Non-VSO low flying?

[Jacob Turek]

I am confused as to what is defined as a “low level training route” for VSO operations. If I were to jump in an F 16 and fly at 500 feet below 250kts, would that get me in trouble for now being in a VSO?

Edited September 5, 2022 at 01:15 PM by Jacob Turek

[Andrew Crowley]

As long as you're in a sparsely populated area, that sounds like nothing other than VFR flying to me. You could be doing it in a large variety of airplanes that don't have pointy noses.

[Anna Tiffany]

https://forums.vatsim.net/topic/33405-petition-to-allow-military-training-flights/?do=findComment&comment=190096

As you can see all three criterias must be met before it is defined as VSO. Fly with civilian callsign , obey VFR rules and you won't get into any troubles.But be sure to avoid some conflict regions ,different divisions might also have slightly different standards of what is VSO or what is against Coc. For example flying visual from Xiamen to Kinmen is not allowed despite never mentioned in Coc ,it's a rule by the local divisions in simulation of real world situations

[Pranav Chandramouli]

This might help, the SO policy can be found here. It is linked on the CoC page under A13. This topic came up recently on another thread, and this post sheds some light on what it takes for a flight to be considered subject to the SO policy.

 

Cheers

Pranav

[Sean Peterson]

On 9/5/2022 at 9:14 AM, Jacob Turek said:

I am confused as to what is defined as a “low level training route” for VSO operations. If I were to jump in an F 16 and fly at 500 feet below 250kts, would that get me in trouble for now being in a VSO?

Flying any published VR/IR military training routes are restricted to VSO members only. This includes the use of Special Use Area's (SUA's), MOA's and Restricted Area's as well.

[Andrew Crowley]

On 10/10/2022 at 8:59 AM, Sean Peterson said:

Flying any published VR/IR military training routes are restricted to VSO members only.

Why? These aren't restricted airspace. In reality, you can jump in anything you want from a Cessna to a jet and fly them VFR.  I'm not saying it would necessarily be smart but there's no legal restriction. Why would there be on vatsim?

Edited October 14, 2022 at 03:00 PM by Andrew Crowley

[Sean Peterson]

Section 2.1.7 of the VSOA PPM list the activities reserved for VSOA’s only. This includes both military low level and special use airspace usage.

[Andrew Crowley]

34 minutes ago, Sean Peterson said:

Section 2.1.7 of the VSOA PPM list the activities reserved for VSOA’s only. This includes both military low level and special use airspace usage.

And... why, when these things aren't prohibited in reality? 

I've flown through (presumably cold) MOAs many times in Vatsim, often under ATC.  Were the controller and I in violation of a made up vatsim rule? Honestly curious. 

[Sean Peterson]

34 minutes ago, Andrew Crowley said:

And... why, when these things aren't prohibited in reality? 

I've flown through (presumably cold) MOAs many times in Vatsim, often under ATC.  Were the controller and I in violation of a made up vatsim rule? Honestly curious. 

You aren't prohibited from flying through a MOA with ATC clearance if it's not active. The flying of a military IR/VR training route or requesting the use of special use airspace is reserved for VSOA operators only. These rules are in place because VSOA pilot's go through the proper required training for use of said area's.

[Andrew Crowley]

56 minutes ago, Sean Peterson said:

You aren't prohibited from flying through a MOA with ATC clearance if it's not active. The flying of a military IR/VR training route or requesting the use of special use airspace is reserved for VSOA operators only. These rules are in place because VSOA pilot's go through the proper required training for use of said area's.

But this suggests that the routes are off-limits to other pilots. They aren't. Just like you aren't prohibited from flying through a MOA even without ATC clearance if it's cold, no one is prohibited from flying VFR along these training routes.  That's reality. Are you saying vatsim is different? If so, why?  And what happens if someone offsets from the route? Is it still the route? Is a 1nm offset still on the route? 500m?  

