IFATC Departure controller question

Hi all,

I was just wondering what’s the point of having a departure controller in a vector SID environment is if they don’t give you vectors and then eventually tell you to proceed on course? It’s just something I’ve noticed from all departure controllers in Infinite Flight. Be great to know if it’s just part of IFATC training

I fly Ifr in real life quite often and was wondering why controllers wouldn’t give you something as follows:

AC 123: Toronto departure AC123 with you 1,400ft

YYZ DEP: AC123, RADAR CONTACT climb FL180, turn right heading 190

later on…

YYZ DEP: AC123, proceed direct Nuber oncourse

The same thing goes for what center controllers would do. I’m only bringing this up because, on a recent flight, I nearly got into a mid-air collision in the climb of a side with an aircraft that was overflying the airspace.



Most of the time, controllers would allow an aircraft on a departure frequency to continue on their flightplan without the need to issue additional vectors… However, if there is a conflict, controller should issue vectors/speed commands to deconflict and ensure minimum separation is maintained at all times.

You can check out this section of the ATC manual for more info:


Thank you for info, I understand this, although depending on if it’s a vector or rnav sid in a vector i’d expect vectors or some type of proceed on course instead of just radar contact.

1 Like

On IFR here in Infinite Flight, pilots may just only “check in”. A “Radar Contact” from ATC will clear you to fly the SID, and therebefore, the FPL. Though, always be alert for a sudden vector that may be required to ensure separation.

Vectoring on departure happens mostly if the departing airport doesn’t have SID’s, and airspace is busy; that, to ensure separation. There’s some good examples out there like ORD, JFK, etc.

1 Like

The departure frequency is an interesting one on IF and you will notice they are rarely opened. From a personal viewpoint, this is due to the large workload for the radar controller as many (not all!) of our IF pilots are unsure as to how to use the departure frequency. I am sure with your experience you will notice the communications in our departure frequencies are unlike the ones you suggested and more like:

AC 123: Toronto departure AC123 with you 1,400ft


AC 123: Toronto departure AC123 requesting climb to XXX

YYZ DEP: AC123, continue as filed / proceed on course.

AC 123: Toronto departure AC123 requesting flight following to Antartica
AC 123: Toronto departure AC123 with you at 4,300
AC 123: Toronto departure AC123 requesting ILS approach 30R at Dubai
AC 123: Toronto departure AC123 requesting (insert all other possible button pushes here).

As you can imagine, with an onslaught of unnecessary requests and managing an approach frequency, it vastly reduces how effective we can be here. I actually really enjoy the departure frequency, but often find that when I do give expedited departure vectors, they are met with ‘Unable’ or a pilot is unsure of how to continue as filed when directed towards a waypoint. This just creates a huge headache and increased workload for the controller, so it is easier to allow the pilot to follow their filed plan.

So yes, I agree with you, but I think it would be great if someone made a ‘Departure Frequency Guide’ for pilots to understand, which would free us up to be more effective in this area!

Rest assured though, should I find you in my departure frequency I will be sure to offer you some expedited vectors when I can!

Nice discussion point! :D


This is always something that has upset me. Back when I was in IFATC, I always pushed for people to be more attentive to these procedures, the reality of the situation is most controllers just don’t care enough to put in the effort to learn about it as it’s not trained or required. Which is rather unfortunate, because as 7110 5-8-1 (b) says:

When the departure route description on a radar SID contains the phrase, “Fly assigned heading,” “as assigned by ATC,” or similar phrases, with a published range of headings in the route description, assign headings or vectors as needed not to exceed those headings in the published range until reaching the MVA/MIA.

We also don’t have “direct to” yet in sim, which really creates a problem for people who don’t understand that many controllers use “proceed on course” as “proceed direct to”.

The issue with this explanation is if you file something like say LGTNG3 at TPA, you should be vectored but IF controllers let you just go on course, which isn’t correct. They should vector to the first fix, then proceed on course. Per the textual description, “expect radar vectors to join filed/assigned route”. Which then begs the question if I’m cleared as filed via Radar contact, am I allowed to self vector myself to a fix in place of ATC? Really that’s their job.

Again, this is a gap in the current controlling structure of Infinite Flight. The procedures/commands and education of controllers on how to properly administer RV departures isn’t there at this time.


I love all the responses and all the new information. Flying IFR in real life, i guess, has certain standards that haven’t reached the simulator yet, although it’s nice to know that others see the same issue. I think controllers should, at minimum, understand if the aerodrome has mostly vector SIDs or RNAV Sids. Because even setting the top altitude of the SID in the A/p altitude window, knowing that’s typically the initial clearance when using a SID, technically, you are not allowed to climb above that until you are cleared higher.

Thanks again all!