Absolutely love the repositioning of duplicate frequency change button since the you were already cleared to cross option appears at the bottom of cross runway. You should 100% make a feature request for that to get it moved.
Can’t be bothered to reply one more time so yes to the below question.
I’m not going crazy, right? In most cases, but not all, a request for pushback comes before a request to taxi, right? @HV9690 @Petre2026
Agreed! I would definitely say it’s best for IFATC only, though that is one more thing that they will have to deal with in an extremely crowded ES.
Yes. However, if you’re at a stand or GA parking which doesn’t require pushback, then you skip that
While this is a great idea and one ive asked for myself, the community is scared of big bad curse words and childish behavior so it will never become a reality
Again, bold text to emphasize most or in other words meaning not in all circumstances.
Yes, but you asked a question and I was just answering it. You aren’t going crazy but I was just reaffirming what you said with specific examples
Gotcha’! I guess I didn’t express in this post that I am very aware that not all spots require a pushback. Thanks for the clarification.
Typing this because similar post message and I thought I hit the reply arrow but evidently I didn’t yet again.
Instead of a chat box, just add more message options
I love the idea, but a couple of things
Could not agree more! Just basic, short and sweet, but more specific messages I would think would go a long way. Not just for a sense of realism, but for the purpose of training in the training server, but for making this a learning environment for everyone. As the second entry definition of the word ‘train,’ in Merriam-Webster Thesaurus reads, “…as in to teach.” Which, of course—as assumed—the first two synonyms of the word, ‘train,’ in order of relevance are ‘teach’ and ‘educate.’
As a pilot, I can definitely understand the appeal of a direct communication feature - especially to send requests such as specific runways, remainining on FPL, etc. I see many prospective voters of the feature because of this.
However, I strongly oppose such a feature, taking into account my experience in IFATC. In reality, this feature will only result in being another forum for pilots to send unnecessary and duplicate requests. It will just increase ATC workload which can diminish service quality at the end of the day. Consider that reading direct transmissions would already count as an increase in workload. In busy hubs, I can guarantee 100% that ATC does not have time to read and respond (especially through typing)
In addition, a direct communications feature will inadvertently allow pilots to complain and question ATC instructions live - which will honestly tarnish the ATC experience. At the end of the day, I want to control not only to serve, but because it’s fun. At the very least, feedback and clarification on ATC instructions is welcome through IFC DMs.
As described by others above, the current system of communications (buttons) work enough in itself that it does not need to be supplemented by a direct communication feature. You are already able to request for specific runways and deviations. I understand it may benefit realism, but it does more harm than good IMO.
@Driscan did very well in explaining my thoughts and I share the same sentiments. ATC will always consider and try their best to accomodate to pilot requests - but pilots must be able to accept when their requests are denied.
Consider that when you file a FPL, it is already a “request” to follow it. Hence, “can I stay on my FPL” would just be unnecessary. Radar Controllers have their reasons to deviate pilots from their FPL - they don’t do it just for fun.
On the bright side, I’d support a few of your alternative ideas.
I agree that a button can be added, maybe with a ‘Are you sure?’ UI similar to when you click “Resend Message”.
I’d be open to the idea of these to replace the current “minimum fuel, xx minutes remaining” message!
If I haven’t said, ‘Rejecting takeoff,’ is a much needed transmission. Had an issue before when I was cleared for takeoff, an aircraft was still on the runway/not past the threshold, and there was someone going 180+ on like a 2 mile final.
If you have your hands full with RTO (rejected takeoff), you won’t be communicating.
That said, not exactly a lot of reasons to RTO in IF either.
So, if I reject the takeoff, don’t communicate doing so, and end up indirectly cutting off traffic about to get in line to depart: I won’t get reported? Because I did in the recent past… and got reported. (Adding this because I always hit reply and it doesn’t always directly reply to said post.)
Ideally, tower should notice it first IMHO – if there were a communications option, it would be after rejected takeoff.
Given this is IF, you don’t have the full workload one would have irl with RTO – but I’d want to focus on slowing and remaining on the runway prior making a radio transmission.
When I see RTO from Tower, and yes, it does happen, I issue an ‘exit runway when able, contact ground on the taxiway’
You should not be reported for RTO.
So, communicating my intentions to try my best not to get a report is wrong then, right?
There’s no reason to report a pilot for a rejected takeoff (RTO). The tower controller should see the RTO and act accordingly by providing you with a runway exit.
How would you be cutting off traffic in line getting ready to depart? Could you perhaps explain what happened to you previously?
I’ve never seen an issue with RTOs requiring a fix or more communication.
While the IF UI for comms can use some improvement, keeping it simple but functional is a fine balancing act
“The tower controller [should] see the RTO…”
Appealed and violation retracted, but had communication on my behalf made possible would that situation be an issue in the first place?
Pilot transmission, for example in two words, “Aborting takeoff.”
ATC Transmission—words already in IF in “Roger, exit runway when able.”
Pilot transmission in one word, “Wilco.”