Ok read the overall context of this thread and read my comment again. Has nothing to do with specific airport, has to do with VATSIM policy
In the US, it is very frustrating witnessing users not using CTAF, but it doesnât ruin my experience on the network. The problem is not the CTAF trial, it is the folks not even on CTAF frequency much less announcing intentions. Many ways to find the CTAF frequency⌠no excuses. If you cannot fly under ATC coverage without being on the correct frequency and communicating with controllers, you shouldnât be able to depart or arrive to or from a US airport without being on the correct frequency. Rules and policies seem clear, adherence to them appear to be optional. Of course I have no opinion for a solution.
This right here is the crux of this whole thread/conversation. If VATSIM doesnât care to enforce the use of CTAF, then they need to get rid of it.
Itâs not going away. If youâre concerned with adherence or enforcement, there are avenues to report those issues so they may be addressedâŚ
Are you reporting non use of CTAF/UNICOM through .wallop? Because I do all the time.
VATSIM can only enforce the rules when they know about them being broken.
1 Like
Hmm, but then the SUPs would be called constantly and would not have time for anything else. There needs to be a âkill-commandâ that everyone can send for CTAF non-compliers 
Could you imagine arming every driver with a .kill command if they see someone speeding, or touching the painted lines on the roadway? Might not end well⌠
Sounds intriguing!
So serious question here. Yes I have .wallop(ed) a SUP twice for non-ctaf traffic, one decided to enter a RWY as I was on short final, and then other was trying to land on top of me with the âoh I thought you were default AI trafficâ excuse. In both cases the SUP "ok I talked to them wonât happen again. (Rumor has it BOTH so-called âpilotsâ to this day donât look both ways to cross the street IRL)
So with that said, what is a realistic way to deal with this issue? I feel like ther comes a point where the 2 SUPS online would get to the point of âok sucks to be youâ just from over saturation of non-ctaf compliant aircraft
@1035677 I think one solution might actually incorporate the auto ATC function in the USA. Could it be programmed to auto send CTAF frequencies to you as a reminder? At least for the big airports to start i.e. JFK auto ATC âNYC_CTR recommends cross LENDY at FL190. ATC IS OFFLINE PLEASE USE CTAF [insert freq] FOR RADIO CALLSâ something like that anyway.
There needs to come a point, i.e. flight planning page, auto atc etc. that where thereâs just simply no excuse for not using ctaf because âwell I didnât know⌠whatâs the frequency?â
OR what about a personal message when logging on i.e. âyour flight includes an airport in the USA, reminder USA uses CTAF for airports NOT UNICOM blah blah blahâ
Now I will say I have no experience whatsoever in coding, so I have no idea how hard it would be to incorporate these ideas, but my point is I think the solution to so many people having issues could be mitigated by just a simple auto message.
I also think âauto messageâ would also make SUPs pay more attention to .wallop(s) on this issue because then the SUP would know âok..I KNOW youâve been warned and I KNOW you know betterâ
2 Likes
I agree AUTOATC should send a reminder of the CTAF if there is no ATC covering the origin or destination airport. That way thereâs no excuse for not using it.
1 Like
AUTOATC is a VATUSA only tool. CTAF is not a VATUSA only thing. That would be using a tool to fix a problem spanning multiple Divisions in only one of them (and it wonât event really solve it there either, as VFR flights often donât file flight plans, so AUTOATC wouldnât know which airport theyâre departing out of/arriving at).
Well, until this situation has improved significantly, I usually ignore people who do not select and use UNICOM/CTAF. I make my reports and if people do not communicate their intentions, I will not cooperate with them, because they either do not understand the concept or they consciously ignore it.
I really like the idea of having a CTAF reminder as part of Auto-ATC, or other means. VATSIM should really aim at tackling this. This is more important than restricting the age of participants 
2 Likes
This works for me 
Keep walloping. If it becomes enough of an issue, Supervisors will elevate it to their leadership and weâll have data to show itâs a significant issue.
I like the AutoATC idea, and will bring it up, but thatâs correct - itâs only a USA thing (because that whole infrastructure is designed to emulate the NAS in use in the USA. Truly an innovative project. That said, I like the concept, and it may help. Iâll bring it up to Tech.
Thanks!
2 Likes
Why canât it be shared?
It is designed to very closely mimic the real systems used in the US. For 99% of the code, sharing it would not be of any benefit to other regions. In many ways, starting from the vNAS code base would slow down the development of realistic systems in other parts of the world.
That being said, we are very open to sharing whatever parts of the vNAS system might be useful to other regions. Some such sharing has already occurred.
A sad midair collision happend at KFMM (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDh2px5K4bU). It emphasizes the importance of awareness of traffic in the area/pattern. If VATSIM is about education of RW procedures, it is then important that pilots are tought to use the available resources correctly, i.e. learn the pilots to find the correct frequency for CTAF, not just a common 122.8. But naturally it asks more of the pilots - it is indeed easier just to have one common freq, like 122.8. But it would be poor training of a would-be pilot. So from my point of view getting as close to reality as possible is key - while still being fun for recreational virtual pilots like me.
Sad but interesting video.