Atc ability to divert aircraft

(…Due to heavy traffic destination airport doesn’t accept incoming aircrafts at this time…), a sentence that controllers repeat frequently. My suggestion is to give to ATC the possibility to divert aircrafts to a specific airport they should choose before opening a before opening a control session, so with this suggestion the instruction should be for example in the case of approaching a busy Miami international: ( Swiss 64 heavy turn right heading 280 and divert to Fort Lauderdale…). I think it would be more realistic and could make KFLL active for this case

about old topic name

Thanks for suggestions but unfortunately topic name doesn’t explain anything. Please edit and write a short explaining term.

If you open a topic which is named “suggestion”, another person will open “suggestion 2” and we will waste our times.

My comment about this feature is: Its not a must but could be nice. But not priority for me, so i am out of votes.


The title for me is not misleading but i feel for the thing to be voted, I want to see a whole list of other commands in the same feature. … eg backtracking, this diversion feature, ability to log fpl with ATC (something like that but not compulsory) and just stuff like that which would make the vote more useful


It was because his title was “Suggestion” before he changed it.


Bumpity bump. Would be nice to see this in game.


As an IFATC controller, the only time we use this is to deny “locals” which are people who take off nearby airports and try to squeeze in line.

We also use this when aircraft take off from airport we’re controlling at, and then call in to land again when pattern work is not allowed.

I would say this is something we dont really need considering we only use it 2% of the time. We rarely divert people anyways. We usually do a good job of fitting everyone (besides the people i mentioned above) in.


I would have to disagree that it would be used 2% of the time, we could manage traffic better with less bottlenecks and speed up the approaches if this was available as an option.


You can’t compare Tower to Approach, the reason why tower rarely denies aircraft’s is because approach has already done it for you, especially when there is a lot of traffic.


You got my vote it’s like approach or departure being able to tell you to hold over a certain Waypoint… disclaimer this is not a full view of my opinion just a snapshot however it will probably be reserved for expert air traffic controllers while they throw the training server control a bone meaning the feature will only go to the experts as the training server air traffic controllers will not see that feature as they are in training and don’t know anything of course according to the experts


Exactly and when you have situations like Berlin Tegal yesterday where approach was just sending everything in… Tower gets overwhelmed, more go arounds, more frustrated users.

Approach and the Pilots need the correct command to be able to facilitate diverts.

1 Like

Why do you think we only use it 2% of the time🙃… I can say we used to use the A350 0% of the time so why have it in the app now…

With always more discussion about avoiding big holds to an airport and trying to not have everyone going to one airport, isn’t diverting exactly what we need? As it is now, it’s complicated to divert. It takes the controller less time to just find a way to make them hold. Also it’s very confusing for the pilot as we’ve seen yesterday.

Yesterday was an event where we were supposed to distribute traffic across 3 airports. Then look at this screenshot. One is completely full and the others empty. Just try and imagine the delays now…

ATC never tells you which airport to divert to. You should not be forced to land somewhere, ever. IMO this is highly unrealistic.

The problem I can see with this is that what if I want to divert somewhere else according to my Simbrief OFP. When I flew to miami, I was planning the alternate as Orlando. If possible, I would prefer to divert there for - simulated - operational reasons.

I don’t like the idea of us choosing for them. What I would prefer is the following and to change some of the wording because we don’t always deny aircraft for high traffic.

ATC: N623KB, please divert to another airport, your destination airport is unable to accept you at this time. Amend flight plan and please state your intentions when ready.

Plain and simple, no reason, just divert please and a prompt for them to state their intentions.

The pilot would then open the ATC menu and the list of airports within 27nms of the airport would pop up (like they do with ATC frequency tuning, same list) and two message choices. Choose a local airport from the list, or “Standby”.

”Choose a local airport” Scenario
N623KB chooses KFLL from the list and choose an ILS approach into KFLL.

N623KB: N623KB, with you with the amended flight plan, requesting an ILS approach for any runway at Fort Lauderdale Airport
ATC: Roger, expect vectors to runway 10L at Fort Lauderdale Airport

”Standby” Scenario
N623KB: Standby, choosing a new destination.

3 hours later… jk

N623KB chose Orlando International airport which is further then 27nms away.

N623KB: N623KB, with you with the amended flight plan, requesting flight following to Orlando International Airport
ATC: Roger, proceed on course

I would enjoy that much more, the current system is a little clunky and makes it difficult for the pilot I feel. I feel like this would get our point across better and make the communication more clear.


Very good idea, I like it! Like you say, the current system is very rusty, I might clear up a vote for this!

Totally agree!

1 Like

Also, an idea might be to have the ability for a pilot to announce a diversion. That way, the pilot won’t suddenly start request flight following to some randomplace 130nm away. Also it’d make it clearer for the pilot to know what they need to say.

Yeah. FF is supposed to be for VFR but you have no options but to use it if you divert.

1 Like