Voice UNICOM / CTAF

[Joel Richters]

As a participant in many of these activities there is some information to be gleaned from the years of experience accrued.

Russell, you might be surprised however almost all of your points are in the initial docomeent. More info will come but I think you will be happy.

[Justin Friedland]

Strikes me that this should be separated into:

 

1. UNICOM on 122.80....text only as it is now

 

2. And separate and unique voice CTAF for specific airports (the committee can decided size, Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B, Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C, Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D, etc) that CAN be used (not MUST be USED) responsibly when there is no ATC.

 

In this way, UNICOM would remain quiet, and those who choose to communicate by voice on CTAF can do so without affecting other pilots.

 

This means adding CTAF frequencies as warranted or needed, without changing the coding that already exists for 122.8 UNICOM.

[Ross Carlson]

recently a number of our P3D users who cannot use FSInn have been using VPilot which now allows for manually selecting the relevant CTAF.

 

When you say vPilot now allows for manually selecting a CTAF, what do you mean?

[Joel Richters]

recently a number of our P3D users who cannot use FSInn have been using VPilot which now allows for manually selecting the relevant CTAF.

 

When you say vPilot now allows for manually selecting a CTAF, what do you mean?

He is referring to using vPilot and AVC together and letting AVC run the voice part, then you can manual tune into any voice room

[Daniel Hawton]

@Cameron

 

Should means a different thing to requirement - end of. There's no requirement for English to be spoken on Vatsim . I don't know why i'm actually replying to you? Vatsim may say English "should" be spoken for ATC but with CTAF there's no atc... ( even if there's a person in the tower they can only recommend not control ).

 

Should usually does have a different meaning, and it does in the aviation world... but on VATSIM when it comes to regulations, past information from VATGOV1 indicates that should means it is required by them. Reference https://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=74306#p515691. Transponder use is a "should" requirement, but per Kyle Ramsey it means shall. That would make English a shall requirement in the CoR as well.

[Nathan Elliott 1278737]

@Cameron

 

Should means a different thing to requirement - end of. There's no requirement for English to be spoken on Vatsim . I don't know why i'm actually replying to you? Vatsim may say English "should" be spoken for ATC but with CTAF there's no atc... ( even if there's a person in the tower they can only recommend not control ).

 

Should usually does have a different meaning, and it does in the aviation world... but on VATSIM when it comes to regulations, past information from VATGOV1 indicates that should means it is required by them. Reference https://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=74306#p515691. Transponder use is a "should" requirement, but per Kyle Ramsey it means shall. That would make English a shall requirement in the CoR as well.

 

See the above can be applied to ATC on Vatsim in that English shall be used! but correct me if i'm wrong there's no ATC with CTAF ( if there's a person in the tower they CAN'T control only recommend ) so that would make the shall requirement void as it's addressing Vatsim ATC not Vatsim pilots.

 

I would expect Voice CTAF to be English only but it should also consider special exception for certain regions were the actual number of English speaking pilots is below a certain threshold. ( meaning dual language could be allowed )

 

This is a quote from one division " Our official idiom is Brazilian Portuguese (pt_BR), unfortunately many of our members don't write english well, although a few can speak or understand a few functional words"

 

Nevertheless, I've seen many flight plan remarks in which pilots can type but not speak English so this adds to a long list provided to the nay-sayers of why text is still valuable even with voice Unicom/CTAF.

 

Nathan Elliott.

[Joel Richters]

All great feedback. The process which has been drafted incorporates both voice and text and the pilot will be able to use which ever method they are most comfortable with. I’m sure each division or region will formulate there own plan around language which best suits their members to ensure they achieve maximum engagement.

 

This proposal is about encreasing our member engagement so we will be looking for the solution that brings all the members along for the ride.

 

Keep the good ideas coming!

[Daniel Hawton]

@Cameron

 

Should means a different thing to requirement - end of. There's no requirement for English to be spoken on Vatsim . I don't know why i'm actually replying to you? Vatsim may say English "should" be spoken for ATC but with CTAF there's no atc... ( even if there's a person in the tower they can only recommend not control ).

 

Should usually does have a different meaning, and it does in the aviation world... but on VATSIM when it comes to regulations, past information from VATGOV1 indicates that should means it is required by them. Reference https://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=74306#p515691. Transponder use is a "should" requirement, but per Kyle Ramsey it means shall. That would make English a shall requirement in the CoR as well.

