Jump to content

Dealing with crew flying with N-AIP


Recommended Posts

Hi guys,im a VATPRC(China)S3 controller.Some days ago i met into a serious condition, two crew want to fly NAIP china routes, because China laws prohibited anyone getting NAIP, so VATPRC doesnt have sectors for NAIP's, neither approve their exist. So i deny their clearence request, then they just log off and log on after leave my airspace, but still using NAIP flying.

 

One of my friend is S2 controller, he once faced two crews also using NAIP during an event, also deny them, but then they start arguing with my S2 friend, which make him really sad and rarely goes online since than.And we can't wallop him because the rule of conduct don't have rules on NAIP.

 

So if you guys has experiences on dealing NAIP, plz help me out,thx

Link to post
Share on other sites
What is NAIP?

As far as I can tell, China has two separate Aeronautical Information Publications: a standard AIP that is shared internationally under ICAO protocols, and a national AIP (NAIP) that is treated as some kind of state secret. It seems to be used by the domestic carriers in China but is not allowed to be shared outside the country. It contains more detail, more domestic routes, and some military information.

swift - Developer
Link to post
Share on other sites
What is NAIP?

As far as I can tell, China has two separate Aeronautical Information Publications: a standard AIP that is shared internationally under ICAO protocols, and a national AIP (NAIP) that is treated as some kind of state secret. It seems to be used by the domestic carriers in China but is not allowed to be shared outside the country. It contains more detail, more domestic routes, and some military information.

Yeah... its pretty correct

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not speak for VATSIM. I only speak for myself and no other entity.

You did the right thing. It would have been a violation of your laws. As I recall, one of the items in the CoC(Item 11) is not to do any thing unlawful. In your country, that was unlawful. I may be mistaken in the applicable regulations, but they are no different than trying to squawk hijack. I believe if this had happened to me I would .wallop the individual(s) with the explaination you provided and allowed a SUP to deal with them. Again. I believe you were right.

Please p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] on to your friend my personal wish that he would return. It hurts to lose ATC under any circomestance.

I got to the door!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not speak for VATSIM. I only speak for myself and no other entity.

You did the right thing. It would have been a violation of your laws. As I recall, one of the items in the CoC(Item 11) is not to do any thing unlawful. In your country, that was unlawful. I may be mistaken in the applicable regulations, but they are no different than trying to squawk hijack. I believe if this had happened to me I would .wallop the individual(s) with the explaination you provided and allowed a SUP to deal with them. Again. I believe you were right.

Please p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] on to your friend my personal wish that he would return. It hurts to lose ATC under any circomestance.

 

Thank you JOSEPH

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hello Yibo Chen, Hello Joseph,

 

thanks for starting an interesting discussion.

 

As for me, I have flown previously flights using VATSIM within China (mostly, at least for those flights I'm discussing, on UNICOM) on routes that are described as NAIP here. Actually, I do have a collection of terminal and enroute charts and a NavDatabase for mainland China and Chinese airports that are not contained in the international AIP. Hence I am indeed able to safely fly routes on charted airways that are in the Chinese domestic AIP only. A typical route would be e.g. a flight from Rikaze (ZURK) to Ali (ZUAL) along airway Z6 (from RKZ VOR to SQH VOR).

 

To be honest, it never occured to me that this might critical.

 

From my point of point view, I simulate a civilian flight (even one that might be happening in the real world.) I know my route of flight and can safely follow the planned and filed airway route (e.g. by typing it into the FMC). And yes, this provides a fun environment for me, flying into challenging airports (e.g. ZUNZ) some of which are even easily available as a freeware or payware add-on software.

Furthermore, some of these airports are even included (as emergency airfields) in the international AIP (e.g. ZLYS / Yushu), so why not fly there?

 

In short, so far don't see how the CoC prohibits me flying domestic Chinese routes on VATSIM.

 

Flying on VATSIM is IMHO not something that is - by itself - unlawful.

 

Sure enough, it might be illegal e.g. for VATSIM China to publish or distribute terminal and enroute charts which are taken from the domestic AIP, I agree on that.

However, when I have access to them nonetheless (and in my European country it is not illegal to posess them) than I don't see any reason why I should not use them.

 

Then it comes down to the last point - what happens in an ATC environment. My opion is that this situation is comparable to a situation that has been discussed previously, namely, how to deal with a pilot using e.g. outdated charts (read: procedures) or an airport (Kai Tak or Quito/SEQU comes to mind) which does not exist anymore. In both cases, the pilot wants to fly a procedure that might not be known to ATC or no longer available to ATC.

I understand that the majority opion here was, the pilot may still request it and as long as he is safely able to fly what he requests and as long as the flights fits into the traffic flow, I do not see any reason to deny the request. It might be different with an event or high traffic volume, but in a low traffic volume situation, I personally don't see any reason why flying on a Chinese domestic airway should not be possible.

