For many of us within the IFATC, and ATC on Infinite Flight to begin with, we really enjoy what we can do for the community as controllers. However - the one thing that I’ve always wanted is to have some conversion of my controlling time be able to count towards landings (or even be its own category added together for that requirement)
For every 1 hour of IFATC controlled time on the expert server (or time equivalent to be most fair), the controller gets credit for a landing.
Why is this important?
As someone that has been with Infinite Flight since 2017, I’ve been able to keep up my flying status at Grade 3 throughout having a sub. There’s been times where I’ve grinded pattern work (or cub flying between runways - let’s be honest). However, that isn’t a great indication of piloting abilities.
There is a bit of prestige to having a Grade 4 or Grade 5 flying status. While it is not an indicator of ability or knowledge, it’s still a benchmark on Infinite Flight. As an active controller that controls nearly 10 hours a week, most of my time in IF is on the ATC side - that isn’t to say I don’t enjoy flying time to time, however, with the structure as it is and preference to do IFATC, it’s nearly impossible to get up to a higher grade.
Bonus for IFATC to control
Provide a fair controlling to landing ratio in time
Not have to grind Cub/Pattern work to maintain a status
Promote more controlling for IFATC members to earn more landings/grade
This is an amazing idea! Should be implemented!
While training sessions do get you landings, it is only 2-3 per tt, and sometimes only one. Also, some people are in timezones where attending the TTs is difficult. Like for me, majority of TTs are conducted after 7pm and through the night and usually stop at early morning
That works for people who’s time zones / availability line up with training sessions. I for one work all day when the sessions are mostly being run, and then there’s very few in the evening when i’m actually available and will most likely be controlling.
Some people also just don’t want to fly at training sessions.
You’ve got my vote Michael, Interested to see something like this.
I personally wouldn’t want to see this added. I feel like we already have the operations statistic to show your controlling prowess. Also, I want my landings stat to tell me how many times I’ve landed a plane, not how many times I’ve landed a plane plus hours I’ve controlled ATC.
Not to mention we could have people who obtain grade 3 based almost completely on controlling who are not skilled enough pilots to deserve flying on the expert server.
It’s an intriguing proposal that’s been created. As mentioned, controllers don’t require Grade 3 to be able to control on the Expert Server, and adding landings to the official count just voids the accuracy of how many times someone has actually landed.
Keeping Grade 3 access requires 15 landings, and 10 hours of flight time over a 90 day period. Thunderbolt made a good point of how to contribute to IFATC whilst boosting your grade.
When there’s the possibility to control for an hour and achieve 1 or so landings, or fly for an hour and achieve up to 120 landings, I have a good idea of which I’d rather take.
I do feel that IFATC should have some benefit from controlling, but I feel that adding landings isn’t the best way to go. Whilst it boosts the landing stats, it diminishes the value of it at the same time.
Perhaps an alternative could be found for maintaining grade 3, for example having a ‘minimum of 10 hours controlling the past 90 days, OR a minimum of 15 landings the past 90 days.’ I feel that this would be a better solution to the problem, rather than to pose an impact on another statistic that would void its accuracy and value.
I totally agree. While I also agree on the OP idea, it will definitely lead to some disadvantages that are already explained here. Mainly: you’re mixing statistics, this is in my opinion not a good idea. However I also feel the need for some compensation investing my time for controlling.
I vote for your idea @Ecoops123 :)
Thx for bringing this to the table @mwe2187