Sean H - 870618
-
Posts
2480 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Sean H - 870618
-
-
-
If VATPAC approves it as a standard facility i’ll Open it tomorrow. VATNA and VATUSA have no jurisdiction over it as per Code of Regulations. Or is this just a document that isn’t worth reading?
-
1. Under the Pacific Partnership Agreement we already do have control of the FIR within which Marshall Islands are located. If we don’t why would VATSIM give a facility to one Region and the surrounding airspace to another.
2. I wasn’t able to find too much, and actually what I did find was military stuff for Bucholz.
3. Not sure why this gets raised by not just us. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and if we had a sector file and procedural document then the rest is individual members. It is slightly annoying to do sector file creation from zero, and then not get any response when they are submitted with a response too hard, too much effort. If we only back horses that win every race, then there won’t be races.
4. Is there a format in which ‘the board’ would prefer for the submission?
5. Hopefully this is done with a phone call or email on day one, otherwise we are wasting our time doing 1-4.
6. This is the step I think we are at today.....
Red tape and boards seem to always hold up most things. All the files I did for Joel, and nothing came of it other than someone else re-doing the whole process twelve months later. If we don’t at least get on the horse I am sure it won’t win.
-
Callum, should no-one else be up for it, I can do one up (attempt at least, and submit for consideration). I can use the Guam procedures as a guide (quasi FAA). I have got a sector file I did two+ yrs ago but I only do VRC.
-
Hi Sam, HCF have told me twice they don’t want to staff it. I resubmit a request every twelve months to them, and they simply say no. Based on that, I would think throw FAA out the window, although after doing GUAM for sometime now, I don’t think the differences are that bad in an area like this to be restrictive.
As another example Diego Garcia is in VATSA airspace, but closer to Australia, and for some reason belongs to VATASIA??? VATASIA refuse to allow it to be manned. I’ve submitted twice to them, and they simply say no.
There are several strange places, that get significant traffic, but because they don’t sit 100%, they get refused services.
I honestly think we should grab Marshall Islands and work it. The yanks don’t want it, but it gets a strange volume of traffic. Why shouldn’t services be given to pilots there?
My thoughts.
-
1
-
-
Joel left shortly after this, and I believe the initiative was shelved. Things just stopped. I did some work on sector files, they were submitted and no response.
I would like to commission you to create all the sector files for the pacific areas ie PNG Fiji Vanuatu New CaledoniaThe position would be titled Assistant Deputy Director Aeronautical Information - Pacific or ADDAIS-P. You would conduct your work independently and reporting to Peter Story.I think this is a great opportunity to use your skills and knowledge to enhance VATSIM.It is my intention to update MATS with information specific to these areas and their procedures. Resulting in an increase in controller and pilot activity to the South Pacific and PNG.Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, New Caledonia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna. -
Yes. [thumbsup]
i actually just located an email Joel (then Regional Director) sent me in oct 2016 expressing approval to claim it and open it as a standard sector within VATOCE.
-
If we can now just get approval from VATPAC to add it to our standard facilities list.
I prepared a VRC sector file last year in the hope HCF would take it on. And I was soooo up the wrong tree.
so let’s open it up!
-
Good find, the code of regulations does say VATOCE has;
”Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna.”
HCF will be upset.......
-
As a visitor at HCF they do definitely claim it. I have twice submitted to allow it to be a standard facility, but they don’t see it as needing staffing.
-
Yer, I have tryed the 64bit update to ISG but it crashes the sim whenever I open an aircraft with a gauge installed. It also can’t be opened in FSPanelStudio. I’ve posted but no response for several months on the support forum. It really was a mainstay of my flying in FSX and huge shame it isn’t usable in P3Dv4.
thanks Jake. If you get it working, i’d Be keen to hear how.
-
Thanks Daniel.
The main reason is access to aircraft models and associated add ons.
I had hoped XP11 and/or P3D were going to change my flying pleasure, however there are several aircraft that I used in FSX which I can’t find or use in the newer apps. ISG was my turn too addon FMC, but I can’t get it to operate in 64bit. Anyway, yes there is some great advances, but unless I can fly the aircraft I want/need to it is worthless.
thanks for the reply,
-
1
-
-
Ok, after several months with X-Plane11 and P3Dv4 I am seriously considering going back to FSX.
