Approach check rides for specific airports

ATC
1

Good morning everybody,

I will probably get a lot of headwind for this topic, but I’ve had some approach issues in the past few days, so I wanted to do at least bring this up.

Be it a descent from FL280 to 8000 feet, a 180kts 70 mile final, a “accelerate altitude chabge” even though youre at -2400fpm already or multiple sequences of the same order (for example " turn 170". 50 seconds later (already turning), “turn to heading 170”) , I’m sure we’ve all been there.

I would like to suggest a check ride phase for airports that require special procedures.
Intersecting runways, high altitude airports, airports with tricky approaches.

I feel like the approach charts are being thrown out the window more than being used.

Why should a person from the west coast do an approach control in India when he has no idea what that airport looks like or how it operates?

I feel like a checkride would be a great way to get pilot frustrations out of the way and the conflict between IFATC and pilots can be forgotten.
A lot of IF pilots avoid IFATC controlled areas because more often than not, it’s not going the way it should go. (My personal experience)

It doesnt need to be a huge check, just something to show that a person can handle that airport.

If the airport checkride is off the table then i would HIGHLY suggest an event checkride with high volumes of airplanes in the vicinity. Some controllers get overwhelmed and provide even more chaos, like a 180kts 70 mile final. And even more frustrating: flying 180 kts for that long and then having to go around because a plane was cleared for take off on a 2 mile final.
Going back into that loop of 180/70? No, thank you. Causing a rage quit and an incomplete flight log.

I would really appreciate it, if people wouldnt bash on me or this topic and have a normal conversation.
Don’t flag it right away.
A lot of my friends feel the same way but don’t want to cause trouble by posting a suggestion.

It’s been on my mind for a while now and i feel like, this could be part of the solution to avoid rage quitters.

Please understand, that i completely get that this is a game and people do it for fun. But then please also understand that IFATC wants to hold a high standard and you can’t have both arguments.
Please also know, that i get that there’s approach training and you need to have qualification standards vefore applying there.

The training is okay to scartch the surface but (imo) not enough to cater for high demand/featured airports, or airports with special demands or both.

Take care

11 Likes
2

You, being an IFATC controller would know that we always priorotize real life procedures if the circumstances allow for it. Sometimes, as you mentioned, airports get way too overcrowed like Mumbai yesterday which may lead to controllers deviating from IRL procedures to focus on efficiency rather than realism. In my opinion, a “check ride” for certain airports isn’t always practical or efficient.

4 Likes
4

Let’s be honest here. We dont always prioritize real life procedures.
That’s also not possible.

Where was the real life procedure of descending from FL280 to 8000 and completely ignoring the flight plan?
180kts final for 70 miles is also not a real life procedure.

If you dont think, that the check ride would be a great idea, then please give me another one. I want to make it more efficient and a better experience.

To say "Mumbai was overcrowded ", okay, that’s fair, but you know as well as i do, that IFATC controllers should know their limits.

1 Like
5

That is true, like the Dubai runway ops.

As a specialist I don’t think I’m particularly qualified to voice my opinion on this :wink: But I know for a fact from my friends that are officers (or training to be officers) It’s already a tough process to reach the rank in the first place. The whole system for training officers would need to be reworked.

2 Likes
6

You can voice your opinion- i would appreciate it, if you did.

Yes, it’s somewhat hard to get into. Like the training attendance or active control record.
But the toughest part is the waiting list.

7

The fact is that, in reality, these airports aren’t even half as busy as they are in IF. Realistic airport procedures won’t work when there are hundreds of flights arriving per hour.

4 Likes
8

That is, indeed, a fact. So how can we make it a better experience for pilots?

I’m just not okay with “it’s been like that, it’ll be like that”

How can we work out a system that would work for all of us?

I feel like, most of the times the Controllers just get overwhelmed and want to give up because they dont really know their limits

1 Like
9

An offline “wave mode” would maybe be cool.

See how many planes you can handle and practice, practice, practice.

Idk

1 Like
10

I share the same perspective—that is…the desire for everyone to adhere as close as possible to IRL procedures—especially at my favorite airports, but it’s wishful thinking.

In real life, ATC is only one part of traffic management. Airports that see a lot of traffic have slot management systems in place that optimizes the aircraft count for efficiency and safety.

There are many ways to say it, but at the end of the day traffic levels at hubs become unrealistic, so to manage that ATC has to resort to unrealistic procedures (like a long final at 180 kts).

My perspective as well. There are IFATC’s who don’t care about following IRL procedures (I’ve personally seen some say that). Just imagine, if there are ATC’s who don’t care to check what the IRL procedure is for Tower and Ground…then what more for radar.

And as an IFATC, I avoid controlling airports I’m not familiar with especially when it comes to IRL procedures.

3 Likes
11

I agree with valid points from everyone commented here. I understand it gets overwhelming and pilots and ATC forget or prioritize efficiency over procedures.

But the thing that I’ve seen before which doesn’t happen almost at all is multiple frequencies. We know which airports are going to be busy, we know that well ahead of time. Why not have multiple people do the same job? More help the better anyway. If splitting the local with 2 controllers is efficient, why not 2 approachs for bi-directional efficiency?

I understand that we don’t have 2 approaches all the time but there’s more than often not a controller is bummed because someone else answered first and has to wait an hour or later in the day to control.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand when you have 100 arrivals in an hour, that’s definitely not realistic for any airport but what can we do to manage it better rather than say have a 70 mile final or approach even controlling at 28k feet due to traffic?

