Intercepting aircraft in Scandinavia

[Jonas Eberle]

To the other people that have participated in this discussion, did I understand your point correctly?

Yes, you understood me correctly. I cannot judge VSOAs as I have never come in contact with one. This is why I cannot contribute much specific to this discussion.

Exclusive- vs. inclusiveness is a point; such is fun on the monitors; and superior to all is respect, especially because the topic is military operations.

 

Overregulation counteracts fun and respect: Based on the current regulation, a non-responsive pilot (who is not respecting ATC and the other pilots in any sense) who gets intercepted can ask for removal of the intercepter pilot - and be on the lawful side, even if the intercepter was approved to play the game by ATC, SUP or whatever. But to be pragmatic: He certainly would not do, because it was fun for him as well

 

Lower the regulation and we might have less conflicts, not more as you are trying to say.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Inclusiveness and the bad behavior of an intercepted pilot are really poor arguments. If one wants to fly such missions there is an avenue to do that, so you can be included in the activity. Just because you don't want to do the training and organization required to do the flights doesn't mean you get a free ride to do them anyway.

 

Andreas, are you suggesting we just stop enforcing the rules on those activities where it is hard to detect when a pilot is out of line? I agree intercepts are happening but I think it is irresponsible to suggest that because of that we should drop the rules altogether. We probably miss several unattended connections each day too; shall we stop enforcing and say hey, as long as its not bothering anyone go for it?

 

Until it changes, the rules stand. I expect SUPs to enforce the rules and to not turn their head if it is going on. I expect FIR/ACC/ARTCC leaders to discourage people from doing intercepts and never allow and especially not encourage their ATC to participate. If the SUP or leader is unable or unwilling to comply they should resign and allow someone who will uphold all of VATSIMs rules, not just the ones they like or agree with to step in. If a pilot gets suspended because a FIR leader allowed an intercept the FIR leader should also be suspended.

 

This is about the integrity of VATSIM, not some rule you may not like. As leadership, we owe it to the organization to uphold ALL the rules, not just the ones we like or agree with at the expense of the ones we don't agree with. As soon as leaders demonstrate to their folks that we can pick and choose the rules we comply with here, then we get on a very slippery slope and you have at least two situations arise; one, your people will start deciding which of your rules they like or don't like based on your personal and public choices and two, you destroy your own integrity as a leader and the integrity of the VATSIM organization.

 

If you guys want intercepts you can have them, but you have to do the work first. I expect our leadership to role model that thought process, even if they don't agree. I get emails and PMs often enough that most any of the VSOA activities should be allowed by non VSOA people, they advocate for being able to do combat, bombing, A-A refueling, etc., because they won't abuse it, they promise, and they like to point to the Founder's letter and tell me about inclusiveness. I have no email or PMs from Founders suggesting they think it would be OK to disband VSOA and allow pilots to do whatever they want. So for now, we stick with the rules we have. Using hyperbole like 'overregulation' which in this case translates to "I don't like that rule and won't follow it" is not winning any points with me, so please just drop that emotional appeal; I doubt we will agree on where the line between over and just right regulation in any public forum like this. In this case the regulations just 'are'. until they are changed, and there are no plans to change the rules on VSOA restricted intercepts right now and certainly not under any of the scenarios presented here; all of them have embedded abuse potential.

[Jonas Eberle]

Is this what you call a discussion? Why did you post that matter on the forums if you only want to show us off that there is no room for disussion?

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

You are the one who is failing in the discussion category, my friend. I am still here, still listening. However I keep getting the same tired arguments such as inclusiveness and over regulation, which are both emotional appeals, not ones grounded in fact and reason.

 

Advance a reasoned argument, leave out the emotional garbage. Keep in mind that just because you and others demand I do something to loosen the regs just because you don't like them isn't cause for us to change them. Show me how nobody gets suspended (never had a suspension in VSOA over this stuff because they have strict rules they follow, more strict than any other pilot on the network; can we say the same for just anybody?) under your system; it has holes in it. Under VSOA I can pretty much promise the Founders there will not be any disruptions on the network due to intercepts, or any of the other VSOA restricted activities. I put my personal name behind that promise too. How will you personally promise the Founders under what you propose?

