1
General Discussion / Vatsim Forums down?
« on: March 09, 2012, 06:02:50 AM »
VP Webs is working on getting things back up and running following an issue with the SQL database.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
The Flight Deck / CS 757 and Squawkbox
« on: April 04, 2011, 06:05:06 PM »
My bad for assuming there Zach. The same issue however is to hand - your aircraft is reporting a lack of power for the radios. Hopefully somebody has a solution to a problem you at least know the general cause of.
3
The Flight Deck / CS 757 and Squawkbox
« on: April 04, 2011, 05:46:34 PM »
Ignore the fact that the engines are going - this is an FS9 based bug. To clarify, you selected the default flight and didnt simply select a cessna? Do you have the freeware or registered FSUIPC? The latter has an option for ignoring the dead battery bug.
Disclaimer - I don't have the CS aircraft but have seen this same issue elsewhere.
Disclaimer - I don't have the CS aircraft but have seen this same issue elsewhere.
4
The Flight Deck / CS 757 and Squawkbox
« on: April 04, 2011, 01:11:25 AM »
The issue is the aircraft. SB recognises when there is no power. No power means no radios.
How about starting from the default flight? Load the default flight rather than just choosing the cessna. Once settled change to the CS aircraft. Does it still lose power?
How about starting from the default flight? Load the default flight rather than just choosing the cessna. Once settled change to the CS aircraft. Does it still lose power?
5
The Flight Deck / Pilots flying JAX, MLB, DAB and MCO/ORL/SFB
« on: September 17, 2010, 07:58:19 AM »Quote from: Gary Millsaps
KMCO's MAJOR status is being worked out...should have a resolution very shortly.Great news Gary.
6
The Flight Deck / Pilots flying JAX, MLB, DAB and MCO/ORL/SFB
« on: September 17, 2010, 02:38:56 AM »
http://www.vatsim.net/network/docs/grp/ is the only written authority for a 'major'
KMCO is not yet listed there. If the intent is for it to be a major it can only be approved by the EC and only when listed does its status change.
KMCO is not yet listed there. If the intent is for it to be a major it can only be approved by the EC and only when listed does its status change.
7
General Discussion / BOG Meeting Minutes Feedback/Update
« on: March 22, 2010, 02:23:10 PM »
Nicholas,
We already see where some people make attempts to disect the written word in a way that best serves their argument. You can be sure if a recording was made available of a meeting that the participating members are more candid and guarded. Neither of these traits make for a good honest and productive meeting.
We already see where some people make attempts to disect the written word in a way that best serves their argument. You can be sure if a recording was made available of a meeting that the participating members are more candid and guarded. Neither of these traits make for a good honest and productive meeting.
8
The Flight Deck / Squawkbox Update packages
« on: February 23, 2010, 12:32:49 PM »
This guys method is wrong on so many levels. Without others doing the hack we will end up with more aircraft not recognised. In SB terms thats a lot of flying triangles.
9
General Discussion / Check-In Responsibility
« on: February 14, 2010, 10:13:48 AM »Quote from: Bruce W. Clingan
My comment was ambiguous. Someone says that many people are in this thread are wining and don't even have the gumption to step up, I was just stating that that is not the case. I know a few people in this thread who have made attempts to be on the BOG/BOD that is really all I am saying Norm. I would have no idea as to the specific qualifications of anyone who applied for a position, but more particularly those who were selected, as I really don't know any of them. I am sure, or at least hope, that each position is advertised, and everyone who applies is given the appropriate level of consideration based on their qualifications both on and off the network.
Hi Bruce,
Rest assured each and every application is given appropriate consideration. More out of interest than anything else I ran the names of those in this thread against those who applied for BoG roles following a NOTAM. Unless I missed something, which is quite possible, the results were underwhelming.
10
General Discussion / Check-In Responsibility
« on: February 14, 2010, 05:23:12 AM »Quote from: Bruce W. Clingan
For all we know there could be people participating in this thread who have made application at the BOD/BOD level and have not been given the chance. Sometimes it is not a matter of stepping up but a matter of being let in.
I have seen each and every single application for BoG and EC jobs over the past year. Just like the real world, applications are on how you sell yourself.
11
General Discussion / Check-In Responsibility
« on: February 07, 2010, 03:22:57 PM »Quote from: Nicholas Taylor
There must be a solution. The forums are not required reading, yet VATSIM is enforcing something posted there. That's just morally wrong, IMHO. What if you were a teach and I was your principle. There is a bulletin board in the office that isn't required to read, but it says we suggest you get to school 30 to 60 minutes before school starts. But you get there 10 minutes for the bell and I reprimand you for that, is that right?This is spiralling completely out of context.
The guidelines used by Supervisors are guidelines. Not rules. Members are not reprimanded for having something in excess unless they continue to take what they want (and we regularly see people connected as TWR and have 400/600nm) despite education.
[email protected] - more than happy to reply there should you wish to take this further.
12
General Discussion / Check-In Responsibility
« on: February 07, 2010, 03:10:11 PM »
Hi Nick,
Then, yet again we get complaints of there being too many rules.
Controller visibility range is really a training issue and harkens back to my earlier post where we should take what we need rather than we would like.
Then, yet again we get complaints of there being too many rules.
Controller visibility range is really a training issue and harkens back to my earlier post where we should take what we need rather than we would like.
13
General Discussion / Check-In Responsibility
« on: February 07, 2010, 02:59:00 PM »
Gents,
Short and sweet.
The CoC is not the place for these suggested range settings. It is a document of rules, not guidelines.
In regard to range requirements a controller should take what they need, not what they would like. If a written policy is put out there you can bet your bottom dollar that people will see the figures as targets rather than limits.
Short and sweet.
The CoC is not the place for these suggested range settings. It is a document of rules, not guidelines.
In regard to range requirements a controller should take what they need, not what they would like. If a written policy is put out there you can bet your bottom dollar that people will see the figures as targets rather than limits.
15
General Discussion / Check-In Responsibility
« on: February 06, 2010, 03:16:56 AM »
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Without delving into details, and without naming names, i'll just say this...it doesn't matter who would get emailed, from experience and perception, said person IS untouchable.[/quote]
Sorry, the quote above managed to vanish.
Sorry, the quote above managed to vanish.
Pages: [1] 2