And chance of voice CTAF on vPilot?

[Trent Hopkinson]

Great news! Thanks Ross

[Lindsey Wiebe 1101951]

That's great to hear thanks Ross and those helping you. vPilot is SO simple and effective to use!

 

I do hope they get voice Unicom working; but I wonder, how many pilots will hold at an uncontrolled airport while another IFR aircraft departs or finishes their approach?? haha

[Ross Carlson]

I do hope they get voice Unicom working; but I wonder, how many pilots will hold at an uncontrolled airport while another IFR aircraft departs or finishes their approach?? haha

 

Well, if they don't hold, they're either departing without an IFR release, or ATC screwed up and released them when there was another IFR aircraft arriving or departing. (I'm [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming we're talking about the US, here ... not sure if the same 1-in-1-out rule applies elsewhere. Though I imagine it does.)

[Bradley Grafelman]

Or they departed VFR (perhaps after temporarily lowering their personal minima or modifying their sim's weather ).

[Ross Carlson]

I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umed he was talking about IFR since he said "another IFR aircraft" ... and there'd be no reason for a VFR aircraft to hold anyway.

[Kirk Christie]

or ATC screwed up and released them when there was another IFR aircraft arriving or departing.

 

Which ATC has the responsibility to release aircraft in an uncontrolled environment AFAIK out side controlled airspace, ATC is only required to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] traffic.

 

Releasing traffic, (what ever that is) surely that would constitute a controlled service which should only apply in controlled airspace.

[Dhruv Kalra]

Which ATC has the responsibility to release aircraft in an uncontrolled environment AFAIK out side controlled airspace, ATC is only required to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] traffic.

Happens every day in the US. IFR operating in airports that are Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airspace at the surface are worked as 1-in, 1-out in the sense that there can only be one IFR operation at such an airport at any given time. Any control instructions such as headings or navigational guidance are to be complied with upon entering the overlying controlled airspace.

 

You will hear any such instructions given prefaced by the phrase "enter controlled airspace..." as either a component of the initial IFR clearance or of the departure release should one not be provided immediately upon receipt of the clearance.

[Zach Biesse-Fitton]

Hi Ross,

 

Have you heard from the BoG regarding this proposal?

[Ross Carlson]

I have not.

[Ross Carlson]

I have not.

 

To clarify, I did hear back from the BoG immediately after submitting the proposal, where they noted a few initial questions and concerns. We exchanged a couple emails then, but I haven't heard anything since. So things are moving, just need to be patient. I don't really have any time to implement this in vPilot right now anyway.

[Daniel Mckee]

Just wondering how difficult it would be to write a file for Vpilot (and by extension P3D) similar to Oz Animal's voice files for Australia? Also, on a related but side issue, what do real life GA pilots do in say USA and UK? Do they just rely on visual sighting of other possible aircraft that may be in similar pattern? I have searched for, but cannot find, any detailed explanation for Vatsim's solid stance on this issue. If someone said that creating a freeware voice file program like Oz Animal's is too difficult or time consuming I would accept that as that is a logical reason but to my knowledge nobody has given that as a reason.

[Bradley Grafelman]

VATSIM's stance is rather clearly laid out in the UNICOM Q&A.

 

... VATSIM requires that all pilots transmitting on UNICOM transmit their information via text to ensure receipt by all concerned.

...

Regardless of whether or not a UNICOM voice room exists, UNICOM transmissions must be sent over text.

[Daniel Mckee]

Thankyou, I appreciate the attempt to explain Vatsim's stance but as you say their stance is clear; what I don't know is the reason for that stance. It does not make logical sense to restrict the use of voice because one has to send a text. The two are completely compatible. The difficulty in typing a text message especially when in a pattern must be the reason so many pilots outside of Australia (For FSInn users in Australia we are fortunate to have Oz Animal's voice files) do not bother to even text their intentions at non-ATC controlled airfields. I know I am flogging a dead horse but I really would like to know why Vatsim is so against voice comms if used complimentary to a text. By the way the stance is based upon the use of Unicom wheras I am talking about using CTAF's or their country equivelants not Unicom and therefor that technically would not go against Vatsim's rule regarding the use of Unicom.

[Adam Trzcinski]

Thankyou, I appreciate the attempt to explain Vatsim's stance but as you say their stance is clear; what I don't know is the reason for that stance. It does not make logical sense to restrict the use of voice because one has to send a text.

 

The answer is: Inclusion.

With voice CTAF, you exclude deaf users, which we definitely have. You are barring them from using CTAF/Unicom and participating the way VATSIM is meant to be.

Every time someone asks for voice CTAF on VATSIM, the deity of your choice kills a virtual kitten. Do we really want that? Think of the fluffy kitten!

[Daniel Mckee]

Ok, very difficult to debate when one refers to a special needs person. I cannot disagree with your motive but the inclusion argument has not been a reason given by Vatsim to date. But this begs the question of what a deaf pilot does in real life?

Again I comment that voice is totally complimentary with text and I would offer a solution. If a deaf pilot is online and is in a pattern in a CTAF area then that person would text on the freq requesting that other pilots announce their intentions by text.

Solved

PS: I do not have a deity nor a fluffy kitten

[Adam Trzcinski]

Ok, very difficult to debate when one refers to a special needs person. I cannot disagree with your motive but the inclusion argument has not been a reason given by Vatsim to date. But this begs the question of what a deaf pilot does in real life?

