And chance of voice CTAF on vPilot?

[Trent Hopkinson]

 

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.

 

 

And I'm not talking about unicom.

 

I'm talking about CTAF, which lies underneath a fully controlled multiply split sector with 45 controllers controlling 1 Centre FIR and every tower and approach controller on the Australian Continent leaves over 300 airports as CTAFs.

 

With the "We made FSinn and Squawkbox do what we need it to do" CTAF's we could actually integrate airports like this into events. Centre (low sector) would handle an actual frequency handoff for IFR traffic to the CTAF, providing the frequency and a 'call back before' time, along with traffic point outs. The aircraft would go over to CTAF (voice) as per the frequency change instruction from Centre "Contact ABC CTAF on 126.bla, report on ground or ops normal before time (10 mins after the landing estimated time)"

 

The Centre was monitoring the aircraft there, and would start calling the '10 minutes late' aircraft once the SAR time expired.

 

it isn't "There's no ATC available on vatsim so go to text unicom"

This is a "There's literally no ATC position possible at that airport, go to CTAF, I'm still monitoring your IFR flightplan, please talk to me again before the SAR time expires"

 

The only way we can make events at these places is either

1: use teamspeak as an intergal part of how Vatsim works

2: Get someone to set up "This airport has no tower_TWR" and not talk for the duration of the event

3: don't make events at these airports.

 

 

Unicom is for "When Vatsim doesn't have a person manning an ATC position"

not for "When all the possible ATC positions on the continent cannot cover 400 airports because the real world airports don't have ATC, and ATC is as active as is possible to stupid levels bigger than real life but that airport we want to host an event at because it's the 3rd largest city in the state is a CTAF so too bad"

 

 

Unless you are seriously suggesting we host Unicom events.

"Come to Vatpac "3rd biggest city in NSW!" event! Providing Melbourne Centre split into 45 sectors just like real life! Enjoy the services of text unicom 122.80! 45 controllers will be manning the airspace 8500ft above the airfield but none of them can control the airspace you are in!

 

Again, unless we can set up YWOL_TWR and run it like a CTAF. Controller connects, and never speaks for the duration of the event.

Edited February 5, 2016 at 12:09 AM by Guest

[Camden Bruno]

 

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.

 

Just for the sake of clarity for everyone, I wasn't the one who said this. Trent's message above kind of makes it appear that I did due to the forum quoting system.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Trent, Unicom is a misnomer on VATSIM. there is no unicom on VATSIM. CTAF is what they are talking about, none the less, they are calling it the same thing.

[Trent Hopkinson]

Trent, Unicom is a misnomer on VATSIM. there is no unicom on VATSIM. CTAF is what they are talking about, none the less, they are calling it the same thing.

 

The way Vatsim pilots use Unicom has nothing to do with CTAF.

 

It's being used as a single frequency for all aircraft in radio range of other aircraft to such small airports as: London heathrow. Chicago O'Hare and New York JFK when ATC isn't manning the airport because they're at school.

 

You may notice these airports are in cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] A B and C airspace, not cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

safe to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume CTAF is something completely different in australia then? there is a difference between unicom and CTAF. Unicom is handled by non ATC personnel who provide advisory information. CTAF is pilot to pilot. on VATSIM we dont have a true unicom, its a CTAF

[Trent Hopkinson]

safe to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume CTAF is something completely different in australia then? there is a difference between unicom and CTAF. Unicom is handled by non ATC personnel who provide advisory information. CTAF is pilot to pilot. on VATSIM we dont have a true unicom, its a CTAF

 

CTAF is the same as CTAF in different real world countries

 

Vatsim UNICOM is used very differently to CTAF in the real world, unless you normally hear 747-400's flying at FL380 mentioning Top of descent into Frankfurt EDDF and the STAR they are using on cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G CTAF's?

 

no, Vatsim UNICOM is more akin to a TIBA/IFBP

http://code7700.com/tiba.html

 

hint: TIBA isn't CTAF.

Vatsim uses UNICOM like TIBA

Edited February 5, 2016 at 12:13 AM by Guest

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

VATSIM's is everything, none the less, its still the same thing the policy is talking about. it doesnt matter if you call it a multicom, unicom or ctaf, the policy is talking about the same thing

[Trent Hopkinson]

VATSIM's is everything, none the less, its still the same thing the policy is talking about.

 

Vatsim TIBA should be Text only. single frequency very large area

 

CTAF is discreet frequencies for a single local area often not larger than 15nm in radius from an airfield to a maximum altitude of around 3000 to 8000 ft.

[Ross Carlson]

Mountain out of a mole hill, guys. When people talk about "voice unicom" on VATSIM, they just mean a voice frequency to be used for coordination between pilots, no controller present. The end.

[Trent Hopkinson]

Mountain out of a mole hill, guys. When people talk about "voice unicom" on VATSIM, they just mean a voice frequency to be used for coordination between pilots, no controller present. The end.

 

When I see "Voice Unicom" I generally think people are wanting "1 single frequency per planet". instead of "Different frequencies for airports that are pretty close."

