Dashik

I'm amazed this thread is still going!!!!! My original point was not that afk flying was fine but that when challenged about an alleged abscence I was able to explain that it had either been a technical issue or I had been in uncontrolled airspace and nipped away. The controller in question wielded a large bat for a small nail tbh. Anyway, I agree that 99.999999% of the time the guys on Vatsim )and IVAO) are great guys. I was just put out by the heavy response to a trivial problem. I did laugh at an absence in 2006 the the next three all within a month or two in 2011. So about 4 or 5 alleged absences in 6 years........... I would endorse whole heartedly and thank the guys that provide the online ATC whatever network you choose. It makes a potentially very lonely hobby significantly more fun when it works :D

I'm 47 :D and no I'm not a child. I don't think its dirty Laundry as such. Its a post to highlight what I consider arrogant and unreasonably inflexible behavior by a supervisor. As for a 'cooling off period', who for? I was not annoyed until he suspended me. I feel the suspension was more because the supervisor was not happy at not getting things all his own way, Therefore its an undeserved suspension and I feel an abuse of his position as he basically spat the dummy/threw his toys out of the pram. The reason for posting here is that when they suspend you all Vatsim access goes. So you can t post on the Vatsim official forum either. I also think its really poor behavior by the supervisor and as such warrants public scrutiny. It's all the more annoying because this is the first time I've had a problem with Vatsim since 2006 when I first signed up. Any other controller has been more than helpful and its a shame things went the way they did. Thing is I am getting into flight simulation in a serious way now and I'm giving serious thought to building a home cockpit. One of the main attractions is online flying, hence why I flew on Vatsim. One thing as a result. I've installed IVAO and it worked with a minimum of fuss first time out the box. So the supervisor has managed to encourage me to go elsewhere as a result. Whatever the outcome I certainly won't be on Vatsim near as much now, I intend to spend time on IVAO as well. They might not think it's much of a loss, one pilot spending time elsewhere. So its a real win for Vatsim huh?

