Okay, I despise the general laziness of CBT death by PowerPoint
Me too!
Iâve been reading this thread with interest: -
When a friend took me up real world he always had a list of controller/tower frequencies he might have to tune to. So this discussion has prompted me to do the same for my on-line flying even though here in the UK we do not have âCTAFâ - which does seem an excellent idea.
To help with this Iâve written a programme whereby the expected ATC frequencies can all be stored during the flight planning stage, then quickly called up as a â.com1 1##.###â placed onto the clipboard ready for pasting into the pilot-clientâs message box to get VATSIM to tune the radio for me.
If anyone is interested itâs available from my dropbox here: -
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head with your first sentence. The trouble seems to be that some pilots donât want to have to research the list of frequencies required in a flight. Too much bother, takes up too much time which could be better used flying. Online, ATC will direct their choice of frequencies, and offline itâs a free-for-all. Then thereâs the âCharts? What charts?â issue.
Hoping something is done to actually enforce and police this if they want it to succeed.
Half the pilots are on Unicom, half on CTAF its a becoming a huge mess. Flying out of LGA last night, not one person on CTAF almost had a intersect collision on 22/13, which whatever, its a game. but only to then have that person flip out me because they have no idea what CTAF is and there on the wrong frequency.
VATSIM/VATUSA need to do a better job instituting this then a link to a memo on a page that no one appears to be reading. Maybe a SUP monitoring USA Unicom more often, since this is the sole trial region for this new initiative and clearly needs more attention to be successful out of the gates.
Most members donât read the forums. That was my original question was enforcement. If it isnât done consistently it will always be a problem. Luckily your almost collision isnât anything you have to worry about. Its a sim.
Well, if too less pilots seem to read this memo it maybe would be more âefficientâ to bring this memo (or reminder) about the CTAF to the pilots via the pilot clients? Just as a starting pointâŚ
1 Like
I really want to do this CTAF thing but I havenât heard a single other person talking on CTAF yet while unicom is bustling with traffic that should be on CTAF. It would be really helpful if they would push the memo to pilot clients.
@887155 @1215759 Any chance to include a short form or at least a link to the CTAF trial memo (CTAF Trial | Starting from 1st March) when connecting to the network? (as a temporary âmeasurementâ for the duration of the trial)
I think this could be helpful to draw more attention of pilots towards the CTAF trial.
Also keeping in mind - if successful - this will be rolled out some day on the whole network.
CTAF works great for the ones on that frequency. Others were on 122.80
Why is Vatsim trying to fix something that isnât broken? 122.8 is standard and easy. I donât feel like having to rummage through a chart supplement every time I fly into a simulator airport, I do enough of that IRL. Granted, the whole Vatsim ethos is to deliver the most enhanced realistic virtual experience but between this new system that takes you out of VPilot and online to file a flight plan (which is a much lesser intuitive user interface) and scrapping 122.8 and replacing it with such an unnecessarily convoluted system (and letâs get real here, who is rummaging through a chart supplement while flying a desktop flight simulator: nobody). It just appears that Vatsim is attempting to fix something that isnât broken and has worked exceptionally well up until this point. I hope the relative disapproval of this migration to real CTAF frequencies falls on the adminsâ ears and they roll back to 122.8 but until then, this is highly disappointing all around.
2 Likes
Much agreed. I found out about the new migration to CTAF from another pilot who was logged on flying around the DCA area the other day while I was on 122.8. Didnât see any emails about this from Vatsim or any update. Dreadful. At the very minimum this should be posted in VPilot until the trial period ends⌠they already post updates and NOTAMs in there and thereâs no reason they canât do it in this instance if theyâve proven they have the utility to do so times past. Really not happy with this.
Nope. I vehemently disagree with this. As I mentioned in my own dissertation below, I understand the Vatsim ethos in simulating real-world aviation to the highest degree. But seriously, 122.8 has been around for how long now? Iâve been a user for 5+ years and itâs always been that way. At some point something has to give so far as realism goes and if this is the system thatâs worked since ink and pen, then why try and fix something that isnât broken?
There are so many instances of pilots logging on, loading up an A320, smashing ctrl+e and wreaking havoc in whatever locality theyâre operating in: do you think these types of people posses any skillset yet alone resource in reading any type of chart? They donât even know who or how to call up and ask for a clearance. Almost every time Iâm logged on someone canât even accept an approach because their navdata hasnât been updated in years.