Etc.  This would seem - if it's actually a vatsim rule - to be a not very well reasoned or enforceable one.. 

[Sean Peterson]

1 hour ago, Andrew Crowley said:

But this suggests that the routes are off-limits to other pilots. They aren't. Just like you aren't prohibited from flying through a MOA even without ATC clearance if it's cold, no one is prohibited from flying VFR along these training routes.  That's reality. Are you saying vatsim is different? If so, why?  And what happens if someone offsets from the route? Is it still the route? Is a 1nm offset still on the route? 500m?  

Etc.  This would seem - if it's actually a vatsim rule - to be a not very well reasoned or enforceable one.. 

It is a Vatsim rule and has been for 15+ years now. These activities were determined and agreed upon to be VSOA type activities. If someone is blatantly offsetting a military route to circumvent a rule, they are subject to a .wallop and possible disciplinary action by a Supervisor. 

I have included the section of the PPM where it specifically says flying Military low level routes is reserved for VSOA's. I hope this clears up any misconception about this being/not being a Vatsim rule that is enforceable according to the CoC and VSOA PPM.

Edited October 14, 2022 at 07:08 PM by Sean Peterson

[Andrew Crowley]

So this is interesting, as I always operated on vatsim under the assumption that I should be following real world procedures and regs (minus obvious concessions to limited numbers of controllers and pilots, like the top-down philosophy.)  

I'm not interested in preforming any sort of military operation on vatsim, but I've often remarked that it would be nice to see some more real-world variety in the types of operations on the network. The actual NAS encompasses many more types of operations than just airliners and civil GA, and having these other types of ops on the network would equal a more realistic environment for everyone on the network - pilots and controllers. 

Sure, you could say that these ops are already permitted - just join a group with authorization. But that's like saying a pilot can only fly VFR on the network unless they're part of a "VA"; it would effectively serve to greatly limit the number of IFR operations, because many qualified individuals simply don't want to be part of a virtual organization. I personally would never be on vatsim again if it meant joining some kind of VA.

And yes, I still don't see how the "low level military route" restriction is enforceable.  What exactly is the definition of on the route vs off it? If I fly from Whidbey to Boardman in a direct line but VFR and low, is that restricted?  What if I do snake through the Cascades, but one valley over the entire time? That's clearly not on a published route.  What if I do fly the published lateral route exactly, but in a Cub or 172 (as people do often in real life)?

It's not something I'm going to do, but it's a very odd (and unrealistic) thing to prohibit. What is the point? 

[Dustin Rider]

It seems like the spirit of the rule is to try to prevent the immature folks from jumping in their high performance aircraft at 500 KIAS and 300' AGL, not to prevent the reasonable VFR flyer from enjoying the beautiful scenery that modern flight simulators have to offer. The rule gives VATSIM a legal leg to stand on if someone does happen to be caught doing something they're not, such as flying circles around and otherwise harassing that kindly VFR flyer who is only trying to make their way through the Cascades.

[Ken Doyen]

18 hours ago, Andrew Crowley said:

So this is interesting, as I always operated on vatsim under the assumption that I should be following real world procedures and regs (minus obvious concessions to limited numbers of controllers and pilots, like the top-down philosophy.)  

I'm not interested in preforming any sort of military operation on vatsim, but I've often remarked that it would be nice to see some more real-world variety in the types of operations on the network. The actual NAS encompasses many more types of operations than just airliners and civil GA, and having these other types of ops on the network would equal a more realistic environment for everyone on the network - pilots and controllers. 

Sure, you could say that these ops are already permitted - just join a group with authorization. But that's like saying a pilot can only fly VFR on the network unless they're part of a "VA"; it would effectively serve to greatly limit the number of IFR operations, because many qualified individuals simply don't want to be part of a virtual organization. I personally would never be on vatsim again if it meant joining some kind of VA.

