Kosovo Airspace

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

trust me im not blowing anything out of proportion im just makin sure what people say is what theyre doing, doesnt happen a lot in some places. see franks post of his situation. things have a habit of becoming more then whats its actually supposed to be after awhile.

 

the part in the post which im talking about is this part

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..

 

that leaves it pretty vague to what your saying. what if said person doesnt wish to simulate this closure, ever, and they fly in the area often?

 

trust me, i'd have no issue with this at all if it was simply by pilot participation. but those arent the words being used. one part sais no, the second part leaves it a little vague.

Edited April 16, 2010 at 03:29 PM by Guest

[Andreas Fuchs]

Now....wouldn't it be more straight forward to put sanctions into place against members who have a problem with people filing BKPR, and who make a fuss out of it. If there's friction between members because of the use of a certain ICAO-code and an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated routing, then those two should be punished instead of all the other members who would like to use VATSIM in good faith, believing in our statement "no politics". This is strictly my personal opinion and I know that quite a few persons will not agree.

 

For the moment it is like it is, we have to accept it. Maybe in a near future this procedure can be reviewed with all parties involved to get away from this childish conflict.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

i can understand that part. can happen anywhere. but that is why im not in favor of this policy, these things tend to evolve from something simple, into something different. this controller obviously took what it is written, and turned it into something else.

 

what kind of guarantee can we as members of this organization receive that this behavior doesnt spread or continue?

[Ivan Kovacevic 920456]

i can understand that part. can happen anywhere. but that is why im not in favor of this policy, these things tend to evolve from something simple, into something different. this controller obviously took what it is written, and turned it into something else.

 

what kind of guarantee can we as members of this organization receive that this behavior doesnt spread or continue?

 

 

Hypothetically speaking, are you also against the ban on 9/11 callsigns intentionally and knowingly being used online? Or simulating the actual attacks on VATSIM?

[Kyprianos Biris]

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?

 

Mizra both ICAO codes are valid so you can file what you wish and fly to Pristina whenever you like without stopping anywhere based of filed ICAO code.

All you should understand is that BKPR makes some people unhappy while LYPR makes others unhappy.

So read above what happens in real, what vatsim suggests and choose your selection

The same goes for controllers in the area.

 

Your route does not take you through the ASZ, so you are simulating the real procedure.

If now you happen to meet a controller en route who does not provide you ATC for the portion PERAN to RETRA on L604 ... well get over with it and enjoy your flight on 122,80.

That is all what this post is about

 

If there's friction between members because of the use of a certain ICAO-code and an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated routing, then those two should be punished instead of all the other members

 

There is no friction between two Andreas and there will always be 2,4 whatever.

The point is that once you are called up on making a judgment as to who's opinion will be considered "more valid" there will always be reference to the real procedures by one party.

This is where your case has no other option but to lean towards the real procedures even though NOT all real procedures can be simulated here and we all know this. That is why we choose compromises. You saw in the post above what is the actual route by AUA and the code used.

Who can beat this in an equal terms disagreement on VATSIM

Ohh BTW, welcome back

[Frank Otero]

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.

 

Kyprianos,

 

The controllers actions are clearly supported in the policy - no LYPR, no fly in Serbia. And then, in the same policy, you can conclude that he was perhaps wrong (first paragraph). I am not looking to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign "blame". I just feel that the BKPR vs LYPR game (even if found true in RW) has no place in VATSIM because it precipitates the frictions your are trying to prevent. A pilot should be able to use either, end of problem, no need for PM or "negotiations".

 

Flights in and out of Pristina Airport

· No member of VATSIM shall ever be restricted from flying to or from the Pristina airport, under any

circomestances other than those set forth in VATSIM Code of Conduct or Code of Regulations.

· Two recognized ICAO codes for Pristina are LYPR and BKPR, and both codes are deemed valid.

However, should a pilot chose to use the code BKPR as their departure or destination, he or she

will be under obligation to make all efforts to file and eventually fly the route that does not cross

Belgrade FIR airspace, under jurisdiction of the Belgrade Air Traffic Services Unit.

· Pilots that chose to file LYPR either as their departure or destination have no restrictions in terms of

their entry in Belgrade FIR airspace.