 

If a VSOA doesn't follow the rules they lose their affiliation, which means their leadership makes sure their pilots follow the rules and in general I have very few problems with VSOAs. Individual pilots here on VATSIM in some cases have demonstrated they will break rules whenever they think they can get away with it; what you propose opens the door pretty wide for them to do intercepts and then hide behind that allowance. Remember, the intercepted can decide they can complain at any time, regardless of what 'permission' they gave earlier. As soon as some of our bad boys figure that out, they will be flying Bears over Finland hoping an interceptor comes up so they can get a pilot suspended because they feed on that and it really flips their switch.

 

So, why would we set ourselves up for that when you can have a VSOA in Scand. who can do intercepts? You can have what you want; there is an avenue. Why don't we spend time talking about how to do it within the rules vs changing the rules just because you don't like them?

[Martin Loxbo]

From a Swedish perspective (as it seems we're still talking about Scandinavia), this whole discussion is very academic. I don't think I've ever witnessed an intercept in my 10 years on SATCO/VATSIM (of which 5 years as a controller). If I would have seen one - prior to this discussion - where both the interceptor and the intercepted pilot agreed to do it, it would probably not have occured to me whether they were both VSOA members or that they were perhaps doing something against VATSIM regulations.

 

The fact that I'm a controller - and FIR Director - doesn't mean that I can cite all VATSIM regulations in my sleep, even though this discussion will of course make me aware of the rules regarding intercepts!

 

I would love to see some Bears over the Baltic though, but how would I know they were Bears unless someone goes up to identify them?

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

I think your experience is more the norm on this, and I never expect you guys or SUPs like Andreas (who is one of the best, I might add) to go out of your way to figure out if they are doing that. Like you said, if they aren't disturbing anyone what they are doing is probably low risk.

 

I really wanted this thread to move toward how do we get VSOA ops in your areas up there, not how do we take apart the current rules.

[Luke Kolin]

I really wanted this thread to move toward how do we get VSOA ops in your areas up there, not how do we take apart the current rules.

 

I suspect that the two might be linked.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

I really wanted this thread to move toward how do we get VSOA ops in your areas up there, not how do we take apart the current rules.

 

I suspect that the two might be linked.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

 

They could be but I have outlined contexts under which they can do these things under the current rules. I am even open to listening to ideas on ways to improve the rules. But I am unwilling to remove the current controls we have in place for these high risk activities. Just show me how the rigor is maintained. So far I have only heard proposals to relax the rules and requirements, not make sure they stay on the happy side of VATSIM flying. Get creative - the UK guys had an idea to have the local ATC division accredited as an VSOA and they maintain the controls and keep the standards high. It can be done.

[Luke Kolin]

But I am unwilling to remove the current controls we have in place for these high risk activities. Just show me how the rigor is maintained. So far I have only heard proposals to relax the rules and requirements, not make sure they stay on the happy side of VATSIM flying.

 

Serves me right for succomebing to the temptation for a pithy one-liner prior to a walk on the beach.

 

The one impression I have gained about VSOA that has remained constant over the years is that the regulations seemed to be based on fear. A fear that we'd be overrun with all sorts of anti-social activity in military or para-military airframes, and that if something wasn't done the Founders would shut the whole thing down permanently. And that was likely the case in 2001. But it isn't 2001 anymore. It's almost a decade later, and we're not SATCO anymore.

 

Each time there's some discussion of changing the rules around VSOA, you can see the fear come out of the woodwork. When there was a discussion a few years back about eliminating the "monopoly" each VSOA had over its callsign, you heard all sorts of predictions of the imminent collapse of standards within v.mils and VSOAs, to the ironic point where a former VATSIM President was described as a "socialist" for introducing competition in this space. Here we are two years later, and armaggeddon has yet to occur. If anything, I think we've lost a few of the "established" VSOAs.