And yes, I still don't see how the "low level military route" restriction is enforceable.  What exactly is the definition of on the route vs off it? If I fly from Whidbey to Boardman in a direct line but VFR and low, is that restricted?  What if I do snake through the Cascades, but one valley over the entire time? That's clearly not on a published route.  What if I do fly the published lateral route exactly, but in a Cub or 172 (as people do often in real life)?

It's not something I'm going to do, but it's a very odd (and unrealistic) thing to prohibit. What is the point? 

I agree.  I understand rules are in place for a reason.  The reason seems to me to prevent the trolls.  I'm in a real pickle bout this.  I'm basically the only person who flies a fighter on Vatsim.  I'm not tooting my own horn, I'm stating fact.  In the almost 4 years since I discovered flight sim I've met tons of people who say they have fighter jet or WW2 prop mods for Xplane & they all said they wanted to do a group flight on Vatsim in fighters.  The same can be said bout doin a group flight in choppers.  I have promises going back 3 years to want to do a group flight in fighters from your common simmer to "well respected members" of this "wonderful community."   They say they fly em on DCS & MSFS network so surely they know what they're doing & should be responsible enough to do simple routes between two airports without breaking any rules.  Now, in 4 years, guess how many times those people followed through on it?  Twice that I can remember & by 2 people I thought least likely to do it.  At least 100 people, at least, have said they wanted to do a group flight with me.  They don't even fly solo as far as I know.  Does the rule have people scared?  Have these people messed around on the network in the past & got busted but don't want to admit to it?  Do they not understand the plane & aren't able to control it?  All I wanna do is fly routes that any plane can fly without doing spec ops, real simple stuff.  I don't hear other fighters on the network so is the rule that effective as a deterrent or is there no interest to fly fighters on the network, or am I just flying in the wrong area?  I don't hear the VSO's on the network unless they use a call sign that's not an obvious military one.  My frustration is with the community, not the BOG.  Rules are there cuz somebody did something in the past.  To sum it up, the rules are irrelevant at this point.  Even if the rule clearly said we can fly fighters the same as passenger or GA planes nobody would hop on Vatsim in a fighter jet.  Refer to my previous statements.  The community is full of crap, prove me wrong.  These people can start up & program & fly a complex passenger jet, they can fly a fighter if they wanted to.  I'm willing to bet if Vatsim took off the handcuffs we still wouldn't see fighters on the network because when you think about it, nothing would be different.  They still would not be allowed to be trolls, they still can't mess around & break any rule that we don't already have to follow regardless of what we fly.  I'm not kidding when I said people have the fighter jets or props in Xplane & MSFS to do it.  People are full of crap, somebody prove me wrong.

[Sean Peterson]

1 hour ago, Ken Doyen said:

I agree.  I understand rules are in place for a reason.  The reason seems to me to prevent the trolls.  I'm in a real pickle bout this.  I'm basically the only person who flies a fighter on Vatsim.  I'm not tooting my own horn, I'm stating fact.  In the almost 4 years since I discovered flight sim I've met tons of people who say they have fighter jet or WW2 prop mods for Xplane & they all said they wanted to do a group flight on Vatsim in fighters.  The same can be said bout doin a group flight in choppers.  I have promises going back 3 years to want to do a group flight in fighters from your common simmer to "well respected members" of this "wonderful community."   They say they fly em on DCS & MSFS network so surely they know what they're doing & should be responsible enough to do simple routes between two airports without breaking any rules.  Now, in 4 years, guess how many times those people followed through on it?  Twice that I can remember & by 2 people I thought least likely to do it.  At least 100 people, at least, have said they wanted to do a group flight with me.  They don't even fly solo as far as I know.  Does the rule have people scared?  Have these people messed around on the network in the past & got busted but don't want to admit to it?  Do they not understand the plane & aren't able to control it?  All I wanna do is fly routes that any plane can fly without doing spec ops, real simple stuff.  I don't hear other fighters on the network so is the rule that effective as a deterrent or is there no interest to fly fighters on the network, or am I just flying in the wrong area?  I don't hear the VSO's on the network unless they use a call sign that's not an obvious military one.  My frustration is with the community, not the BOG.  Rules are there cuz somebody did something in the past.  To sum it up, the rules are irrelevant at this point.  Even if the rule clearly said we can fly fighters the same as passenger or GA planes nobody would hop on Vatsim in a fighter jet.  Refer to my previous statements.  The community is full of crap, prove me wrong.  These people can start up & program & fly a complex passenger jet, they can fly a fighter if they wanted to.  I'm willing to bet if Vatsim took off the handcuffs we still wouldn't see fighters on the network because when you think about it, nothing would be different.  They still would not be allowed to be trolls, they still can't mess around & break any rule that we don't already have to follow regardless of what we fly.  I'm not kidding when I said people have the fighter jets or props in Xplane & MSFS to do it.  People are full of crap, somebody prove me wrong.

