211
General Discussion / Best wishes to VATUSA1, VATUSA3, and VATUSA9
« on: February 08, 2010, 10:26:23 PM »I've really enjoyed every minute of Andrew's and Mike's (edit: and Rob's) leadership. I truly mean that.
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.
I've really enjoyed every minute of Andrew's and Mike's (edit: and Rob's) leadership. I truly mean that.
212
General Discussion / Check-In Responsibility
« on: February 08, 2010, 07:22:57 PM »
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--][!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Yet, how amazingly screwed up it has become. This most certainly isn't your father's VATSIM. Too bad, it was such a good place.
Perhaps someone will stand up and fix it.
Best,
JV[/quote]
agreed.
[/quote]
I would have to disagree with the sentiment that VATSIM has become screwed up. Too often in this organization do we tend to look at one issue as if it's going to bring down the network. As RJ said, this network was once a couple of guys who simulated ATC and flying via a now-obsolete version of FS and a now-obsolete program called ProController. The network has obviously expanded, and with expansion comes policy. In no way do I believe the policies enacted thus far create such a burden on anyone to the degree that the network is considered screwy. Anyone can still get on and fly, and anyone can still get on and control with a few hours of training. Nobody has to be involved in the political aspect of VATSIM, but some (including myself) sometimes choose to do so.
Each time an improvement is made to the network, at any level, only a select few seem to come forward and tell those who put work and effort into making the improvement possible. Improvements to the servers; websites of divisions, ARTCCs, FIRs, and ACCs; revisions of policies; and updates to software which we use to more realistically take part in the network happen very frequently -- once a month at the very least.
You can be annoyed by one particular thing that is (or isn't) in the CoC, you can be annoyed at the rather large number of roles filled at any level of the VATSIM bureaucracy (<- which is not a bad word, you know), or you can just be annoyed. But stop dwelling on these minute problems as if we're going to come tumbling down because of them. There are so many good people on and things about this network that make it great, but unfortunately those tend to be overshadowed by a few things that some consider negatives.
I agree with Andrew and many others in that the CoC should include at least a small mention of visibility ranges, if not a fully laid out explanation, if the visibility range issue is indeed fueled by bandwidth cost. (Some say it is, others say it isn't, but I'm not going to go there.) It does not have to be a "suggestion" or a "recommendation" as alluded to by some within this thread. People can simply not be expected to be reasonable with this regulation if there is no written rule about it. If there is something written, even if deemed a matter of interpretation (which I am not saying that it should be), there is at least some substantiation to back up those who enforce this regulation.
I have a suggestion for the BoG if mention of a visibility range is ever considered for entry into the CoC:
"Excessive visibility ranges (or visibility points) may be enforced by SUP- or ADM-rated VATSIM members. "Excessive" is defined as a visibility which exceeds the following conditions:
1.) a viewing of their sector of airspace.
2.) a viewing of the distance at which a handoff is normally initiated to his or her sector of airspace.
In the event that controllers' visibility ranges are deemed excessive with reference to the conditions set forth above, a SUP- or ADM- rated VATSIM member may require them to reduce their visibility range to comply with those conditions."
I really don't know why that is so hard to include. I know that we sometimes have problems with policy, but this is something many of us just don't understand. There's a difference between an annoying policy and a purpose-based policy, and I think (if this is a bandwidth issue) that something like what I wrote is a purpose-based policy.
I would also like to address one other point, which is that it is the responsibility of ARTCC training departments to teach students about the visibility range issue. I spent a year as a Training Administrator in one of the ARTCCs here in VATUSA, and nowhere within any documentation in my ARTCC's archives, in any VATUSA training material, or in any briefing I received from my retiring colleague, VATUSA Regional Director, or VATUSA3 did I ever hear mention of teaching about visibility ranges. I truly would have had my I1s and MTRs incorporate this into training, but I had nothing that requested we do so, verbally or textually. I'm sure not much has changed with regard to the same subject. If indeed this is an issue that should be taught, I believe regions and divisions should be informed (or re-informed) about it somehow.
Perhaps someone will stand up and fix it.
Best,
JV[/quote]
agreed.
