Quote from: Ryan Pitt on December 10, 2018, 07:07:37 PM

Quote from: Ryan Barnes on December 09, 2018, 10:39:03 PM

VATSIM COC requires that pilot's not squawk standby.

COC A.B.4 - "Except while on the ground prior to making initial contact with ATC or upon request of ATC, a pilot should not squawk standby. A pilot should not squawk standby while flying to his destination, even when there is no appropriate Enroute air traffic control available."

If that is indeed the rule, the word "should" means that it is recommended, not required.

I seccond this.

While I fully agree with you from a policy-compliance language perspective, there are plenty of places where they've documented an interpretation otherwise, effectively creating a precedence of s/should/shall/g on matters like these.  As with anywhere else, interpretive precedence often carries more weight than the letter of the law.  You could go argue this to them, but the same interpretation has held fast for years, and continues to be held.  About the only way you'd be able to make any meaningful change on that front is to work your way to the top.

For what it's worth, I dislike the mode-c everywhere rule (and I'd never wallop a pilot for it), and I dislike a number of the other rules that are mandated from above, but they're the rules we agreed to when we sign up.  So long as they persist, we have already agreed to be bound by them.  I don't even wallop non-responsive pilots unless they actually create a problem, and even then, I do my hardest to work around them.  Simple mistakes don't always deserve the ban hammer, especially if they're not actively detracting the fun of the others online.

Quote from: Dhruv Kalra on December 10, 2018, 12:43:35 AM

Everything above is accurate.

That being said, if someone wants to simulate flying an old Cub or similar around without an electrical system or a transponder, I’m not going to go frantically go running to enforce the CoC either.

This is my exact point. I got suspended for 48hours from vatsim a few months ago for flying whilst simulating no mode c transponder. I was forcibally removed from the network by a moderator that was buddies with the controller.

Is that all there is to the story?  Most of the sups I know wouldn't issue a 48 for that without there being a little more going on.  Typically, you'd get a message telling you to turn on your transponder and hit the mode C button.

Per 91.215(c), if you're equipped with an operable transponder, you're required to squawk mode C in E, anyways:

(c)Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with § 91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.215

Congrats!

Excuse after excuse, defense after defense Kosmoski; even one of your staff that "turned their nose up" had to to sniff out what you're preaching and what the reality of it was. This thread was about transparency and learning from eachother, yet here you are waving your little process wand. Little did you know that the proficiency of the controllers through events and other online appearances during a day to day basis is the by product of said "process." The first step into fixing anything is acknowledging and owning up to it.

If you'll read what I actually wrote, you'll see where I keep offering transparency and conversation, yet nobody here has taken me up on the offer.  Anybody that has actually spoken to me knows that I'm open to discussion, and I'm a strong proponent of Live events due to the interactions and relationships that form and strengthen as a result of the very themes on which this thread was built.  Despite my offers, I've been on Teamspeak all night with only our regular guests, nor have I received any emails, PMs, or any other kind of communications from anybody responding here.

The only thing resulting from any of this is attacks on my facility and roster, and continued attempts to belittle and degrade people personally.  This is absolutely abhorrent and unacceptable from the staff and former staff members.

Ira was spot on, yet this seems to be about the only time that a post of his is ignored outright.

I’m glad you’re secure in your mediocrity. Some of us still care to improve past the bare minimum.

Please do not speak to my guys like that; It's disrespectful.

I don’t need to spend time in a facility’s Discord to take the pulse of its training program. I can get that by flying through or participating in an event, and by perceiving the overall attitude.

We’re teaching a continuing education seminar on sequencing and spacing tomorrow in an attempt to help share best practices and techniques. Guess how many ZHU participants we have?

It’s easy to sit and whine about resources not being shared, but when those of us that have the real-world experience who want to give back and improve the product on the network get snubbed for offering constructive methods for improvement, it kind of kills the motivation for us to do it.

My guys generally know about the class, but it doesn't mean that they necessarily have availability.

If it's going to be a Christmas Present then it will be a late one. Work is still continuing but some end of year real world commitments have slowed our primary developers down temporarily. We can't speak on a release date as there is much work to do prior to implementation once we have a release candidate.  We are closer to release than many doubters would like to think though  .

Will a transition plan be announced before it's released?