That should be the better question and of course, I am no way well qualified to answer any of these questions but just giving my input as a aviation geek like the rest of us where a local hub airport near you, right now has multiple controllers, in real life. It shouldn’t just be approach plates, different types of controllers, or pilots. It should be how many of controllers at the same time as well.

4 Likes
12

Look, the check ride phase was just an idea.

I think a wave introduction for offline people would be a fun way to spend time and/or to get to know your limits.

Also, multiple staffing for IFATC is an option and does exist usually. But in most cases theyre not split evenly because there arent enough controllers

2 Likes
13

Limit the number of pilots permitted to arrive at a destination facility to match maximum arrival rate.

In the case of Mumbai, at least IRL, per India’s Ministry of Civil Aviation:

Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA) has two intersecting runways which cannot be operated simultaneously resulting in single runway operations with a peak hour declared capacity of 46 aircraft movement (arrival or departure) in an hour, during High Intensity Runway Operations (HIRO) & 44 aircraft movement per hour (during NON-HIRO) period.

Infinite Flight is able to handle more hourly aircraft movements than irl, but there’s still a limit to aircraft movements per hour.

When arrival and departure demand exceeds an airport’s limitations, it doesn’t matter who’s controlling – traffic simply cannot be accomodated.

Arrival and departure limits would provide a better experience to pilots permitted to operate.

9 Likes
14

Only a small number of airports have the ability to handle over 100 arrivals an hour – specifically KATL, KDFW, and KORD, can handle arrival rates over 100/hour irl with use of visual approaches.

KATL operates with 2 dedicated departure runways and up to 3 dedicated arrival runways.

KDFW operates with 2 dedicated departure runways and up to 4 dedicated arrival runways.

KORD operates with 2 deicated departure runways and up to 4 dedicated arrival runways.

VABB operates with 1 runway for both departures and arrivals.

15

I see. That would be a solution that would make a few pilots mad.

Maybe have the use of slots like they do irl?
Lets say, you wanna fly to a featured airport. Maybe before you start flying, have a window pop up where it asks you an eta +/- 1 hour. In that hour you’d be guaranteed to land.
If the slot is full, itll show red and show you an alternative time.

I think that would be better than turning pilots away.

That would also get rid of the 30nm spawn pilots.
The limit is set by IFATC beforehand and what they could handle.
Maybe set it to a maximum of 70 planes per hour, for example.

3 Likes
16

Slot Inflation boutta open up a whole black market out there :rofl:

2 Likes
17

Probably :rofl:

18

The issue raised here is one of the concerns shared by members of the community. The high volume of traffic at airports that, in real world, do not have the capacity to handle such traffic leads to a poor user experience in the simulator. In these situations, controllers are forced to use methods that are not typical in real-world operations to manage the traffic.
Moreover, in reality, a controller is never required to simultaneously manage 20 aircraft from 18,000 feet all the way to handoff to the tower. In addition, real-world pilots are trained professionals who, unlike here, know exactly what they are supposed to do.

One possible solution could be the implementation of a booking system to manage air traffic within the application. Imagine that during peak traffic hours, it is pre-determined that the airspace will be staffed with a center controller, two approach controllers, a tower controller, and departure . Of course, this would require more manpower in IFATC.
Availability is also a critical issue. You need controllers who not only have sufficient knowledge of the specific airspace but also the ability to handle high traffic volumes—and more importantly, are available during the required hours.

As a temporary solution, I suggest to my fellow controllers that they take the time to study the relevant charts before opening a frequency. Just because you have free time, does not mean you should open a position without adequate preparation, especially if you suspect it could become problematic.

From the pilots’ side as well, speaking as someone who flies on this simulator daily, I believe that the entry standards for the Expert server are quite low. Requiring pilots to pass a practical or written test before joining this server might not be a bad idea and could ultimately improve the experience for all users.
Controllers encounter situations on a daily basis where pilots fail to respond to even basic requests such as a simple heading change. It’s clear that many of them are unfamiliar with the most basic flight concepts, yet they are still allowed to fly on the Expert server.

In the end, I believe IF has so far managed to strike a good balance between the fun aspect of flying and professional flight procedures—which, in my opinion, is one of its greatest appeals. However, the issue raised in this topic still needs to be addressed.

Perhaps members of the community can come up with feasible suggestions that can ultimately lead to an improved experience for everyone.

9 Likes
19

Thank you so very much for the suggestions and explanations.

That’s exactly what i wanted.
A little bit of positive criticism isn’t bad but I feel like that day at Mumbai was just overall a big F in my book.

You mentioned that a controller wouldn’t/shouldn’t guide a plane from FL180 all the way down to the Tower.
That’s okay, he’s not supposed to - That’s why we have flight plans with waypoints and altitude levels. Another way for the controller would’ve been “proceed as filed”.
That specific controller “grabbed” planes from FL280 and made them descent all the way to 8000 feet - what the hedge?

Also made them (myself included) fly a 360 at FL180.
It was a little bit on the ridiculous side.

I agree that controllers should take the time to get themselves familiarized with the airports but i would say, about 95 percent don’t do that - just takes away controlling time. So just wing it. Fake it till you make it (or somebody rage quits).

I am truly thankful for your recommendations and your comment.
I must strongly underline that not all controllers are like that but in this case, it made a lot pilots unhappy and it’s not the first time and surely won’t be the last.

So we’re looking for a long term solution and together (I’m sure) we can achieve that :slight_smile:

3 Likes
20

Agree 100% with this. It’s really something that needs to be changed, though I really can’t think of a solution - a super strict system may drive away the paying casual user (which is a majority of IF).

3 Likes
21

I agree.
I wlso think a test before entering the expert server would be a good way to sort out a few pilots that dont belong in there

1 Like