• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Neutral

About JBZ

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Las Vegas, NV

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines
  1. JBZ

    Vertex website is Live!

    Interesting how one is quick to call an addon release without Navigraph/navigation updates "inexcusable", yet openly admit to using another addon without Navigraph/navigation updates (which is apparently not "inexcusable"). 🤔
  2. JBZ

    QW787 current status?

    https://www.instagram.com/787guide/p/Bgg814vBc7P/ The 787 uses an "off-idle" descent method when calculating VNAV PATH. This is unusual for most pilots who are used to a true idle descent. This in theory should lower the need for increased drag during descent and from what I have seen in many cockpit videos of the 787, the speed brake is rarely used. Unfortunately, it seems that VNAV was an after-thought for QW as I am always using the speed brakes on descent. Thier VNAV is definitely better now than on initial release, but it still has a long way to go.
  3. Adding on top of what Ohsirus posted, WideFS can be useful to hook up hardware such as switches and LEDs to a client computer. This allows the hardware to still interface with FSX, but not take resources away from your FSX machine. Check out these sites also: www.mycockpit.org www.cockpitbuilders.com
  4. Anyone who has been in the military will know exactly what I mean by this statement; there sure a lot of barracks lawyers on this forum. I was so entertained by all the steamy <explitive> being thrown around that I decided to throw my boots on and jump in. First off, these folks here who have experience in the cockpit are trying to convey the message to you that while a go-around is done for safety reasons, it doesn't make it 100% safe. For those of you who believe that logic is "prop wash", I direct you to this NTSB recommendation to the FAA regarding go-arounds and CRO (converging runway operations) http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2013/A-13-024.pdf. I know this report very well considering that my facility had 4 out of the 6 incidents listed. Just because a go-around is done for safety reasons, it doesn't make it SAFE. There are many things that go into air traffic control, this includes how much traffic airspace can handle. With a go-around, you have just introduced an aircraft into the NAS which was not predicted to be there. This means that for example if your arrival rate every 15 minutes is 15 aircraft and that is the max that your airspace can handle, you have just introduced a 16th aircraft oversaturating the airspace. Now you have to figure out where to put this lone aircraft into space that doesn't exists. This can cause issues further out from the actual point of the go-around. How do I know all of this? Well after 10 years of air traffic experience, I've seen this very thing happen more times than I'd like to count and due to these things happening, we track and review every single go-around that happens on a daily basis. Oh, and to the person who said that a go-around is only done to prevent an accident a few posts ago, you are flat out wrong and I'll give you am example. My runway is 10,000 ft long, aircraft A (B777) lands and turns off at the high speed exit 8,000 ft down the runway. The aircraft clears the runway surface, but their rear wheels haven't fully crossed over the hold bars and the aircraft is slowly moving forward. Aircraft B (B737) is on final approach and about to cross the landing threshold. If aircraft A still doesn't have their wheels across the hold bars before aircraft B crosses the threshold, I cannot allow aircraft B to land. Even though there is no possible way these two aircraft would ever hit, there is a rule that tells me I cannot allow that aircraft to land. This in turn results in a go-around,not for safety reasons, but because I don't want to have a deal. To all those that say this controller should be hung out to dry. While I fully agree that this was a show of unprofessionalism and carelessness, a loss of employment may not be so straight forward. I don't like the fact that this person may still have a job as it clearly makes my profession look bad, but I have seen worse without such actions taken. Now since this hit the media they may be inclined to take aggressive action, but it will most likely result in a transfer....remember all the sleepy controllers???? Dear pilots of this forum, most of us (ATC's) do understand that a go-around is not safe and we do everything we can to prevent them. Rant over...
  5. JBZ

