• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About atco

  • Birthday 03/01/1975

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Air Traffic Control

About Me

  • About Me

Recent Profile Visitors

2,614 profile views
  1. atco

    AI Traffic Nightmare

    As someone who devotes hundreds of hours of my spare time into making AI repaints, AFCADs, flightplans and even the odd model or two and then gives them away for free to be enjoyed by anyone there are no words to describe how disheartening this post is. An absolute knife in the back. You are complaining that models and repaints are now better and more detailed than ever before.........Seriously? You are aware that most people are not running their sim of choice on a PC built 20 years ago right? There have been enormous advances in processing power, RAM, graphics cards and even the underlying sim platforms since the last decade? As has been said if you want AI from the 90s with terrible, basic models and awful DXT1 textures there are plenty of payware packages that will give you exactly that with just a few mouse clicks and you can be spared from all the terrible time and effort that you clearly find so bothersome. I honestly just don't know any more what will make people happy.
  2. atco

    WOAI traffic in P3D v4

    Yes FAIB and FSP models all work flawlessly as they are fully native. AIA also released an FSX model update pack here in the library they also work. Don't despair there are large scale efforts within the AI community to update as many models as possible. Doing it properly takes a bit of time though. Just a word too about these AI packages. As things stand only WOAI are authorised by almost all freeware authors to use their works. Anything else currently is pirateware. The sad thing is nobody ever asks, if someone who wanted to create one of these packages by co-operation with and working with the freeware AI community we would happily talk about it just like WOAI did. But nobody ever bothers they would just rather rip off.
  3. atco

