Is it time to abandon /t?

[Kyle Sanders]

"There are currently no plans to restrict /t."

 

I appreciate the opportunities this network has afforded me but honestly this type of mentality is why it took 17+yrs to get something like AFV, and then when we finally got it, a new policy was put out to restrict the level of usefulness of it by no longer allowing us to simulate frequency changes between the delegated facilities below an FIR/ARTCC.

A productive response to this would be "There seems to be interest in changing this, let us discuss this and see if we can find a way to increase the enjoyment for everyone involved."

Jason could not have made it more clear that he just wants to have VATSIM find a better way to encourage the new pilots to use voice rather than reverting to their safety-blanked of /t/. He didn't say remove the ability for people to use /t/.

Edited February 7, 2021 at 04:01 AM by Kyle Sanders

[Gerardo Rodriguez]

3 minutes ago, Kyle Sanders said:

"There are currently no plans to restrict /t."

 

I appreciate the opportunities this network has afforded me but honestly this type of mentality is why it took 17+yrs to get something like AFV, and then when we finally got it, a new policy was put out to restrict the level of usefulness of it by no longer allowing us to simulate frequency changes between the delegated facilities below an FIR/ARTCC.

A productive response to this would be "There seems to be interest in changing this, let us discuss this and see if we can find a way to increase the enjoyment for everyone involved."

Jason could not have made it more clear that he just wants to have VATSIM find a better way to encourage the new pilots to use voice rather than reverting to their safety-blanked of /t/. He didn't say remove the ability for people to use /t/.

I completely agree. I was excited for AFV and then it was immediately shot down because of pilots. Where is the balance to give ATC some level of realism?

[Kyle Sanders]

Happiness and enjoyment for ATC is clearly not in the thought process here or else we would have a more approachable response than just "we aren't restricting it".

[Alex Amorianos]

It is very clear that VATSIM wants quantity instead of quality...

[Torben Andersen]

I think these last posts are very unfair to VATSIM. The goal has always been to be as inclusive as possible. These last posts works agaist that. One could likewise argue to remove MS Flightsimulator 2020 from usage on vatsim, as it is unrealistic to have an airbus not able to fly sid and star, which is essential in modern aviation. Rather have a community, which supports and help each other in developnig skills, than an exclusive elite, who does everything by the book.

Edited February 7, 2021 at 08:05 AM by Torben Andersen

[Kyle Sanders]

9 minutes ago, Torben Andersen said:

I think these last posts are very unfair to VATSIM. The goal has always been to be as inclusive as possible. These last posts works agaist that. One could likewise argue to remove MS Flightsimulator 2020 from usage on vatsim, as it is unrealistic to have an airbus not able to fly sid and star, which is essential in modern aviation. Rather have a community, which supports and help each other in developnig skills, than an exclusive elite, who does everything by the book.

If that is what you get from these past couple of posts, then it is clear you haven’t read and understood the intent of this thread.

[Christoph Reule]

17 minutes ago, Torben Andersen said:

I think these last posts are very unfair to VATSIM. The goal has always been to be as inclusive as possible. These last posts works agaist that. One could likewise argue to remove MS Flightsimulator 2020 from usage on vatsim, as it is unrealistic to have an airbus not able to fly sid and star, which is essential in modern aviation. Rather have a community, which supports and help each other in developnig skills, than an exclusive elite, who does everything by the book.

The intent of this thread is about evaluating possible ways to encourage members to use voice, or at least receive voice, whenever possible while connected to the network.

It's not about excluding anyone.

[Torben Andersen]

"...Happiness and enjoyment for ATC is clearly not in the thought process here or else we would have a more approachable response than just "we aren't restricting it". ...

"...It is very clear that VATSIM wants quantity instead of quality... "

Communication is not an easy task. You ask for more than "no restrictions". I've yet to see an approachable route on how you would manage restrictions. I've read the entire thread, but perhaps I don't understand your intentions. Please enlighten me on how you propose to restrict or make people take the plunge to use voice instead of /t

[Nicholas Camperos]

Completely agreed. To be honest I was a bit bothered by that response. Even on the VATSIM discord we were having discussions about it and a BoG straight up said something like "sorry to break it to you but its not going to happen - period," and then proceeding to shut down the conversation because it did not meet their guidelines for whatever reason they felt like.