[Ross Carlson]

When I see "Voice Unicom" I generally think people are wanting "1 single frequency per planet". instead of "Different frequencies for airports that are pretty close."

 

That's just a byproduct of a VATSIMism ... we tend to send pilots to 122.8 when they leave a controller's frequency. If I had to guess, that "standard" has emerged on VATSIM because it's simpler to use a single frequency than to expect pilots to use the charts and locate the actual CTAF frequency for the airport where they are operating. (Plus at least where I fly in the US, 122.8 is the most common CTAF frequency.)

 

I think it's a shame that VATSIM has been dumbed down like that, and if we take steps to implement voice for frequencies with no controller, to be used for inter-pilot coordination, then we should take the extra step and have it use the actual frequency for that purpose, which can be different from airport to airport. And we should call it CTAF, not UNICOM. (At least that would be correct for the US, not sure about other countries.) Calling it UNICOM is another VATSIMism.

[Bradley Grafelman]

If we're going to pick nits, then the "CTAF != Unicom" argument is about as worthwhile as "CoC uses 'should' statements and not 'shall' statements so abiding by them isn't mandatory!" (And just in case the sarcasm doesn't translate well across the Internet, what I'm saying is that the former argument is beyond pedantic and approaching stupidity.)

 

If you're going to justify why CTAF != Unicom using real-world logic, then we should simultaneously start a petition to ban everyone who flies jets with simulated p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]engers but doesn't hold a real-world ATPL.

[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.

 

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.

 

Are you (or your post) saying that it is illegal to use voice without ATC online?

 

Can't wait to be suspended for using a voice Unicom room! Or for that matter a CTAF voice room.

 

I've even added VFR area frequencies, for helo ops around Sydney.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

not at all, you wont be suspended for using it, but you will get suspended for failing to use the text coms should you run into another pilot regardless of whether you transmitted on voice or not. the excuse of "you transmitted on voice" will not hold as you failed to use the actual supported method

 

neither the policy nor the quoted post say in any way youll be suspended for using a non supported feature. it does however say what the network actually requires regardless what unsupported feature is used

[Sean Harrison]

not at all, you wont be suspended for using it, but you will get suspended for failing to use the text coms should you run into another pilot regardless of whether you transmitted on voice or not. the excuse of "you transmitted on voice" will not hold as you failed to use the actual supported method

 

neither the policy nor the quoted post say in any way youll be suspended for using a non supported feature. it does however say what the network actually requires regardless what unsupported feature is used

 

Had this happen several times

...but you will get suspended for failing to use text comes should you run into another pilot....

and SUPs have said no-one has to transmit text, nothing to worry about. This seems to be another one of those huge misnomers that keep getting posted. If this were even remotely the case we'd loose over half of the membership to suspensions daily.

 

If there is a location where all the pilots are sending texts I'd love to know where it is. Please post here so we can see compliance with this misnomer.

[Andreas Fuchs]

And in other places UNICOM is pilot-to-pilot, there is nobody else on the frequency.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

not at all, you wont be suspended for using it, but you will get suspended for failing to use the text coms should you run into another pilot regardless of whether you transmitted on voice or not. the excuse of "you transmitted on voice" will not hold as you failed to use the actual supported method

 

neither the policy nor the quoted post say in any way youll be suspended for using a non supported feature. it does however say what the network actually requires regardless what unsupported feature is used

 

Had this happen several times

...but you will get suspended for failing to use text comes should you run into another pilot....

and SUPs have said no-one has to transmit text, nothing to worry about. This seems to be another one of those huge misnomers that keep getting posted. If this were even remotely the case we'd loose over half of the membership to suspensions daily.

 

If there is a location where all the pilots are sending texts I'd love to know where it is. Please post here so we can see compliance with this misnomer.

 

nobody has to transmit anything, so long as nobody interferes with one another. when they do interfere, then yes, not transmitting is going to come into play. that piece of info came from VATGOV1 and VP Sups at the time i questioned them on the same subject of transmitting. (DK & MZ at the time). id be utterly surprised if that has changed anytime since. if the sup you spoke with told you otherwise, frankly he was wrong. it happens. get a second opinion from the current VATGOV's if it suits

 

you are mixing two things up and getting them confused. as long as nothing occurs, you are not required to transmit. its when things happen where that changes

 

heres a copy of that message btw for reference

Dear Ernesto,

 

As a VP Supervisors I will answer your questions. Recently there was some discussion in my team of Supervisor about it and what I will present to You below has also been presented to Supervisors on their forum as official guidance. Should you notice any actions contrary to that in the future, try to docomeent it (screenshots, logs) and send it to me – we will deal it on one by one basis.

