And chance of voice CTAF on vPilot?

[Eoin Motherway 1315348]

With my new PC on the way, i plan to do more flying on VATSIM and in to some un-towed aerodromes across Australia.

 

These aerodromes would have a CTAF and id rather now use a text CTAF as it is less realistic and a bit of a h[Mod - Happy Thoughts]el since i am full voice capable.

 

So is there any way or getting voice CTAF with vPilot or will the new "Swift" support it and also work for Perpar3D

[Bradley Grafelman]

So is there any way or getting voice CTAF with vPilot or will the new "Swift" support it and also work for Perpar3D

No idea about Swift, but I'm guessing Ross has no plans of adding support for voice CTAF to vPilot until such a time that VATSIM actually allows such a concept.

 

Currently, it does not, hence Ross' current position:

 

I have no plans to support the private voice or radio file mapping you refer to

[Trent Hopkinson]

Not only can vPilot not run a CTAF Voiceroom pack.

 

You can't even create your own private voiceroom from the pilot client, or join one someone else created in Squawkbox or FSinn.

 

This means no:

1: CTAFs

2: Inviting someone you're flying with to a voice room to have a discussion (Squawkbox had this option, you could 'invite' someone to a voiceroom you made, and they could one-click join it.)

3: Setting up a "Group flight" where people might fly in formation and talk to each other using a voiceroom for co-ordination.

4: Setting up a rw.servername.org/anyroom voiceroom for any other reason, such as Virtual Airline/Training or group flight company frequencys.

 

In a round about way this either makes "Teamspeak" official vatsim software or "flying GA aircraft like C172's in formation" an activity that isn't supported by Vatsim.

 

 

[Bradley Grafelman]

TL;DR: It's a step in the right direction.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

r "flying GA aircraft like C172's in formation" an activity that isn't supported by Vatsim.

 

sorry Trent, you are a fun guy to watch in the videos but i have to pick on this one. frankly its tiring to watch people continue to make that false [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption. i dont know how people get these ideas, but the idea that because the network doesnt support one, it doesnt support anything else that would be connected to it including the above, thats utter nonsense to put it plainly.

 

lets be honest, if people in a groupflight wanted to talk to each other by voice they'd do like they have been doing for over a decade, even when it was just FSINN and Squawkbox around, theyd use mumble, teamspeak or whatever other voice software there is. why? because the quality is just tons better then the VVL. i can honestly say i havent been on a group channel that was hosted via the VVL in over a decade as the VA's have preferred other software with better quality for that.

 

 

just my .02

[Trent Hopkinson]

r "flying GA aircraft like C172's in formation" an activity that isn't supported by Vatsim.

 

sorry Trent, you are a fun guy to watch in the videos but i have to pick on this one. frankly its tiring to watch people continue to make that false [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption. i dont know how people get these ideas, but the idea that because the network doesnt support one, it doesnt support anything else that would be connected to it including the above, thats utter nonsense to put it plainly.

 

lets be honest, if people in a groupflight wanted to talk to each other by voice they'd do like they have been doing for over a decade, even when it was just FSINN and Squawkbox around, theyd use mumble, teamspeak or whatever other voice software there is. why? because the quality is just tons better then the VVL. i can honestly say i havent been on a group channel that was hosted via the VVL in over a decade as the VA's have preferred other software with better quality for that.

 

 

just my .02

 

I like how you cut off the "o" from the word "or" in your quote from me.

 

Here's what I said, again.

 

In a round about way this either makes "Teamspeak" official vatsim software o

 

Which means "mumble, teamspeak or whatever other voice software there is" is indeed "In a round about way this [...] makes "Teamspeak" official vatsim software..."

 

 

Nevertheless it would be real nice to be able to fly this approach with the correct radio telephony procedures one day on Vatsim when on an IFR flight plan.

It involves Area QNH and traffic information being provided by Melbourne Centre, and pilot-to-pilot comms being made via standard calls on CTAF.

This is a real place in Australia, with an ILS and an Airport and IFR flights occurring every day... and not a manned tower in sight.

24h 7d/week non-towered ILS capable airport.

[Ross Carlson]

Trent, have you lobbied the VATSIM management for the ability to support voice communications on a frequency without a controller present? I will absolutely add such a feature to vPilot once it is supported by the network.

