Guard Freqency

[Anthony Baker]

Don't yell at me to do a search on the vatsim fourms i know this has been discussed already

ok so last night I was flying and was on unicom (fsinn) so i asked if anyone was on freq (voice) and then "VATUSA RESCUE COMMAND CENTER" CAME IN"Who was obviously broadcasting on guard AND UNICOM

now now I have a simple point:
 
VATSIM=MAIN COMPANY
VATUSA=FRANCHISE

HENCE VATSIM < VATUSA

SO y does VATUSA BAN the use of 121.5 (GUARD FREQ) when it would be nice to have a voulunteer VRCC(VATUSA RESCUE COMMAND CENTER) and yada yada

so back on topic who was "VRCC" and why were they on it when it is against [size=]VATUSA RULES[size=] BUT NOT VATSIM RULES[/size][/u][/size]

[Brad Littlejohn]

I stated this in the main VATSIM forums, and you were part of that very thread which I posted this, so here we have it again:

http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=3...&highlight=

which I replied:

You're thinking too small.

In our case, VATSIM is to ICAO as VATUSA is to the FAA. If the ICAO handles things on a much more global level, the FAA handles things as far as the USA is concerned. VATUSA would be the equivalent of the FAA, as they only have jurisdiction over the United States and its outlying territories. Everywhere else would have its jurisdiction as well, but they have opted to not have any rule that supplements the global VATSIM rule.

So think of it like so:

VATUSA = FAA.
VATCAN = CAA.
VATUK = BAA.
VATEUR = Eurocontrol.
VATSIM = ICAO.

So on and so forth down the line. Does the FAA follow every single thing that the ICAO says to follow, even though other countries do? No, because the FAA has authority over its airspace.

Honestly, like I said, you're making this out to be way too much than it already is, and we've explained that to you a number of times in this thread.

That is why VATUSA can ban using Guard. They ban it within their airspace. VATSIM gives authority to their respective divisions for the airspace they control In this case, VATNA has divied up North America into 3 different regions: VATCAN, VATMEX, and VATUSA. VATUSA (our FAA) has decided to ban the use of Guard in its airspace.

You want to use Guard? Great. Do it outside US Airspace. just don't get upset if you get a SUP or higher down on you for using it and causing every pilot and controller logged in to see your message(s), regardless of where they are at.

BL.

[Brad Littlejohn]

Just as a quick followup. Here's a thread that made the AOPA's front page in July about what happened when someone uses the Guard frequency the right way:

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/phpB...opic.php?t=2642

Airline pilots along J32 heard this, a local pilot in Grass Valley, CA heard this, and after the initial call was made, pilots in Washington State and Canada heard the call. This is what Guard is for, and how Guard is used. Whether you want to hear it or not, everyone gets the transmission over 121.5, whether they want it or not. In this case, it happened to have saved a man's life. Here, luckily, we have the luxury of that no-one dies, so Guard really doesn't need to be used for anything in our airspace that can't be done by declaring an emergency on frequency, and if that emergency can't be resolved, logging off or resetting to a point in time before the emergency (no, not realistic, but neither is someone down at FMEE getting your transmission while you're having a problem over CYLT).

BL.

[Gary Millsaps]

Anthony,

As mentioned, the threads in the VATSIM forum have covered this topic ad nauseum...there is no need to rehash it all here.

There have been (and may still be) virtual SAR operations on VATSIM - including within VATUSA airspace. To my knowledge, they have all held successful operations of one type or another and enjoyed the network without the necessity of using 121.5 or any other Emergency/Guard channel.

STOP trying to promote this as a "VATUSA is usurping VATSIM authority" discussion. If such was the case and the BoG had issue with the VATUSA regulation prohibiting the use of said channels, do you not think they would have: 1) refused the original implementation; or 2) demanded its removal (even now)? As none of these have occurred, things shall stay as they are as this best serves the community as a whole. Learn to live with it or move on.

By the way, posting in over-sized fonts does not engender greater sympathy - rather it comes across as a piteous cry for attention. Think about it...

[Anthony Baker]

gary that post explains it all

thx