Open IFATC can control some TS airports.

[Aviation_Yan]

I noticed that many posts are writing about ES is not professional enough or TS transitioning to ES is too difficult.

Enhancing the Training Server’s Practicality and Professionalism to Improve Pilot and ATC Learning Experience

In the current state of the Expert Server, there is a noticeable increase in behavior that falls short of “expert” standards. This adds unnecessary traffic pressure to hub airports and negatively impacts the experience for both pilots and controllers. At the same time, the Training Server seems to fail in providing the necessary preparation for pilots aspiring to enter the Expert Server. Therefore, I propose a series of adjustments to the Training Server to transform it into a true training envi…

The Expert Server is lacking expertise - let's fix that

Today, I was reading @Jose_Oscana’s Please Follow Arrival Chart Speed Restrictions, and I found the following claims: These two claims were both made in relation to the idea that the expert server doesn’t feel like it deserves to be called “expert” anymore. As a member of the IFATC organization, Jose was trying to request that pilots would simply follow airspeeds on arrival charts - which, might I add, would make it easier for people like him to enhance us pilots’ experience on the ES. As a p…

I saw a good reply, “Feedback is needed”. Trained IFATC cannot control on TS, which means that it is difficult for pilots from G1 to G2 to get feedback.

---

So I suggest:

Open IFATC can control some TS airports.

How to do it？
I think new rules can be set up: for example, the Featured Route airport on the schedule can be controlled by IFATC, but they can only give “Unable to communicate”，No other forms of report can be given.

Keep “Follow Instructions”, “Follow Instructions Report” and “View Manual” can be sent.

And make a logo on the corresponding interface.

Once ATC reports Unable to communicate with the aircraft, the pilot must be told why it is done through IFC PM.

---

If you agree with this suggestion, please vote!

[JinYi_Fan]

That’s a reasonable idea, but I might not vote for it. This would add unnecessary workload to IFATC. Reporting his violation directly would be a more efficient and clear approach. If the pilot requires additional support, he should proactively ask the current IFATC controller rather than expecting controllers to offer assistance unsolicited.

Like I said before this reporting will not count in.

[Zowtch]

Hello,

Can I add another feature topic that is similar but not the same?

Thanks Zowtch

[Driscan]

I’m not sure if anyone who is accustomed to controlling in the Expert Server (ES) would enjoy controlling in the Training Server (TS). 80% of the pilots would get reported if you give controllers the ability to report in TS. “Unable to communicate” would get abused since TS airspace and controllers are not monitored by anyone. I controlled in TS once when I was in radar training, never again!

[Aviation_Yan]

I’m not sure, because I’m not a Mod or TL3 user

[Trey]

I’m sorry, but this isn’t really something we’d want to blur the lines on. At the end of the day, the purpose of that server is to train for the expert server, whether that’s as a pilot or a controller.