Lack of texting intentions on and around airports

[Daniel Mckee]

Lately I have noticed an increase absence in pilots (especially commercial p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]enger jets) announcing intentions. Flying near the Emirates the other night there were lots of aircraft but little in the way of comms (by text of course:)). Are any moderators monitoring this?

[Trent Hopkinson]

No, But there's also no requirement to do so in the code of conduct, or regulations.

https://www.vatsim.net/docomeents/code-of-conduct

 

 

"Monitor" is not the same as "Transmit on"

 

The primary method of separation when outside controlled airspace is still See and Avoid

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/See_and_Avoid

 

 

[Sean Harrison]

Lately I have noticed an increase absence in pilots (especially commercial p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]enger jets) announcing intentions. Flying near the Emirates the other night there were lots of aircraft but little in the way of comms (by text of course:)). Are any moderators monitoring this?

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing it.

[Daniel Mckee]

Hi Trent, apologies I have obviously not been clear. I am talking about specifically when in controlled airspace or in the case of the other night within the Emerites where aircraft were within controlled airspace, albeit without a person being ATC, and were arriving and departing without making announcements by text. (Please note that I am not talking about voice or CTAF areas as I am no longer commenting or posting in regard to that subject). If it is not Vatsim policy to text when entering a designated controlled airspace or departing an airport like Dubai then with respect perhaps it should be. Cheers Dan

[Sean Harrison]

Daniel,

 

What Trent has posted covers at all times when no human is logged on as a controller. This is why there is such a huge debate on what is and isn't required. Maybe ask the question "what is OMDB airspace cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed when there is no controller online?" I'm fairly certain VATSIM believes that all airspace when not controlled by a human is "uncontrolled"

 

The rules as quoted require pilots to 'monitor' the text channel 122.800, nothing else.

 

That means different things to different people on here, some will swear black and blue that it means you must send text messages, others will swear it means you merely have to have a radio tune to 122.800. The two views may never meet.

 

Then we start the voice discussion, which i believe is another polarising subject.

[Don Desfosse]

Great explanation by Trent, and Sean nailed it perfectly. And without starting the years-long, polarizing, often-heated debate going again, I'll just say that there are rules, and there is common sense. Common sense should always be used and used well; Rules are the guard rails that keep us on the right path when folks begin to stray. Use common sense and text your intentions when appropriate, short and sweet, just as is done across the globe in so many places, and life is good...

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Daniel, when no ATC is online, the airspace is Uncontrolled, not controlled. dont mix those up, they are very different.

 

also in the end, everyone should be using the primary method of separation, EYES, regardless of what someone sends on text (which is often nonsense jibberish online)

 

Hi Trent, apologies I have obviously not been clear. I am talking about specifically when in controlled airspace or in the case of the other night within the Emerites where aircraft were within controlled airspace, albeit without a person being ATC, and were arriving and departing without making announcements by text. (Please note that I am not talking about voice or CTAF areas as I am no longer commenting or posting in regard to that subject). If it is not Vatsim policy to text when entering a designated controlled airspace or departing an airport like Dubai then with respect perhaps it should be. Cheers Dan

[Thimo Koolen]

That means different things to different people on here, some will swear black and blue that it means you must send text messages, others will swear it means you merely have to have a radio tune to 122.800. The two views may never meet.

 

The moments Unicom should be used is quite subjective and everyone has a different view. I honestly think a "EHAM traffic, pushback and startup D24." or "EHAM traffic, taxi runway 36L via B, V, V1." are both completely unnecessairy. If you want to start a pushback, just check the surroundings and if clear, start your pushback. You have to do it anyways, because not everyone makes a message on Unicom. Same for taxi routes: it's not necessairy and if you come in conflict, you can simply stop and make a solution on the spot.

 

It's different in the air. You can't simply stop and avoid people in there. But if you're tens of nautical miles out, a message isn't required as well. A message when you descend from FL400 to FL240, probably nobody is in your way. Especially not when the airspace is currently uncontrolled. A message when you enter the STAR and start your descend for the airport is debatable. Some airports have long STARs, other quite short. When you're something like 30-40nm out, you're close to the airport and should state what you're doing.

