LGM118

PMDG is a business; your supermarket is a business. In those cases, they have every reason to treat their own forums and other online places as part of their business, and so it makes sense to delete comments that paint a negative picture of them as a company. Vatsim is not a business - deleting comments is basically a way to suppress their volunteers. If Vatsim continues to treat its core user base as a given (i.e. they won't leave no matter how poorly treated and no matter how poor the network functions) then people should make the decision to not only leave, but request their accounts de-activated or deleted. It's no different from not going to a business that has unsafe business practices or that treats its employees poorly (made worse because in the case of Vatsim, there's no rational incentive for the poor treatment - it's not like they make more money by treating users badly). What it comes down to is this: The only way to fix Vatsim is to demand that it be fixed. Quietly leaving solves nothing. Vatsim can be a wonderful community, and when I made my decision to leave, it was a very tough decision. That said, the world is only as problematic as we make it. I have no patience for the people here who are saying that there will always be problems, etc.. That might be true on a very broad, global level, but surely an online organization of aviation enthusiasts isn't beyond peoples' capacity to make work!

I don't have a Vatsim account anymore (see my original post - I had it deleted). Kind of difficult to post up in the Vatsim forums, not to mention that even if I did still have an account, posts that were of this nature would totally get deleted by forum admins.

Note: I originally posted this at about 7:30 PM Eastern USA and I am still editing it for brevity. Some elements may change as I cut down unnecessary information. Since this is going to be a long post anyways, I'll try to signpost and make it clear where I am in terms of things rather than try to respond to specific quotes. This is a good discussion and it's worth continuing. There are essentially two things being discussed. The first is the question that I was trying to bring up with my original post about the nature of Vatsim's structure an organization, and there's a separate line of thought about the nature of disabilty on Vatsim and online (which can also have implications for aviation as a whole). I'll start with the disabilities discussion. Having lived with only slight disabilities, my perspective is tinged by the fact that I am always straddling the line between wanting to be "mainsteamed" and needing some help. Maybe it's the disability studies literature I've read, maybe it's my own personal history of being faced with situations eerily like this, but I have always hoped that people would attempt to be more patient and willing to understand these exact differences. A fun fact about me that I rarely share with people is that about 5 years ago, while applying for colleges, I was accepted into the University of Illinois' Aviation school (specifically, the Human Factors in Aviation subprogram). I ended up choosing not to go 1) because University of Illinois is in the middle of nowhere, and 2) because I was worried that aviation would be too stressful of a career choice for me. Maybe it was the right decision, maybe not. What I do know is that I was forced to make a sacrifice between what I was most interested in doing and what was a practical decision. People without disabilities do not have to make these kinds of decisions. Other disabilities are more severe and create more pervasive limitations, but the reality is the same; despite tremendous progress, those with disabilities do not get a lot of accomodations and have to spend time basically every day thinking about the things they can and can't do. If you want a really good analysis of the issue from a political perspective, I'd highly recommend taking a look at Make them Go Away: Clint Eastwood, Christopher Reeve & the Case Against Disability Rights by Mary Johnson. There's also a really good documentary about inclusion and disability rights from a less political perspective, Including Samuel that I can't recommend enough. One of my big undergraduate papers (not for my major, but still, it was a very fascinating class) discussed emergent Autism Culture and how it's developing. Disability Rights and the Disability Studies field are really aiming to get people thinking about how we as a society conceive of disability and it's something that needs to happen. I'm far from the only person with this kind of perspective on disability. Inclusion is the emerging concensus. Yes, the internet can make that harder at times, but I feel that organizations like Vatsim are about 20 years behind right now. Consider this: When I was about three, I was in a special needs early childhood program. Had I been born in 1979 instead of 1989, there's a good chance I would have spent my life in an institution based on that - my own development and growth was specifically facilitated by being given opportunities to be included despite some early issues. Saying that those with disabilities can't participate in certain things because that's the way those things are structured is a form of institutionalized discrimination. The point is, when you look at comments like "Methinks ATC is not for you then..", imagine if instead of having an anxiety disorder, I were black. When it comes right down to it, this point about how those with disabilities just can't do certain things is the modern carryover from the Eugenics movements that were prevalant in the 1920's. I'm not blaming you - most people don't even think about disability rights, but think about it from the context of a person with a disability and consider how it might feel to be told that because of something you were born with you can't do something that is really interesting to you. How is that any different from growing up black in the 1910's and being told "black people can't fly planes"? There's a reason some have taken to calling Disability Rights the last great civil rights cause. My point about disabilities aside, the larger discussion of Vatsim's structure. Just because you can do something, that doesn't mean you should. Organizations like Vatsim precisely thrive on the selflessness of their members. Imagine if Ross Carlson had decided not to make VRC available for general use? What if Gergely Csernak had done the same with Euroscope? Vatsim as we know it would not exist because we'd still be using antiquated software (or someone else would have stepped up) One of the things that contributed the most to my decision to leave was the attitude among many staff that their positions were "positions of authority." Vatsim is a volunteer organization; people can choose to stay or leave. The primary job of any person in a staff position is to convince people that staying is good. Vatsim staff positions should be considered "positions of responsibility" not "positions of authority" and yet I feel that right now there is a trend towards the latter. Vatsim's upper-level staff have a very insular focus right now - go look at the the BoG and EC minutes and count how many times the topic of adding and retaining members gets mentioned in the past year - and that's a problem now that the internet has grown so much. Vatsim can't continue to turn a blind eye towards the world around it. You can't do that if you're relying on Quarterly meetings between 40 year-olds as your change agent. I'm not saying that experience and age don't have value, but it needs to be tempered against the modern realities. Sure, the argument can be made that Vatsim is a private organization and that the founders can choose not to heed this, but that's basically saying that a private organization's owners have the right to burn it to the ground. It's true, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea let alone something we should encourage or enable.