There's a few threads here complaining about comms problems with Vatsim. So I'm not alone. Here's what happend tonight. Make your own mind up. Was he right to suspend me? The text of the conversation is at the bottom of the post in italics. Heres the email to Vatsim's Norman Blackburn - VP Conflict Resolutions - Hi Norman My name is James Laird (Vatid - 968801) I’ve been a member of Vatsim for several years with various levels of activity. Recently I’ve had the opportunity and pleasure of being able to spend a LOT more time online. This has however come with fair share of technical problems getting FSX and FsInn and my Mic etc sorted out after not having flown for a few years. As a result I have on a couple of occasions missed a few calls from ATC. Now let me be the first to say that I do not endorse afk flying, it’s pointless and not fair on the ATC or other online players. I have in fact logged in excess of 290.2 hours in the last 6 weeks. That’s a considerable amount of flying 99.9% of which was done online on Vatsim. Unfortunately as I have explained on a couple of occasions I have indeed had some problems that have prevented a response to ATC but that’s not really a surprise given the hours I’ve logged. Anyone else flying say 10 hours in the same period is significantly less likely to have a problem, I’ve been a little unlucky with software and hardware. Nothing else. Earlier this evening, not that it’s really any of Vatsim’s business, I took the opportunity in clear airspace to feed my 2 cats as my partner is unwell and she could not do it. Unfortunately I was a little late back and had flown into the active ATC area. I contacted the ATC controller concerned and apologised. I agreed that had I known I was going to be more than 30 minutes I should have disconnected but I was in fact only 29 minutes it turned out. Its definatly not something I do normally and in any case it’s a simulation not real life so the odd foul up is hardly critical. So far I think I’ve been reasonable and so had the controller. A short time later I get a message form the Kris Thomson (989754), Supervisor. He’s not happy as I’ve been incommunicado again apparently and a dialog then ensures (attached). It then comes to a head with my suspension for nothing more than stating my position during the conversation, answering his question but not apparently according to him and not being prepared to grovel. Here’s the email content – You and your VATSIM account have been temporarily removed as of2011-09-14 22:02 UTC until 2011-09-16 00:00 UTC. This means that Kris Thomson (989754), Supervisor, as a VATSIM Supervisor, has temporarily removed your access privileges to the VATSIM network. This removal is intended as cooling-off period and will not be reviewed or extended after it expires. You were temporarily removed by Kris Thomson (989754), Supervisor. Please note that your temporary removal will expire after no less than twenty-four hours and your account will be reactivated at that time. Your temporary removal is final and will not be reversed so there is no need to contact VATSIM regarding this matter. For your information, the date, time and reason for this removal are as follows: Event occured in Beograd Radar, Europe at 21:30 z 14/09/2011. Reason -- Unresponsive for 30 minutes in LYBA_CTR airspace. Ivan Kovacevic (SUP) had in depth discussion with user regarding leaving cockpit unattended. Soon after there was an issue trying to get hold of James for 15 minutes, but on my call received response instantly. With previous over last month for being unresponsive decision made to suspend. Breach of CoC A9 for first act this evening. Ivan or myself available if further evidence needed. PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO RE-CONNECT TO THE VATSIM NETWORK OR TRY TO CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR PERIOD! However I do take exception to being suspended due to some power mad supervisor not liking the answers he gets to his questions. In fact the reason given to me for the suspension was that I had not answered or responded to his question, here’s an excerpt from the chat on FsInn - EGPX_CTR : Yes but you have been done twice for being away for longer than 30 minutes, that is a considerable amount of time away from the cockpit wouldn't you agree? LOCAL : 'Been Done'? I was not aware of any formall charges ....... Indeed it is if I was actually away that long, I think I explained to the controllers on those occasions that I had been haveing tech probs and ,missed some calls. Unfortunatly thats the nature of the internet. its also annoyign when you turn on finals into say LOWI and the FSX crashes or I have to take 4 attempts to fly across america into JFK at new york and the thing crashes. sometimes it not perfect. but I dont cheat and let the aircraft fly unatteneded for more than a few minuites. ‘EGPX_CTR : No response? Okay I have taken the decision to suspend you for 24 hours, what with your previious and this evening as well. You will receive an email shortly.’ I had in fact replied to his question it’s just he did not like the answer. I obviously was not prepared to grovel enough for his satisfaction. Also its clearly a different reason for suspension to the one in his email to me. He said earlier that I had been afk/unobtainable for 29 minutes, well the code of conduct states as follows When logging on to the VATSIM.net network, a member is not permitted to leave his or her connection unattended for a period in excess of thirty (30) minutes. If a member is unable to comply with this requirement, then he or she must log off of the VATSIM.net network. A member who is found to be unresponsive for more than thirty (30) minutes is subject to immediate removal from the network. Members who are found to repeatedly leave their connections unattended are subject to the terms of Article VI. of the VATSIM.net Code of Regulations. So a 30 minute absence is permitted. You could read that as you can be absent for 30 minutes then back for a minute and then absent for 30 minutes etc. Rinse and repeat. As long as you don’t exceed an absence of more than 30 minutes. However that’s a bit silly. So, however, if you don’t abide by your own rule then what’s the point of the code of conduct. Surely the point of the above rule is to stop people flying unattended deliberately, not to penalise someone who has a technical fault or is actually responding to the controllers with an apology and an explanation? Kris stated in the conversation I had allegedly been absent for 29 minutes earlier that’s not 30 minutes…… Apparently the controller then tried without success to contact me again but then when the supervisor sent me a message I responded immediately. Now I’m sure the control did in fact try and contact me, I however either I missed it or did not receive the message. So clearly I was at the computer, Perhaps I do indeed have a fault that requires some investigation, the controller however was uninterested in my explanation How does a suspension for minor infractions due to technical issues encourage someone to fly online with VATSIM ? I would have thought in this instance a chat and a friendly warning of possible suspension would have achieved far more than wielding a large hammer. I feel the Supervisors handling of the alleged infraction falls far short of the level I would have expected from what Vatsim calls a professional service. I was actively trying to work with the supervisor to resolve the problem amicably. In fact I feel the