Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

Hey Nathan, I cannot find your reference to where the words “will” and “all” have been used in reference to the CTAF discussion. Could you perhaps quote this as I have had a look and can’t find it. Thanks

Joel Richters

 

34

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Hey Nathan, I cannot find your reference to where the words “will” and “all” have been used in reference to the CTAF discussion. Could you perhaps quote this as I have had a look and can’t find it. Thanks

 

It wasn't said on this forum but the facebook group by a Vatsim supervisor so i took that as the official word.

 

That is a mistake by me to mix the both the forum and facebook group into one conversation , I apologize .

Link to post
Share on other sites
- 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

 

I don't quite understand the potential issue you're perceiving here. It seems like the answer to "what's the point of controlling" is obvious. The point of controlling is to provide control. CTAF has no one providing control.

 

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

' Should Voice CTAF be at all airfields '?

 

I think it should be at any airport that has a real-world CTAF or real-world tower when nobody is providing tower services. I believe that's the most realistic situation, because real world part time towers usually have the tower frequency act as CTAF when the tower is closed, at least in the areas I'm familiar with.

Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy

Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC

Link to post
Share on other sites
It has been said Voice CTAF will be used at ALL Airfields

Hey Nathan, I cannot find your reference to where the words “will” and “all” have been used in reference to the CTAF discussion. Could you perhaps quote this as I have had a look and can’t find it. Thanks

 

It wasn't said on this forum but the facebook group by a Vatsim supervisor so i took that as the official word.

 

That is a mistake by me to mix the both the forum and facebook group into one conversation , I apologize .

No need to apologise, I just thought I missed something

Joel Richters

 

34

Link to post
Share on other sites
- 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

 

I don't quite understand the potential issue you're perceiving here. It seems like the answer to "what's the point of controlling" is obvious. The point of controlling is to provide control. CTAF has no one providing control.

 

Fly in to or around EGLL when no ATC is on. You'll find lots of pilots controlling the runways in use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A great idea to increase realism.

Trouble is, this isn't real life, controlled and self-regulated by trained, professional people, it's an internet based simulation, inhabited by any Tom, Dick and Harriet where knowledge, training and professionalism aren't prerequisites.

While it has the potential to enhance safe operations at small, unmanned airports as intended in real life, as Daniel says, at LHR with no Control, you'll just give a voice to those who at present, only have text to impose their over-inflated egos on people.

If there's no option to mute or disable CTAF in such situations, I'll likely be departing and arriving an uncontrolled LHR with my headset off

To be positive though, I really hope it can be made to work in the spirit in which is is intended - if that is possible it should be a valuable additional feature to our hobby.

1228.png
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

Just read through the whole of this topic. I would like to make a few comments that I think are relevent (and helpfull).

 

TEXT on UNICOM. Regardless of the function(s) intended, My observations show it to have 3 (practiced) functions. -+ trolls.

1. IFR pilots use it to announce positions/intentions to/from Top of descent and stand, enabling other pilots (especially around the London A/Ps, when no ATC) to plan their flight/movement in good time, helping themselves and others.

2. I also frequently see examples of 'pilot training' - an inexperienced pilot asking for help/advice and receiving it. (that's how we all learnt).

3. VFR (and some IFR) A/C using it around an uncontrolled A/F.

 

I tend to agree that UNICOM (text only) is very useful in 1 & 2 above.

The ideal, especially for VFR A/C and IFR-No top-down cover- would be a dedicated voice channel. In most cases this already exists. - The A/F comm frequencies. We often fly group flights of 10+ A/C, VFR. Comming into an A/F with no ATC realistically one would tune and use the TWR comm frequency. Unfortunately, on VATSIM the ATC frequencies can only be 'activated' by a controller, on a controller client. -Unless I've missed something.

A system of opening a required frequency would solve the issue being disscussed - and before the roof falls in I am NOT suggesting this should be done by a pilot! -utter mayhem.