 

In short my opinion:

- On ground: not necessairy at all.

- High up in the air (above FL70/7.000ft): often too far away, especially above FL100/10.000ft.

- Between ground and FL70/7.000ft: state intentions when necessairy. Don't overdo it, because it only makes more chaos.

- Most important: common sense! No nearby traffic? Minimize your intentions.

 

Again, everyone has their own views and this is how I state my intentions; if at all. Honestly if I see at Vatspy there are no aircrafts even close to me or on approach, nobody is going to be in my way and my intentions would only 'spam' the unicom frequency more, which would make more important messages less visable.

[Simon Kelsey]

I honestly think a "EHAM traffic, pushback and startup D24." or "EHAM traffic, taxi runway 36L via B, V, V1." are both completely unnecessairy. If you want to start a pushback, just check the surroundings and if clear, start your pushback. You have to do it anyways, because not everyone makes a message on Unicom. Same for taxi routes: it's not necessairy and if you come in conflict, you can simply stop and make a solution on the spot.

 

I would disagree. I personally find it very useful when people send UNICOM messages on the ground because it helps aid my situational awareness of what is going on. It gives me an idea of the traffic levels (whether I'm inbound or outbound), it lets me know which runway people are generally selecting (and helps subconsciously, I suspect, encourage people towards at least going the same way -- not always, but certainly more so than if nobody was sending anything). Also, if you're parked next to me, or I'm about to turn in to a taxiway and I can see you parked at a gate (and how would you know if I was planning to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] behind you if I didn't send a message), I have no idea whether you're going to push back in ten seconds or twenty minutes!

 

All I would say is that it's not just about whether you personally are going to come in to conflict with someone -- it helps others plan their movements rather than trying to second-guess what other people are going to do all the time. And not all of us have (or have the desire to have) real-time traffic radars running all the time, but everybody has access to the text channel...

[Trent Hopkinson]

Hi Trent, apologies I have obviously not been clear. I am talking about specifically when in controlled airspace or in the case of the other night within the Emerites where aircraft were within controlled airspace, albeit without a person being ATC, and were arriving and departing without making announcements by text. (Please note that I am not talking about voice or CTAF areas as I am no longer commenting or posting in regard to that subject). If it is not Vatsim policy to text when entering a designated controlled airspace or departing an airport like Dubai then with respect perhaps it should be. Cheers Dan

 

Ah, that new type of airspace. Uncontrolled controlled airspace. Airspace being controlled by nobody. Gotta look out for that lol.

 

I happen to want Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G Ctaf's to be implimented, but that's Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airspace, not uncontrolled Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] A/B/C/D/E airspace which would be more similar to TIBA. aka: Vatsim's Unicom at controlled airports with nobody staffing the positions.

 

The Vatsim regulations relate to Vatsim.

[Christopher Flett 1349312]

The issue is, is that if your hand flying in the approach and not on autopilot, its very difficult to maintain control of the aircraft and text type your intentions. This is why voice communication is the way to go (as well as text for those unable to voice communicate for whatever reason). I find it so much easier to voice communicate my intentions than to text it. Vatsim really need to change their policies on this. If its an issue of pilots talking gibberish, non intention communications, etc then have an moderator online monitoring those voice comms and kick people who are not abiding by the policy. I just think Vatsim's stance on voice comms is very petty and their blatant ignorance of real world operations.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

then have an moderator online monitoring those voice comms and kick people who are not abiding by the policy.

 

if only it were that easy with all the hundreds or so of voice channels to monitor

 

its not as easy as just changing a couple of words on docomeentation

 

 

as far as the networks stance being petty or ignorant, kinda ignorant for someone new to the network who does not yet know all the ins and outs to say. but thats just irony i guess. always new idea makers running around

[Trent Hopkinson]

then have an moderator online monitoring those voice comms and kick people who are not abiding by the policy.

