That response is a bit disappointing. I’m sure that you know that the top-down fudge is entirely necessary for the operation of the network, whereas the implementation of CTAF is absolutely not.
1 Like
Sorry for disappointing you. I’m not sure I understand how using .ctaf is any more unrealistic than utilizing Foreflight or Navigraph to check frequencies. Because requires fewer clicks, or…?
Well, finding that info is easy if you have the local Air Information Manual, which all commercial pilots have access to. I know that globally that info isn’t available to most Vatsim pilots, but that is not Vatsim’s fault.
But I really don’t see how that is relevant to this discussion. I was responding to your comment about top-down realism, and trying to point out that it was a pragmatic reality. Maybe using some informal online resources to obtain essential info for an IFR flight is another of these pragmatisms. However, I agree that counting clicks is not a realistic part of any aviation experience: it seems that instant gratification is only a feature of game environments.
3 Likes
Weather CTAF gets implemented permanently or not , time will tell. The problem as i see it, pretty much everybody is aware of 122.800 ,yet so many pilots don’t use it for any communication.
Every tower in the USA that doesn’t stay open 24h uses a tower freq as CTAF when the tower is closed. Using a tower freq as CTAF has far more basis in reality than blanket use of 122.8 everywhere.
2 Likes
But what do you do about airports that are controlled H24? And - for that matter - in many places around the world, HX airports are simply closed for all operations outside of operating hours; how would one reconcile that on VATSIM?
Inventing advisory frequencies for airports that don’t have one IRL is much more confusing than having just one that applies for all airports. As I said above, I think the best compromise would be to only implement real world advisory frequencies for airports that are uncontrolled H24 IRL. Airports that are controlled HX and have an advisory frequency for other times are a bit tricky because, generally speaking, most of these airports on VATSIM have thus far been treated as H24 and - as opposed to finding generally uncontrolled airports which are almost always located in airspace G or E, so a quick look at the map suffices - figuring out if a controlled airport is H24 or HX is significantly more complicated.
So while it might be more realistic to have a dedicated advisory frequency for an airport (at least in some places), it is exchanging a relatively easy but slightly more unrealistic system for another unrealistic but significantly harder system.
1 Like
Let’s be clear, the only concern here is regarding airports with multiple tower/local frequencies. In every other situation, it is beyond question as to what the CTAF resolves to. CTAF resolves to the local control frequency when the tower is closed, regardless of whether not the tower is part time or not. If a 24H tower has to close for whatever reason, the local control frequency becomes CTAF.
A large airport which has multiple local control frequencies becomes slightly more complicated, however it is important to note that even these towers have contingency procedures when the tower must close (weather, equipment, personnel, etc). One of the most famous examples was Las Vegas (LAS) which closed for about a week if I remember correctly, during COVID. This is a 24H tower with multiple frequencies, yet the airport still operated (at a lower capacity) due to the situation. Now the CTAF was almost certainly distributed by NOTAM, TRACON, & (the non changing) ATIS. Likewise, we distribute this information through the VATSIM AIP (https://my.vatsim.net/pilots/aip) which is also accessible through pilot clients via the “.ctaf” command.
While I understand that a large airport going ATC-0 is a rare occurrence IRL, we deal with this everyday on VATSIM. As long as we have controllers who volunteer their time, this is the reality. I’d love to staff every airport and ATC position as is done IRL, but that is simply not possible. In my view, it is critical to follow RW procedures as much as we can, until we run into a fact-of-life within VATSIM (commonly called a “VATSIMism”). Ultimately, we cannot push NOTAMs through real world systems and making a concession on how we distribute the information must be made. That being said, I do have some ideas on how we could improve the information flow down in the future.
2 Likes
if finding 2 frequencies during your flight planning or using the .ctaf command is too much work for the modern vatsim pilot then maybe just stop the requirement of using ctaf or unicom at all. if its uncontrolled just make sure your collisions are turned off and run into each other.
1 Like
Realism Vs Reality.
