Jump to content

You're browsing the 2004-2023 VATSIM Forums archive. All content is preserved in a read-only fashion.
For the latest forum posts, please visit https://forum.vatsim.net.

Need to find something? Use the Google search below.

Flights operated by Russian companies


Egor Golovanev
 Share

Recommended Posts

Egor Golovanev
Posted
Posted

Good day! Several hours ago European Union banned all Russian flights in EU countries. So my question-how should I organize my flight plans, if I want to fly, for e.g. in Estonia, or Kaliningrad from Russia by Aeroflot, Rossia or S7? Should I use real NOTAMs and avoid all restricted FIRs, or I can fly normally? (P.S. Sorry if that type of questions answered in FAQ or VATSIM Rules😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lauri Uusitalo
Posted
Posted

I am not sure if there is a long enough stick... 😬

ACH2118.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liesel Downes
Posted
Posted

It would go completely against the spirit of this network and harm the innocent Russians caught up in the activites of their government to prevent them from enjoying this hobby as they always have. The only real rule is that you shouldn't be doing flights intended to simulate real disaster/military activites.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Liesel Downes
she/her/hers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Shearman Jr
Posted
Posted

No "rescue / refugee" flights, no military aid flights, etcetera -- nothing tied into the conflict in any way.  But any normal operation under a normal callsign is fine.

Cheers,
-R.

fvJfs7z.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Tom Dowd
Posted
Posted

Any civilian airliner flight is fine. VATSIM doesnt simulate airspace closures/flight bans etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benjamin Koula
Posted
Posted
On 3/4/2022 at 1:04 PM, Robert Shearman Jr said:

No "rescue / refugee" flights, no military aid flights, etcetera -- nothing tied into the conflict in any way.  But any normal operation under a normal callsign is fine.

There is nothing in the VSOA and CoC that prohibits humanitarian missions in support of a particular belligerent in a real world conflict. Rescue would technically qualify as search and rescue and/or military operations, however refugee flights that don't require special handling(except for in-flight emergencies as defined in the CoC) are ok. Supply runs and the such are allowed if only on point to point flights and not engaged in Special Operations. As VATSIM strictly prohibits real world politics pilots and controllers are not allowed to give special treatment (eg. special handling/priority) to either side or express their views by operating as a refugee/supply aircraft of a particular political view/party.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benjamin Koula
Posted
Posted

To add to what I said earlier, humanitarian flights are allowed, but nobody may simulate the loss of life (such as recreating 9/11, Tenerife Disaster, or the Malaysian Airlines 17 Shootdown). This does not prevent pilots from simulating as transport or humanitarian aircraft, but rather prohibits pilots from simulating real combat. A humanitarian thus may depart from a warzone and proceed out of the country to evacuate citizens, but may not simulate getting shot down or purposely crashing the plane. The airplane may declare an emergency whereby it is a believable scenario (disabled controls from  gunshots or equipment/engine failure) and the active controller allows it. Planes may not do anything that simulates anything that is covered in the VSOA Handbook.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Shearman Jr
Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Benjamin Koula said:

There is nothing in the VSOA and CoC that prohibits humanitarian missions in support of a particular belligerent in a real world conflict.

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.

Seems pretty clear to me, but, you do you.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Cheers,
-R.

fvJfs7z.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Benjamin Koula
Posted
Posted
On 5/9/2022 at 6:23 PM, Robert Shearman Jr said:

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.

Seems pretty clear to me, but, you do you.

Supporting a country in mutual and/or humanitarian aid is acceptable VSOA PPM 3.4.2.6

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Shearman Jr
Posted
Posted

For NATURAL DISASTERS -- not for war.  Read it before you quote it.image.png.f3b958d430e84954632faa76f75d75f2.png

Cheers,
-R.

fvJfs7z.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liesel Downes
Posted
Posted

Regardless of the legalese here I think it is generally accepted that we shouldn't touch this conflict in any form within the VATSIM environment. We weren't doing events centred around delivering ventilators for COVID patients either (at least I think people didn't?). It's not worth the potential political and social flare up in the respective region and it doesn't contribute much to our hobby that is for many an escape from a world filled with discrimination, hardship, and violence.

  • Like 4

Liesel Downes
she/her/hers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tobias Dammers
Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Liesel Downes said:

We weren't doing events centred around delivering ventilators for COVID patients either (at least I think people didn't?).

Indeed, and IIRC, the once-popular "Pandemic" event (based on the namesake boardgame) has come to an end for the same reason.