Get real, a considerable percentage of Vatsim pilots donât posses the means, utility, or skillset people like you or I do in having to rummage through chart supplements to find frequencies embed in jargon theyâve probably never even seen in their lives; why make it harder for them and have it cause even more problems for people like me and you who take it seriously. 122.8 works. This migration to CTAF minutiae is a prime example of someone cutting off a limb to clip a toe-nail; so unnecessary.
1 Like
Unicom isnât standard for communications on the ground at various fields. It never should have been, especially when one airport is in proximity to another. I shouldnât, on 122.8, hear what is going on at two adjacent airports to me (KSMO and KHHR) if Iâm on the ground at LAX. The movements at those two airports are irrelevant to the aircraft movement at KLAX. Likewise for if I am at KLAS and there are movements at KVGT, KHND, KBVU, and 0L7.
Each one of those fields has a different CTAF, which those frequencies are depicted on the charts (AF/D and sectionals). The issue here is if we are looking at realism, the issue that is coming up here is lack of knowledge of what pilots are supposed to do, and instead adopting what they are hearing others do, de facto.
In short, if this is a learning network, pilots need to learn, and learn it right, for if they try to take what they learn here and apply it to the real world, they will find out how completely wrong they are, and have to relearn everything properly.
BL.
2 Likes
Yep. And that fact (for it is a fact) tells us something unpalatable about a global VATSIM. That is, it canât really work if some jurisdiction decides to apply local arrangements which donât have relevance outside that jurisdiction. This is of course quite acceptable, until it becomes clear that this local arrangement is intended to become global. Thatâs whatâs happening, with pilots assuming that the correct application of CTAF in US airspace will become a global phenomenon, or that adopting 121.5 as a convenient comms frequency will work OK in jurisdictions which mandate it a an emergency-only frequency.
It all hinges on the phrase âlearn it right,â because actually there is no global âright.â Unless, of course, one takes the view that all national civil aviation authorities are created equal, itâs just that some of them are more equal than others.
1 Like
Exactly!!
So what would be a good bit of research to do is for those outside the USA to look at their charts (AF/D, Sectionals/ HI/LO charts, etc.) and see if there is anything relative to a CTAF for a given airport that actually does close. If there is, then those regions would be ahead of the game if they were to look at the procedures for that particular region on how to handle CTAF.
From there, they get the word out to the pilots, and this test can grow into something palpable, and could be implemented globally.
BL.
Do you not see that you are asking that this action would need to be applied by each non-US real world jurisdictionâs aviation authority first, before becoming official practice in that jurisdiction, whereupon the local aviators (and VATSIM) would automatically comply?
But why should they? They believe that their own procedures work quite satisfactorily within that jurisdiction, and if the US has an alternative suggestion, let these RW aviation authorities work through it. VATSIM is unable, thankfully, to influence that.
Of course, VATSIM can do whatever it likes, but I think (and sincerely hope) they - the BoG - might decide that that the onus is on VATSIM US to do any research regarding global viability, and present their case for a VATSIM which would abandon local current global aviation practice in favour of the creation of a separate aviation world where evsryone follows exactly the same rules.
I donât think iâm being negative here. Having CTAF as a global procedure may well be a wonderful thing, but it is absolutely not VATSIMs business to rewrite the worldâs AIMs.
I actually see some parallels between this discussion and previous legacy discussions which resulted in the formation of IVAO, eventually spawning the formation of VATSIM. There is a clear tension among members, and, I suspect, among members of the BoG, arising from the huge increase in membership, many of whom apparently donât know much at all about aviation, and donât care to expend effort in learning arcane details regarding what they perceive to be a video game, but who care deeply about excitement.
And so on. I wonât repeat the stories here. But I fear for VATSIM. Yes. yes, OK, I fear for the VATSIM which I love, and worry about what I think it may become.
Time for another breakup?
SATCO. The USA has ruled the world for too long with no understanding of anything outside of their country.
Not for nothing, but IVAO existed alongside SATCO, so there was no formation of IVAO from any ashes from VATSIM or SATCOâŚ
That said, I believe that the point is being missed here. Globally on the network, we do not know what happens for any type of CTAF outside the USA/Canada/North America. Pending on how this trial period works for VATUSA, we should also look at how those outside N. America also handle this situation, because I am pretty sure that 122.8 isnât used all over the place.
For example, LOKL appears to use 122.505 for CTAF while LOWZ appears to use 119.705.
That certainly is not 122.8. So what could happen is that while the trial is going on for N. America, why couldnât Europe or any other region look at their charts for what may or may not work for their respective regions?
BL.
We implemented CTAF in VATPAC probably ten years ago. It worked and was adopted without all of this negativity. It was introduced in a much different way and no-one seemed to object. It is amazing how VATSIM is the USA.