Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maciej Olborski

atc-discussion [NOTAM] EGPH Twy B Closed due WIP

Recommended Posts

Maciej Olborski

Hello folks,

A2207/12 NOTAMN

Q) EGPX/QMXLC/IV/NBO/A /000/999/5557N00322W005

A) EGPH B) 1208140445 C) 1209030445

E) BRAVO LINK CLSD TO ALL TRAFFIC DUE WIP

CREATED: 13 Aug 2012 14:00:00

SOURCE: EUECYIYN

So from tomorrow 14th August 0445Z until 3rd September 0445Z taxiway B will be closed due to Work In Progress. Therefore all aircraft arriving at Edinburgh should be asked to vacate via A1 when landing on runway 24 and all departures from runway 06 must depart from A1. Lets try to follow it on VATSIM, could be fun! :)

Mac... :ph34r:

Edited by Maciej Olborski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lewis Hardcastle

thanks for update, very useful, will continue sending tommorow as had to leave :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Miroslaw Majerczuk

Very good idea. as real as it gets. I am also proposing to use any other restrictions that are currently in use at the airport in Edinburgh. When you know that the airport is closed due to thunderstorm and planes are waiting in holding, we can try do the same. When it is snowy runway and temporarily closed, also for closing the runway at VATSIM. Maciek if you can,put all the new NOTAMs on the forum. It will be really real control and excellent realism for pilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave James

EDIT: Apologies, forgotten to add the relevant quote:

I am also proposing to use any other restrictions that are currently in use at the airport in Edinburgh

Just a thought, so please dont whack me for it yes.

Pilots using FS9 dont have any runway contamination elements written into the sim or aircraft.cfg/air files, so will they be allowed to land as normal in the case of SNOCLO ? - or will these be blanket NOTAMS whereby you will not allow any landings at all (purely for simulation purposes).

Edited by Dave James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunnar Lindahl

Just to clarify that VATSIM does not allow for SNOCLO, at least not in the forced sense. If EDI gets hit by a snowstorm the Scottish guys might want to make it more interesting for themselves and their pilots to SNOCLO and divert everything elsewhere, but if a pilot insists on landing there anyway they are free to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave James

Thanks Gunnar.

And, in the case of departures....well, its easy to figure out the effect that closing the runway (for what ever simulation purpose) could have on traffic figures.

Pilot sees station online, checks info - closed - fly from somewhere else.....

Edited by Dave James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliver Parker
Posted · Hidden by Harry Williams, August 14, 2012 - 4.2 Inflammatory & Irrelevant Posts – VATSIM-UK does not wish to discourage healthy debate and discussion of topics posted in this forum however posts that are made with the intent of arguing or “debating” in a defamatory, inflammatory and non-productive manner will not be tolerated.
Hidden by Harry Williams, August 14, 2012 - 4.2 Inflammatory & Irrelevant Posts – VATSIM-UK does not wish to discourage healthy debate and discussion of topics posted in this forum however posts that are made with the intent of arguing or “debating” in a defamatory, inflammatory and non-productive manner will not be tolerated.

Dave, it was an idea to increase realism now stop acting stupid, why would anybody on Vatsim close the runway at the airport they are controlling?

At least put some thought into the points you are making.

Share this post


Link to post
Gunnar Lindahl
Posted · Hidden by Harry Williams, August 14, 2012 - No point in keeping it.
Hidden by Harry Williams, August 14, 2012 - No point in keeping it.

Dave, it was an idea to increase realism now stop acting stupid, why would anybody on Vatsim close the runway at the airport they are controlling?

At least put some thought into the points you are making.

I am typing from my phone so am unable to moderate, but you have about half an hour 'til I get home (or another staff member sees this) to remove or edit your post - completely unnecessary, uncalled for and, ironically, stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Dave James
Posted · Hidden by Harry Williams, August 14, 2012 - Avoiding arguments here Dave, you are not in the wrong.
Hidden by Harry Williams, August 14, 2012 - Avoiding arguments here Dave, you are not in the wrong.

Dave, it was an idea to increase realism now stop acting stupid, why would anybody on Vatsim close the runway at the airport they are controlling?

At least put some thought into the points you are making.

I will respectfully beg your pardon Oliver, theres no need for getting personal.

If you actually read the proposal in the thread above, you should see that it is to close the runway "to increase realism", it is not MY proposal my friend.

The points that I made are not stupid, they are valid sir, and are related to runway closure.

Again, if you read above, the reasons are given for the closure in the proposers text.

Share this post


Link to post
Oliver Parker

It is a given that traffic levels would decrease should the runway be closed.

Edited by Harry Williams VATUK9
4.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maciej Olborski

Yeah, I'm not intending to force that :) Or anything else as pilots are free to do whatever they want on VATSIM. This B closure is just quite interesting one and it might make things bit different when you have an huge arrival stream cooming!

