Thoughts on VATSIM CoC

[Jonathan Fong]

After rifling through the numerous threads on here about pilots interfering with other pilots in general by doing things such as misusing UNICOM, I'd like to share some thoughts on the Code of Conduct to make some things clearer and to possibly reduce the amount of people misbehaving on the network and interfering with others (at least, to provide something to quote directly in correspondence to them). Constructive criticism on this is very much welcome - the goal of this post is to improve the quality of VATSIM as a whole, and I hope everyone can help.

 

First of all, I've noticed something about CoC Clause B6 -

Pilots should not carry on private conversations between themselves or controllers on the active communication frequency or on the "guard" frequency (121.50). This interferes with providing ATC services to other pilots. The guard frequency should only be utilized in cases of emergency and under no other circomestances.

Despite there being many incidents regarding pilots carrying out such 'private conversations' on UNICOM (122.80), there seems to be no mention of it in the CoC other than this vague statement (although, to be fair, 'active communication frequency' could be interpreted as the frequency being transmitted on i.e. 122.80). Perhaps this could be amended to include UNICOM on the list of explicitly forbidden frequencies, just to make it clearer to any new pilots going over the CoC (as they should be doing)?

 

Secondly, I'm sure we all know about CoC clause B7 (or at least, the principle behind it) -

Pilots flying through uncontrolled airspace should set their VHF radio frequency to 122.80 or other designated "Unicom" frequency and monitor until they come under air traffic control coverage.

However, this clause only states that pilots have to 'monitor' UNICOM, not coordinate on it when necessary. This can, and has, interfered with other members' operations on the network such as spacing themselves out and entering a sequence for approach without active ATC coverage. Perhaps this could be amended to require pilots to coordinate if necessary, or if that's too much, perhaps the CoC could be amended to include a clause forbidding people from performing actions that interfere with others' enjoyment of the network?

 

Finally, perhaps a clause could be included on the CoC where a pilot has to make adequate preparations (finding relevant charts, creating/filing a valid flight plan) before flying on the network? That way, new pilots reading the CoC would know what to look for right away, saving controllers some effort/h[Mod - Happy Thoughts]le. Of course, this doesn't mean that all pilots found in contravention of this should be booted off the network (same goes for the previous two suggestions), but this would help with encouraging them into learning proper procedure.

 

Now, I know that this alone will not help weed out all the troublemakers on the network, but it's a step to ensuring that people know what to do (after all, the first thing new pilots are told to do in the welcome email is to read the CoC and regulations), as well as to expressly forbid practices like the ones mentioned above which, from what I find, are 'unspoken rules' of sort on VATSIM but aren't technically prohibited anywhere in the rules.

[Nicholas Cavacini]

As seen in the BoG Q2 2016 meeting minutes, the BoG's CoC subcommittee is currently working on revising the CoC and they plan to have a proposal for BoG vote by Q3 2016.

 

In regards to understanding the rules and regulations, you actually agree that "I have read the VATSIM.net Code of Regulations, User Agreement and Code of Conduct, I agree to their Terms and Conditions and wish to proceed with my membership application." BEFORE you are even permitted to register. You further agree to them every time that you connect to the VATSIM Network or [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated services.

 

... perhaps the CoC could be amended to include a clause forbidding people from performing actions that interfere with others' enjoyment of the network?

 

That already is in the Code of Regulations section 6.03©: "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;"

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

i disagree on both Jonathan

 

first one doesnt have to be amended, your [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption of active frequency would be correct and includes 122.80 as "Unicom".

