Allowing expert ATC to ghost users when they are pilots

Although I do believe expanding ghosting abilities to a certain extent would be beneficial, it seems like it would be chaos if people tried to appeal their ghost. Unlike when you’re in the tower, there isn’t an ATC log with all the messages from that pilot which you can screenshot, which will make it difficult to get evidence of the pilot misbehaving, if there were to be no controller. This could also create a “fly perfectly or be ghosted” mentality for some people.

I like this idea, however I don’t see it being able to be implemented without any drawbacks, etc.

1 Like

Usually when trolls are pilots, they don’t even bother using Unicom, attach map view, click on the tag and it shows GS. If it’s crashing into other planes I believe a view would’ve done enough justice.

Same thing as IFATC appeal but it improves on a greater scale

I’m not asking them to fly perfectly, it’s called not pulling a full r****d. Taxiing at under 30 knots is common sense. Not taking off from the taxiway is common sense. Not going through other planes is also common sense. If they don’t get the basics they don’t deserve expert

Too much to regulate (there are like 350 ATCs) and too much power given to too many people. Though would vote if this allows me to ghost @anon66442947


Of course you can ;) With a reason though

I’m making the feature available to Officer or above or selected specialists. Cuts down to around 100

I think it should have to be “approved” by more than one IFATC. I think it would be a little to much if one IFAE/IFATC member could just ghost you.

Well I mean one IFATC can already ghost you if he’s controlling 😉…

Well, yeah. I mean for the pilots part. Isn’t that what the title says?

If expert ATC can ghost pilots on the tower with his discretion, why can’t this happen when he’s flying ;)

1 Like

That’s just my thought on this. Take it with a grain of salt.

Yes. It’s that an IFATC can ghost like now and if he’s not controlling. It means more idiots are ghosted. It doesn’t give more “power” to atc really …

And like now if he abuses the system he’s banned from atc…

1 Like

I’m going to pull a vote and give you one, because I strongly strongly support this. I’ve been seeing a lot of idiocy recently, mostly from Grade 3’s who just dipped their toes into the Expert Server. Unfortunately this mostly happens when there’s no ATC.

I wish they would just raise the requirements for Grade 3 to 100 or 150 landings. We’d probably see some more maturity and professionalism.

Edit: you have a vote sir


This is 100% necessary- it has happened to me several times in Boston, and London City Airport:

1 Like

Personally, I wish that they’d raise the hour requirements- they’re a bit behind- more suited to old IF. I wouldn’t raise the landing amount- I can’t keep up lol

I will have to agree with this however, I would hope that some sort of system goes into play like physical proof. Ghosting someone you thought, or already knew someone disobeyed the rules could send up a support forum why they were ghosted (if they didn’t commit to anything wrongful)

Nothing like this should ever be based on grade.

I’ve said it a million times, I’ll say it again:

Grades are a measure of your ability to fly a lot. They have nothing to do with skill or conscientiousness. I could name you 5 grade 5s off the top of my head that are absolutely horrendous pilots and have no clue when it comes to situational awareness.


As mentioned above, some grade 5s don’t know how to fly on the Expert. Not agreeing with the Grade 5 idea, but I like the IFATC idea.

If people are not agreeing with IFAE, Grade 5’s are even worse than IFAE so that’s not happening

1 Like

Actually I would aggre, that was bad on my. Some Grade 5s only have it because they did a lot of touch and goes, not really because they are good, I take that back…

Only responsible IFATC members should have access to this.


Increasing the grade 3 requirment to 150 landings won’t improve this. As Tim mentioned, landings don’t improve behaviour