and it generally works, but it doesn't mean that it's the most correct solution to ever be implemented or that it can't be improved upon. Hav
  15. I have heard of data mirrors archiving the data but being unwilling to share it. I'm quite tempted to offer ARTCC resources as a mirror so we can offer a service like I'm asking for.
×
×
  • Create New...