Short theory test to enter Expert

Hi all,
As a member of IFATC, I’ve recently had an increasing number of pilots on the expert server who call inbound on the ILS/GPS when they’re on base or downwind, who think that ‘Line up and wait’ means ‘Hold short of the runway and wait for your takeoff clearance’, who sit on the runway for a minute without doing anything after being cleared for an immediate takeoff or who think ‘backtaxi runway xxx, please expedite’ means ‘you may proceed down the runway at 5kts when you feel like it’.

This happens to me all the time. Every session, I have a few people who do each of the above. FDS and the community have taken many steps to try eliminate this problem, yet there are still people who ignore the community forums and fly on expert because they feel they can get away with no knowledge of the procedures we use.

I am aware of the many requests to change the requirement so that only Grade 4s And above are allowed on Expert, but I believe that would only narrow down the number of people who are allowed to fly on Expert, but the ratio of those who do know the procedures to those who don’t would stay similar.

You mean you might have a way of definitely separating those who know the procedures from those who don’t?

That’s exactly what I mean. The way my idea would work is there would be a multiple choice test that a pilot would have to pass in order to be allowed to fly on Expert, covering all the main procedures.

A test every time we want to spawn on Expert?! What a useless waste of time.

No no no. As a programmer myself, I believe it should not be that difficult to add a logic that would check whether the user has previously successfully completed the test, and if the user did, then they will be let to spawn on expert straight away.

OK, so now you have the people who know their stuff, but what about those who fail the test?

I believe if someone fails the test, they should be given a message saying they need to improve their knowledge of the procedures, and a link pointing them to the tutorials category on IFC.

It’s still inasenly easy to cheat and Google the answers when filling in the quiz

And? It doesn’t matter if the pilot knew the procedure, or Googled it whilst taking the test. The important thing is that he has had to put some thought into the procedure and should hopefully now know it.

And… Breathe 😃 that’s my idea, I’d love to hear what you guys got to say about it.

Other great suggestions by fellow community members




See ya in the skies… ☁️✈️

I’m going to have to say this is a intelligent idea for Expert Restrictions for a change. Not that every other Expert Feature was actually good

My feedback on your response

A short “basic” theory test would indeed get rid of those “tough stains”… As of the update, it is easier to achieve Grade 3-5 moderately easy, with accommodation of all the grade 3-5 pilots. Most are forumers, as well as idle to the forum yet haven’t discovered. Ages could even range from 7 or 8 years old to 60. A quick theory test would make sure the pilot is well aware of different situations as well as different scenarios. That part there, I will have to agree.

My Questions Now. If the test was implemented do you believe an individual question should come from the IF-Training Series, or just in General. I would love to hear back with a detailed response, I’ll clear a vote for this.

I am not totally sure what your question means? If you mean whether the questions will be based on the YT tutorial series, than I would have to reply that the questions are mainly up to the devs, I would imagine something along the lines of:

  1. What is a pushback?
  • A 90 degree turn at the gate
  • A straight push away from the gate, and a turn to face your intended direction of taxi
  • A push to the runway
  • Time for you to get a snack

And some scenario based questions, such as:

  1. You were cleared by approach for the ILS approach for rwy 12, how do you call inbound with Tower?
  • Inbound for landing, requesting rwy 12
  • Inbound for landing, requesting rwy 30
  • Inbound on the Visual, rwy 12
  • Inbound on the ILS, rwy 12

Hope that clears up your question a bit.

See ya in the skies… ☁️✈️


As long as we have “What does “Remaining in the Pattern” mean?” then I’m down.


Yeah, that’s a must 😃. But then again, ultimately it would be up to FDS to decide the questions


This would give people fewer excuses for doing things wrong. The moment someone does something seriously wrong, they get ghosted. No warnings.

Also, if someone is ghosted on expert, they should be required to retake the test.

Another idea regarding the test itself would be to have a large number of possible questions. The questions for each test are selected at random from this bank, making each test different.


