Ping Warning before ghosting

This idea is by @theoneeyedtenor, but i really like s the idea, therefore made a request for him.

Since the introduction of 20.2 the inclusion of audible warnings for things such as overspeed have been of great help to those of us somewhat handicapped in the sighted department.

However, I wonder if there might be some consideration in the future to go a step further; namely, giving ATC the option to ping a warning to an aircraft before issuing a violation so that it triggers the same type of alert as an overspeed. In a busy airspace/airfield, it’s sometimes very easy to miss a command if all there is to notify you is the little headphone set icon flashing.

This is not an attempt to skirt the rules; they are there for a reason and we all respect that. Nor is this some sort of underhanded dig at the excellent controllers. However, it seems to me to be a common-sense feature which is currently in absentia

Please support this feature and vote if you would like it to be added to the sim, thanks!

This is what the “please follow instructions or you will be reported” warning is for.


ooh…never experienced that before (cuz i’m grade 1)

It’s not always that simple - because of the way the system keeps track of messages it takes someone like me who has trouble reading the text at that size awhile to find the instruction…

I understand where this request is coming from. Perhaps an iteration of sorts would be if you don’t respond to an ATC request that requires a reply after 30 seconds (or whatever set time this is just an example), a message pops up on the screen. A pop up that is similar to the other popups such as when you’re automatically tuned to a controlled frequency when they are opened. That way, it’s impossible to miss and you have to acknowledge it before moving on to anything else.

However, do be aware that there are circumstances where issuing a PFI or you will be reported is just not possible. Things such as a fighter jet taking off at 1,000kts in a busy airspace. There is no time to issue warnings for such behavior.

Hey, I’d like to think I’m a responsible pilot and wouldn’t try a stunt like that. I’m thinking more of ground operations such as missing a progressive taxi instruction, say

Try double tapping ATC box where the messages apear and it will only show the messages which are yours or the ATC to you. that will help

That’s a thing?? Never knew that!!! (Facepalm)

1 Like

Oh definitely not accusing anyone of irresponsible behavior. It does happen though. My suggestion would be tough for ground. Those progressive taxi instructions typically do need a fairly quick response/acknowlegement.

There are certain offenses where a controller will give warnings. On the flip side there are certain offenses in which violations are handed out without a warning. These are more serious offenses where a warning would not help because the act has already been completed.

However if you are suggesting that warnings given by the controller generate a pop-up instead of a normal ATC log that may be something. However there are a lot of warnings given out that may result in overusing the pop-up.

However I personally see it that if you need a pop-up message to tell you follow rules then maybe Expert Server may not be the best for you. You are supposed to be monitoring the ATC during your flight.


In that case, a compromise specifically targeted as an accessibility feature; have the text of the message flash up in a window like the existing alerts do, along with the responses?

1 Like

For the tenth time I’m not talking about a lack of following rules… This is about making it easier for those of us with limited vision. I know perfectly well how to use the system and how to obey all commands given by ATC. What I meant was it would help to avoid averting my monocular gaze away from front and centre to squint at a tiny text box ;) The chap who reposted my feature request chose that title himself. It’s not about being warned before disconnecting. It’s about how to display ATC instructions in general. I didn’t word the original post very well, I admit, but as I said this isn’t some underhanded attack on IFATC

1 Like

I understand. Perhaps this is why you should have waited until you meet the trust level and do your own feature request. Things can often gets missed when features are tried to be created on behalf of someone who does not yet meet the requirements.

Would you like me to close this and wait so you can do one with the correct information when able?

Perhaps that would be the wisest course of action

Sounds good, thanks. I understand your concern though and can see how it would be beneficial given your explanation.