 

as far as making it a requirement to transmit, this one has been an ongoing conversation but i disagree with it as its not required

 

the primary reason people run into problems with people not transmitting is they often fail to use the real primary means of getting separated, their EYES. what often happens is egos come into play and people figure someone didnt transmit, so theyll just ignore what they see and the situation is created. i myself am 20,000+ hours on the network, i can count in one hand how many issues ive had with someone who didnt transmit, thats not what i use to avoid traffic (and often is useless info transmitted online, IE position from some unknown fix or a SID/STAR i have no idea exists in some airport). I've flown into real airports that dont require communication equipment to be installed on the aircraft (gliders, sport aircraft, etc..) i didnt have any problems mixing in with them, simply watch what they are doing and react. really isnt as hard at people make it out to be, even if you have to make a go around (which i personally do a low p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] sometimes if there is a lot of traffic online just to see whats up)

 

but again, you cannot read strips of the Code of Conduct and [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume only one part of the CoC applies, you need to put it all together, what does the part of the CoC say about interfering with other users? its already there, thats where not transmitting and causing a problem comes into play

 

Finally, perhaps a clause could be included on the CoC where a pilot has to make adequate preparations (finding relevant charts, creating/filing a valid flight plan) before flying on the network? That way, new pilots reading the CoC would know what to look for right away, saving controllers some effort/h[Mod - Happy Thoughts]le. Of course, this doesn't mean that all pilots found in contravention of this should be booted off the network (same goes for the previous two suggestions), but this would help with encouraging them into learning proper procedure.

 

this doesnt need to be in the CoC, for one, you cant define how a pilot prepares, they all do it differently, even in the real world. this isnt something that can be enforced. for example, to use yours, finding relevant charts, creating/filing a valid flight plan in my opinion is NOT actually being prepared for me, what about weather? checklists? list goes on. my experience from my own real world flying is going to be much much different then someone who has never touched the controls of an aircraft, so why would I enforce my way of preparation onto them? remember VATSIM is not the FAA (FAA will blame the pilot for not being prepare only after an incident occurs, and youll find it doesnt matter how prepared you are, theyll use that against you to say you werent)

[Jonathan Fong]

...first one doesnt have to be amended, your [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption of active frequency would be correct and includes 122.80 as "Unicom".

Very well. It was just a suggestion for clarity.

 

as far as making it a requirement to transmit, this one has been an ongoing conversation but i disagree with it as its not required...the primary reason people run into problems with people not transmitting is they often fail to use the real primary means of getting separated, their EYES.

 

Problem is, many times you can't see traffic with your eyes. Sometimes traffic could be in close proximity behind/above/below/beside you and yet be out of your field of view, meaning you don't know where they are in relation to your aircraft, especially if you don't have TCAS equipped (which isn't mandatory for all aircraft on VATSIM, obviously). Therefore, a lot of the time, coordination has to be done based on position reports from other pilots on the same approach/departure procedure or route, which can't be done when one or more parties isn't coordinating on UNICOM. I understand that you've flown in real life into places where radio equipment isn't required, meaning visual scanning of the surroundings is necessary, but as far as I know most of the aircraft flying into these airports are light aircraft flying VFR, meaning that a pilot flying them would have more time to react due to the much slower speeds of said aircraft compared to, say, 5 or 6 airplanes on one approach into an airport; also, surely if you have communication equipment onboard (which all VATSIM users do - their pilot clients) you should be transmitting on it to add an extra layer of safety, not dismissing it in favor of using a simpler, less reliable method of coordination, no?

 

...but again, you cannot read strips of the Code of Conduct and [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume only one part of the CoC applies, you need to put it all together, what does the part of the CoC say about interfering with other users? its already there, thats where not transmitting and causing a problem comes into play

My bad, I didn't realize that such a clause already existed. Could you tell me which clause it is so I can remember it for future reference?

 

...for one, you cant define how a pilot prepares, they all do it differently, even in the real world. this isnt something that can be enforced. for example, to use yours, finding relevant charts, creating/filing a valid flight plan in my opinion is NOT actually being prepared for me, what about weather? checklists? list goes on. my experience from my own real world flying is going to be much much different then someone who has never touched the controls of an aircraft, so why would I enforce my way of preparation onto them?

Well, yes, there are things that do change from place to place, but surely there must be some must-haves - my examples were purely for reference, and I'm not saying that VATSIM should force some method of preparation onto people, only that some basics should be done before flying on the network. For instance, finding relevant charts is necessary no matter where and what you're flying, so you know the specific procedures of the airport. For IFR flights, a valid flight plan is necessary so controllers know where you're going (for VFR, not so much, but I know some areas require VFR flight plans too; it's not a worldwide thing, though). I'd say weather is technically partially optional on VATSIM - it's certainly not required to check the weather enroute when creating a flight plan, only perhaps recommended in case of bad weather along the way), and ATC will give you local weather info in the form of METARs, wind checks and their ATIS. I'm sure there are more examples, but I can't think of any right now.