 

See the above can be applied to ATC on Vatsim in that English shall be used! but correct me if i'm wrong there's no ATC with CTAF ( if there's a person in the tower they CAN'T control only recommend ) so that would make the shall requirement void as it's addressing Vatsim ATC not Vatsim pilots.

 

I would expect Voice CTAF to be English only but it should also consider special exception for certain regions were the actual number of English speaking pilots is below a certain threshold. ( meaning dual language could be allowed )

 

This is a quote from one division " Our official idiom is Brazilian Portuguese (pt_BR), unfortunately many of our members don't write english well, although a few can speak or understand a few functional words"

 

Nevertheless, I've seen many flight plan remarks in which pilots can type but not speak English so this adds to a long list provided to the nay-sayers of why text is still valuable even with voice Unicom/CTAF.

 

Nathan Elliott.

 

Except the COR says converse and/or provide ATC services in English.. so really, in theory, pilots do need to be able to converse in English as well. Imagine if I went down to Brazil and went flying and announced on UNICOM and someone replied back in Portuguese... there'd be no way to de-conflict or maintain situational awareness otherwise. Even with ATC, speaking the same language universally is much more beneficial because the studious pilots can maintain awareness around aerodromes/terminal airspaces just by listening to the conversations.

 

Text is easier in this case because one can easy pop it into Google Translate... but..

[Kyprianos Biris]

I'm not sure we'd even need to change the current Unicom freq... from what I've discovered it is range dependant on altitude? When flying near Vancouver CYVR I will often hear aircraft starting their STAR into Seattle KSEA = 111NM apart. But when I'm lower down around YVR I don't hear SEA traffic... might be coincidence or might be an altitude/reception algorithm.

 

As far as I know, text communication (all text communication -- not just Unicom, but on active ATC frequencies as well) is modelled based on the standard VHF line-of-sight propagation formula (i.e. 1.25*sqrt h1 + 1.25*sqrt h2). Thus, as you say, at high level you will receive stations over a range of a good couple of hundred miles, whereas at lower levels you will only receive from much closer stations. You can also notice on some occasions if you are flying in a very large chunk of airspace (e.g. in an oceanic area) you may be able to receive all text transmissions from the controller but not always the replies from pilots who are outside your reception range.

 

The problem is that voice rooms don't work like this -- the room is tied to the frequency and you are either in the room or you are not, wherever you are on the planet. I presume that this issue is part of what the network team will be looking at.

 

Very good point Simon. Client to Client distance may be the culprit since this is the way pilot clients currently see/join an active ATC voice room. So the frequency may remain 122.80 (so there is no confusion) and the specific voice room being dependent on geographic location. It sure won't be easy but the developers may have some ideas with "virtual antennae" being the reference point of a voice "server" (room) location. These locations may be a "web" of 200~300nm spaced apart virtual points in our virtual world. (just brainstorming here).

In this scenario the frequency remains 122.80 but the voice room changes as the flight progresses.

 

Personally I do not consider voice unicom an issue of "inclusivity" or not since anyone on TEXT can still transmit on unicom anyway. A pilot wishing to transmit his intentions on voice should have the same right to do so regardless if he/she is on an active ATC channel or a unicom voice channel. For the members with hearing disabilities -who I fully recognize as part of my co-hobbyists - nowadays moving map software such as FSCommander or Aivlasoft EFB (and others) display live AI (vatsim) traffic near you so there is no "exclusion" in that group but rather "other means" to watch out for traffic which may be transmitting on VOICE unicom rather than TEXT unicom.

 

As for internet trolls, we have to be realistic, they are around. Text unicom identifies easily the "transmitter" and then necessary action can be taken, even post factum. For voice channel internet trolls which becomes more of an issue in voice channels I believe a solution must be found so that RECEIVING clients can see who (callsign) is transmitting. This is for developers to try to find a solution. The need for that has nothing to do with real aviation simulation (technically it does not exist in real) but deficiencies/weaknesses of on line multiplay voice rooms in our hobby. For example in TeamSpeak you see who is transmitting. This is something I would like to see anyway (regardless of the voice unicom discussion) in our pilot clients. For example, in the name or realism maybe it could be a separate tab that you open to see only if needed so as to keep the basic pilot client window decluttered. When you open this tab though it would be fantastic to see which callsigns are in the room and who is transmitting at this point with a change of color for example. Then action can be taken also post factum as long as a couple of receiving participants concur the incident in absence of a text record.

