- Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:32 pm #515692 EDIT: Disregard. This thread has already been dragged down to the depths of idiocy. No sense trying to contribute.

Last edited by Bradley Grafelman 1242018 on Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

- Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:35 pm #515693

And honestly? The only reason I remember that experience is because it was not only challenging but extremely entertaining for me (and I suspect to some degree the pilot, too).

This is what it's all about.

Kind Regards,
Kieran Cross,
VATSIM Technical Team.

- Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:04 pm #515697

And honestly? The only reason I remember that experience is because it was not only challenging but extremely entertaining for me (and I suspect to some degree the pilot, too).

This is what it's all about.

Well, we agree, but unfortunately Kyle has made VATSIM's position crystal clear: there is no room for interpretation and this sort of behaviour is forbidden.

VATSIM, clearly, is only interested in simulating aviation that involves IFR in tubeliners with radar vectors to an ILS final. I guess next time I want to fly VFR I'll do so offline and save the bandwidth for those more deserving users.

- Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:13 pm #515698 You are putting words in my mouth Simon, I never said that.

All clients have a transponder. If you are VFR squawk a VFR code then there is no ambiguity and your VFR flight can continue without any disturbance. Its really that simple.

Kyle Ramsey

- Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:21 pm #515700 It is however very strongly inferred.

I still don't understand why there needs to be a rule. If a pilot wishes to simulate not having a transponder and the controller is happy to accommodate the challenge then why do we need to have a rule (which you have very clearly stated is not open to interpretation) banning it?

In fact, why do we need to enforce the use of transponders at all on the network? Why have the rule in the first place? As I said, it's either an omission easily rectified through communication or it is a deliberate simulation of a particular aircraft's equipment fit. Why the need for a CoC entry?

- Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:33 pm #515702 The best explanation I can offer is it is an adaptation to our sim software. With the sim transponder in STBY nobody knows if the pilot meant to do that on purpose or if he made a mistake. So that starts ATC to calling SUPs to try to sort it out. If the guy is VFR why is it a problem to just put in a VFR code and be done with it; no ambiguity, no problems.

SUPs don't go looking for these, they respond to calls from ATC. If ATC doesn't call then there is no problem; if they do then there might be if the pilot refuses to cooperate when given an instruction to put in a VFR code, because at that point they are now violating the part that says they must comply with ATC and Supervisor instructions.

Airspace is not a place for ambiguity and using a VFR code when one is VFR eliminates any. Why is that so hard? For the pilot he can't see the radar return in any regard so its not messing with his experience in any way.

Kyle Ramsey

- Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:31 pm #515709 Hmm, in the real world, even when flying VFR, I am very much interested in turning my transponder ON! Why? Because otherwise other pilots won't be able to see me on the traffic displays (TCAS, Power-FLARM and similar systems). I do not understand why someone would not want to install and operate a transponder. Again: we are not talking about flying in deep wilderness, but we are considering flights in a more or less busy environment. In Alaska's back-country there's also no ATC most of the time - and no other pilots. I wonder why would fly there (alone).

Cheers, Andreas
Member of VATSIM Germany
VATSIM Supervisor

Have a question? E-Mail [email protected]!

- Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:08 pm #516736 Dear Kyle,

The clients all have a transponder and pilots should/shall/must use it.

the way I understand this discussion, it is about the meaning of words. In my many years of real-world aviation, the U.S. of A. particularly maintained the following definition of words as found e. g. in the Flight Operations Manual of the Bell 206 B3 (BHT-206B3-FM-1 rev. 8, Oct 2000), approved by the U. S. DOT:

• "Shall" has been used only when application of a procedure is mandatory
• "Should" has been used only when application of a procedure is recommended
• "May" and "need not" have been used only when application of a procedure is optional
• "Will" has been used only to use futurity, never to indicate a mandatory procedure

Unfortunately, I do no longer own a copy of my FAR/AIM Handbook from the mid-90s when I did my civilian flight training in said country, so I cannot check what was written in Part 1 then.
However, there seems to be a shift in paradigm, at least as far as I understand the content of the following web page:
https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/

The way I see it, none of these references seem to indicate that "should" ever meant "mandatory" in an aviation context. I believe that's the reason for the ambiguity expressed by some commentators her.

Now, how do we remedy the situation? As a quality management expert I would like to respectfully suggest an "improvement measure" in the form of a revision of the CoC, taking into account the resources in the above mentioned web page and the content linked to. In plain vernacular: Say "must" or "has to" if it's mandatory.

As we currently experience in this thread, ambiguity is doing nothing but wasting resources, namely your and some other dedicated members' time.

Last edited by Johann Schuhwerk 1199725 on Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cheers
"Hans" Schuhwerk
Chief PTD VATSIM Germany, C1 EDMM

- Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:51 pm #516738 Well said.

Cheers, Andreas
Member of VATSIM Germany
VATSIM Supervisor

Have a question? E-Mail [email protected]!