For anybody looking into VATSIM and alternatives, the pros of PilotEdge are that there is guaranteed ATC staffing with paid ATC (not volunteers like on VATSIM), controllers are likely higher quality on average, and you will be making all of the radio frequency changes you would in the real world (although often talking to the same controller just on a different frequency). The pros of VATSIM are much wider ATC coverage (PilotEdge is western US only, VATSIM is global) and much higher pilot volume (PilotEdge has 16 pilots online right now).
I got my PPL irl last summer. IMO PilotEdge is fantastic for real pilots/student pilots that want to practice realistic VFR and/or IFR procedures.
But if you want to just "have fun" VATSIM is the way to go, at least for me.
Like PilotEdge I always use with a Cessna 172 and pair the sim up with ForeFlight. I'll expand my planes on it as I expand the planes I fly in real life. But the goal is to mimic real training as close as I can.
I've been intrigued by VATSIM for over a decade now, but never tried it for a few reasons, including:
* I don't think I would handle stressful situations very well.
* I have no experience on either side, and find it difficult to get interested in the actual flying part, so ATC would be the absolute most I could do.
* And perhaps most importantly, I have no intention of actually pursuing an ATC career, and I worry that I'd be wasting people's time if I tried to do anything.
But despite all that... I'm still interested. I might need a lot of mentoring if I tried, though, especially since I'm not as passionate as I imagine many others would have been.
Given all this, do you think it's something worth trying? Or is it the sort of thing where I need to be more self-directed than I am? (Is mentoring even a thing in VATSIM?)
If you're not interested in the actual flying part then I'm not sure if it is worth it?
I think the path for most people is first they get interested in flight simulation, frequently in the context of flying airline jets. They start learning how that airliner works. How to start it up. How to program a flight plan & performance figures into it. How to use the autopilot. The concept of SIDs and STARs (departure and arrival procedures) (and again how to program them into the plane) and finally learning about all the different types of approaches like an ILS approach which allows the plane to break out of extremely low level clouds (think 200 feet, sometimes less!). And finally, how to perfect landings.
They do all of that usually offline. On their own, or with some plugins that inject fake AI traffic to make it a bit more immersive.
Then finally, once they have a grip on most of the above, then they hop onto VATSIM to add the challenge (just at start) and fun of talking to ATC and listening to other pilots. It just is really a great immersion factor to know there is another human being operating the plane that you're taxiing behind.
But if none of that initlal stuff sounds very interesting to ya then (1) no problem!! It's understandably not everyone's cup of tear but then also (2) probably not worth getting into VATSIM.
But if VATSIM on its own kind of intrigues you then maybe you can live vicariously through people on Twitch playing MSFS on it, or YouTube searching "msfs vatsim full flight"
Thank you for the reply, and sorry for my delayed response.
I actually meant being in VATSIM from the ATC side of things, not as a pilot! (Since the ATC side is all volunteers as well.) You seem to be describing how a pilot would be on VATSIM... though then again, maybe that's how a lot of ATC personnel get involved?
Interestingly, in the US, for all its "optimistic" procedures, a controller isn't allowed to issue a conditional ("behind X") line-up-and-wait.
But, if an arriving aircraft is still on the runway, a controller can clear a departing aircraft for takeoff if there will be adequate separation when the departing aircraft starts takeoff roll (i.e., the arriving aircraft will be clear of the runway at that point).
> Who is saying that procedures allow one plane to take off when one is "3 miles out"
The FAA says that, specifically the 7110.65 which governs ATC rules and procedures. In a radar environment it allows for departures when the arriving aircraft is 2+ miles from the runway, and there will be at least 3 miles of separation within 1 min of takeoff. A separate rule requires that the departing aircraft is at least 6000ft down the runway and airborne before the arrival crosses the runway threshold.
If there is a departing plane rolling up to the hold short line and confirmed ready for immediate takeoff, there is possibly time to get them out and maintain separation. If it's low visibility, the departing plane is rolling slowly and not confirmed ready, then it's a bad bad idea.