23.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
rian joseph
Posted
Posted
On 5/18/2022 at 3:41 PM, Robert Shearman Jr said:

For NATURAL DISASTERS -- not for war.  Read it before you quote it.image.png.f3b958d430e84954632faa76f75d75f2.png

Good for you, I'm going to continue to to fly my c17 to Ukraine to pick up refugees 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew Crowley
Posted
Posted

I mean... isn't the point to just fly somewhere, with other pilots and hopefully controllers? Why does there need to be a reason, and why would that matter? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benjamin Koula
Posted
Posted

It’s just for role play for some people, it doesn’t need to matter to you, but they can do what they wish if it adheres to the CoC.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew Crowley
Posted
Posted

Well what I mean it, how or why would it matter to any other user? I get that folks will have their own reasons for flying in the sim of course, we all do.  But to anyone else on the network, it's just a plane flying somewhere. Why all this angst if the make believe aircraft is carrying make believe refugees or relief supplies or arms or paying pax or pallets of widgets... it's not ACTUALLY doing any of that, and there's no way for any other user on the network to know what it might be make-believe doing.  It's just a plane flying from A to B, right? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alistair Thomson
Posted
Posted

I think it must be a very cultural thing. What some societies might consider to be excellent conduct may be viewed as being in very bad taste by another.

  • Like 1

Alistair Thomson

===

Definition: a gentleman is a flying instructor in a Piper Cherokee who can change tanks without getting his face slapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Shearman Jr
Posted
Posted

Flying a mission which glorifies any political conflict in which lives have been lost is horribly disrespectful to those who have lost loved ones in said conflict.  Why anyone would continue to insist their inability to choose ANYWHERE ELSE in the world to fly -- or to choose to fly their chosen mission offline -- is more important than respecting those who have lost friends or family members is COMPLETELY beyond me.

That is my personal opinion and you don't have to agree.  But the fact that that VATSIM rules are pretty clearly in accordance with that opinion means your continued insensitivity may at some point be met with consequences.  So do so at your own risk.

Cheers,
-R.

fvJfs7z.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andreas Fuchs
Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Robert Shearman Jr said:

Flying a mission which glorifies any political conflict in which lives have been lost is horribly disrespectful to those who have lost loved ones in said conflict.

Hi Rob, playing devil's advocate, I wonder why a simulated "humanitarian mission" in such a region would be horribly disrespectful? I understand that missions simulating an armed conflict are not allowed, but if you simulate a civilian rescue/evacuation mission, this would be a rather positive thing. I guess some will still take offence of it, because they don't want anyone take out enjoyment by simulating flights in the context of a realworld conflict. From my experience, those who feel offended will not be the people who are actually affected by the conflict, but "woke people" from anywhere else in the world, who THINK that these people could feel bad about it. This is what I do not like.

Disclaimer: I have no interest in simulating any type of these flights myself, they simply do not interest me, so I am rather neutral on this subject. I'd say "who cares", as long as not attacks are simulated.

Edited by Andreas Fuchs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Shearman Jr
Posted
Posted

I generally try not to play the role of "offended police" in my daily life, either.  And if I saw anyone doing a refugee flight from Ukraine on VATSIM, having no personal stake in the matter, I wouldn't contact a SUP to deal with it.  I'd let someone who actually DID lose someone in the conflict take that issue on.

But again, the question of WHY someone feels they MUST inject ANY aspect of this horrible real-world conflict into VATSIM is, just, unanswerable.  Why is it so hard for people hell-bent to do so to do it offline, or, get on VATSIM and fly a "humanitarian" mission ANYWHERE else.  Otherwise it comes off to me as someone who wants to push the line of what will upset others just for the sake of pushing it.  I guess those kinds of people will always be around.

  • Like 1

Cheers,
-R.

fvJfs7z.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alistair Thomson
Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Robert Shearman Jr said:

I guess those kinds of people will always be around

Sad but true. There is a temptation among some folks to castigate other folks for doing something which these first folks think might be upsetting to a third bunch of folks... if that makes sense... and maybe questioning why that first bunch of folks feels so much emphathy for that third bunch to the extent that they want to control the actions of the second bunch, would be futile.

Sheesh! I'm starting to sound like Lewis Carroll!!

  • Like 1

Alistair Thomson

===

Definition: a gentleman is a flying instructor in a Piper Cherokee who can change tanks without getting his face slapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share