Clearly there is discussion for it because people want this for the network and people want the network to improve. I hope we can move forward with ways, whether it be to encourage others to move off /t/ by encouragement, or ultimately to restrict /t/ to just those who say they need it. I might read back through this thread and making a summary of all the opinions and ideas I have seen, because it seems every time someone enters this thread they skip half the posts and say "its not fair to ask for a doctors note just to just VATSIM." (which has been discussed already.)
 

5 hours ago, Torben Andersen said:

"...Happiness and enjoyment for ATC is clearly not in the thought process here or else we would have a more approachable response than just "we aren't restricting it". ...

"...It is very clear that VATSIM wants quantity instead of quality... "

Communication is not an easy task. You ask for more than "no restrictions". I've yet to see an approachable route on how you would manage restrictions. I've read the entire thread, but perhaps I don't understand your intentions. Please enlighten me on how you propose to restrict or make people take the plunge to use voice instead of /t

I believe Ross said it would be possible to add a bit of a message to the pilot clients when they select /t/ saying "This option is intended for those who are unable to use any form of voice communication, including /r/ where you send text and receive, and /v/ where you send voice and receive voice. it is highly encouraged you use /r/ or /v/ on the network unless you are unable." (or something along these lines.)

If in the case where a restriction can actually be put in place, my idea is to have users in their profile be able to tick a box, kind of how they make an account and accept the terms of service, stating "I am unable to use /r/ or /v/ communications on VATSIM" and then have a little link explaining what each means. If they tick this box, their account will have a tag bound to them allowing them to set their flight plan as /t/. If they don't have the tag, they cannot use /t/ but must use /r/ or /v/ (and will be redirected to the option to change it if they try to file /t/) /r/ and /v/ pilots may still use the text frequency to communicate in case of an inconvenience or emergency/audio issue, but they must not file as text-only and it can only be manually set by a controller.

[Alistair Thomson]

6 hours ago, Kyle Sanders said:

it is clear you haven’t read and understood the intent of this thread

Which asks if it is time to "abandon /t" as per the OP's subject line. Not restrict, not discourage, simply abandon.

[Matthew Bartels]

I’ve allowed this discussion to go on as a direct result of the BoG being interested in people’s opinions. Threads such as this have been locked far quicker than going on for 4 pages in the past. 

You are right, preserving /t is something that is beneficial to newer pilots in addition to those that have a disability which necessitates its use. VATSIM has always advocated that users use voice. It’s even codified in A14.

Quote

A14 - Voice is the preferred method of communication on VATSIM, though all members shall accommodate, with the same level of service, those communicating only by text. There shall be no rules preventing or discouraging the use of either voice or text. Only unaltered speech is permitted to be transmitted.

You are also right that previous BoG’s have been a bit more skewed to quantity over quality and I was right there with many of you disagreeing with the decisions being made. In fact, it’s my frustration with previous BoG’s that led me to join the BoG to help inspire change, but it doesn’t happen overnight. 

There is more work being done at the BoG level to improve the quality of life for controllers than I have ever seen before, but it will take time and a culture shift.  You will see in the upcoming minutes that we are looking for ways to help ease pilot quality issues. We’ve been in discussions amongst ourselves and divisional staff’s coming up with ideas that further educate our members on what to expect during certain traffic period on VATSIM and whether or not their capabilities may be at the required proficiency. Last year we implemented a frame rate requirement on X-Plane, again taking controller’s quality of life into account, as the time-dilated pilots became a hinderance to yes, other pilots as well, but mostly Air Traffic Controllers,. We continue to keep an ear to the community and are always in discussions for ways we can support ATC while at the same time not adding major barriers to pilots. 

It’s simply a fact of the network that ATC will always need to go though more training than a pilot. If we were to require pilots pursue the same amount of training to fly on the network as we do to control we would have controllers with no pilots. We are aware that there is a danger of going the other way too and having pilots with no controllers and that is why we are working on a balance. 

We are also in a very unique transition period. The partnership with Microsoft brought a massive interest in VATSIM from new and old flight simulator users. Not all of them are MSFS users we have many P3D, FSX, FlightGear, and X-Plane users that never knew of VATSIM and our partnership video spread awareness of our community to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of potential new users. So yes, we are seeing an influx of newer members and yes they are going to make mistakes. Some will not continue on with VATSIM and those that do will become seasoned pilots, some may get the ATC bug and start controlling, and overall we will be a better network because of this influx. 