 

if only it were that easy with all the hundreds or so of voice channels to monitor

 

its not as easy as just changing a couple of words on docomeentation

 

 

as far as the networks stance being petty or ignorant, kinda ignorant for someone new to the network who does not yet know all the ins and outs to say. but thats just irony i guess. always new idea makers running around

 

Voice comms is pretty off topic for this particular thread...

 

I'd point over to the Voice CTAF thread where discussions regarding voice are being held, and leave this thread about text comms to be about text comms.

Edited December 7, 2016 at 02:23 AM by Guest

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

hence why i didnt bother going more into detail

[Jonathan Johnson]

I know that anytime I'm on unicom, I rarely see people on it. Flew out of Boston and Toronto recently with no one stating intentions in unicom. I try to state in text (since there are some that can't receive voice, but it is hard on my computer if I full screen FSX. But I still at least mention to people that I'm about to taxi to a runway, or that I'm about to takeoff/on final/about to land. Some airports, even with no ATC online, can be quite busy..

[Sean Harrison]

then have an moderator online monitoring those voice comms and kick people who are not abiding by the policy.

 

if only it were that easy with all the hundreds or so of voice channels to monitor

 

its not as easy as just changing a couple of words on docomeentation

 

 

as far as the networks stance being petty or ignorant, kinda ignorant for someone new to the network who does not yet know all the ins and outs to say. but thats just irony i guess. always new idea makers running around

 

1. Why do VATSIM allow ten or so voice servers to be connected to their network?

 

2. From my experience only a few are utilised regularly (So my FSinn file has country specific Unicom on the server most used)

 

3. It's called standardisation, then there aren't hundreds (don't agree there are that many) of channels.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

take Trents recommendation, and yes i do agree standardization is part of the process, which currently is not the case. (and yes currently there are hundreds of possible channels one would have to track, 10 servers x X amount of possible channels, especially with FSINN since everyone and their grandmother can modify that. a future client would have to make that modifiable server side only to rule those chances out)

 

btw anyone can setup a voice server (last i remember the voice servers were not controlled by the network at all since they dont require any private info from a user), its not the hardest thing. many VA's had their own voice servers at one point, they've since switched to more modern software

[Trent Hopkinson]

I know that anytime I'm on unicom, I rarely see people on it. Flew out of Boston and Toronto recently with no one stating intentions in unicom. I try to state in text (since there are some that can't receive voice,

 

Given there is no officially sanctioned voice unicom... that would be why nobody's on voice unicom. Because there isn't one. vpilot can't even join a voice room that isn't active ATC or ATIS.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

The number and placement of voice servers were determined by Kieran after study to provide the best service with the least latency. We used to have lots and lots of connection issues on this network; these days, not so much. Anyone here in the last two years wouldn't have a shared experience with someone talking about these issues of the past.

 

Voice UNICOM or CTAF, or whatever you wish to call a voice channel with no controller on it is on the table. It is not trivial to implement and will take some time and resources.

[Kirk Christie]

In short my opinion:

- On ground: not necessairy at all.

- High up in the air (above FL70/7.000ft): often too far away, especially above FL100/10.000ft.

- Between ground and FL70/7.000ft: state intentions when necessary. Don't overdo it, because it only makes more chaos.

- Most important: common sense! No nearby traffic? Minimize your intentions.

 

Again, everyone has their own views and this is how I state my intentions; if at all. Honestly if I see at Vatspy there are no aircrafts even close to me or on approach, nobody is going to be in my way and my intentions would only 'spam' the unicom frequency more, which would make more important messages less visable.

 

My Preference is

10 Mins inbound Call with ETA and prefered landing runway (no need to state STAR/ P[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing altitude, DME to field what the inflight meal was)

Joining any leg of the Circuit, Downwind Base Finals

Clearing the runway

 

KISS

 

Ive highlighted DME to Field because, it is subjective, your time to travel 10 DME might be the same time it takes me to travel 15 DME due to Tail/Head winds, faster speed, delayed slowing ect, and prefer ETA because if you say you are going to land at 1045Z and I am going to land at 1046Z straight away I know I need to give my self an extra minute or 2 so we don't meet turning base.