Mac... :ph34r:

Edited by Maciej Olborski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Shaw

I think Callum Mc will only get this reference;

Adrian the pilot at Blackpool - 'The ILS is unserviceable' ...'Erm, its fine on my simulator' :blush: haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mateusz Zymla

I really like when we've got NOTAMs on VATSIM. I remember when veery long time ago I was PL-VACC controller, they've got normal NOTAM section, based on real -> Sometimes it's really cool when half taxiways are Work in Progress, and acfts are taxiing around all the airport, haha :D I think we should have more NOTAMs (based on real), too! It's more realistic, and pilots like it, too :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • Edward Berkley
      By Edward Berkley
      Hello all,
      I feel like this question has already been asked before and I do apologise if this question has already been answered!
      I plan to do a bit of early morning controlling at EGCC during CTP. Is there a procedure for pilots that do not have a booking for CTP but wish to travel over the Atlantic anyway, joining the rest of the traffic? 
      I'm guessing they will be held back but will there be someone who gives the 'go-ahead' on whether that aircraft will be cleared to cross the pond or not? It's obvious that the Atlantic will be extremely busy!
      Edward
    • Nick Marinov
      By Nick Marinov
      Hi all,
      As usual, there will be seminars for those who want to control the more tricky positions during CTP. As you may all know, this time around we are departing from Gatwick. As such, two seminars have been created for controllers who wish to control for the event. The seminars will cover specific procedures that will be followed during CTP for all ADC and APC positions. The seminars have been scheduled as follows:
      Thursday 28th March 1800z-1900z Friday 29th March 1900z-2000z The sessions have been opened to all S1+ rated members of the division and you can sign up from the CTS->Students->Seminars menu.
      Controllers who want to control GMP: it is mandatory that you attend one of the seminars. If you can't make them, please let me know via a private message or an email and we can arrange something during the week.
      Attendance of controllers who do not wish to control GMP is not mandatory, however, it is advised that those controllers attend.
      The seminars should last around an hour (max) each. Time for questions has been included in this.
      If you have any questions, please let me know.
    • Maher Abaza
      By Maher Abaza
      Hello all,
      I was accepted yesterday to control in the UK under VG5. The email said I could control anywhere specified in that area without the need for any sessions of familiarization.
      I really think I should be getting at least an introductory session for controlling in the UK. I hope I can find some available members of this community (C1 controllers, not necessarily mentors or INS rated) to help me get in the groove rather than embarrass myself and annoy pilots on London West Control 🙂
      Help appreciated,
      Maher
    • Amedeo Fasano
      By Amedeo Fasano
      Hello,
      i have just started using VATSIM.
      In the real aviation life I fly from Oxford (EGTK) and have an instrument rating. I intend to use VATSIM to initially simulate IFR flights from and to Oxford using other IFR airports in UK and France as destinations. Oxford is in class G and my destination airports might or might not be in class D (but they will be IFR aerodromes). I might also fly in CAS only during portions of the flight. For example flying from Oxford to Newquay at FL100 (I fly an SR22) will have both aerodromes with instrument procedures available but located in class G and will contain only a portion of the flight being in class A and in airways and/or over class D CTRs which I will need clearance to transit. I will of course file a flight plan. This is a typical mission in my real aviation life. The questions I have are the following ones:
      1) will I be able to talk to Oxford and Newquay for IFR , departure and arrival clearances and control even if in the controllers on line list I do not see controllers active in these airports? I am referring in particular to the TWR and APP frequencies which are fundamentally important on departures and arrivals. Yesterday I  saw that there were controllers in Manchester and was able to talk to them. Then I repositioned myself in Oxford and I was not able to talk to a controller (there was no controller indicated as active in Oxford).
      2) would the answer to question 1 be different if I was departing and/or arriving from/into airports in class D?  Is there always a controller available in class D airports?
      3) do I need to see a controller active for London control in order to be cleared to enter controlled airspace and obtain radar control service?
      4) what will happen during the portions of the flight when I will be outside CAS? In the real life normally I would be handed over to a LARS controller who will give me traffic service or even deconfliction service if I ask for it, being on an IFR FPL. I might also move from a class A airspace over to a Class D airspace if there is a class D CTR on route (for example Cardiff or Bristol in the above mentioned example). How will the handover from London control to the respective en route clad D airspace work? Can I assume that there will be controller available for the class D zones to give clearance and control (either radar or procedural control)?
      in a nutsheel my questions are about controllers availability to control IFR flights in the UK airspace. In the real life they are there from beginning to end (including London Information if there is no other ATCU available). What about in the VATSIM world? Or in VATSIM I am supposed to first check what controllers are available and then define my flight plan according to controllers’ availability?
      i attach a PDF with the flight plan for the EGTK-EGHQ flight in the example
      Apologies for the long question. I tried to be as clear as I could be.
      Help appreciated. Thanks in advance.
      FlightLog EGTK-EGHQ 190225 1130.pdf
    • Magnus Meese
      By Magnus Meese
      I’ve been zipping around the country VFR the last few days exploring FTX England, and have assumed Radio-airports are not serviced on the network. Relevant CTR has been online during some of my flights, and I’ve communicated appropriately for TWR &AFIS fields, but remained on unicom without complain for all the AGs. Then yesterday I had a thought to look up the rule for this, and while I found none, some posts describe S2s manning AG-positions. 
      The question then becomes, does top down apply here, or would APP and CTR prefer not to be having to pay attention to one guy reporting in and out of such aerodromes during their hours of service?
×
×
  • Create New...