So to bring this full circle. We are focused on member retention AND member recruitment. We are also focused on being an educational and realistic simulation of  procedures followed by real world pilots and air traffic controllers. So we would strive to educate and encourage people who use /t because it’s more comfortable to one day fly /V. That /t pilot could one day be a fellow Air Traffic Controller on the network; or better yet pursue a career within aviation because of the positive experiences he gained as a VATSIM member. However to simply banish this user from using /t or chastise him for doing so when he’s not yet comfortable using voice could backfire and cause this member to never connect again. Is this what we’re really advocating for?

[Nicholas Camperos]

I have gone ahead and made a summary of some notable points throughout this thread so far. Please keep in mind, everything below is linked with my own interpretation of what I read and may not directly represent who said it, therefore I won't be mentioning the names of each person who said it.

The original intent of this thread was to abandon /t/ with the exception of those who are unable to hear/disabled. The reasons for that include the fact that everyone has an audio device, it ruins immersion, and it increases workload (by a lot.)

The point was also made that many pilots cherry pick when they want to use /t/ and when not. Many pilots will say in their remarks "I need to step away but I will stay on text, I will use text for clearance but voice for the rest, Text only during cruise." In my opinion this type of behavior should probably be against the rules. It is very centered around the convenience of the pilot while leaving the controllers to have to deal with confusion and changing tags a million times throughout a  session. 

It was then emphasized that completely getting rid of /t/ would be a difficult task for many different reasons. Someone suggested in stead of discouraging /t/ or doing anything regarding /t/, an education campaign should be started to teach pilots how to use the network and be more confident via voice. This is likely to be very ineffective mainly because many tutorials on the internet already exist for VATSIM, and a user or more felt like it wouldn't really achieve much outcome. It was also suggested the network began with this education campaign and then depending on the results moved forward with further restrictions afterwards. 

Ideas for campaigning also included adding a prompt to flight plan filers such as the pre-file screen or vPilot. When a user selects /t/, they are given a message saying the purpose of /t/ and that it is encouraged to use /r/ or /v/ unless you are unable to.

One suggestion was to have an option that could be set within a users profile (and when they sign up to VATSIM) that is similar to a terms of service agreement checkbox. 

[] - I am unable to use /r or /v communications on VATSIM. Click here to learn more about the different types of communication modes.

If the user checks this, or checks it in their VATSIM profile (they can uncheck it or recheck it whenever they want,) their account is now allowed to use /t/ communications on the VATSIM network. 

One user had the idea that people who logon with /t/ and did not have that option checked, would be flagged and messaged by a supervisor, just how controllers are messaged by sups telling them to lower their visibility ranges.

I suggested that if a user does not have the tag received by checking the box in their account, when they select /t/, they will be told they cannot use /t/ unless they are unable to use /r/ or /v/. if you are unable to use /r/ or /v/, you can click here (insert link here) to change your VATSIM account settings and allow you to use /t/. It does not have to be word by word, and could be improved, but you get the idea.

Ultimately these are all the main points I was able to extract from the thread. Keep in mind, as it has been asked many times, no medical papers would be required. Users will just be encouraged to use /r/ and /v/ by being told "you need to be unable to use /r/ and /v/ to use /t/." If they really really want to use /t/ for whatever reason, which I suppose is non of my business, they can tick the option and their account is eligible. If they wish to abuse this system for their own convenience, then so be it, we will have to respect what they believe is a proper reason to not use /r/ and /v/, elsewise, most others will simply say "oh okay," and use /r/ or /v/ instead.


Edit: In regards to the post above, I suppose the word "abuse" in my paragraph above can be changed, and it can be made a bit more less negative to indicate that pilots can chose whether or not they are capable of using /r/ and /v/ for whatever reason. Regardless, by having this filter lots of work could be done to help A: encourage pilots to step right in with /r/ or /v/, or B: still allow those who deem it necessary for  A B C and D reasons to use /t/. 

Edited February 7, 2021 at 02:43 PM by Nicholas Camperos
Respond to post above

[Samuel Rey]

Nicholas, I see you're pushing for this "checkbox" option and while I understand the idea I think it isn't a good solution. The reason is that people might want to switch from /v to /t semi-frequently (e.g a flight while others in the house are sleeping). You've addressed this in the last post, saying that they could check the box when needed. 

