I am not familiar with the operations in LAX, and don't know if they are supposed to give clearance at John Wayne or not. But in New York Area, we have this one airport, Linden (KLDJ) which doesn't have a tower and all IFR clearances are handled by it's much bigger neighbor, Newark Liberty International Airport (KEWR). LDJ traffic calls EWR DEL and says "Newark Delivery, N1234 at Linden, requesting IFR clearance to ...". That applies both to real world and VATSIM.

I don't know the answer. But I was thinking, how can you figure that out? Here is how I would do it:

1) Go to an airport where magnetic declination is large (e.g. in South Africa, where it is around 30 degrees).

2) Move your aircraft next to the windsock.

3) While in the cockpit view (F9 in FSX) take note of the current magnetic heading of your aircraft (use the compass or the gyro).

4) Set the wind to blow from the same heading at 15 knots or more.

5) Switch to the outside view (F12 in FSX). Zoom in/out as needed, until you can see both the aircraft and the windsock.

6) Are the windsock and the aircraft parallel to each other? If yes, it means your simulator is simulating the winds using magnetic heading. If no, (i.e. if you see the windsock at a 30 degree angle to your aircraft) then it is using true headings for wind.

I really, really hope that all simulator use *true* heading.

To my knowledge, the "one in one out" rule is only mandatory for IFR operations at UNCONTROLLED fields. It means if Approach clears an IFR aircraft to land at an airport, it cannot allow another IFR aircraft to depart at the same time. It must wait for the landing traffic to report on the ground (or missed approach) before releasing the other traffic for departure. I have never read anywhere in 7110 that Class D operations must also follow this. The fact that many of them do could be a letter-of-agreement kind of thing.

Visual separation cannot be applied for final approach at uncontrolled fields. Para 7-2-1 a-2 indicates that pilot applied visual separation can only be used if communication is maintained with at least one aircraft; you cannot do that with uncontrolled field operations, because the aircraft MUST be transferred to advisories for final approach. This is because the aircraft must announce itself on CTAF frequency, so other IFR/VFR traffic in the vicinity of that airport can maintain separation.

I am eager to see if there is another FAA documents that specifies this is mandatory at all Class D airports.

If you want to expand on your knowledge and skills, and are up for new challenges, I recommend that you visit those ARTCCs that have complex airspaces, such as ZNY, ZDC, or ZOA. These all have major airports that are very close to each other and get a lot of traffic (e.g. JFK/LGA/EWR in ZNY, or BWI/DCA/IAD in ZDC, or SFO/OAK in ZOA). This means you not only see a good deal of traffic and gain experience, but also learn how complex airspaces interact with each other.

Well that is good Brain. To me it means that unlike the average 13 year-olds you have a lot of what is needed to become a VATSIM controller: patience.

Just because an ARTCC has a lot of free instructors today, it doesn't mean they will also have some two months from now. You gotta be patience to go through this.

The star is red and blue. The blue is a dark muted blue, is everybody seeing it as grey? I'll have to tweak it I guess.

It is up to you. The color code for that muted blue is R=67, G=77, B=87, so it is very much grey with a tiny hint of navy blue. Compare that with the color used in standard US flag: R=60, G=60, B=110.

The red is also a bit off; you have 216,52,58 while the red in US flag is really 180,35,50.

Here is yours:

[img]http://i59.tinypic.com/118hykn.png\\\" border=\\\"0\\\" class=\\\"linked-image\\\" /]

Here is yours if you had used standard US flag colors:

[img]http://i60.tinypic.com/2lc2o9y.png\\\" border=\\\"0\\\" class=\\\"linked-image\\\" /]

I agree with Dimitri.

Also, I don't completely agree with the way we are designing and selecting logos here. Graphic design is not something everyone can opine on, with all due respect.

I recommend reading http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/06/12...signing-a-logo/ and paying special attention to rules #4 (clever use of colors), #9 (keep it simple) and #3 (size matters). Most of the proposed logos don't meet at least one of those three very basic rules.

I also recommend presenting the logos in at least two different sizes: a small one that would go on the top left of documents (like PDFs) which would be no more than 200px wide, and a larger one to be used on top of the web pages. If a logo looks anything but great in the smaller size, it should be thrown away. Again, that applies to some of the proposed logos.

If anyone is offended by my comments above, I am sorry but you should take it personally. If you are designing logos that don't meet those basic ideas, you are trying to do something you have no clue how to do.

One project is a revitalized website.

Please tell that another project is to change the forums to something which doesn't have a dark background!

This goes for both the forums and some of the suggested logos: we do not live in 1900s! The era of "hey everyone does a white background, but I'm going to make it special and give it a dark background" has passed. The era of "let's have 10 colors and 20 lines in our logo" has also passed. Simplicity and standardization are now key parts of web design. I'm sure VATUSA6 and VATUSA12 would agree.