[Joel Richters]

Great feedback Kyprianos, it is good to see that you are supportive of this venture.

[Trent Hopkinson]

Personally I do not consider voice unicom an issue of "inclusivity" or not since anyone on TEXT can still transmit on unicom anyway. A pilot wishing to transmit his intentions on voice should have the same right to do so regardless if he/she is on an active ATC channel or a unicom voice channel. For the members with hearing disabilities -who I fully recognize as part of my co-hobbyists - nowadays moving map software such as FSCommander or Aivlasoft EFB (and others) display live AI (vatsim) traffic near you so there is no "exclusion" in that group but rather "other means" to watch out for traffic which may be transmitting on VOICE unicom rather than TEXT unicom.

 

As for internet trolls, we have to be realistic, they are around. Text unicom identifies easily the "transmitter" and then necessary action can be taken, even post factum. For voice channel internet trolls which becomes more of an issue in voice channels I believe a solution must be found so that RECEIVING clients can see who (callsign) is transmitting. This is for developers to try to find a solution. The need for that has nothing to do with real aviation simulation (technically it does not exist in real) but deficiencies/weaknesses of on line multiplay voice rooms in our hobby. For example in TeamSpeak you see who is transmitting. This is something I would like to see anyway (regardless of the voice unicom discussion) in our pilot clients. For example, in the name or realism maybe it could be a separate tab that you open to see only if needed so as to keep the basic pilot client window decluttered. When you open this tab though it would be fantastic to see which callsigns are in the room and who is transmitting at this point with a change of color for example. Then action can be taken also post factum as long as a couple of receiving participants concur the incident in absence of a text record.

 

In a weird way, you can solve both with the same system. When a voice transmission is recieved in the voiceroom, everyone (including text only) recieves some indication that 1: Someone is transmitting and 2: who that someone is (by callsign or even Callsign+CID) Therefore you get 2 benifits:

1: The Text pilots know who is transmitting something (time to look for their callsign on your radar/aircraft tag to see what's going on) and 2: If someone's trolling, everyone knows exactly who it is so the .wallop info is easy to figure out.

[Noel Bennett 1159876]

I'm all for voice CTAF. Not too fussy about how it's implemented, either, as long as it's compatible with XSquawkbox ('til Swift is up and running, at least). The way I see it: I fly a lot of VFR flights by hand into uncontrolled airports (FSEconomy pilot, can you tell?). Holding a yoke makes it rather difficult to type, so unless I see other traffic nearby, I'm rarely making the calls that I would be making via voice. Might not encourage more folks to fly into those uncontrolled airports, but I certainly don't see it hurting... and the more traffic we have, the more entertaining the flights are going to be.

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

i agree Noel,

 

I too am FSEconomy VFR and after watching several "mountain strip" landing videos I was impressed with how talkative the pilots were on CTAF with other planes in the air around them and with pilots already on the ground also keeping a heads up for them.

 

Randy

[Matthew Piper 1345105]

One way in which you could negate the people broadcasting pointless information, such as tod or step climbs, over voice could be an altitude cut off point. Maybe where the voice room is activated once p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing FL200 (for example), any communication above is done via text, (because let's face it, who uses unicom in cruise?) and below can be done on voice, as this is the most critical section of the flight, and where people often struggle to have time to type and fly properly.

[Daniel Mckee]

Could someone please clarify my ignorance. In the current situation where text is used for communicating with ATC, manned or unmanned, and ATC is in a non-english speaking country say a flight from UK arriving in Istanbul, Turkey, what language is currently being typed? Cheers Dan

PS: I would not be too concerned about trolling. Having used voice in OZ for over 8 years, I have not once experienced voice trolling. Now if only we could do something about pilots arriving on opposing airstrips.......but that is a whole other issue

PPS: Again, for education come on-line on Vatpac so you can see how it's done and then you can also offer suggestions gained from some experience .

[alex story]

so does that mean a new interface like vpilot will be made or no

[Nathan Elliott 1278737]

I've never seen a Vatsim forum mentioning the concern about 'non-english speaking countries' when that group consist of over 150 countries on this planet.

 

So, I don't see why people would stop using English and for the ones (albeit a small number ) that currently struggle with English to a point were it will distract them from flying i wouldn't expect them to not try and converse in English.