    Words I need to share with our Community

    Tom, I've known you a long time and I wish you nothing but the best, to enjoy your remaining time to the fullest and to thank you for all of the hard work, the dedication and the sacrifices over the years. You can leave us proud of the part you played in turning AVSIM from a humble e-magazine into the foremost place in the World for flight simulator enthusiasts to gather and share their work. That is quite an achievement and quite a legacy beyond that which you already created in your pre-AVSIM life.
  4. Yes its pirateware. Taking freeware models, textures and flightplans and using them without permission. This group and the odious individual behind it almost shut the Alpha India Group some time ago. Many, many freeware authors have been trying to get this product off the scene for a long time. Its continued existence and promotion is a scourge for freeware AI developers. World of AI is the only legitimate way to get packaged freeware AI in this form. Anything else is pirateware.
  5. Anyone else finding that the update of runway and taxi data with the decompiling scenery files takes forever? I've been sitting here for almost 10 minutes and the progress bar has not even started yet ! I only have one airport active for SID and STAR monitoring. On the 1.4 introduction video it looked almost instant. Getting on for 15 minutes now and still no progress, not sure if its crashed, complete or just takes forever. *Edit* Took a look at process monitor and it appears that AIMonitor is searching through every bgl on my system including mesh and vector data! No wonder its taking so long. I have almost 900 entires in my scenery library, but only a handful active. Is it possible to modify the scan routine to exclude certain files or only check active scenery layers. It just completed after about 24 minutes
  6. Absolutely amazing Roland, you are an absolute genius. I second the donation suggestion, what you have achieved is absolutely payware quality. Before I download this version and get stuck in again, I do have a question. You mention that the program can now intelligently assign parking based on the codes in the aircraft.cfg and I assume the codes for each space in the ADE. Flightsim has long had a limitation with the parking codes for each stand that after the first 5 it ignores any remaining codes. Has your program now overcome this? So for example, if I code a gate with 10 codes will AI controller keep looking for a free gate with the matching aircraft.cfg code until it finds a match? I really can't thank you enough for the time, effort and dedication you have put into this program
  7. Wow, there truly is nothing I can say to that, other than to shake my head and smile. Enjoy the rest of your day.
  8. Your source for this is what? I have seen and been subject to NATS code of conduct, have you? It's quite astounding to me how authoritatively you seem to speak on this, show us some proof, or are you espousing opinion as fact once again? You seem to be confusing your forthright opinion with reality and I'm telling you, you are so far wide of the mark you are not even in the same postal code. Your contention that NATS would look into criminal action and intent to danger life is laughable and totally beyond ridiculous. Also read my previous response, last year an Air Canada E190 approaching 24R at YYZ was told to go around on short final, not once but twice after a vehicle went onto the runway and disregarded it and landed anyway. The pilot is still line flying for Air Canada. The airline pays for the uneccesary cost of the extra fuel, as they do with diversions due to blocked toilets, unruly passengers, ill flight attendents as well as go-arounds caused by improperly flown approaches, ATC errors of spacing, runway incursions, cabin not ready etc etc. Its rather obvious. Its a cost of doing business. So, things do happen. If you are under the impression somehow that everything in aviation is clear cut and goes perfectly all the time then you should probably not fly again. This isn't a black and white world that you seem to live in. The controller made an error of judgement, a rather silly and crass one, which resulted in an unnecessary go-around. All the hand wringing and internet outrage is a bit over the top but sadly typical for today's World, where instant judgements, righteous indignation and moral outrage seem to be the order of the day regardless of the size of the transgression or outcome. Some of you should hear the stories of pilots and controllers from the 60s and 70s, if you are getting all hot under the collar over this, then those stories would make your eyes pop out of your head - Example, a National Airlines DC-10 flightcrew in 1973 were bored on a trans-con flight and wondered about the autothrottle system. They decided to play with some circuit breakers and see how the autothrottle responded - Result, engine three had an uncontained failure, a passenger was killed when he was sucked through the hole in the fuselage and the aircraft had to make an emergency landing: Nobody who has ever lived into adulthood has never made an error that has had unintended consequences (no matter how big or small).