I don’t think anyone has really argued that this is too hard to do on a technical level (although I would like to note that depending on one’s setup, it may be difficult to look up the CTAF mid-flight, but I’m sure people could also work out technical solutions for those); the concerns people raised were mostly about
- the already quite meager situation we have with people on unicom rarely actually coordinating with one another becoming even worse by many people still being on 122.800 or maybe a wrong CTAF frequency or perhaps on the correct one but for another nearby airport - this should hopefully be one that resolves itself with time, leaving out the last part, but it definitely seems to make things worse in the short term
- it essentially becoming mandatory to use the VATSIM AIP or the .ctaf command because charts can’t necessarily be used for that - after all, there is no other way to be absolutely sure what the frequency is (the guidelines laid out for the trial may work in the specific case of the US and with the FAA charts, but beyond that, there are definitely cases where they won’t, I can think of multiple examples just from my own country) and if you don’t look it up in there and inadvertently go to a wrong frequency, we go back to the first bullet point
- this change making it overall harder for everyone while not necessarily adding a lot to realism, particularly for the majority of pilots who fly to airports that would essentially never use a CTAF IRL (and even if we take the odd case like the Las Vegas example… in many places around the world that would rather result in the airport/airspace being closed for any traffic, so that example is once again something that may work for the US, but not necessarily beyond that) - add to that the potential new problems this introduces and the question whether it isn’t actually a net worsening readily suggests itself.
Ultimately, I think a pragmatic approach should be taken to these kinds of issues/ideas/etc.: making things as realistic as possible should always be the end goal, but when we make a change, we need to check whether it is having the intended effect, results in an overall better experience for everyone involved, and can feasibly be implemented in all affected localities - and while I would agree that this CTAF concept increases realism for most airfields on the world and is thus having the intended effect of making it possible to realistically simulate uncontrolled operations at those airfields, the vast majority of airports that see any meaningful traffic on VATSIM don’t fall into that category, so for those it is just changing from an unrealistic but globally identical frequency to another unrealistic frequency that you now have to look up individually for every airport, which, together with various other issues mentioned above or by other people in this thread, will result at best in no change in the perception of their experience and at worst in a worse experience for the vast majority of users; and unless this concept remains confined to the US or vACCs are given freedom to choose whether they implement it or not, the feasibility of the implementation is certainly not given for all localities, as I described above.
For what it’s worth, I like the idea of being able to use real world advisory frequencies on VATSIM - with the emphasis being on real world. Trying to implement non-real world advisory frequencies, however, seems like a rather inauspicious attempt at making something uniform for the sake of making it uniform (but that seems to be a recurring theme on VATSIM these past few months… I digress) - there is a nice German word that encapsulates it really nicely in my opinion, though there is unfortunately no proper English translation: verschlimmbessern.
This is a CTAF trial limited to the USA. While many here have attempted to extrapolate outside of the US, it is important to note that the feedback which is most useful at this point is strictly relating to the USA as it is the trial that is in place. Alongside limiting VATSIMisms is the necessity to be able to simulate differences across the world.
I see one of the critical tenants of VATSIM as being able to experience and work within the various air traffic environments and cultures that exist around the world. If you fly within the US, you’ll experience controllers using US procedures, who are generally from the US. Likewise, any country across the world will net the same result, controllers using local procedures. We should embrace that as a network, not push back on the differences. You’ll notice these days that the Code of Conduct has more references to following real world regulations/procedures vs trying to shoehorn the entire world into one way of doing things (which typically never reflected any one specific area and resulted in us creating our own air traffic rules).
Being able to fly in the actual airspace with actual procedures, that you would fly within in real life is a critical aspect to the network and has helped countless RW pilots, including myself.
- People using Unicom/CTAF - Yes, not everyone uses Unicom. While they absolutely should according to the Code of Conduct (and can be penalized for failing to do so), the most critical item when flying into a non-controlled area is that you maintain situational awareness and see and avoid other traffic. The concept of see and avoid is so critical, that the US requires all pilots, regardless of type of flight (VFR or IFR), to see and avoid other traffic when in VMC even if you are under air traffic control. In fact, needing to speak to ATC in the US (below FL180) is the exception rather than the rule. You can fly into the vast majority of airports without a radio, transponder, ADSB-Out, or any coordination. In fact, aircraft which were certified without an electrical system are still exempted from many requirements.
- Again, referring to this US trial, the times that you’d need to refer to the VATSIM AIP (or .ctaf command) is very minimal (only 24H towers with multiple local control frequencies).
- See and avoid will always remain king when not under direct air traffic control. The use of RW frequencies allows RW pilots to better practice and gain muscle memory when they use the network to keep their skills up. Using CTAFs is very much a critical part of how RW aviation works. For the RW pilots who use the network, using 122.8 for your entire flight can be very disorientating & lead to complacency.