suspension was more for not rolling over and agreeing with everything he said and grovelling an abject apology, I am extremely disappointed and annoyed with Kris’s handling of the alleged infraction. It was neither fair nor warranted. The better solution was mention earlier. The numbers of ATC and Pilots are not massive by any account and ours is a small aspect of the flight sim hobby. If I had been verbally abusive to either the controller or the supervisor then yes a suspension with immediate effect would have been more than warranted. I however offered an explanation and as far as I can tell just did not grovel enough… To have been suspended without warning while in a dialog with the supervisor because he thought I had not responded to his question is dictatorially heavy handed and unreasonable, If I had been rude or ignoring his point without trying to offer an explanation as I had then fine but I was to all intents trying to explain that the absences were not intentional or planned. Seems there’s no leeway or common sense in Vatsim. Just arrogant supervisors who get peeved if the answers don’t suit them. I look forward to your response. Regards James Laird I've pasted the whole conversation below for transparency. You guys think he was right? Probably Time for IVAO i think..... EGPX_CTR : Hello, I am one of the supervisors please respond LOCAL : yes? LOCAL : iF you calling on voic eall im getting is clicksEGPX_CTR : Sir you have been not responding to CTR calls for over 10 minutes LOCAL : From who? You called I answerd LOCAL : I had a chat with LYBA earlierEGPX_CTR : LYBA_CTR has been trying to contact you for over 10 minutes after another previous incident just not long before LOCAL : Well Ive been here and never heard him. Not sure whats going on there. LOCAL : No txt message either after the last one about FsInnEGPX_CTR : Well he says that he texted you as well as calling with no reply. LOCAL : I see that LHCC has sent a couple of text, did not notice the arrow to the top right oif the chat, and I only had 3 boxes visiable in the title bar. maybe thats been the problem?EGPX_CTR : This was LYBA LOCAL : indeed I have the chat log from LYBA No messages after teh one about FsInn. I can see the one from LHCC now though that I have incresed the chat box width.EGPX_CTR : He spoke to you on the frequency and texted on the frequency with no response. LOCAL : Hmm well you text and got an mmediate answer?EGPX_CTR : 21:07 he texted after no response at all on voice, I have that log in front of me LOCAL : Im not sayign I nver leave the PC, but Im not an absent flyer. I could do that offline. Which channel? Or are we talkign abiut earlier than what i think we are? LOCAL : He called a few times, I apoligiesed for teh delay then had a chat about what teh prob was then that ws it as far as I knowEGPX_CTR : After all that, after 20:47 z he called with no response, then tried text and still no response LOCAL : Sorry, Typings not great tonight. LOCAL : Hmm well I was here after the chat with him, I never heard him call.EGPX_CTR : Well the text on frequency is enough proof he got no response to that which implies you weren't there or decided to ignore him. LOCAL : Why would I ignore him? defeats the purpose of flying online with atc......EGPX_CTR : Well then you must not have been there if you did not see the text one as well as voice calls LOCAL : Wait a second here, what is this? this is a fun pastime, not the inquesition., I have already said that occasionally I have left the PC. Its a simulation after all. I appreciate the fact that people put time into giveing atc service adn I treat them with respect adn I try and be patiente etc. So theres been a mix up on comms, not the end of the world ok? Besides the response tiem to your text was instant was it not? LOCAL : I do not however leave the PC for hours, I may need to go to the bathroom or get a drink etc, you knwo all normal stuff LOCAL : In fact Im now trying to work out why Im expalinign my habits to a stranger online......EGPX_CTR : Yes but your response to a controller was not. I would be inclined to agree with you but this is not the first time that this has happened, in fact I see 2 times in the last month there has been problems getting hold of you. Can you see where I am coming from? LOCAL : indeed, but I have on a few occasiones explained to controllers that theres been tech probs with either FSiNN or my Mic not working etc. But in te last 2 months Ive done a stupid amount of hours so faults per hour if you like are really rather low........ And I dont generally have a problem respondign to Controllers. Its teh point of doing it online after all.EGPX_CTR : The faults per hour is not what I am getting at. In the last month you have twice been unable to reach for times longer to 30 minutes. This evening the same almost happens again (29 mins) and then not long after we have problems getting in contact again. LOCAL : Well All I can say is that I am actually here flying the aircraft (well monitoring the sytems at least ;)) I go get the odd drink etc but I dont leave the thing unattended. I fly with headphones so I know I woint hear the call if Im getting a drink so I check when I get back to see if theres any messages.EGPX_CTR : Yes but you have been done twice for being away for longer than 30 minutes, that is a considerable amount of time away from the cockpit wouldn't you agree? LOCAL : 'Been Done'? I was not aware of any formall charges ....... Indeed it is if I was actually away that long, I think I explained to the controllers on those occasions that I had been haveing tech probs and ,missed some calls. Unfortunatly thats the nature of the internet. its also annoyign when you turn on finals into say LOWI and the FSX crashes or I have to take 4 attempts to fly across america into JFK at new york and the thing crashes. sometimes it not perfect. but I dont cheat and let the aircraft fly unatteneded for more than a few minuites.EGPX_CTR : No response? Okay I have taken the decision to suspend you for 24 hours, what with your previious and this evening as well. You will receive an email shortly. LOCAL : I actually jsut went and read the Code of Conduct. My interpritation of it is that you can be absent but not for MORE than 30 mins, seems a bit daft to me as I would not actually want to be absent LOCAL : No respeonse to what?EGPX_CTR : My question. LOCAL : I say again, no response to wahgt? LOCAL : which quastion? LOCAL : And what do you think this dialogue is if not a response?EGPX_CTR : Look back at my last point before your CoC point, it ended in a question. LOCAL : you mean this - Yes but you have been done twice for being away for longer than 30 minutes, that is a considerable amount of time away from the cockpit wouldn't you agree? LOCAL : ?EGPX_CTR : Ended with "?", so do you agree? LOCAL : Agree to waht?EGPX_CTR : that its a long time to be away from cockpit, 30 minutes, as you were earlier tonight? LOCAL : Well forst of all you got a response. Maybe not what you wanted to hear but it was a respoise LOCAL : **responseEGPX_CTR : Yes I did but earlier LYBA didnt LOCAL : Well He got an apology etc. Its reare Im away from teh PC considerintt the amoutn of time im actually on it. an If I miss the odd call its hardly the end of the world.EGPX_CTR : We are going round in circles here, I have made the point and although you don't agree, a decision has been made. You will recieve an email. LOCAL : Oh so yopur suspendogn me for being absent for 29 mins and you did not like the answer?