[Ross Carlson]

first one doesnt have to be amended, your [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption of active frequency would be correct and includes 122.80 as "Unicom".

 

To my mind, it's not so clear ... the fact that the quoted section refers to interfering with ATC services suggests that it does not apply to UNICOM. For that reason, it seems to make sense to add UNICOM to the list of frequencies where private conversations are not allowed.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

first one doesnt have to be amended, your [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption of active frequency would be correct and includes 122.80 as "Unicom".

 

To my mind, it's not so clear ... the fact that the quoted section refers to interfering with ATC services suggests that it does not apply to UNICOM. For that reason, it seems to make sense to add UNICOM to the list of frequencies where private conversations are not allowed.

 

 

thats fair enough, although i would be in favor of getting rid of the misnomer "unicom" completely and just use CTAF

 

My bad, I didn't realize that such a clause already existed. Could you tell me which clause it is so I can remember it for future reference?

 

see Nicolas's post above, 6.03C in the Code of Regulations. Code of Conduct is just one of two docomeents.

 

Well, yes, there are things that do change from place to place, but surely there must be some must-haves - my examples were purely for reference, and I'm not saying that VATSIM should force some method of preparation onto people, only that some basics should be done before flying on the network. For instance, finding relevant charts is necessary no matter where and what you're flying, so you know the specific procedures of the airport. For IFR flights, a valid flight plan is necessary so controllers know where you're going (for VFR, not so much, but I know some areas require VFR flight plans too; it's not a worldwide thing, though). I'd say weather is technically partially optional on VATSIM - it's certainly not required to check the weather enroute when creating a flight plan, only perhaps recommended in case of bad weather along the way), and ATC will give you local weather info in the form of METARs, wind checks and their ATIS. I'm sure there are more examples, but I can't think of any right now.

 

this doesnt have to be part of the Code of Conduct. the Code of Conduct is for something else completely, IE regulatory items that are enforced. what you are wanting is already there in the form of the pilot resource center and the training program. https://www.vatsim.net/pilot-resource-centre

 

it's certainly not required to check the weather enroute when creating a flight plan, only perhaps recommended in case of bad weather along the way), and ATC will give you local weather info in the form of METARs, wind checks and their ATIS.

 

I would whole heartedly disagree with this specific statement, but again, all pilots are different, all countries are different, at least in the real world, not checking the weather is the first thing they will throw at you when something goes wrong here in the US. its a core item in your flight planning, otherwise how can you know your route doesnt take you right into the middle of a huge cell, how do you know how much the winds enroute are going to affect your fuel burn, etc.. . thats the difference between planning online vs planning a real flight. i would also not be relying on ATC to give you weather, thats not their job. its part of the pilots responsibilities. METARS and ATIS's only give you a very very small picture and its often outdated by the time you get it (this ones a pet peeve of mine if you havent noticed, i can go on and on, but ill hold )

[Johnathan Ellis 1250874]

All valid points, and I do suggest you forward your stance on current policy to the BoG... They love to hear from member's, and look forward to hearing different insight from the general membership

[Johnny Coughlan]

All these posts on something that's is only read like the terms of service on a software update by a small percentage of people.

 

The CoC is about as threatening as a 'keep off the gr[Mod - Happy Thoughts] sign' at your local park in my opinion.

 

I see people flaunt/bend/break it everytime I've a session, so I suspect whatever gets amended will have no real effect.

 

People will still talk/troll/insult each other on a UNICOM/CTAF freq that is used in uncontrolled airspace.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Johnny, unfortunately thats the nature of the beast regardless if its VATSIM or real world. you cant "Force" people to be nice to each other, can only mitigate it. the internet being the faceless creature as it is, actually increases the behavior. something someone may not say in person is often not held back online.

 

Network cant stop people from being jerks to each other at the end of the day

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

What you don't see is the various people who get un-invited to be VATSIM members based on repeated violations of CoC. That isn't a public process. It gets exercised nearly every month, sadly, from those who think we're kidding after a couple of suspensions until they learn we're not.

