-
Posts
299 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Robert G - 812419
-
-
On the subject of YBSU.
I have uploaded a current scenery for Sunshine Coast to the XPlane Scenery Gateway and it has been approved and recommended for inclusion in the next XPlane update.
-
1
-
-
@John Golin hi JG I PM'd you did you get it?
-
In that case Brett my point about training is even more relevant.
The basic approach a pilot must be able to fly - irrespective of the size of the aircraft - is a Visual approach. I take your point about pilots just flying an instrument approach because they know nothing different.
Yet an ATC must be able to provide all services - thats part of the training and rating system. However there is no rating/checking system for pilots so this issue wont go away.
-
1
-
-
Not forgetting Brett that airliners can also do visual approaches. Just because its an airliner does not mean they are not eligible for VSAs. They are done today.
And perhaps if more attention was paid to the VSA more people would not only understand it but actually use it - correctly.
-
This is straight out of AIP ENR and really is quite straight forward and specific. There are also a few extra requirements than have been explained in previous posts. Also it is not a requirement to be in VMC - they are different conditions from what is stated below.
ENR 1.1-26
"2.11.3 VISUAL APPROACH
2.11.3.1 ATC Authorisation. Except as detailed in para 2.11.3.2, the criteria under which visual approaches may be authorised by ATC are as follows:
a. For an IFR flight:
(1) By day when:
– the aircraft is within 30NM of the aerodrome; and
– the pilot has established and can continue flight to the aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the ground or water; and
– visibility along the flight path is not less than 5,000M, or for helicopters 800M, or the aerodrome is in sight.
(2) By night when:
– the pilot has established and can continue flight to the aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the ground or water; and
– visibility along the flight path is not less than 5,000M; and
– the aircraft is within 30NM of the aerodrome; or
– if being vectored, the flight has been assigned the MVA and given heading or tracking instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft within the circling area of the aerodrome.
b. For a VFR flight by day and night, the aircraft is within 30NM of the aerodrome."and then the tracking requirements for an aircraft authourised to conduct a visual approach:
2.11.3.4 Tracking Requirements for visual approach. Except when on
a STAR, the pilot must maintain track/heading on the route
progressively authorised by ATC until:
a. by day, within 5NM of the aerodrome; or
b. by night, the aerodrome is in sight and the aircraft is within:
(1) the prescribed circling area for an IFR flight; or
(2) 3NM of the aerodrome for a VFR flight
From this position the circuit must be joined as directed by ATC
for an approach to the nominated runway.
2.11.3.5 When tracking via a STAR and subsequently cleared for visual
approach, the pilot must continue to follow the lateral profile of
the STAR, including any visual or instrument termination route.So when an approach controller says to an aircraft "Report inflight conditions" if the Visual conditions can be met just say VISUAL or if not then In Cloud. The other side of this is that it is a pilot responsibility to report inflight conditions to APP on first contact. So if initially the pilot is IMC and subsequently becomes visual (per requirements)then the pilot should report Visual to approach if VSA' are running.
If pilots and ATC are having issues with this then perhaps the syllabus needs to be reviewed and more emphasis put on training this if it is indeed an issue.
For ATC there are extra requirements at night regarding vectoring, altitude assignment and tracking.
This needs to be well understood by ATC and pilots alike as it is usually the bread and butter approach flown.
My 2.2 cents worth (GST inc)
-
been checked for COVID Paul??
Ive sent a PM to Blake so just waiting for response. See a doctor mate about that cough or give up the Winnie Reds
-
would that be the VASO perchance?
-
Jesse
I agree with Blair initially use the schools headsets.
However if you intend making a career of flying once you decide I would recommend a Dave Clark headset. They are expensive but they will last you throughout your flying life time. I still have and use mine I bought in 1982 - its had a few repairs and bits replaced but it still performs like new.
-
I know this is an older thread (bit like the OP -
) but I have to say that as a 35 year ATC and having used the original Eurocat system for almost 10 years in Brisbane, I take my hat off to you Jake for the development of this wonderful product.
Ive been away from VATSIM controlling for quite some time while working OS and after talking with Grandad (aka Scanno) he told me to try Vatsys.
This is about as close as I think anyone has come to the way we worked with Eurocat. It is so easy to setup and use - especially with the aid of the online docs and a bit of help from other users. (Scanno again if he's out of bed or can remember)
It is obvious this is such a benefit for all online ATC.
Thanks again Jake (and your team?) for providing this gem to the community.
Well done. You must be very proud of what you have achieved.
