Not sure whom you address or what you mean here Who’s speculating? Did a search with “age verification” and found exactly one thread - this.
Are you talking about Vatsim staff trying to get a user’s age?
Very hostile reply, for what reason.
VATSIM only wants to see the month and year you were born they don’t ask to see your full DOB, no other information is required, you can send in proof of age, it does not have to be a photo ID, and you can redact any information you see fit.
The forum posts you are talking about, or maybe the ones on reddit, a generally from people who don’t understand the request, and think that VATSIM wants a full blown government ID with photo DOB, gender, address and social security number.
2 Likes
Hi, is this a bed for new joining members who are signing up for or for members taking their first flight I’m a bit confused.
It’s only applicable for new registrations as official this year
I agree with you that this policy is not the right way to do it.
TL;DR: This policy punishes those who want to be mature and learn a cool hobby. Instead we should ban those who are trolling, and identify, give the chance and teach those who are actually trying.
I once was that “14 year old that can already fly a glider solo and contact atc”, and not for a moment have I ever been unprofessional or taken flying like a joke.
It’s incredibly cool that we have a younger audience (of whom I was also once a part of) that decided they want to have a cool hobby, learn about flying and be around a mature audience.
In my eyes it’s unfair to punish those who want to be(come) mature, who want to learn how to fly jets, who want to know how to communicate with ATC/other pilots, just because some at that same age think it’s a joke. Think about alcohol, some 20 year old are incredibly irresponsible when it comes to alcohol, should we now raise the minimum age to 30 or 40?
Besides that, I feel it would be incredibly difficult to enforce or check who’s 16 and who isn’t. We have a great supervisor system, and I believe many offenders can be dealt with using .wallop and an account termination and IP ban anyways.
However, these are my two cents and I hope that we can find a way to give a chance to those who deserve it. Because let’s be real how cool is it to be able to be a part of VATSIM at that age.
Wouldn’t you want to have gotten the chance then?
Your second last sentence says it all. How do you propose that Vatsim gets evidence that a potential new member “deserves it?”
That is a fair question, and I agree that “deserves it” cannot be a purely subjective judgment made when needed. Any exception mechanism would need to be objective and enforceable, just like the rest of VATSIM’s policies.
That said, VATSIM already operates multiple systems that demonstrate how this could work in practice without having to turn supervisors into gatekeepers of personal character.
A few concrete examples:
-
Competency based onboarding rather than age based exclusion
Instead of using age as a proxy for maturity, eligibility could be tied to demonstrable understanding of network standards if you’re under the age of 16. For example:
- Mandatory completion of an expanded VATSIM Pilot Resource Centre curriculum.
- Passing a basic knowledge assessment covering phraseology, airspace rules, and network etiquette. This would mirror how ATC training already works. Access is granted based on demonstrated competence, not age alone.
-
Provisional or restricted accounts for under 16 new members
A probationary status could be applied to new users under 16:
- Users could be limited to aircraft types they’ve done an assessment in
- Automatic review/suspension if multiple valid complaints occur
- Faster escalation to suspension if behaviour falls below standards
This type of system is not unprecedented, many online platforms use graduated access rather than a simple binary approval/denial.
-
Supervisor driven enforcement already exists
As I mentioned earlier, VATSIM already relies on supervisor observation and
.wallop. These tools are effective precisely because behaviour, and not age, is what ultimately impacts the network. A disruptive 14 y/o and a disruptive 19 y/o are, in my eyes, identical and are punished the same per VATSIM policies anyways. -
Parental consent
If the concern is liability or safeguarding rather than behaviour, limited identity verification or parental consent for under 16 applicants could address that concern directly, rather than excluding an entire group by default. You could just tie an user’s account to their parents and this way you will have someone who could bear responsibility (and have a way more effective method of punishing the abusive user) than to just outright ban an entire age group. Because I am confident if we cannot discipline them and make them act mature, their parents will certainly be able to if their parenting values are in the right place.
To be clear, I understand why a bright line age rule is administratively simpler. My point is that simplicity is not the same as fairness or precision. Age is an imperfect proxy for maturity, just as experience and hours are an imperfect proxy for skill, but we still choose better signals when we can.
