Kosovo Airspace

[Dave Bedford 1086246]

Hi,

 

Just a quick question regarding flying over Kosovo airspace on VATSIM.

 

The VATSIM letter of agreement re Kosovo states that when flying over Kosovo airspace ATC may offer a re-route to avoid flying over the area.

 

I am confused, as having a flight plan cleared then told to suddenly fly around this zone.

 

The letter of agreement states a pilot may be offered a re-route.

If a pilot wishes to continue a flight plan which has been cleared and flies over Kosovo, is he compelled to re-route around Kosovo if offered to do so by ATC?

 

Thanks!

Dave

Edited April 13, 2010 at 12:18 PM by Guest

[Ivan Kovacevic 920456]

Hello Dave,

Refusing to follow any ATC instructions without a valid reason is a violation of the VATSIM Code of Conduct. If you intentionally ignore ATC instructions, a Supervisor may forcibly disconnect you or even suspend you from the network.

[Dave Bedford 1086246]

Thanks Ivan. I am aware of that, but I want to know if it is compulsory to re-route around the area. The letter of agreement says pilots may be offered a re-route, it doesn't say if pilots must re-route.

 

Cheers!

Dave

[Ivan Kovacevic 920456]

The rule says pilots will be offered a re-route and the CoC says the pilots MUST follow all REASONABLE ATC instructions.

 

You connect the dots

 

The word "offered" was used because if a pilot is unable to direct his planes to the re-route waypoints, one will be given appropriate vectors to fly around the airspace, and re-join the original route.

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

The following statement appears on the subject virtual airspace rules page:

"Only traffic originating from or arriving to Pristina (LYPR / PRN) may enter airspace of Kosovo province. Other traffic, which is on enroute flight, should always avoid this province, except NATO flights, flying in Lower airspace."

 

If on the other hand the rule stated as the OP posted, I see it differently. "Offered" means pilot discretion and isn't an ATC instruction.

[Paul Byrne]

You're kidding me.

 

I thought politics had no place on VATSIM or is there a non-political reason for these rules?

 

Cheers!

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

someone needs to check up on these boys. politics have no room on vatsim.

 

Ivan, theres a difference between being offered a reroute and forcing someone to be rerouted. a pilot can refuse something thats offered to them, especially a reroute, WITHOUT braking the CoC. if the division wrote it that way but is actually forcing people to do this, the division would be the one in non compliance.

 

how that got approved is beyond me. certainly not inline with the rest of the network.

 

next thing you know the blockade around cuba will be active

[Ivan Kovacevic 920456]

a pilot can refuse something thats offered to them, especially a reroute

 

 

A pilot can say he is UNABLE to follow a specific route (in any airspace), he may not completely refuse to follow valid ATC instructions (again, in any airspace). Any pilot who he refuses to follow basic ATC instructions (be it a sequence of waypoints or vectors) to avoid closed airspace is in violation of CoC B(10) in my opinion.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

there is no closed airspace on VATSIM, thats the part that i would love to know how that got approved. thats like closing the airspace in iraq or afghanistan. the airspace should not be closed to begin with.

 

and no, a reroute is not a valid ATC instruction. a vector is, altitude changes are, a reroute is not.

 

reroutes on vatsim are by request, not forced upon. a pilot can deny a reroute if they dont want to accept it, for whatever reason they have. ATC will have to find another way.

 

which brings us back to the point, why is the airspace closed to begin with? there should be no closed borders online, theres no room for real world politics here.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Stop. We got it. Someone will be with you shortly.

[Frank Otero]

politics have no room on vatsim

 

Unfortunately, it is all about politics.

 

"Only traffic originating from or arriving to Pristina (LYPR / PRN) may enter airspace of Kosovo province. Other traffic, which is on enroute flight, should always avoid this province, except NATO flights, flying in Lower airspace."

 

Further, even if you are flying out of Pristina and follow the stipulated departure/arrival procedure (a waste of time and fuel as you have to go south to Macedonia and then around Kosovo to enter Serbian airspace, or when arriving all the way down to Macedonia and then north into Kosovo), you will not be allowed to fly through Serbia unless your flight plan has the old Pristina identifier LYPR. If you use the current BKPR, Serbian controllers routinely claim they do not “recognize” BKPR and will not allow you entrance into their airspace unless you change it back to LYPR. According to them, this is also part of the agreement with VATSIM.