The rules are in place to enforce the mandatory training that each VSOA pilot must complete before flying a VSOA type activity on the VATSIM network. Each pilot goes through general flight training, once that is completed they move on to specialized training based on the aircraft they want to fly. A pilot just doesn't join a VSOA and start flying VSOA type activities until his/her training has been completed and are considered Mission Ready (MR).

One thing I can assure you is that there are countless VSOA members that fly fighter's, bombers, cargo, helicopters, etc. on the Vatsim network each month. Each VSOA has a general callsign their members fly under, so you won't see them using tactical callsign for every flight. I suggest you look up the VSOA groups located at https://my.vatsim.net/virtual-airlines and press the special operations tab. This will list the current VSOA's and give you a link to their website. I personally have been flying these types of airframes on the network for almost 15 years now.

I also recommend pilot's visit the Special Operations Discord server ? This server is in place to give all pilot's a glimpse into what the VSOA department does on a daily basis. There you will find announcements on upcoming VSOA events that have been planned for the community. 

If there is anything else I can do to address this I'd be glad to discuss this one on one in a private environment

 

[Ken Doyen]

10 minutes ago, Sean Peterson said:

The rules are in place to enforce the mandatory training that each VSOA pilot must complete before flying a VSOA type activity on the VATSIM network. Each pilot goes through general flight training, once that is completed they move on to specialized training based on the aircraft they want to fly. A pilot just doesn't join a VSOA and start flying VSOA type activities until his/her training has been completed and are considered Mission Ready (MR).

One thing I can assure you is that there are countless VSOA members that fly fighter's, bombers, cargo, helicopters, etc. on the Vatsim network each month. Each VSOA has a general callsign their members fly under, so you won't see them using tactical callsign for every flight. I suggest you look up the VSOA groups located at https://my.vatsim.net/virtual-airlines and press the special operations tab. This will list the current VSOA's and give you a link to their website. I personally have been flying these types of airframes on the network for almost 15 years now.

I also recommend pilot's visit the Special Operations Discord server ? This server is in place to give all pilot's a glimpse into what the VSOA department does on a daily basis. There you will find announcements on upcoming VSOA events that have been planned for the community. 

If there is anything else I can do to address this I'd be glad to discuss this one on one in a private environment

 

I'm not talkin bout spec ops.  Just single file flying like the tubes do.  That's within the rules & doesn't or shouldn't require being in a VSO.  I think someone else highlighted the point that if VSO is required for fighter group flights then why not require all tubes & GA's to be in a VA?  We let them hop on with no experience or training.

Edited October 19, 2022 at 09:08 PM by Ken Doyen

[Sean Peterson]

20 minutes ago, Ken Doyen said:

I'm not talkin bout spec ops.  Just single file flying like the tubes do.  That's within the rules & doesn't or shouldn't require being in a VSO.  I think someone else highlighted the point that if VSO is required for fighter group flights then why not require all tubes & GA's to be in a VA?  We let them hop on with no experience or training.