I am not arguing that every 13 or 15 y/o should automatically be allowed in. I am arguing that VATSIM already has the technical, procedural, and supervisory framework to evaluate behaviour and competence after entry and could extend that logic to entry itself if it chose to.
The question, then, is not whether it is possible to identify those who “deserve it,” but whether VATSIM is willing to trade some administrative simplicity for a more merit based approach.
That trade off is ultimately for VATSIM leadership to decide, but I think it is reasonable for the community to discuss alternatives that align more closely with the values of learning, professionalism, and inclusivity that the network is famous for and has honoured for such a long time.
I agree with 1. above, and that is already in place. Take a look at the mandatory New Member Orientation Course at learn.vatsim.net.
2 is ageist, and runs counter to most of your arguments in favour of merit basis as opposed to age. So is point 4.
Regarding merit based permissions, that is currently being worked on by the Pilot Training Departnent, I believe.
That leaves the legality issue, and I cannot comment on that, but I’m sure it’s valid.
I don’t think the “ageist” objection is coherent in the context of the policy being discussed.
The proposed policy is an outright age based exclusion, anyone under 16 is denied access regardless of behaviour, competence, or intent. That is already “ageist” by definition. Against that baseline, mechanisms such as probation, additional verification, or conditional access are not more ageist, they are simply more granular ways of managing the same age related risk.
You asked how VATSIM could identify under 16 applicants who are likely to troll or show negative behaviour. Any answer to that question necessarily involves treating that group differently in some way. It is therefore inconsistent to ask for a solution and then dismiss all age specific mechanisms as “ageist” while accepting a blanket ban.
If the goal is to avoid age based differentiation entirely, the only logically consistent alternative is to apply stricter onboarding or probationary measures to all new users, regardless of age. That may or may not be desirable, but it is a completely separate discussion.
So the real question is not whether a given approach is age based, it already is, but whether a hard cutoff is the most accurate and proportionate way to address the concerns that the VATSIM leadership described.
1 Like
I think we are mostly in agreement, except that I absolutely did not raise ageism as a defence, but as the opposite. I abhor any ageism and actually almost any other politically motivated -isms. I was actually accusing you of playing the ageism card with some of your comments. Merit based evidence for the award of authorisations, advancements, and/or status in any environment, including Vatsim, is to my mind the only acceptable source which should be allowed to confer permissions.
That source would of course be evidenced-based. The current process through which members holding a real world licence must go through, to obtain a Vatsim virtual pilot’s licence, is one example which is well designed.
The process through which a potentially new member must acquire permissions is still under development. Currently, it is clearly partly ageist, but as I have already said, that is not acceptable, and as far as I can tell, the PTD are working towards a mantra-free solution based on merit.
But that has implications. It is likely that we will end up with a more prolonged and difficult induction process (from a new potential member’s point of view) than we currently have. That will surely let Vatsim award individuals with the appropriate permissions which they deserve, and that must be the aim of the organisation, as you have already asserted.
I beleve (hope) that @1035677 and his team might agree with some of that!
1 Like
You discuss this as if this was a matter of maturity and behavior on the network. That is how it has been sold, but that’s apparently not the case, as one can hear through the grapevine.
What I think is that this is solely a matter of the BOD (they are the ones who own Vatsim; do not mix this up with the BOG) not wanting to take the risk of having to deal with cases regarding inappropriate behavior of adult users towards a minor. Which certainly has happened, which happens in other online communities, which will continue to happen, since it has become part of the world we live in. Unfortunately, but unavoidable. As other things we have to deal with.
But something that a strong leadership should be wlling and competent to deal with, when it happens.
It’s easier this way, though.
For me, it shows how these owners cares about this community. But then again, it’s their network, they can do with it whatever they want. I, for my part, am deeply disappointed.
I engage in the pilot mentoring program of the German division, and we had (and still have, since the new regulation isn’t in effect yet) quite a few training request from new users starting at the age of 13, who really want to learn about flying, who want to be part of this community. And it makes me sad that these young people are banned from our hobby from now on.