[Josh Glottmann]

I know it's not supported at this time... but just an idea.

If anyone in a nearby range is logged on as Text only (this reduces many, but not all), some form of message (and sound) appears in vPilot and until that pilot leaves the range, voice CTAF will be unusable.

[Trent Hopkinson]

I know it's not supported at this time... but just an idea.

If anyone in a nearby range is logged on as Text only (this reduces many, but not all), some form of message (and sound) appears in vPilot and until that pilot leaves the range, voice CTAF will be unusable.

 

CTAF isn't unicom.

 

VATPAC - when Squawkbox and FSinn were the big thing on the block, made a set of voiceroom files so that when, for instance, approaching YSWG, you could tune in 126.95 and FSinn would automatically connect the client to rw1.vatpac.org/YSWG. This would only occur within a certain range of the airport YSWG (based on lat/long distance to that location).

 

It would disconnect from the voiceroom if either the pilot tuned a different frequency, OR if they flew outside the range of the pre-set distance defined in the package file.

 

 

Remember, Use of the CTAF isn't "Because no ATC is online at the time". It's part of every day IFR operations in the real world at these airports at all times of the day.

 

 

Centre control talks to the aircraft before takeoff to provide Squawk Code, IFR clearance with a validity time, and weather/traffic information. After the Centre Controller gives this information, the aircraft switches to TCAS to provide broadcasts about taxi and runway use, and when leaving the pattern area. After which they switch back to Centre which is activley controlling the A or E cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] airspace above the airfield, and the aircraft is radar identified by Centre before proceeding into the controlled airspace (by climbing into it).

 

These airports never have a Ground, Tower or Approach frequency active in the real world.

 

These frequencies are not 122.80 because Melbourne/Brisbane Centre are handing aircraft off to the actual frequency (ie 126.95 in the case of YSWG.)

 

 

This is something that VATPAC has had since FSinn was the main program.

 

Unfortunately the new P3D 3.1 can't run FSinn. And so by upgrading to a new sim, people have to downgrade their CTAF operations to... not having CTAF operations.

 

One of our regular events (Every Friday and Sunday night) is a VFR flight where a large group depart one CTAF and fly touch and goes to about 4 to up to 10 airfields in a row. some of which are very close. Most of which are CTAF's with runways less than 1500m long.

 

It's a hectic enough flight without having to type, which is why recently it seems that now that enough of the regular group have migrated to P3D and need to use vPilot, the new official method of separation has gone from "Voice CTAF using FSinn" to "Some people use Teamspeak and others just fly without communicating anything at all".

 

in times past, the Teamspeak was used as a "Mostly random chat about the weekend & a little bit of Software support".

 

Now it is mostly "Who's that over there? What runway are we landing on? Who just took off on runway 09? woah that was close!"

 

But I guess we can let the guys cruising at FL310 on Autopilot with the easy voice coms, and let the VFR guys without any AutoPilot even available on their addons, nevermind trying to fly a tight visual circuit to do all the typing.

 

... or just admit we are now officially using Teamspeak as de facto vatsim software.

[David Zhong]

While I not only support voice CTAF, but encourage it's use within our airspace, it must be said that Ross is only being prudent with his spare time (which he gives up freely for the good of our community) when he chooses not to implement functionality which does not receive widespread support and may even become superceded should we get range-based voice sooner than later.

 

FSInn and Squawkbox enable you to use VATPAC voice CTAFs. I encourage you to use those if you feel that voice CTAF is a must.

 

Our division will continue to lobby for voice air-to-air comms and we eagerly await any technical developments that may streamline global adoption of this end.

[Ross Carlson]

FSInn and Squawkbox enable you to use VATPAC voice CTAFs. I encourage you to use those if you feel that voice CTAF is a must.

 

I could be wrong, but as I recall, only FSInn provided this feature. Squawkbox users could still join the "voice unicom" channel by treating it as a private voice room, but it would not automatically tune the channel when the pilot dialed 122.8 (or whatever the frequency was for the region.)

 

I actually think it was a bad thing when FSInn brought this unsanctioned, unofficial "voice unicom" feature to VATSIM. I realize that they provided that feature because FSInn was usable on networks other than VATSIM, however I wish they had disabled it when FSInn was used to connect to VATSIM.