[Ross Carlson]

All these posts on something that's is only read like the terms of service on a software update by a small percentage of people.

...

 

People will still talk/troll/insult each other on a UNICOM/CTAF freq that is used in uncontrolled airspace.

 

I don't think anybody is under the the illusion that the CoC actually preemptively modifies behavior. That doesn't mean we shouldn't modify the CoC when it is appropriate to do so. Supervisors and VATSIM staff need to be able to refer to the CoC when a violation occurs, otherwise keeping the peace would be done at the subjective whim of each supervisor.

 

As an analogy, laws don't prevent ALL crime, but governments still legislate on a daily basis.

[Jonathan Fong]

All these posts on something that's is only read like the terms of service on a software update by a small percentage of people.

...

 

People will still talk/troll/insult each other on a UNICOM/CTAF freq that is used in uncontrolled airspace.

 

I don't think anybody is under the the illusion that the CoC actually preemptively modifies behavior. That doesn't mean we shouldn't modify the CoC when it is appropriate to do so. Supervisors and VATSIM staff need to be able to refer to the CoC when a violation occurs, otherwise keeping the peace would be done at the subjective whim of each supervisor.

 

As an analogy, laws don't prevent ALL crime, but governments still legislate on a daily basis.

 

I was going to reply, but this summarizes what I was going to say far better than I could ever put into words.

[Simon Kelsey]

What Ross said.

 

Ultimately, ignorance of the law is not a defence. It is made clear that all VATSIM members are expected to abide by the terms of the CoC both on joining and every single time you log on, either as a pilot or ATC (and, indeed, it is stated that simply connecting is an agreement to abide by the rules). If people choose not to familiarise themselves with the rules they are agreeing to follow, then that's their lookout, but "I couldn't be bothered to read the CoC" is clearly not an acceptable defence.

 

I agree that there could be more clarity in some areas, particularly around UNICOM, and I agree that it should be made clear that one is, at the very least, strongly expected (and, preferably, mandated) to transmit ones intentions and co-ordinate if there is other traffic around. I can see that a blanket "you must always..." rule doesn't make sense if you are in the middle of nowhere with no other traffic for a thousand miles, but in a busy terminal area there is, frankly, no excuse.

 

In effect, what there should be is a more explicit VATSIM equivalent of "careless/reckless operation" -- in other words, if you choose not to transmit then all well and good, but if you cause a problem as a result then you could reasonably expect to find yourself in hot water.

 

the primary reason people run into problems with people not transmitting is they often fail to use the real primary means of getting separated, their EYES.

 

Sure, works great VFR/VMC, and I'm not knocking the principle at all. But how are you going to visually separate in IMC?

 

Broadly, my view on UNICOM is this: it costs nothing, and takes literally no effort, to type a few lines stating your position and intentions. Making it mandatory to transmit one's intentions on UNICOM is not going to harm anybody's enjoyment of the network unless they are astoundingly selfish and lazy, but it would improve the experience of many. What's not to like?

 

Yes, you can second-guess what people are going to do and position accordingly, but that doesn't change the fact that transmitting is just good manners and common courtesy to one's fellow network members. Do we need people who are so self-absorbed that all they want to do when they log on to a network created expressly for the purpose of flying with other people is to ignore their fellow pilots and just barrel on through in silence with no regard for the experience of others?

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Sure, works great VFR/VMC, and I'm not knocking the principle at all. But how are you going to visually separate in IMC?

 

thats even easier, we have tools available to us, both free and payware that make it completely possible to track the traffic around you. FSCommander, FSNavigator, FSTramp, and many others that show live traffic without any time delays. I personally use one that connects my sim to my tablet and shows my position and those around me, so i pretty much know what they are doing before they ever even get to announce it

 

the reason i added these tools to my prep list is simple, much of the transmissions that do go out on 122.80 online are often garbage and dont help me figure out where they are.

 

mind you i only have a single monitor, users with multiple monitors would have a much easier time using these tools.

