Russell D - 1104622
-
Posts
602 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Russell D - 1104622
-
-
On 4/20/2020 at 2:05 AM, Callum Strawbridge said:
If you aren't travelling with an ADS-B equipped transponder code or no code, we will be unable to locate you in several parts of Australia which rely on ADS-B Coverage.
I am afraid I am going to have to confess my own ignorance regarding the part about ADS-B. So what exactly constitutes a ADS-B equipped transponder code?
Someone might also want to steer me in the right direction here as well. My understanding is that VATSIM requires all aircraft to have transponders Mode-C capable. Is that correct? If that should be the case, is it right to suggest that any equipment codes that indicate "no mode C" or "no transponder" are irrelevant and consequently ignored? For example, an equipment code of /Y would be interpreted as /I in VATSIM.
When flying Concorde, I typically employ the equipment code /I to indicate
- RVSM non compliant
- RNAV (INS) capable without GNSS
- Mode C Transponder
Is ADS-B implied or not? Concorde of course is not ADS-B equipped.
There is also another situation that often confounds me and I don't think the above equipment codes address this but I won't know unless I ask. Are /I equipped aircraft able to accept Australia's RNAV SIDS/STARS/RNP Approaches? I know Concorde isn't able to, however, how can this be communicated to a controller. Is the /I sufficient or should there be additional information in the remark section of a flightplan? I typically include it in a flightplan as remark "NAV/INS/unable SIDS/STARS". However, if the use of a pertinent equipment code would suffice it would be nice to know to avoid cluttering the remarks.
Rusty
-
A VATAWARE alternative I sometimes use is VATSTATS. It attempts to be both VATTASTIC tracker or if you search it behaves like VATAWARE. It does a reasonable job of representing data in graphical form depending on what you are looking for.
Otherwise I resort to VATSIM Statistics.
Rusty.
-
I am not certain the version of XSquawkbox James has installed supports AFV (Audio For VATSIM, to clarify for James). From memory, the latest is 2.x. To use 1.x he would have to also install the Vatsim AFV module to hear controllers and other aircraft. This of course assumes a Windows installation.
I second Greg's advice on making the modest leap to XP11 over XP10. Chalk and cheese. XP11's default FMS supports SIDS/STARS where XP10's default and even payware aircraft didn't. Of course, with XP11, the Zibo is full featured above and beyond the default FMS. The only reason not to upgrade XP11 would be because the hosting hardware lacks the necessary performance to keep up frame rates (>20 fps) sufficient to operate the sim whilst flying VATSIM. This latter is a significant impediment in a busy ATC environment as is typical in an event such as Milk Run Monday.
Rusty
-
G'day Darryl,
Since you are using X-Plane it would also be useful if you provide details on your operating system. X-Plane can be run on a multitude of OS'es. Most use Windows 64, however there are those of us using Linux or MacOS and if this is the case then advising on the pilot client will need to be adjusted. The X-Pilot client advised in the previous post is limited to those using Windows.
Nice to see another pilot that calls Parafield home. Sad fact, Parafield has little or no ATC coverage under normal circumstances. Adelaide is more likely to be covered. It is a good idea to start slow when new. You may find flying with the freedom of VFR to be the most beneficial at first. Of course it would be remiss of me to not mention there is VFR Operations, weekly events conducted on Friday and Sunday evenings. They are listed in the VATPAC Calendar. Of course, the more ambitious pilots wanting to undertake commercial IFR flights usually start out by simply hanging around a busy airport such as Sydney/Melbourne and monitoiring what goes on. VATPAC have a few tutorials pertaining to flying IFR. Go to VATPAC home and check out the 'tutorials' in the 'pilot' menu.
Rusty
Fullarton SA
-
On 2/29/2020 at 4:06 PM, Greg Barber said:
Anyone is of course allowed to purchase their own teamspeak server and invite their friends to join them.
That's interesting. The majority of us VFR Operations participants were dissatisfied with using Discord for the events. As such a teamspeak alternative was sought and found where most of us now conduct our conversations during the VFR Operations events and others. Of course those of us using TS3 never discourage the use of VATPAC Discord. Should anyone accompanying us express a wish to join our TS3 conversation, we are more than happy to provide the necessary details.
