That is a good one.
Well, that was the criticism from day 1. Itâs not like youâre taking a working system and making changes there. Youâre taking a simple system that already not everyone was using correctly, making it more complex and hoping this will solve the first problem⌠And, surprinsingly, it doesnât solve anything. Was on CTAF yesterday in KMSP, while taxiing to the runway, saw another pilot land I never heard from. He either was on 122.8 or some place completely different.
Has this trial improved my overall Vatsim experience at uncontrolled airfields (to use marketing b/s bingo here)? Not at all. The feeling of using a (in case of KMSP non existing) CTAF frequency provides absolutely no satisfaction over the lack of communication.
4 Likes
But people get to turn the pretend knobs in the pretend plane to dial in another frequency! IMMERSION, I tell you! 
1 Like
Same. Iâve pretty much made any self reporting the absolute last priority. You have three groups of pilots at any uncontrolled airport; those on 122.8, those on CTAF, and those not participating on either. At this point I do the bare minimum when it comes to comms uncontrolled. Thereâs no point talking to 1/3 of the pilots at an uncontrolledâŚLOL!!
1 Like
Use DOT Command in VPilot .CTAF (AIRPORT) KSFO
Flying to an uncontrolled DCA, while JFK Tower is staffed doesnât makes sense, cause 119.1 is the CTAF from DCA and the freq. of the staffed JFK Tower. JFK Tower is complaining about self coordinating aircrafts at DCA and its airspace. Should I submit a petition to the FAA to change the RL frequencies, cause VATSIM operations being disurbed?
2 Likes
what about providing feedback to the division facility?
I am surprised that people are still having trouble with the concept/process. We have been using CTAF for many years in Australia at uncontrolled airports with little issue. The issue of pilots landing, taking off, taxying etc without text or calls has always been there and will continue no matter what is done, you will never solve that (voluntarily) so does that mean we donât try anything new?. Like any change to any system if people do not participate in trying the change then of course there will be issues. It would be a shame if vatsim had to make any trial mandatory (and I am not suggesting that they are) just because some are resistant to change.
3 Likes
Well said.
The problem isnât using a CTAF; Vatsim has been doing that for years with 22.8. The problem arises when freq are used in ways that they are not in the real world, to airports that never run CTAF ops because theyâre never uncontrolled. Weâve already talked about aircraft on the same arrival trying to deconflict but going to two different airports served by that same arrival so now they canât because theyâre on different freqs, for instance.
The Australian method was that if there was a published CTAF then us it otherwise 122.800 simple.
1 Like
Maybe the CTAF frequencies can be changed to be the 8.33khz Spacing one
119.1 Manned
119.105 CTAF
my 2c
Ralph
This may have more to do with the range for the primary frequencies at JFK and DCA, as they are both the same. Perhaps talking to the FEs of those sectors and notifying them of the issue would be the better solution, as it sounds like if they are online, this problem doesnât exist (due to the range for Tower), but when not online, CTAF has a wider range.
BL.
1 Like
I stopped flying online almost 2 months ago. No fun with unicom wars and people telling others what to do when they arenât controllers. Shame. Over 20 years on the network and almost 20k hours. Enjoyed VATSIM so much in those 20 years. Ill check back in 6 months from now and see if its still the same. For now I fly offline with zero issues.
1 Like
Taking a break and flying offline sounds like a good way to avoid those frustrations and still enjoy your passion for aviation. Hopefully, in six months the community will have improved and you will find it more welcoming and organized.
CTAF Has been problematic. Many online already donât call out their position on 122.8 but CTAF has only worsened this problem. Iâve stopped using CTAF all together and sticking with 122.8 at large airports, since they do not have a CTAF frequency on the charts it self. reporting positions is rapidly beginning to feel like Iâm talking to a brick wall with everything being scattered around. No one broadcasts on CTAF, Hardly anyone broadcasts on 122.8
-Real world large airports (Class A, B, C Airspace) donât use CTAF, needing to search it up on an external website outside of charts already adds another unnecessary workload into an already intensively multitasked environment for a single pilot working the job of 2.
-As above, This ruins the immersion of needing to leave the sim to search the vatsim page for the correct frequency.
-Non-communication on 122.8 was already pretty bad, CTAF only made that matter worse
Just keep it simple, no reason to add another layer of complexity without a good reason backing it while problems already exist as it is.
In vPilot, type â.ctafâ followed by the airport youâre flying to and itâll tell you the CTAF to use for large airports. Itâs super easy.
And super unrealistic.
I still think the easiest compromise would be to only implement real world advisory frequencies for airports that are always uncontrolled while continuing to use the common 122.800 for everything else. Maintains the immersion of being able to use the advisory frequency at small airports where it is realistic to have such a frequency while keeping it simple for the overall pilot population (most of which flies to and from (usually rather large) controlled airports). Also has the added benefit of making sure that people flying at different airports within the same TMA or similar can - usually - coordinate with one another if necessary.
4 Likes
More super unrealistic than top down controlling?