Clarification on Text-Only Pilots and Voice Monitoring Expectations

General Discussion Pilot Talk
, ,
1

Hi all,

I wanted to reach out for some clarification regarding how text only pilots are expected to operate within uncontrolled airspace on the VATSIM network, particularly when it comes to CTAF usage and monitoring voice communications.

For some background, I have been flying on VATSIM since 2004. I remember when most communication was done via text, and voice was still unreliable or inaccessible to many users. We have come a long way since then. In 2025, voice has become the dominant and preferred method of communication, and it is my understanding that text only pilots are still supported, but within reason and with some expectation of situational awareness.

Recently, I was inbound to a large international airport that was uncontrolled at the time. I was about 20 miles out, broadcasting all the appropriate position calls on the airport’s published CTAF frequency and monitoring 122.8 as well. On very short final, another pilot taxied onto the runway. I saw a single text message from them saying they were departing, but it was sent on 122.8, not the CTAF frequency. There was not enough time to respond via text (I was hand flying the approach), so I elected to go around.

Afterward, I messaged the pilot, professionally and respectfully, just to point out the miscommunication. They responded that they were text only, had their volume turned down, and were not monitoring voice.

I reached out to a supervisor for guidance, and the response I received was:

“Thank you for sending that over. The user is correct that text only pilots are accommodated on the network and not required to use voice.”

The supervisor also cited the Code of Conduct, specifically Section A14, which states:

“Voice is the preferred method of communication on VATSIM. Account holders should use voice if able to do so, but must accommodate the use of text.”

I fully understand that text only pilots are not required to transmit via voice. That makes sense. But what I am unclear about, and what I would like clarification on, is whether they are also not expected to monitor voice communications, even passively.

To me, “accommodating the use of text” means that those of us using voice are expected to read and respond to text transmissions when appropriate. But it seems equally important that text only pilots monitor the voice environment, especially at busy airports, or at the very least be tuned to the correct CTAF frequency and paying attention to traffic around them.

Is the current interpretation of A14 really that text only pilots are not required to monitor voice communications at all, even when others are clearly operating via voice on the proper frequency? As a voice pilot, I have no way of knowing whether someone is using text due to a hearing impairment or if they’ve simply chosen not to monitor voice. In this case, the pilot chose to turn down the volume entirely, which seems problematic. If voice pilots are expected to accommodate text-only pilots, should there not also be an expectation that text-only pilots at least maintain some awareness of voice traffic in shared airspace?

I am not looking to start a debate or call anyone out. I just want to better understand how this is intended to work in today’s environment. As someone who has been on the network for over two decades, I appreciate how far things have come and want to make sure we are all operating with a shared understanding.

Thanks in advance for your time and clarification

1 Like
2

If I read this correctly based on CoC 14 per the supervisor’s response to your encounter, if someone flies as text only pilot, then I don’t have to monitor voice. I can have my voice down or off and not listen to other traffic in the area that might be using voice.

Are voice pilots required to type all actions when departing or landing? I have no way of knowing if a text only pilot is in the area. I’m using voice as it is preferred.

I’ve encountered a few incidents where a text only pilot was on the wrong frequency or they said they weren’t listening on voice. But many have said they are at least listening so they are aware of what others are doing in the area. To completely ignore voice all together or expect voice only pilots to type out every action is time consuming, especially during departures and arrivals.

2 Likes
3

The CoC companion document says:

We encourage users to utilize voice communications wherever possible, though text-only is available for interacting with controllers and on unicom where a pilot needs to. It will always be assumed on unicom that a pilot is monitoring voice and text, therefore a pilot unable to receive voice unicom should regularly make it clear on the unicom frequency that they are text-only.
Controllers will always be required to provide services via text if requested by pilots and are not permitted to ignore, refuse, or otherwise reduce the priority of pilots communicating without voice. Pilots using text (especially on the ground) must be aware that in busy airspace a controller may be tackling large numbers of high priority tasks via voice before they are able to respond, in the same way that pilots on voice may need to wait for a gap in communications for the same reason.

1 Like
4

Luiz,

Thanks very much for your reply and for pointing me toward that clarification. I hadn’t seen the companion document before, and it’s helpful to see that it does in fact place some responsibility on text-only pilots to make it clear that they’re not monitoring voice. That context makes a big difference in understanding how things are supposed to work in practice.

