Rejected takeoff

I have searched multiple times to find a “rejected takeoff ATC” feature, so this is the 1st one. Please mods do close this topic if it is a duplicate.

We all make mistakes in infinite flight. Go arounds to speed adjustments to the wrong airport sometimes. But one thing I’ve wanting to see is a ATC feature to say “rejecting takeoff”.
Just like we have a go around announce feature because we aren’t lined up or we are too high etc.

Why do we need this feature? How is it useful?

Well as we all make mistakes and sometimes forget to check fuel or something and we remember “oh I forgot to check fuel” or some common mistake we all make.

So In the Tower tab after your cleared for takeoff this should be added to the ATC comms:

“San Francisco Tower, All Nippon 98 heavy, rejecting takeoff”

Then an example of a reply could be
“All Nippon 98 heavy roger, exit left on the next taxiway and contact ground/or stay on tower according to the ATC.

If IF somehow did add it, they could add like this to somehow prevent trolls (?)

“Seattle Tacoma Tower, American 32 rejecting takeoff, (then add some reasons to why)

It could be a fuel not checked or flaps not set, trim, etc.
But yes, we would have to figure out something to prevent trolls.

To sum it up

A new ATC request feature for pilots that need to reject takeoff due to a mistake or something the screwed up:
“Dallas Ft. Worth tower, American 17 heavy rejecting takeoff”

Again, I have not found any duplicates. If you do find another original one, please close this topic.

Thanks!

Remember to vote to your own request :)

I think this is needed. I was used to use “Missed Approach” when rejecting takeoff

7 Likes

🤔 I need to speak with my team about this.

I have no team so I’m making this look like a private glass in a meeting place, overall my team I think it’s good, hey, get out the meeting room

Yes, so me and my team has discussed and you have my- I mean our support. At least more than 5 people breached the meeting area.

13 Likes

I actually like this a lot, especially in the event that someone forgets to start an engine, retract flaps, etc (not like I’ve ever done this… definitely not).

Not sure if I can free a vote, but I’ll take a look!

3 Likes

Lol one time i was on runway because i had clearance from ATC to enter runway but then told to exit runway cuz someone was on final so i did something like rejected take off

2 Likes

Happy that y’all agree with it! I’ve always forgot to check fuel 😅

4 Likes

Yeah, if we have a go around request, why not have a “rejected takeoff?” Because it looks awkward when you have to stop on the runway sometimes rejecting…

4 Likes

I think this is a really cool idea but I dont really have any votes left but i really hope it gets added in the game

1 Like

I like this idea, I think I might vote for it from preventing a collision

This would be a cool feature. And if people abuse it then they can just get a violation. Boom, no reason not to add it lol

1 Like

you can always unvote on something. I voted for the a330 and i unvoted it as its already in development . So there is that option you could go for!

I’d love to see this implemented in a realistic sort of thing, but I just think it’ll become too much of an outlet for trolls.

I can already imagine the people faking engine problems just to use the command and the inconveniences it would cause for a hub airport. That’s what’s stopping this from happening, which is why I don’t see this coming anytime soon, from a realistic standpoint.

1 Like

I see what you’re tryna say. If IF somehow did add it, they could add like this to somehow prevent trolls (?)

“Seattle Tacoma Tower, American 32 rejecting takeoff, (then add some reasons to why)

Yes, they could add a reason for rejecting takeoff.

If we add a reason I feel like it can work and stop trolls and then people wont troll that much

Yessss, great idea. Too bad I have no more votes.

What I meant were that people could just say rejecting takeoff, engine failure when they really don’t have an engine failure.

At a hub airport, that would be extremely detrimental to the flow of the airport, and frankly, IFATC don’t need the extra hassle. If you mess up with flaps or forget to turn on an engine, that’s your fault.

This is a needed communication, real life takeoffs are aborted prior to V1, so the provision to execute this in IF is logical. The only argument against it would be a concern of unecessary use or abuse for the fun of trying it. That argument would be weak, because the flight would be at that time abandoned requiring taxi back to a gate for starting all over again. Eliminating a direct taxi back to the active rwy, might keep unecessary aborts in control ? thanks

1 Like

Had to abort takeoff yesterday. This would be helpful. Got my vote

1 Like

Take one out 😉

jk