 

I have been through this circus and do not mind the wasteful departure/arrival (south through Macedonia) – real world flights do the same. However, I will not change the BKPR to LYPR on my flight plan just to be “honored” with the authorization to enter an airspace, especially when the BKPR identifier is ICAO approved – try putting LYPR in your GPS or getting the Wx.

 

The last two times I had to fly through that airspace out of Pristina (to Vienna) I either flew around it via Bulgaria or disconnected while through Serbian airspace.

 

I must add, that these controllers have never been rude and are actually very good controllers, so it is not their attitude….it is just the politics. Welcome to the Balkans!!!

[James O Grady 904153]

I don't see how the quoted procedure above could be considered bringing politics into VATSIM, given its the procedure in real life, and is no different to procedures simulated on here for other airspaces.

 

But Frank the carry-on you just mentioned by Serbian controllers should not be allowed on VATSIM. While I can see where the Serbs are coming from, they have no right to refuse a fellow VATSIM member permission to enter their airspace just because they refuse to recognise the independence of Kosova, which was their own making anyway.

 

Whats next, are we gonna let the Turkish refuse flights from Cyprus because they don't recognise it?

[Frank Otero]

I don't see how the quoted procedure above could be considered bringing politics into VATSIM, given its the procedure in real life, and is no different to procedures simulated on here for other airspaces.

 

Because the only reason this RW procedure was created and remains in effect in RW is politics. But as you said, since it is still flown as such in real life, I, and many others, abide by the procedure and, as in real life, waste time and fuel doing it.

 

I am not well versed on the situation with US and Cuba beyond the fact that US citizens cannot go there. But wonder if, in RW, I would get my flight plan approved from Miami ATC to fly to Cuba in a privately owned, US registered aircraft. Regardless of the answer to that, I know I can do it in VATSIM without complaint from the controllers on either side.

 

The LYPR vs BKPR is a VATSIM issue, not RW, and certainly politically motivated.

[Kyprianos Biris]

First of all let me submit some background to Kosovo airspace & Pristina airport.

 

Europe Division VATEUD LoA on Kosovo published summer 2008

LoA is at para. 15 of:

http://vateud.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=4

A mix of real and virtual procedures, a compromise for our virtual environment in VATSIM.

 

SCGvACC briefing

http://www.scgvacc.net/?go=fir

It indicates which part of Kosovo airspace only NATO flights use with the two corridors and how Pristina airport BKPR (ex LYPR) is departed or arrived only from South in accordance with real procedures by avoiding the Air Safety Zone (ASZ) and LYBA FIR.

 

Here's also a post from SCGvACC director in 2005 on the subject.

viewtopic.php?t=4307

 

Excerpt from the current Jeppesen en route chart indicating the ASZ (the green one) still in force north of Kosovo.

 

 

From official real NOTAMs for LYBA FIR flights from/to Pristina

A0699/04 - ONLY LYPR ICAO FOUR LETTER LOCATION INDICATOR FOR PRISTINA, SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO,

SHALL BE ACCEPTED IN THE FLIGHT PLAN. USING CODE BKPR CANCELS ANY PRIOR PERMISSION

TO ENTER BEOGRAD FIR. 08 OCT 08:15 2004 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 08 OCT 08:17 2004

 

 

NATO official briefing to pilots

http://www.caoc5.nato.int/ --> SPINS -> Download the instructions docomeent SPINS.

It has all the details as to the operation of Kosovo upper & lower airspace as well as Pristina & Dakovica airports.

 

So to summarize :

 

In REAL:

1. The Kosovo ASZ still forbids any CIV traffic transiting the area.

2. ATC of Belgrade LYBA FIR has no control over that area - but NATO has - and no traffic flies between Kosovo & LYBA FIRs

3. CIV overflights go around the whole FIR and BKPR airport traffic routes via south only. CIV traffic is forbidden to cross the ASZ

 

In VATSIM :

1. VATSIM controllers will "offer a reroute" if they spot overflights heading for there.

 

2. For flights with DEP/DEST code BKPR FPLs, ATC is not provided by LYBA if they fly through their airspace and a reroute is suggested.

For LYPR FPLs they may serve them up to the border with the Kosovo ASZ and then hand off to any Pristina airport ATC if available.

 

3. If traffic uses BKPR code the LYBA ATC (northeast) will not handle them if they fly through their airspace ignoring a reroute request. If traffic uses LYPR then LYBA ATC may serve them. Overflights DO CROSS the ASZ but a reroute is offered if possible in a timely manner.