 

In my opinion, the right way to do that feature is with support at the policy level and at the technical level. At the technical level, I'm referring to there being an official download URL (perhaps contained in the same status file from which clients pull the server list) for fetching the regional frequency mapping. That way, the mapping could be automatically updated when things change (such as if a voice server is added or removed) without any user intervention.

 

So I again encourage Trent and others to reach out to the VATSIM staff and suggest that voice UNICOM/CTAF become officially supported.

[Trent Hopkinson]

Might just drop a fantasy of mine:

 

Log into Vatsim positioned at YSWG.

 

You see the following controllers online:

 

ML-BIK_CTR 125.20

YSWG_CTAF 126.95

YTMU_CTAF 126.70

 

Tuning 122.80 gets you... no voiceroom at all.

 

Tuning 125.20 gets you... An active Controller talking to real people flying simulated planes.

 

Tuning to 126.95 gets you... an active voiceroom with nobody in it except you and maybe other pilots on the ground at or approaching Wagga Wagga YSWG.

 

Even better. Simulated AFRU.

 

If you are on 126.95 on the ground at YSWG, and you press your Push to Talk button for more than ~5 seconds, the server itself sends a text message on 126.25 from the radio position of YSWG "YSWG CTAF Voice Transmission Recieved"

Actual computer-generated voice "See Taff" in response on PTT button release optional.

 

If you tune in to 122.80 and press the push to talk button for 52 seconds... no response happens at all.

Same if you tune in 128.527 and push your PTT. Not an active frequency. Not near a CTAF with 128.527 as it's frequency. No response or voiceroom connection.

 

Just some thoughts, no idea how that would work from a programming or server standpoint. It's also gonna clog up the Pilot Client softwares "ATC List" features with an ever-shifting set of XXXX_CTAF 'virtual controllers' that are just empty voice rooms. But if the voice rooms don't exist till they are "created" by someone actually in range tuning the frequency, then I can't see those actually doing anything to any impact to server loads differently to squawkbox existing with the ability to create "rw1.vatpac.org/MyHappyVoiceRoom" which has been the case since like 2003.

 

 

Of course, this "range based transmission voice" stuff could make all that kinda moot.... although having a list of CTAF's that follow you around in the active ATC list could be useful even, so even without looking up the chart, the pilot could just look in the ATC list on the pilot client and discover all the CTAF's inside his radio range. "ooh look I'm overhead YSWG, but I can see YSTU_CTAF on the list. I must be close to YSTU."

 

 

Unfortunately "Best possible option" also equals "Actually need to change stuff on Vatsim that requires actual programming"

And as an FSinn user, am definitely of the "Don't fix what kinda works" and "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough" camp.

 

Unfortunately sometimes "New advances in technology" sometimes means "what kinda works" gets broken. and the "Good enough" becomes "Actually not very good anymore". New things break old stuff. and P3Dv3 broke FSinn, and Vpilot broke Voice CTAF for Australia VFR events.

 

Maybe Teamspeak will become the new default "Good enough" and CTAF's on discreet frequencys will once again become a thing that isn't done on Vatsim. 122.80 on text and discreet frequency CTAF on text is just doubling up your text work when you're trying to fly without autopilot. Dare you to do a circuit from a 1200m long runway in a C172 without touching the autopilot and making all correct CTAF calls for Downwind, Base and Final when having to make those calls on Text only, and both on unicom 122.80 and the CTAF 128.60 and on teamspeak to the only people that matter - the 13 guys all flying to the airport you are at, just in case that non-existent 14th person who's actually a 737 at 35,000ft and doesn't need to know if VHJKN is turning base now or not.

 

Anyway that evolution is already well under way. To the point that I think someone suggested we have a single pace-maker aircraft make text broadcasts on 122.80 to the effect of "YSWG Traffic, Flight of 13 arriving rwy 05, lead aircraft at 10nm positions left downwind ETA 36 and in 3 minute trail till time 05"

 

and then 20 mins later "YSWG Traffic, Flight of 13 has completed ops YSWG"

 

and 2 minutes after that "YSTU traffic 12 aircraft inbound rwy 18 time 11 right downwind"

 

And that strange box that says "CTAF-AFRU 126.95 will become one of those oddities that apply to real aviation only, and not on Vatsim.