· Pilots flying in and out of Pristina will refrain from filing any Flight Plan remarks that are not relevant

to the flight.

· Pilots unable to construct their flight route around Belgrade FIR shall use only LYPR code as their

destination.

2.2 - Flights Through Kosovo

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

i can understand that part. can happen anywhere. but that is why im not in favor of this policy, these things tend to evolve from something simple, into something different. this controller obviously took what it is written, and turned it into something else.

 

what kind of guarantee can we as members of this organization receive that this behavior doesnt spread or continue?

 

 

Hypothetically speaking, are you also against the ban on 9/11 callsigns intentionally and knowingly being used online? Or simulating the actual attacks on VATSIM?

 

does that involve airspace closure?

 

if the NY ARTCC tried to close the airspace after the attacks, yes i'd be completely against that.

[Paul Byrne]

Now....wouldn't it be more straight forward to put sanctions into place against members who have a problem with people filing BKPR, and who make a fuss out of it. If there's friction between members because of the use of a certain ICAO-code and an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated routing, then those two should be punished instead of all the other members who would like to use VATSIM in good faith, believing in our statement "no politics".

+1

 

This is the one thing I don't get. What is the point in making pilots refile the ICAO when the controller can do it in 5 seconds? This is the where the onus lies in the policy (the pilot is "obliged" to file the correct routes for the ICAO used). If a pilot files BKPR instead of LYPR and has an incorrect routing for the ICAO used, why can't the controller just amend this himself and say nothing? I'd think this would cause far less fuss instead of the opposite; which can perceived as making a political point.

 

Cheers!

[Ivan Kovacevic 920456]

You're missing the point Ernesto, intentionally or by accident.

 

The point is: Conduct that is known to offend or otherwise bother other members should not be allowed on the network. Be it the 9/11 attacks or the Kosovo 'war'. Flying out of 'BKPR' through Serbian airspace, apart from being against real world procedures, is also known to offend/bother/provoke/insult people (as the policy informs).

 

I could not put it any simpler than that.

 

 

 

As for the airspace closure - the airways that pilots use when they fly through the ASZ are actually not available (as shown on the chart) on the levels people fly them. So, if the word 'closed airspace' bothers you that much, you can consider it an invalid route (which it is) since you'd be flying outside the vertical limits of the airway you're following.

 

EDIT: As you see on the chart, just by the letter 'N' of XAXAN, the airway STOPS. It doesn't go further. Which ever airspace you go through, an invalid route is a problem, and most likely, the controller will give you a route that IS valid (ie. following proper airways).

[Kyprianos Biris]

the part in the post which im talking about is this part

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..

 

that leaves it pretty vague to what your saying. what if said person doesnt wish to simulate this closure, ever, and they fly in the area often?

 

The same like a person flies in to Miami FL where you are from and repeatedly refuses to fly the way airliners fly in Miami.

If someone does this repeatedly day in day out after having been informed about the real procedure there would you not take it as some sort of statement ? Put the PSA issue in to it and think about it more objectively.

 

 

 

what kind of guarantee can we as members of this organization receive that this behavior doesnt spread or continue?

 

 

The fact that there is a PSA policy in place and members are recommended (but not obliged) to respect it.

 

 

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.

 

Kyprianos,

 

The controllers actions are clearly supported in the policy - no LYPR, no fly in Serbia. And then, in the same policy, you can conclude that he was perhaps wrong (first paragraph). I am not looking to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign "blame". I just feel that the BKPR vs LYPR game (even if found true in RW) has no place in VATSIM because it precipitates the frictions your are trying to prevent. A pilot should be able to use either, end of problem, no need for PM or "negotiations".

 

 

I agree, no PM's and negotiations, "unable to comply" and end of the story

If this happens day in day out by the same person even after being informed then check my statement in the beginning of this post (in here).

 

 

 

Now....wouldn't it be more straight forward to put sanctions into place against members who have a problem with people filing BKPR, and who make a fuss out of it. If there's friction between members because of the use of a certain ICAO-code and an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated routing, then those two should be punished instead of all the other members who would like to use VATSIM in good faith, believing in our statement "no politics".