[Joel Richters]

A good reason to have CTAF voice rooms to spread traffic calls out and make them relevant

[Bradley Grafelman]

Ah, yes, voice CTAF... where the throughput will plummet as every pilot and his mother mumbles through some drawn out spiel filled with superfluous information with no possibility to re-"hear" it if you missed something actually relevant (like "How the heck do you spell that fix? And where the heck is that in relation to me?")...

 

A good reason NOT to have CTAF voice rooms to spread traffic calls out and make them relevant

I fixed your quote for you.

 

In regards to the OP's points... Even having a radio (let alone utilizing it) isn't required at uncontrolled fields in the real-world, so VATSIM's requirement to monitor it already goes above and beyond. Given the useless crud I've seen scroll by in its current state, I'd hate to see what it would look like if the CoC even attempted to "mandate" transmissions in any way.

[Joel Richters]

Ah, yes, voice CTAF... where the throughput will plummet as every pilot and his mother mumbles through some drawn out spiel filled with superfluous information with no possibility to re-"hear" it if you missed something actually relevant (like "How the heck do you spell that fix? And where the heck is that in relation to me?")...

 

A good reason to have CTAF voice rooms to spread traffic calls out and make them relevant

I fixed your quote for you.

 

In regards to the OP's points... Even having a radio (let alone utilizing it) isn't required at uncontrolled fields in the real-world, so VATSIM's requirement to monitor it already goes above and beyond. Given the useless crud I've seen scroll by in its current state, I'd hate to see what it would look like if the CoC even attempted to "mandate" transmissions in any way.

 

I'm happy for you to quote me as long as that quote is accurate. True you don't need to communicate at all airfields, however some you do depending on the local rules.

 

CTAF is a realistic approach. Sure you may not be speaking to someone, however maybe you will. Regardless it would be more realistic than telling someone 1200km away that you are doing some circuits!

[Sean Harrison]

I personally think you are kidding yourself IF for one minute pilots are typing text on unicom (122.800). The old chestnut of 'you must transmit via text your intentions' because there is a comment in the forums saying so. Well, start there gents. Who transmit their intentions on 122.800 today?

 

As for enforcing the rules, I laugh every time I see a call for it, and people rebut saying 'but we kick people....' I stood down as a DCRM because VATSIM wasn't happy that I penalised people for rule violations.

 

There are three ingredients to changing human behaviour (not bothered citing this, if you care go look), Engineering, Education, and Enforcement.

 

Good on Jonathan for trying.

[Johnny Coughlan]

I stood down as a DCRM because VATSIM wasn't happy that I penalised people for rule violations.

 

Are we whistleblowing Sean?! .

 

I violated a rule when I first joined back in 2003(I think) in my youth, I got punished for it, not given a softly speaking to via text, not given a kick from the network, I was given a 'break' from the network for my violation, I never violated again.

 

Lesson learned.

[Johnny Coughlan]

I stood down as a DCRM because VATSIM wasn't happy that I penalised people for rule violations.

 

Are we whistleblowing Sean?! .

 

I violated a rule when I first joined back in 2003(I think) in my youth, I got punished for it, not given a softly speaking to via text, not given a kick from the network, I was given a 'break' from the network for my violation, I never violated again.

 

Lesson learned

 

The only good way is the hard way.

[Sean Harrison]

I don't get the meaning or inference on the first line sorry.

 

That's my belief also, do the wrong thing, take the consequence, learn from it and move on.

[Simon Kelsey]

I personally think you are kidding yourself IF for one minute pilots are typing text on unicom (122.800). The old chestnut of 'you must transmit via text your intentions' because there is a comment in the forums saying so. Well, start there gents. Who transmit their intentions on 122.800 today?

 

I do. It's just a matter of common courtesy, isn't it? I appreciate it when other people do the same, because it improves my situational awareness. It's a helpful, considerate thing to do, and a glance at most forums will tell you that most reasonable people think the same.

 

Even having a radio (let alone utilizing it) isn't required at uncontrolled fields in the real-world, so VATSIM's requirement to monitor it already goes above and beyond.

 

That is true, but I the vast majority of VATSIM pilots are not flying in to those sort of uncontrolled fields with no other traffic around or in aircraft with no COM radio installed, so not really relevant to this discussion!