[David Zhong]

Ross, you are correct in that Squawkbox did not have any specific functionality: instead, it was made a procedure in our division that Squawkbox users would manually connect to the appropriate voice channel.

 

Trent, both ideas require significant technical effort. The ranged-based solution is much more versatile. The dummy controller solution is much more limited and would probably create excessive clutter. Furthermore, our existing implementation has significant limitations for "Broadcast Areas" (previously known as "Large CTAFs"), Multicom (126.7 MHz) and other situations where a frequency is not tied to a single aerodrome.

[Trent Hopkinson]

In Australia there are over 400 airports listed in the ERSA. Apparently 326 of these have paved runways.

 

Of these 326 airports, only 41 airports have an Air Traffic Control service to the ground (ie a "Tower" controller position is valid)

Some of these cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D, some of them Military, or Joint use, or cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C with an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated TMA.

 

As many of these CTAF only airports are actually near fairly large cities. Many of these are indeed serviced by airlines. Some receive multiple daily flights of A320/737 sized aircraft.

The interaction between IFR aircraft leaving a CTAF and the overlying Centre level ATC is some of the more challenging and interesting ATC interaction around in my opinion. Without an active CTAF, the interaction between IFR and VFR doesn't happen as well.

 

Without CTAF, Vatpac Events are essentially limited to those 41 airports (be mindful that places like "Nowra Navy Air Base" are included in this number) unless we are going to try to have some S3 log in as "This Airport is actually a CTAF" tower and promise not to talk. (or only to imitate an AFRU by saying "Wollongong CTAF" after every transmission)

 

I wish I was having a laugh, but I remember someone actually doing this once at the 10th largest city in Australia.

 

The 10th largest city in Australia is serviced by an airport which is only a CTAF.

 

 

Imagine this scenario:

VATPAC put on the biggest event. They somehow recruit and train dozens of new ATC, and man up every single ATC position that is possible, Completely replicating the real world Airservices Control centres.

Between Sydney and Melbourne the following controllers are deployed, filling every single frequency off the real world's ATC list for the nation.

 

SY_DEL

SY-E_GND

SY-W_GND

SY_TWR

SY-E_TWR

SY-N_DEP

SY-S_DEP

SY-D_APP

SY_APP

SY-N_APP

SY-RIS_APP

ML-BIK_CTR

ML-SNO_CTR

ML-BKE_CTR

ML-X_CTR

ML-FLO_CTR

ML-SL_CTR

ML-NL_CTR

BK_GND

BK_TWR

BK-S_TWR

CB_GND

CB_TWR

CB_APP

CB_DEP

AY_TWR

RIC_TWR

RIC_GND

CN_GND

CN_TWR

 

Because we have somehow increased our membership through some voodoo magic, we have 15 - 20 ATC rated members who wanted to be put onto the event roster missing out. They can't be ATC for this event because all possible positions are filled, so instead they will have to join the ranks of over 400 pilots flying to airports in New South Wales and the state of Victoria where the event is focussed.

 

You pull out your A2A Piper Cherokee out because, with every single ATC position that can possibly exist in Australia being manned, to the point that they had to turn rated C3's away because there were too many, there are absolutely no gaps in coverage today!

 

Cool! you think. I can reenact that real world flight I went on with my Flight instructor the other day. Just like this one

 

You call up Bankstown Ground. Cool. Got the clearance to transition through the C cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] airspace and a discreet squawk code! This is going to be awesome!

 

Bankstown Tower hands you off to Sydney Departures, and then on to Sydney Approach, and on again to Melbourne Centre.

 

You now approach Wollongong and are about to descend in a similar profile to the RNAV-Z approach to Runway 16, intending to do some circuits and pattern work before coming back to Richmond RAAF (which also has a Tower controlling it)

 

You're looking forward to seeing that Orbx Scenery for YWOL you purchased.

https://www.fullterrain.com/product/ywol

 

Despite the best efforts of Vatpac events in their miraculous ability to get literally 100 controllers on Vatsim controlling every ATC position in Australia. The only communication at YWOL is "Text on unicom 122.80"

This while you are manually flying in the pattern, 1000ft.

You need to broadcast on text on Downwind, Base, and (much harder) final.

 

The other 2 aircraft in the circuit for the same airport also need to do this.