My understanding was that while this trial is limited to the US, should it be successful there would be a worldwide implementation (similar to the 8.33kHz stuff in Europe a few months back where three countries initially trialed the concept and after the successful trial, all places that use 8.33kHz spacing IRL were allowed to implement it) - unless I misunderstood that and the concept will remain confined to the US after a hopefully successful trial, I think it’s absolutely paramount to also consider how the concept used during the US trial may fare in other places and if necessary consider changes to make implementation feasible in other countries.
And this is great and I would totally agree that we should embrace all the small and big differences between flying in place A and place B and strive to use real world references instead of inventing VATSIMisms where we don’t have to. But where we have VATSIMisms, I think they should be made as globally uniform and simple as possible (maybe this can change at some point if we get some centralized source - e.g. a significantly improved VATSIM AIP - where pilots can find information on all the VATSIMisms etc. for each individual FIR/country/airport/etc. - but until then we really can’t expect pilots to figure out all the country- or even FIR-specific VATSIMisms).
However, in my opinion, the concept in its current form actively creates a new VATSIMism, regardless of how you look at it: pilots will either have to figure out which country uses real world advisory frequencies and which country doesn’t (a bit easier if it remains just a US thing, but I would assume there are also various countries that can feasibly and reasonably implement the concept as is, and why would one prohibit them from doing so while allowing it for the US?) or they will have to refer the VATSIM AIP or use a pilot client command for most, if not all flights (particularly if they are your average VATSIM pilot who mostly flies jetliners into controlled airports, most of which - at least here - have multiple Tower frequencies published), neither of which will result in pilots being able to reference real world regulations and documents any more than they are now. Hence my suggestion to implement real world advisory frequencies only for airports that actually have them IRL, while keeping a globally identical advisory frequency for all airports that don’t.
preflight.
you do all this before you depart. its just part of proper flight planning and a small vatsim-ism. if people cant be bothered to plan a flight then they dont belong on vatsim.
3 Likes
In an ideal world that might work, sure, but let’s say you are flying VFR and decide to change up your routing to go through a CTR that you hadn’t originally planned to go through or, regardless of flight rule, you may elect to divert to an airfield that isn’t a planned alternate. And what about gliders or hot air balloons where, even if you wanted to, you couldn’t plan a flight accurately in its entirety?
In all these cases - and I’m sure there are more that I’m just not thinking of right now - you would have to look up a frequency mid-flight, even IRL (or would have it handed to you by ATC, but that’s a VATSIMism that we can’t change in any case).
And while I agree with you that a proper preflight briefing is important, there would be no more than a handful of pilots left on the network if that was the standard, so unless something is done to significantly increase the requirements for pilots, it’s a pretty unrealistic baseline to work with.
No sir, to be clear, that is definitely not the only concern.
To my mind, the larger concern is network pilots needing to be able to communicate to deconflict on arrival or departure procedures that serve more than one airport. If each pilot is on the “Vatsim appropriate” CTAF freq for their airport of operation… They’ll never hear each other. I’ve already encountered this, and I’m rarely on the network these days and always late at night when things aren’t busy - and I’ve STILL encountered it.
In reality this would be a non-issue because that airspace would never be uncontrolled for IFR traffic. Vatsim being what it is, adjustments have to be made, just like the top-down mentality; I think it’s fair to look at 122.80 as a “top-down” CTAF. Just like Vatsim’s implementation of controlled airspace, it isn’t perfectly accurate to reality, but it acknowledges the shortcomings of a simulated environment in a way that works for everyone.
i dont want to hear about anyone on an arrival or a sid. people talk too much already on unicom when its used properly.
all i need to know is if youre going to be on a runway in the next couple minutes. period.
Well, I think I might like to know that someone was climbing out from rwy 24 while I was setting up for an approach into rwy 06.
Not exactly; not when you’re converging on a point on the same arrival at the same altitude at the same time. Which happens often.
Sure, it’s just a video game, you can fly right through each other, no problem. But then, you can just do that on the runway too, so why have a CTAF at all?
2 Likes
Just a point, the way I read it the code does not require one to use unicom, it does require unicom to be monitoried however.
B5 Pilots flying through uncontrolled airspace shall monitor VHF radio frequency 122.800 or other designated “UNICOM” frequency until they come under air traffic control coverage. Where another pilot may benefit, a pilot shall transmit their intentions on the designated unicom frequency.
It is required.