Controller change takes too long

The controller change process is a great addition to IF, but it could be more effective if the following changes were implemented.

  1. At the present time, when the announcement is made, and the outgoing controller closes, his status doesn’t change for somewhere around 30-45 seconds. During this time, the new controller is unable to open, as the frequency is shown as still occupied by the outgoing controller.

This status of the controllers frequency seems to be a polled function, that occurs at a very slow rate. This is reasonable to cover short outages that might occur with a controllers internet connection, or maybe even to allow a controller to quickly check something by putting IF in background for a few seconds. But when a controller actively closes a session, that ought to cause an event that propagates to the server, which is immediately sent down to all devices. This would allow the new controller to takeover within a few seconds of of the outgoing controller closing.

  1. As traffic increases, it sometimes becomes necessary for a controller that was handling tower and ground to release one frequency so another controller can help by splitting the load. Instead of one controller handling both frequencies, you have a separate controller for each frequency. Unfortunately, there is no convenient way to quickly release one frequency. The current active controller has to exit and wait the time described in #1 above before he can come back in with only one frequency, leaving the other frequency open for the new controller.

If the feature described in #1 is implemented above, it would go a long way toward solving this issue. A better approach would be for the current controller to be able to drop one of his frequencies without leaving the controller session at all! He would announce controller change on the frequency he wants to close, then close it, without closing any other open frequencies.

You have my vote!

2 Likes

you have my vote, totally agree with this 🙌🏼

I guess I had one extra vote lying around and I’m happy to put it here.

Not only does it make it realistic, but it helps the flow of ATC operations so much more.

My only question is does it sorta match up with this topic Realistic Controller Change for ATC?

1 Like

I love this idea! You have my vote :D

That would be the ideal solution, and I believe there are some discussions regarding monitoring an active session. That might be next level as it sounds a little more involved to implement. I’ll leave it to the powers to be to prioritize the solutions.

2 Likes

Voted,great idea! Food for thought for the devs 😅

Voted!!!
A great Idea , and its very useful!!

This would be a great quality of life improvement for ATC, voted!

You have got my Vote, too !!!

REALLY AGREE WITH THAT

You have my vote 🗳

1 Like

Excellent! I’ve often had this issue when I’m landing and I’ve often wondered whether there can be a more seamless controller transition. You have my vote for this.

Great idea. Congratulation.

Good idea. Voted!

Good idea! I voted👍

Totally agree!!!

You have my vote! This would help so much in busy airports!!

While I don’t have any votes left… this has my support!

This is very good idea, controller change is usually very disruptive at the hub airport :(

You have my vote!

Totally understand the issue here. I remember when controllers used to be able to open the occupied frequency/position as observers while the other controller is operating. Maybe a similar feature can be useful in this case. New controller opens as observer but status change to active once the first controller closes their session. That’s just one way of doing it but I’m sure our brilliant developers can come up with more practical version :)

Voted

2 Likes