[/quote]
I would have to disagree with the sentiment that VATSIM has become screwed up. Too often in this organization do we tend to look at one issue as if it's going to bring down the network. As RJ said, this network was once a couple of guys who simulated ATC and flying via a now-obsolete version of FS and a now-obsolete program called ProController. The network has obviously expanded, and with expansion comes policy. In no way do I believe the policies enacted thus far create such a burden on anyone to the degree that the network is considered screwy. Anyone can still get on and fly, and anyone can still get on and control with a few hours of training. Nobody has to be involved in the political aspect of VATSIM, but some (including myself) sometimes choose to do so.
Each time an improvement is made to the network, at any level, only a select few seem to come forward and tell those who put work and effort into making the improvement possible. Improvements to the servers; websites of divisions, ARTCCs, FIRs, and ACCs; revisions of policies; and updates to software which we use to more realistically take part in the network happen very frequently -- once a month at the very least.
You can be annoyed by one particular thing that is (or isn't) in the CoC, you can be annoyed at the rather large number of roles filled at any level of the VATSIM bureaucracy (<- which is not a bad word, you know), or you can just be annoyed. But stop dwelling on these minute problems as if we're going to come tumbling down because of them. There are so many good people on and things about this network that make it great, but unfortunately those tend to be overshadowed by a few things that some consider negatives.
I agree with Andrew and many others in that the CoC should include at least a small mention of visibility ranges, if not a fully laid out explanation, if the visibility range issue is indeed fueled by bandwidth cost. (Some say it is, others say it isn't, but I'm not going to go there.) It does not have to be a "suggestion" or a "recommendation" as alluded to by some within this thread. People can simply not be expected to be reasonable with this regulation if there is no written rule about it. If there is something written, even if deemed a matter of interpretation (which I am not saying that it should be), there is at least some substantiation to back up those who enforce this regulation.
I have a suggestion for the BoG if mention of a visibility range is ever considered for entry into the CoC:
"Excessive visibility ranges (or visibility points) may be enforced by SUP- or ADM-rated VATSIM members. "Excessive" is defined as a visibility which exceeds the following conditions:
1.) a viewing of their sector of airspace.
2.) a viewing of the distance at which a handoff is normally initiated to his or her sector of airspace.
In the event that controllers' visibility ranges are deemed excessive with reference to the conditions set forth above, a SUP- or ADM- rated VATSIM member may require them to reduce their visibility range to comply with those conditions."
I really don't know why that is so hard to include. I know that we sometimes have problems with policy, but this is something many of us just don't understand. There's a difference between an annoying policy and a purpose-based policy, and I think (if this is a bandwidth issue) that something like what I wrote is a purpose-based policy.
I would also like to address one other point, which is that it is the responsibility of ARTCC training departments to teach students about the visibility range issue. I spent a year as a Training Administrator in one of the ARTCCs here in VATUSA, and nowhere within any documentation in my ARTCC's archives, in any VATUSA training material, or in any briefing I received from my retiring colleague, VATUSA Regional Director, or VATUSA3 did I ever hear mention of teaching about visibility ranges. I truly would have had my I1s and MTRs incorporate this into training, but I had nothing that requested we do so, verbally or textually. I'm sure not much has changed with regard to the same subject. If indeed this is an issue that should be taught, I believe regions and divisions should be informed (or re-informed) about it somehow.
213
The Control Room Floor / Headsets
« on: January 17, 2010, 08:07:22 PM »
I'm definitely going to consider those pink eartubes.
214
The Control Room Floor / "Position And Hold" Change Expected Soon
« on: January 14, 2010, 06:47:16 PM »
What's the source of this article?
Does "line up and wait" really work better than the ages-old "position and hold?" Is there NTSB data to show that?
Does "line up and wait" really work better than the ages-old "position and hold?" Is there NTSB data to show that?
215
The Classroom (Controller Tips) / Recording ATIS
« on: January 12, 2010, 07:00:18 PM »
I remember reading this when it first came out, and I can attest to the fact that it helped me create better ATISs.
There are a few common things I hear as ATC (I stalk other ATIS frequencies when I can see them in VRC ) and as a pilot.
What not to do:
- Prefixing the zulu time with "time," followed by the numbers.
- Saying "winds" instead of "wind." In VRC, ATISMaker by default has the text "winds," which is a big reason for this small error.
- Saying "knots" after the wind velocity.
- Saying "ten" instead of "one zero" when visibility is 10SM/unrestricted (I think all AO2 stations report unrestricted visibility as 10SM).
- Saying "statue miles" after the visibility.
- Saying Scattered/Broken/Overcast Clouds at ... instead of the altitude followed by the type of cloud. The exception is Few clouds as AJ pointed out.