Indeed, you are correct. Every Vatsim member is allowed to fly any military type aircraft on the Vatsim network as long as they aren't deemed a VSOA activity. As for how many of those type of flights are done I wouldn't have a clue. The mass majority of Vatsim members have always been GA/Tubeliners so I tend to agree with you above assessment regarding the general membership. 

[Ken Doyen]

1 minute ago, Sean Peterson said:

Indeed, you are correct. Every Vatsim member is allowed to fly any military type aircraft on the Vatsim network as long as they aren't deemed a VSOA activity. As for how many of those type of flights are done I wouldn't have a clue. The mass majority of Vatsim members have always been GA/Tubeliners so I tend to agree with you above assessment regarding the general membership. 

Cool, we agree.  What I'm trying to understand & I think a few others is why people say they want to, then don't.  Is it cuz they fear getting banned or cuz they never wanted to in the first place?  A lot of things get said outside of here about fighters on Vatsim.  I know if the rules were worded differently & the BOD even came out with a video clarifying what people can & can't do in a non VSO scenario we probably wouldn't see many more fighters online.  What I'm after is the people sitting on the fence who may or may not get online if the rules were worded a lil different.  We'd be a niche group, but, what if?  I just don't wanna give up on the idea of these group flights if it's cuz people fear getting banned.  If they still wouldn't get on after that then we'll know they never intended to fly a fighter on Vatsim to begin with.  See what I mean?

[Sean Peterson]

25 minutes ago, Ken Doyen said:

Cool, we agree.  What I'm trying to understand & I think a few others is why people say they want to, then don't.  Is it cuz they fear getting banned or cuz they never wanted to in the first place?  A lot of things get said outside of here about fighters on Vatsim.  I know if the rules were worded differently & the BOD even came out with a video clarifying what people can & can't do in a non VSO scenario we probably wouldn't see many more fighters online.  What I'm after is the people sitting on the fence who may or may not get online if the rules were worded a lil different.  We'd be a niche group, but, what if?  I just don't wanna give up on the idea of these group flights if it's cuz people fear getting banned.  If they still wouldn't get on after that then we'll know they never intended to fly a fighter on Vatsim to begin with.  See what I mean?

I wouldn’t think they fear getting banned as it’s clearly stated that it’s allowed. Most of it has to do with actually having to fly the plane not program and FMC or let an autopilot do all the work for you. I feel this is more the main reason.

[Ken Doyen]

9 minutes ago, Sean Peterson said:

I wouldn’t think they fear getting banned as it’s clearly stated that it’s allowed. Most of it has to do with actually having to fly the plane not program and FMC or let an autopilot do all the work for you. I feel this is more the main reason.

That's part of my fear but I'm having a hard time convincing myself that's truly it.  All planes take practice & flying a fighter isn't that hard.  U know they're maneuverable, that actually makes things easier.  Biggest thing is speed.  Navigation isn't hard.  Various planes offer whatever type of navigation they wanna do & it's right in front of our faces, not all spread out over all the consoles like other planes.  K, I'll continue trying for awhile & if ppl show fear I'll direct them to this conversation.  If after sometime nothing comes of it then I'll just have to accept what I don't want to.  Thanks. ❤️

[Andrew Crowley]

I agree the rules are probably there to prevent the immature griefing... but that's the entire premise I'm questioning.  Do they really do anything to prevent that? Or do they only effectively serve to prohibit / discourage other types of operations that would provide interesting variety for everyone on the network? 

Let's face it, griefers are gonna grief.  I was harassed not that long ago on the network by an F/A-18 while I was descending into Atlanta in a 737, for instance. 

Now, I fully agree that we don't want actual combat operations on the network.  Not only would that be distasteful to many people, it would be pretty impractical - you can't have one person simulating that Dubai is a war zone while another is simulating flying an A-380 in there ;).

But when it comes to the types of military operations that are blending with or being conducted adjacent to civilian ops... let's be honest: there is no special training required to do these things. Not, at least, from the standpoint of not affecting others' enjoyment of the network. 

