Air Traffic Controller Discussion With a Global Perspective
By Roland Collins 800023
#358830 You are quite right Darrol; all members in VATSIM are equal in that they all have the same opportunity to fly, control, hold office or even be VATSIM President. Simply being a VATSIM member is enough to open the door to these exciting opportunities.

Quite apart from the participation aspect there's another side of the VATSIM organization that is related to funding and liability since there are costs involved and there are legal responsibilities. VATSIM is accountable for what it does on the VATSIM network or what it allows to take place on the VATSIM network. The Founders are liable so whilst they enjoy the same usage privilege they are not equal when it comes to a matter of accountability under appropriate law.

There are others, some not even members, who pay for it all; servers, network, WebPages, downloads, licence fees etc. In total there are considerable costs involved in providing the VATSIM network and VATSIM relies heavily on sponsors. Our sponsors understand what we are trying to do and are happy to assist us but expect us to respect their financial support and not abuse it. That puts VATSIM Founders in a position where we can say to members you can actively participate as much as you like since that is fully supported however; whilst participating we respectfully ask that you use only what you expressly need for your participation and no more.

Sometimes the financial burden becomes too great and VATSIM loses a sponsor. In order to sustain the network you all enjoy Founders have to work hard to find another sponsor. Those sponsoring VATSIM today are not the same sponsors as yesterday; and so it goes on.

We generally don't talk much about these matters other than to ask members to show respect and consideration for those who pay for it all regardless of how much or how little it costs. Most members understand that and realize it is a necessary and reasonable request. Scott Dewoody summed it up on 15 Feb.

Luke Kolin resurrected this thread and I responded because I find Luke’s attitude quite unreasonable; being only about what Luke wants with little or no regard for anyone else. Luke’s signature today says it all; loud and clear.

As others have said, it shouldn’t take 6 or more pages for a member to understand a simple and reasonable request from Founders; especially since it in no way affects their on-line participation.

Fly, control, enjoy!

Roland Collins
VATSIM co-Founder
VATSIM VP Regions
By Darrol Larrok 1140797
#358834 It doesn't really seem that the argument here is about the viz range issue. That is more or less reasonable. What's concerning to some is that VATSIM seems to believe that intellectual property and capital is more valuable than the people who work with it. I personally am quite curious as to why VATSIM doesn't accept donations and instead acts as a privately run organization, rather than a community run organization(or an incorporated non-profit).
By Roland Collins 800023
#358840
Darrol Lakro 1140797 wrote:It doesn't really seem that the argument here is about the viz range issue. That is more or less reasonable. What's concerning to some is that VATSIM seems to believe that intellectual property and capital is more valuable than the people who work with it. I personally am quite curious as to why VATSIM doesn't accept donations and instead acts as a privately run organization, rather than a community run organization(or an incorporated non-profit).

The short answer to your question Darrol is that it is part of what I described as the other side of VATSIM where there are licence and legal implications and responsibilities. VATSIM does not have complete freedom in such matters. As you say, it is outside the discussion on visibility range; which I believe has run its course.

Roland Collins
VATSIM co-Founder
VATSIM VP Regions
By Garry Morris 920567
#359073 It has been discussed pretty extensively actually. One reason that I can definitely understand is that when you allow donations, people start to hold it over your head. They believe that somehow, because they have given money, they are owed something. This is already apparent without having financial donations, I would think it would become far worse if financial donations were allowed.
By Luke Kolin 837789
#359396
Roland Collins 800023 wrote:Luke Kolin resurrected this thread and I responded because I find Luke’s attitude quite unreasonable; being only about what Luke wants with little or no regard for anyone else. Luke’s signature today says it all; loud and clear.


Luke's signature was written by Roland Collins. I recall a few posts back you described me and my attitude as "despicable". I was somewhat surprised (don't worry, like Trudeau I've been called better things by better people) and I actually thought it was rather neat. It conjured up images of dressing in black with large ball bombs and tying damsels to the railroad tracks. I merely used it as a way of showing my appreciation for calling me such a novel name, but I am afraid like much of what I say you do not understand it. Unfortunate.

I don't think the thread will be further served with me yet again attempting to explain that you are solving a technical problem via non-technical means and how this could be fixed with 6 lines of code instead of six pages of forum threads. Just ask Wade to change the part of FSD that processes the % command.

Despicably Yours,
Luke
By Roland Collins 800023
#359407
Luke Kolin 837789 wrote:
Roland Collins 800023 wrote:Luke Kolin resurrected this thread and I responded because I find Luke’s attitude quite unreasonable; being only about what Luke wants with little or no regard for anyone else. Luke’s signature today says it all; loud and clear.