+1

 

This is the one thing I don't get. What is the point in making pilots refile the ICAO when the controller can do it in 5 seconds? This is the where the onus lies in the policy (the pilot is "obliged" to file the correct routes for the ICAO used). If a pilot files BKPR instead of LYPR and has an incorrect routing for the ICAO used, why can't the controller just amend this himself and say nothing? I'd think this would cause far less fuss instead of the opposite; which can perceived as making a political point.

 

Cheers!

 

Nobody said the Pilot can not request the ATCO to do it for him but to be fair and square a pilot has to be in agreement before an ATCO amends his FPL.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

the part in the post which im talking about is this part

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..

 

that leaves it pretty vague to what your saying. what if said person doesnt wish to simulate this closure, ever, and they fly in the area often?

 

The same like a person flies in to Miami FL where you are from and repeatedly refuses to fly the way airliners fly in Miami.

If someone does this repeatedly day in day out after having been informed about the real procedure there would you not take it as some sort of statement ?

 

 

nope. and actually the few times we have tried online to implement TFR's and closures due to events, virtual military operations, etc.. guess what happened? denied guess what happened when we made those TFR's optional and a pilot decided they didnt want to follow it, ever? nada, zip, nothing. not enforceable

 

this is why it boggles my mind on how this one ever made it.

 

the PSA policy is already in place is it not? and we have people doing different from it. not much of a guarantee. yeah i know, its not easy having everyone follow a policy correctly, thats a big issue with this. theres no guarantee that it wont continue to happen

 

Ivan, my argument is about the closure of the airspace. i dont much care for the airport ICAO code. altho i cant wait for the baghdad FIR to develop and see what happens with that mess. what im talking about tho is the airspace, not the airport code. according to vatsim, airspace cant be closed, but we seem to be having something different going on here, whether the airway ends there doesnt matter, not a valid excuse IMO to close airspace or rather treating it as such.

 

i fully understand why they do it in the real world. however as has been mentioned, politics have no room here, yet we're introducing it

Edited April 16, 2010 at 04:38 PM by Guest

[Paul Byrne]

Flying out of 'BKPR' through Serbian airspace, apart from being against real world procedures, is also known to offend/bother/provoke/insult people (as the policy informs).

With all due respect Ivan, I am sure their are also other people who take offence at having to use LYPR as the ICAO. I'm not trying to fan flames but just want to point out that this situation has the potential of becoming a vicious little circle.

 

How do we stop it? Very simple. As controllers lets act professionally (as you and your controllers always do) and try not to take something as benign as this personally (it's only 4 letters and more than likely is not being done maliciously). Just change the ICAO internally. You don't have to even point it out to the pilot. It becomes something that is done as part of internal procedures rather than public policy, which as you can see has the potential to blow out of proportion.

 

I do hope you can take this constructively.

 

Cheers!

[Paul Byrne]

...but to be fair and square a pilot has to be in agreement before an ATCO amends his FPL.

Why? I change information on flight strips all the time to conform to SOPs/LoAs and I don't have to alert the pilot about the changes I'm making. If I'm changing a routing or altitude, of course the pilot needs to know. But all the other info can be changed without the pilot needing to know this. I do understand potential sensitivity about this particular change, but at the end of the day the strips are there for ATC use and their procedures.

 

Cheers!

[David Klain 874106]

OK,

 

I think there is now some confusion over the ICAO identifier issue. Some facts (vice the uninformed speculation I am reading) may help address this:

 

1. There are presently two ICAO identifiers for the airport in question.

2. In the real world, use of one of those identifiers means there will be no ATC service provided by a specific FIR.

3. The procedures dealing with this identifier situation on VATSIM are IDENTICAL to the real-world procedures. The applicable NOTAM wording is:

 

 

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

 

