ik but it happen once a blue moon tbh
1 Like
I ām sorry to disagree some of your opnions. I think you express the current situation honestly. But your solution might be kinds of useless. Hereās reasons.
Firstly, ifatc are definitely from players, who experienced what we are wxperiencing. From that we can guess that let players to take the position of atc is already used in game.
Besides, to make the group of atc more controllable and professional, ifatc must be led by the official group. It shows that the ifatcs unavoidably have communications with the officials. At the current situation, too much pressure might let them gather tightly. Itās the must result of the environment of the community. ļ¼I just want to express the opinion by the help of psychology. Though the words might be kinds of unfriendly to the administrators, the existence of the topic can be a proof that the official group is not opposite to the playersļ¼
Last of all, we can assume what will happen if your plan is operated. Firstly, a group called A ļ¼it doesnāt matterļ¼is set. First choice, itās completely led by players, some of the troublemakers will unavoidably join in the group. As time goes by, the group will be less believable. Then might be dissolved. The other choice is that the group is led officially. But in this way, it might be surrounded by the arguements like todayās ifatc. That must circle.
Through the reasons above, there mustnāt be a completely perfect solution to the curret situation. What we can only do is that express what we think like you and me. The administrators should keep listening to what the playersā saying and ifatc need to keep developing. Like a old saying, thereās no the best, but the better. Finally, hope the if become better!
1 Like
why donāt they learn in training server? I completely agree with u. Itās just a unbrella for those who donāt obey rules
Youāve confused me. I donāt understand what your trying to communicate. Talking about official groups and other groups, iām not connecting the dots here. If English is your second language, send me a DM in your native language and Iāll try to give a proper response. If English is your native language could you rephrase, make your points more clear?
This may not relate to the current discussion, but Iām starting to wonder if approach/ departure controllers are being trained properly or not. Recently had an episode and the controller wasnāt able to figure out or make decisions smarter which you expect during sequencing an approach. He seems to be lost and not able to understand the procedures for the airspace he was controlling. Now I am not planning to appeal or anything since I have received a level 3 violation but that was quite fair. I just want to point out for controllers who would like to control a certain airspace do take a look at the procedures for that certain airport and make smart choices when sequencing traffic while making instructions clearer. Also I think there needs to be an option for controllers asking you to descend at a certain alt and descend them to xx waypoint when not being vectored. This would help a lot and make you able to control your descent rate and give you more clarity just like how they do irl.
Think about it simply: an IFATC controller must single-handedly manage a large number of unprofessional pilots. But if mistakes are punished at the same level as pilots, who will handle the hub airport? Furthermore, if controllers lack strong authority, can they successfully manage the hub airport? Thereās already a shortage of radar controllers operating at hub airports.
1 Like
You make a very fair point and agree 100%.
Something that I have mentioned in this thread is about changing the non-professional pilots i.e. to make a basic level training system for pilots before they get access to ES.
They already have challenges and tutorials with ācheckpointsā, so more work could be done in that aspect as opposed to passive learning (watching videos)
Or
a basic test involving most common mistakes made in an active atc environment.
Also if something could be done about being kicked off, that would be the best I feel. Maybe a chance to spawn back from 30 min ete (like AP+) for arrival aircraft that get reported could kind of give them a second chance to better their mistake and at the same time finish the flight in multiplayer
3 Likes
Sure I advocate for the violation system to change too, but my main point of contention is accountability. Both sides should be held equally accountable.
Pilots already have the system (that could be reformed through the ideas expressed in this thread) set out before them clearly and easily accessible. Controllers, as far as the public can see, does not have any framework other than titles, badges, written test, and ācheckrideā
Currently pilots get banned from the ES for a level 3 mistake while controllers get a simple DM for mistakes made during sessions regardless of severity, quite the difference.
Thatās a misrepresentation of what is relevant. What the āpublicā can see is fairness in the violation review system. And thatās what the āpublicā should expect and require. How they internally manage that fairness in terms of discipline of controllers does not carry any implied āright-to-knowā nor āneed-to-knowā.
1 Like
Itās not a misrepresentation because that is the way it currently is.
Accountability is never irrelevant, ever.
Iāve already discussed previously in the thread regarding public information vs private information. Data should obviously be anonymized like it is for pilots, easy solution.
1 Like
Can we italicize, bolden, underline, and highlight that last sentence?
I love how you called everyone out on this.
I think thatās a fair point to raise and I donāt think anyone would argue that accountability shouldnāt apply on both sides. The distinction, though, is that the system for controllers actually does exist: it just isnāt as publicly visible as the pilot side.
Supervisors regularly conduct spot checks, replay reviews and monitor patterns. Controllers can and do get demoted, re-trained, restricted from certain frequencies, 7 day suspensions, 30 day suspensions, or removed entirely when issues are significant. Itās not always a simple DM: that DM is always internally noted and reviewed for improvement in the near future - there is a structured review process, internal consolidated files and repeated or severe mistakes carry real consequences.
I hope this helps you to understand that the āaccountabilityā for controllers is actually much more detailed and rigorous than for pilots. If you want to see more, you are always welcome to apply to join us 
That said, I agree that more transparency could help. Pilots see exactly what happens when they make a mistake, while the controller process can feel opaque from the outside.