 

Indeed, Code of Coduct says (A7) that you should MONITOR unicom frequency, there is no obligation to transmit. However another major rule applicable in most cases is in Code of Regulations, para. 6.03.C. It’s prohibited to:

 

C. The use of the VATSIM.net network by any member or individual to engage in any

action or conduct which blocks, interferes with or otherwise prevents any other

member(s) of VATSIM.net or individuals from logging on to and/or enjoying the

VATSIM.net network. This rule does not apply to Administrators, Supervisors or

other individuals specifically designated by the VATSIM.net Board of Governors or

this Code of Regulations who are acting within the scope of their authority;

 

It says clear that you need to respect other users, even if you are in uncontrolled airspace. People enjoy using VATSIM to simulate real life procedures, where security and separation is the key, so if you don’t care about security and separation, if you cause situation of a midair collision or near miss, you definitely interfere with enjoying VATSIM by others. Therefore it’s essential to COORDINATE your actions in an uncontrolled airspace, if there is a risk of any conflict. Neither CoC nor CoR doesn’t decide about the way, how you can coordinate, however it’s obvious it needs to be effective. If you see a pilot on a conflicting heading, we don’t care if you write on UNICOM, send him a private message or join a voice channel he is logged in (if you are sure he is there and listens) – all we care about is that the conflict is solved. Of course UNICOM is the most effective method, because everyone should listen to it – but not the single one approved.

 

So answering your questions: yes, it is obligatory to monitor UNICOM. No, it’s not mandatory to transmit there – as long as you can effectively solve conflicts using other methods. In the example you have quoted, where a pilot enters a runway despite you are on final (you have not transmitted a final report on UNICOM), both of you were wrong. You have mentioned that he has entered the runway despite seeing you – are you really sure? It’s common misbelieve, also in real life aviation: “I can see him so he can see me”. Wrong, he might have his weather set to lower visibility, he might have multiplayer disconnected or might experience a server lag or split, which will result in not seeing you. Both of you were guilty not establishing an effective method of coordination.

 

 

I hope it answer you concerns, if not, feel free to ask further questions.

[Sean Harrison]

Excellent. Let's stop telling people they will be suspended if they don't use text. There is no rule.

 

Sure 6.0.3 C has some requirements which 'could' loosely and erroneously be interpreted as requiring text transmissions. All I say on this is that 6.0.3 C as much as you say it means text, could also mean voice.

 

Cheers. Hopefully we can all respect each other, and move back to the OP.

[Trent Hopkinson]

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.

 

 

Not Ross' fault that the powers that be don't support the implimentation of features.

This is why I use FSinn.

 

Most of the Australian division interested in General Aviation and VFR events used FSinn too, it was the officially preferred client for such events.

For this reason, the initial release of vPilot was a quiet un-noticed event which raised barely any interest other than those new to the network.

 

And then P3Dv3 stopped being compatible with FSinn.

 

Now it's gone from something the VFR group could work around, to something that's caused "Teamspeak" to be a de-facto official part of how the Vatsim event is run.

 

Anyhow, I'd be interested in hearing any developments on the "range based voice".

However I'm wondering if it's on the same kind of 'vapourware' time frame or status as "Level D Sims LDS757" which may well take longer than the heat-death of the universe to exist? Is there any interest by the network to actually impliment this feature at all? or is it just a pacifier to the voices that call out from it time to time to make the baby less noisy?

[Ross Carlson]

Anyhow, I'd be interested in hearing any developments on the "range based voice". Is there any interest by the network to actually impliment this feature at all?

 

I imagine there is a lot of interest ... and we all know how well interest translates to effort.

 

One thing is for certain ... implementing a regional UNICOM/CTAF/WHATEVER frequency-to-voice room mapping is much simpler than implementing range-limited voice. Therefore I once again suggest that you (and when I say "you", I mean everyone affected by the lack of this FSInn feature in vPilot) contact the BoG and make your case.

[Kirk Christie]

Fsinn was never compatable with P3D from version 1.

[Kirk Christie]

For what its worth, th is was already discussed at length recently in our own forums.

http://forums.vatpac.org/index.php?topic=16695.0

[Trent Hopkinson]

Anyhow, I'd be interested in hearing any developments on the "range based voice". Is there any interest by the network to actually impliment this feature at all?

 

I imagine there is a lot of interest ... and we all know how well interest translates to effort.

 

One thing is for certain ... implementing a regional UNICOM/CTAF/WHATEVER frequency-to-voice room mapping is much simpler than implementing range-limited voice.

 

Always had a hunch that was the case. Yet it seems to come up every time the topic is bought up as some kind of holy grail of "just wait till this thing that will never happen, happens" unobtanium.

 

Thanks for your input Ross.

[David Zhong]

If we're going to propose a global policy... then it is probably worthwhile have a discussion on that. We know what we want for our airspace - what do you guys in other places want/need?

 

Our current procedure works like this: each aerodrome is [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned a frequency (this is done for us by the government). Nearing a non-towered aerodrome (read: there is literally no control tower), pilots tune said frequency and either manually (Squawkbox) or automatically (FSInn) tune the appropriate voice server/channel.

 

It is not a perfect solution and misses almost all of the edge cases (aerodromes near each other with the same frequency, voice server goes down, etc.) but it works 99% of the time.

[Sean Harrison]

So, looks like the answer to the original post is No! Not unless Ross get permission from VATSIM.

 

Have you tried FSInn?