 

What you mean in Real Life? You cannot pursue an aviation license in real life with some disabilities. But since VATSIM does not put forth these requirements for virtual flying but tries to include everyone, irrespective of disabilities, we have to make certain amends on technology.

Whenever ATC is around, they can accommodate /V/ and /T/. So when no ATC is around, you need to revert back to the common denominator, /T/.

[Ross Carlson]

I cannot disagree with your motive but the inclusion argument has not been a reason given by Vatsim to date.

 

Have a look at the link Brad posted in his response to your initial post. The first few sentences are about inclusion.

 

Again I comment that voice is totally complimentary with text and I would offer a solution. If a deaf pilot is online and is in a pattern in a CTAF area then that person would text on the freq requesting that other pilots announce their intentions by text.

 

I'm betting you haven't read this whole thread. (I know, it's rather long.) The bulk of this thread is about a voice CTAF proposal that has been presented to the BoG recently for consideration. The methodology for accommodating text-only pilots is similar to what you are suggesting here. So far the proposal has been well-received by the BoG.

[Sean Harrison]

VATSIM's stance is rather clearly laid out in the UNICOM Q&A.

 

... VATSIM requires that all pilots transmitting on UNICOM transmit their information via text to ensure receipt by all concerned.

...

Regardless of whether or not a UNICOM voice room exists, UNICOM transmissions must be sent over text.

 

Ah, if that is VATSIM official stance, then call out the supervisors. Even flying in CONUS do I rarely see any text. I'd go so far as saying the majority of text messages on 122.800 are from broadcasts about trying to get pilots to attend an OTS. I really wish people would stop posting this diatribe about transmitting text is compulsory. Nothing anywhere Prohibits voice being used, on any frequency you can dial up.

[Bradley Grafelman]

Even flying in CONUS do I rarely see any text.

It doesn't state that you must transmit every thought via text. It just says that if you do have something to communicate on VATSIM's Unicom then you must do so via text. Many elect to instead fall back on "see and avoid" rather than type as much as they otherwise would have spoken.

 

Nothing anywhere Prohibits voice being used

You're right - it doesn't; if you choose to duplicate what you transmit via text using an unsupported voice feature as well, that's absolutely your prerogative.

 

I really wish people would stop posting this diatribe about transmitting text is compulsory.

No such diatribes have been posted. I really wish people would stop throwing temper tantrums whenever someone quotes a published Q&A.

[Nicholas Cavacini]

Sean, FSInn was not created for VATSIM. Just because it has the capability to do something, like open up a voice channel on its own, does not mean it is supported. As stated in the Q/A, voice unicom/CTAF/etc is not supported.

[Daniel Mckee]

Anyway the whole discussion is probably moot as to my knowledge there are currently no voice files available apart from Australia so until they are available I will now cease commenting (much to the relief of others ). Cheers

[Kirk Christie]

VATSIM's stance is rather clearly laid out in the UNICOM Q&A.

 

... VATSIM requires that all pilots transmitting on UNICOM transmit their information via text to ensure receipt by all concerned.

...

Regardless of whether or not a UNICOM voice room exists, UNICOM transmissions must be sent over text.

 

Ah, if that is VATSIM official stance, then call out the supervisors. Even flying in CONUS do I rarely see any text. I'd go so far as saying the majority of text messages on 122.800 are from broadcasts about trying to get pilots to attend an OTS. I really wish people would stop posting this diatribe about transmitting text is compulsory. Nothing anywhere Prohibits voice being used, on any frequency you can dial up.

 

Transmitting on 122.800 is not compulsory. Voice is not a feature that VATSIM supports, they never have, it was a by product of a client that was introduced, and VATSIM tried to stop it.

 

VATSIM is black and white about what you can and cannot do, the confusion comes from when people make things up and then the majority start to believe it.

 

Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ic example is engine start switches on cont at 10K, in a 737, this is not actually procedure if you read the FCOM but some one started it and now every one believes it.

 

Instead of listening to what every one else is making up, actually get out there and read the docomeents produced by VATSIM.

 

The only people that can make broadcast are supervisors, if you have an issue with what is being broadcast, why have you not taken this up with the VP Supervisors?

[Magnus Meese]

Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ic example is engine start switches on cont at 10K, in a 737, this is not actually procedure if you read the FCOM but some one started it and now every one believes it.

Not in the FCOM doesn't meen not a procedure. In that manner your example is somewhat off, as the CONT thing is actually found in several company SOPs.

[Sean Harrison]

I really can't follow the thread. And I guess it doesn't matter much. I do applaud Ross for doing the work and submitting the proposal.

 

In the mean time I believe;

 

1. That as long as I 'monitor' 122.800 via text I comply with the COC,

2. That if I tune to any other frequency, I am not breaching any provision of the CoC, and

3. That if I choose to transmit txt and/or voice on any 'other' frequency I am not breaching any provision of the CoC.

 

I enjoy the way I participate in the VATSIM community, But have never understood why members fly online and never interact with others. I know there are always reasons.

[Greg Barber]

Please forgive my ignorance and I make no suggestion that what is proposed above is not the most appropriate way to cater to people with hearing and speech difficulties....but....

 

In this, the year 2016 are there not pieces of software that such people use on a regular basis to convert sound/speech to text and vice versa? We even use voice to text regularly in the sim with software like FS2Crew, can't a similar thing be considered in the future?