Let’s hope at least over at IVAO they keep their doors open.
Boris
IVAO requires signed parental conset for any one under the age of 16 to join the network, this has been in place longer than VATSIM has had their rule wich is only a month old.
Lets not throw accusations based on assumptions. Rumors do nothing for this community and only create a toxic enviroment.
If this truley was the case, then there would be no grandfather clause for people who are under the age of 16 that signed up before the policy change on 1 JAN, and VATSIM would seek to remove any one that was “at risk”
Thank you, Kirk.
I assure you, we all are pained by this because we know there are good examples of young people out there that have maturity far beyond their years and peers, and of course we want to support those people, at any age, that have maturity and presence to do well here and in life.
Some seem to make an argument that it’s a binary situation (maturity/discipline OR age/protection). It is not binary. Like so many things in life, there is a sliding scale where maturity, discipline, and protection of youth and associated risk to the entire 1.1+ million user community all must be considered.
I assure you, I almost got fired before I got hired because of my opposition to this directive and the way it was flowed down. But, in balance – and balance is what really matters to our community and organization – it is indeed a balance that attempts to weigh all the variables and it is an execution model that mitigates the most risk for the organization.
Do I love it? No. But as I was reminded, with all the protectionist laws and policies now in place that we didn’t have a decade or two ago, we live in a different world than we did just 10, 15 or 20 years ago. We either need to adapt to that or we will cease to function.
2 Likes
Hey Don, tyhank you for the additional context from the Board and BoG. It is helpful to hear that the age change is primarily driven by legal risk management and child-protection compliance rather than purely behaviour on the network.
That said, I think it is important to separate “legal necessity” from “risk avoidance.” From what is publicly known about current regulations worldwide, there is no clear global legal requirement that forces online communities like VATSIM to exclude users aged 13–15 entirely. Instead, most modern regulations impose additional duties of care, data protection obligations, and safeguarding requirements when minors are involved.
For example:
-
GDPR (EU) allows processing of minors’ data from age 13+ (with parental consent requirements varying by country up to age 16).
-
COPPA (USA) regulates under-13s, not 13–15 year olds.
-
UK’s Age Appropriate Design Code and similar frameworks in Australia focus on safeguarding, content moderation, and data handling,not blanket exclusion.
-
Large online platforms (gaming networks, simulators, training communities) continue to legally operate with users aged 13–15 by implementing stronger moderation, reporting, and safeguarding mechanisms.
So while it is completely valid for VATSIM to decide that compliance, safeguarding, and legal exposure represent too much operational and legal burden for a volunteer-run organization, this appears to be a policy choice based on risk tolerance, not a legal inevitability. Framing the change as “necessary due to global laws” is misleading to members who see many other international platforms continuing to support minors under structured safeguards.
If the core concern is protection of minors and organizational liability, there are intermediate models that could address those risks without a full exclusion of 13–15 year olds. For example:
Linked Guardian / Sponsor Accounts
Allow minors (13–15) to create accounts only if linked to a responsible adult account:
-
The sponsor account must meet minimum activity and trust criteria (e.g., 100+ connected hours, clean disciplinary history, long-standing membership).
-
Any serious disciplinary action on the minor’s account also impacts the sponsor’s account.
Truth is, nothing we do remove risk entirely, but neither does a blanket age ban. They simply redistribute responsibility and introduce structural safeguards that many other online communities already use successfully. And at the end of the day, the user will just create the account anyway.
I fully understand that VATSIM leadership must weigh legal exposure, volunteer capacity, and long-term sustainability. However, from the outside, this change feels less like a legal requirement and more like a strategic retreat from complexity and liability. That may be a defensible organizational choice, but it would be healthier for trust within the community to describe it as such.
Many of us have seen first-hand that passionate, mature aviation enthusiasts often begin between 12–15 years old. Excluding that age group entirely risks cutting off a meaningful entry point into aviation interest, training culture, and community mentorship that VATSIM has historically provided.
Even if the current policy proceeds, I hope leadership remains open to revisiting structured, safeguarded pathways for younger members in the future, rather than treating this as a permanent and absolute boundary.