 

At some point. we accepted that it was quite alright for folks like me, who aren't VSOA members, to fly under military callsigns so long as we're not engaging in restricted activities. After logging a couple hundred hours in a 707, I don't see any difference between that and a transport flight in a C-135. Thankfully, VATSIM doesn't see the difference either, and that's a good thing.

 

I believe your Supervisors, rather than doing a bad thing by wilfully not enforcing VATSIM regulations, are actually doing the network somewhat of a service by demonstrating what the next level of VSOA regulation is going to look like. For better or for worse, we're getting close to the point of "if they're two consenting adults and not disturbing anyone else", then it's going to be tolerated and increasingly accepted on the network. I understand that as someone charging with creating and enforcing VATSIM regulations, it's troubling to you based on your earlier response. But I think the Supervisors are being pragmatic given the situation they need to deal with - and the network continues to survive.

 

I'll postulate that we could probably allow refueling, formation flying with the same positive results as before. We don't need special regulations or enforcement of standards - we already have rules in place on VATSIM to ensure that people don't act in an unfriendly or abusive manner. It really is no different if I buzz LAS tower in an F16 or a 747; we don't over-regulate VAs to prevent people doing this. We shouldn't do this with VSOAs. (To be honest, I think there are ways we can allow intercepts while avoiding some of the valid concerns you have, but to me that's a bridge too far right now.)

 

A challenge for VSOAs is that training is hard. It might be harder to provide than to undergo. I am unsure just how much training is required in order to ensure that a person can operate safely and responsibly on the network, and how that matches up with the commitments and capacity for network pilots to commit to the time and effort commitments involved. Maybe the biggest threat VSOAs and military flying on VATSIM faces is that we place requirements on VSOAs and pilots that is out of line with what is required to ensure responsible operations? I think that's a relatively objective, not emotion, description of "over-regulation".

 

I think with the new Pilot Ratings there are some interesting opportunities to certify individuals as having the understanding of VATSIM regulations around special operations, perhaps expanding the scope for military operations in the future.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Interesting as always, Luke.

 

I see this a lot where people look at what the vUSAF or vNavy guys have set up and they think that is the VSOA standard. Its not, they go much farther than our requirements, but then we also don't tell them how to conduct thier training, just that at a minimum it must meet certain standards. 40 hours of formation flying doesn't do a fire fighter organization very much. Barry and I remain avaiable to advise and help any organziation to get affiliation, few make it through the process. And it's not that its hard, its that is it any work at all from my observation; people give up too quickly, but then again if they don't have the disapline to stick out the process why would they help protect VSOA? Acts as its own filter.

 

When I get into these discussions I also hear fear; fear that the VSOAs are getting something above and beyond everyone else. And I think that is somewhat true. In exchange for having and holding high standards, they are permitted to perfrom high risk activities. But in exchange they live in a highy regulated world, moreso than other pilots, some who probably view it as over-regulated (they are likely the same ones who think our requirements are just too burdonsome).

 

I have gone hot and cold on the ratings idea. It solves some problems, creates others. Plus one of the core design features of VSOA flying is that it is the organization held accountable, not individual pilots.

[Luke Kolin]

but then again if they don't have the disapline to stick out the process why would they help protect VSOA?

 

Italicized by me for emphasis. This is the fear I speak of - I don't believe we're in a situation where VSOA operations need protecting from anyone. Are we still? Why?

 

When I get into these discussions I also hear fear; fear that the VSOAs are getting something above and beyond everyone else. And I think that is somewhat true. In exchange for having and holding high standards, they are permitted to perfrom high risk activities. But in exchange they live in a highy regulated world, moreso than other pilots, some who probably view it as over-regulated (they are likely the same ones who think our requirements are just too burdonsome).

 

I don't think there's any envy left. I think it's more puzzlement - why are so many obstacles in place to prevent typically benign activities on the network? Formation flying and air-to-air refueling aren't exactly "high risk" activities. Why do we consider them as such?

 

Plus one of the core design features of VSOA flying is that it is the organization held accountable, not individual pilots.

