Servant leadership isn’t a one-way street—it’s a mutual commitment to purpose, not passive submission. In any just system, both sides bear responsibility.
1 Like
I want it to improve. I don’t need to be a part of it to encourage and support change.
1 Like
Yeah, I respect your opinion too. Just remember that, the controllers are already being punished enough.
I didn’t say those words, Anton did. It’s in the quote earlier in the topic. “The pilots are not there for you”
1 Like
Of course I could be wrong but I assume the implication is more general: it is better to give than to receive.
It’s really not complicated for most people, but you can always use Google Drive or similar if you’re having issues on your device.
-
- Plus
Equals a great accountability system. It shows both the system, and that it works. Just saying.
1 Like
Ok so this is getting a tad bit out of hand. Asking for internal data from an organization that you don’t want to be a part of and learn about is preposterous. Also, for your whole body cam idea, we do have replays, from the pilots AND the controller, which the appeals team can and will ask for. IFATC members. Also just for the agressiveness, this is a community topics, all the exclamation marks are giving the tone of accusation towards a community of volunteers.
As for spot checks, IFATC at most has around 7 airports open (and around 3-4 of them may have radar). These airports attract pilots, but they also attract IFATC members. On the discord, we are constantly stopping by airports and providing feedback to the controllers, and when situations do arise, supervisors are notified.
For the suspension idea, @CompetitiveDivide320 touched on this beautifully, as well as the idea that hub airports are constantly monitored. Next time you go to a hub airport with >30 inbounds, take a look at the profiles of the pilots and I will almost guarantee that there is at least one IFATC member, if not more.
As for the attitude in general of IFATC, controllers are taught to be lenient, providing a warning for minor infractions, and if they are corrected, then no violation is given. At hub airports, where controller stress + workload is much greater, G/T splits are incredibly common, alleviating some controller workload, and the violation leniency still somewhat stands. Additionally, controllers are monitored by how many violations they give, overall, and also during a single controlling session.
Here are some numbers since you are so very interested in the IFATC inner workings:
1 in 600 operations on average does an ATC controller usually give a violation
4 violations are usually the most given in a 1.5 hour session at a hub airport.
7 days is how long a controller replay must be kept, and they are always allowed to be pulled.
Also the whole idea of equating pilots to controllers doesn’t make sense as IFATC controllers are trained volunteers with a strict set of rules, while pilots have the option to do what ever they want. (The casual + Training server is always an option for those not willing to follow instructions)
Thanks for reading this. @CompetitiveDivide320 tell me if I missed anything
7 Likes
So difficult to distinguish the real IFATCs given how many users identify their virtual organization as ‘IFATC’ in their profiles 
But yeah I do agree with you in general that most controllers on IF are quite lenient. Sometimes too lenient. I’ve observed many cases where you can definitely see that some pilots (on ES) do not know what they are doing, don’t follow instructions or just downright oblivious to certain procedures and ground rules.
I’ve been going through this post for quite some time and there are certainly valid points made from both sides of the spectrum. For me, the appeals processes are fair - and to be honest I could care less about ‘internal’ processes or what IFATC supervisors/mods do internally. That’s their thing and I don’t think it’s necessary to share anything that is not relevant to the general users.
Many folks think IFATC as a cult / club / elitist group … it is not 
4 Likes
Didn’t ask for data, I asked for accountability and transparency. I proposed a dashboard as an idea to execute this purpose. I justified the dashboard idea by saying: just as appeals posts monthly for pilot education, so should IFATC leadership for the education of everyone. It isn’t just asking for data for the sake of data. It’s asking for a community where pilots and controllers don’t constantly fight all the time. Sure, some of this will happen regardless, but with transparency and accountability from both sides, there will be less arguing and fighting because both sides will understand each other’s perspective and see the reasonings behind decisions.
Wouldn’t mods have closed it? Constructive discussion typically has discourse back and forth and disagreement happens. Sure some controllers have been unprofessional in their comments, but I’ve addressed them respectfully. This discussion and exchange of ideas whether you agree or disagree is the point of this thread.