It should be noted, I am not against VATPAC's policy or the community nature of Discord. I find it's client implementation offensive. The client behaves more like malware than as a benign app to conduct a conversation. For those using Windows, try uninstalling and then dig around for the package left behind. This type of behaviour does not instill confidence. I do confess to being a little security paranoid, but I'll pass until convinced otherwise. Similarly I have ditched Windows 10 for similar offenses. It is meant to be an OS, not a platform. Sadly, this ensures I will not be adopting FS2020 unless I find a way to run it in Linux.
Rusty.
-
1
-
-
Joe, you might want to consider flying VFR Operations this weekend. VFR Operations are weekly VATPAC events conducted on Friday and Sunday evenings. The aircraft type suitable for each event varies depending on the planned distance. The event is timed to take from 70 to 90 minutes duration. It just happens that we are flying in the local area of Cairns where either a C172 or C182 would be very nicely suited. You can find the events posted in the VATPAC calendar. Typically these are relaxed in nature and of course are conducted VFR. This week's event may be a little more white knuckled should a controller take up the challenge of providing ATC coverage on the evening. It can make for quite a learning curve for those new to VATSIM. The participants range markedly in experience. There are new pilots and relics such as myself all doing what we love.
If you have Teamspeak 3 installed, details can be provided for you to join in our often bizarre banter. Many of the participating pilots take advantage of TS3 in preference to VATPAC's favoured Discord channel. It presents a perfect opportunity for you to pose questions you are seeking answers to. There is a high probability someone will be in a position to provide informed answers. In fact, there is quite a bit more info on your initial question in this thread we would be pleased to share. The subtlety doesn't lend itself to the typed word without providing a full case study with references.
Study the event details and see what you think. Even if these aren't to your liking keep checking for future events that might be more appealing. I coordinate the events and I am planning to create a training scenario where the entire event is conducted at a Class D aerodrome flying circuits and conducting operations in the local training area. Definitely one to look out for.
Rusty
-
Hi Joe,
When using Unicom 122.80 there is every chance that an aircraft at the same aerodrome as you may not be using the same frequency. To minimise this I employ this AFV Viewer. I lookup the callsign in the accompanying list and observe which frequencies they are tuned. On occasion it is possible for them to have no frequency in which case it is wise to fallback to the tried and true text unicom as a way to broadcast your intentions. The viewer can also assist you in determining ATC CTR coverage when they are extending sectors. Lookup their callsign and the frequencies they are covering are displayed. There is sometimes weird freqs relating to oceanic coverage, but the remainder can be looked up in the link you provided to compare with the frequency for your location. Note, if you find the AFV Viewer map is slow to respond, toggle off the pilot range rings. When there are many aircraft to be drawn the map grinds to a halt.
Real world pilots do not have to contend with operating at major airports without the benefit of ATC where as we poor VATSIM pilots do. It is a good strategy to employ any and alltechnological advantage to counter this deficiency.
Rusty
-
Only for those with FSX and it's derivatives running on Windows x64. Subscription service. Limited market likely to evaporate once FS2020 is released. No attempt to support X-Plane. No surprise there.
I think they can keep their "Skybux" to themselves. FS Economy will have to suffice for now.
Rusty
-
1
-
-
Hi,
I am am also intending to bail out of Windows once 7 is no longer supported. Like William, an OS is meant to protect from private data collection, not collect it. As Greg mentions, it is possible to disable much of it however MS may at it's discretion omit allowing its users to "opt out" within it's own interface during one of its mandatory updates. So any attempt at continuing to disable data collection then relies solely on obtaining third party tools to circumvent this which inevitably is considered a violation of MS's EULA. There is no real recourse with respect to opting out of the updates aside from isolating Win 10 from the update facilities. I can't imagine Win 10 responding positively to this scenario! Probably something like windows popping up an alert advising that the version of Window 10 you are using has not be updated for X number of days and will no longer function until allowed to update to the latest version.
I am presently running a test Manjaro Linux distro in a Win7 dual boot and using this as a test bed whilst I ensure I will be able to make a smooth transition. Purposely installed X-Plane 11 in windows and my aged system rendered it unusable. Surprise surprise, X-Plane 11 as a linux installation works like a charm with acceptable performance not available in Windows. Many aircraft work flawlessly, however there are a few that will not cooperate with Linux. Often the reason lies with developers of scripting plugins not making them Linux compatible. Many aircraft use these scripts to provide cockpit instrument functionality. Similarly there currently isn't a high quality weather addon for a linux installation. Fortunately the default weather engine is surprisingly adequate and is acceptable until something happens along. Hopefully ActiveSky-X will eventually get their act together and release a linux compatible version.
