Very happy with this change. There will be a learning curve and growing pains undoubtedly, but it’s a positive change that will benefit everyone. Pilots will be looking for details on charts and other publications that they may not have previously, and imo that’s a good thing.
David mentions Real World Operating Hours. Well, while I use real weather, when flying, I do not set my FS Clock to the real world clock. If I did, I would always fly in the dark, which is rather dull. So when arriving at an airport I always assume it is open for business.
I’m a bit skeptic about CTAF freq on large airports, which normally do not use CTAF, as they are open 24/7. I would prefer to use 122.8, when the Twr position is not manned - why “upgrade” a twr freq. to a CTAF freq? You might as well instead look at the phase of the flight you’re in and set the radio to the appropiate freq. So when on ground you set the radio to the ground freq, when approaching the runway you use the twr freq and on the climb out you use the dep/arr freq. And on the enroute part you use 122.8. These freq can be found on the chart (and in case of multiple frequencies, you can monitor an other freq on com2.
But for simplicity use CTAF where they are used IRL, otherwise use 122.8.
regards, Torben
1 Like
Are they formal gamers, then? Where exactly is the distinction… Is there going to be a dress code? Will a full tux be required, or is a suit / tie ok? 
You see my point. It’s consumer software on a home PC being used for entertainment.
1 Like
I see your point re. formal vs casual, but I see the issue more as being serious vs casual. And I really object, sorry, about the assumption that the purpose of VATSIM is to entertain. Is it entertaining? Certainly. Is that its purpose? Certainly not.
Sure, Microsoft is in the entertaiment business (and please don’t tell me they are simply a tech company) and VATSIM’s biggest and most damaging decision in my opinion has been to get into bed with that company. I doubt that VATSIM will weather that tsunami without losing its fundamental purpose.
FWIW in my mind, if you try to obey the rules in the real world then we have a simulation. A game is a place, where you (or the game developer) set the rules.
If you do not obey the rules in the real world, you get grounded - so should pilots, who do not adhere to the rules on VATSIM. Learn how to handle your plane+systems according to the real World (and to the extend it is simulated in your software) - if not, find an other place to play.
Why do you use Vatsim? Are you being paid? Can you log it towards required training for something?
Or do you just enjoy it?
1 Like
Learn how to handle your plane+systems according to the real World (and to the extend it is simulated in your software) - if not, find an other place to play.
Does that mean no one under 18 or over 60 is allowed to operate an airliner?
This is a tedious discussion. There is a hyper-realism contingent on VATSIM who wants “real world, real world!” until the absurdity of real-world rules in a virtual simulation come up, and then they get shelved. At which point we are making the rules, which we have always been doing and those rules need adaptation to the fact that this isn’t real, no one is getting paid (or dies) and we want to set this community up for success.
At some point in its history, qualifications for ATC and Pilots diverged on VATSIM. The amount required for controllers is much, much higher and that population has self-selected towards folks either interested in an ATC or quite obsessive about the subject. The relatively poor pilot quality drives them absolutely crazy, and it seems like VATSIM is moving towards the same rigor in Pilots. That’s great, but right now you have a serious Controller shortage. It takes way too long to get someone to a C1 relative to how long they participate.
If you’re going to position VATSIM as something only for folks who are interested in aviation as a career or “serious simmers” you’re going to consign yourselves into an obscure niche. Who defines a “serious simmer”? I’ve been engaging in flight sim for longer than many of you have been alive, but I only log 2-4 hours a week, in four different aircraft. I doubt I am legal to fly 2 of them relative to real-world currency requirements, and I will make mistakes in all of them from time to time. I won’t have the same briefing opportunities about local procedures as a professional, and I won’t have someone else in the cockpit to relive my workload or catch my mistakes. (Did I mention I am getting nearsighted? I cannot read some of the gauges easily - what would the real world say about that!)
Am I serious enough? Given the attitudes of more than a few folks here, probably not. Yet I will likely be participating in VATSIM (little as a pilot, more as a developer and one day maybe as an ATO again!) long after these realism nerds have burned out and found a new obsession.
Bottom line, VATSIM needs to eliminate its conflict about realism, and revamp its training programs (ATO / Controller) to get more folks up to the level they want. If they set the bar too high (or the training programs do not work - and right now Controller training cannot work at volume and they seem to have broken ATOs) then VATSIM will wither.
Cheers
3 Likes
This game vs. simulation discussion is very off-topic for a thread that’s about discussing an upcoming trial and potential permanent change to what frequencies to use when nobody is currently online covering a given airfield.
I’m all for a discussion about what level of competency we should expect from pilots and controllers, but maybe this should take place in a separate dedicated thread?
I do enjoy it. Nothing wrong with that! The point is, why do I enjoy it? Why do you enjoy it? There are probably hundreds of different reasons why members enjoy VATSIM. From my perspective it’s because it is as close to RW flying as I can get without shelling out loadsamoney (btw I used to get paid for flying, but that wasn’t why I flew).
My point is that VATSIM’s raison d’etre is not to provide entertainment, although of course everyone is pleased that that is one of the outcomes. So “just for fun” falls well short of the mark.
(@ David: just saw your post. You are absolutely right.)