-
1
-
-
Hi Cameron
I use the Logitech wireless headset which I find to be a very good item. Pricing is about your range from memory.
-
1
-
-
Hello all.
Just enquiring about any info on the VATPAX update alluded to by Tom in his NOTAM last year. Any info appreciated thanks.
-
Hello all . An old thread but here are a few more I am continually hearing when on-line:
ATC verifying a level: Should be "Verify level" NOT Report level passing - level verification is a precise request and comes with certain obligations for the pilot and ATC.
When instructed to contact the next sector: All a pilot need say is "Melbourne centre, Charger 10 FL390". Not "Melbourne centre Charger 10 with you.
The increasing use of ten thousand not One Zero thousand.
When assigning climb or descent: Climb TO FL340 or descend TO FL120 - many ATC and pilots are not using the word TO. It was inserted years ago for a very good safety reason.
Both ATC and pilots not using correct callsigns - a safety issue IRL
And the good old Americanism (ATC) Squawk Code 2234 and the ensuing Pilot response 2234 in the box.
Have a great day! Im going fishing.
(Sunday 14th UPDATE: got a wet arse and no fish! Blew a gale on the beach)
-
5
-
-
@Greg Barber correct Greg and he and I had this discussion at the time. Thanks and happy new year!
-
1
-
-
@joe martin Russell is referring here to "CTAF" procedures using 122.8MHz and I have no issue with that.
What I am referring to was the other pilot concerned was on the Airservices published CTAF frequency for an airfield (124.5MHz or similar) and was not broadcasting or listening 122.8MHz.
-
On 7/28/2020 at 4:53 PM, Sean Harrison said:
I like it Brendan. I usually do it similar, although I throw 122.800 onto com 2. That way on com1 I have in order of priority; ATC, CTAF, then 122.800. Com2 is almost always on 122.800 as a backup for me.
The only issue I see Sean is it is still mandatory to monitor and broadcast 122.8. CTAF is optional. SO I prefer 122.8 COM 1 and CTAF COM 2. Ive just had an occurrence where another pilot wasnt monitoring or broadcasting 1228. Bloody confusing then.
Happy New year to all and stay well.
-
Hi Barbs and thanks for the input.
Fixed!. Did what you said BUT this time I got the import right. That was the problem.
Thanks to all for your help!
-
Thanks Kirk. I am following this conversation but it seems to have dried up..
-
2 hours ago, Kirk Christie said:
Hi Rob,
I stopped using PFPX in favor of Sim Brief, due to its integration with Sim Tool Kit Pro, however I think you just need to change the URL in PFPX that points to the old prefile website to the new one, at least in till VATSIM retires the old one.
Thanks Kirk Ill give that a try. Stay well
-
On 8/22/2020 at 7:49 PM, Kirk Christie said:
New Prefile released. ICAO style flight planning.
Hi Kirk.
When you say new prefile released I assume that's the Flight Plan one can now dial up via the VATSIM web site?
Ive had conversation on VATSIM about this. I assume this was introduced as part of the move to the ICAO FPL system. However none of the commercial prefiles work now - at leats PFPX doesnt.
Do you have any idea how to import a PFPX FPL into the pre file ICAO format now without a copy and paste? There is a BIG BLUE BUTTON on the new FPL which says Import ICAO plan but I cant get it to work.
Any help appreciated.
-
in a virtual world it can be called anything you like. Call it Samantha you never know
-
On 6/15/2020 at 9:01 AM, Peter Story said:
Updated sector files with the replacement YBSU runway and new SIDs and STARs have been prepared
As rwy 18/36 has been decommissioned, is there any pilot scenery for YBSU rwy 13/31 available?
Not as fa as anyone knows..but I bet Flukey is onto it
-
Chris thanks a bunch for your time and input. Fixed. And yes I had disabled 2 of the 3 files and the scenery order was all wrong. Thanks heaps mate. Hope the Easter Bunny was good to you
-
Sunny Coast (YBSU) was working beautifully. Installed Ausv2 and followed the commands to disable YBMC but now - no terminal building (a large flat black patch) and no runway markings?
Any thoughts people?
and yes I have done a reinstall
-
7 hours ago, John Golin said:
* had a penchant for spilling red wine all over himself at WorldFlight
Yes JG. He came out of Tuppy Tower one WF with so much red splattered on his white T shirt, looking like he had been machine gunned
-
1
-
YBSU Sunshine Coast (13-31)
in Scenery
Posted
I have submitted a YBSU for XPlane to the Scenery Gateway. It has been approved and recommended for inclusion.
Gte it at the Scenery Gateway - FOR XPLANE ONLY!