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.

Messages - Harold Rutila

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
General Discussion / Our Teamspeak Environments are in Shambles
« on: June 12, 2014, 10:12:30 PM »
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]When senior staff are cussing out other ARTCC staff members, and talk of "coup de'tats" of other ARTCCs come up I start to get worried about our priorities and principles as VATSIM members, but that's another discussion.[/quote]
It's not really another discussion if your complaint is centered around TS behavior. It's best to just bring it up with the ARTCC's regional director or Don rather than making a generic post where nobody knows who you're specifically complaining about. Unless you visited over 50% of the ARTCCs and seen the same behavior, it's hard for someone like me to look at this and say "We have a widespread problem in VATUSA." It's likely just one or two ARTCCs that need a little work.

Quote from: Mark Taylor ZHU
The instructor may also want to consider visually checking the checklist as the student performs it to prevent this from happening again, or something similar. After all, the instructor is the PIC...
The student moved the switches to the OFF position on downwind, without telling his instructor. It sounds like everything was kosher at the completion of the after-takeoff checklist.

The instructor may want to consider teaching the student how to do those personal checks. The student may want to consider asking about the fuel selectors considering it sounds like he tried to turn them off again after the engines came back!  

The Control Room Floor / "Descend Via"
« on: November 18, 2013, 09:20:55 PM »
Quote from: Tim Farrell
This statement pretty much sums it up. It can be found in the 7110.65 4-7-1 Altitude Information -

A descend via clearance must not be used where procedures contain published “expect” altitude restrictions.
This is the proper response to the question on DEN's procedures. The POWDR, LANDR, LARKS, QUAIL, SAYGE, TOMSN, RAMMS, and DANDD arrivals all have "Expect clearance to cross" information printed on the chart. We issue "Cross [fix] at and maintain [altitude]." Our new RNAV arrivals have crossing altitudes that make the use of "Descend via" appropriate.

[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Kris Kendrick)--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE (Kris Kendrick)[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I think the important thing to understand is that the LOA's are set up in the RW to maximize flow and efficiency. I am a firm believer that our LOA's do not necessarily have to be a carbon copy of the RW, as long as it works for us in the environment that we are working in.[/quote]
The only thing that would be in an LOA would be crossing altitudes in the case of STARs with "Expect to cross [fix]" information. The use of "Descend via" would be contained in a facility SOP or addressed to controllers in training. I get your point, however.

The Control Room Floor / "Descend Via"
« on: November 03, 2013, 10:50:39 AM »
ZLA has been using it for years. ZDV just started about a year ago with the introduction of RNAV STARs. "Climb via" is not approved. An IFR clearance containing an RNAV SID implies that the pilot will climb via the procedure unless otherwise instructed. I spoke to an FAA employee who works directly with the .65 a few months back, and he said there are numerous squabbles within the FAA as to how they want to address handling of RNAV procedures on the whole. I'd expect some changes within the next few years compared to how things are done now.

I'm not trying to be a pessimist, but is there any evidence that MS was actively working on FS11? The petition asks Microsoft to "resume" work on it, but I don't even believe there was any work done on it period.

There's also a license now that Lockheed owns which may prevent Microsoft from doing anything with the series. It may be best to show Lockheed that there is demand for this type of product.

General Discussion / which ARTCC is best?
« on: July 26, 2013, 12:18:18 PM »
Quote from: Goce Nikolovski
I have no idea about the traffic flow ,, and want to know which one is the busiest one,, because when I log in, I want to control continuously,, not to worry about no traffic in the area. So, what do u think?
Anyway I am new in VATSIM, and just beginning with my training.
Even in the real world you'll have significant periods where there will be little or no traffic. It's nothing to really worry about.

The Control Room Floor / How do you read?
« on: May 31, 2013, 11:00:12 AM »
"How do you read" when you file /R/ is the result of people filing /R/ and sometimes /V/ when they actually meant to file /T/. /R/ pilots sometimes send a text, to which ATC responds on voice, and then 5 minutes later the same pilot sends another text, usually something like "?????" Sometimes we have to check to make sure you're really able to receive voice as it says in the flight plan remarks.

General Discussion / Telephonic ATIS terminated?
« on: March 27, 2013, 03:55:26 PM »
Quote from: Tom Seeley
Looks like maybe the feds have pulled the plug on several telephone ATIS in presumably another "cost saving" measure.
I've routinely used those numbers when controlling to sync my info with RW landing configs, mostly at KBOS. But BOS, ORD, IAD have all been disco'd. LAX, EWR, DTW, & MSP are still up.
Wow, that's an odd move. Denver is still up, too. I use it for the same thing   .


I think a number of us were confused when you said "I don't get why we base our operations on the real world... ," after Don had said we will be (to an extent). I think that was the basis of Rahul and Marcus's responses, though I can't really speak for them. Re-reading your quote it looks like you meant to say something else -- that this isn't a big deal. I agree.

Zach, based on your last response, you're definitely worrying about the wrong things to standardize.

[blockquote]Class E (P/CG "Controlled Airspace" #5) = controlled airspace. May be non-towered, but it is indeed controlled with non-radar separation for IFR flights until radar separation can be provided, if ever.

Handoff (.65 5-4-1) = transfer or radar identification from one controller to another. Accomplished physically with an index finger, verbally with a phone call or otherwise, or automatically with the radar system.

Radio communication transfer (.65 2-1-7) = "Contact Saginaw Approach on 126.45."[/blockquote]
The last two are not the same thing!

The comment about real world procedures was also a little off base given that your boss just said we will be using the real world procedure. That for another day...

The Classroom (Controller Tips) / Hazardous Weather Information
« on: July 07, 2012, 11:11:42 PM »
Another can use the Java AIRMET/SIGMET viewer if you'd prefer not to scroll through a bunch of text. IRL the weather displays in towers and centers automatically grab the appropriate SIGMETs for the area and put them on the computer display or send it to the flight strip printer. --> SIGMET/AIRMET --> Java Tool

Mouse over the SIGMET/AIRMET icons to get the full details on the advisories.

General Discussion / Traffic Request
« on: June 28, 2012, 04:38:49 PM »
I am requesting some traffic tonight at the Colorado Springs (COS) airport to provide traffic for S3 radar training. Any types of traffic would be great, including VFR departures, arrivals, practice approaches, overflights; IFR operations; helos; whatever else you want to bring. We'll be on from 7:30-9:30 PM Mountain.


NOTAMs / New ZDV ATM Selected
« on: June 01, 2012, 03:13:16 PM »
Congrats, Nils!

Quote from: Charan Kumar
Why would they delete an acft designator? Does that mean the acft lost it's air-worthiness certificate?
It's an ICAO thing. Since those codes are administered by ICAO, the FAA has to reflect the changes if they are to keep those appendices accurate. Not sure as to why things are changing, though. I also find it weird that they're using an asterisk in some codes now.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19