Also, I'm not going to lie, your previous tenure as the Regional Director for Vatsim Europe Division and a part of the Executive Committee gives you a tremendous bias in the matter. But you can look at a few choice excerpts from BoG Minutes that I was able to pull up. In the 2012 Q4 meeting, there's the following: The subsequent Quarterly meeting went into a lot of detail about how redefining Divisions and so on would potentially require further analysis and that further discussion would be needed. These sorts of cases occur all too often - Vatsim relegates individuals' concerns to the back-burner and focuses on making amendments to the Code of Regulations and so on. It's basically a structure that has become detached from the needs of its individual members. As Oscar Wilde once said, "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy." Basically, you just don't see a lot of downward engagement and activity. Staff sit around in one corner and members in the other. Kyprianos, you actually are making that point for me because insofar as you are specifically pointing to the downward flow of information (the BoG lists its meeting minutes, etc., appeals systems, etc.) you are saying that openness of the top of the hierarchy being willing to tell those below what they are doing somehow constitutes "accountability" Accountability has to be more than just having rules that give people a few rights. How about making administrative positions have explicit term limits? How about putting positions up for internal regiona/division/FIR votes? Why is it that all of the members of the BoG have been in Vatsim for at least five or six years such that newer members are completely unrepresented? Until those questions are answered, I fail to see how anyone can trust that Vatsim is an accountable system. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away, it will only make it get worse.