It could be restricted, perhaps, to groups, and the frequency opened by a top-down controller, or a 'request frequency/channel' to a supervisor (before T/O?). Then , with reference to the flightplans, the frequency could be opened. (tied to a specific A/C? That way, when he disconnects/ends flight, the frequency closes). That would be quite realistic. Our group flight pilots already practice the phraseology, on TeamSpeak, where there is no ATC,

RANGE: A realistic TWR range would be 30-50nm - Average range of ILS/Outer marker NDB.

If this if done using Long./Lat. The 'square' sides would need to be about 10% greater than minimum range.

 

Pilot Training; (head in lion mouth) - Why not. At a minimum, All Pilots should be required to demonstrate that they AT LEAST know the basic VATSIM rules (plus 'rules of the Air?). - This could weed out many of the childish trolls.

 

I hope this is not read as a 'rant'. It is not. I do believe that 122.800 SHOULD be text only. If my sugestion above is impractical, how about dedicated limited range (from user A/C) 'common'frequencies. i.e 122.850; 122.870. Would it be possible to also have 122.810; 122.830 etc? At Max. 30nm (from user A/C) the availability of a clear channel would be almost limitless, especially if each division [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned channels to use/areas.

 

Trolls; - Main function- to know they have created mayhem/annoyance' 2 solutions, identify and discipline or ignore.

If they cannot achieve their aim, they will get bored and go away.

 

I think the idea has much merit and has been said, has been a long time coming.

I will now duck for cover.

 

Regards,

 

Neville

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep reading all these comments with much interest. I note that most of the comments come from interested parties who whilst their comments are valued and respected, have had little or no experience in how Voice CTAF actually works and succeeds in Australia. Over many years of using voice in Australian airspace very few if any of the perceived problems have been evident. On a global map the virtual skies look busy however when one zooms in you generally find only a few pilots close by in the same airspace (except for our Vatpac VFR flights:) so the skies will not be that busy with chat. It is also helpful to make a distinction between using voice for CTAF airfields that do not have a control tower and using voice for airports that do have control towers (ATC) whether manned or not. I have been using voice with online Controllers around the world for many years with no problem. I know that we are all affected by time zone limitations but if able to may I invite you to come on line in OZ sometime and experience voice. If you still do not find voice attractive then that is your right but at least your opinion will be an informed one. All the above relies of course on having a suitable voice client. In practical terms that means FSInn (with voice files obtained from Vatpac website) or VPilot (again there is a process on how to use voice with Vpilot (also on Vatpac website).

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nathan Elliott 1278737 wrote:

- 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”

I respect your opinion Nathan and a potential controller may indeed have that perception but if that was the case then we would have no controllers at Heathrow in real life Unfortunately (??) the ability to use voice does not mean that pilots will follow correct procedures so it remains preferable to have controllers whilst pilots are humans

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
Over many years of using voice in Australian airspace very few if any of the perceived problems have been evident.

That's because 1. people don't know this possibility exists, 2. Australian airspace is not as popular as Europe and USA, 3. people who fly into non-towered fields usually know what they're doing and are more likely to be disciplined.

KntU2Cw.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Australian airspace is not as popular as Europe and USA

 

This is a common but flawed argument. Traffic volume is irrelevant, it's traffic density or traffic flow rate that is a more relevant measure. You will find that we don't lag in that aspect.

 

I have controlled at places like KJFK at what is supposed to be the evening peak and seen less traffic than at comparable times at YSSY (although not suggesting that this is the general case).

 

Visit one of our VFR events and you'll find that they are plenty busy as everyone converges on the departure and arrival phases. Voice CTAF does not need a huge amount of training or even discipline, just common sense.

David Zhong

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an Awesome Idea. But we are going to have people who have no clue how to use it. Therefore I think we should have specific training for it. And if you p[Mod - Happy Thoughts], you should be able to use voice unicom. But we also have MANY airports to set up a voice unicom for, which will make it forever to setup. I love the idea though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But we are going to have people who have no clue how to use it. Therefore I think we should have specific training for it. And if you p[Mod - Happy Thoughts], you should be able to use voice unicom.

