Petition to allow military training flights

[Alec Henderson]

5 hours ago, David Bromage said:

And two Spitfires flying in formation? With Battle of Britain Memorial Flight callsigns?

No sir! However, feel free to do the exact same thing in a civilian registered E300!

[Andreas Fuchs]

Or use "Luftwaffe" as callsign for those Spitfires 😄

[Raul Ferraz]

11 hours ago, Andrew Crowley said:

But the point is that there aren't separate ATC facilities controlling military flights in civilian airspace. That would not work, as obviously the same controller must be working all traffic within a given airspace.  There can't be multiple controllers working multiple pieces of traffic sharing the same airspace; you can imagine the coordination nightmare that would be. 

So, when in civilian airspace, all military fights are worked by normal civilian ATC, who has to separate them from civilian flights as well as each other. 

 

whilst that is probably accurate almost everywhere, there are exceptions. I know at least one center that has civil and military controllers, working from the same place, using the same airspace, but with OAT traffic normally under the control of the military controllers, and GAT traffic normally under the control of the civil controllers.

And yes, it does work quite nicely. Procedures are clearly laid down, and it's no coordination nightmare :)

[Andrew Crowley]

10 minutes ago, Raul Ferraz said:

whilst that is probably accurate almost everywhere, there are exceptions. I know at least one center that has civil and military controllers, working from the same place, using the same airspace, but with OAT traffic normally under the control of the military controllers, and GAT traffic normally under the control of the civil controllers.

And yes, it does work quite nicely. Procedures are clearly laid down, and it's no coordination nightmare 🙂

In the same airspace? Not with the military traffic in a MOA or other chunk of their own airspace, but actually mixing with civil traffic? 

What would the advantage of this be? And where is it? I'd be interested to look up their procedures. 

[Raul Ferraz]

correct, exact same airspace, mixing with civil traffic, even using common LoAs with the adjacent/subjacent sectors.

One of the big advantages is capacity, since the standard sectors don't have to worry about the OAT traffic and don't need spare room in capacity for any opportunity (surprise/unexpected) flight, higher traffic values can be set.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Yes, the same happens here in Germany. While the controllers for military traffic are also in the same control center, they work on separate work stations.

[Raul Ferraz]

28 minutes ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Yes, the same happens here in Germany. While the controllers for military traffic are also in the same control center, they work on separate work stations.

Not in Karlsruhe, Langen or Bremen though (and I guess neither Munich)

[Andreas Fuchs]

48 minutes ago, Raul Ferraz said:

Not in Karlsruhe, Langen or Bremen though (and I guess neither Munich)

My friends in Karlsruhe are also rated on the military sectors and also provide ATC for them. Think of the tankers etc.

[Sean Harrison]

I’m getting confused as to whether we are talking VATSIM or RW with these comments?

I know that if I depart an RAF AB civilian ATC refuse to provide services even though it’s top down.  At times I have been very close to civilian traffic, and I wonder whether they just pretend we aren’t there?   Rarely can I get any ATC services in UK airspace using a military callsign.

[Andrew Crowley]

But how is it advantageous for multiple controllers to share airspace and have to coordinate with each other on a separation plan?  Isn't that higher workload than just one person running the plan, and splitting sectors if it gets too busy?

Regardless, the point here is that ALL OF THIS would work perfectly well in the vatsim top-down world. There's no good reason why non-combat operations should not be allowed on vatsim.

[Andreas Fuchs]

1 minute ago, Andrew Crowley said:

But how is it advantageous for multiple controllers to share airspace and have to coordinate with each other on a separation plan?  Isn't that higher workload than just one person running the plan, and splitting sectors if it gets too busy?

Regardless, the point here is that ALL OF THIS would work perfectly well in the vatsim top-down world. There's no good reason why non-combat operations should not be allowed on vatsim.

That's why the controllers have a set of rules, SOPs, to make sure everything is safe.

[Sean Harrison]

16 minutes ago, Andrew Crowley said:

But how is it advantageous for multiple controllers to share airspace and have to coordinate with each other on a separation plan?  Isn't that higher workload than just one person running the plan, and splitting sectors if it gets too busy?

Regardless, the point here is that ALL OF THIS would work perfectly well in the vatsim top-down world. There's no good reason why non-combat operations should not be allowed on vatsim.

They are allowed Andrew.  Because they have a higher likelihood of ‘non-standard’ operation VATSIM adds extra regulations to control the hazard and reduce the risk.  Fairly simple.  That’s why controllers have a much higher level of governance.  Same thing.  Not banned just extra controls.