 

I am unable to see that as desirable feature. If it is so valuable, why has it not be extended to other organizations?

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Per Kristian Jensen 885486]

Kyle you keep saying that if we want intercepts we can join VSOAs. That is my whole sole point in this discussion. I have never said anything else. What I have said is that even then, we can not intercept ANY pilots other than the ones in our own VSOA.

 

 

What I want to see is a situation where, a VSOA pilot goes up in a F-16 and is allowed to intercept another pilot that has agreed to be intercepted.

 

So, I think you are kinda talking against yourself. No offcence.

 

 

But you mentioned that you wanted this topic to be more on how to get a VSOA in Scandinavia. Did you read my PM and posts in here?

 

If not read this:

 

 

 

Yes I am one of the leaders of Virtual Norwegian Airforce, and we want to become a active VSOA on VATSIM.

 

One of our problems though is time and dedication as well as motivation.

We have been hindered in the fact that we couldnt get VSOA and didnt know how to get it either, and that led to the fact that we had no active pilots.

 

I belive that VNoAF can rise from the ashes again and become active in Norway, given that we have a VSOA. Now, I just need to know what we got to do to get VSOA.

 

You can read more in the PM I sent to you.

[Jonas Eberle]

I really wanted this thread to move toward how do we get VSOA ops in your areas up there, not how do we take apart the current rules.

I got your point now. It looked to me you put that on the forums because you wanted to know why some might treat the matter as cited on the vaccsca-website. I am just a controller that has to treat with unresponsive pilots. Btw: I never got somebody to intercept another plane, but saw that happening after agreement between the pilots and found it fun and not disrupting my work in any way.

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

Since Kyle mentioned he would like more VSOAs around, my two long cents about creating one and the effort involved in putting it all together. A similar story relates to running and updating it, this is strictly my approach to this, but expands on the scope a bit without intent to discourage, for those who never delved into it. I did it around a year ago, to the point of internally completing Vatsim VSOA requirements.

 

1. All required planning and paperwork, 6 weeks single-handed effort for final approval by DD and RD including division website integration. It was stopped short of applying for approval, because the organization still needed to run to a point where I was comfortable that all Vatsim and division commitments would be honored to the letter. Somewhat difficult with the specific division whose airspace is small and crowded for combat training of hi-performance aircraft, and with most members of high school agegroup, still developing maturity and gaining essentail flight experience.

 

2. Airspace adaptations such as establishemnt of training and special use airspace, land, air and sea ranges, modification of old mil airways and traffic procedures, LOAs.

 

3. Create military ATC from the ground up, integrate it into the existing civilian ATC, for airbase, approach/ GCA/PAR, enroute high and low, target attack and air intercept control positions. Qualifiy chosen lead controllers.

 

4. Define a realistic VSOA compliant flight training program for fighter, attack, transport and helicopter pilots of various proficiency levels. Develop required briefings and other training aids.

 

5. Develop an automatic data system which stores, updates, displays and archives all necessary information for every air force element. For example, flight missions are mostly pre-planned and dictated to pilots, divided to syllabus training missions, excercises, operational missions. To include among others scrambles of alert and duty crews. HQ training division defines approved syllabus and manages exercises. Operations division and Air Defense manage duty and alert requirements, for air defense, air intercept, ground attack, SAR, recce, transport, EW, support etc...

As example, a SAR alert crew could be scrambled to a general area to rescue downed aircrew, over water at night, given an initial estimated position, beacon frequency. The alert message would include an MSFS scenery add-on file containing all necessary elements for the specific mission, such as images of downed pilots in dinghies, faint light beacon visible from 1 NM, the radio beacon would function similar to low power (~15NM) VOR with or without DME, (or short range NDB).

The heart of it all is this real time data system. It stores real status of all personnel, aircraft, systems, weapons, targets, aids etc... Aircraft status for example contains expected time for upcoming landing, ground position, flight time remaining till next inspection, equipment list, maintanance shortcomings, estimated time fixed, mission [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment including ready time, fuel, stores, fuzes, Laser weapon color coding, other systems and configuration, takeoff time, mission duration, aircrew [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment etc etc...

