UNICOM: Improper use = Violations


Before we begin discussing the features of this suggestion let me provide a background to it, the reasons that have led me to post this.

Over the last few months I have noticed a huge difference in IF, the introduction of Ultra-Long Range aircraft and Global has given inexperienced pilots the stepping stone to achieve Grade 3 and access to Expert even earlier than ever anticipated. This forced FDS into introducing a set of rules based on landing to violation ratios, welcomed by all and a great step in the right direction to keeping our beloved Expert server exactly what it says on the tin.

My last few flights however, have opened my eyes to a whole different issue. Folk can fly, they perform touch and goes and cross wind landings with the best of us but for some reason they refuse to tell anyone about it. UNICOM is the answer. I have seen a lot of things happening that shouldn’t, unannounced taxiing, runway incursions, go arounds forced by people deciding they couldn’t wait. All because people don’t listen to or use UNICOM.

Before you say it…

I know using UNICOM won’t stop the incursions, but it would at least provide a heads up to the poor guy (or girl) on approach who can execute the go around much sooner.

Get to the feature request already!

So my proposition is this: if you don’t announce you’re going to do something via UNICOM (when ATC isn’t available - which is more than likely these days.) then you receive a warning and subsequently a violation. Much like your speed violations currently.

Please give some examples, you’ve lost me.

Example 1, boarding has finished, the pushback is complete and you’re ready to taxi. Now we all know we should announce this, so we do. As you release the breaks and engage some thrust you begin to roll, nothing else happens - you followed the rules. However the chap next to you, does exactly the same excluding UNICOM. He begins the roll and receives a warning bar “Illegal Maneouvre - please announce intentions”. This would hopefully lead to him using UNICOM, if not? BAM the next bar includes red text and a violation.

Example 2, A queue has formed for take off, you are at the front with 1 aircraft on final. You wait and allow the aircraft to land, seizing your opportunity you taxi onto the runway after ensuring your strobes are activated but forgetting to announce it on UNICOM. You receive a warning bar “Illegal Runway Incursion - Please announce intentions or see tutorials for information.” You panic, announce your takeoff on UNICOM and the rest happens without further incident. If you just decided to take off anyway? BAM - a violation.

So there is my feature request, I think it’s relatively simple to implement seems we have coding for both violations and airfield locations. It will increase the professionalism found on expert and hopefully return it to its former glory and keeping everyone’s integrity. It isn’t a simple punishment system but more of a reminder before the hurt arrives - hopefully educating rather than intimidating.

Let me know your thoughts, and please don’t forget to hit the vote button!

Community additions:

  • The addition of Pushback in the UNICOM menu to alert the system and other airfield users of your movement.
  • A range warning should someone be on final as you make a takeoff call on UNICOM. This will alert the user to the runway incursion and forcing someone else to execute a go around.

This is a very good idea and should be introduced in the future!


Awesome, thanks! Hopefully it gets support from the wider community.

1 Like

I like this idea actually. But I’m afraid if the system may mistakenly think that when we are in pushback, then we will get a warning or even a violation. Which I think the addition of “Pushback” command in unicom would be helpful when needed

Also some people usually announces their intentions to take off when we are seconds to land with them speeding up to the runway and LUAW which doesn’t solve the issue as you have to go around at last minute aswell. There should be a kind of system that warns user when they are using this command if the aircraft is less than a certain range from runway. Which should be helpful in my opinion ;)

Just my suggestion for slight change of this idea. But other than that, it’s perfect! You also got a vote from me ;)


II totally agree, this is a way to avoid voluntary violation and not by mistake

Added that to the request buddy, thanks for the support!

@Guglielmo_Bassetto thanks for supporting this! Please don’t forget to vote for it!


This is definitely needed, i cant count how many times I gone around on Training Server becuase a noob hasnt announced he is taking off.

1 Like

Voting for this idea, I’ve become rather frustrated lately with the amount of pilots that don’t use unicom, leading to confusion.

Sometimes I have to check and see if I’m actually in expert server

1 Like

Don’t forget to vote then! Thanks for the support!

I like the idea, but you don’t get my vote. In real world aviation, people forget to make radio calls all the time. It’s frustrating, but it happens. As PIC, it’s YOUR job to speak to, see, and avoid other traffic. If someone isn’t talking on the radio, get out of their way and save your ship.


This should only be available on expert because people on TS will have a LOOOOOT of violations then they’ll probably stop playing it…

Although, this is a great idea. Hate seeing people taxiing and even taking off without saying anything. Geez.

Again, this is a great idea but it didn’t got my vote because I have none left 😒

I think that’s incorrect to a certain extent. A runway incursion is a violation of rules, leading to DASORS (UK) which is a flight safety report. I also doubt pilots forget to request a taxi at an airport, it just isn’t done.

However each to their own and I thank you for your input.

1 Like

@Mags885. MaxSez: Well conceived and presented but no vote from me.
I fully agree with @Dubya comment above. Additionally I view Violation and Ghosting as overkill. They really are not a learning experience particularly when you fly PO’d for 5 day’s because of a stupid error. I’m not very bright I do assimilate my Pilot Error’s and apply Corrective Action quickly. There’s a better way which includes a shorter learning cycle… Regards Mags and thanks for your time and effort.


Thanks Max, always appreciate your feedback however I’d also welcome your idea of a quicker learning cycle if you do indeed have one? We all make errors, hence the initial warning. To ignore the warning is just negligence and as such deserves a violation in my opinion.

1 Like

@Mags885. MaxSez: Comment noted. Agree with your initial warning observation. For me the IF Master Warnings are insufficient. For example If your in cockpit mode and not distracted by a visit to the flight planner etc the 20 second reaction time programed is an AvSafety Human Factor consideration, in Overspeed, your toast because of it… Even flying with the App add on’s,
IF Human Factors reaction times need reconsideration. We could toss this around for days and not achieve a solution acceptable to the head shead. They drive this train. , Just sayin G’day…

1 Like

I love this idea but I do have to agree with @Dubya . I usually use Unicom, especially when I’m inbound tonaj airport with other aircraft there. But there are times when I simply forget to send a radio call and I don’t think it’s worth a violation.

I can also guarantee that many others don’t use Unicom when there are no planes at the arrival or departure airport. Is that really worth a violation? I don’t think so.

But it’s a good idea, I think if it were implemented, it should be a little reformed to not be so strict.


That’s why there is an initial warning mate, otherwise it’s like someone is ruling with an iron fist and I accept we all make mistakes.

You can’t just slap a violation on an innocent error.

1 Like

@Mags885. Max Sez… Your last comment refutes your original opinion.
Violations are ok for major Pilot Errors. Situation Depends on Unicom for, an uncontrolled empty airport or empty pattern a violation is not warranted. Still no vote your recommendation has become specious at this point. Out of here, last comment this thread for sure this time. GDay All

1 Like

@Maxmustang No, the request is simple. Do something without announcing it on UNICOM and receive a warning, continue to commit to the act without correcting your mistake (announcing it on unicom) and receive a violation.

It’s simple and I haven’t changed or nullified any point.

Maybe you get 3 warnings before a violation.