Zach,

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.

Ah, I see, that's understandable now.  I guess revised wording would be "Since we base our operations on the RW, I don't understand why proportionally minor changes in the RW become large issues in VATSIM, when they don't affect the services we offer to our members. When it is practical to do so for VATSIM, let's adopt the RW changes uniformly and move on with other issues."

Marcus, I will fall over dead from the shock that there are actually 2 aircraft at one of the fields on the list!  

Which I think is the point, Kris.  My two cents are this:  these fields are negligible when it comes to operations. The combined total of the list MAY receive a handful of operations a month. Instead of dwelling over this and coming up with a system that is not uniform and consistent across the division, why not just say, "Alright, they're closed" and move on.  It's no different than reflecting Runway Closure NOTAMs.  I know of a situation to where a runway was closed for an entire year on VATSIM because it was also closed in the RW.  I  don't see why we base our operations on the RW, and then once the RW does something different (particularly something relatively minor like this) it becomes a huge deal. Simply adopt what is practical from the RW, which includes any changes that occur.

 We are still providing the same level of service to the pilot's who use those fields, but instead we now provide the services of a Class E airfield (non-towered) instead of controlled, towered airfield. The only real changes are not clearing aircraft to land and depart, not maintaining a ground control, and VFR Flight Followings are advised to change to advisory with field in sight.  IFR Aircraft still get approaches into the field (then turned to UNICOM for landing), except the age old one in one out rule now applies.  Aircraft on the ground can still get IFR Clearances, just utilizing the departure release method.  There are plenty of still operational Class D fields to get the experience of VFR/IFR Class D.  We are not taking anything away that changes any actual operations, it's all just procedural.

I guess in short, my viewpoint of it is this:  the closing of the towers really doesn't effect anything, just a minor procedural change.  These fields get little traffic, and a majority of IFR Services can still be provided utilizing Class E non-towered methods. Over complicating simple practices are just unnecessary, especially in this instance. I am in favor of simulating these closures with the transition time Don has proposed, and then moving on to more pressing matters.

What can I say Mark...I am not surprised one bit!  Working with you for the past 4 years, and as your DATM for the past almost 2, has been an absolute pleasure.  Memphis truly is losing a great leader.  Best of luck in the Western Region, I know you will excel in your new role!

thanks guys, we got it worked out.  rw.liveact.net is apparently not a voice server   He failed to catch it, but we have it all fixed now.  Appreciate the input!

Mr. Flairty...congrats!

I know, i've been waiting for the release of the PMDG for months and months and it seems to just drag on.  It looks like it will be an awesome plane but after looking at the ifly the other day it almost doesn't seem worth waiting any longer lol.

It is not exactly my place to interject here, nor do I usually get involved in conversations such as these because most of them are pointless.  However having the experience of being a DATM and recieving some of these same complaints about the ARTCC Staff is compelling me to comment.

"I find it sad and extremely disrespectful that senior members of this community can not or will not take the time to answer simple questions/requests posted in this forum or elsewhere through out Vatusa."

+1.  The guys heading VATUSA, in my opinion, are very good and are doing everything they can to ensure smooth sucessful opertaion of the division.  However, with that being said, I feel the same way.  There is nothing wrong about answering a few questions or addressing concerns that some people in the division may have.  Personally I see the staff as representatives, making sure that our hobby is fun, enjoyable, realistic, and smooth sailing.  However as representatives, it comes with a responsibility of informing your community members.  

"With regards to the vacancies of the Training Director and ATD spot, where's the problem?"

+1.  The ATD and TD spots have in the past been solicitated for by the Senior Staff, so I have no doubt that applications will be accepted for the jobs in due time.  Tom Seeley is performing the duties of VATUSA3, and performing those duties well.  When the director is ready to add to his team he will do so, and from where I sit, the operation of VATUSA has not been hindered due to the lack of those jobs.  Same goes for VATUSA2 position.  It does not matter who the deputy director is, and I do believe that John is correct in that it gives them access to certain parts of the site that would otherwise be hidden.  The lack of these two positions does not prevent anyone or anything from operating.  From pilots to controllers to ARTCC staff to VATUSA staff.

"Information and communication is important"

+2. Communicating with the members is very important as is being visible.  I can recall past Directors being very active in the public view and recall some who have not been.  This is not to say those who are not visible to the public do not do a great job.  However once again it is just my personal opinion and personal experiences that lead me to say that having an open door policy is the only policy to have.  If there are expectations of monthly reports and timely updates, then I would say those obligations need to be met.  Same with addressing any questions or problems that a majority or minority of the VATUSA members have.  A simple forum post does not take more than a few minutes, however there are some topics better left to die. So if these reports aren't going to be generated or published, then just close the program and move on.  Why let a dead limb hang on, just chop it off.

"Since my original post on the 22nd of April, over 300 have viewed the post which indicates to me the interest in the State of our Community"\

+1 to John and +1 to Michael.  I think that comparitively speaking, the original post (In two days might I add) has recieved 300 views whereas some topics have recieved 25% of that in a month.  This does show interest in the post, good or bad, it is a much viewed topic.  However John is correct in that views do not represent people and 10 members viewing this 30 times is not the same as 300 members viewing it once.  Regardless, there are more views to this topic, showing greater interest in the conversation, once again, good or bad.

These are just my two sense on the two opposing sides of the arguement.  I know which side im on but its not my personality or place to openly disclose it.  Im simply pointing out the good parts of both arguements.  The only reason I'm posting to begin with is because I feel obligated to share my views after having the experience of dealing with these same problems at an ARTCC level.  I hope that everyone (Not just Staff) will take the best of both sides and compromise, as there is no reason to get all worked up over a very fun, afternoon hobby.  What happens, happens and if it is the will of the staff then I say hey, they are trusted with the position, lets let them know our concerns and position, and then trust the leaders to lead.  If it works out great!  If not, good try.  And those that complain should apply for the openings.  Because the only way to change things and to get results is to be active, be involved, be sensible, and follow the system.  If you don't like it, change it.

Phew.  All done!  

I have reinstalled both Squawkbox and the CS757, but nothing so im giving up.  Im getting a new computer in the coming months and hopefully a fresh install of everything will fix the issue.  Thanks Scott!