- When a temperature or dewpoint is reported as 05, for instance, saying the zero before five. It should just be "visibility five."
- Saying "degrees Celsius" or "Celsius" or "centigrade" after both the temperatures and dewpoints.
One thing I absolutely can't stand is when controllers will only specify active (landing/departing) runways, but they don't specify the approach in use, even when an approach controller is online. It is not necessary to restate "landing runways" if you specify the approach(es) in use. Ex: "ILS Runway 27 Approach in use. Departing Runway 26L."
Things I used to tell my students:
1.) In an ATIS, you don't have to specify the measurement unit (statute miles, Celsius, inches mercury, etc.) for those items that are read in the ATIS. Visibility is always in statute miles, temperatures and dewpoints are always in degrees Celsius, etc. All of this is standardized across the board and is assumed by the pilot.
2.) ATISMaker contains the most basic elements of a voice ATIS, but you can add or change things depending on the situation. Change "winds" to "wind," always check for precipitation in the ATIS and type it in AND record it into the ATIS (there isn't a variable for precipitation as far as I'm aware), and add the approach in use.
3.) Pause for a few seconds to indicate you're finished with the ATIS.
4.) Play the ATIS once through to check for errors in the recording. Re-record the ATIS if the problem distorts or erases a critical part of the ATIS.
There are a few common things I hear as ATC (I stalk other ATIS frequencies when I can see them in VRC ) and as a pilot.
What not to do:
- Prefixing the zulu time with "time," followed by the numbers.
- Saying "winds" instead of "wind." In VRC, ATISMaker by default has the text "winds," which is a big reason for this small error.
- Saying "knots" after the wind velocity.
- Saying "ten" instead of "one zero" when visibility is 10SM/unrestricted (I think all AO2 stations report unrestricted visibility as 10SM).
- Saying "statue miles" after the visibility.
- Saying Scattered/Broken/Overcast Clouds at ... instead of the altitude followed by the type of cloud. The exception is Few clouds as AJ pointed out.
- When a temperature or dewpoint is reported as 05, for instance, saying the zero before five. It should just be "visibility five."
- Saying "degrees Celsius" or "Celsius" or "centigrade" after both the temperatures and dewpoints.
One thing I absolutely can't stand is when controllers will only specify active (landing/departing) runways, but they don't specify the approach in use, even when an approach controller is online. It is not necessary to restate "landing runways" if you specify the approach(es) in use. Ex: "ILS Runway 27 Approach in use. Departing Runway 26L."
Things I used to tell my students:
1.) In an ATIS, you don't have to specify the measurement unit (statute miles, Celsius, inches mercury, etc.) for those items that are read in the ATIS. Visibility is always in statute miles, temperatures and dewpoints are always in degrees Celsius, etc. All of this is standardized across the board and is assumed by the pilot.
2.) ATISMaker contains the most basic elements of a voice ATIS, but you can add or change things depending on the situation. Change "winds" to "wind," always check for precipitation in the ATIS and type it in AND record it into the ATIS (there isn't a variable for precipitation as far as I'm aware), and add the approach in use.
3.) Pause for a few seconds to indicate you're finished with the ATIS.
4.) Play the ATIS once through to check for errors in the recording. Re-record the ATIS if the problem distorts or erases a critical part of the ATIS.
216
The Classroom (Controller Tips) / Clearance Delivery Tips
« on: January 11, 2010, 08:15:22 PM »
Oh, whoops. Brad and I have already covered the heading-in-clearance debate, and of course, I forgot what he had already said before I basically restated everything I said before. I skipped right to the latest posts and went from there. Sorry, Brad! Edited that part out as it's been covered already.