You think I didn't go through those processes? Let me lay out the full sequence of events so you have a better understanding. While I do have my own biases in the case, and I recognize that you will obviously point that out, the reality is that those kinds of biases and perspectives are inevitable. If you ask someone else, they might have a different opinion, and that's the nature of things. The wholew thing started in February, with an isolated incident in which I had a minor disagreement with a supervisor over the handling of a specific situation. I felt the situation was handled improperly and voiced this opinion - note that this was done politely and with no foul language, etc. I could see it as warranting maybe a 5 or 10 day suspension on the outside (to be fair, I was somewhat rude, but again, no foul language and no overt personal attacks). Several days later, a Lead Supervisor with whom I had a prior history- mainly several negative experiences involving disagreements over several matters of opinion about how Vatsim should and should not be managed - gave me a temporary suspension on the basis that he believed I had violated Section A(1) of the Code of Regulations by dirupting the supervisor's ability to enjoy the network (which I feel was a petty charge). As I mentioned, I had a bit of a history - I often have trouble with anxiety and chaotic situations, and struggle to maintain my composure at times when under stress (there is a legitimate medical condition involved which I do not care to publicly disclose). I had been told on a previous occasion by the Vatusa DCRM that Vatsim would not be willing to accomodate or give me flexibility in terms of a few specific requests I had made that I felt would support a more positive environment where I would be able to thrive. Anyways, The Vatusa DCRM extended the 48-hour temporary suspension to a 15 day suspension to investigate the case. I felt that given his articulated approach to adjudicating disputes (see the initial post in this thread and a part of an e-mail he sent me) I would not be given a fair investigation and that significant action was all but assured. I appealled the decision up the the VP for Conflict Resolution (Norman Blackburn) on the basis of my prior history with the supervisor involved (in the temporary suspension, not the individual incident that led into the larger case). There was a separate issue of whether the initial Supervisor had a conflict of Interest. On previous occasions, he had made it clear that he was actively looking for ways to discipline me and I felt strongly that it was unfair that he was so involved in trying to punish me with so little cause. I sent in evidence of this (and my argument that this was the case), which was largely dismissed on face - within minutes of sending an e-mail addressing that topic I received a very straightforward reply indicating that it is not my place to criticize Vatsim staff. Meanwhile, with no notification, I was transferred out of VATUSA (my home region) to a remote area in Asia (I am not the first person to whom this has happened). This was done by one of the Founders, as it turned out, at the request of the Supervisor in question. I should point out that this whole sequence, from the time that I sent the e-mail bringing up the conflict of interest to the VP for Conflict Resolution to the time that I was transferred without notice, took place over the course of about 4 hours. There was definitely little to no review - the Supervisor requested a founder do something, and that decision was made with no warning and no review. The Founder in question is the same one who I had mentioned in the initial post of this thread. I subsequently demanded my account deleted (it was) because I was so disgusted by the whole proceeding. Subsequent attempts (several months after) to re-engage with Vatsim staff (including the VP for Conflict Resolution) have been ignored completely. The reason I bring this up here and not through channels that have been closed off to me is because 1) I can't use the normal channels, and 2) I feel that there needs to be a broader understanding of these issues among the general flight simming audience. I feel that these issues go beyond my individual case and into a broader question of whether Vatsim truly is a respectful environment. Vatusa specifically has become a very negative environment. Just as an example, I have heard ARTCC staff routinely make insulting comments about one individual who wanted to control on Vatsim despite being blind. In my own case, Vatusa refused to make any concessions on my behalf given a diagnosed anxiety/social disorder and in fact used it as direct evidence to claim that I should not be a part of the Vatsim community (which I feel is in and of itself repugnant). Within the past year, Vatusa has promoted a convicted felon to be the Training Administrator in an ARTCC, a 16-year-old, and has seen an exceptionally high turnover rate among staff. Controller activity declined by about 3% in 2012 compared to 2011 (Vatsim as a whole had about a 0.5% increase overall). "Vatsim politics" has become a dirty word and yet it is also a very common factor in why so many people are losing interest. The problem, essentially, is that with so much structure, many people have sought out positions of authority for personal reasons and to enforce personal agendas. Existing rules more or less make it impossible to remove staff for poor performance; in most of the ARTCCs in Vatusa, activity is very low; the really active ARTCCs are few and far between. And finally, the very existence of Vatsim User Agreement Section 1.6, in my mind, completely negates any benefit of going through the appropriate channels, as those decisions can always be overruled if one of the Vatsim Founders doesn't like you personally or something.

The fact that policies are regularly suspended says to me that there aren't really policies. In the past years, I have heard of at least three instances in which, with no warning, Vatsim User Agreement Section 1.6 to remove members with no warning. Again, I cannot give more specifics without breaking the anonymity of the members involved, but in those cases it was for claimed "bad behavior" - shouldn't they be given the privilege of the proceedings that you describe? I think one or two of the founders have taken it upon themselves to use elements of the CoR and User Agreement (such as UA 1.6, which I quoted in my post) to basically do away with the need for disciplinary proceedings and accountability. Also, what details would you need for you to not consider my post vague? Do consider that I am against turning this thread into a discussion of individual people and case studies and also that I do not want to violate the right to anonymity that others (including founders) have. I can provide clarification as needed, but not if it would lead to me naming names.