To add a broader, real-world perspective to what I wrote above about legal framing and proportionality, I’d like to share a concrete example that illustrates how this policy change impacts people in practice, and not just in theory.
I was recently contacted by the father of a young aviation enthusiast here in my country who has been actively waiting to join VATSIM in full compliance with the rules that existed until very recently. He did not create an account early. He did not attempt to bypass age restrictions. He waited specifically because he wanted to do things the right way and, fo course, fear of being banned.
He will become 13 years old next month, but the policy changed. As a result, he is now excluded from the network for several more years, not because of any misconduct or lack of maturity, but simply because the timing of the policy update happened to fall just before his eligibility window.
This is not really about one individual case. There will inevitably be a group of users in the same position: young people who respected the rules in good faith and are now, unintentionally, disadvantaged by the transition model. Meanwhile, those who may have created accounts earlier (contrary to previous policy) benefit from grandfathering. Some made accounts breaking the rule since they were younger than 12. Even if this outcome is accidental, it creates a perverse incentive structure and feels misaligned with the values of responsibility and integrity we want to encourage in a community like this.
It also highlights that the current implementation does not merely “raise the minimum age going forward,” but effectively retroactively changes the outcome for a subset of users who were already in the pipeline under the old rules. From a governance perspective, this is where transitional fairness usually matters most.
More broadly, these are often exactly the kind of young people VATSIM has historically been proud to attract: highly motivated, curious about aviation, learning procedures early, and engaging with the hobby in a serious way. For some, VATSIM is not just entertainment, but one of the first structured environments where they learn discipline, communication, and aviation culture. Being told to “just wait a few more years” after having already waited in compliance understandably feels discouraging.
This is precisely why narrowly scoped transition mechanisms are worth discussing. Limited grandfathering for those who were within a defined window of eligibility under the previous rules, or a tightly controlled exception pathway with responsible adult linkage, would not undermine the intent of the policy. It would simply prevent the burden of change from falling disproportionately on those who followed the rules.
If the goal is to balance protection, legal exposure, and community fairness, then how the transition is handled matters almost as much as the policy itself. This is not about resisting change, but about implementing it in a way that reflects the values VATSIM has long stood for: responsibility, learning, and inclusion of those who engage with the network in good faith.
Gabriel, thank you for your detailed thoughts. In principle, I agree. And, nothing in this case has to be permanent. I’ll certainly continue to discuss this topic with the Board of Directors.
Gabriel, your analysis regarding the legal aspects of the situation is comprehensive.
Regarding the social maturity/responsibility aspect, it is of course clear that Vatsim wants to encourage and attract members with “responsibility and maturity.” But it is very difficult to gauge the personality and character of a prospective member, irrespective of age. For example, scanning through almost any Vatsim-related Discord channel, I find countless demonstrations of immaturity and downright nastiness. Will Vatsim be expected to ban these members (from Vatsim, not just form that Discord channel), irrespective of age? Maybe they should.
Regarding excluding that age group from meaningful entry to aviation, that is surely not a crucial point. Folks of any age can learn to fly offline and enjoy the challenges and attractions of aviation in all its forms, including with simulated ATC. Being unable to join Vatsim is not a block to their engagement in aviation activity. And the argument (which you didn’t raise, thankfully) that people can fly solo in real life at an early age in some countries simply doesn’t apply. The training activities involved in getting to that stage are simply not in place when becoming a Vatsim member.
1 Like
That is not actually what he said, he said it was a consideration of a number of things that includes, maturity, discipline and protection of youth.
But I am not surprised this was overlooked, given that both of your lengthy posts were AI generated.
3 Likes
I am a teen who was grand fathered in. I cant stand how some other kids ages 13-15 would keep on saying 67 and trying to intercept people in f18s. Its insane that Im old enough to solo but not fly on vatsim.
I personally (being under 16, tho i joined a year ago or so) don’t agree with this. in my opinion we shouldn’t ban the age group, aso because it may stop many kids from pursuing their dream, but we should ban who doesn’t want to fly professionally, like the creators of vatsim want us pilots to do. I am a bit disappointed honestly.