Again, in my opinion, it is surely not unlawful.

 

So far for my contribution to the topic.

 

Cheers,

Markus

Link to post
Share on other sites

I re-read the opening post and it isn't you at risk. Yibo is in the country whose laws HE would be violating by discussing the routes in question. So it isn't what you are doing so much as putting him in legal jeapordy for even acknowledging the route. By extension the action is unlawful in the country, bringing the CoC into play. Are you really willing to risk others because you have access to, what is in their country, contraband materials?

Consider just pretending to be hijacked by applying the correct transponder code gets you automatically dumped from the network. This is a real world actual life issue.

I too would refuse if I found myself in a similar position.

Be safe and have fun. I'll stick to having fun without risking others freedom.

I got to the door!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joseph,

 

I have to admit - I still have trouble to follow the reasoning that issuing an ATC clearance for a pilot-filed flight plan is equal to "acknowledging that the route exists in the real world" (which then implies an unlawful act).

 

My previous point was and is that people have and will file routes that do no exist in the real world (e.g. to non-existent airports) which nevertheless may be get accepted by the local controller. The implications are that a common understanding exists between controller and pilot about the route that the pilot will be flying and this alone is the important part of the IFR clearance. I do no believe that a VATSIM IFR clearance does make any implications on the real world.

 

Besides, I can file the entire route in an entirely different format, that is as a pure list of coordinates. Suppose I want to go e.g. Golmud (ZLGM) (and I have an official Lufthansa Chart for that airport, yet the airport is available only in the domestic AIP) from, say, Chengdu, how would I do that. I have no problem filing the coordinate list. (By chance, of course, I am following the same domestic airways.) Now, by no means I am ever saying that I am following a domestic airways, yet, the result is the same (albeit with numbers instead of letters for the route). In U.S. or European term, I am following a free-flight or random RNAV route. Would that be illegal by any means?

 

But the result is the same so why not simply name what I am doing...

 

Markus

 

Edit and p.s.

 

Just to think a little bit further ... imagine I have departed an uncontrolled airport (again, say, Golmud ZLGM) on UNICOM on a routing consisting of domestic airways within China. Sometime during the flight, I enter controlled airspace. And what happens then? As a pilot I would expect "continue as filed".

 

If I follow your reasoning, I would be forced to disconnect because ATC cannot accept a domestic airway clearance. But then again, consequently, this means I should not have even started that flight. So that would lead to a situation where I am allowed to start a flight but not to finish it.

 

Again, it is my opinion that this does not make any sense. (E.g. I still don't see a reason why flying domestic airways should be prohibited, see above.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are getting close. It isn't a vatsim thing so much as the law of where that controller is physically living says it is illegal to speak of N routes to foreigners. As a former military person, I understand it, but I don't agree with it.

The problem is there IS a person under that jurisdiction involved and that person is at risk of disciplinary action. My only plea is lets help him out so we have SOME ATC in the area.

As to the implications of vatsim using forbidden routes, in this instance it isn't USING or FILING the route that is the problem, it is the individual in that jurisdiction ACKNOWLEDGING it exists. Kinda like the standard response from an intel agency 'cannot confirm or deny' . Like I said, I get it, I just don't agree with it.

In your example, if challenged by the controller, due to those local laws, yes. I believe your only choice is to fly off network so as to remove the issues from that controller.

Quoted:

"Again, it is my opinion that this does not make any sense. (E.g. I still don't see a reason why flying domestic airways should be prohibited, see above.)"

Like I said, I do understand, I don't agree with it, but if that is the local law the controller involved, because of his physical presence in the jurisdiction, subject to those laws, needs to follow them.

 

The entire reason I am responding is that we have a fellow vatsim'er that wants to obey the laws of his country. It would be nice if we could make it a bit easier on him and not force the issue. We lost one ATC over it already.

 

From the standpoint of the country, it is illegal, there is no debate. Like it or not, you can argue until the cows come home. But that is, apparently , the law. I imagine it is an effort to help conceal the frequency, volume, methods of transport for the population centers, it would also help conceal the importance of those centers. I see intelligence value in that information. Some societies are rather closed and apparently this is one of them. I'm thankful residents can participate at all and if this issue is pressed and attracts the authorities attention those residents may NOT be permitted to join us.

I got to the door!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, from a SUP's perspective I see it the way that you can file any flightplan route on VATSIM. VATSIM is not political, so you can fly whatever route you like. If I were a Chinese controller I would solve the problem like this: I'd inform the pilot in question that I am not able to clear him this IFR-route/flightplan, however he will be free to follow it on own discretion. And that there is an alternative routing XYZ that he can also file and that I would be able to provide services for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...