At least in Europe at some towered airports there are no designated “CTAF” frequencies but “AFIS” frequencies which basically serve the same purpose. The rest of the towered airports could simply use their CT frequency when no ATC is online.
I don’t see why there should be any bigger problems arising.
Except pilots who don’t seem to be willing/able to adopt to this new “policy”.
Reading all this mind blowing. If CTAF was implemented in other parts of the world without a problem ,why not here.
I was not aware that CTAF was implemented about 10 years ago in VATPAC , but then in all the years of flying i think i was down there once or two times at most, and maybe that is why i was not aware.
Everybody for and against have a valid point. I don’t have a issue with it, but there has to be a way of letting pilots know that when in U.S. this is what is required.
People that are reading this topic are aware of it but what about everybody else. I was not aware that VATPAC made the change. Do i need to read the VATPAC forum to find this.
I think this will work ,we just have to figure a way to let the pilots know about this.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that every airport in the US using a CTAF freq is on a discreet frequency. This definitely is not true. There are only a small number of freqs used as CTAFs at always-uncontrolled airports, and it is very common for multiple airports within radio range of each other to share CTAF freqs. Thus, it is quite common to be in the pattern at airport X, and be hearing calls for airports Y and Z as well.
I guarantee you there has never been a time on the Vatsim network that the old 122.80 was anywhere near as busy as a sunny Saturday afternoon near a major metro area on some of these real-life freqs. 
No, 122.800 has never been like you say, on a sunny Saturday, at a busy non-towered GA airport. Most of the people that run VATSIM, and participate in VATSIM, aren’t certificated pilots. They just don’t know the difference between the real world of aviation, and the computer game simulation of it.
It’ll all work out though. Right?
Right, I literally said its “it’s whatever, its just a game”… but I agree with you non the less.
So here’s an idea. Whenever you file a flight plan at a US airport (at least IFR, I don’t know about VFR), you get the auto ATC message with the squawk code to use in the event that a controller isn’t online. How difficult would it be to add in the frequency that one should be tuned to into that message. Of course, that wouldn’t do much for the arrivals.
It might be a slightly better idea in the long term to simply send people a message along the lines of “VATSIM USA is currently conducting a trial for the use of real world CTAF frequencies instead of the traditional unicom. To learn more about the trial and how to find the correct frequency to use when no controller is online, go to link” - giving people the exact frequency would be very counterproductive if we want to teach them how to use the real world CTAF frequencies.
I like both , my vote is for the second one.
If you want to mess around with CTAF, keep it for yourselves. Don’t even touch Europe, as we are built completely different way. Thanks.
So you don’t know what your are saying. AFIS is nowhere near CTAF, CTAF is close to “Radio”, while AFIS is certified flight information service, a part of air traffic services. It’s not for promulgating position only. It has several other responsibilities, and more important, there’s is a physical person on the other side of the radio, dealing with flight crews. Frequencies in Europe are highly dynamic as the entire airspace is based on Use Plans. Airspace can be active H24, can be activated by AUP, UUP, NOTAM, AIP SUP (Ad hoc) or other way, so the frequency can differ alongside. Stick with your ideas to US.
May I kindly suggest that something more along the lines of “I respectfully disagree” is much better for people in our community to see than “you don’t know what you are saying”…
Seems some people don’t like things to change… but that’s their own problem.
I won’t participate in this “discussion” anymore, absolutely useless.
Looks like Christoph has left the building. Although I agree with Don re. Mateusz’'s “robustness,” what Mateusz had to say re. the European environment was accurate, and maybe Christoph ought to have accepted that it had nothing to do with unwillingness to change.
I’ve not “left the building”. No idea how to come to such conclusions, but I don’t care, either…
Luckily I’m not in the position to decide how VATSIM deals with the CTAF, AFIS or whatsoever matter, in the end there will be a decision made for the whole network, and we all have to live with that.
Just a side note:
In case someone missed that… the whole purpose of this CTAF trial is to test local pilot-to-pilot communications when no ATC is online. And of course, in this context, AFIS frequencies could be used for this when no actual AFIS service (I know the difference between CTAF and AFIS) is provided (either at the airport or by top-down service). Just think about that…
Wong, The code of conduct requires you to be able to fly your plane, hold an Altitude, Speed and a heading, and if electing to use an aircraft with a flight management system, you must be able to use it. If you come across people that cant do that, get a supervisor involved.
I appreciate VATSIM’s continuous efforts to improve, but I don’t this was a good move. It introduces an additional layer of complexity for both novice and foreign players without a significant improvement in realism. Previously, I only had to manage two types of players: those using UNICOM and those who weren’t. Now, at the same airport, there are three groups: people on CTAF, people still on UNICOM, and those using neither. The slight increase in realism in sparsely populated airports doesn’t outweigh the challenges it poses for new players or the reduction in situational awareness for experienced ones.
Okay, so what CTAF frequency exists at airports like KJFK, KORD, or KLAX. Those were the airports that suggestion was geared more towards since there’s the issue of multiple tower frequencies at those airports.
For controlled airports (be that H24 or just HX) I maintain the opinion that we should keep 122.800 instead of inventing some advisory frequency that doesn’t exist IRL.
But for the sake of argument: If you link this or perhaps directly this article from the learning center in that automated message, people would be able to find information on how they are expected to find the correct advisory frequency even for airports that don’t have one IRL.
Hi Kirk! Great job pulling a single sentence out of a larger post, quoting it out of context, and completely missing the point.