 

A test for using voice UNICOM?, pilots don't have to do a test for normal voice usage with ATC or flying abilities so I don't think a test for using voice on UNICOM is going to be forthcoming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not getting into never ending discussion if we need test to oog on network or to talk with ATC. What I am going to say though is that when you are under positive ATC you usually have some respect for the controller because he will get you in trouble if you don't behave.

 

How can we [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ure same philosophy happening on CTAF around the world? I don't think we have people to monitor it all the time and usually habit when people nowadays misuse unicom is that you ignore it. So I would see people ignoring people misusing voice CTAF as well and switching frequency completely. Some might wallop it but I don't find it appealing to wallopping everyone misusing the feature because there will be many of those just given how the network is right now.

 

I think voice CTAF is very good thing if done right. It has to be well thought that people doesn't start misusing it. I try to think gold from every network user but I can see the threats as well. I hope I am wrong with my thinking and voice CTAF turns out great with people professionally saying their intentions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

I'm a bit late to the party but in my opinion, I think that pilots with the P1 rating or above should be able to transmit on CTAF and normal 'OBS' pilots can monitor the voice frequency, but can only transmit text.

 

Also, this video helps for new beginners:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxHtjRbQgZ8

The first 20 minutes covers CTAF transmissions in extreme detail.

Mitch Mewett

Oakland ARTCC

Email: [email protected]

1333214

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
I'm a bit late to the party but in my opinion, I think that pilots with the P1 rating or above should be able to transmit on CTAF and normal 'OBS' pilots can monitor the voice frequency, but can only transmit text.

 

Also, this video helps for new beginners:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxHtjRbQgZ8

The first 20 minutes covers CTAF transmissions in extreme detail.

 

This is actually a good idea.

Mr.

VATSIM P2

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not getting into never ending discussion if we need test to oog on network or to talk with ATC. What I am going to say though is that when you are under positive ATC you usually have some respect for the controller because he will get you in trouble if you don't behave.

 

How can we [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ure same philosophy happening on CTAF around the world? I don't think we have people to monitor it all the time and usually habit when people nowadays misuse unicom is that you ignore it. So I would see people ignoring people misusing voice CTAF as well and switching frequency completely. Some might wallop it but I don't find it appealing to wallopping everyone misusing the feature because there will be many of those just given how the network is right now.

 

I think voice CTAF is very good thing if done right. It has to be well thought that people doesn't start misusing it. I try to think gold from every network user but I can see the threats as well. I hope I am wrong with my thinking and voice CTAF turns out great with people professionally saying their intentions.

 

Keep in mind that there's a lot of supervisors who fly as well, a few times I have come across someone abusing UNICOM and have sent them a private message.

Clarke Kruger

Edmonton (CYEG) AB, Canada

VATSIM Network Supervisor | Team 1

Have a question? Email [email protected]

23

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a bit late to the party but in my opinion, I think that pilots with the P1 rating or above should be able to transmit on CTAF and normal 'OBS' pilots can monitor the voice frequency, but can only transmit text.

 

Also, this video helps for new beginners:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxHtjRbQgZ8

The first 20 minutes covers CTAF transmissions in extreme detail.

 

I agree 100%

The next problem is text pilots. If there would be someway of implementing either a voice to text function or having a way of letting pilots know how many text pilots are in a 20 mile range or something like that so they can type out their position reports if time permits.

Also, having it as text only when a SUP is online would be a good idea...

Really really really looking forward to voice Unicom/CTAF!!!

 

Josh

Josh Jenk

CZVR C1 controller

TRHzE8k.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I just hope it doesn't turn into 121.5 IRL. When you are in the flight levels monitoring 121.5 all you get in some parts of the country is work! work! work! or your on guard and every now and then some will come up and tell everyone to knock it off. Although I like the idea of a voice unicom. Who knows maybe we can include a voice 121.5 in the setup too.

 

Also any updates on the progress of this idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...