A0324/03 - DUE TO TT LINES OF BEOGRAD ACC AND KRALJEVO APP WITH PRISTINA APP U/S ARR/DEP

FLIGHTS PERMITED TO FLY VIA VTN NDB (VITANOVAC) DCT BLC VOR/DME (BLACE) SHALL

COMPLY WITH PROCEDURE AS FOLLOWS: 1. FLIGHTS INBOUND PRISTINA SHALL CONTACT PRISTINA

APP ON FREQ 118.775MHZ 10 MINUTES BEFORE BLACE TO COORDINATE FLIGHT LEVEL (FL)/ALTITUDE

OVERHEAD BLACE. 2. FLIGHTS OUTBOUND PRISTINA INBOUND BLACE REQUESTING FLIGHT

LEVEL ABOVE FL145 SHALL CONTACT BEOGRAD ACC ON FREQ 123.775/129.025MHZ AFTER

TAKE OFF AND MAY LEAVE PRISTINA TMA ON BEOGRAD ACC CONFIRMATION OF PRISTINA APP

ISSUANCE OF FLIGHT LEVEL OVERHEAD BLACE. 3. FLIGHTS OUTBOUND PRISTINA INBOUND

BLACE REQUESTING FLIGHT LEVEL/ALTITUDE BELOW FL145 SHALL CONTACT KRALJEVO APP

ON FREQ 120.800MHZ AFTER TAKE OFF AND MAY LEAVE PRISTINA TMA ON KRALJEVO APP

CONFIRMATION OF PRISTINA APP ISSUANCE OF FLIGHT LEVEL/ALTITUDE OVERHEAD BLACE.

 

As of today, those NOTAMS are in effect.

 

Now there is no question that part of the reason for those real world NOTAMS is to resolve a real-world political issue. There is also no question that on VATSIM we don't play politics. That said, on VATSIM we are especially conscious of things that can cause conflict and turmoil on the network because we have a world-wide membership. This is part of the reason for some of the stringent rules on VATSIM about simulating military operations...what is a game to some members is a horrific simulation/recreation of violent events and people dying to others...

 

Now we come to the issue of politically sensitive areas (PSAs). While all PSAs on VATSIM reflect areas where there are some unique real-world political issues, NOT all real-world places with political issues become PSA's on VATSIM. Someone brought up the issue of the relations between the United States and Cuba and real world restrictions on flights between the two countries. This is not (and has not) been an issue on VATSIM because the members of the two FIRS in question (Miami and Havana) have not had an issue...they've made it work without any conflict.

 

On the other hand, there are (and have been issues) with other places in the virtual VATSIM world....the result is development of a compromise solution and creation of a PSA. In the case of the policy regarding Kosovo, the policy developed is a compromise based on the real world solution, but not as restrictive as the real-world one because we were able to come up with something that worked for VATSIM.

 

As a network, we remain apolitical, but the reality is that sometimes the real world does intrude into our virtual world. When that happens, dedicated people like Kyp work to craft a compromise solution that, while not satisfying everyone, is something everyone can live with so that the network can keep functioning. We have dedicated VATSIM members (pilots and controllers alike) from Kosovo and Serbia and we appreciate all they do for the VATSIM network. Crafting and enacting a policy that is quite similar to, but not as restrictive as, the real world procedures has worked for several years. If (hopefully WHEN) the situation in that part of the world is resolved and the real world restrictions are lifted, VATSIM will most likely do the same.

 

all the best,

Dave

[Kyprianos Biris]

nope. and actually the few times we have tried online to implement TFR's and closures due to events, virtual military operations, etc.. guess what happened? denied guess what happened when we made those TFR's optional and a pilot decided they didnt want to follow it, ever? nada, zip, nothing. not enforceable

 

this is why it boggles my mind on how this one ever made it.

 

Ernesto the TFR is a temporary restricted airspace to protect the president of USA within USA.

The situation in Kosovo is an outcome a bit more permanent than a US TFR and an outcome of a very sad and very recent war conflict with thousands of lives lost.

I can not stress more how important it is that we do not go down the path of this discussion but let me just give you a hint.

The Yug .. prefix or the Y in the LYPR is just something that is connected to this situation and especially in this area of the Balkans (namely Kosovo) it is something that simply does not fit.

Please allow me not to expand more and [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that you catch my hint.

[Alex Bailey 969331]

the TFR is a temporary restricted airspace to protect the president of USA within USA.

 

Incorrect, although one may be issued for that purpose. However, it is not the only reason for one.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

like i said before, i understand why they do it and am sympathetic to the situation in the area.