However, if that's the case, what's the difference from filing /t? If you think you need /t, you file /t. IMO, with the checkbox, all that changes is that you now check the box and then file /t. I think there is no need to restrict /t at all. I think any cases where a pilot determines they need /t is a good use for /t, so having /t restricted (by for example getting a SUP message if they have used it without the checkbox ticked) wouldn't feel well-intentioned towards the user; as it would, in my opinion, go against their own judgement of why they used /t. 

Finally, you've pointed out a potential problem with one of my posts:

1 hour ago, Nicholas Camperos said:

It was then emphasized that completely getting rid of /t/ would be a difficult task for many different reasons. Someone suggested in stead of discouraging /t/ or doing anything regarding /t/, an education campaign should be started to teach pilots how to use the network and be more confident via voice. This is likely to be very ineffective mainly because many tutorials on the internet already exist for VATSIM, and a user or more felt like it wouldn't really achieve much outcome. It was also suggested the network began with this education campaign and then depending on the results moved forward with further restrictions afterwards. 

I think this is a fair point, however, I consider that steps taken by VATSIM can have a much larger effect on pilots' behaviour than those taken by other users. Perhaps something interesting to look at is the reasons why text pilots use /t; maybe by means of a survey. It seems to me that most text pilots might just feel like they don't have enough knowledge to use voice well. Removing or restricting their ability to use text, in my opinion, while it would force them to take the step into /v, it would also make them feel unwelcome or as if what they want to do is wrong. That's why I think it's better to encourage and promote, not force, voice.

[Nicholas Camperos]

1 hour ago, Samuel Rey said:

Nicholas, I see you're pushing for this "checkbox" option and while I understand the idea I think it isn't a good solution. The reason is that people might want to switch from /v to /t semi-frequently (e.g a flight while others in the house are sleeping). You've addressed this in the last post, saying that they could check the box when needed. 

However, if that's the case, what's the difference from filing /t? If you think you need /t, you file /t. IMO, with the checkbox, all that changes is that you now check the box and then file /t. I think there is no need to restrict /t at all. I think any cases where a pilot determines they need /t is a good use for /t, so having /t restricted (by for example getting a SUP message if they have used it without the checkbox ticked) wouldn't feel well-intentioned towards the user; as it would, in my opinion, go against their own judgement of why they used /t. 

Finally, you've pointed out a potential problem with one of my posts:

I think this is a fair point, however, I consider that steps taken by VATSIM can have a much larger effect on pilots' behaviour than those taken by other users. Perhaps something interesting to look at is the reasons why text pilots use /t; maybe by means of a survey. It seems to me that most text pilots might just feel like they don't have enough knowledge to use voice well. Removing or restricting their ability to use text, in my opinion, while it would force them to take the step into /v, it would also make them feel unwelcome or as if what they want to do is wrong. That's why I think it's better to encourage and promote, not force, voice.

At the end of the day I don't really see /t/ being restricted simply due to the fact that my idea of a solution will benefit me and other controllers, while then negatively affecting some pilots in the ways described. My view towards this will be biased, because I will always chose and support the option that will work most efficiently towards my best interest. Luckily, I am not blind, and I acknowledge that there must be compromise. In my ideal world I would keep pushing for the checkbox method, but unless we ended up creating a révolution of controllers (/s), I don't think I would have the effort/cause to keep pushing for it as for now.

So far the idea that has best caught my liking in terms of possibility of occurring and results was the one suggested by you and Ross. A message or prompt that shows next to or when a user selects /t/ in a prefile page or a pilot client stating that it is encouraged to use /r/ or /v/ when able, seems to be the best in terms of doing the trick as for now.

I really agree in regards to a survey. Maybe even two surveys. One for people with controller ratings, and one for pilots. The survey would ideally ask users on their opinions on restricting /t/ usage on the network. Or maybe just things like "how often do you use text-only" and "why do you use text-only on the network" and have a couple of options like "I am new to the network" or "To not make noise" or "I am unable to." or "other!." 

Then if there is to be a push of education efforts, it can be targeted as to what in specific is causing people (with the exclusion of those who have no other choice,) to use /t/ on the network. I for one have a small theory that a lot of pilots might not even know what receive only means. Maybe there can be dialog boxes showing what each option means next to them, if you get the idea.

What is everyone's thoughts on this?

Edited February 7, 2021 at 06:24 PM by Nicholas Camperos
Did not realize Sam literally said about the survey and then I said it again lol

[Andreas Fuchs]

I am with Sam, I think he explained it very well.