 

If you have a working radio, and there is a frequency allocated for you to use to co-ordinate with other pilots to avoid conflicts and collisions, and you choose not to use it, then in real life you are an idiot (and that's putting it mildly). On VATSIM you won't kill anyone, but it is and should be viewed as very poor form.

 

I'll ask the question I asked before: why would you not want to co-ordinate your actions with others sharing the same airspace?

[Robert Shearman Jr]

This may be tangential to the main thread (sorry!), but on the topic of using 122.8 versus not, I think many may see the requirement as too burdensome. However, I'm guessing that at least some of these folks are under the misimpression that the full standard CTAF phraseology must be used. "Dulles traffic, N531MD type LearJet 45 at 1700 midfield left downwind runway 19L Dulles" is great if you can type all that, but, "L dw 19L KIAD LJ45 @1700" gets the point across, and even just up to the airfield ICAO (omitting altitude and type) is still more helpful than not. Perhaps an emphasis on content and a de-emphasis of standard proper phraseology while on text will help pilots understand that the cooperation achieved by sending out position/intention reports, even terse ones, is worth the minimal burden of typing it out in shorthand.

[Jonathan Fong]

This may be tangential to the main thread (sorry!), but on the topic of using 122.8 versus not, I think many may see the requirement as too burdensome. However, I'm guessing that at least some of these folks are under the misimpression that the full standard CTAF phraseology must be used. "Dulles traffic, N531MD type LearJet 45 at 1700 midfield left downwind runway 19L Dulles" is great if you can type all that, but, "L dw 19L KIAD LJ45 @1700" gets the point across, and even just up to the airfield ICAO (omitting altitude and type) is still more helpful than not. Perhaps an emphasis on content and a de-emphasis of standard proper phraseology while on text will help pilots understand that the cooperation achieved by sending out position/intention reports, even terse ones, is worth the minimal burden of typing it out in shorthand.

 

I'd say using 122.8 should be viewed as a sign of respect for other members operating in the vicinity, in order to allow for minimal conflicts and therefore maximal enjoyment on the network (which, after all, is one of its purposes). I personally think that an entry course along the lines of a P1 should be required to be allowed to log on to the network (i.e. you get to study information about the network then take an online exam), but it would take a while to implement such a system and decide on its curriculum, so I'm leaving that as a long-term thing. For now, though, perhaps the existing P1 curriculum could have such a thing added to it - that, combined with additional promotion of the pilot rating program, would help a considerable amount of pilots. After all, many pilots do actually have good intentions but simply don't have the knowledge of how to fly on VATSIM properly.

 

As for CTAF frequencies - I think it would be too much of a burden for the network in general. [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming we are to use radio frequencies, all CTAF frequencies would have to be cross-checked with existing ATC station frequencies as well as other CTAF frequencies for all airports in the vicinity (which could be a lot, because airports that would normally be fully staffed 24/7 would now need a new CTAF frequency [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned to them on VATSIM, where staffing is far rarer than real life). to ensure there are no conflicts. Pilots would then have to search for the correct CTAF frequency and use it - there would almost certainly be mistakes here unless some sort of global database was created and compiled. Better to just standardize on one frequency - 122.8. There's also the issue of conflicts - most airports with CTAFs are somewhat isolated in terms of nearby airports; however, if VATSIM were to implement CTAF frequencies at all uncontrolled airports, aircraft arriving into, say, Heathrow wouldn't be able to coordinate with those arriving into Gatwick without PMing or switching frequencies; if 122.8 were used, all pilots could coordinate with each other no matter where each pilot is flying.

[Ross Carlson]

Pilots would then have to search for the correct CTAF frequency and use it

 

Jonathan, this relates to a voice CTAF proposal that was formulated in another thread and that I recently submitted to the BoG for consideration. Using real-world CTAF frequencies is central to the proposal. I'm curious why you think it's a bad thing for pilots to have to use the correct frequency. If you ask me, requiring pilots to read charts and use the right frequency is realistic and serves VATSIM's goal of being a learning environment. Can you elaborate on why you think it would be a bad thing?