An example of something I did once - and yes, I am now aware that this was a blatant violation of network rules, but at the time I was not, and figured it was fine since I wasn't affecting anyone else's experience:  I filed an IFR flight plan from Navy North Island to an offshore waypoint up the coast, in the good old VRS Superbug in FSX.  I'd placed a carrier out there, well offshore but still within the domestic FIR boundary.  I took off at night under full Vatsim control, requested a descent in a hold at my clearance limit waypoint until below the mid-level clouds, then canceled IFR and proceeded with my CQ evolution VFR.  When done, I flew VFR back to my clearance limit and picked up an IFR clearance back to Navy North Island, where I did a tacan approach to a landing. 

Now clearly the controller and other aircraft knew what I was doing; they had to.  But no one had an issue; in fact they seemed to enjoy it.  (This is what I mean about providing interesting variety.)  And nothing I did required any sort of special training at all, not from the standpoint of interacting with the network. Sure, flying around the boat requires special techniques but no one on the network cares if I smack the fantail or crater into the water 50 miles offshore.  All I needed to know to interact with the network was how to pick up and cancel IFR.

You can imagine my surprise when I learned later that this was against a rule.  That just doesn't make sense. 

To summarize: why place these types of operations behind the firewall of a VSO when they require no more knowledge or training than any other ops on the network?  And conversely, what do these limits actually do to prevent griefing like what I experienced? 

These rules really seem to be in need of a major reexamination / re-write.

[Sean Peterson]

1 hour ago, Andrew Crowley said:

I agree the rules are probably there to prevent the immature griefing... but that's the entire premise I'm questioning.  Do they really do anything to prevent that? Or do they only effectively serve to prohibit / discourage other types of operations that would provide interesting variety for everyone on the network? 

Let's face it, griefers are gonna grief.  I was harassed not that long ago on the network by an F/A-18 while I was descending into Atlanta in a 737, for instance. 

Now, I fully agree that we don't want actual combat operations on the network.  Not only would that be distasteful to many people, it would be pretty impractical - you can't have one person simulating that Dubai is a war zone while another is simulating flying an A-380 in there ;).

But when it comes to the types of military operations that are blending with or being conducted adjacent to civilian ops... let's be honest: there is no special training required to do these things. Not, at least, from the standpoint of not affecting others' enjoyment of the network. 

An example of something I did once - and yes, I am now aware that this was a blatant violation of network rules, but at the time I was not, and figured it was fine since I wasn't affecting anyone else's experience:  I filed an IFR flight plan from Navy North Island to an offshore waypoint up the coast, in the good old VRS Superbug in FSX.  I'd placed a carrier out there, well offshore but still within the domestic FIR boundary.  I took off at night under full Vatsim control, requested a descent in a hold at my clearance limit waypoint until below the mid-level clouds, then canceled IFR and proceeded with my CQ evolution VFR.  When done, I flew VFR back to my clearance limit and picked up an IFR clearance back to Navy North Island, where I did a tacan approach to a landing. 

Now clearly the controller and other aircraft knew what I was doing; they had to.  But no one had an issue; in fact they seemed to enjoy it.  (This is what I mean about providing interesting variety.)  And nothing I did required any sort of special training at all, not from the standpoint of interacting with the network. Sure, flying around the boat requires special techniques but no one on the network cares if I smack the fantail or crater into the water 50 miles offshore.  All I needed to know to interact with the network was how to pick up and cancel IFR.

You can imagine my surprise when I learned later that this was against a rule.  That just doesn't make sense. 

To summarize: why place these types of operations behind the firewall of a VSO when they require no more knowledge or training than any other ops on the network?  And conversely, what do these limits actually do to prevent griefing like what I experienced? 

These rules really seem to be in need of a major reexamination / re-write.