Luke's signature was written by Roland Collins. I recall a few posts back you described me and my attitude as "despicable". I was somewhat surprised (don't worry, like Trudeau I've been called better things by better people) and I actually thought it was rather neat. It conjured up images of dressing in black with large ball bombs and tying damsels to the railroad tracks. I merely used it as a way of showing my appreciation for calling me such a novel name, but I am afraid like much of what I say you do not understand it. Unfortunate.

I don't think the thread will be further served with me yet again attempting to explain that you are solving a technical problem via non-technical means and how this could be fixed with 6 lines of code instead of six pages of forum threads. Just ask Wade to change the part of FSD that processes the % command.

Despicably Yours,
Luke

NO Luke; I described your attitude as being "unreasonable"; check above where you have quoted me. Also, the signature on your your posts is written by you, not me; and you have used the same signature today.

You sign as "Despicably Yours"; presumably because you view yourself that way or wish others to have that view of you.

Respectfully yours
Roland Collins
By Luke Kolin 837789
#359410
Roland Collins 800023 wrote:You sign as "Despicably Yours"; presumably because you view yourself that way or wish others to have that view of you.


You called me that name on April 9th, I believe. Thank you for the clarification on my signature - which part of it do you find objectionable?

Cheers!

Luke
By Alex Bailey 969331
#363705 (Sorry to revise this yet again, I've been out of the country and busy with other matters but thought I could contribute to the discussion.)

Darrol,

The solicitation and acceptance of donations opens a whole new can of worms for an organization, whether they are non-profit or not. It is important to remember that non-profit does not directly translate to tax exempt status, and there are a handful of states in the US that require additional paperwork and authorization beyond the federal 501(c)(3) requirements. This would depend on the location of the registration of the organization, presumably Ohio. Not to mention the expense and amount of due diligence that goes into an application. I don't know whether VATSIM has secured any of these from a legal standpoint, but this is simply the beginning to a convoluted process involving donations to VATSIM. Add in the management structure of the organization and it would simply be a nightmare. Garry brings up an important point where a person who donated may then try to hold it over VATSIM's head. On the other hand, who in VATSIM can be trusted to maintain control of the finances and be willing to accept responsibility of doing so? What checks would be in place to ensure proper use of those funds? If I were a Founder, I simply wouldn't be able to place enough trust into the organization to handle such a delicate process due to how VATSIM operates. It is a volunteer organization comprised of members all over the world, and in most cases these people have never met face to face.

Back on topic for this thread, the issue of visibility ranges has been argued for years. It comes down to a simple principle - people making a mountain out of a mole hole. Kyle summarizes the issue quite well, VATSIM and those who own the resources that we are privileged to utilize can dictate how we can operate. In this case, the owners have given more than enough freedom to operate on this network without impacting others' enjoyment, which includes resources and the financial burden placed upon the sponsors. Since we are using donated resources at no cost to ourselves, how unreasonable can it be to follow their simple request? If I'm controlling a tower position in South Florida, I don't need to see planes arriving and departing in New York. It comes down to principle, if VATSIM was a water faucet in your home and you were paying the bill, would you use excess water than you need or leave the faucet running while you were gone? I'm sure the answer to both is "no".

Luke generally raises valid concerns regarding many technical aspects of VATSIM, whether or not the venue for discussion is appropriate. His way of thinking is sometimes counter to what many believe is the status quo, which results in his ideas being written off. I would suggest that people be more open to positive discussion and constructive criticism rather than bantering like children over who called who a certain name in the forum. If the issue is about management process and principles, then it would be best to share ideas through the appropriate avenue which in this case would be to contact the Board of Governors directly rather than using a forum post. However, I know that management will always analyze and critique the messenger of the information before reaching a conclusion about the validity of the message (and I know Luke knows this quite well at this point :wink: ), it's human nature. If he is right, then he's right and may be more beneficial for VATSIM to disregard pride and make the logical decision.

Best,
By Roland Collins 800023
#363712 Thanks for your comments Alex.

Forums discussion typically ends up with a range of different opinions and an outburst of feelings that generally ends up going nowhere; except being periodically recycled in the forums. I have made comment about unacceptable use of forums and I don’t intend to revisit that point.

On the other hand, it is certainly acceptable to use forums to flag issues in the hope that it might result in discussion in appropriate places outside of the forums. Elsewhere, when discussing rules and policy, I said the ultimate authority rests with the authors or those responsible for managing the rules. I often provide insight on how or why VATSIM rules are the way they are but I don’t by any stretch of the imagination have ultimate authority in respect of these.

