It looks like you changed a post after I had commented on it. I’m not impressed.
I was going to suggest, at the very least, a dot command to look up these non-existent-in reality CTAF freqs. It would still be unrealistic, but at least less time would be consumed on an unrealistic necessity than digging through a fake chart supplement or something.
Moot point to me, really… I’m rarely on the network uncontrolled, and always late at night when, if the airspace IS uncontrolled, I’m the only one out there. But as others have outlined in this thread, there are obvious logistical and realism problems with this change.
The simplest thing really would be to use published CTAF where there is one, and a standard freq like 122.80 where there isn’t. A simple, standardized approach like that is going to result in the most people following procedures correctly; like it or not, that’s just reality. As others have said, it seems that many folks these days can’t figure out how to use one global freq, so any change at all is just gonna result in an even lower percentage of pilots doing things correctly. 
IS UNICOM REALISTIC
Not like CTAF
1 Like
Unicom 122.800 at all times outside VATSIM control
CTAF at designated facility and otherwise Unicom outside VATSIM control
CTAF/tower freq within 20M of a facility otherwise Unicom outside VATSIM control
1 Like
Maybe learn how to treat this as a discussion board and not a discord channel…
And not speak in caps
On that answer though, It isn’t that realistic but I know some areas share a CTAF frequency.
In RW (US), they use unicom as somewhere for FBOs and such (that’s what i know)
1 Like
if you missed it earlier from a vatsim admin:
“Unicom” is more realistic than creating fake, unpublished CTAFs at airports that would never have them, and then requiring network pilots to look them up in a non-real world source, isn’t it?
This is a video game. Even in the level D sims at work, even in a LOFT event, there is no real emphasis on ensuring that pilots tune a correct freq for simulated ATC comm. Truly, no one cares.
Punctuation is realistic though. Leaning to operate your caps lock button, that also has real-world applications. Might do better on homework, anyway. 
3 Likes
THE FREQUENCIES ARE NOT UNPUBLISHED BUT ARE THE NORM TOWER FREQUENCIES OR CHOSEN TOWER IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE TOWER…… NEVER DID FIGURE OUT HOW KEYBOARDS WORK ANYHOW.
all caps means emphasis
not attitude
If there’s no real-world CTAF, then on which real-world publication would the freq be published for Vatsim use?
The “first” published tower freq? The first on whose chart? Jeeps? NOS? Lido?
There’s a lack of real-world understanding on display here.
Also, I’m reasonably sure a word means the same thing in either capital or lowercase letters. If you feel the need for more emphasis, you might just need different words. Or perhaps, a more logical position to defend??
1 Like
I know how UNICOM works here; I’ve been a controller and pilot here since the inception of the network and before, and through all of the updates in technology used on the network. Additionally, you just actually proved my point as to why UNICOM won’t work for CTAF, because each airport has its own CTAF as I explained above. Additionally, with UNICOM not being for a given airport, a person used to be able to hear someone departing KESC on UNICOM while you are at KEYW, depending on which voice server you were on. Now thanks to AFV we have ranges on the limits of UNICOM, but it still doesn’t take away the fact that one would hear multiple airports over the same frequency, which is the crux of the matter, especially if the airports in question are in proximity to each other. For example, KOMA, KCBF, and KMLE. All of them are within 7nm of each other. Given the range of UNICOM, each one, if they were on UNICOM, would be stepping all over each other. That could even extend up to KBTA.
As for ATIS at an untowered airport, that is possible: There is a difference between operating top down, and having an actual tower at the field being manned. Yes, the TRACON can act as the tower, but that is technically different from Tower being open. I could have an ATIS running at a tower that would technically be closed saying what the CTAF is and handling the field as if it was closed. Not every location uses top-down, so one should not assume that it is being used everywhere.
This is where CTAF comes in, with each place having their own discrete frequency so that none of them interfere with each other, and if the field happens to be a towered field that is closed, a controller can publish the CTAF in that tower’s closed ATIS (an ATIS broadcast still will exist even if a tower is closed).
