The current situation in Kabul(OAKB) on the VATSIM network

[Nick Fotsing]

I am sure we are all aware of the current situation in Kabul and there is no need to talk about it here, but what we can talk about what is happening on the network.

For example in the picture below this is just one of the many pilots flying and operating "Rescue missions" on the network. Now under a VSOA in a normal situation that would be allowed but by VATSIM COC A17 ("The re-creation of, or organization of events recognizing real world disasters, tragedies, or other such events, particularly those which resulted in loss of life, are not permitted. In addition callsigns that VATSIM has deemed prohibited shall not be used at any time.") that would be prohibited. During the evacuation of Kabul many people hung onto a C17 and fell and died I would suppose that falls under COC A17 as a tragedies meaning that pilots carrying out these "Rescue missions" are breaching the COC as they are re-creating these evac flights.

I don't want to sound like a old women with a walking sticking getting angry for no reason but I would think that people would have common decennary not to operate these "Rescue missions" on the network I would assume that many people would find it offensive. Everyone is free to fly weather they want to fly on the network but I don't think flying C17s with USAF and RAF callsigns into into Kabul is very respectful.

[Emir Dhil-Maanli]

I fully agree with you, I don't know why nothing is done against this on the network...

[Robert Shearman Jr]

Because no one .walloped a supervisor, perhaps?  I agree that they should put a stop to it if they see it, but, someone needs to bring it to their attention.  A forum post isn't the most expedient way to do it.

[Nick Fotsing]

I would hope that it wouldn't even take a wallop for VATSIM to do something about this issue,other networks have make announcements showing a strong stance about this yet it seems like VATSIM have just put the issue under the carpet and not spoken about it.

8 minutes ago, Robert Shearman Jr said:

Because no one .walloped a supervisor, perhaps?  I agree that they should put a stop to it if they see it, but, someone needs to bring it to their attention.  A forum post isn't the most expedient way to do it.

 

[Robert Shearman Jr]

Do what exactly?  Post a supervisor there 24/7?  Are you volunteering? 

Just .wallop it if you see it.  I almost guarantee it'll be taken care of.

[Brad Littlejohn]

I'd have to agree. .wallop as it is needed, because this is an outlier in all political situations we've had on this network.

For 9/11, we knew what needed to be done, and it took an independent but concerted effort on all parts: callsigns banned on the network, and the elimination of copycat recreations when MS removed the WTC from all versions of FS2002 going forward. I don't know if the list of banned callsigns to reflect the major events where aircraft and lives were lost is still in use (if it is, SUPs and higher would have that). But this is different. 

There is the political side of this, which we all agree would be offensive, but there is also the humanitarian side of this, which is no different than when pilots on the network simulated ferry flights from the US to Haiti during the last 2-3 earthquakes they had. That wasn't a problem, given the background of the incident, and this from a humanitarian perspective is no different.

For this, we or the network dive into it? Absolutely not. but it does call the tact of it into scrutiny. Since both sides of the argument can be justified, I'd say to let the higher ups deal with it, so .wallop it is and let them handle it.

BL.

 

[Kirk Christie]

Remarks aside, people are free to fly a C17 from point A to Point B, regardless of the airport and current real world events.

Most people are just putting standard remarks in their flight plans, the one you have singled out is an exception.

Can it be conformed that that people are recreating a real world tragedy, or that people are just flying point A to point B.

Given the flights/callsigns are not associated with a real world aircraft disaster that is being re created there isnt much you can do other than express your disappointment.

 

What exactly do you want VATSIM to do, ban all flights to/from Kabul? 

Edited August 18, 2021 at 12:27 AM by Kirk Christie

[Liesel Downes]

Another question is the sensitivity of flying the (previously) scheduled flights in and out of Kabul prior to the fall to the Taliban. 

[Nestor Perez]

The original question has been answered: these kind of military or rescue flights are not allowed per the VATSIM Code of Conduct. All flights of this nature should be reported to a supervisor for them to be handled.

Equally, we cannot forbid people from flying from point A to B, as long as they don't make any sort of references to the ongoing events.

[Matthew Bartels]

Real world politics and conflicts have no place on VATSIM. Any flight operations or remarks referring to the current conflict are in violation of A17 and should be referred to a supervisor to be handled.

A - B flight fine. VFR flight fine. Stating in your remarks that you’re a humanitarian flight etc. Not fine.