To those reading the forums I have said that rather than engaging in forum argument the best way is to write directly to VATSIM and put forward a rational case for having something changed. In this way a member directly engages the authors and is not attacking the forum messengers who are trying to explain the current rules.

Writing to VATSIM doesn’t guarantee that a member will get the outcome they desire since, as I mentioned, VATSIM is compelled to take into consideration other aspects not normally in public view. Nevertheless, I believe writing to the appropriate authority is the proper way to proceed.

Roland Collins
VATSIM co-Founder
VATSIM VP Regions
By Adam Lagoda 827397
#457690 Hello,

I have a question - on the topic, I guess.

There are two types of range on client (assume EuroScope as it's the most popular one) - scope range and audio range. The first one is regulated by range we have set in client while connecting. The other one is - from what I've learnt from Miguel, VATEUD8 - fixed, depending on station set. Example - CTR - 400nm. Is that correct?

On the other hand, the "visual" range might be otherwise regulated using vis command. Both in terms of center point, and range (using subset of vis1..vis4 - if properly set, it nearly doubles the range from your setting). How does that affect radio range? Is that vis-independant, or not? How the vis1..vis4 sets affect the radio range, if any?

I need all the information you can provide, as two stations which should be independent and not interfering, are interfering.

Thanks in advance,

Adam
ACCPL3, Operations Officer
By Neil Farrington 1104841
#457691
Adam Lagoda 827397 wrote:There are two types of range on client (assume EuroScope as it's the most popular one) - scope range and audio range. The first one is regulated by range we have set in client while connecting. The other one is - from what I've learnt from Miguel, VATEUD8 - fixed, depending on station set. Example - CTR - 400nm. Is that correct?

On the other hand, the "visual" range might be otherwise regulated using vis command. Both in terms of center point, and range (using subset of vis1..vis4 - if properly set, it nearly doubles the range from your setting). How does that affect radio range? Is that vis-independant, or not? How the vis1..vis4 sets affect the radio range, if any?

Hi Adam - your wording is a little confusing, but I essentially understand what you're asking. Skip to the bottom for a brief summary, as I've made things even more complicated.

In Euroscope (and any other controller client), the range that you set in the connect dialog is a set radius, for example 400nm. The range set on that slider is generally referred to as the vis(ibility) range, and is directly related to the visibility point that is set. The visibility range is the radius extending outwards from the visibility point.

Primarily, this means that the controller sees live, active traffic that is within 400nm (using our ongoing example) of that visibility point. That is what you've referred to as the scope range.

The audio range is directly related to the scope range, and is also regulated by the visibility range set in a client. If I set a vis range of 20nm, aircraft 100nm away won't be able to join my voice frequency. However, if I set a vis range of 100nm, they will be able to, and at that point, I will show up in their ATC list on their pilot client.

What I can also do is set another vis point/vis centre. If I'm controlling in the UK, and set a vis point in the US, those controllers with overlapping ranges in the US will see me in their controller list, and pilots will be able to join my frequency, even though I'm still controlling in the UK, and my primary is still in the UK.

Summary:
So, in answer to your question, vis1-vis4 directly affect the radio/audio range, and increasing/decreasing the range will have an effect on how far out aircraft can contact you. This may also be further affected by the range of the pilot client, however I cannot say for sure, and is irrelevant here anyway.

In the case of overlapping frequencies where pilots are connecting to the wrong frequency because they are identical, the controllers need to reduce their vis range, and unset any additional vis centres/vis points.
If it is a common occurrence when the two positions online, VATSIM procedure may need to be for one of those frequencies to be changed.
If it is an uncommon occurence, and happens only when a specific person is online, it is likely they have a specific setup that is affecting it, such as a higher vis range/additional vis point.

It simply depends on the distance between the positions, and the type of positions, as to whether any further action needs to be taken.
By Adam Lagoda 827397
#457692 Thanks Neil for your answer, and sorry if my English is out of standards - I've been using this mostly with european teams, and - as you probably know - European English is nowhere near English English standards :P

So, there are no separate ranges for scope and radio? If so, that's confusing. In Poland, there's a station at Modlin (TWR), using the very same frequency as Bremen CTR. As Modlin is more or less 300nm from the pl-de border, one would assume they will be completely independent. But what we learned from those few times Modlin was manned and Bremen online - they're not. I was thinking it's some misconfiguration problem rather, than anything else. However, how could two stations affect each other with such a large separation? Hmmm. No idea now. TWR would be easily idetified as source if range was too large. And I can hardly think of CTR working with range 250nm beyond own borders.

Anyone else eager to comment? Any help is appreciated to understand and solve the problem.

Thanks,
Adam