Discussion: If you could change one thing about VATSIM...

[Chriss Klosowski]

Going along with Peter I totally agree from a controllers point of view. I think it should be required to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] at least the P1 course in-order to login as a pilot beforehand.

[Arthur Melton]

Have a choise whether to use a controller or not

[Nestor Perez]

What do you mean Arthur?

 

If you refer to actual people who control, you can just log off the network and problem solved!

 

If you refer to controllers as in hardware, that's not VATSIM's problem, but rather that of your simulator.

 

Maybe you can explain better what you mean?

[Arthur Melton]

Stay on the network but not have to use a controller .Have a button IFR, VFR, No controller on the flight plan. I know there are many pilots who fly on Vatsim when a controller is not around.

[Nestor Perez]

Then, what would be the point of logging onto VATSIM? Wasting donated bandwidth?

 

There's plenty of plugins which would allow you to see other traffics without logging on to any network.

[Sean Harrison]

QUALIFYING STATEMENT: “Discussion seems to be fine on this thread.”

 

Hi Arthur, I think you are going to be stomped on.

 

I believe you raise a completely valid prospective mate. The forum appears to me to be driven by controllers striving for real world standards with no regard to the founders intentions. IF they want a job as an ATCO, then fine go off and do it. You are still welcome on the network, but respect those that do not have the same level of skill, aptitude, or desire.

 

There are members who are being driven away by the neth degree of realism expected in certain geographic areas on the network.

 

There are several posts on this thread that tell people to leave the network if they don’t like it..... what the? What happen to inclusion. Sorry if there are people in this world without the same skill, aptitude and desire, but this is life.

 

Arthur, mate, there are people who understand your perspective. Please don’t worry about the perfectionist who want this to be an elite hobby used to train for a real life job as an ACTO. Stick with it, and whilst I don’t want to restrict where you fly, please visit us down under more often. Who knows I may provide you a service you find friendly and amenable.

 

To those that can only suggest people leave the network, why not use your skill, aptitude and drive to find out why you want them to leave, and then consider that for at least a minute.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Please don't derail this thread, it had been quite constructive, so far...

[Sean Harrison]

Then, what would be the point of logging onto VATSIM? Wasting donated bandwidth?

 

There's plenty of plugins which would allow you to see other traffics without logging on to any network.

 

Nestor, I respect your view. Can I ask that you consider that the network enables people like Arthur to fly side by side with his buddies, and that if you want money for your precious bandwidth, just ask and i’ll Happily donate on behalf of Arthur or anyone else you think doesn’t deserve to be using it.

[Nestor Perez]

Sean, my last posts may had been misunderstanding or maybe seen too "aggresive". All I really wanted to say was, what is the point of flying online if you don't wanna be under ATC coverage?

 

If you switch the roles round, it may be easier to spot what I mean: Imagine someone logging on as an ATC, not controlling or willing to control any pilot within their airspace?

 

Once again, I don't intend to "attack" or "criticise" anybody with my messages, but rather just feel curious about why someone would do that.

Edited July 21, 2018 at 11:24 PM by Guest

[Sean Harrison]

Please don't derail this thread, it had been quite constructive, so far...

 

Andreas, who are you referring to? IF you had said that after the very first post that didn’t offer what was asked, I’d totally suppport you.

 

There are several members who believe that it is there right to comment, but others aren’t. Arthur is not your average bloke, (no disrespect intended Arthur) however he is a user of the network and operate within the rules. There are so many Arthur’s out there that are being turned away. If that is what the Founders and Governors want then so be it.

 

This is a Network wide forum, not a geographic one restricted to your land. It should be one standard for all on the forum.

[Arthur Melton]

Thanks for the support Sean, I have to admit I am 85 years old and have forgotten many of the flight rules of IFR since 2009. As you know I am based at YMAV and as Melbourne or Sydney are high traffic area's I choose to fly in the Pacific or Africa which have different time zones and hopefully the controllers are in bed, he, he. One other reason I am selective is because some controllers are very officious and try to be like the New York control but having said that I have contacted controllers in Taiwan, Auckland and yourself in Guam without any problems.One other reason is Most of my aircraft I use are FMC equipped and I don't like ,after a set-up ,a controller coming online and wanting or demanding that it be changed. Thats my rant finished ,thanks for listening, Art

[Kirk Christie]

Thanks for the support Sean, I have to admit I am 85 years old and have forgotten many of the flight rules of IFR since 2009. As you know I am based at YMAV and as Melbourne or Sydney are high traffic area's I choose to fly in the Pacific or Africa which have different time zones and hopefully the controllers are in bed, he, he. One other reason I am selective is because some controllers are very officious and try to be like the New York control but having said that I have contacted controllers in Taiwan, Auckland and yourself in Guam without any problems.One other reason is Most of my aircraft I use are FMC equipped and I don't like ,after a set-up ,a controller coming online and wanting or demanding that it be changed. Thats my rant finished ,thanks for listening, Art

 

Then, what is the point of connecting to the network if you do not want to be under ATC coverage, fly offline and have the same effect.