Will it run on a 64bit operating system?
-
I have only just seen this post.
Nick does para three mean that we can exceed 250 when on a SID or STAR?
i am a little lost as to why there are so many 250kt restrictions below 10K. Is there a situation we can exceed 250kts below 10K?
-
Thanks Quigs, waiting for my payment to be approved for Active Sky, so that is going to be a bonus.
Thanks Wrightie, I wasn’t aware of that app before now.
I like how Xsquawbox has a overlay window showing who is in the area. But that’s Xplane.
-
-
Is there any way of knowing with vPilot if there are other pilots near you? I am so used to FSInn and it’s Radar, that I feel disconnected with vPilot.
-
How is Roland? He did my S1 many moons ago.
-
So having now made the switch over to both XP11 and P3Dv4, I am amazed that more aren’t onto them. The biggest shock in XP11 is the runways that follow the contours, and the difference in commands from the others for interactions via the keyboard.
Question relates to P3Dv4 and flying on VATSIM
I am using vPilot, and whilst simple, it is effective to connect to VATSIM. BUT how do I get VATSIM or even real world weather into the SIM? I have AS on order, but in the mean time how do I experience the same weather as everyone else on the network?
on a side note, are there any P3Dv4 add ons (user created things like CTAF) that I should hunt down?
-
-
I do not for a minute condone drones flying around airports, nor breaking the rules.... BUT
I was following this on twitter and FlightRadar and I think the alarmist are more to blame for the disruption than the actual drones.
Earlier this year whilst on final at Hobart (Qantas Flight) a Phantom sized drone flew parallel to the beach (90* to runway) and half the height of our aircraft. CASA were not interested.
IF aircraft (RPT) arentested with frozen chickens then a <2kg drone isn’t going to do more damage. So closing an airport, may be the safest thing to do, but is it the most practical.
-
Having gone to VATNA/VATUSA/USAW/HCF I honestly cannot agree with dividing VATPAC into smaller areas of responsibility. I can back as fast as I could. The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence.
By way of example which I have seen a couple of time, an ARTCC cannot make any decision without pushing everything up through the ‘local’ region (WEST, SOUTH or East), then to the Division (VATUSA) and then possibly to the VATSIM Region (VATNA) and I think i’m Missing a level there also.
We have a good, maybe small, group of regulars bolstered by shorter period stay members. Dividing them up into smaller groups is not efficient in my view. Even in VATUSA you are not automatically entitled to control anywhere. You have to belong to an ARTCC and then IF they have a LOA, you can control with restrictions in that specific ARTCC.
I will argue and vote to stay as a Division without sub groups.
-
1
-
-
Seeing as we have reached the average response numbers, i’ll throw in my comments.
Back when VATPAC started to consider creating smaller standard sectors, I voiced my objection because; we didn’t have any way of displaying to pilots our coverage when extending, and under normal day to day conditions we don’t have sufficient traffic in the new standard sectors to 1. Keep the controller active, and 2. Provide services to pilots around the place.
I started the poll, as I believed that outside of events, the majority of controllers provide services in adjacent sectors. The poll seems to support this belief (all respondents except me extend >50/50).
Given the frequency and obvious practice of extending, maybe we should consider larger standard sectors, and then allow the current ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’ boundaries to all be ‘non-standard’ and available for use as per pur current policy. From what I see the current policy to open a ‘non-standard’ sector is quite workable and effective in allowing reduction in geographic coverage.
The biggest hurdles I see currently, are that we aren’t able to readily display to pilots nor SUPs what area we are covering, and SUP’s interaction with us while extending hasn’t been efficient.
I firmly believe that we start with large manageable sectors based on 90% of our traffic volumes, and then use our effective currrent policy to sub-divide should the need arise. I know I don’t do a lot of hours, but I haven’t provided extended service since my interaction with the SUP. This is not any complaint about SUPs, it is simply saying I agree that if we are projecting confusion, then we can only expect confusion.
Maybe it is worth some further discussion, maybe it isn’t worthy of time. I think we should enlarge our standard sectors.
-
1
-
-
They offered me a job......
-
1
-
Members Airport ICAO
in General
Posted
We used to have it on the left with our forum profile. Had not noticed that it dropped out.