Two great ideas you got going on there! Can I add them to the original post so that all the suggestions stay in one place please? I will credit you of course.

On the other hand, a lot of questions means a lot of work. Just throwing that out there

Snap, almost forgot:
See ya in the skies… ☁️✈️


Of course you can add them to the main post.

1 Like

Thank you very much, you can expect an update to the main post once I figure out how to format it ;)

See ya in the skies… ☁️✈️

1 Like

I love the idea of this. However I see a couple things that would need some thought into it.
For instance what do you do about the members that are grade 5 and are not part of the community here?
How would you physically implement the test? Also how do you enforce a test for a product that a consumer has paid for and holds the right requirements for that individual to enter expert server?
While you have the right idea to try and help making expert server a better place and I’m not trying to pick your idea apart I’m more curious how you would resolve some of these isssues.

OK. Let me take your post apart 😁:

How do grades filter into my idea? I have created this topic to try avoid those suggestions to sort people based on grades. As for the community part:

It would be possible to have another screen that would have a question. Upon choosing an answer it would load the next question and store whether you answered right or wrong. After a certain number of questions, it would evaluate your overall score.

Since FDS are the developers, they can make passing the test a requirement. Ta da! 😉

Hope I cleared up some of your questions, and:
See ya in the skies… ☁️✈️


Ok I accept the first two answers. However as a consumer that has paid for an app plus paid for a subscription would you want to be forced to take a test to use the app? I do understand that you are referring to expert server only, but how would you feel if you just bought a new Xbox or PlayStation and you have to take a test to be able to play it online just bc some people don’t follow rules.

I like the thought of this. Don’t know if FDS would consider implementing something like it…but here are a few things to piggy back off this idea…

  1. If someone fails, there should be time between the failed test and the re-take. A window like 24 hours…because there could be abuse of someome just guessing answers until they eventually get them right and still not understand the proper procedures.

  2. Should be timed.

  3. Should be a re-test every so often…maybe every 90 days or if a pilot drops below grade 3…just to validate pilot still understands proper behavior/procedures.

  4. Would IFATC be exempt?

  5. Questions may have to be updated by FDS as future updates roll out.

1 Like

I don’t think it would be a problem for those who care. Those who care about expert server rules tend to know the answers to the sorts of questions we’re proposing.


Either this or permanment bans for certain offenses, like buzzing the Tower at 1650knts or taking off from the taxiway for example. If someone thinks that they are in a game and not a simulator they should not be allowed to continue using the training and expert server.


  • activity engaged in for diversion or amusement play the equipment for a game


  • a machine with a similar set of controls designed to provide a realistic imitation of the operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or other complex system, used for training purposes.

This has been brought up time and time again. And again… And again… And again…

What is stopping someone from passing the test to gain access and then behaving like they did before?

Anyone can answer a few questions or even fly right when someone is watching. Only to turn around and take off from their gate.

Yes, it looks good on paper but the practical side of it is lacking with holes.

Could quality on the expert server be better? Yes. Right now it is just growing pains I guess. Not every pilot is a pilot on real life. Plus if we keep throwing more and more commands and options at them it turns into a systemic issue where the program is causing the issues.


Maybe so maybe not. I care for the expert server myself I fly on it everyday I follow rules and instructions of ATC. However just bc I may know the answers does not mean I would want to take a test to be allowed to fly on a server. As a consumer I have paid hard earned money for plus the yearly subscriptions that I have bought over the last 4 years. I just can’t see how you would enforce that.

The government sometimes uses that method, of pulling questions from a bank. That might not be a bad idea. The only issue I see with this is how long it takes to get someone on expert, and what current flyers would have to do (i.e. take it or not take it).

I think it would be good to do a little test similar to what is done for expert ATC controller, but more basic

Another idea would be to allow anyone on to the expert server, but as soon as they are ghosted for any reason, they are required to take the test.