    ILS vs. Visual

    I thiught I would throw some thoughts in to help educate from a controller's perspective. First and formost, a visual approach does not give more relief to controllers vs. and ILS. If anything, a visual approach is more taxing. For example, when issuing a visual approach, I need to make sure: 1. That I get a good read back that the airport or following traffic in sight (this can actually be more difficult than you think) 2. I have provided enough space; once I clear an aircraft for a visual approach, I have given "control" to the pilot. The pilot can unexpectedly slow down or speed up creating compression. Additionally, I'm still responsible for maintaining appropriate separation. A visual approach does not always mean that visual separation with other traffic has been applied. Speeds can be adjusted if necessary, but typically you've done all the speed adjustments prior to issuing the clearance or in the clearance as stated above. 3. Even though I'm giving a visual approach, I still have to set the aircraft up to make a successful approach. The primary reason visual approaches are used over an ILS is the absense of rules. With an ILS approach, you need a certain amount of degrees for intercepting tbe LOC. You also need an altitude that is not only at or above the MVA, but low enough to intercept the glideslope. Traditionally if you're doing an ILS, you're not using visual which means I have to control the spacing. So it's not that one is easier on the controller, one just has less rules. A visual approach is NOT an instrument approach, it IS an IFR approach (big difference on the wording). This doesn't mean that NAVAIDs can't be used. Often we get aircraft to join the LOC 20-25 miles out before they are cleared for the visual. This just makes it easier to get everyone lined up. As far as runway acceptance (how many planes can a runway take an hour). It all depends on many facfors. How many high-speeds are there? How far apart are those high-speeds? What type of fleet mix will that runway see? 60 an hour is almost impossible for a single runway. Our main arrival runway has a rate of about 32 an hour, and that's with the minimum IFR separation of 2.5 NMs per aircraft inside 10 miles. We may be able to push that to 36-38, but that would mean that every aircraft is a Southwest 700 series and it's cool outside. Our rate with 2 primary arrival runways is anhwhere between 46-60 arrivals per hour depending on the configuration.
  6. JBZ

    Simpit Running

    Looking good!
  7. JBZ

    How to perform an intersection departure?

    Hmmmm, I'm curious to know the source of your information. I'm not saying you're wrong, but your information could be inaccurate depending on the circumstances. For example, we run intersection departures on a daily basis with multiple airlines (even when the full length is available). Now, some are unable to take those intersections based on weight, temperature, departure runway and so on. However in any case, intersection departures are not banned by any airlines that at least operate out of Las Vegas. Prime example, when we depart 7L, our primary departure point for air carriers is 7L @ A8 or D. Again I'm not saying your info may be wrong, just not 100% accurate.
  8. JBZ

    A quick fly by of Pro ATC

    Al, Thanks, Line up and Wait is now used in the FAA, but it was adopted from ICAO. If you were flying in Europe, you would hear Line up and Wait also. Some of the big differences between FAA and ICAO that you can tell are things like al**ude changes. ICAO will use "Climb FL190" where as FAA will use "Climb and maintain FL190".
  9. JBZ

    A quick fly by of Pro ATC

    Al, Thanks for the review. Does the ATC only follow ICAO, or does it do FAA also if flying in the states?
  10. Because a compass works off of the Earth's magnetic field. I "believe" that on your modern aircraft avionics, the computer calculates your true heading based on your LAT/LONG position and your magnetic heading. However, some aircraft like your light GA and of cours sail planes don't have modern avionics to calculate this. Even when we did land navigation in the military, we would have to use magnetic heading, then convert using the mag dev to determine our "heading" on a map.
  11. I can pose pros and cons on both sides of the isle. I used to fly and control on VATSIM exclusively, I would never fly offline. Then I started working for the FAA and when you've moved traffic all day long, the last thing you want to do is come home and move traffic lol. Then I gradually moved away from flying online using RC and UT2/MyTrafficX...it brings me what I desire, the realism of flying in and out of busy airports. I also agree that VATSIM has become so proceduralized that it is driving some away. The worst is on the ATC side of things. You get the "know-it-alls" who haven't worked live traffic a day in there life yelling and screaming at the top of their lugs because someone who is new to simming can't get it right. I don't know how many of you remember eSkyworld, but that's where I started out. Even though they used FSNavigator for their radar and one controller worked all positions, it was still a great community and I wish it still existed.