 

however you havent given a definitive answer to what i asked. and is where i want it to be very clear.

 

if a person flying through the area does not care to involve real world politics in theyre virtual experience and does not wish to go by this policy, is it enforceable? you said it wasnt mandatory to accept a reroute but the second part of the message basically sais if someone does it too much it can pretty much be brought up against them, thats contradictory.

 

im just looking for a straight answer. as a pilot and controller on the network i certainly have zero interest to fly in an area that i will have force me to comply with political issues. i dont have any interest to add that in my virtual flying, i have enough of it to deal with in the real then have to come back and deal with it online

[Kyprianos Biris]

if a person flying through the area does not care to involve real world politics in theyre virtual experience and does not wish to go by this policy, is it enforceable? you said it wasnt mandatory to accept a reroute but the second part of the message basically sais if someone does it too much it can pretty much be brought up against them, thats contradictory.

 

Yes it can be brought against them if this is the answer you are looking for

 

Ok let me express it this way: If

A) I was called in as a SUPervisor (and not under my signature's capacity) and was indicated a Pilot or ATC member who repeatedly (proof available by stat's and/or postfactual reports on request) does it even though he has been informed many times (would request also proof for that) about going against recommended procedures inside a PSA,

B) I then had a chat with him/her and got hints that there is a reason behind doing it persistently in a provoking manner rather than keeping a low profile

then, yes, I would take disciplinary action after I followed the sup. CoC guidelines which even include warnings before first action.

 

You see, you say that he couldn't care about r.w. politics but doing it in a persistent manner after being informed of a real restriction in place due to PSA and confirming this by his/her attitude to a supervisor (this is where supervisor judgment comes in) then this is not a "couldn't care" situation but rather an actual active engagement in a statement with a lot of "does care".

 

Still though like in r.w. in vatsim we have the RCRP panels around Regions and members can always appeal. The word of the RCRP is final and even DCRM decisions (following SUP's disciplinary action) can be overturned by RCRP.

 

So as you can see Ernesto there is a long way to go until the disaster you are afraid of spells out.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

thats the answer i was expecting to get. unfortunately if im going to be forced to follow political issues, ill add this to the places i wont visit.

 

thanks

[Alen Smriko 1034823]

You are free to do so... in other words, who cares...

[Alex Bailey 969331]

This is just another instance of VATSIM shooting itself in the foot. You can't continually create policy that is going to be enforced "sometimes", and then expect your membership base to not take issue with it. I'd really love to see what happens when a Supervisor suspends a member for responsibly flying their virtual aircraft through a section of virtual airspace, and the reason being that they "fly through there a lot". Punished for taking part in and enjoying VATSIM, that's a new one!

[Frank Otero]

You're missing the point Ernesto, intentionally or by accident.

 

The point is: Conduct that is known to offend or otherwise bother other members should not be allowed on the network. Be it the 9/11 attacks or the Kosovo 'war'. Flying out of 'BKPR' through Serbian airspace, apart from being against real world procedures, is also known to offend/bother/provoke/insult people (as the policy informs).

 

I could not put it any simpler than that.

 

Ernesto, it is very clear now. This policy about Kosovo that addresses BKPR vs LYPR on a flight plan (RW and VATSIM) is designed to accommodate our Serbian friends who feel that the ICAO-established BKPR is offensive. They have cleverly turned it into political graffiti claiming that those who use it are somehow invoking a conflict that ended 10 years ago. Armed with this lame excuse, they have closed the Serbian airspace to those who allegedly seek to insult them by using an approved ICAO code. It is their last stand – “ you want to fly through here, you need to stroke us a little”.

 

The wishful thinking that this mentality will change when the RW situation is resolved is just that….wishful thinking. At least we can fly to Cuba, still, and enjoy a mojito without having to kiss some culitos

[Richard Jenkins]

A lot of electrons for 5 flights in the past 3 weeks.

[Alen Smriko 1034823]

[MOD - RJ800012 - Easy Alen. You're right they don't have the first inkling of what it's like to be there. But getting personal isn't going to help either.]

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

[MOD - RJ800012 - No need for this either.]