 

Some try making 2 text broadcasts for every turn. one on 122.80 and one on the Wollongong CTAF 127.30

 

But there is no Voice CTAF.

So soon 127.30 falls silent.

 

Soon enough the people at regional airports (including the 3rd largest city in NSW, Wollongong, and the 3rd largest city in Victoria, Ballarat) realize that there's no point in flying to regional airports in Australia. IFR or VFR.

Even with "Every single ATC position in the country manned to excess" - 285 airports in Australia are literally silent.

 

On Text unicom, no one can hear you scream... or attempt to co-ordinate your position in the pattern.

And on the real world CTAF frequency, nobody's even watching you type. Because 127.30 isn't 122.80.

 

soon enough the guys that run events in Australia realize that - as far as Vatsim goes... there isn't over 400 airports in the country, There's 41.

 

And Tuesday's "Australia Online" event fades into irrelevance... much like it has.

 

And so Milk Run Monday happens. and the number of active airports in Australia on Vatsim on a weekly basis falls to 3, Because at least there, there's a chance of not having to be stuck trying to type and fly an approach at the same time in the silent world of unicom just 3000ft under 20 active Control Centres who are controlling aircraft literally p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing directly over your head. (because the Navaid located on the CTAF airfield you are on approach to forms airways Melbourne Low/North covers below 18,000ft and Melbourne Bindook covers above 18000ft)

 

 

The last time Ballarat Tower was open was: There is no such thing as Ballarat Tower. There are 2 runways at Ballarat, and all movement on the airport surface is co-ordinated on CTAF.

The only way we will ever be able to run an event in Ballarat is by either featuring Text Unicom 122.80 as part of the event, or featuring Ballarat CTAF as part of the event, only FSinn and Squawkbox users can come. or have someone open Ballarat Tower with VRC, and have them refuse to say anything, but at least the vPilot users can tune to the "Tower" frequency. Of course that means Vatsim would have infinity percent more ATC available at Ballarat than the real world ever will.

[Trent Hopkinson]

A long time ago, on a network called "Satco" The australians (David Kings?) came up with this crazy thing called "bots". Basically server-based AI that ATC could feed speeds, vectors and pauses/delets commands to via Pro Controller.

 

Imagine a different bot that was a fake Controller, which held a frequency open on CTAFs.

 

Yea I'm dreaming. I just want more than 41 viable airports in Australian airspace.

Here's some addon scenery for airports in Australia that are only CTAF's.

https://www.fullterrain.com/product/ybth

https://www.fullterrain.com/product/ybud

https://www.fullterrain.com/product/ycdr

https://www.fullterrain.com/product/ycnk

https://www.fullterrain.com/product/yhba

https://www.fullterrain.com/product/ypec

https://www.fullterrain.com/product/ypmq

https://www.fullterrain.com/product/ywol

https://www.fullterrain.com/product/ywva

http://en.shop.aerosoft.com/eshop.php?action=article_detail&s_supplier_aid=13155&s_design=default&shopfilter_category=flight%20simulation&s_language=english

http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/files/file/1858-ozx-ymry-moruya/

http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/files/file/5178-ozx-ysdu-dubbo-nsw/

 

 

I really do hope this ranged-based solution comes to fruition at some point.

Preferably within the decade.

 

Is anything actually being done in that regard? Someone working on it? It's a rumor I only ever hear about during these threads, but never outside of them.

 

It has pretty much meant that we can't host large events at airports like those linked to above. At best it's the VFR Friday event which has pretty much become a de-facto "CTAF frequency is Teamspeak" in recent months as many of the members move to P3D, which is finally starting to break FSinn's monopoly on the group.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Trent,

 

while I definitely sympathize with your idea, I do also think that it would be a bit too much to create all these voice-rooms for a quite low number of members. The effort has somehow stay in line with the expected takeup, our resources (people writing and maintaining the code) are limited.

 

What I'd rather like to see - maybe as a first step - are VOICE unicom channels for certain regions: Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, North America, Oceania, Antarctica, The Moon etc.. For busy regions I could imagine creating several channels. For the time being most conflicts arise during times of ATC-absence and several pilots approach a single airport at approximately the same time. Coordination of approaches by voice would be a big step ahead.