[Alistair Thomson]

I'm really not sure about the value of a survey. The results would probably show a huge majority in favour of using /v and a much smaller minority wanting to use /t. If you ask reasons for their decision, you need to do that in multiple choice format otherwise some group of members will need to read and collate all the reasons offered, and you won't be able to cover all the possibilities, which is one of the reasons I'm against surveys: they tend to guide or even strait-jacket respondents too much, in an effort to avoid free-form text responses.

But then, what? You will have reasons why folks use /t and you'll believe that some of these reasons are good and some are bad. And we already know that.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

5 hours ago, Nicholas Camperos said:

Many pilots will say in their remarks "I need to step away but I will stay on text  [...] In my opinion this type of behavior should probably be against the rules. It is very centered around the convenience of the pilot while leaving the controllers to have to deal with confusion and changing tags a million times throughout a  session.

Umm, I hate to cut in here but I completely disagree on this one in particular.  And just to provide context -- I've been around the network for about 10 years as a pilot and 2.5 as a controller (albeit only at the local level).  My point in saying this is not that my opinion should count any more than anyone else's, but, that it's been formed with some understanding of how things work (and sometimes don't work) here, and not as a johnny-come-lately.

If I'm in the middle of flying with ATC and I get an emergency work call that needs 2-3 minutes of my attention to answer an urgent question or make an urgent judgment call on an unusual situation, and I can't get a word in edgewise to the Center or Approach controller, I'm gonna grab the call and pop a quick message over frequency by text such as "gotta take a call, brb, avail by text if needed."  That way if I'm given a handoff or a vector for traffic or a hold or some urgent time-sensitive instruction I can still perform it and not screw up the flow.  Then when the work call is done I'll just type "back on voice, thx" and everything returns to normal.

If the controller is too busy and doesn't see my messages, but doesn't need to do anything with me for that short space of time, then no-harm and no-foul as all I've done in the meantime is fly along my assigned path just as I would've anyway.  Worst-case is that I'm given some instruction by voice while on the call.  There's a 50/50 chance I'll hear it, perform the action, then do the readback by text (effectively /r), but if not, it's not really any different than any other time a pilot (even a /v one) misses an instruction from ATC and has to be told twice.  Annoying, yes, but certainly not worth a .wallop in my opinion.  And the situation is rare enough and fleeting enough that only the most intensely OCD controllers should feel the need to edit my tag to /t and back again for just that brief amount of time.

What's the alternative -- I disconnect from VATSIM during the call, and then re-connect when the call is over?  Wouldn't trying to re-connect during an event be way more disruptive than needing one or two instructions by text and/or missing one call from ATC?  Or should a 2-3 minute call mean I just have to terminate my flight altogether?

Fortunately for most controllers I have the good judgment not to let this situation play out during an FNO when I'm being given that handoff to Finals and the turn onto the localizer.  I realize not every VATSIM member has the faculties to make that judgment call.  But don't take something away from everyone because a few people abuse it, please.  Address the few.

[Nicholas Camperos]

1 hour ago, Robert Shearman Jr said:

Umm, I hate to cut in here but I completely disagree on this one in particular.  And just to provide context -- I've been around the network for about 10 years as a pilot and 2.5 as a controller (albeit only at the local level).  My point in saying this is not that my opinion should count any more than anyone else's, but, that it's been formed with some understanding of how things work (and sometimes don't work) here, and not as a johnny-come-lately.

If I'm in the middle of flying with ATC and I get an emergency work call that needs 2-3 minutes of my attention to answer an urgent question or make an urgent judgment call on an unusual situation, and I can't get a word in edgewise to the Center or Approach controller, I'm gonna grab the call and pop a quick message over frequency by text such as "gotta take a call, brb, avail by text if needed."  That way if I'm given a handoff or a vector for traffic or a hold or some urgent time-sensitive instruction I can still perform it and not screw up the flow.  Then when the work call is done I'll just type "back on voice, thx" and everything returns to normal.

If the controller is too busy and doesn't see my messages, but doesn't need to do anything with me for that short space of time, then no-harm and no-foul as all I've done in the meantime is fly along my assigned path just as I would've anyway.  Worst-case is that I'm given some instruction by voice while on the call.  There's a 50/50 chance I'll hear it, perform the action, then do the readback by text (effectively /r), but if not, it's not really any different than any other time a pilot (even a /v one) misses an instruction from ATC and has to be told twice.  Annoying, yes, but certainly not worth a .wallop in my opinion.  And the situation is rare enough and fleeting enough that only the most intensely OCD controllers should feel the need to edit my tag to /t and back again for just that brief amount of time.