 

In regards to your FMC set up, you should set up the basics, Route Weight ect, then get your clearance, then add the items into the FMS for which you have been cleared for, SID/STAR RWY ect.

 

FYI the only place you can switch from IFR to VFR and avoid ATC is in Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airspace, If you are VFR in C and D you still need to communicate with ATC, and you are not allowed to be VFR in A. So in and around YSSY and YMML you would not be able to depart these airports VFR without ATC, nor would you be allowed to fly above 8500FT.

 

There isn't a case of telling people if they don't like it fly offline, this network is here to serve a purpose, that purpose is to have ATC and pilots and emulate the process of the real world, when you connect to the network it is on the basis that you do so use the network for purpose. If you do not want to participate then the network serves no purpose to you.

[Andreas Fuchs]

If you cannot understand ATC, because the person is speaking like a machine-gun, mumbling or shouting, then just tell them to "say again (slowly, or whatever fits in here)". I am a "young" real world professional pilot and I occasionally do this both in the real world and here on VATSIM.

[Johnny Coughlan]

Actually Arthur raises a valid point,

 

Im sure there are many controllers out there that would not like to interact with pilots like Arthur, like he doesn't want to interact with ATC.

 

I have pilots every session who don't have a basic grasp on simple things like a traffic circuit but I'm forced to interact with them regardless and I try help them best I can.

 

Inclusion is a great thing and should go both ways, Arthur shouldn't be forced to fly in unmanned areas just because he doesn't like the ATC service he receives in areas he wants to fly.

 

He should be allowed to fly in controlled airspace and choose not to interact with the other half of the reason this network exists(ATC interaction).

 

He shouldn't be asked to log off, then we can set a precedent for both sides to just simply ignore the other.

[Matthew Bartels]

This thread is for what you want to see changed on VATSIM so Arthur is free to make his suggestion. It would require a change to the Code of Conduct because right now you must utilize ATC if available and controlling the airspace you are flying within per CoC B3.

 

My personal opinion, not the BoG as a whole, is that such a request really does defeat the purpose of our network. Whatever your personal realism level for VATSIM is, I think we can all agree we are here to simulate aviation. Part of that is speaking to ATC when it is available and controlling the airspace you’re flying within. You would rarely have an aircraft landing at Sydney or Melbourne in the real world not speaking to ATC and when it occurs it’s an emergency situation with radio failures. A pilot choosing not to participate in ATC services when available puts us on a slippery slope where ATC and their instructions become optional which would completely inhibit the controller’s ability to provide a safe and orderly sequence to the airport. One pilot doing so isn’t good, but the bigger danger to the ATC side on on VATSIM from this is what happens when no pilots contact or comply with ATC instructions and do their own thing as it's now not required.

 

There are plenty of ways to fly when ATC is online and not have to speak with them if you choose not to, but it does restrict you as to where and how you can fly. VATSIM can’t be all things to all people and compromises have to be made by all groups. Pilots hate intimidating and sometimes mean controllers, Controllers hate bad pilots that can’t comply with even the most basic instruction. What has been made clear is that standards need to be set or re-evaluated on both sides of the scope to try and find an acceptable middle ground and it is something that is being looked at.

 

As someone said earlier , this thread has been overwhelming positive, so I would like to see us get back on track. We can open up further discussions on this or other topics brought up in here as a separate thread.

 

Thank you,

[Nestor Perez]

Not much more to add. Completely agree with your view, Matthew.

 

Maybe simulating a radio failure on every flight is the solution

[Alex Long]

Not much more to add. Completely agree with your view, Matthew.

 

Maybe simulating a radio failure on every flight is the solution

 

Not soo much as the solution, considering this isn't the real world and there are ways to still get in touch with a pilot even if the radio "fails". I can [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ure you that if you're persistent in your attempts to dodge communication made by a controller and you're in what's considered controlled airspace, or causing a conflict for another aircraft, you're most likely going to end up being walloped and hit with a COC violation for an unattended connection if you refuse to answer anyone. If you don't want to talk to controllers, the only way you don't have to is to find an area of "uncontrolled airspace" or a non-towered field. It's possible to fly and not talk to a single controller, and it's done in the real world. You just can't expect to fly out of a major Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B, up to the flight levels, and then down into a Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C airport. Those are all areas of controlled airspace. You'll have to do a little more work to investigate the airspace, and you'll have to dodge controlled airspace most likely, but it's possible. As Matt mentioned, the point of VATSIM and the reason the network exist is that you are here to simulate having the availability of Air Traffic Control and other pilots around you.