 

 

Not all of it needs to be in place for every organization, ours had to.

 

Points to consider regarding MSFS mission suitability:

a. The only aircraft I found suitable for the tactical hi-performance mission was the VRS F/A-18E, then under development, with tactical weapons capability. The rest are essentially lookalikes without real tactical mission capability.

b. Formation flying, a basis for tactical operations requires both extended and slewable pilot view, and precision positioning of other aircraft. The former exists but involves an expense, might be prohibitive to some. The second is available but currently not approved for use on our network.

[Gunnar Seljeseth 883677]

These intercepts are about ID'ing other country's aircraft and keeping a level of political tension between each other; we don't have political counties in VATSIM so there is nothing to ID outside a part of docomeented operations.

There is allways two sides of a coin. You say that the intercepting and identification in the example given by Per Kristian is "[Mod - Happy Thoughts]isting a level of political tension". Now, would you please demonstrate to me how flying just barely outside a nations border with millitary combat aircrafts is not achieving the same result?

 

Bearing in mind your very own comments about VATSIM being "apolitical" (your words, not mine), I see only two alternatives (bearing in mind the Norway example);

- Refuse permission for any Russian callsign mil-ops along the Norwegian coast down towards the UK area unless a part of a carefully planned operation by a VSOA organisation within VATSIM (vRAF?).

- Allow pilots within a VSOA (vRNoAF? vRAF?) organisation to make identification interceptions of foreign mil-aircrafts flying just outside the particular part of national airspace. following the border.

 

If you think the average Norwegian is politically neuteral about the russian bombers flying down along the Norwegian coast on the thin edge of Norwegian national airspace, then you are badly misstaken!

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

These intercepts are about ID'ing other country's aircraft and keeping a level of political tension between each other; we don't have political counties in VATSIM so there is nothing to ID outside a part of docomeented operations.

There is allways two sides of a coin. You say that the intercepting and identification in the example given by Per Kristian is "[Mod - Happy Thoughts]isting a level of political tension". Now, would you please demonstrate to me how flying just barely outside a nations border with millitary combat aircrafts is not achieving the same result?

 

Bearing in mind your very own comments about VATSIM being "apolitical" (your words, not mine), I see only two alternatives (bearing in mind the Norway example);

- Refuse permission for any Russian callsign mil-ops along the Norwegian coast down towards the UK area unless a part of a carefully planned operation by a VSOA organisation within VATSIM (vRAF?).

- Allow pilots within a VSOA (vRNoAF? vRAF?) organisation to make identification interceptions of foreign mil-aircrafts flying just outside the particular part of national airspace. following the border.

 

If you think the average Norwegian is politically neuteral about the russian bombers flying down along the Norwegian coast on the thin edge of Norwegian national airspace, then you are badly misstaken!

 

 

You make my point precisely, thanks.

 

In the real world there are real tensions. They don't exist in VATSIM, not in the open anyway, because the COC/CoR says they don't. When they pop up we work to take them out.

 

But you make my point in two ways; one, that only people who are trained and authorized to do such ops, here being the VSOA, they know that if they want to do an intercept long the Norweign border they would work out the details in advance and if they are smart they will contact the Norway ATC and let the chief there know what's up. They do all this to prevent people reading the activity as a provocative act, but instead just simmers enjoying a hobby. The second way you make my point is that without these controls in place, nobody has any business patrolling another country's border in a military aircraft or callsign from a country that in the real world their patrol would be considered provocative. And how do I know its provocative? Because all these folks talk about sending up interceptors, all part of the real world power dance. I know this dance well, being the son of a Cold Warrior myself.

 

In VATSIM, we have no countries; we have airspace. We have no political boundaries as all of VATSIM is under a single government, the BoG as appointed by the Founders. Unlike the real world, a Tupolov Bear may land at a Norweign airport as a part of a point to point flight just like any other flight, and a Norweign AF pilot can make a flight from Oslo to Moscow and expect to be treated with respect just like any other pilot because he is within his authorized world. All this without VSOA anywhere near the activity as it is allowed by any or all VATSIM pilots.