I think that's generally correct, but I'm not familiar with all of the rules. That said, even if the Southwest plane had been faster on the runway, they weren't going to be able to maintain 6000 feet of separation. If Southwest starts rolling from a dead stop, and Fedex is barreling in at 140 knots from two miles, they're necessarily going to converge until Southwest accelerates, which takes a minute.
Juan Brown [1] made an interesting point also. For a Cat II or III approach, and this one was definitely Cat III, there is an ILS critical area that Southwest would have impinged on as it was taking off.
It says there can be as little as 2 miles of separation which I read as 2 miles when the wheels lift off begining acceleration would end up with 0 ft of separation.
The rules specifically state how 2 miles of separation is defined. 7110.65 5-8-4-Note 1 says "This procedure permits a departing aircraft to be released so long as an arriving aircraft is no closer than 2 miles from the runway at the time. This separation is determined at the time the departing aircraft commences takeoff roll." [1]
Just to keep stating this: I'm not at all defending the AUS controller here. A squeeze play like this in low visibility is needlessly reckless.
While I 100% think the controller in this situation made a terrible judgement call and likely shouldn't be working planes anymore, it's worth noting that that there are very specific regulations on multiple planes using the same runway (called Same Runway Separation). Specifically, for these types of aircraft (SRS Category III), the departing plane needs to be at least 6000ft down the runway and airborne by the time the arriving plane crosses the runway threshold. Heck, for smaller general aviation aircraft, you can have a plane land when another has landed and is still on the runway, as long as they are 3000ft past the threshold.
A different regulation (applicable only to radar environments, which AUS is) allows for a departure if an arriving aircraft is 2+ miles away from the runway, as long as there is at least 3 miles of separation within 1 min after takeoff.
All that being said -- it is possible to execute a squeeze play like this if everything is perfect, but you need the departure to go IMMEDIATELY. Trying this in low visibility was extremely reckless and incompetent.
This is completely correct. One of the first sentences in the 7110.65 (the FAA document governing ATC rules in the US, often referred to as "the book" by controllers) is "the primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision involving aircraft operating in the system." Loss of adequate separation between aircraft (called a "deal") is much worse for a controller's career than being inefficient.
In a world where airline regulators weren't captured by the industries they regulate, this would be iron-clad. In the real world, where humans live and make decisions, not so much.
I think that going up or down 10% (or more) in a span of 5 minutes is a pretty solid criteria for automatic halting, which is what it is today. If you have a better proposition for the halting criteria, please post it here.
That's not actually the point of this article. Many many lenders are not on good terms with their counterparties. Distressed debt and bankruptcy exist. And yet, I've never heard of another story of a bank accidentally wiring nearly a billion dollars to creditors.
Source: spent several years working in the loan and high yield space at a well-known fund.
The amount is unusually large for this type of mistake, making it newsworthy, but it isn't particularly unique. I have personally seen a couple cases of various mistakes in banking (both on customer and bank's side) causing accidental repayment of debt that otherwise would be unrecoverable as the payer became insolvent. Mistakes happen. Human processes and technical processes can help make a bit less mistakes, UX is part of that.
I think people are missing the fact that the 3060 that NVIDIA is halving the hash rate on is not yet released. It is expected at the end of this month and different than the already-in-market 3060 Ti.
The 3060 Ti was already NVIDIA's mining efficiency leader (per W and per $). I think the 3060 would be in the same ballpark, if not better, which I assume is why NVIDIA is doing this.
Presumably they will do nothing to the existing cards (in part because it would solve very little if you could just use old drivers to get the unthrottled MH/s).
>Also, apparently Gamestop itself used the gain in stock price to settle some debts by being able to issue more stock to meet demand at the higher price, thus getting a cash infusion.
False -- if you're going to spread information about financial nuances across this thread, you should look it up first. Go read the SEC filings for GME (SEC EDGAR is your friend), there has been no additional issuance since GME took off. Nor would it be realistically possible given the volatility.