Guess we’ll agree to disagree on why the rules are in place and their effectiveness. You’d be surprised in the amount of extra training that goes into proper VSOA type activities hence the rules and restrictions. I’m not hear to debate the rules but they’ve been in place since the inception of Vatsim and will continue to be in place as we move forward. 
 

We all have to remember that Supervisors aren’t here to police the network so some things will slip through the cracks. Everyone agreed to abide by these policies when they joined the network so they are expected to do so. Those who don’t are subject to disciplinary action per the CoC, CoR, and VSOA PPM.

This will be my last response on this topic as it’s going in circles. If you’d like to contact me directly you can send me an email at the address below.

Edited October 20, 2022 at 01:25 AM by Sean Peterson

[Andrew Crowley]

2 hours ago, Sean Peterson said:

You’d be surprised in the amount of extra training that goes into proper VSOA type activities

I doubt that.  But the important question is: how much of that training involves a pilot's interaction with the rest of the Vatsim network? 

Let's be honest: that begins and ends with a pilot's ability to fly within the civilian portions of the NAS to and from a clearance limit.  Those pilots' activities within the portions of the NAS that civilian pilots and controllers are not using are entirely irrelevant to the rest of the network.  They could be conducting the most realistic and conscientious BFM / ACM training possible, or they could be huck-n-chuck kids goofing around... and how would anyone else on the network even know, much less care?  As long as they fly to and from their MOA with the same professionalism expected of the average airliner on the network, isn't the rest of it irrelevant? 

What special training does that require?

I can't see any point to making this discussion private; it's nothing super secret. It's just an interesting discussion on potentially making the network more varied and interesting.  So I'll remain here. 

[Sean Peterson]

10 hours ago, Andrew Crowley said:

I doubt that.  But the important question is: how much of that training involves a pilot's interaction with the rest of the Vatsim network? 

Let's be honest: that begins and ends with a pilot's ability to fly within the civilian portions of the NAS to and from a clearance limit.  Those pilots' activities within the portions of the NAS that civilian pilots and controllers are not using are entirely irrelevant to the rest of the network.  They could be conducting the most realistic and conscientious BFM / ACM training possible, or they could be huck-n-chuck kids goofing around... and how would anyone else on the network even know, much less care?  As long as they fly to and from their MOA with the same professionalism expected of the average airliner on the network, isn't the rest of it irrelevant? 

What special training does that require?

I can't see any point to making this discussion private; it's nothing super secret. It's just an interesting discussion on potentially making the network more varied and interesting.  So I'll remain here. 

One thing I can say without any doubt is that VSOA type activities will remain reserved for VSOA organizations. The Special Operations Department has been working with getting the new "M" Military ratings setup and ready to go with the Training Department. This was all approved by the BoG and will be deploying in the very near future. This training will be similar to what is offered in the "P" Pilot rating system but has been custom tailored to military operations. These "M" rating will be reserved for VSOA members only as well.

Thank you for your input on this topic as it has been noted. Have a great rest of your day.

[Jacob Turek]

16 hours ago, Ken Doyen said:

Cool, we agree.  What I'm trying to understand & I think a few others is why people say they want to, then don't.  Is it cuz they fear getting banned or cuz they never wanted to in the first place?  A lot of things get said outside of here about fighters on Vatsim.  I know if the rules were worded differently & the BOD even came out with a video clarifying what people can & can't do in a non VSO scenario we probably wouldn't see many more fighters online.  What I'm after is the people sitting on the fence who may or may not get online if the rules were worded a lil different.  We'd be a niche group, but, what if?  I just don't wanna give up on the idea of these group flights if it's cuz people fear getting banned.  If they still wouldn't get on after that then we'll know they never intended to fly a fighter on Vatsim to begin with.  See what I mean?

I’ve always wanted to do a group flight in fighters. Never really found a crowd because a lot of people said it was against the rules and we’re worried about a ban. I just wanted to cruise low level with a few jets. I think it’s a mix of fear of breaking the hard to understand rules and lack of interest vs airliners and GA. We need more diversity than that.