Good question.I assume if tower is not on but APP or CTR are would they tell us when to change to CTAF frequency for landing.
Ah, I think thatâs one of these cases that can be very tricky. From what I understand, in the US itâs very common for controllers to expect you to know the correct frequency yourself already - so while ground being controlled but the runways/airspace being uncontrolled is something you will very, very rarely come across IRL (the only place that I know of globally is EDFE - there the charts tell you that you are expected to switch from Egelsbach Apron to Egelsbach Radio without a handoff when you are approaching the holding point and also vice versa after vacating, though), VATSIM controllers may adapt that procedure for this VATSIMism situation and just tell you to âswitch to advisoryâ or something similar. Might be another argument for keeping 122.800 at airports that are controlled IRL (even if only as HX).
Though when will that situation occur where it hasnât occurred before? If an airport is controlled and you have APP or ACC, but no TWR, then as per the topdown policy, APP/ACC provides the TWR service for that airport, so you wonât get any frequency change, you will just remain on that controllerâs frequency all the way to the stand (or at least the ramp).
If an airport is uncontrolled (and - thinking internationally again - if the airport has AFIS, it is not staffed and that particular vACC doesnât provide topdown services for AFIS), then you would previously also have been told to âswitch to advisoryâ or similar - nothing changes there with the CTAF trial except for the frequency you end up tuning to.
no. APP or CTR would act as tower. VATSIM is top down
Iâd prefer to see other, more practical features implemented in vatusa than the joke that CTAF is going to become.
When can we have CPDLC, so I can just check in, take the headset off, and not have to listen to ATC deal with pilots who have precisely zero proficiency in operating their airplane beyond hitting EXEC on the box? Heaven forbid they have to do something, like fly their airplane.
It absolutely ruins my immersion. At least in the real world, there is a number issued, or youâre standing in the Chief Pilotâs office before being sent back for some remedial sim training.
With regards to CTAF, is it going to be on a SUP dashboard, or is the process going to be automated? You get within 10 miles of your destination, and if youâre not tuned to CTAF, you get a network frequency ticket, and points deducted from your virtual license?
4 Likes
Thatâs not how CPDLC works.
1 Like
Really? You donât say⌠I use it on a daily basis (except for a few ARTCCs here in the US who have been dragging their feet to adopt it⌠hereâs looking at you ZLA, ZAB, east coastâŚ). Iâm quite familiar with how it works.
While what I said regarding CPDLC was in jest, you kind of made my point for me, which I appreciate. VATSIM spends all this effort to make things ârealâ, focusing on how CTAF is supposed to work. How CPDLC works and doesnât work. Yet, pilots have zero practical barrier in jumping on the network, hopping in their shiny Airbus and have zero clue on how to operate it in a managed IFR environment.
How about we start with the same level of training and testing requirements that ATC have, before youâre allowed to operate IFR on the network? Rhetorical question, we all know the answer.
Anyway, I do appreciate you letting me know thatâs not how CPDLC works, I must have forgotten that in the last 24 hours. But then again, you missed the point.
3 Likes
You do, but I control in an area that uses CPDLC (on VATSIM) - and youâd be surprised by the number of people who think that CPDLC is an ATC mute switch (or that they donât have to check in, or whatever else you could come up with).
Anyway, not really a CTAF discussion (my fault 
). Letâs get back to discussing CTAF, and sorry if my post rubbed you the wrong way, wasnât my intention 
1 Like
Yep. So what do you do about that? Well, Iâll tell you.You set up a pilot training department, then staff it with knowledgeable volunteers who then work hard to address exactly that well- known issue to which you allude.
That organisation already exists, of course, in the VATSIM Pilot Training Department, and good things are happening as a result. But it will take MANY YEARS to defeat the legacy from which VATSIM currently suffers. I leave it up to you to identify why you might think that that albartross sits around our necks right now.
