Airport colour changes when inbounds denied

When we open a populair airport, we see sometimes a crazy amount of traffic, both on the ground as well as inbounds. Often the airport gets an unrealistic amount of traffic, and without an Approach ATC the Tower ATC will struggle to get the traffic sequenced properly.

I propose a feature where Tower can temporaily deny incoming traffic. There is currently an instruction for this, but my proposal is that Tower ATC can change the status of the airport to ‘deny inbounds’, which then changes the colour of the airport name from Green into Red (or another recognisable colour).

An inbound Pilot trying to contact Tower sees a message that the airport is not accepting trafic at this time, and can take the appropriate action.

Landing anyway, will automatically result in a violation.

As an option, if we want to allow emergency landings, an option could be created for a Pilot to request an emergency landing; but that only makes sense if IF builds in the possibility of breakdowns, birdstrikes, etc. So future thing.

Let me know what you think

I just changed the title to make it a bit clearer what you meant :), and i 100% support this idea. Would be very useful particularly at airports like EGBB, KSAN or YSCB that only have 1 runway suitable for trash haulers and a huge amount of traffic there

16 Likes

Great idea! Love it!

I like this idea so much haha removed a vote from my other topic just to put it here. Well done.

1 Like

What current/new tower command would trigger it to go red?
What current/new tower command would trigger it to go back to green?

Airport is full (under Deny Entry)

1 Like

Or there could be a button that allows the controller to activate the mode.

My point is if we have a command to make it red we need to add one to make it green.

1 Like

Like my earlier comment said, I do support this but at the same time it would be abused in TS1

2 Likes

I agree that TS1 might not be the best environment for this one. Expert server could benefit from this in my opinion.

I often wonder how many airports have a Mustang, 208, 737-700, A380, F-14 and a Citation all simultaneously in the pattern.

2 Likes

Also the actual amount of traffic. TNCM gets an average of 3 flights an hour, we get more like 75

2 Likes

This is a really good idea. Helps controllers a lot.

1 Like

This is good idea I vote.

2 Likes

Can you imagine how much this would help SoCal TS1 lol!

1 Like

I really think this could use some more votes… ;-)

2 Likes

Thanks for tagging my post!

1 Like

@azeeuwnl.(My Friend)… Good Suggestion, But can’t agree with the term “Unrealistic amount of traffic”. This may apply to the Training Server which contains the heaviest loading, the Airport Status Board proves this point. Plus giving the ability to close an airport to a Controller Trainee is an invitation to chaos and Pilot dissatisfaction. Accordingly, I suggest that if implemented Controller “Closure” ability should, like the “Ghost” be relegated to the Expert Server Only.

Further, I find even the mention of the term “Emergency” in any Topic or Comment an Anathema. The Term’s Emergency, PanPanPan and the 7000 series of Squawk Codes should be banned from the IF Lexecon… Just sayin.

(PS: There’s a better way; Require Trash Haulers to use Airways and implement In Bound Holds & Stacks. That’s is the Max recommended Way!)

2 Likes

Thanks Max, it’s always a pleasure to read your views!

With unrealistic amount of traffic I mean: more than would happen in real life, more than this relatively little airport or the Tower ATC can handle; and also ‘come on Pilots, don’t always fly to the obvious airports, there’s new controllers out there with airports open, so go and spread out a bit’.
I know, you can debate this ‘overload’ until the cows come home, but the whole idea of the post was, to allow a (class B qualified only?) ATCs to ‘not so kindly’ request aircrafts to visit other airports.

The emergency thing is obviously a big topic. For me an emergency is: my battery is almost flat and I can’t find my charger, or I wanna land quickly because I need get back to work. But who knows, perhaps IF decides one day to implement random failures on aircrafts. Wouldn’t that be fun? ;-)

Bold, holds and stacks…is that doable in IF?

1 Like

@azeeuwnl… Noted recently some bold & extremely competent IFATC are using the Hold, next step the Stack for those who dare! Airways for the fat mothers always.
Warm Regards old friend, always the gentleman.,. Regards.Max

1 Like

Bumping this because this would be a great feature to have, It is always stressfull to have 40+ inbounds without an approach controller. Ask one of the IFATC Supervisors how crazy it gets when there is allot of traffic on the ground and tons of inbounds, got a vote from Chief 305 :).

1 Like