What's the alternative -- I disconnect from VATSIM during the call, and then re-connect when the call is over?  Wouldn't trying to re-connect during an event be way more disruptive than needing one or two instructions by text and/or missing one call from ATC?  Or should a 2-3 minute call mean I just have to terminate my flight altogether?

Fortunately for most controllers I have the good judgment not to let this situation play out during an FNO when I'm being given that handoff to Finals and the turn onto the localizer.  I realize not every VATSIM member has the faculties to make that judgment call.  But don't take something away from everyone because a few people abuse it, please.  Address the few.

Saying you will temporarily be on text isn't a problem. The text frequency will always remain for emergencies. This is more aimed towards those who say they want to do clearance through text and taxi through voice, or who state they will do the entire cruise through text. If you get an emergency call in the middle of a flight chances are you did not include in your remarks when you filed your flight plan you would be gone. I must have mis-worded my point but it was more towards those who pre-plan to do a part of a flight via text because they feel like it.

Apologies if I made it sound like you had to prioritize a VATSIM flight over anything else. I step away all the time to do the dishes or go to the bathroom, I was more directed as to those who chose to do a clearance through text and then switch to voice a problem. Both for the efficiency of a pilot having to check a pilots remark to figure out why they aren't responding to him, and because its sort of silly. 

Edited February 7, 2021 at 10:02 PM by Nicholas Camperos

[Nicholas Camperos]

2 hours ago, Alistair Thomson said:

I'm really not sure about the value of a survey. The results would probably show a huge majority in favour of using /v and a much smaller minority wanting to use /t. If you ask reasons for their decision, you need to do that in multiple choice format otherwise some group of members will need to read and collate all the reasons offered, and you won't be able to cover all the possibilities, which is one of the reasons I'm against surveys: they tend to guide or even strait-jacket respondents too much, in an effort to avoid free-form text responses.

But then, what? You will have reasons why folks use /t and you'll believe that some of these reasons are good and some are bad. And we already know that.

The survey is intended figure out what the main reasons are for people wanting to use /t/. Those who state they do not use /t/'s responses are pointless and should not be included in the results of the data that will be analyzed. That way VATSIM can better focus on education and encouragement of better issues. it would be multiple choice/check all that apply. There will probably be options like "I use text only because:"

- I have a disability (or whatever the nicest/most respectful way to say this in a survey would be. That is up to whoever makes it)
- I have trouble understanding what the controllers say because the audio sounds bad
- I am worried I will not know how to respond via voice
- I do not have an audio device
- I am nervous on frequency

 

[Joshua Jenkins]

9 hours ago, Alistair Thomson said:

you need to do that in multiple choice format otherwise some group of members will need to read and collate all the reasons offered,

Don’t really see this as a problem or reason to not ask for short answers on a survey like this. I for one would gladly help collate all the responses if needed and I’m sure others would too.

[Nicholas Camperos]

Same. Which ever way it is done so long a result/understanding of data can be found its good. if anything, short responses may actually be better. That way people don't randomly choose options, but either have to actually write a response (which can be grouped with others in category for data) or not take the survey at all, cleaning the results to be accurate. 

[Burak Bugday]

Some people forget that ATC's are a part of this hobby and they are trying to enjoy their time online just like vpilot does. They think that the atc's duty is to serve them. 

This is unfortunatly something that I am coming across quite alot lately. They try to obtain clearance for example and they harras on you on the frequency every minute until they get a reply with no respect to the amount of traffic that you might have. They also usually complain about the atc's delay in replying to them. 

There is also some people that fly /T just so that they can chat with friends on discord or teamspeak without the need to listen to atc. I received this reply from a pilot whom transmitted on my freq a few times by mistake. Obviously he has a mic and it is working so there is no technical issue. 

He replied just like this " Why should I worry about listening and understanding the atc. You have to serve me either way" 

When will they realise that vatco's are persuing a hobby just like vpilots are ? 

[Dace Nicmane]

1 hour ago, Burak Bugday said:

" Why should I worry about listening and understanding the atc. You have to serve me either way" 

I can't believe people can be this rude!!! 

[Andreas Fuchs]

An easy case for the Supervisor department.

[Dace Nicmane]

20 minutes ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

An easy case for the Supervisor department.

Only if it was written.