  9. Oh my goodness Will you are talking about something completely different........... 1: The incident you describe (do you have a reference to it somewhere, I have not heard of this one) is talking about an incident that involves negligent action on the part of the control staff. (Was any action taken against the flightcrew? I fail to see how it is responsible to leave a transponder turned off after realising it was off as part of some kind of test or game is in any way professional either!!!!) 2: He did not "order" a go-around, he never intended for the aircraft to go-around in the first place, that was never part of his traffic assessment or plan. He made a mistake, a very poor error of judgement and is going to pay a price for it. 3: This is not a case where someone has exhibited poor ATC skills in so much as the ability to move airplanes. What is questionable is his lack of judgement in anticipating a go-around would lead to an immediate reaction. As I mentioned I would suggest close to 80% of the controllers I have worked with in my life have absolutely no knowledge of what happens on an aircraft flightdeck and are not the slightest bit interested. The ATC World has very very few aviation geeks in it. It amazes me how people put a new spin on what people are actually saying. I didn't say a controller gets to keep his job no matter what, you don't keep going and going no matter what you do. Someone who exercises poor judgement once isn't in any danger unless it was done intentionally or negligently, however a controller who continues to exercise poor judgement is not going to keep his or her license in perpetuity. Also it amazes me how many people can state as fact "if it was in other countries he would be gone" and "Telling a pilot to do that for just for a joke is an immediate dismissal in Europe" when in reality its nothing more than their opinion. If there is factual basis for those comments let me hear them, but don't confuse your belief or opinion with being fact. I am telling you as someone who has spent 17 years in the industry on different sides of the World and who is subject to the very disciplinary process you are talking about that you are flat out wrong, but as I said and emphasised in my post, EVERY event is taken on the circumstances at the time. If the controller was bored and told and aircraft to go-around very late and in poor weather and did so for nothing other than fun, I would expect that controller to be fired. In this case, under these circumstances it was a case of a very bad joke that ended up with an un-intended consequence. And like it or not intent plays a big part in all aspects of life. You shoot someone accidentally, its manslaughter, you plan to shoot someone, its murder. Something tells me I should have known better than to post here. I can't really explain it any better, so I should probably just bow out now.
  10. On what knowledge of the ATC industry are you basing that statement on? As you stated so forcefully and in totality, you must have some evidence to back up that statement, or is it just your opinion? Sorry, but you are completely wrong for all the reasons I listed above. If you don't want to listen then I can't make you, but if this happened in Europe then I can guarantee and I would be willing to put money on it the controller would not be fired. Remember, this incident made the news, there are many, many more things that happen that don't and you never hear about them ;)
  11. So by that definition Tom, an aircraft climbing or descending from level flight is adding risk/threat/danger and should be avoided? Look, the whole process of flying itself is a risky proposition. There is an element of risk and danger in everything to do with aviation but those risks are heavily outweighed by the measures in place to mitigate them and the benefits from flying. Those who work in aviation know that nothing is ever black and white, each and every situation needs to be looked at upon its circumstances. A go-around from 1,000ft on a clear VFR day is not even close to anything I would consider dangerous or risky. The reason that go-arounds are so heavily practiced by pilots is because they are so common. When I worked at Heathrow we would have 2 go-arounds per shift minimum, simply because the system was so stretched the margin for error was zero. So all it took was for you to just pinch the spacing by a quarter mile or for someone to miss the rapid exit he should have taken and you have a go-around and almost always executed within a mile from touchdown. I've never met a pilot who considers a go-around as anything other than a normal event, so well rehearsed that it can be done from memory without breaking into a sweat. Now as I said each circumstance is different, and a go-around from 150ft in minimum weather in a 747 that is tight on fuel is a different proposition and could certainly be claimed to be a risk inducing event. Blanket statements just don't work in aviation - to say all go-arounds are dangerous is wrong as is saying all go-arounds are perfectly safe and stress and danger free. Anyone who thinks this guy is getting fired is not living in the real world. Do you have any idea of the cost and time to train a controller, especially at an airport like Atlanta? They might get ten new trainees through the door and none of them have the ability to qualify. The failure rate for ATC trainess runs at anywhere from 40-75% depending on the unit (and apologies for the sweeping generalisation I just made!) and each trainee costs around $100-250,000 to train in overall expenditure from start of training to qualification. Its a hugely expensive process with no guarantees that the trainee can make it at the end. So no they are not going to can anyone unless that empolyee has committed