VATFLY - must read

[Steve Kirks]

Folks, before this devolves any further....  We are on the same team, working toward the same goal -- have fun enjoying a hobby that helps others have fun enjoying our hobby.  

I think we can all agree that, as a simulation, we are attempting to simulate the real world as much as practical, given boundaries and limitations of our network, traffic, volunteer nature, etc.  I think we can all agree that emulating a reasonable amount of realism, while giving reasonable flexibility and allowances for the various VATSIMisms, is a good and smart thing to do.  Yes, it's gray.  Yes, it's squishy.  Yes, it's a matter of interpretation, and your mileage may vary based on the leadership/culture in place at each ARTCC.  But the key is to attempt to emulate the real world, within reason, and yet keep it fun and inviting for people to want to participate.  It's like walking on a razor blade, and the line is blurry.  

That said, let's do the best we can to work TOGETHER to be reasonable, respectful and have fun.

In that spirit...

Alex asked for ideas so here goes:

I've been going through the ZLA tests and that's exactly what I'd want to see.  I'd like to have the criteria posted for each rating so I can practice offline, then engage an instructor for a practical test and signoff when complete.  The ZLA tests are perfect (in mind opinion) and easy to understand.

As far as a "side by side" type of option, I don't see the value in that.  If you're the kind of person that wants to get a rating, odds are you already know the basics of flying online.  The current VATSIM pilot ratings are listed with criteria so it seems like the first part is fine.  I guess what I'd have to ask for is a "step by step" like is done for controller ratings.

Ratings should be taught in standard FSX/X-Plane aircraft, like P1 in the C172.  Airliner ops need different pilot ratings because the "rules" are different.  The C172 can teach everyone the basics of aviate, navigate, communicate at a pace easy for new users.  Old-timers will breeze through the simple stuff and move straight to commercial ratings quickly.

Finally, ratings only mean something if there's a stick with the carrot.  It's not like anyone would be prevented from flying on VATSIM if they don't have the rating(s) so it's just bragging rights.  VATSIM policy would have to change in order to motivate people to get the cert in the first place.  If the rating is used to exclue/include pilots from VAs then it seems like it's a different training entirely.

Hope this all made sense.

[Kyle Sanders]

I see you have a great deal of choices throughout the VATUSA devision and I admire what you are trying to do and what you have done previously.

I would like to put my ARTCC out there for a choice as well. ZLC. More specifically the SLC TRACON


As seen in the SkyVector link above, a course of flight that will introduce the following:

__A very large and stacked Class B airspace right in the middle of the TRACON.

__No Class C within the TRACON but take a trip up to KBOI and you get what you want there. (Still within the ARTCC). Two class D airports can be found in the SLC TRACON: KPVU and KOGD. There is also, merging with KOGD, a air force base class D KHIF.

__Both Large and small VFR corridors between the Class B and D airspaces.

__VFR transitions through the class B

__Restricted airspace

__Controlled and uncontrolled fields

__Terrain obstructions

__Cannot see it on a chart but ZLC ARTCC's SLC TRACON has more to offer such as a wide range of weather throughout the year and a FRIENDLY/active CAB and RADAR controller roster


A simple email to the staff concerning scheduled training dates and times could set up an opportunity for both your pilots and our controllers to improve the chances of attendance.

Regardless of your decision, I wish you the best of luck!