Hi everyone. I've been thinking a lot about what to do about this situation that I have been confronted with in the Vatsim community, and after a lot of consideration I decided to speak out on it. I think that there are some serious issues that need to be addressed within the structure of Vatsim. I guess the best way to do this is to give you my own personal story; about two and a half years ago, I joined Vatsim. I enjoyed it, but there's always been a bit of an "authoritarian" feel when you start controlling. Anyone who controls on Vatsim might know what I'm talking about - there's a pretty hierarchical structure. Anyways, anyone who knows me knows that I am nothing if not a philosophical individual and an individualist. I had a number of fairly hostile run-ins with several staff members over the extent to which individuals should be empowered to express their opinions and feelings on the network. This got me on quite a few peoples' bad sides. Back in March, things finally came to a head and, faced with a choice of either being removed or removing myself, I made the decision to remove myself from Vatsim. I had my account deleted (which in and of itself was a tremendous struggle). I feel that Vatsim does not show a lot of respect for its individual members. I want to share a few comments that some Vatsim staff have said. I strongly feel that Vatsim has shown a very low accountability towards its individual members. Whether it's restricting movement between regions and individual FIRs, limiting what can and can't be discussed in their forums, or the liberal use of a number of unsavory policies - my understanding right now is that User Agreement Section 1.6, "The owners of VATSIM.net reserve the right to terminate a Member’s account and/or network access privileges at any time without notice or limitation." is applied on a fairly regular basis. I have no doubt that these kinds of discussions would not be welcome on the Vatsim forums or other media. I am posting this here in part because since I have no Vatsim account, I obviously can't post in the Vatsim forums. Vatsim can be a wonderful organization, but I feel it has needlessly sacrificed a valuable part of its core mission - to provide an open community of individual opinions and ideas - in the name of creating an orderly and controlled environment. And no, I don't expect people to agree with me. It's entirely possible, even likely, that I am reading far too much into the structure of Vatsim because I've been on the wrong end of it so many times (and admittedly mostly through my insistence on expressing my opinions and so on far more than I should). But I think that given the way in which Vatsim has chosen to create and endorse a strict hierarchy on its members to the extent it has, I would say that these are relevant discussions to have. Does Vatsim have obligations to its members that should outweigh the rights of its owner/founder members? Should individual members be given more power to assert themselves in Vatsim's organizational decision-making processes? How do we balance the need for order and civility with the desire for individual expression? It's unfortunate that these discussions simply don't happen within Vatsim as often as they should, but I think that Avsim is a very open forum for these discussions.

Kyle, quit being mean to the less worldly among us; be thankful that they are being articulate, speaking in complete sentences, and using proper capitalization (generally).

This would be an awful idea. Here's why: The flight sim add-on industry relies on the pursuit of detail and the impossibility of perfection. A team-up between PMDG and A2A would result in perfection and thereby destroy the industry and possibly the universe.

Not for a second! On the contrary, my question is more about the exact level of underlying detail. Another way of thinking about it is this; the modern aircraft the PMDG team usually does are very precise machines - there's a reason for those fancy computers and automated systems. The result is that, generally speaking, modern aircraft are very systematic and precise. They respond to things the same way every time. By comparison, older aircraft, or aircraft with less automation, are not like this. Flying my instructor's C140, the engine is never quite the same each time - one day the carb heat might cut me down by 150 rpm, the other it's only 50 or so (similar temperatures). A2A prides itself on this deep-level immersion, and while I understand Robert's initial post mentioned PMDG would not be doing some things such as the maintenance or career mode type things, I am wondering if PMDG is planning for this sort of immersion and is going to program in these kinds of irregularities and idiosyncrasies. Speaking of Rob... You have PMDG stamped silverware for me to steal? I mean for me to admire with my eyes and not touch or do anything with?