gross negligence or some kind, and to the poster who said if this guy was in NATS he would be canned, having been a NATS employee for 7 years, you are totally wrong. A very uncomfortable chat with management would follow, likely with a written warning placed on record. If it can't be proved that the action was taken with malice or with intent, then a case for dismissal is going nowhere. I do not know how the FAA handles its business but I would expect some kind of disciplinary action, probably a few days off without pay and that would be it. What we are talking about here is an error of judgement and nothing more. Yes it was foolish, probably because the controller did not appreciate the immediate reaction the go-around call would create on the flightdeck - You would be surprised at the number of controllers who have no interest in aviation at all who do the job, and do it very well. He made a judgement call, as we do thousands of times a day, to use that line then and it backfired badly. An error of judgement that did not take into account the consequences combined with some misfortune in the readback blocking out the rest of the transmission. No controller is going to be let go for errors of judgement - Where do you draw the line? Every time someone gets the spacing a bit tight on final and that leads to a go-around should we unplug them and tell them don't show up tomorrow? How about a heading that didn't works as planned that leads to a separation loss, get rid of them too? An Air Canada E190 pilot who last year was told to go-around when a vehicle was spotted on the runway at night but ignored the instruction and landed anyway is still flying the line, why should this case be different? Also if any of you don't believe that banter and the occassional outbreak of humour or non-standard phraseology happens then you are in for a surprise as well. It happens often, because after all you are dealing with humans on both ends, but what is different to this case is that you never mess around with critical clearances. I would never consider doing what this guy did, because I just don't believe its appropriate. Things we frequently have banter about - delays, runway in use, shortcuts. Although I was sitting next to someone once when they knew the captain of a flight coming inbound and it was his last flight for retirement and they had a brief discussion and he told him I have a holding clearance for you when ready! I was hesitant to post to this thread because there has been a lot of very entrenched positions posted so far, and thats usually an invitation to get flamed, but I think a bit of real world perspective is due here. So to sum up, at least in my opinion: 1: Controller excercises poor judgement with an ill timed and ill thought out fake clearance 2: Pilot immediately responds - as he should - and blocks out the explanation 3: At this point its too late, go-around has been started, the horse as they say has bolted 4: This go-around in the circumstances reported was not in the least dangerous, at worst it was a significant inconvenience to the crew and passengers 5: The aircraft re-positions for a safe landing 6: Controller is not getting fired but surely will be disciplined 7: Errors of judgement are an everyday occurrence for both pilots and controllers 8: All go-arounds are not created equally. The level of risk or danger is not the same for each one, it has to be weighed under its own individual circumstances at the time 9: Flying is inherently risky 10: Sometimes controllers and pilots do stupid things. Things they wish they could have back. Its a part of being human That's it, feel free to tear me from limb to limb!
  12. I don't think this is a weather engine issue. Just tried on a default P3D install with absolutely nothing added. I tried some of the weather themes and found that default weather, default textures, clouds etc that I got significant FPS drops with heavy cloud cover. Rain was not necessary, simply a heavy overcast. My FPS drops were from 34 locked in everything else I could throw at the sim down to 24-25 when looking at the clouds. I saw FPS increased to 34 again when I panned so the clouds were not in view. Tried fiddling with some settings and what I found was that turning the HDR lighting off restored my frames to 34 locked in all weather. Even running the heavy storm themes (Winter and thunderstorms) I had locked FPS at 34 panning all around the sky. I would suggest for now in heavy weather try turning off HDR lighting and see if that restores performance.
  13. Its not related to FTX Global its an airport altitude issue which I had as well. I alerted the developer on his facebook page but he did nothing to fix it so I fixed it myself in ADE. The airport is fine with low res default mesh, but if you use high res mesh like FS Genesis or FS Global then you get this mismatch. You have to open the airport in ADE and change the altitude to 27 feet. That may work, if not you will have to add a Terrain Exclusion with flatten to block out the default airport background and elevation also in ADE. This thread at FS Developer explains how to do it perfectly: It doesn't take 10 mins to fix, but sadly the developer could not be bothered. A shame, becuase they make great products but are usually severely flawed in some way, requiring the user to fix - missing or broken approaches, poor exclusions, building issues, texture issues and ADE issues to name but a few. Great airports, awful support in my experience.
  14. atco