 

Alot of concern for an issue that probably doesn't exist and it if does you probably have never have or will fly in that region on Vatsim.

 

A couple or so of regions should be allowed to have a mix of language but with heavy a emphasis on English being used.

 

[Evan Reiter]

IA couple or so of regions should be allowed to have a mix of language but with heavy a emphasis on English being used.

My understanding is that, although several countries officially claim that English is the only language for aviation, it's quite common to hear local languages on the CTAFs at untowered airports. I don't see why VATSIM would need to do anything different.

 

FWIW, in Canada's province of Quebec, two official languages are supported by both ATC and on CTAFs. As far as ATC goes, if you call in English, you are served in that language. If you call in French, they reply in French. Quite a trip the first time you hear it. Sometimes, it's two separate controllers that reply, too! On most of the CTAFs in the northern part of the province (entirely French-speaking), all you will hear is French.

[Nathan Elliott 1278737]

IA couple or so of regions should be allowed to have a mix of language but with heavy a emphasis on English being used.

My understanding is that, although several countries officially claim that English is the only language for aviation, it's quite common to hear local languages on the CTAFs at untowered airports. I don't see why VATSIM would need to do anything different.

 

FWIW, in Canada's province of Quebec, two official languages are supported by both ATC and on CTAFs. As far as ATC goes, if you call in English, you are served in that language. If you call in French, they reply in French. Quite a trip the first time you hear it. Sometimes, it's two separate controllers that reply, too! On most of the CTAFs in the northern part of the province (entirely French-speaking), all you will hear is French.

 

Yeah you're correct, Some people earlier in the thread said 'Well real world aviation is wrong this is vatsim'... so i didn't bother mentioning something that might be out of their scope of knowledge. Also in the Andalucia region of Spain there's some airfields ( well one ) were none of the pilots/tower spoke English to add no one onboard could speak Spanish thus requiring an instructor on-board who understood both English and Spanish my point being that not only do some uncontrolled airfields use a mix of language some don't use English at all.

[Nathan Elliott 1278737]

Would Voice CTAF at large airports not only be far from standard procedure but diminish the role of Vatsim ATC?

[Ross Carlson]

Would Voice CTAF at large airports not only be far from standard procedure but diminish the role of Vatsim ATC?

 

It wouldn't be used when ATC is online ... only when the airport has no controller providing tower services. In other words, it would only be used when the situation is already far from standard procedure.

[Bahaeddine El-Zarif]

Would Voice CTAF at large airports not only be far from standard procedure but diminish the role of Vatsim ATC?

 

How so? I mean CTAFs are only in Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airspaces or where ATC is not available.

[Nathan Elliott 1278737]

Would Voice CTAF at large airports not only be far from standard procedure but diminish the role of Vatsim ATC?

 

How so? I mean CTAFs are only in Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airspaces or where ATC is not available.

 

Read through the forum before you press page 5:)

 

It has been said Voice CTAF will be used at ALL Airfields.

 

And that makes my question valid 'Would Voice CTAF at large airports not only be far from standard procedure but diminish the role of Vatsim ATC'

[Robert Shearman Jr]

Would Voice CTAF at large airports not only be far from standard procedure but diminish the role of Vatsim ATC?

How so? I mean CTAFs are only in Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airspaces or where ATC is not available.

Read through the forum before you press page 5:) It has been said Voice CTAF will be used at ALL Airfields.

Really? You think that's the intent of what's being proposed here -- CTAF as a replacement for ATC?

[Nathan Elliott 1278737]

Would Voice CTAF at large airports not only be far from standard procedure but diminish the role of Vatsim ATC?

How so? I mean CTAFs are only in Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airspaces or where ATC is not available.

Read through the forum before you press page 5:) It has been said Voice CTAF will be used at ALL Airfields.

Really? You think that's the intent of what's being proposed here -- CTAF as a replacement for ATC?

 

Answered a question with a question

 

And no i've never said the intent of CTAF is to replace ATC .

 

The question may have been mis-understood so i'll expand.

 

- In Vatsim UK for a controller to control at Heathrow EGLL it takes extra training now if they see that pilots can effectively use CTAF they may wonder a) what's the point of controlling and b) Potential new controllers may be put off from all training when CTAF effectively requires no training from pilots.

 

Another question to consider which could intertwine with my previous questions is

' Should Voice CTAF be at all airfields '?