Thank you.

So can someone please post the solution to reducing the Fuel Temp when its overheated? Seem strange it persists some times but not others. I'm perfectly happy to accept it as a failure but I'd still like to know the solution. Well I decided to actually post a support ticket with PMDG, lets see If I can get the official answer to how to reduce the temp without reloading the panel state,

Its amazing how picky some people can be lol, We get a great simulation with fidelity and depth and still people manage to find issues with a very well done example of an engine fire on takeoff and landing. That's what makes this aircraft so good, the depth which people have to go to actually find the faults or items he missed lol. For the record I know the people posting have done so in a positive manner and I hope mine is taken in the same light, text is hard to transmit tone. My point is that in previous simulations the faults with the aircraft/missing elements would be big glaring ones. unlike the small ones the op pointed out in his video ir the subsequent posters. Enjoyed watching the video, If I get an engine fire I hope I can deal with it as professionally :D

Good point Ill try that :D So all i have to do is just fly the particular livery and every time I fly I can just select the aircraft from the selection screen or just load the flight I saved and the service state etc is loaded automatically with the particular airframe yes? That's impressive :D Still need a way to cool the fuel without loading cold and dark panel state if anyone has an answer please :D

I'm loving the aircraft and the simulation of systems so this is not a moan So as I have the fault with the Overheat and Low pressure on Elec 1 and 2 lights illuminated and a fuel temp about to spontaneously combust I read through the manuals again as discussed by Robert . I've left the elec 2 and 1 switches in both on and off state for a period of time(around 45 mins each state) at 36000 feet with an oat of -23c so why is the fuel temp not decreasing? I'm currently mid way between LCLK and EGKK so I would have thought plenty of time for the fuel to cool. I'd just like to know how to fix it as I can't find an answer in the manuals. There does not seem to be a Fuel Overheat section! As I have decided to have some fun with the service based failures I've been saving my flight when I finish shutdown at the gate and then when I start my next flight I reload the saved flight and adjust the time and maybe location for the next flight so as to have some continuity for the service failures, if you follow. If I reload the default NGX CLDDRK cold and dark panel state to clear the fault does that reset my service failures? But that's not really a solution to the Fuel Overheat more of a workaround. Is it the case I can just fly the aircraft and the temp will come down eventually? Should refueling with cold fuel not adjust the temp ;) Cheers Really enjoying flying again with this 737 Regards

I've reduced my REX 2.) Overdrive textures down to 2048 and I'll see if that sort my CTD's ive been getting on descents. It's been fine this evening.

Well I purchased Active Sky X and X Graphics away back in 2007 and was using that until I took a break from FS and went to WoW...... Now I have Rex 2.0 and I've just submitted a support ticket to HiFi and I'll see how it goes, Site says upgrade to latest ASE is free so if thats the case then its Win - Win :D

So you suggest combining Active Sky and REX 2.0? What about Wasys that comes with Rex 2.0? Or is the Active Sky module that good? I used to use Active Sky but switched to REX as its very nice :D

Regrettably he's died according to this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2028303/Red-Arrows-pilot-killed-crash-near-Bournemouth-Airport-festival-display.html Damn. Apparently he steered away from houses. Could not ask for more, Their brave in the first place before they get to be a Red Arrow.

I'm flying the TUI 800 with winglets variant until I can get a Thomson one :D

Thing is looking at the CDU and checking the payload section it looks like the max takeoff weight figure for the 800 is the same as the 900 at 79.2 x 1000 Kg according to the Payload page. Checking the FCOM vol 1 it states Typical 737-800 MTaxi = 70760 MTOW = 70533 MLW 65317 MZFW = 61688Typical 737-900 MTaxi = 79242 MTOW = 79015 MLW 66360 MZFW = 62731 So I'm in the middle of a long ish flight, can anyone check and see if the figure in a 900 is different for the MTOW? Or has PMDG just used the same figure for both variants? I'd be be surprised if they had.