    Ryanair Whistle Blower Pilot Fired

    "I have to say personally I've seen very little input from the IAA into the way EI is run, so I think it's safe to say that this applies to all Irish airlines. It enforces all laws, but that's it, it will conduct spot checks to ensure everything is being operated on to spec etc, but that's not the issue. Ryanair is operating perfectly legally and in compliance with all IAA and EASA guidelines, it's just unfortunate that the guidelines and laws are not designed to deal with an atmosphere in a company, they can only deal with facts." Then you have a regulatory problem, not a Ryanair problem. If Ryanair is operating legally and in compliance with all IAA and EASA guidelines (guidelines or regulations? - Big difference), then what else are they supposed to do. You are correct in stating that any regulator has to deal with facts, as "atmosphere" can be interpreted many ways by groups with an agenda to push - like trades unions for example. If people are not reporting problems to them, then there are no facts to go on. A regulator cannot simply work with heresay and gossip. "Ryanair pilots have said in their survey that they do not trust either the internal or external reporting mechanisms in place, as they've reported concerns, yet still they are unaddressed." Again this is a regulatory problem. Are issues unaddressed or simply not solved in favour of the complainant? The regulator has to work within the legal framework it has based on applicable National and European aviation regulations. If Ryanair is not breaching those regulations, what should the regulator do? "My concerns are as follows and I'd hope most people can see where I'm coming from: Having to pay a mortgage or bill etc, should not come into the equation when determining if you are fit to fly. Pilots should not be reprimanded for reporting safety issues. Pilots should not face pressure to take less fuel, they should be informed of the cost of taking extra, and justifying taking more fuel is acceptable if it get's people to really think if they need it, but not ranking them against each other and reqarding/punishing people for their place on the scale. Pressures such as having hours cut or base changed should not be allowed influence a pilots descision when it comes to deciding on something safety critical. I'd hope those points are sensible and people see where I'm coming from. I'd hold all airlines to this standard, not only Ryanair but every airline out there." 1: Ryanair have issued a statement saying that contract pilots average more flying hours than non-contract pilots. I assume they have figures that they can back up that statement with. I have not seen any evidence put forward outside of anonymous anecdotes that suggests pilots are putting money before being fit to fly. 2: Where is the evidence that Ryanair pilots have been reprimanded for reporting safety issues? 3: The Ryanair memo states very clearly unless I have missed something that pilots are able to take as much fuel as they determine necessary. Again where is there evidence that pilots have been harmed career wise by carrying extra fuel? 4: Again where is there evidence to support the accusations that pilots are having hours cut or bases changed, and what safety critical decisions are they claiming to make based on this information? I would imagine a lawyer would have a fairly easy time tearing the airline apart if a pilot was disciplined for carrying extra fuel given the wording of the memo from the chief pilot. I agree I would want all airlines to be held to the same criteria, but without any evidence that any of this is actually happening then what do we have to go on. Sorry but anonymous interviews in a TV documentary do not cut it for me, particularly when the documentary maker already has a questionable history with the airline involved and there is a fairly public battle going on with the airline and a trade body that provided the information and presumably the pilots for the show. I'm not saying that there is nothing problematic at Ryanair, there may well be issues going on there, but honestly whats been presented so far is so below what I would consider acceptable evidence of what is alleged to be serious wrongdoing that I can't fail to be skeptical. Ryanair have so far provided fairly concrete facts, documents and actual evidence to back up what they are saying, the other side has provided nothing at all. "The reason that this industry has been able to get like this is because pilots have not been working together to stop things like zero hours contracts or pay-to-fly schemes, to bring this industry and a career I've dedicated my life so far to back to a place that is respected, I feel I owe it to the pilots at Ryanair to support their cause." Well thats another issue entirely, and not solely of Ryanair's doing. Many airlines across the Globe have hacked away at pilot's pay and conditions, and its very sad to see. That is something I am behind fully, but that is an industry wide issue and it would be unfair to simply pick on Ryanair. I understand where you are coming from here, I know a lot of pilots and honestly I stand with you in improving the working life and safety culture of everyone in the industry. I have never met more committed professionals in any walk of life than those who devote their life to aviation - be it maintenance, flight crew, ATC. I have never met a single person in this industry who was not motivated by the pursuit of safety and keeping safety as the number one priority. I believe strongly in a positive and non-punitive safety culture. So again, I'm not simply here to defend Ryanair, what I am saying here is there seems to be a whole slew of issues, particularly with regulation and oversight. But the accusations that have been put forward regarding the airline to me just don't meet the smell test. They smack to me of a body (Ryanair pilots group) with a significant axe to grind in a labour relations matter making a lot of noise but not showing anything to back it up. If actual proper hard evidence outside of anonymous interviews can be produced that shows this is how Ryanair is operating, I'll be the first in line to stand right behind you in calling for change and for decisive action. If as you believe Capt Goss has proof to back up his claims, why did he not bring that forward during the TV program? Surely that would have made for a blockbuster and would have been well worth dropping in front of Mr O'Leary during the interview he offered to give? "I am not slandering Ryanair, all I have done is reported that Capt Goss who spoke up was fired for doing so (fact), that he highlighted safety concerns that to me seem to be valid and make sense to me (fact), and that I believe that these concerns should be brought to the attention of as many people as possible." I would suggest Capt Goss was fired quite appropriately for throwing his employer under a bus on national TV. If you can name me any other company that would not have done the same I would be amazed. I can't see honestly how anyone can say that trashing your employer on television is not a sackable offence. Had he been sacked purely for speaking out about safety violations within the company and not made the media his first port of call then I would back this 110%. If he has highlighted safety concerns before to Ryanair management and the IAA and they have not been acted on then I would like to see evidence of that and I will most certainly be on board with supporting his cause. Sorry for the rookie usage of the quotations.
  15. atco