I sympathise with the efforts of getting a controller client to function under linux. Thankfully this isn't the case regards to sourcing a pilot client. Swift works quite well in linux and has done since the initial alpha release. Something I recently had to undertake to capture PTT from the keyboard in Swift (controllers work without issue, go figure), it was necessary to add the "User" you are running Swift under to the "input" group and then restart Linux. When the "user" belongs to the 'input' group Swift is able to poll and capture key presses via the system and as such functions regardless whether the GUI focus is in the software's interface/process or elsewhere. May this be something the Windows emulation might be looking to do?
Rusty
-
2
-
-
It is not usually a problem around touristy areas such as plaza and terminal. But wander around other less popular areas such as where the old terminal has been replaced with catering facilities, long term car parks, Alliance terminal and Aust Air express aprons then suspicions of security can be aroused as happened with me when I was photographing the areas a couple of years ago. The areas are typically under camera surveillance and a person with a good quality camera taking happy snaps will look somewhat suspicious.
Rusty
-
1
-
-
Careful taking photos in the area of the airport. Security are hot on those taking photos of airport infrastructure. You can expect to be approached and enquiries made unless you have arranged some form of prior notice advising them of your activities.
Also, see if someone can obtain a picture of Bucky. This is a teddy bear that has been in place for ages as a runway ambassador. An absolute "must have" if an Adelaide Airport scenery is to appear authentic.
Rusty
-
1
-
1
-
-
Having ATIS on demand does indeed make more sense. Queenstown still perplexes me. AFV map still has it chirping away.
Rusty
-
Hi,
I have noticed the existence of automated 24/7 ATIS located about the VATSIM world. Notably Queenstown 126.40 and last Wednesday during the World Discovery event out of Rome Italy, there is an automated facility there.
How does an automated facility differ to manned ones and is VATPAC planning on implementing something similar at any VATPAC locations?
Rusty.
-
Thanks for the responses. What I was actually alluding to was the fact the AFV - Viewer has been a resource I have be exploiting to help resolve the sectors ATC is covering by looking at the frequencies listed against them. It would appear that its use is limited when the controller is covering an oceanic sector due to the listing of the HF freq and not the aliased VHF frequency we have been employing because of the limitation of VATSIM and the simlations we employ.
It was merely a means of informing others who might have also noticed this anomaly and not recognised the true significance.
Rusty
-
1
-
-
Hi.
Just a query. I was observing the AFV viewer site and noticed what at first appeared to be an oddity. BN-TSN_FSS was listed in the panel of callsigns and frequencies as having 13.318. However my client clearly lists this as 128.600 as I am accustomed. I then realised what was being listed was the actual HF frequency. Would this be correct?
Rusty
-
G'day Warwick,
I think you might find the VFR events to your liking as you progress your VATSIM knowledge and experience. These flights are mostly based in Australia and operate mostly outside controlled airspace. The exceptions being when visiting towered airports such as Archerfield in Brisbane, an airport we will in fact be departing from on Friday evening and arriving at as the final destination Sunday evening.
Take a look at the following details and see if they might provide a good relaxed introduction to our hobby.
Friday - Archerfield to Ballina : Sunday - Ballina to Archerfield.
These two flights are particularly suited to the Cessna Caravan you mention in one of your earlier posts. With the recent introduction of AFV, (Audio For VATSIM) many of us are also on a learning curve as we get to grips to the recently introduced capability to make voice announcements at uncontrolled airfields, something referred to as CTAF. Indeed, the technoloigy is so new I have no VATSIM pilot client software stable enough to allow me to fly in X-Plane, something I do on a non Windows system. So like you, I have dusted off my Windows FSX to enable me to fly VATSIM for the events.
When conducting these events many of the VFR event participants join VATPAC's teamspeak server for general conversation. Refer to this post for some guidance in joining the "Daily Focus" room. It is a friendly way to garner some assistance from myself and like minded others. Many of us have been flying VATSIM in one form or other for many years and are able to provide pretty much any form of piloting assistance you may require. Teamspeak is a good resource any time, not just during VFR Events. The only catch is that for the initial visit, a suitably authorised member will need to grant you permission before you can move around. There is usually someone on hand to provide this. I will of course be on hand for the VFR events.