 

And not having a FMC is no excuse for not working out your ETA because Speed = Distance/Time which can be worked out on most phones/tablets/googles

[Magnus Meese]

The issue is, is that if your hand flying in the approach and not on autopilot, its very difficult to maintain control of the aircraft and text type your intentions. This is why voice communication is the way to go (as well as text for those unable to voice communicate for whatever reason). I find it so much easier to voice communicate my intentions than to text it. Vatsim really need to change their policies on this. If its an issue of pilots talking gibberish, non intention communications, etc then have an moderator online monitoring those voice comms and kick people who are not abiding by the policy. I just think Vatsim's stance on voice comms is very petty and their blatant ignorance of real world operations.

Trim your aircraft, alt tab, "ICAO rwXX", alt tab.

 

Also, several portions of the 24 hour period experience 0 supervisors online, just saying. Guess we could make VATSIM pay-to-play and hire someone, eh?

 

... with the least latency.

This rustles my jimmies.

 

Yes I know, different time and age

[Karl Mathias Moberg]

Honestly if I see at Vatspy there are no aircrafts even close to me or on approach, nobody is going to be in my way and my intentions would only 'spam' the unicom frequency more, which would make more important messages less visable.

 

This!

 

Personally, when I'm flying and I am getting close to an airport I constantly check VATSpy to see if there are other aircraft around me that could conflict. If there are no others inbound or outbound, I don't post anything in chat. Why? Because noone else cares about an aircraft at 3000ft when they are at FL380. Even if there is traffic in the area, if it's going to take them 10 minutes to get to where I am currently, I'm going to be long gone once the other aircraft gets to my location. I'm a hard believer that it's more important to look out the window of your cockpit where you can see all aircraft within 10nm and actually see them, then to constantly look at vPilot and the chat there. Once I'm in the air, I again look out the window and in addition to that monitor my TCAS for situational awareness.

[Greg Barber]

This discussion always amuses me. VATSIM regs only state that we should monitor UNICOM however if nobody every actually transmits on UNICOM, what are we monitoring? Silence!

 

Don's common sense post above is the one we should all be referring to.

 

- Yes it's difficult to text while hand flying an approach, so send a message out before this busy time. (Eg. Traffic XXXX, ABC is XXnm to the east, tracking for ILS rwy XX, estimate the approach time XX.")

- Yes, we can just look around for other traffic before pushing back or taxiing, but it helps the guy on approach to know that someone else is operating out of the airport and to "see and avoid" that traffic.

 

Ask yourself this.... if you would like to know where another pilot is at a particular time in your/their flight? You can bet your life the other guy would appreciate knowing about you at a particular time during their/your flight.

 

It all comes down to being nice to each other, as do many aspects of VATSIM rules.

[Robert Fersch]

Watching videos of corporate jet and turbo prop operators has helped me understand how to use unicom. On the ground it is never used for taxi, only before entering a runway for takeoff and , if other traffic is present, clearing a runway on landing. In the air, it is used within 20 miles or less of destination with position, intentions and runway of choice and on joining the pattern. Additional updates are issued IF other traffic is present to coordinate with them. I agree with others who have said keep it simple, brief and minimal.

 

For me, I am concerned voice CTAF will bring a plethora of meaningless transmissions. We see it now on text.

[Trent Hopkinson]

Watching videos of corporate jet and turbo prop operators has helped me understand how to use unicom. On the ground it is never used for taxi, only before entering a runway for takeoff and , if other traffic is present, clearing a runway on landing. In the air, it is used within 20 miles or less of destination with position, intentions and runway of choice and on joining the pattern. Additional updates are issued IF other traffic is present to coordinate with them. I agree with others who have said keep it simple, brief and minimal.

 

For me, I am concerned voice CTAF will bring a plethora of meaningless transmissions. We see it now on text.

 

If the client limits the ability to join the voice room to when the aircraft are within 20-ish NM from the field, it will help a little.

 

Sure there will be n00bs clearing themselves to land and reading out their full landing checklist out on frequency from time to time, but at least they won't be at FL380 asking if anyone is on frequency.