    Ryanair Whistle Blower Pilot Fired

    So the real issue here then is the regulator and not the airline itself? I assume that the issues with the IAA also extend to Aer Lingus, or does the IAA only "self regulate" Ryanair? I'm very troubled by this to be frank. If the problem is as you state then all Irish pilots should be standing up to the regulator and taking this to the European regulator. Surely a co-ordinated approach from all Irish pilots would resolve everyone's concerns about the IAA and its oversight. I find it somewhat hard to believe that the regulator could simply be in Ryanair's pocket. Are you implying here that the IAA turns a blind eye to Ryanair's alleged infractions whilst solidly regulating all other Irish airlines? I have to be honest but I find that somehwhat hard to believe. Having dealt with regulatory bodies from the UK CAA and Canada's Transport Canada, albeit on the ATC side of the fence, that really doesn't mesh with my experiences of the people who are involved in these agencies. All the regulatory people I have ever encountered professionally have struck me as being extremely concerned about flight safety regardless of who they may upset, to the point of being excessively nitpicky. I was once criticised for not giving traffic information when passing urgent and unexpected avoiding action (another controller unexpectedly turned his aircraft right at mine - head on 5 miles climbing and descending through each other) and the only thing I cared about at the time was making sure the avoiding action was substantial, thorough and effective. Yes traffic information would have been ideal but at the time I considered it a lower priority! I have to say that having looked at the evidence put forward here so far, in terms of the communications between Ryanair and the Dispatches producer and the statement from the IAA that I find it hard to not find some sympathy with Ryanair in this case. I have to agree with Gerry's input on this that it looks for all the World like a trade union created issue and that there appears at least on the face of it to be plenty of avenues for Ryanair pilots to make their concerns known both internally and confidentially via the regulator. I can understand the skepticism of using the internal reporting system, that largely comes down to how one views the safety culture within the organisation and how robust and or safe one feels using it. That is something only those within the airline can judge for themselves. But surely there can be no excuse for not using the confidential reporting through the regulator? If the process is not confidential the regulator is exposing itself to huge liability if there are then reprocussions for the reporter. If the regulator is not dealing with these matters on a confidential and full basis then that undermines the integrity of the system for all air users and employees in Ireland and I would argue is a matter of significant importance and should be something all Irish aviation professionals should be up in arms about. Having used such systems in the past through the UK's MOR scheme and other various programs like CHIRP I had no doubt that my confidence was maintained and that my reports were followed up and investigated thoroughly. I would not hesitate to use any such program again in the future. I would expect that if I went on national television and destroyed my employer without using the proper reporting channels that my attendance at work would no longer be required. That to my mind does not seem unusual for Ryanair or really any company? Also whilst I have a great deal of respect for Ronan and what he brings to AVSIM, I am not comfortable with the motives here, given that Ryanair is Aer Lingus' most direct competitor and that Mr Goss clearly had to know that he would be fired for appearing on the show. What troubles me most is that I'm not sure what the real issue is here that Ronan is attempting to highlight. I don't think its unreasonable for the airline to fire Mr Goss for appearing on the TV show - I'm fairly certain that every airline in the World would classify such action as Gross Misconduct as would any fairly large company that values its PR image. And that it appears that Ronan is suggesting that the IAA turns a blind eye to alleged wrongdoings by Ryanair. It appears there are legitimate channels in place for Ryanair pilots to air their concerns. If they are not doing so that indicates a couple of options: 1: Things are fine there 2: Ryanair does not have a proper safety culture in place and given the evidence presented by Ryanair that does not initially appear to be the case based on their memo's on fuel uptake and CVR preservation and no documented evidence to the contrary 3: The regulator does not apply proper oversight of Ryanair and presumably other Irish airlines and does not meet its obligations of confidentiality regarding its confidential reporting system I would suggest some, none or all of the above may apply here