A good tip for those less experienced pilots is to fly the route in advance offline or even online, there is unlikely to be any ATC for a solitary pilot. Knowing in advance where you will be flying and what might be encountered will ensure a relaxing flight. Unexpected surprises can generate quite a bit of stress for newer pilots to the VATSIM platform. It is also an opportunity to obtain some of the suggested scenery as many airports are not in FSX by default. The more vital airports are free however some investment into ORBX Australia can be very worthwhile.
Hope to meet up with you soon.
Rusty
-
Typical. Disregard my previous post. No sooner did I post about the issues with swift on linux when a second alpha is made available. No complaints about the speed swift is being updated.
More importantly, the latest release appears to have addressed the linux issue where binaries were not able to be run. This release is working very nicely. Many thanks to the developers for the timely implementation of AFV. I eagerly await Wed World Discovery to give a true test.
Rusty
-
Whilst waiting for AFV to be implemented on VATSIM servers I tracked down this Frooglesim preview for FS2020 in an attempt to get some further insight to this pending release.
Azure AI (if that is how it is spelled?) is a long anticipated and welcome technology. I have been wondering who and how long it would take before the emerging OrthoImagery technologies became the basis for providing flight sim scenery data. IN circu 2010 whilst I was working for CSIRO I noticed they had been working on exactly this with their remote sensing activities. Converting multiple overlapping sattelite and aerial imagery into accurately modeled 3d maps. Check this out for some insight into the evolving technology. At the time of my departure they were at the stage of identifying and separating out static structures such as buildings, towers, roads, bridges etc... and converting the structures into independent texture mapped 3d objects that could be placed back into the textured landscape. At the time I thought the technology would be awesome if applied to our hobby. In fact, I have been surprised scenery developers hadn't already researched and leveraged it for themselves. Having said that, I am very happy they haven't as it is a far nicer prospect knowing we are on the verge of acquiring all of this by simply purchasing a single product.
Having said that, given how microsoft's abandoned game "Flight" required users to purchase scenery packs, I can't help but think the worse and anticipate something similar with FS2020. My fear is a product that charges fees based on scenery you reveal. May my fears be unfounded.
Rusty
-
1
-
-
Problems are going to be mainly encountered when pilots want to make their initial calls to an ATC station. My first flight using AFV kind of reinforces this. I decided to fly Mount Gambier to Melbourne. At the time I spawned WOL & SNOwy were active and I considered a controller might be extending to TBD. By the time I was ready to depart SNO had logged off and I quickly abandoned even attempting to tune TBD as WOL doesn't typically ext to TBD. Took off and soon after wheels up received a "contact me on 125.0" private message from WOL. I sceptically complied and attempted raising WOL using 125.0 as directed despite recognising I was most definitely out of range. Confirming this I then tried TBD before finally resorting to SNO 124.00. Making these attempts provided sufficient delay to prompt the controller to send a PM advising me to call via 124.0. Typical. My first flight using AFV had me frequency hunting. Thoroughly enjoyable otherwise. I especially liked the way transmission conflicts were depicted.
The frequency uncertainty will typically be encountered when pilots are entering an area where there is no indication of an active frequency. Something that typically does not happen RW since frequencies in an area will be known based on relevant charts and are certain to be active. In the interim to resolving the difficulties with injecting frequencies for non-primary sectors, using a "call me" PM that refers to the correct frequency would be most desirable. Not being a controller, can I assume any automated facilities in Controller clients insert the primary frequency by default and that providing coupled frequencies in a "call me" message has to be done manually? If that is the case then even that is doomed as being impractical in a busy airspace.
IMO. This inconvenience is far out weighed by the benefits I have so far enjoyed with AFV.
Long live AFV!
Rusty
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, William Teale said:
HUM, ELW, YWE and WON. On 132.2, 123.75, 134.325 and 135.3
So VATPAC intends to operate at this level of granularity? It will certainly raise the authenticity bar a notch or two.