Kyle, I'm not asking about the failures module. Go fly the A2A Stratocruiser and you'll understand what I'm really asking about here. Really, it's fun, you'll like it. More importantly, it doesn't have a failures module. I'm asking about the level of immersion we can expect out of the PMDG DC-6, like whether we're going to have the systems work "right."And yeah, sure I could use third party software to get the "just right" configuration I'm looking for, but I want something that works right on its own. Besides, third party software is like doing a blood transfusion; it usually works, but every so often somebody rejects the blood and dies. Similarly, every so often the third party stuff doesn't take and the original thing you have dies. I'm still trying to figure out what's going on with the VC in my NGX.

I do have a few actual questions (my antics aside) about the plans PMDG has for this project:1. Obviously my opinion is going to be shaped by what we've seen from A2A. Robert, your initial post even sort of hints that you did talk to A2A while planning this project out. My question is this: Will PMDG be trying to mimic the ideas underpinning Accu-sim, such as underlying system fidelity, or are you making a simulation that's more focused on the top-level system accuracy. In other words, is PMDG going to be going all-out in the way A2A does with their aircraft in order to replicate systems, or is this more of a straightforward sim that models performace specs?2. What sort of navigational equipment will we be expecting? Are we going to have original period equipment (VOR/ADF), somewhat modern equipment (VOR/DME, etc.), or possibly even a simple GPS (lots of these aircraft were later fitted with basic GPS' later on in their lives)?3. Rob, you mentioned that your team had been in contact with A2A as you began work on the DC-6. Is there any other coordination or cooperation going on? Should we expect A2A to at some point release an Accu-sim package for the PMDG DC-6, or some similar type of thing? In other words, is there any other discussion going on between A2A and PMDG that you think we'd find interesting?thanks

It was sort of a joke, sorry if it didn't work as planned. I did read the opening post and knew you guys wanted to not have to deal with people pestering you on release dates, so I had figured I would throw it in semi-subliminally as a sort of joke.The post isn't supposed to be taken seriously, I just needed some way of getting the lines to have the right order, and there needed to be a question mark at the very end.

Really, this is an amazing development.Elated as I am, though,Let me ask a nice simple question.Every PMDG product up to this point has been a modern, currently used aircraft.After ten years of this business plan,Suddenly PMDG is mooching in a new directionEssentially, Why?Due to the sudden nature of this announcementAlong with the amazing screenshots,The other question I have,Everyone is asking it:?(don't ask about why I formatted the post this way, there's a reason...(grinning).

I don't use EZCA, and I already tried to reset my eyepoint.

One other detail I neglected to mention: While normally I wait for cockpit initialization to complete before touching anything, I did try using gauges before this completed and, interestingly, at least a few of these gauges work until a few seconds into the cockpit initialization "countdown." I don't know if this helps, but it was very interesting to me.

Alright, so this is a problem that I've heard one or two other people have had that has left me completely clueless.A while back (incidentally, immediately after I installed SP1b), I started seeing this strange problem with the NGX in the virtual cockpit view. Basically, a lot of gauges, knobs, and switches don't work. The list (or at least, the list of observed gauges that don't work)1. Battery switch2. Most lights3. The MCP4. Frequency tuning knobs5. Most of the pressurization and climate control panel6. A few others that I forgot (posting from a different computer right now)When I mouseover, wheel or click on the switches/knobs/buttons, the cursor appears as it should (for example, if I scroll over the heading selecter, it displays the up or down arrow with a + or -), but nothing actually happens. There is no "action" (for lack of a better term) being registered by FSX, the NGX, or anything. The 2D panel works completely fine with no problems.Initially I figured this was an issue with SP1B, but that's not the case, as I found out after a reinstall, including using the old install file from before SP1 that I had and used. I also tried a full reinstall of FSX, which did not work. I tried all of the normal fixes that come up for similar problems (reset viewpoint, etc.), some several times. PMDG support suggested that the next step would be a complete reinstall of Windows 7. There's no way I'm going to reinstall my entire OS over something simple like this. So my questions are:1. Has anyone else seen this problem?2. Are there any known solutions.