You will have to forgive me for not following this subject as closely perhaps as I should, but it seems to me that if the current problem is that there are more aircraft flying into an ARTCC than the fields can handle and the controllers are being overwhelmed, doesn't it  make sense to try to address the issue where it begins....  at the VA's?   I don't know that anyone will be happy if the VA's are told they only get so many slots, but with membership climbing I don't see any other action that we can take short of actually creating a slot system.


Now that probably wouldn't solve the problem, at least not at first. But as the pilots get used to using it it may eventually catch on.  I am sure it could be done without creating more work for the local ARTCC's.  Of course I am also sure someone must have thought of this already, so has it been tried?

Pretty sure a minority of FNO operations are VA-affiliated pilots.

I'll be sure to fly a Citation X in for its biweekly maintenance.

With or without the unscheduled tech stop for an enroute maintenance issue?

Missed a great opportunity to call it "Sausalito Summernight."

Forget about the airline. Let's take the car and save the fare.

1) A virtual airline that uses a real world Telephony but not the real world 3LD. Example: One of the major Delta Virtual Airlines goes by “Delta” Telephony but uses DVA as their 3LD instead of the real world DAL.

This is incorrect. DVA pilots using DVA are doing so contrary to the airline’s policies. The DVA#### is a strictly internal identification at DVA and they should be using DAL or the appropriate Connection carrier callsign on the network.

Thanks again for this, JS!

FWIW, I support the decision not to integrate it into vATIS, and I’d be cautious in rushing to duplicate the r/w ATIS to a fault for VATSIM use. We don’t need non-pertinent NOTAMs about cranes, construction equipment, laser strikes, etc. in the VATSIM ATIS unnecessarily. This is useful for reference to duplicate the framework for your own vATIS profiles, but I think it’s important to respect the barrier between simulation and reality.

Good topic James,

Not being familiar with FAA, Is there any requirement for an IFR departure (or I guess VFR for that matter) to call once airborne?

It obviously helps a lot, if they do, but the practice of acft reporting “airborne thru 3200” seems not to be a practice in my experience.

Well, yes, in real life departing a towered field with an overlying radar controller, you would be told to "Contact Departure/Center" as appropriate, at which point you would check in stating your current altitude and altitude assigned.

"Departure, N12345 leaving 2000 climbing 4000"
"Departure, AAL123 leaving 2100 climbing via SUMFX1 departure"

In these cases, radar ID is accomplished through rolling/boundary notification (either verbal or non-verbal from the tower via coordination), but your altitude is still required in order to validate your Mode-C.

Sorry. Was referring to CBT 303.22. A student pointed this out to me. I had assumed that since, to my knowledge, none of the radar clients simulate this we were to not have someone cleared to land with someone in position on the same runway.

https://prnt.sc/pay80k

I “cheat” for the purposes of the simulation, and for efficiency during events. If controllers are using the vSTARS ASDE-X at equipped fields, I let them use the landing clearances with LUAW rules.

We don’t teach LUAW until major Local Control for this reason.