As for this only being for Class B airports, as you fly into, keep in mind that those class B airports are open and manned continuously, so normally there wouldn’t be a CTAF there unless the field closes for a given reason; at that point, the controller will put out on the ATIS what the CTAF would be, like I mentioned above, as the field would revert to Class E.
A prime example would be when KMDW and KLAS closed due to COVID:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0jJ_MNvxtl
Again, while we would provide top-down here, every airport one would fly into (major, minor, or otherwise) could have CTAF have if no controllers are on.
BL.
For the US, the FAA has those published for the airports that use them. Again, these would be for fields whose towers close for the night, not those that do not close.
For example, here is the one for KVGT:
Another is KPRC:
The aviation authority for a given country would have more documentation on this, so it would be up to the various regions/ARTCCs/FIRs to get that info out, unless VATSIM has something already published.
The big issue here is that we would be doing something that real world doesn’t, which is publish a CTAF for a major airport that normally doesn’t close. That is a rare thing to happen (at least here in the US).
BL.
I often operate both GA and airliners into uncontrolled airports in reality, I’m familiar. The point I was making was the problem that comes in in the case of airports that do not, in reality, ever go uncontrolled, and thus do not have a CTAF freq published… anywhere.
It was suggested that folks just use the first tower freq published on the airport diagram. The problem there is that there are multiple chart providers, and this information is not always published in the same order on Jepp vs NOS vs Lido, etc.
All of this would lead to a need to consult a non-real-world, Vatsim-invented document to find the CTAF freq for these airports. Unless maybe they could be included on ATIS; is there a way for an uncontrolled class B airport on Vatsim to have an ATIS by default, or is this something a controller has to be online to create?
In reality, airports in as close proximity as Omaha and Council Bluffs would often intentionally share a CTAF freq, as arrivals and departures at both airports would pose a risk of conflicting with each other. An example would be all of the GA airports on the San Juan Islands; they all share a single CTAF that is addressed as “Island Traffic”. If I’m heading to Roche Harbor from the SE, you can bet I want to know about the folks flying 747 patterns in their 172 at Friday Harbor, for instance.
It can be sliced a lot of ways, but honestly I’ve never heard CTAF on Vatsim get anywhere near as busy as real life freqs, which are typically shared among several airports within reception range of each other. It just seems an unnecessary level of complexity. Good ole 122.80 has served the network pretty well.
1 Like
i’ll mention again an obvious positive: when a tower controller pops on, everyone should already be on his default frequency. no need to get everyone changed over from 122.8. i see it as a little thing to make our controllers (which there is a shortage of) lives easier.
yes using one of the tower frequencies is imaginary. a lot of the stuff we have to do on vatsim is imaginary. 122.8 at a class b/c airport is imaginary
it takes 10 seconds to look up which tower freq to use as ctaf at a big airport. big deal.
and again, apparently they are looking into having the information available through vpilot anyway so we might not even need to use the website.
for that logic, which I don’t agree, might as well use the APP frequency, since APP is more likely to cover the same multiple airports that share the “CTAF” frequency
What would you do when nearby airports that share a CTAF see one of the towers come online? Tower needs to use that to control, and the uncontrolled one can’t use the CTAF anymore because that’s active. What’s your proposal to fix that?
I see no future for this outside of places that actually use CTAF
1 Like
But a BoG member above said that VATISIM is not a place for causal gamers.
i dont know why multiple airports in close proximity would be sharing a tower frequency. do you have an example?
for some reason people are having a problem with large airports using tower frequencies as ctaf’s when the tower is unstaffed. thats all this is.
from the official link at the top of the thread:
Large Airports
While most airports can follow the guidance listed above, there are certain airports where we must make concessions and determine for ourselves which frequency is designated as CTAF. These are large airports which have continuously operating towers and multiple tower frequencies. In these situations, it is not as easy to pick out which tower frequency would be CTAF. These airports are typically Class Bravo airports. While they typically have a primary tower frequency which can be used as the designated CTAF, it is usually not apparent to the pilot which frequency is the primary. In the example below, Philadelphia International has two tower frequencies listed, 118.5 & 135.1.