 

Here in the USA, in the real world, you will see aircraft patrolling the Mexican border, but not in VATSIM outside of a prearranged exercise and in coordination with any local US and Mexican ATC. In Israel we have the vIAF, who live in some tough airspace. They have a lot of docomeented procedures in place and are expanding their LOAs with ATC to allow them more flexibility, but they have lived where they do long enough to know if they shot out of that little base in the Negev and flew direct to Damascus (a mere 20-25 minutes, I think) on the deck with an IAF callsign and an IAF aircraft there would be lots of emails shooting around. They are far more realistic than even I on how much they can push the envelope on this and I respect their approach.

 

So, we are now back to in order to do these exercises to maintain the respect the CoC demands, in this case an intercept, it must be done with both pilots being VSOA members and in accordance with the VSOA rules that say no ad hoc missions, all missions must be pre-approved by their leadership.

[Nathaniel Slater 1005911]

I just stumbled upon this thread, an even tho it's 8 months since the last post, all I'm reading is that people are after a "short term fix" for a problem (sic) that's been around since time immemorial.

 

If you desperately want to practise ID intercepts, get your VSOA's Chief or an approved representative of his office to draft an MOU with the other party (i.e another VSOA) to allow, (pending agreement between the 2 pilots and ATC) practise interceptions. OR have a permanent "Operational Exercise" (hint hint wink wink) that focuses on air superiority and allow the two (or even more) VSOAs fly with and against each other in a neutral and agreed environment.

 

just my 2 cents.

 

 

NATO

[Robbie Nauffts 1045788]

I just stumbled upon this thread, an even tho it's 8 months since the last post, all I'm reading is that people are after a "short term fix" for a problem (sic) that's been around since time immemorial.

 

If you desperately want to practise ID intercepts, get your VSOA's Chief or an approved representative of his office to draft an MOU with the other party (i.e another VSOA) to allow, (pending agreement between the 2 pilots and ATC) practise interceptions. OR have a permanent "Operational Exercise" (hint hint wink wink) that focuses on air superiority and allow the two (or even more) VSOAs fly with and against each other in a neutral and agreed environment.

 

just my 2 cents.

 

 

NATO

 

That's pretty much what they want to avoid. Chaos. The vUSAF has Red Flag which allows an air superiority conflict that is inside of controlled airspace and heavily regulated. If you allow an "Operational Exercise" there is no set MOA to operate in. You would have pilots dog fighting where ever they met each other and outside of the operational area, aka MOA. The MOA is set up to give pilots their play area and not interfere with other pilots going from A to B.

[Cole West 1173569]

I think we should be able to intercept other aircraft in MOA or RA. Vatsim is a simulation of real life, I dont know why they care. Take Area 51 for example its like 20 miles from any airspace. LA says they control that airspace but they switch the aircraft to 122.8 before they get to that airspace. So I think Vatsim needs to change some stuff. VSOA is cool and all but we need something better! It would bring alot new people to Vatsim!

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

Cole, VATSIM is primarily for simulating civil aviation and non-combat military operations. Although allowing more military operations, such as interceptions might bring more people to VATSIM, they might not be the people we want here.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

thats a no go.

 

join a vSOA, or have your black aces club become a vSOA. there are rules to abide by tho if your group hasnt already, may want to check out those regs

[Cole West 1173569]

It would be cool if there was a network for Military. it would be so much better!

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

It would be better for military pilots, not everyone else. If you're not interested in civil aviation, join a VSOA, a military or paramilitary group. They don't have offensive missions, so you're not allowed intercept unsuspecting airliners, but non combat operations and exercises are allowed within VSOAs. You can look for a list in the VA board.

[Cole West 1173569]

I made (link removed. NB870575) if you guys want to join but im still trying to get VSOA.

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

Uh, you don't guard Area 51 on VATSIM.