[Arthur Melton]

The reason I fly on vatsim is because it records my flight time ect.also I am in contact with the other pilots who may be online, for instance although there maybe no controller on duty I use the chat in FSinn to broadcast my departure and from TOD advise of my destination runway ect ,So we manage without Atc I also have my radar operating and can see other traffic besides looking out of the window .regards, Art

PS.I am still using FS2004 with the legacy aircraft

[Jonas Kuster]

I would get rid of this entire administrative overhang created over the years and the steep hierarchy, which can nip nearly any innovation in the bud.

 

Why?

 

There are way too many people just holding positions or working for years on docomeents, policies, regulations, ... which no member would ever ask for nor will he be consulted ever before. All these organs of the organisational structure paralyse VATSIM tremendous and leave no room for the actual needed work to be done. Every level of hierarchy is like a big hurdle for every idea, that would bring VATSIM forward. And if we eventually run out of commited members willing to take all these hurdles, VATSIM will grind to a halt.

Honestly, I think, if VATSIM shall exist also in 10 years, only a totally revised organisation is the solution. It's time to leave the past behind and unite the community of network simmers again.

[Matthew Bartels]

I’ve seen this kill the hirearchy thing come up a few times over the course of this thread, but I’d like to get an idea of how one thinks this can be accomplished. An organization as m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive as ours really does need a few rungs on the management ladder to keep it going. Some positions are definitely not needed, such as an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istant to the director of plastic straws, and I know there’s places that some staff positions can be trimmed and I agree that they should be trimmed if they’re not making a significant contribution to keeping the network running. In my opinion though, we need our global, regional, and division management roles as well as our sub division management roles in the very large divisions. It’s too much work to keep the network running for one, or even a handful of individuals.

[Alex Long]

I would get rid of this entire administrative overhang created over the years and the steep hierarchy, which can nip nearly any innovation in the bud.

 

Why?

 

There are way too many people just holding positions or working for years on docomeents, policies, regulations, ... which no member would ever ask for nor will he be consulted ever before. All these organs of the organisational structure paralyse VATSIM tremendous and leave no room for the actual needed work to be done. Every level of hierarchy is like a big hurdle for every idea, that would bring VATSIM forward. And if we eventually run out of commited members willing to take all these hurdles, VATSIM will grind to a halt.

Honestly, I think, if VATSIM shall exist also in 10 years, only a totally revised organisation is the solution. It's time to leave the past behind and unite the community of network simmers again.

 

I'm a bit curious what parts of the structure are, as you say, paralyzing VATSIM? What actual work are you referring to? How is every level a hurdle for an idea?

 

I’ve seen this kill the hirearchy thing come up a few times over the course of this thread, but I’d like to get an idea of how one thinks this can be accomplished. An organization as m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive as ours really does need a few rings on the management ladder to keep it going. Some positions are definitely not needed, such as an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istant to the director of plastic straws, and I know there’s places that some staff positions can be trimmed and I agree that they should be trimmed if they’re not making a significant contribution to keeping the network running. In my opinion though, we need our global, regional, and division management roles as well as our sub division management roles in the very large divisions. It’s too much work to keep the network running for one, or even a handful of individuals.

 

I have to agree with Matt. An organization this large can't be run without the current structure. There's a certain span of control that's needed for someone to maintain an effective handle on what's going on beneath them. I could actually argue that there are positions we need in the hierarchy that we don't have.

[Paul Brown 846913]

Right now, I'd like more of the hyperlinks to work and or Description of what site is, so I can search for it when hyperlinks are broken. Far too many Pilot Resource links broken.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

I think a few people here missed the point of Arthur's post.

 

The point of flying online and not interacting with ATC is to interact with other pilots.

 

That being said, my personal opinion is that VATSIM is not meant to be utilized as a general multiplayer server. There are other outlets available for that. VATSIM is a place for "Virtual Air Traffic Simulation." If you manage to connect and fly where there isn't ATC, and you choose to disconnect when a controller pops on in your area, so be it -- but I wouldn't expect the network rules to change to allow you to ignore ATC working your area because you're only interested in flying with a couple friends.

[Nestor Perez]

Actually, after having though more in-depth about Arthur's point, I've come up with something that maybe should've been suggested since the beginning.

 

Just like there is a VATSIM server in which the only connections allowed are for ATC & Mentors during training with simulated pilots (aka. SweatBox), maybe it would be a good idea to add another one for the completely opposite people: pilots. Something like a server in which there is no ATC, but only pilots who want to fly together or just train some of their skills before actually getting on the rest of the network. If it is looked at closely, it would somehow also be a "solution" to the rest of the suggestions regarding clueless pilots flying, as it would be an environment in which basic flying lessons could also be carried out, without interfering with others who already know better what they are doing.

 

What do you guys think about this?

[Ross Carlson]

Please, guys, stay on topic. From the OP:

 

Please remain within the spirit of the question and limit your response to the ONE issue that is at the top of your list.

 

Let's not turn this into yet another disjointed debate thread ... let's keep it valuable for the BoG.