We can make a generalization and say that the first frequency listed is the primary frequency and therefore the designated CTAF, but this does not always hold true. In situations where multiple tower frequencies are listed on the sectional, the best resource is to review the VATSIM AIP, which will list the frequency designated as CTAF.
the fact that this is causing so much trouble is truly mindboggling
What andrew said along with
Their many chart variations, Jepps, FAA, Country by country!
You cant just make a broad assumption
Also if you really need to emphasize something, a dictionary would be great.
Speaking as a career educationist and international education researcher, I think the only issue with Justus is his childish immaturity. Hopefully, he’ll grow out of it.
There is no location that doesn’t use topdown. The relevant VATSIM policies actively mandate topdown coverage - the only exception are some super centers which have been especially approved for non-topdown coverage and perhaps the odd “I’m too busy with «main position» so I will drop coverage for «bandboxed position»” occasion.
There is a limited number of places that allow their controllers to simulate real world operating hours, but - at least in my experience - most places treat HX positions as H24 for VATSIM purposes. As I’ve said in my previous comment, I think the BoG should take a clear stance on how to treat these fields. And unless we get a clear rule that real world operating hours are to be observed everywhere and all the time, I wouldn’t hold it against pilots if they generally assume that controlled airfields are always controlled on VATSIM, regardless of potential real world operating hours, because not only are operating hours usually a bit more hidden in the AIP or perhaps even only the NOTAMs (and many pilots already seem to struggle with more pertinent information like speed and level restrictions, routings, etc., so asking them to always research that information for every flight is perhaps expecting too much), they also cater to real world demand which is normally some time during the day, while VATSIM demand is the highest during the evening.
As things stand right now, a controller needs to be online and even if they are online, they may only connect a maximum of four ATISes; I have talked to someone from Tech a while ago about the chances of increasing that number in order to provide more complete ATIS coverage, but it seems that technical limitations make that impossible for the time being, so I would assume having some sort of automated ATIS system that runs an ATIS at every airport that has one IRL all the time regardless of whether there is a controller right now or not is not something we can expect any time soon. And it obviously doesn’t solve the issue for airports that have no ATIS.
As Raul already alludes to: this effect would only occur if someone actually opens TWR. If someone opens GND, APP, ACC, etc. first, we’d be back at sending contact mes. And I personally feel like it would actually make live as a controller harder because everyone would already be on the frequency and will then expect service. At least here in Germany, it’s a common workload management strategy when opening a previously uncovered position to have people you don’t need yet or anymore remain on unicom (otherwise everyone would start talking over each other and you’d have too little time to work on the most pressing problems). I think it would also be a bit confusing for pilots if someone just suddenly starts giving instructions.
As someone else also said earlier in this discussion: yes, both a dedicated CTAF and a general 122.800 at H24 airports (or, looking more internationally again, HX airports which are closed for all operations outside of the TWR operating hours) are unrealistic, but 122.800 makes things much easier for pilots and if we do something unrealistic anyway, it should at least be an easy solution.
It may be easy and fast to figure out in some places, but it may not be so easy in others. As I’ve said before, the VATSIM AIP has nowhere near all airports worldwide, so at the minimum, a solution like this (and the same obviously goes for a database used by a pilot client command) would result in a huge amount of work for facility engineers who then have to add all that information to the VATSIM AIP (which, from what I hear - haven’t worked with it myself yet - has an abysmal user interface). It would also create a situation where there’s at least some ambiguity over what source is ultimately correct - what if there has been a frequency change IRL, so if you have up to date IRL charts, but the VATSIM AIP has not been updated, do you use the frequency your charts say, or the frequency from the VATSIM AIP?
Only using advisory frequencies at airports that actually have them IRL (and in my opinion, to make it even easier, it should only be used at airports that are never controlled while HX TWRs should be treated as H24 on the network) would mean that people can continue to fly using just their charts, a simulator, and the pilot client.
1 Like