Additions and Modifications to ATC Communications

Features
1

I feel it would be extremely helpful if, in particular, the most used transmissions are reordered to a more appropriate chronological order and others be added to make things a little easier to navigate while controlling and flying.

  1. Reordering and Modifications to Ground Controller ATC Instructions (First page when you click on an aircraft tuned to your frequency):

a. ‘Pushback approved,’ is moved to #1.
— Pushing back—in most cases—comes before taxiing. Unless I am horribly mistaken.

b. ‘Taxi to’ is… #2.
—In MOST cases a pushback comes first/is required.

c. I use ‘Hold Position’ much more than ‘Give way to…,’ though they should remain together, but further up. (Frequency of use with ‘Hold position,’ above, ‘Give way to…’)

d. ‘Ask for intentions,’ higher up on the list.
(Frequency of use: HIGH.)

I have rarely used ‘Progressive taxi’ (Move further DOWN the list.)

  1. Modifications to Misc. Messages:

—Move ‘Thank you,’ Thank you, Good Day,’ and, ‘You’re welcome,’ higher up on the list.
(Frequency of use: HIGH.)
—Remove and place, ‘Duplicate frequency change,’ under ‘Contact other frequency,’ that would make more sense to change the phraseology.

  1. Addition under Misc. Messages:

a. “Please request pushback prior to taxi.”
–Place under Misc. Messages menu and place both the proposed addition and, “Please wait for clearance before taxiing,” higher up on the list.

That addresses the issue immediately for those trying to learn and given an explanation on the spot for their mistake and hopefully may not repeat again in TS and therefore not in ES by receiving CUG.
It is the same length of, “Please wait for clearance before taxiing.”
(The proposed addition is 3 characters shorter.)
Add both to higher up in the list of Misc. Messages. (Frequency of use: HIGH.)

IMG_2633
IMG_2633993×1468 213 KB

IMG_2630
IMG_2630939×1552 237 KB

IMG_2632
IMG_26322732×2048 1.15 MB

-Note!! The orange arrows are just notes about TS controlling though I would not expect them to actually be removed nor am I asking for them in the above body of the post.

2

This is a well made post… but I’ve got a couple of comments…:

#1 - The training server is there to train, appreciate your point about “no repercussions on TS”, but the menus should be exactly the same as the ES to build muscle memory for controllers. Also, whilst a command of “Amend FPL” will probably get ignored on the TS… its building familiarity for the ES.

#2 - More of a controlling tip - you shouldn’t be using “Hold Position” over “Give Way to” for taxi conflicts, it isn’t what IFATC teaches for us on the ES. If pilots ignore a Give Way command its a pretty unambiguous report for us to give.

#3 - I actually agree with moving the Thank You slightly higher in Misc messages on the usage front… although changing muscle memory would be a pain for a while haha!

Hope to see you soon within the IFATC community ❤️.

1 Like
3

1a. It is not training if the incorrect action is not taught on the spot. I have stated and I will state, again: I am not looking to ban anyone; I was not asking for the commands to be removed (refer to 1b).
1b. Again, my note on the very bottom of the post in bold, “…nor am I asking for them in the above body of the post.”
1c. Adding to 1b. I did not state that the commands should be different in TS and ES.

2a. So, just yesterday when I requested pushback on ES and an aircraft just pushed back right behind me, IFATC sent out, “Hold position.” Was that incorrect on the part of IFATC?
2b. So, I can just ignore, “Give way to…,’ and, “Please follow instructions or you will be reported,” and nothing will happen to me?

  1. I will definitely keep scrolling down if in the ASTRONOMICALLY minimal chance anything is even considered in my feature request, but as I live my life every single day since what was annoying as an elementary school-aged kid when my principal ended announcements with, “Have a great day and learn something new.” You are never too old to learn something new.
4

So “Hold Position” being used in the case of a pushback conflict is entirely correct 👍. But once aircraft a taxiing a “Give way to…” is preferable.

2b) Not sure where you got that from? I mean if you ignore those in the ES then yeah you’ll get a vio. Not encouraging anyone to ignore ATC in the, but no, you cannot get level 2/3 violations in the TS for ignoring ATC 👍.

1 Like
5

2b)

a. My sincerest apologies as I horrendously failed to read the prefix of, ‘unambiguous.’

b. Again, not suggesting in my post to give out level 2 or level 3 violations as a TS controller and, again, I stated in bold at the bottom of the post, “-Note!! The orange arrows are just notes about TS controlling though I would not expect them to actually be removed nor am I asking for them in the above body of the post.”

—Again, I am well aware that you cannot receive level 2 or level 3 violations in TS.

6

I agree with you on these 2. However the rest don’t really make sense to me and would probably do more harm than good.

8

So, what is the difference between telling someone to, “Please wait for clearance before taxiing,” and, “Please request to pushback first?

Can both TS and IFATC send out, “‘Please wait for clearance before taxiing,’?”

Do both short statements inform and teach?

Scenario 1: What is the response of IFATC if a, for example, a user requests to taxi at Gate 148 at Tom Bradley KLAX?
—Is that not a CUG?

