Sean H - 870618
-
Posts
2480 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Sean H - 870618
-
-
Thanks Rob, but I can only see just one post and then it was locked. When you say OP I take it you mean Original Post the first one in the thread?
Must have been a storm in a tea cup, but more serious for JH.
-
I don’t understand why a post on VATPAC forum and locked has anything to do with the general membership? Why not address it to those he feels warrant such a post.
-
Reference this post - https://forums.vatpac.org/index.php/topic,18487.0.html
Looks like VATPAC has been singled out for a roasting by the board. I can’t follow what it relates too, does anyone know?
-
They arn’t touching.......
I’m sure it would have been a C1, because C3’s are perfect.
-
Who has any authority to negotiate under the agreement? I would have thought VATOCE would like to claim some leverage, but Ray has told me that he has no responsibility other than being an admin for the site, and that I had to approach VATUSA1 myself.
The sector files on the page are old, the documents aren’t current, and even broken web links.
My issues;
If you are going to tell people not to do something, have it readably available. Knowledge is enabling.
If you volunteer and hold an official position, treat members with respect by responding to questions. VATSIM appears to be a growing organisation of people who want to hold positions but don’t believe in being available to the members.
-
-
Then why does VATUSA have an sop which says it’s an addendum to the agreement and outlines procedures specific to Oakland?
Imho there needs to be a single point of reference. What’s the use having an agreement, then each of the parties publishes different procedures but doesn’t make them public to the other parties. I just don’t understand that. The Pacific Partnership Site should have all the information a member needs to open and operate any sector covered by the agreement.
-
So Don has taken the bull by the horns, and decreed that the E before W rule is out for now. That’s a win for common sense I believe.
Just need to get the whole agreement refreshed and reviewed.
-
I hope so.
-
Toby Rice
hcf-datm at vatusa.net
-
For those who are members of the Pacific Partnership, be aware that VATUSA have an SOP which says ZAK_W is not to be opened without prior approval, unless ZAK_E is online.
They seem to be reneging on the Partnership because I have also been quizzed how I am allowed to open ZAK without doing their OTS exam.......
Is this the end of the Partnership? On my reading and understanding this was suppose to be about open sky’s for qualified members, IOT provide services to pilots as needed.
Why when the US is asleep, and there are pilots in the Kilo time zone flying between Australia and Japan can’t they be provided with FSS? Why can’t pilots in an Airspace be given a service regardless of who in 1000nm away.
There is an event in Guam this weekend, but we can’t open ZAK_W and provide services unless 1. We find someone to open and sit on ZAK_E the whole time, or we work out who the unpublished person is we need to gain ‘prior approval’ and submit it for consideration.
Is there anywhere else on VATSIM that says, no you can’t open 1/16 of the worlds airspace, unless this other bit is open.
If you want pilots to receive services, imho it is more about encouragement of atc, not restricting. Especially when it has nothing to do with qualification (although it now may have if ZAK are reneging on the Partnership).
Sorry GUAM, Sorry Aus - Japan traffic, no services for you unless US comes first.
-
-
I’ve been subscribing for the last three or so years. Whilst it is a fabulous app, loaded with features it is pricey.
For those that aren’t aware the app easily becomes a moving map linked to your FSX or X-plane session if you have a wifi network to join.
A discount for swimming would be great.
-
This is a pet hate of mine.
It used to be that those in the leadership positions were seen online, and on forums. The board members almost always had more posts than others, because they lead by providing advice and answering questions. Rarely does any board member post on VATSIM forum.
IF the CoR say that a position SHOULD do something then I believe they should do it, IF NOT change the CoR.
IF it was intended to include ‘offline’ time, why didn’t it say that?
I remember as VATPAC4 I used to use that callsign, not to be a ‘look at me’ , but to provide access to the people I represented. Almost every event in the old days, every member of the board would either be in a position (ATC) or observing using their assigned callsign. Used to be great.
VATSIM seems to be changing to a self help system, hidden administrators and dwindling membership input.
-
1. Where did Joel’s post go?
2. If member X has some skills and is thinking of throwing thier name in the ring for the VATPAC1 role, but isn’t confident (has been told he has the job), they would be foolish in my opinion to not throw their name in the ring for other positions subordinate to VATPAC1. So they then get offered one of the subordinate positions, and VATPAC1 then is opened up, and they get selected for that. You then have to fill the other role again. On the other hand there could be some talented person who ho.ds out for the top job, but when it does come up misses out. We lost that talented person.
I can’t believe that any organisation would not ensure the top person has some say in subordinate positions, granted not on the panel, but has the right to veto at least. So it isn’t irrelevant imho.
Even more reason for the top position to be filled first, is that they must be able to provide guidance to the board. Why would you allow a person to guide and train the board, IF they weren’t the person for the role...