 

These compromises are logical for VATSIM and they create no frictions as long as pilots & ATC do not want to provoke.

 

1. The airspace, which in real life is still closed to anything but NATO traffic, per VATSIM network is a Political Sensitive Area (PSA), it is not closed but to avoid frictions comments and political discussions, when pilots

A) are able to and

B) informed about it in advance

are encouraged to adhere to VATEUD LoA for Kosovo and SCGvACC briefing for the area.

 

The VATSIM procedures for the area are a compromise between Real & Virtual like done for other PSA's (e.g. Cyprus, James check VATEUD policy on this one too)

 

2. Indeed a pilot can say "unable to comply" like in any other phases of a flight and requests from ATC. In that area for such a case in real you may get intercepted and/or shot down. In our network this is not the case ! and in the spirit of VATSIM everyone is encouraged to conform with the procedures set forth since in real indeed A) this airspace in not allowed to CIV transit overflights and B) all Pristina airport departure & arrival routes go via south.

 

This is all about aviation simulation and not political statements and bringing politics in to vatsim. Still someone unable to conform is not subject to CoC non adherence disciplinary procedures but should be aware that not conforming to the set forth local procedures and LoA is like any other instance of not simulating real aviation in VATSIM network. This happening especially in a PSA can be interpreted as a political statement from the pilot's side (same as it is for Air Traffic Controllers) something we all wish to avoid in this network/hobby. If someone repeatedly and in his/her knowledge of the procedures does not conform to the Kosovo LoA then it can be interpreted as provocative action in VATSIM and in this case only common sense can initiate disciplinary action following non adherence to CoC..

 

The problem vatsim has with PSA's is that once you make a statement (via policy or whatever) there will always be someone on the opposite side demanding the opposite.

So at that point when you deny to go by the other side's demands you do make a political statement actually.

So in such cases you have to instruct something that makes the least of harm by balancing the odds between both sides by using common sense. So this is not bringing politics in to vatsim but actually keeping away politics from vatsim as much as practically possible. Some sour things do happen in real world and we cannot pretend we do not know about them. Experience has shown that some minority users of this network will always bring them in and when vatsim does not take a stance on the issue immediately the situation gets polarized towards one direction as if vatsim supports one of the two sides.

 

I hope this clears out some gray areas to those who wondered and explains why some things cannot be ignored in VATSIM.

 

Please use common sense in this PSA issue like all the others in existence and lets enjoy this wonderful hobby without bringing the real world's problems in it

[Mirza Ibrahimovic]

Kyprianos thanks for the long explanation, just to be sure, so I do not violate any CoC, LoA etc.:

 

If I fly e.g. from LQSA to BKPR (as being the active ICAO code, also used at Routefinder) and LYBA_CTR is online, can I use routing as advised by Routefinder, being:

LQSA SID KUTAK L604 RETRA Y400 MAVAR P92 SKJ G18 XAXAN STAR BKPR ?

(Sarajevo-Montenegro-Macedonia-Kosovo)

 

Or do I have to fly a rerouting from KUTAK/before entering Serbia-Montenegro like right of course, paralell with Serbia-Montenegro, over Croatia and the Adriatic sea to Italy, left backt to Albania, Macedonia and into Kosovo, about double distance? And if not doing so, I violate CoC, LoA etc., because, I use the actual, realistic ICAO code for Pristina, which is on all worldwide charts and docomeents, but not Serbian, being BKPR!?

[Fatmir Jusufi 1001462]

LQSA SID KUTAK L604 RETRA Y400 MAVAR P92 SKJ G18 XAXAN STAR BKPR ?

(Sarajevo-Montenegro-Macedonia-Kosovo)

 

Mirza,

 

That is exactly the correct route that airlines flies to BKPR in real life. Basically, airlines coming from Europe fly until RETRA then enter Albanian Airspace, Macedonia and finally BKPR.

 

Let me share you a photo regarding this. Still looking for that photo.

 

Regards,

Fatmir

[Fatmir Jusufi 1001462]

Here you go.

 

Clearly showing the route of AUA 778 ready to depart BKPR to LOWW. Photo by Kushtrim, a friend of mine.

 

[Frank Otero]

Kyprianos,

 

I have no problem flying as depicted on your explanation and once I was educated my flight plans were modified to meet the standard. My problem is not with the procedure.