Scenario 2: What if the user correctly requests pushback, but commences taxi?
—Is that a, “‘Please wait for clearance before taxiing,’?”

What are GENERALLY the FIRST two transmissions of a pilot assuming they are at a gate? (i.e. Not a remote stand or not a place with a taxiway clearly marked in front of them—i.e. Does not require a request to pushback?)

Typing this because I thought I directly replied but evidently not.

9

This command is used when someone taxies (or pushes back) without permission.

Most IFATC controllers tend to just send a pushback approval and nothing else.

Yes. Some might also report straight away if they also conflict with others while doing it.

No matter what the pilot sends we usually give a “pushback approved”

1 Like
10

  1. Are pushback and taxi the same thing?

  2. So, we are not even teaching on the training server AND ES that on any given day you can go to liveATC.net at a small airport, even KCMH, and for the main terminals—not NetJets or etc.—are pilots requesting taxi right away?

  3. With regards to Scenario 1: So the very first thing when someone does something incorrectly nothing is done? Though, when they commence taxi that’s when there’s an issue?
    —Do I necessarily blame the misunderstanding? Not necessarily. I can see the possible confusion because, again, pushback is number 2 and taxi is number 1 AND no teaching or training actually occurs.

  4. My apologies: i didn’t mean to reference IF word. Instead, I’m talking for an aircraft at Gate 148 at Tom Bradley International “right now.” Is ATC informing them they can pushback/the pilots are requesting pushback first or is ATC telling them to taxi or the pilots immediately request to taxi?

11

No, but as there’s no option for pushing back without permission we use the closest alternative.

It’s not worth it to make teaching every single pilot on the IF playerbase mandatory. It’s the pilot’s choice to learn. We have options to work around it, and that’s what we have done to this day.

That’s a good point. I’d assume the reasoning is behind the pilot taxiing even though they’ve been told “pushback approved”. It’s the responsibility of the pilot to know what a pushback clearance lets you do.

If you’re referencing real world operations, they request pushback same way as in IF if it’s required from their position. Some IF pilots are just not aware of this or are lazy.

1 Like
12

So, teaching someone they need to request to pushback first is so far fetched, but telling someone they need to wait for clearance to taxi is a teachable moment?

Again, please inform me of the generally first two transmissions with a ground controller. This is relatively an IF thing only, though which of these is generally correct?

  1. Do you solely request to taxi at a location that does not have a taxiway intending forward movement, such as a building?

  2. Request to taxi and then request to pushback?

or

  1. Request to pushback, [pause]/hold position, and request to taxi.
13

I guess it’s just that someone requesting taxi before pushback is not as big of a deal as taxiing without permission. Taxiing without permission can cause conflicts with other pilots and mess up the ground controller.

The issue in IF is not people requesting taxi and then pushback, it’s just people leaving pushback out entirely = people do not know what pushback clearance is for (or are just lazy) and just request taxi instead.

You’ve got a valid point. Adding a message similar to “request pushback before requesting taxi” would be a good addition.

1 Like
14

  1. If I am on a student pilot solo or checkride at a stand that requires pushback, but I request to taxi first. I would think ATC’s reaction and my checkride pilot would be quite baffled to say the least.

  2. So, again, you missed my point in the question. Which number is the generally correct sequence of events/requests/transmissions?

  3. “…people do not know what pushback clearance is for (or are just lazy) and just request taxi instead.”
    a. They commence taxi… Again, what is the response?
    –What portion of their flight was that addressed? Beginning, middle, or end?

b. “Please request pushback prior to taxi,” versus, “Please wait for clearance before taxiing.”
–38 characters versus 41 characters.
–I bring up characters due to the similarity and brevity of both statements.

c. Why do I keep bringing this up? It is the FIRST two things you do when you contact the ground controller on Infinite Flight, correct? And to start it off incorrectly?

15

I get your point, but for IF purposes it’s too insignificant. We already have ways to handle that, and with me agreeing with you that a new message could be implemented, there’s no point in continuing the discussion. I get your frustration though.

16

Voted, but can be summarized imo into the following points for ease of reading from the main post.

  1. Moving duplicate freq change to under the frequency change tab on ground and also adding it to other frequencies as well.
  2. Adding a misc. command of “You’re at a terminal stand, please request for pushback before requesting for taxi” with a short hand of “Req pushback before taxi”. Arguably one for “You’re at a remote stand, you can just taxi out without requesting for pushback” could also be added.
  1. Why not solve the problem completely and add a “please request for pushback before doing so” too if we’re rethinking the whole system.
  2. Rethinking some of the misc. commands could be helpful, for example we have one for “don’t taxi on grass” and “this is not a taxiway”, or “you’re not cleared on the runway” and “wait for clearance before crossing”. These could be merged (I’ll come back to this to add more next time I control and take a look).

Now to answer some other points:

There’s no right or wrong answer to this. It’s faster for me to click hold position than a give way command, useful in an immediate conflict.

That’s the point - teaching by educating, as I said above, rethinking some of the misc. commands are needed.

1 Like