217
The Classroom (Controller Tips) / Clearance Delivery Tips
« on: January 11, 2010, 08:09:43 PM »
Jonah, -- and I mean this in a non-disrespectful but matter-of-factual way -- I'm not entirely sure that you're whole thing about "not getting our panties in a wad" is 100% valid, because you cite two phraseology references that you don't seem to particularly care much about, but then you posted an incorrect claim about "as filed" and post a clearance delivery with several errors. As mentors and instructors (I was a mentor, instructor, and training administrator for a few years before changing ARTCCs), we should really try to teach 100% by the book (either the 7110.65 or the real-world facility adaptions of it). And I understand that what you typed is not necessarily what is always taught or said over VATSIM frequencies, but in the interest of keeping these tips correct for students who may utilize them, I changed the clearances to comply with what is published in the .65. My intention is, again, not to undermine anything you said, but to make sure what is said to students is as correct as we can make it.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]JBU321, Orlando Clearance Delivery, cleared to the Baltimore Washington Int'l Airport;via the McCoy Niner Departure, Savanah Transition, THEN AS FILED, maintain 5000 expect flight level 330 in 10 one-zero minutes after departure. Departure frequency 125.95, squawk 1704.[/quote]
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]JBU321, Orlando Clearance Delivery, cleared to the Baltimore Washington Int'l Airportvia radar vectors to Savanah, THEN AS FILED. Maintain 5000 expect flight level 330 in 10 one-zero minutes after departure. Departure frequency 125.95, squawk 1704.[/quote]
There isn't a mention of saying something like "...radar vectors to XXX, as filed," but there is a clear difference among examples when the 7110.65S indicates to use "then as filed" versus "as filed." It seems as if when any part of the route is read, it is followed by "then as filed." Otherwise routes are simply said "as filed" when no SID is assigned. I've never heard a controller issue a clearance that states "radar vectors to XXX, as filed." Logically it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because nobody "files" for radar vectors. Additionally it can cause problems if the controller states the wrong "radar vectors to XXX" navaid and follows with "as filed." "Then as filed" implies a continuation of a route, but it is not used to restate a route or confirm that what a controller just said ("radar vectors to...") was filed in a flight plan. I could go on for days, because clearly I'm a bit obsessed with this stuff, but really this is the only thing in the air. The rest of the points made are pretty solid.
Quote
Cleared to Reynolds Airport; David Two RNAV Departure, Kingham Transition; then, as filed. Maintain niner thousand. Expect flight level four one zero, one zero minutes after departure.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]JBU321, Orlando Clearance Delivery, cleared to the Baltimore Washington Int'l Airport;
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]JBU321, Orlando Clearance Delivery, cleared to the Baltimore Washington Int'l Airport
There isn't a mention of saying something like "...radar vectors to XXX, as filed," but there is a clear difference among examples when the 7110.65S indicates to use "then as filed" versus "as filed." It seems as if when any part of the route is read, it is followed by "then as filed." Otherwise routes are simply said "as filed" when no SID is assigned. I've never heard a controller issue a clearance that states "radar vectors to XXX, as filed." Logically it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because nobody "files" for radar vectors. Additionally it can cause problems if the controller states the wrong "radar vectors to XXX" navaid and follows with "as filed." "Then as filed" implies a continuation of a route, but it is not used to restate a route or confirm that what a controller just said ("radar vectors to...") was filed in a flight plan. I could go on for days, because clearly I'm a bit obsessed with this stuff, but really this is the only thing in the air. The rest of the points made are pretty solid.
218
The Control Room Floor / Headsets
« on: December 29, 2009, 02:51:10 PM »Quote from: AJ Heiser
Is this the PTT you're talking about or is it another one (preferably cheaper)No, this is not it. You'll want to get one with a USB adapter. The two-pronged adapter is for use in aviation radios found in ATC facilities and aircraft.
http://headsetplus.com/product466/product_info.html
219
The Control Room Floor / Headsets
« on: December 29, 2009, 01:49:23 PM »
Hi AJ,
I've got one. I love it. In addition to this, real world controllers use an amplifier with a push-to-talk button. For the purpose of connecting it to your computer, there are two options:
DA50 USB Adapter
- doesn't have a push-to-talk, but the computer (and subsequently VRC) detects the headset as a USB device, and you simply use a designated push-to-talk button on your keyboard. $90 at this site (http://www.etelephonesystems.com/info/headset/da50/PLA-DA55.html), but it looks as if these may have been discontinued.
PLANTRONICS SHS2355-01 USB PTT MONAURAL
- I didn't know this was an option when I first bought the DA50, but this does the same thing as the DA50 with the added feature of a push-to-talk button on the actual product. I would honestly much rather have this one, but they're more expensive (about $140 on eBay right now and $160 from the Plantronics store). After connecting it to your computer, I believe you have to set up an emulator to designate the onboard PTT button as a key on your keyboard. Therefore when you press the PTT on the unit, VRC will "see" it as you pressing whatever keyboard key you've designated for PTT in your radar client.