My question is why do people keep sharing “insider” information if it is so secret? You are just proving my point that the IFATC framework and structure should be public information.
1 Like
these long chats omg, i give up reading this all now. 
4 Likes
The way members act towards “outsiders” (this thread perfect example, I’m an “outsider") and how everything, including the manual, is behind the veil makes it seem like one.
Thank you for acknowledging, I appreciate it.
There is a line between what should be shared and what shouldnt, I agree with you. Just as pilots aren’t publicly shamed for their mistake(when they follow the proper process), so should controllers when/if a dashboard is established.
2 Likes
Just gonna point out that this sentence is a direct contradiction
How on earth do you expect accountability or transparency without data. Data means information. That’s literally all you’ve asked for the entire time on this topic!
On a more serious note, you’ve been using the word “constructive” a lot in this topic @Kstate. Just because you use it doesn’t mean your arguments are such. Going back, you never once made a truly constructive criticism of IFATC that applied to it as a whole. Everything you’ve brought up is either implemented to a varying degree or only applies to specific individuals. Thus, calling your arguments constructive and then citing areas where you also called your arguments constructive simply begs the question.
Now, the way you’ve been approaching every response from other members both of the pilots (which includes every single IFATC member), and IFATC members, is as if you went to the doctor and refused to leave until he prescribed you for a morphine medication when all you need is antibiotics. Just because you won’t accept the answers given doesn’t mean you are right for not accepting those, or that those are invalid. Nothing that needs to be shown is hidden and everything that ought to be hidden is so.
I’m not a part of IFATC, and neither are several individuals who have been commenting here. You are choosing to see yourself as an “outside,” only you have been using that language. In fact, every single IFATC member has been welcoming you with open arms, inviting you to see for yourself why you are wrong, and yet you still refuse. It’s like you’ve labeled yourself as something and refuse to change it, but use it against other people. The fact that IFATC keeps inviting you to join should only add to the certainty that what they are doing is right and good, and not what you’ve been describing it all along.
10 Likes
Sure it appears to be a contradiction. But data isn’t the only way to achieve what I’m proposing. I’m not going to address the rest of your message because it goes down the same rabbit hole I’ve already explained.
1 Like
people still pay for netflix btw 
Sure I proposed a dashboard that contains data, but the main focus isn’t the data itself, it’s the accountability and learning that comes along with it. That learning in and of itself is far more important and should be a priority. They can choose to have a dashboard or they can choose to not have a dashboard, ultimately it’s up to them. I’m just trying to propose ideas to improve the system. Think outside of the box
1 Like
Anywho, Ive stated my points. The message is there and it’s clear. The conversation has been had, the seed has been planted, change is taking place whether you see it or not (there is evidence to this point presented above). This topic hasn’t been closed because it has been productive and constructive, despite what others may think, and in an effort to prevent this conversation from getting unruly (it already has to a degree) I will leave the case as presented.
1 Like
Speaking of which, this topic has gone on long enough, and it’s time to wrap up the conversation. @Kstate, could you briefly summarize your main argument in just a few words?
4 Likes
I just had an unpleasant experience with ATC. At that time, I had requested an ILS approach for a spesific runway, and initially, ATC had given me clearance and vector toward that ILS runway. However, on the final vector, they didn’t provide an accurate vector, so I wasn’t properly lined up with the intended runway.
While I was still trying to figure out how to correct it (because I didn’t intend to violate the vector given by ATC to correct my position to align with the runway), ATC immediately reported me for level 2 violation.
The reason given was that I failed to comply with ATC’s instructions, wich caused me to not be aligned with the correct runway, yet I wasn’t aligned precisely because I followed the vector they provided. It’s completely unreasonable.
I’ve covered a lot, I cant briefly summarize. I encourage people to read it and think for themselves, what do I want to see. How can we improve as a community.
1 Like