-
In my opinion, this is a scale within a scale. The outermost is the amount of traffic and ATC coverage at a given time. With minimal numbers let's face it, the realism scale has to be 95/5. When numbers are marginal, ie enroute and tower for ML then 50/50 is awesome. That is, allowing CTR to extend both laterally and to selected airports. A higher realism would negate any form of extending. Of course in the midst of a highly congested event then nothing less the 20/80 is needed. However, the inner scale makes no sense, since at this level of realism I am having more fun than the 20 would suggest!
My response is 10/90 as it suggests lots of ATC coverage and aircraft traffic thus necessitating high levels of realism just to cope! At this point, you redefine fun as NOT LESS THAN 10. The value 10 is only achieved when you are unable to participate.
[thumbs]UP[/thumbs]
-
Flying REALISM + FUN doesn't equal 100%
Realism "as real as it can get" probably only reaching 50-60% given what we have in way of a simulator. Flight planning can be higher, but without motion platforms, fuel smells, cabin crew, cockpits, etc just can't get past probably 70%. All that realism goes toward FUN for me. So it probably ain't ever going to add up to 100% using those two factors.
ATC REALISM + FUN probably does balance and therefore become a split.
Not the same for me. We technically go too far in realism which destroys the fun. The requirements to reach C3 are beyond a hobby IMHO. Up to C1 level I think we have the right mix of realism to keep it fun. I thoroughly enjoy providing services to pilots, if it makes them happy. If they aren't happy then it ain't fun for me. I'm not there to teach pilots, I'm there to help them.
The Mix
As a pilot I love a professional and knowledgeable controller, and it's fun to get the challenge of realism (Holds, delays, profiles, deviations, taxis, etc). If they provide a service and don't start teaching or over stepping their certification then its all good for me. FUN FUN FUN is realism.
As a controller I love pilots who can follow the clearance provided AND enjoy it. FUN FUN FUN is realism and others having FUN.
Summary
Lets drop the diploma in Controlling at C3 level, otherwise I think VATPAC has it nailed.
-
Callum,
Where do they want ATC this Sunday at 6pm Local?
-
[qoute]Can we all please stop with the negativity.
All I'll say is look at the membership, if that's what they are feeling, whose fault is that?
Joel, I sent you a PM, I'm out of this. If I post anything further please refer me to this post :-X
-
VATSIM has been offered a complimentary stall at the Aviation Expo this weekend, 19 August, in Brisbane.
Ok, I'm fairly upset that with three days to go, it appears the members aren't needed by VATSIM. VATSIM/VATOCE has announced that they have a stall at this major event, and encourage VATPAC members to 'attend the event'.
Having been to several Flight Sim expos and assisted VATPAC and vRAAF with stands, and offered to do so in future, I guess I'm not wanted in the future of VATPAC, and unless I've missed it, only select people are helping.
Getting an email from VATOCE inviting members to the event is wrong. Let's be inclusive....
-
This is going from bad to worse.
Regardless of what anyone posts on this forum, they are a member of this division and should be replied to with respect.
lurkverb UK /lɜːk/ US /lɝːk/
[ I usually + adv/prep ] to wait or move in a secret way so that you cannot be seen, especially because you are about to attack someone or do something wrong:
Someone was lurking in the shadows.
Why are you lurking around in the hallway?
[ I usually + adv/prep ] (of an unpleasant feeling or quality) to exist although it is not always noticeable:
Danger lurks around every corner.
It seems that old prejudices are still lurking beneath the surface.
[ I ] informal internet & telecoms to spend time in a chat room or on a social media website and read what other people have posted (= written or added) without posting anything yourself
...there will likely be pot stirrers...I am hearing what I think is negativity towards anyone not chosen.
-
I believe so.
-
I vote we disband the divisions and operate as a region.
It's like Australia has three levels of government. Councils, state and federal, at least they have distinct and prescribed responsibilities. It appears here we have VATSIM, VATOCE, and VATPAC/VATNZ all with the same goal and responsibilities, however all trying to do it at the same time. I really feel for the VATPAC staff and members. Who do the members talk to know, or raise issues with? VATOCE is exercising communications channels at the Divisional level. That's micro-management where I come from. Even in my time in the Reserves, we heard things through the chain of command, not Bde Hq bypassing Bn.
I think the whole communication and implementation strategy needs to be re-visited, and developed before this keeps bumbling along. Just my opinion.
-
Ryan, regardless of what is happening, or why you aren't on the training team any longer, please accept my thanks for your time and effort supporting VATPAC. We need people to volunteer and help out. Thanks again.
WorldFlight - Discussion
in Airspace
Posted
Ah, was it deleted?