I disagree - when you add complexity to the requirements, competency always becomes part of the discussion.
Cheers
Yes, but I wasn’t talking about competency considerations regarding the issue at hand (which, granted, are also taking place), I was talking about the whole separate philosophical discussion happening about whether VATSIM is a meant for casual enjoyment, practicing real world procedures, maybe something inbetween, whether you’re allowed to have fun or if it should all be 100% serious, how much time you have to invest to be considered a serious enough simmer for VATISM or what you have to know before you can fly or control on the network, etc. None of that is relevant to the CTAF discussion.
How rediculus can your argumentation get? Where did I mention any age restriction in my posts? I haven’t mention medical conditions either not even the ability to express yourself in English. I wonder why? Perhaps you’re confusing RW regulation to simulation.
What is the real-world procedure for a 17 year old when flying a 737? Sit in the back and let the pilot fly 
I agree, it’s somewhat of an extreme, but that’s where you end up when you focus on “what is done tin the real world”. Because if VATSIM isn’t doing that, then you (or the game/network developer) are setting the rules arbitrarily - and you’ve already said that’s just a game.
We make all kinds of rules restricting pilots based solely on age in the real world. I think they don’t make sense and should be ignored on VATSIM. Don’t you? But if you agree, then you agree with me that any real-world procedure that doesn’t make sense on VATSIM can be safely ignored.
Cheers
In principle, that is correct. The problem is, who gets to decide what doesn’t make sense? The answer, of course, is the BoG and I’m comfortable in the knowledge that, through considering views in forums etc., they will do their best to get it right. Not everyone will be pleased with their decisions, but VATSIM is run democratically, surely, and that implies that the disenfranchised will nevertheless agree to follow the rules.
I’ll have to disagree. It was mentioned by several contributors that it doesn’t matter how complex or inconvenient it is to look up pretend CTAF freqs, because “real flying is full of such busywork” (which is a silly idea). One contributor who’s been around Vatsim forever even said he didn’t care at all about newbs. Etc.
I’m trying to explain to you that this philosophy is going to cause problems, and end up achieving the opposite of what you intend.
To understand that, we first have to acknowledge that this is a hobby. It is strictly for entertainment; there’s no other reason people do it. I sincerely hope no one thinks they’re conducting some sort of real-world-relevant training; I have to assume people know better than that.
With that in mind, we can see that participants are not going to treat network ops the same as the real world; even if you think you are, you’re not, because fundamentally you know you’re playing a game, and there are no consequences.
Even in the real world, we design procedures to be as low-workload as possible, because human error is inevitable and a very small amount of intentional non-compliance also has to be expected. In an entertainment-driven activity, it’s obvious that these things will be much more prevalent - people simply aren’t going to care as much. You are free to have any opinion you want about that, but it’s simply a fact.
You already have a problem with folks not using CTAF when it’s one global CTAF.
The proposal seems to be to use published CTAFs when they exist (which a decent percentage, but certainly not everyone, will look up since it’s right on the chart.). But then for large class B airports with no published CTAF, you’re going to invent one (in the name of realism? I guess?) that is published nowhere on any real world source but in a Vatsim document which personally I’ve never even heard of… What percentage of failed uptake can we expect for that? (Using the “first” tower freq doesn’t work because freqs are published in different orders on different sources.)
Functionally, you’re going make an existing problem worse - you’ll simply have less voice coordination on a CTAF. This problem will be at its worst at the big, busy, complex class B airports where it is most important that people actually use CTAF.
This is a procedure change obviously designed by folks without much human factors experience. Their optimism is admirable - but it isn’t going work. Ultimately, there will be even less coordination accomplished on CTAF.
This isn’t something I personally care about; I’m just wasting time on work overnights because I find human factors discussions interesting. It would seem that, since this proposed change is up for discussion, people would be interested in the reasons it isn’t going to work as intended.
I definitely agree there’s nothing wrong with enjoying Vatsim! It’s the reason we’re all here. So I’m not sure why you say “just for fun” falls well short of the mark? What else would any of us be doing it for?
https://my.vatsim.net/pilots/aip
let’s also not forget they intend to make the information available in the pilot clients directly
Yes, I think a dot command or something else in the client would be the easiest. It’ll still result in less people using it than currently, but probably the best you can do.
The other option would be either use a CTAF if published on charts, or 122.80 otherwise.
Wrong. I hold a commercial licence, instrument rating and flying instructor rating in RW. All on light singles. VATSIM has given me the opportunity to fly the big tin, which i would never have done RW. You have completely ignored one of VATSIM’s three purposes for existence: educate.
1 Like
That’s pretty good. PilotEdge that is designed to provide a training slant, has 16 pilots logged in right now, while VATSIM has 963 pilots logged in. Guaranteed virtually every one of the 963 VATSIM’ers is there for entertainment, not IRL competency. The fun of VATSIM is making a flight with ATC, or a group flight, or meeting up with a friend. You’re hilariously misreading the VATSIM users main use of the network, and reason for joining in the first place. This is like the CEO of Blackberry in 2007, after seeing the iPhone unveiling, remarking to his co-CEO “It’s OK—we’ll be fine.” 
1 Like