11 Likes
Hi again,
I say this as a user looking from the outside, in accordance with general societal notions of fair governanceāincluding legal norms across jurisdictions that consistently distinguish between outcome accountability and internal procedural transparency. In the context of Infinite Flight, participants such as pilots are entitled to fair treatment under the published rules of engagement, including the right to appeal violations and expect consistent standards in how those appeals are reviewed. That fairness is the core obligation owed to users. However, this does not extend to a right to inspect or demand disclosure of internal disciplinary procedures, training materials, or management decisions concerning IFATC volunteers. These processes are governed internally by Infinite Flight staff, who oversee the IFATC system with structured protocols and professional supervision. The integrity of that system depends on maintaining boundaries between user-facing outcomes and internal governance.
Transparency in the form of published violation statistics and reversal rates already exceeds what is typically required in similar volunteer-moderated environments. Calls for deeper āatomizationā or granular disclosure of how individual controllers are trained, assessed, or managed reflect a misunderstanding of the appropriate scope of user entitlement. The systemās legitimacy rests on whether it delivers fair and consistent outcomes to usersānot on whether it exposes its internal workings to external scrutiny. Demanding more than that risks undermining the operational trust and volunteer sustainability that make the system viable.
Just trying to see fairness from a 360 perspective, to the extent possible.
@CompetitiveDivide320 Very helpful info.
5 Likes
Iām asking for equal accountability. Iām not insisting I get to look through every single decision that was made, or disciplinary action taken, thatās ridiculous. I am asking for an anonymized general report for the education of both controllers and pilots alike.
Pilots banned for a week. Anonymized appeals data published monthly, decisions explained, reasons articulated. Perfect. Same could be done for controllers. Anonymized data, most common mistakes controllers make, tips and tricks for atc prospects, hot topic of the weekā¦ etc There is a lot of ways to turn accountability into learning for both communities (pilots and controllers alike). Just as the appeals data is informative to pilots, so will this new data be informative to both current and prospective controllers.
I disagree here, it is expected to have that type of transparency. When one group has power over another, there must be accountability on both sides. Just like in law enforcement there is body worn cameras, dashcams, and other forms of evidence to present in court. In government there is separation of powers, on a sports team players are accountable for their positions and respective responsibilitiesā¦ the list continues.
As the expert server is part of a paid subscription, we are entitled, as the consumer, to push for improvement. Anton words it best, controllers are there for the pilots, not the other way around. Servant leadership! Controllers are volunteers, which means they are there to serve. They are in service to Infinite Flight Subscriber Pilots, which they themselves are also a part. We appreciate each and every one of their contributions. The IFATC community should also want to be constantly improving, just like pilots want quality of service to increase.
Iāve discussed this at length in the thread, not everyone has the time to take the IFATC Written, (additional training if required) Practical, and maintain the minimum hour requirement. Just cause we donāt have the time (for whatever reason) shouldnāt exclude us.
Sure, it exists. I acknowledge something exists, whereās the evidence? What can the public see? Nothing, not even the manual. This is why Iām advocating for change, it shouldnāt be pitch black. Darkness is where corruption thrives. There should be some form of transparency, currently there is none as you acknowledged.
ALL of this structural stuff (NOT individual cases, broadscope to inform prospective applicants) behind IFATC (supervisor reviews, spot checks, monitoringā¦etc) should be public information in some sort of manual or guide. There should be clear guidance as to when mistakes happen, this is the investigatory process, these are the levels of consequences (as you layed out: 7 day, 30 day, restriction from certain frequency, removalā¦). Explain that notes are taken and recorded, explain all DMs are in fact recordedā¦.. etc thereās probably so much more. It would be so beneficial to everyone! The fact you explained it yourself shows there is no reason to hide this sort of information!
If youāve ever worked at a hub airport, you know how harsh it is to discipline controllers on the same level as pilots. Furthermore, supervisors already constantly monitor IFATC controllers, and if a serious service degradation occurs at a hub airport, the supervisors will immediately order the controller to terminate the session. Furthermore, if you DM a complaint to the supervisor, it will be noted within IFATC. If this problem persists, the controller can face a one-week suspension or more. I believe this is sufficient. As mentioned earlier, if more severe penalties were imposed, the burden on controllers working at hub airports would be significant. IFATC controllers are also pro subscribers, and they are volunteers. I wonder how much you expect from them. Most people have no major complaints about the current system. I believe the current system is more attractive to ES and IF.
3 Likes
The information is not a secret. You just seem to want information about an organisation you are not willing to be a part of 
.
Anyways, no point discussing in circles further. You have the answer and you can join us if you want to see the internal workings in more detail. .
4 Likes
Yes itās hard, but thatās why you coordinate as a team. Thatās why you do your homework before you open, you do your research. See what real world controllers do, and if it gets crazy, have backup plans.
As for accountability, equal accountability doesnāt mean week ban for week ban, there will obviously be different structures for different means. Appropriate transparency, and equal accountability is the goal here.
Does this actually happen? If I were an IFATC Supervisor, if someone complained I would want some sort of replay evidence before noting anything on someoneās record.
Wow. When was i ever disrespectful?
This attitude and tone is exactly why we need more servant leadership. I want you to be aware that every post you make on this forum represents IFATC as a whole. You are part of IFATC leadership, I would advise you take that role seriously and act appropriately. The dismissiveness is ridiculous. I represent myself.
1 Like
Many people have already said this, but you seem to have no faith in it. As mentioned above, if you join IFATC directly, you will believe what is said here. IFATC is not a closed organization lol Any user who plays IF can join if they meet the conditions.
2 Likes