News and Forum Instructions
By Ivan Duris 1047663
#538392 Hello,

if I can little bit put some experience, it will be important for pilots that don't have AFV set inside FPL message about not use this because most pilots use UNICOM voice and not AFV pilots answer basically also no with text. Maybe they are not experienced with voice but I had some collisions many times and is enough write inside FPL not use of AFV and use text transmissions.

OM-ICO
By Michael McClelland 810907
#538516 I've been using AFV's controller client for VRC since it was released. EXCELLENT! Voice clarity is so much better and no lag time. Really love all the features that it brings to the simulation.

My only feedback is this.. when I am working APP, I like to set up multiple frequencies to better simulate radio procedures from DEL to GND to TWR to DEP. Several times I have asked a pilot to "contact ground 121.70" and get the response, "I don't see that controller online." Some pilots comply without question, but the majority freak out because they don't see the frequency listed in the "Who's Online" window. It would be terrific is the pilot clients could display the list of frequencies that are within range and are opened by the controller. I realize there will be a steep learning curve here, but if the goal is to better simulate ATC and the use of a multitude of radio frequencies, then it may be helpful if the pilots could see which frequencies are within their range. Perhaps in one of the updates planned for down-the-road this could be included.
By Dhruv Kalra 878508
#538518
Michael McClelland 810907 wrote:I've been using AFV's controller client for VRC since it was released. EXCELLENT! Voice clarity is so much better and no lag time. Really love all the features that it brings to the simulation.

My only feedback is this.. when I am working APP, I like to set up multiple frequencies to better simulate radio procedures from DEL to GND to TWR to DEP. Several times I have asked a pilot to "contact ground 121.70" and get the response, "I don't see that controller online." Some pilots comply without question, but the majority freak out because they don't see the frequency listed in the "Who's Online" window. It would be terrific is the pilot clients could display the list of frequencies that are within range and are opened by the controller. I realize there will be a steep learning curve here, but if the goal is to better simulate ATC and the use of a multitude of radio frequencies, then it may be helpful if the pilots could see which frequencies are within their range. Perhaps in one of the updates planned for down-the-road this could be included.


Don’t use multiple frequencies yet. All the AFV guidance has advised against that practice.
By James Hiscoe 1260816
#538646
Michael McClelland 810907 wrote:My only feedback is this.. when I am working APP, I like to set up multiple frequencies to better simulate radio procedures from DEL to GND to TWR to DEP. Several times I have asked a pilot to "contact ground 121.70" and get the response, "I don't see that controller online." Some pilots comply without question, but the majority freak out because they don't see the frequency listed in the "Who's Online" window.


While its been pointed out that current guidelines say not to do this even if you were to I think the phraseology is ambiguous because this isn't Pilot Edge. Typically Vatsim controllers identify as the one position they're on even if working top down. I would more readily use, at least in FAA terms, the phraseology "change to my frequency" if trying to simulate multiple position frequencies as it makes it clear you're still the same person even if you've broken the freqs up. This is what I would say if I were breaking my enroute airspace up into multiple freqs as it is in reality. For multiple positions you could still identify on that frequency as the appropriate position. I know I often say departure to departures and approach to arrivals even if controlling a single freq as APP.

However I don't see much advantage to separating frequencies this way. In fact I think a lot of people would prefer to have one frequency with more traffic on it. Lots of pilots I've found complain about the lack of cross coupling on my enroute freq as they find it unnerving to not hear the pilots I'm talking to. Of course that is doubled down when you're multi transmitting on 5 different freqs. With multiple divided frequencies you're also dealing with a greater chance of multiple simultaneous transmissions so its less efficient.
By Oliver Gruetzmann 961224
#538692
James Hiscoe 1260816 wrote:However I don't see much advantage to separating frequencies this way. In fact I think a lot of people would prefer to have one frequency with more traffic on it. Lots of pilots I've found complain about the lack of cross coupling on my enroute freq as they find it unnerving to not hear the pilots I'm talking to. Of course that is doubled down when you're multi transmitting on 5 different freqs. With multiple divided frequencies you're also dealing with a greater chance of multiple simultaneous transmissions so its less efficient.


I've had a good example of how to use it. We were staffing EDDM before our online day started and had quite some traffic. I was working tower with only DEL below me, so I activated the Apron frequencies and asked DEL to send the pilots there.
I had cross coupling active, of course.

When the apron controller came online, it was a single click on my side and all aircraft he needed talking to were with him, no cascade of "contact apron" calls.