[Andrew Crowley]

4 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

That's why the controllers have a set of rules, SOPs, to make sure everything is safe.

Well sure, that's true of everything in aviation. But it is difficult to see how the scenario of having to call over to your buddy,  "hey Frank, what do you want to do with that Malaysia 777?  He's gonna conflict with an air force -135 I'm working over here. You wanna send your guy down? Or you wanna turn him north and I'll turn mine south?" is better or even as safe as one controller working one chunk of airspace.  I'm interested to look up their procedures now. 

[Andrew Crowley]

23 hours ago, Sean Harrison said:

They are allowed Andrew.  Because they have a higher likelihood of ‘non-standard’ operation VATSIM adds extra regulations to control the hazard and reduce the risk.  Fairly simple.  That’s why controllers have a much higher level of governance.  Same thing.  Not banned just extra controls.

Well... they're "allowed but highly discouraged," by placing extremely burdensome requirements on them.  This is what is being questioned.  Can you explain how these operations have a "higher likelihood" of being non-standard?  I mean, there are rules in place that define these ops, just as there are rules that define IFR and VFR ops on the network.

I'm not one to do any mil simming on the network; if I'm on I'm mostly civilian IFR... but I do miss having a more realistically varied airspace system than we currently have. Vatsim often feels very vanilla compared to real life. I would think everyone involved would enjoy the challenge and variety of some different types of ops.

Edited July 20, 2022 at 09:15 PM by Andrew Crowley

[Raul Ferraz]

On 7/19/2022 at 2:02 PM, Andreas Fuchs said:

My friends in Karlsruhe are also rated on the military sectors and also provide ATC for them. Think of the tankers etc.

I was talking enroute traffic, not traffic on Training Areas/ TRA's etc. That of course is always made on special positions.

Edited July 20, 2022 at 07:19 PM by Raul Ferraz

[Will Friedman]

On 7/18/2022 at 11:38 AM, Don Desfosse said:

We have long-held "rule of thumb" precedent that ALL of the following three criteria for a flight to be considered subject to the VSOA policy:

1. Type of Aircraft
2. Callsign
3. Type of Operation

All 3 criteria must be met for the flight be be subject to VSOA policy.

 

This policy only prohibits the following activates by non VSO members

• Conducting joint training exercises with other approved VSO organizations
• War games
• Air to air refuelling
• Carrier operations
• Flying low level military routes
• Flying escort missions
• Executing air combat manoeuvres
• Interception/scramble of other aircraft #
• Having access to special use airspace.
• Search & Rescue Operations**
• Firefighting Operations**
• Launch and Recovery of Space Vehicles
• Air Displays (Flying Displays, Races) ***

Anything else is allowed by non-VSO members.

[Andreas Fuchs]

13 minutes ago, Will Friedman said:

Anything else is allowed by non-VSO members.

...which is almost nothing, but standard IFR or VFR flights.

[Will Friedman]

11 minutes ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

...which is almost nothing, but standard IFR or VFR flights.

 99% of VATSIM network traffic is standard IFR or VFR flights. Not sure what the issue is? 

[Andreas Fuchs]

3 hours ago, Will Friedman said:

99% of VATSIM network traffic is standard IFR or VFR flights. Not sure what the issue is?

The issue is that 99% of those members who would like to perform maneuvers that fall under the current VSOA-policy, would not cause any harm to the enjoyment of other members, without being registered VSOA-members. VATSIM should simply be more strict in punishing those members who perform maneuvers that infringe with other members. Away we go with the VSOA-policy. Pilot not reacting to ATC-calls? Send up a someone else with a neat fighterjet to wake him up. We used to do that, to the enjoyment of all parties involved. Not possible anymore.

[Matisse VanWezer]

1 hour ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Pilot not reacting to ATC-calls? Send up a someone else with a neat fighterjet to wake him up.

Now I need 5 fighters on standby before I can go online 😒

[Kirk Christie]

Digital Combat Simulator.... 

[Andreas Fuchs]

10 hours ago, Matisse VanWezer said:

Now I need 5 fighters on standby before I can go online 😒

For me that was back in the days of controlling in virtual Switzerland. Compact country. One F/A 18 doing its shenanigans in the Alps could quickly be scrambled and sent to any corner of the airspace within 10 minutes. It was usually the TCAS that woke up those unresponsive pilots 😄

Edited November 5, 2022 at 10:16 AM by Andreas Fuchs

[Andreas Fuchs]

7 hours ago, Kirk Christie said:

Digital Combat Simulator....

Basically yes, but it is lacking the interaction with civilian air traffic.