I've got one. I love it. In addition to this, real world controllers use an amplifier with a push-to-talk button. For the purpose of connecting it to your computer, there are two options:
DA50 USB Adapter
- doesn't have a push-to-talk, but the computer (and subsequently VRC) detects the headset as a USB device, and you simply use a designated push-to-talk button on your keyboard. $90 at this site (http://www.etelephonesystems.com/info/headset/da50/PLA-DA55.html), but it looks as if these may have been discontinued.
PLANTRONICS SHS2355-01 USB PTT MONAURAL
- I didn't know this was an option when I first bought the DA50, but this does the same thing as the DA50 with the added feature of a push-to-talk button on the actual product. I would honestly much rather have this one, but they're more expensive (about $140 on eBay right now and $160 from the Plantronics store). After connecting it to your computer, I believe you have to set up an emulator to designate the onboard PTT button as a key on your keyboard. Therefore when you press the PTT on the unit, VRC will "see" it as you pressing whatever keyboard key you've designated for PTT in your radar client.
220
General Discussion / New United States domestic flight regulations
« on: December 27, 2009, 02:47:54 PM »Quote from: Mike Bertolini
Exactly, thanks for filling me in! Sorry for the late response, I was told this by a ZBW Controller, and also saw it some news TV show, (CNN, FOX, something like that)Yea, what was weird is that the smaller media outlets (NPR, Bloomberg, and the local site linked in response to my original reply) started reporting it first before CNN and ABCNews. I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the other majors, though. The TSA still doesn't have this directive on their website, though. A lot of it seems to be speculative, although it's clear something was sent out to international airlines.
221
General Discussion / New United States domestic flight regulations
« on: December 26, 2009, 11:30:50 PM »
Well, I guess this actually does have some legitimacy. I simply couldn't believe it that this was actually a security directive, particularly when it comes to enforcement on the aircraft. Hopefully that's only temporary. Again, sorry Mike, but I just couldn't believe it!
222
General Discussion / New United States domestic flight regulations
« on: December 26, 2009, 02:53:46 PM »Quote from: Mike Bertolini
Hey All,Sorry Mike, but this is complete bogus. What is your source? All local media is reporting the attempted terror plot over Detroit from yesterday as their top story, and I have not heard anything about this new "regulation."
Just if no one heared, but the FAA put a new regulation for flying (real world). The new regulation is, for the last 1 hour of the flight, you can not get up, or have anything in your lap ( not even a newpaper or snack).
Just a few words of wisdom for any of your flying soon, so that you're not questioned!
Hope this helps, in the real world!
Mike Bertolini
TSA.gov - nothing
FAA.gov - nothing
223
General Discussion / Party at the FAA!
« on: December 23, 2009, 10:02:35 AM »Quote from: Jeff Thomas
I find these types of one sided articles annoying, unprofessional, and just plain drivel.Maybe, but considering that the guys on StuckMic got the new policy pretty much figured out by posting in forums, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for this agency to spend $5m to do the same thing.
Anybody who has been to ANY conference ever, knows how these things are. You spend 8 hours of a day roaming a vast conference hall going from one lecture to another hoping to pull out a few nuggets to take back home with you. It is long. It is tiring. Then you go out at night. I'd like to know how many of these after school parties were sponsored events by vendors?
Anyway, these guys work extremely hard, and deserve a break every now and then. I'd rather blow $5 million on these guys than that stupid trip to Copenhagen. Notice nobody is saying how much they blew for THAT party...and I guarantee you it was a LOT worse than a few hookers..... AND they accomplished NOTHING except to reinforce everyone's impression that the US Government can't scratch it's own ass.
224
General Discussion / Party at the FAA!
« on: December 22, 2009, 02:17:06 PM »
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/party-time-f...0933&page=1
Miley should do a remix:
So I put my hands up, they're playin my song, the butterflies fly away...yeah-ah-ah-ah. It's a party in the FAA.
Miley should do a remix:
So I put my hands up, they're playin my song, the butterflies fly away...yeah-ah-ah-ah. It's a party in the FAA.
225
The Control Room Floor / VRC recieving and send text SLOW
« on: December 17, 2009, 09:54:54 PM »Quote from: Johnny Guarino
Every time i send or a pilot text me on the Freq. for a text only pilot it takeVERY long to send and for me to get it? PLEASE HELP! THXHi Johnny,
You might want to take this to the VATSIM Forums' VRC Help Board (forums.vatsim.net <<-- login with VATSIM CID and VATSIM password).