Breaking the Vatsim rules with Team Viewer

[marcus holmes]

I have read a few post on the Vatsim facebook page recently of some members putting their aircraft into cruise then leaving there house still connected to the network and remotely accessing there sim etc using a program called Team Viewer. Surely this is still against Vatsim rules of leaving your connection unattended! and if so this should be added to the General Rules of Conduct section of Vatsim policies, as I think some members are trying to get around the 30 minute unattended period using Team viewer. Plus I do not see the point of being on Vatsim if you are not even at your computer to enjoy the experience.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hmm, to me it sounds like a grey area. As long as they are able to manipulate their flight simulator remotely, they are not breaking any rules, since the connection is not unattended. The question, though, is whether this is the spirit of VATSIM or not. I personally would not want to do it. But if some people need to do some shopping urgently and can still actively keep their SIM under control, why not?

 

There are really worse things that we have to deal with at VATSIM, trust me.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

submitted it to possibly be added to the next board meeting

[Ryan Geckler]

I can't believe this was actually posted to try and get people in trouble.

 

This is literally the least of our current issues.

[marcus holmes]

I can't believe this was actually posted to try and get people in trouble.

 

This is literally the least of our current issues.

 

Ryan I did not post it to get anyone in trouble,,did I mention any names! It was a simple question.

 

It is a grey area, but I am disappointed by yours and Andreas response that there are bigger issues to worry about, I am sure there is , but I am worried some members are trying to get around the rules. If you need to go out, it is not hard to just disconnect and reconnect when you return.

 

Thanks Ernesto for putting this question forward for the next board meeting.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

i concur, its not about getting anyone specifically in trouble. but we do have to remember the world is changing and technology changes with it which the network should take into consideration. for example many users get the false impression that the VATSIM policies dont apply to their social media pages just because the policy doesnt say "facebook" or "twitter" directly, but refers to them as "internet forums, news groups, and mailing lists". remember many of these lines were worded before social media and before many of these newer programs were available.

 

it not only helps you as supervisors, but the users as well, to know what the networks stance is on those issues. many people often complain about things being too ambiguous, so whats wrong with seeking information that again will not only help you as supervisors, but those who would use the technology.

 

nothing would ever get done if the argument of "theirs more important things to worry about" was followed. there is always something more important, that doesnt mean you stop everything to do something else

[Bradley Grafelman]

I am worried some members are trying to get around the rules.

Why are you worried? In what way(s) has this negatively impacted your VATSIM experience?

 

Surely this is still against Vatsim rules of leaving your connection unattended!

Why are you so sure?

 

If a given pilot has the ability to monitor the nearby controller list and PMs/radio text in your pilot client and, if necessary, interact with the client, then his/her connection is being attended to. Whether that ability comes from being in physical proximity to his/her computer or from utilizing remote control software (e.g. on a mobile device) is irrelevant - at least, nothing in the wording of the CoC or CoR seems to suggest otherwise.

[Josh Glottmann]

I agree with Brad and Ryan here. Above everything, how would VATSIM regulate it. They have no way of telling whether your connection is attended by you physically or via another software. It would be the same restricton as VATSIM saying you can't cook food while flying, unable to be enforced and essentially pointless.

[Camden Bruno]

I see no issue with this, so long as the person connected via TeamViewer is the individual whose name is registered under the account. In other words, I've heard stories of individuals having their friends join a remote control TeamViewer session and monitor their flight for them. In my eyes, that instance violates CoC A(3), as they are allowing another individual use of their account.

 

However, personally, I'm fine with what Marcus described - at least they're putting the effort forth to monitor their flight instead of flat out violating A(9) by having a completely unattended connection. As others have stated, there are bigger issues to be addressed.

[Johnny Coughlan]

People are been creatively circomeventing the CoC since the early 00's.

 

This is nothing new only a newer way.

 

This topic is a non starter.

 

As others have said, bigger issues at hand.

[Richard McDonald Woods]

Marcus,

Perhaps you have struck a raw nerve?

[Mark Wolpert]

I would love to know what the bigger issues are? I am not trying to joke, I honestly don't know.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

I would love to know what the bigger issues are? I am not trying to joke, I honestly don't know.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=70380

 

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=73172

 

... just to name a couple

[Callum McLoughlin]

How could this be enforced? A supervisor cannot tell whether someone is accessing their PC via TeamViewer or in person. I think VATSIM's efforts should be in getting more ATC and pilots online rather than more rules to prevent people from connecting & staying connected. Unresponsive pilots get zapped pretty quickly anyway so I don't know why there is such an obsession with proactively removing unattended connections.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

I would love to know what the bigger issues are? I am not trying to joke, I honestly don't know.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=70380

 

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=73172

 

... just to name a couple

 

last i checked there are a dozen or more things above even those two, yet often get added to the things "we" want. my point again is nobody stops working because something gets added to the agenda. itll get tackled when its turn comes. nobody is calling for stopping everything to solve one possible issue.

 

 

 

as far as enforcement, a sup doesnt have to play 10 questions to gather whether or not someone is using such a program, however if guidance is given from the leadership (VATGOVS), which again is what is being sought (IE yes the network is ok with people using that tech to not leave their connections unattended) then those who are charged with those duties know how to handle those situations better if they come across users who do say they arent at home but monitoring their flights remotely, which at the moment there is no guidance, hence you end up with 10 different staff members with 10 different answers. which btw shouldnt be limited to pilots, im not aware of any controllers doing it... yet.. but the same situation could present itself on the ATC side (theyd probably have to be text only unless someone figures out how to use a phone as a mic lol)

[Andreas Fuchs]

Marcus,

Perhaps you have struck a raw nerve?

Negative.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

The real judgement call happens in the results of such actions. If you can answer a SUP or ATC call and adjust your flight based on their input such that it is transparent if you are at the keyboard or at the fair on your phone, I don't see much to get excited about. No impact. If all you can do is answer a call but can't respond positively to ATC commands to climb, descend, turn, slow down, etc., and your flight continues to disrupt others and at that point technically ignore ATC commands, then that's a problem and responding to text or voice alone won't save you from being disconnected and potentially suspended.

 

Focus on the impact.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

thanks!

[Andreas Fuchs]

Focus on the impact.

Thanks Kyle! What we said and I am glad that you agree.