Sean H - 870618
-
Posts
2480 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Sean H - 870618
-
-
Thought there would be. Thanks Greg.
-
Given that ICAO is used everywhere outside of CONUS, is there a plausible reason why our smart members couldn’t reconfigure the ES taats mode to accept real world equipment codes?
We push so much reality, rightly so, so that people learn and develop their skills. Yet we continue to use a standard that is only found in CONUS.
-
Since the release of the new format of the VATSIM forum, I can’t navigate or find anything. I have tryed Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and changing from desktop mode.
Anyone else having this happen? Is it just me.
-
Huge thank you to both Peter and Harrison for progressing this to a release date. It is very much appreciated.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I’m happy to meet up on voice sometime, if you or Harrison wish to discuss what I have. I sent an email to Harrison and not had any response yet.
-
It used to have an FPN-66, so can’t see them removing it in a hurry.
-
Not exact type, but lists, TWR, APP and Radar.
-
This is an FAA Document publishing NOTAMS. Seems they have TWR and APP. I’ve found a couple of radar mentions, but until I find the Specific Type, I won’t claim it.
-
when you say “two small sectors”, what are you referring to?
Ok, I will do a search, but I have seen mention in a military doc that there is air radar, they need it to ensure there are no aircraft around when testing.
-
A matter for discussion; Class E (FAA) airspace extends out from PKWA to 100M and 1,200’ up to the floor of Class A (FL245). It is my understanding that the USArmy Air Traffic Controllers provide the Class E services for the area which captures PKRO on the north end of the atoll.
Will we need to have a PKWA_APP to enable the 100M class E area? As tower we can’t extend out that far under VATSIM rules.
-
Spent the day updating the scenery for PKWA. The default doesn’t really line up, and missing parking spots. Once tested, I’ll post it here.
-
1
-
-
Time for another follow up. Anything officially happening? With all the stay at homes, traffic up there is good.
-
Kirk, I completely understand what you are saying. Work load dependant; an ENR position must provide top-down for any missing position.
Can I say that in my limited experience this is almost never complied with. IF people complied with this, then there would only be a need to mention when you are not providing services due to workload. This in itself becomes problematic, because if the workload starts to build, I now have to withdraw services below me, but how does the pilot know?
I much prefer the system where we indicate in our information what ‘extra’ services outside my normal position we are offering. That way pilots can see a controller, look up their usual boundaries, check if they are ‘extending’ out or down, and work with that.
The hole I see in the RULES, is that how does a pilot ever know what a controller is covering? I am making more work for myself because pilots assume I’m doing the right thing and contact me when I’m busy.
I humbly submit that regardless of the RULES, controllers must indicate what they are covering outside of the ‘standard’ position. i.e. extending out, or covering down.
So many ENR extend out and don’t mention it in their information.
If ever pilot started calling the ENR above them, when they are within one of VATPAC’s Standard positions, it’s going to get messy and I’ll have a worse name than I do now.
-
So simply Yes or No, do ENR indicate that they are providing services top-down?
It seems we as pilots must assume that top-down is provided to all IFR acft regardless of OCTA, and VFR in CTA.
-
Is this still a thing that ENR need to indicate the services they are providing topdown?
It was indicated to me this evening that ENR always provide topdown and don’t need to indicate that they are.
-
I can’t link the YouTube video here for some reason, but the developers have released a ‘multiplayer’ function explained video.
To me they appear to have invented their own online world, and not provided for VATSIM sadly. I hope not as I love my online environment.
-
The videos seem to suggest that elevation contours will now be able to be realistic especially on runways. One thing that has always been a downer so far is that airport scenery is flat earth theory. Having 3D replication of the earths surface is going to be amazing. I hope we will still be able to edit it. Some airports currently are so outdated it is sad.
-
Hmm, changing powers from my studies >10yrs ago. We used to be worried about someone a lot closer.
-
1
-
-
I know this means replicating controller info, however IF I still add the text in the VRC ATIS and in the vATIS, it actually shows in VATSpy etc. I believe they still pull the info from the ATC client. I’ve tested it several times, and it works. Means that pilots can readily get info and atc earlier than being in radio range.
-
Interesting. Particularly on Monday evenings, many ENR positions have no atis, controller info. In regards the policy on stating “extended coverage” and listing the ICAOs of the top down services; can I assume that YSCB is always treated as non-towered?
Reason I ask; I have had situations where no-one wants to talk to me on the ground at YSCB, sometimes get told code/no reported traffic, and then find that inbound acft are actually with ENR and even given taxi instructions once they land.
-
Kc-30’s main role is refuelling (AAR), they do this so instead of having 80 fighters, you can have 20 and just keep refuelling them in the air. This in defence language is called a force multiplier. It enables me to have a better capability with less assets. So we can keep our fighters in territory that isn’t hostile, but enable them to spend more time on the front door.
Quigs is a force multiplier. He does the work of ten men, but we only have to pay one wage...........
Agreed regarding Scherger. My personal opinion was that scherger was a deterent rather than ever being intended to operate fighters from it.
Remember, we also have RAAF Townsville (it is fairly well setup), Darwin, Learmonth, Curtin. Allows options if we did need to go on the offensive and push our influence out further than the front door.
-
2
-
-
I don’t think the foreign powers studies I did with defence is protected in any way, so whilst we don’t have anyone in our region we would list as an enemy, Australia still remembers the situation during WW2, specifically the threat of invasion to northern Australia and the ‘Brisbane Line’. So our front door is literally Cape York, Darwin and the Pilbara. Unlike historic fortifications where your fort or castle is heavily fortified at the front door, modern military strategy is to layer and have lines of defence (depth). The other issue is the remoteness of our front door. Whilst we do have Tindal and Scherger, in the event of an invasion or projection by a foreign power, it would be doubly difficult to defend assets on the front door, and secondly resupply/support them that far away from major infrastructure.
The short version is that keep your sledge hammer in the bedroom when you sleep. Some may then say “What about reaction time?” In the event one of our neighbours decided to do a surprise landing, one we would have some indication before that even occurred, and two; at best they could not advance too far south especially with any speed.
Whilst it may appear to be sharing the funding around the states, there is a lot more to it than that. We even have force multipliers that work in our favour when considering defence in depth.
-
3
-
-
They do seem to be dropping quite a few vids etc, and in the videos seems that they have a fairly complete albeit maybe a beta version.
Would be great if it was out this year, but I’m still adding to P3Dv4 at this stage.
-
Is the product called FS2020? Or is that a name applied un-officially?
IF it their product name, I’d be guessing it would be released sometime this year.
DOC 4444 changes to FPL
in General
Posted
It is my understanding that since 01 SEP 2019, the ICAO equipment/flight planning has been mandated by the FAA.
My suggestion is that in the future I think we should move towards ICAO planning formats. It should at least be in a long term plan in my opinion.