 

I have been on the ramp at Pristina airport and got a PM from LYBA controller (who has no jurisdiction on that airspace as explained by your remarks) warning me that if I used BKPR identifier for Pristina I would not be allowed to fly through his airspace – unless I changed it to LYPR, which was the only one they recognized. To be clear, my flight plan followed the prescribed procedure – south to Macedonia, then east to clear Kosovo airspace before entering Serbian airspace... and I would have been allowed to fly through that airspace if LYPR was used. So it was not a matter of NATO procedures.

 

I see that the NATO docomeent and Jepssen chart you provided use BKPR for Pristina.

 

Please refer me to the policy that renders BKPR airport identifier useless.

[Mirza Ibrahimovic]

Fatmir, thanks, tell me do u know what does AUA use in the FPs to/from Pristina, LYPR or BKPR, since they fly this route? Display is one thing, but what is amended?

 

Frank, I think I seek for sort of same answer, dunno, getting more and more confused here...

[Ivan Kovacevic 920456]

@Mirza: They most likely use LYPR, since they have Podgorica VOR in their route which is within LYBA FIR. Also, the policy does not render any of the two ICAOs useless, since both are allowed to be used - but with limitations. The limitations are in place only for the reasons Kyprianos already stated; they are compromises that reduce possible friction between pilots flying out of Pristina and Serbia (and surrounding?) controllers. That's why it's designated a politically *sensitive* area - it's potential to cause sparks.

 

@Frank: It may have been a misunderstanding between you and the actual controller. As long as you understand the policy (read it in detail) and follow it as it is written, you can be sure you are safe from any trouble with regards to your online conduct.

[Mirza Ibrahimovic]

Thanks Ivan, so to answer my question, if I want to fly the stated route, I have to file in LYPR otherwise, I can plan a stop over Italy, if filed BKPR?

[Frank Otero]

The limitations are in place only for the reasons Kyprianos already stated; they are compromises that reduce possible friction between pilots flying out of Pristina and Serbia (and surrounding?) controllers. That's why it's designated a politically *sensitive* area - it's potential to cause sparks.

 

If the policy of Vatsim, even if proven different than the real world, is that I cannot fly through your airspace with an approved ICAO airport identifier on my flight plan, then I will not use it on the flight plan. I am a grateful guest of this network and will follow its rules regardless if I like them or not.

 

But please do not tell me that the BKPR “compromise” is there to prevent friction between members. If this was the true desired outcome, flight plans should be accepted with either (LYPR/BKPR) and there should be no need for a PM telling a pilot that unless you use one or the other you ain’t flying in here - especially when said pilot is following the prescribed real world procedures and is at an airport that your controller has no jurisdiction over.

 

 

If I read your post correctly and in detail, there was no miscommunication between your controller and I, he was obviously enforcing your prescribed policy and I understood him clearly.

 

And thanks for your concerns about my wellbeing with regards to my online conduct. But for a while now, and based on the built-in ambiguity of this policy, and especially your uncompromising controllers, I have been preventing any harm to my online status by simply avoiding your airspace.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

so are we still saying if a pilot refuses the reroute because they dont wish to simulate this airspace closure theyll be in CoC violation? we have atleast one sup saying that in this thread, so just so its out in the open. i know Kyp your post only sais "suggest" and "offered" however its been claimed to be mandatory in previous posts .

 

someone clear that up, im not into double talk. either its mandatory or suggested, cant be both

 

i know you say this doesnt introduce politics, but it actually introduces a whole heap of it

[Kyprianos Biris]

so are we still saying if a pilot refuses the reroute because they dont wish to simulate this airspace closure theyll be in CoC violation?

No, read again my & Ivan's last post carefully and rethink please before blowing forum threads out of proportion

[Kyprianos Biris]

Ernesto & Frank,

 

My post was long enough for you to understand who was in "misconduct" in the example(s) you used to portray as different vatsim policies per case.

 

You use the conduct of one controller which diverted from the above referred procedures to claim it was a vatsim different point of view to the subject.

You see , this is exactly what I meant, there will be always someone else with another interpretation of the things.

In your example the controller did not follow the above procedures. I hope it is evident by now.

 

Now(adays) you have some procedures to refer to and we can all discuss that the subject controller did not follow them.

How would you feel if that controller had done the same thing in absence of these procedures

Would you not come immediately to this forum again and ask "how can vatsim accept this ? how can politics be coming in to the hobby ?"

What would be the response you would like then and under which procedures would you expect someone to explain the controller he did not do the right thing