From my perspective, it seems the supervisor I spoke with was technically correct that text-only pilots are permitted and must be accommodated, but also missed an important part of the picture. Based on the companion document, it would have absolutely been helpful (and expected) for the pilot to announce both their intentions and that they weren’t receiving voice. Doing so would’ve gone a long way toward avoiding confusion, especially in a busy environment where other pilots are relying on real-time voice coordination.

Thanks again for this info!

1 Like
5

Please don’t forget that there are (a few) pilots and ATCOs on VATSIM who are deaf and simply cannot listen to voice.

On the other hand, in your example the other pilot was on the wrong frequency (advisory vs CTAF) and he only made a text report when he was departing. Just like on voice, for text pilots it is advisable to report your intentions a few minutes before you actually enter a runway for departure. This will allow approaching pilots to factor you in, by either slowing down, choosing a different runway or starting text communication with you to coordinate your departure time/their landing time.
Also, departing pilots should have a good lookout for traffic on approach - landing traffic should be given priority, if possible. You can use your TCAS, VATSIM Radar and other tools to check for traffic approach your airport of departure.

Please remember - and this is true for both text and voice - “communication” is usually a two-way street. Broadcast your intentions in a timely matter so other pilots can reply and adapt to you or the other way around.

It’s a courtesy and good practice to do so, since we all want to work together or at least co-exist on this network.

6

Great topic. For me the main thing is the use of CTAF frequency. So many are still on 122.80 and then you have some that are not on CTAF or 122.80 but some other frequency.
I can live with a pilot wanting to use text only and i am on voice , at least we are on the same frequency and we comunicate. The problem is when we are not on the same frequency.

2 Likes
7

You are correct, the text pilot was in the wrong here for not coordinating properly (ie. on the right frequency, and with plenty of time for pilots to respond). Apart from coordination, “see and avoid” or a tool like Vatsim Radar should always be used in situations like these, so the other pilot should never have entered the runway with you on short final. That’s on him, and the supervisor did have a chat with the other pilot to educate him on the rules as well.

However, when you stated that a text pilot should’ve been monitoring voice, that’s where a clarification on A14 was needed. As Andreas mentioned, there are VATSIM members that are unable to monitor voice channels, for different reasons.

2 Likes
8

Hi @Marcelo,

Thanks again for your reply and for helping to clarify the intent behind A14.

Just to be clear, I fully support and welcome pilots on the network who may be deaf, have speech limitations, or for any reason genuinely rely on text only communication and are unable to receive voice for a medical reason. Over the years I’ve met some incredibly skilled and courteous pilots who fall into that category, and they’ve always gone out of their way to make sure those around them are aware of their communication limitations. That kind of situational awareness has always stood out to me as a strength in our community.

From what I now understand, text only pilots are expected to clearly communicate that they are unable to monitor voice, especially on CTAF or Unicom. That is where I believe this pilot fell short. Even if he had made that clarification in his transmissions, there would not have been time for me to side step to another runway, but I probably would have been less frustrated in the moment knowing that he was operating with that limitation. Instead, I was left guessing whether I was being ignored or if it was just poor coordination.

The interaction I had with the pilot was disappointing, especially given the “this is a game” attitude that came through in his responses which probably attributed to my frustration in the moment. At one point, he even explained to me that he was a real-world pilot, not realizing that I am too, though more of a weekend warrior. Still, it made the exchange a bit ironic since folks seem to forget they’re not the only ones with a license who fly on VATSIM. I think most of us on the network are here to simulate realism which helps us train for when we fly in real life, and when that kind of mindset is used to dismiss coordination mistakes, it can be frustrating, especially when others are making an effort to operate professionally. I guess the silver lining here was my opportunity to practice my go-around procedures - haha.

I also want to take a moment to thank the supervisor team for their involvement. For the most part, the experience on the network is overwhelmingly positive, and I know how challenging it can be to respond to all of these situations in a timely and fair manner. My only gripe here was the limited explanation I received during the initial exchange, which is what led me to want a little more clarity on A14 since I felt like my concern was being dismissed about text pilots not listening to voice. I am not expecting the pilot to receive a lifetime ban or anything close to that for a mistake like this, but I do hope the guidance that was shared with me, about the responsibility of text only pilots to identify themselves as such, was reinforced during the follow-up.

Again, thank you for taking the time to engage in this discussion. I really do appreciate it.

4 Likes
9

Well, don’t get worked up about this event. In theory, because the other “real pilot” did not announce his intentions in a timely manner AND entered the runway you were landing on shortly, you could have disregarded him and just landed. Depending on how much time I have left before doing other things, this is something I’d do. These are rare events, though.

1 Like