The QFA3214 example where they are not provided with an "onwards" frequency call elicits some consideration. Any experienced pilot will be capable of determining the problem and is likely to be able to chase the frequency that hasn't been provided. In fact, the pilot will almost certainly be ahead of the controller and have the next frequency in stand by ready for the instruction to change. Any unwary newbie pilot is likely to be clueless as to why contact was lost and will likely struggle to determine the frequency required to reacquire center. I foresee a new pilot activity. "Frequency Hunting". As ATC, is there a means to notify the clueless pilot without resorting to private chat? I can't seem to think of any means of employing voice to rectify the situation. It would seem personal chat text refuses to die
Given all the excitement with respect to AFV. I can't recall reading about the impact this will have on text. Is frequency based text going to be supported or is VATSIM leaving text for some future enhancement. My mind boggles at the thought of comms text that is also frequency centric and governed by the equivalent range limitations as voice coms? Hee hee. I can imagine the font fading to black as the range limit is approached prior to all contact being lost. Animated text that jitters with simulated static. Okay, that is pushing it a little far. Nice clear and steady text will do just fine.
Callum. Some testing next week is a great idea. I would and enjoy a chance to quell my curiosity. Now I just have to dodge the tradition of having my better half create a check list of "things to do around the house" whilst away for the weekend.
Cheers all. Catch you all after the weekend.
Rusty
-
Callum, I would love to accept the offer to participate in some divisional testing, however, and this has been ongoing for AFV betas, the test clashes with a long weekend holiday here in SA and as such I will be away from my sim and WAN until Tuesday. So far each beta test has clashed with something or other preventing me from participating. All quite fustrating. The exception was this last oceanic test and in that instance I simply failed to open the emailed invitation.
Having said this, after this up coming weekend I expect no further absences and would love to particpate in any additional tests. Oh, wait a minute. AFV goes live the following week. Doh!
Dan, I expect to have an in depth AFV discussion this evening during World Discovery.
Can someone clarify something. I seem to remember reading that the initial AFV mplementation will effectively cripple the use of any frequency except standard UNICOM for voice coms without a controller to allow pilots to adjust. However, discussions in this thread seem to suggest this will not be the case and that CTAF will be fully implemented and instead the use of UNICOM is to be mandated as a procedural requirement. Is this correct?
As for the issue of broadcasting on com1 and com2 simultaneously. I noticed it wasn't possible when I did my training, but assumed it was because of equipment limitations in a lowly trainer and that commercial outfitting would have greater capability. It would appear my assumption is unfounded. Not the first time, won't be the last. Always learning.
Rusty
-
G'day,
I sadly missed an invitation to assist beta testing Oceanic AFV Sunday evening. Note to self, check emails on a daily basis!
In missing this opportunity I still am none the wiser as to whether or not it is possible to know if the pilot client lists the other stations on frequency (SWIFT does with the soon to be obsolete codec) and if so, is there any differentiation as to whether they are able to receive your broadcast, or on your capability to receive theirs. Anyone have any information about this? If the goal of AFV is to maximise authenticity then I surmise that this sort of feature may be suppressed, even if supporting it is indeed even possible or practical.
I have been picking my way through the AFV knowledge base and a few things have come to mind whilst digesting its content. I commend the authors as it is detailed yet easy to understand. I think a thread will be required to assist in discussing the means by which AFV technology will be adapted to accomplish the way things uniquely VATPAC are undertaken.
My first example of this is with VATPAC's tendency to allow CTR controllers to extend to adjacent sectors. I assume this is to be continued via the use of "CROSS COUPLING". I can't wait to see this in practice. As a pilot it will be welcome to know with certainty when we are operating within a controller's area of coverage. Gone will be the uncertainty of knowing whether a CTR controller controlling in an adjacent sector are extending to your sector by hoping they have documented the fact in their comments.
I wonder how many times aircraft will be inadvertently allowed to lose radio contact because they haven't been handed off to a sector the same controller is also overseeing. I think pilots will need to take initiative by recognising when this is about to occur and politely requesting a frequency change, and at worst, when they do lose contact, realise they can change frequency and reintroduce themselves to an apologetic controller that has neglected to have the pilot change frequency to ensure comms remain active.
I note that initially CTAF will be crippled and a 15nm range on voice unicom implemented in the interim whilst pilots become familiar with the implementation of CTAF in VATSIM. I assume this will apply to Australia despite the fact it has been in operation here via FSINN voice files and the use of CTAF voice rooms on 'rw1.vatpac.org'. I know it's full implementation is keenly anticipated by those of us flying VATPAC VFR Operations. Admittedly, even the ad-hoc unicom will be preferred to having to resort to the current Teamspeak work around that is currently in place during VFR Operations events. However, anything that can be done to expedite its full introduction here in Australia/New Zealand will be most welcome.