[Adam Trzcinski]

What I'd rather like to see - maybe as a first step - are VOICE unicom channels for certain regions: Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, North America, Oceania, Antarctica, The Moon etc.. For busy regions I could imagine creating several channels. For the time being most conflicts arise during times of ATC-absence and several pilots approach a single airport at approximately the same time. Coordination of approaches by voice would be a big step ahead.

 

 

People are already stepping on each other on active controlled frequencies, what do you think will happen with 20+ pilots approaching 5 different airports.

Text is fine! Leave it at Text!

[Ross Carlson]

Trent, I hope you realize that you are preaching (rather verbosely) to the choir.

 

On Text unicom, no one can hear you scream...

 

[Andreas Fuchs]

People are already stepping on each other on active controlled frequencies, what do you think will happen with 20+ pilots approaching 5 different airports.

Text is fine! Leave it at Text!

People will get used to it and learn it. Just like in the real world, where Unicom for several airfields in the vicinity is on the very same frequency.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

you have high hopes for some users its all well in theory, but in practice it has proven otherwise online lol not only have users not been able to learn proper radio technique, its actually gotten worse. i no longer fly in events for no other reason then people just make the coms almost impossible. when you get one impatient user, thats easily worked with, get multiple of them on the same frequency, they all want to be the first to talk.

 

if its going to be done, lets do it properly with a range limited option. i dont need to hear what someone else is doing in another state/country. lower to the ground you are, less range you should get.

 

thats not touching on all the private talk that already goes on via voice on 122.80 (some areas are worse then others. i mute it when im over france and some other places as it never fails

[Camden Bruno]

Guys,

 

I think the main point here is that there have been dozens and dozens of these threads. People propose the idea of voice UNICOM/CTAF (and other ideas), argue it between other members, and everyone tries to defend their opinions. Discussing this on the forum isn't going to do much, and the pilot client developers like Ross can't just add the feature because it's not their call. As Ross mentioned a while back in the thread, if you want this done then get a group together, write a letter to the BOG, sign it, and go from there.

[Sean Harrison]

I'm as happy as a pig in mud, using FSInn and our CTAF/Unicom voice file. I've modified it after lots of observations. It now uses the most commonly used server in each country and sets the voice room based on VATSIM ACC/region boundaries. Not many users, but I don't use text very often like the rest of the world on VATSIM. Text use without ATC is at about 20%. I can fly across the CONUS and everywhere else and FSInn auto changes voice room as I cross the ACC boundaries.

 

I love VATPAC and always tune to the CTAF, and use voice.

 

Let's leave it as a choice. I don't want the rest of VATSIM jumping on voice.......

[Sean Harrison]

Guys,

 

I think the main point here is that there have been dozens and dozens of these threads. People propose the idea of voice UNICOM/CTAF (and other ideas), argue it between other members, and everyone tries to defend their opinions. Discussing this on the forum isn't going to do much, and the pilot client developers like Ross can't just add the feature because it's not their call. As Ross mentioned a while back in the thread, if you want this done then get a group together, write a letter to the BOG, sign it, and go from there.

 

Why? It works now with FSInn and it legal.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Guys,

 

I think the main point here is that there have been dozens and dozens of these threads. People propose the idea of voice UNICOM/CTAF (and other ideas), argue it between other members, and everyone tries to defend their opinions. Discussing this on the forum isn't going to do much, and the pilot client developers like Ross can't just add the feature because it's not their call. As Ross mentioned a while back in the thread, if you want this done then get a group together, write a letter to the BOG, sign it, and go from there.

 

Why? It works now with FSInn and it legal.

 

not exactly

Q. If I dial-up UNICOM frequency in FSInn, it creates a voice channel, why can't I use that for voice UNICOM.

 

A. Voice UNICOM is not presently an option for the reasons outlined in the question above. FSInn is a pilot client that is certified for use on the VATSIM network. It is NOT VATSIM software. As such, it has features that are not compliant with VATSIM policies and this is one of those cases. Regardless of whether or not a UNICOM voice room exists, UNICOM transmissions must be sent over text.

[Ross Carlson]

Why? It works now with FSInn and it legal.

 

You answered your own question ... FSInn is just one client, it's not maintained anymore, and its "market share" has been far surp[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed by vPilot at least where I fly.