My view of that smelly dead bird lies in a decision to promote volume membership before ensuring that the load-bearers in the organisation (educators, knowledeable and committed commentators, interested and vested RW aviators, experienced and communicative VATSIM users) exist, and are organised, in sufficient numbers to moderate the overwhelming tsunami of social media such as Discord and YouTube, where misdirection, obfuscation, misunderstanding and plain nonsense thrive. These load-bearers DO exist, but we fall short in the âsufficient numbersâ specification. Thatâs where we will fail.
VATSIM seems to be staggering on its back heels from that explosion. Yes, I know, things must change, or they atrophy. But it seems to me, and to you, and to probably quite a lot of folks, that the tl;dr snowflake generation who seem to demand handholding due to their apparent inability to be self-directing in their pursuit of knowledge (or maybe just their pursuit of excitement and/or self-gratification) makes them unable to absorb the central message of VATSIM.
And I donât blame them. It isnât their fault. They were brought up that way. Thatâs why fixing it will take so long.
I appreciate VATSIM trying new ideas, but this will never work. It would be nice if they focused on better features and not trying to implement things like this or the Washington DC ADIZ 20 years after it went live real world.
3 Likes
You hit the nail on the head⌠Quantity over quality. Simple as that.
The old adage of leading a horse to water applies here. The problem is with the current generation of instant gratification, you can have the most elaborate optional training program, but there is no requirement to use it. I applaud and respect everyone that runs the pilot training program. Also, I canât imagine the frustration those people must go through when they see someone who so very much needs it, yet doesnât participate.
Itâs ironic that in order to hop in a helicopter (or C130) and go fly a SAR pattern over the water, VFR, not impacting any other traffic, I have to go through a massive, burdensome training program as part of some virtual spec ops organization. Iâll impact precisely zero other users during that exercise.
However, I can hop in a 747, have zero experience or knowledge in using it, other than Ctrl-E to start the engines, and fly into an FNO, negatively impacting other users, with zero training.
This issue has been around for⌠damn⌠DECADES⌠Itâs not going away.
4 Likes
Amen, Dan!
This is dumb.
So I had a couple of flights where one terminal end of the flight was on CTAF.
It worked surprisingly well.
The .ctaf command did itâs thing (thank you for providing that simple solution for looking the frequency up)
But couldnât we simplify things and use the lowest VHF tower frequency as CTAF for airports that donât have a published one because they are staffed 24/7 in real life?
Itâs easy to look up in the charts, and it doesnât matter in which order the frequencies are listed in the chart.
Cheers
Ralph
So true.I have seen it and heard it. I have to applaud the ATC for doing a great job.
It will be interesting to see how the upcoming cross the pond works out.
I think youâre making it sound easier than it is. Some chart providers donât put fallback frequencies on their charts, sometimes VFR charts display different frequencies than IFR charts (particularly when different frequencies are used for VFR and IFR traffic - there are two cases of that in Germany, e.g.), etc. - and I also think that requires that VATSIM pilots have a deeper understanding of how frequencies/channels work than most currently do. It will make things even more complicated because yet again the question will be: what frequency do I use if there are multiple ones.
I go back to the idea I and others have raised in this thread before: real world advisory frequencies only for places that are uncontrolled H24 IRL, 122.800 (or replace it with 121.500 - Gibraltar would be thankful to be able to use their real approach frequency and seeing as 122.800 is used as a CTAF in quite a few places in the US it would also result in a sensible separation of the comms there, plus many pilots already monitor 121.500 on COM2 for realism purposes, but I digress) for all places that are controlled H24 or even just HX. That way, most people could just continue as they used to when flying their airliners into the big hubs, while the minority of users that enjoys VFR or GA IFR flying into/out of uncontrolled fields (which is usually the more knowledgeable part of the user base anyway) can further increase their realism and use the real world advisory frequency for the airfield/area they are flying in.