Does anyone know whether developer's of pilot clients intend to support transmissions on multiple frequencies? That is, allow pilots to transmit to CTAF and a monitoring CTR controller for IFR departure calls to receive a code and IFR traffic info. AFV will necessitate calls to CTAF and ATC for many operations at uncontrolled airports and it would certainly be more efficient if the transmission could be made only once by the pilot. At present, SWIFT beta is ambiguous about this behaviour but none of the other clients I have used allow for this. A second use for this behaviour could be exploited in the transition phase of adopting CTAF operations. Making transmissions to UNICOM and CTAF compulsory during the intro period would enable the best of CTAF for those that are familiar with the frequencies plus those not sure would be able to use UNICOM with confidence knowing nearby aircraft could be monitored and transmitted to. Any monitoring pilots familiar with the local CTAF would then be able to advise the user of UNICOM the relevant frequency so they are able to transition.
The AFV knowledge base is a valuable resource for both pilots and controllers and I highly recommend VATPAC members become familiar with its content. I also eagerly await the inevitable discussions that are likely to result as a consequence.
Rusty
-
1
-
-
G'day Bryan,
You certainly attempted an ambitious flight given it was the first experience with VATSIM ATC. To your credit you made some very good decisions with regard to not continuing a bad approach and recognising when one is out of their depth. Very few noobs would done likewise. Given your maturity, ATC would have looked upon your actions favourably and I suspect pulled a few stops to assist. You may have benefitted by diverting to Bankstown. Hard to confuse an aerodrome with three parallel runways!
You neglected to mention whether or not the flight was attempted as IFR, VFR and whether you attempted this as a night flight or was conducting it in daylight? Your description suggests IFR and maybe at night where it is very easy to become disorientated. I truly hope you attempted this using the rudimentary autopilot offered in the skyhawk. Hand flying IFR with ATC is about as tough as it gets and giving yourself a chance by exploiting the virtues of an autopilot is highly recommended early on when climbing the considerable learning curve required to master flying in VATSIM.
Based on my experiences flying in X-Plane, the final uncommanded bank was likely to have been caused by extending flaps at too high an airspeed. For some reason X-Plane seems to think this induces an imbalance rolling the plane to knife edge leading to a crash or to exceeding the limits of the airframe. Whilst I applaud X-plane's attempt to create some additional realism, I think it needs a little tweaking. At any rate, if this should happen during one of my flights I immediately command flaps up and the behaviour desists allowing for the recovery of the aircraft and commensurate landing without assistance of flaps.
I hope your experience has not deterred you and that you successfully attempt many more flights.
Rusty
-
Great job by all involved with this Cross the Ditch. It's nice to have an opportunity to take on various oceanic routings in a variety of aircraft during a single event. Managed two legs, or rather 1.5 legs given the first was in Concorde. Then did a crossing route NFFN-YMML and took advantage of the ATC being offered.
Big shout out to Joshua. 16+ hrs by my estimate and turned out again the following evening for Milk Run. Give that man a throat lozenge!
Great job mate.
Rusty.
-
3
-
Thinking about returning... what do I need to upgrade?
in General
Posted
G'day Chris,
I have very fond memories of flying the Realair turbine duke in FSX. I have recently migrated to X-Plane 11 and miss flying it. I also enjoy the Carenado SAAB-340B in X-Plane 11 however I have never used it in FSX/P3D and as such are unsure if it uses flight management like in X11. I have recently re-discovered FSEconomy and can advise flying the SAAB will in many instances result in a significant net loss unless you have been very fortunate in picking up a full load of assignments paying through the nose. I have learnt this the hard way. Rental, cabin crew, ground services and fuel is astronomical! The Duke should prove very profitable however.
If you are going to pursue flying smaller GA then consider flying the VFR Operations Events as listed in the VATPAC calendar. I coordinate these events and I suspect they may be just what you are looking for as a means of acquainting yourself with simming in VATSIM. An assortment of GA aircraft are used and there is no need to concern yourself with hard landings as many of us have fallen victim to breaking our planes for all sorts of reasons. The recent introduction of AFV also allows pilots to make CTAF radio calls elevating the immersion level.
Rusty