Iâd be the last one to disagree with you, but youâre fighting windmills (though I like fighting these particular windmills - with a bit of luck and a multitude of people doing so, perhaps something may be achieved in the long term). While there are some attempts to increase the knowledge and ability of both controllers and pilots, most of them are woefully unsuccessful, usually for the simple reason that they are not mandatory, unknown to many users, and - yes - yield no instant gratification (although that particular point could maybe be at least partially combated by well-designed material and courses). With controllers, it can work because for them there are higher entry barriers anyway and VATSIM has - unlike the main competition - taken an approach with mandatory training regardless of where you want to control, so itâs relatively easy for vACCs to implement courses and requirements for their controllers that ensure a certain level of quality (or at least it was - GCAP has closed many doors in that regard and just generally made it much harder for vACCs to flexibly create suitable training programs and require certain skills/knowledge to be allowed to control in their airspace based on the traffic volumes and types as well as local procedures and airspace structure; I digress again), but with pilots itâs incredibly difficult because there are so many more of them and any additional entry barrier might prevent new members from joining (if you read through some of the BoG Meeting Minutes, you will see that the idea of a mandatory IFR course/rating before someone is allowed to fly IFR on the network has been discussed and rejected for precisely this entry barrier concern).
In that regard, using real world CTAF frequencies (at least where appropriate, see my point above) might actually be benefitial - it will move the network further in a direction where reading and understanding charts (just like IRL) is an increasingly vital skill that is taught from the beginning and could at least partially result in betterment on many issues around pilots not doing what they are supposed to do.
Youâre confused. Iâm not fighting anything. I simply donât care anymore. Iâm much more quick on the âDisconnectâ button when a controller or other pilots start negatively impacting my flight. Iâm simply stating the fact that abysmal pilot quality (and also in some respects controller quality as well) is much more of an issue impacting âimmersionâ and ârealismâ than what the CTAF frequency is for a particular airport.
Speaking of CTAF being a forcing function to make pilots read and understand chartsâŚ
Whatâs the .ctaf command do again? Iâd like to think I can muddle my way through a chart⌠So now, landing in, say ATL, with no ATC, I flip open the chart and discover that I have a choice of 5 frequencies, depending on what runway I use.
So as to not run afoul of the rules, I get to break my immersion/realism, tab out of MSFS, type in .ctaf to make sure I donât bring the frequency police down on me, all to hear some pilot announcing their takeoff, with a 20kt tail wind, in an A380, flying VEE EFF ARE up to JFK at Flight Level 34000.
Yup, just like real worldâŚ
4 Likes
CTAF is treating a symptom and not the problem. The issue is pilot quality. We need fundamentals like flight planning, navigation, airspace awareness, and understanding/excuting commands required by ATC. There should be mandatory milestones that dictate what types of airspace a pilot can fly in based on their progression and certification.
If your brand new and refuse to go through any evaluation, sure depart from an uncontrolled airport in an A380 and have fun. Just stay away from Class A-D. I bet it someone can program a way to disconnect someone if they donât meet certain criteria.
2 Likes
Iâm all for mandatory pilot ratings, restricting people to connecting in Observer mode until theyâve shown some initiative to actually knowing what theyâre doing. As much as I despise CBT, it feels like a decent program could be put in place. The current pilot training program is woefully inadequate for the same reasons the ATC program is horribly slow- not enough capacity.
1 Like
I think that may need to be expanded a bit! I certainly know that some computer assisted learning is weak, like sentencing the learner to death by powerpoint, but even powerpoint can be made interesting and motivating. Itâs like any education process: it can be deadly dull and completely brain-crushing, or it can be exciting, relevant, engaging and even life-changing.
Wonderful politic-speak, right? But itâs the truth.The thing its, itâs incredibly difficult and time-consuming to create that kind of stuff, so people donât bother.
Despising one form of educational tool might indicate that other forms are OK, but it ainât necessarily so. It depends on the view the developer has of the education process, more than the mechanisms used in the learning process.
1 Like