Hey!
Thank you for your message. I appreciate your in-depth thoughts.
I see what you mean. Transitioning from the Casual and Training Servers to the Expert is a big jump. I can agree with this, but will add that the system would be fair if everyone followed the rules or descriptions of these servers:
- Casual Server → no rules at all; everyone can have fun in every way they want.
- Training Server → a server where people can start training for the Expert Server. In fact, it sort of transitions and is between the Casual and Expert Servers by introducing the automated violations and ATC system. Pilots can now start interacting with ATC and respect rules more than they would in a Casual Server scenario.
- Expert Server → final step, which you reached after training for a long time in the previous server. Now, you know better how to use ATC and can start doing so by interacting with more-qualified controllers and an even more professional environment.
Sadly, this does not happen (especially the 2nd point) and changing the whole would be very hard most likely, and at the moment, I don’t an idea on what the change could consist of.
Yes, that is true. I would say, though, that many people make confusion (I am not talking about you only, but in general): all the tools the app offers publicly (so, non-Beta, Airport Editing, and so on features) are also available on the Casual and, most importantly, on the Training Servers, and those will be enough to join the Expert. Or, well, most of them should since, as I mentioned above, the Training Server isn’t as professional or as “training” as it should be. I would say that if just the ATC aspect on the Training Server improves, the whole experience would become much better. Still, I do believe most of the users would be more than capable to learn by flying on Training Server.
This is true as well. I’ve seen (and constantly see) many cases like the ones you described above. While every IFATC controller is different, as every person is different in every aspect on this planet, we are encouraged to give out warnings, unless it is a straight disregard of the rules on the pilots’ side. While it is not as vast as having the ability to speak in-app, we have enough commands to warn you about the mistakes you may be making, and often, as soon as you are reminded about those, you can easily fix the already-mentioned mistake, and everyone is happy. This is what usually happens with minor mistakes, oversights or similar. As I said, a straight disregard of the rules (i.e. taking off from grass, entering the runway with a plane on final after being told to hold short, etc.) will surely result in an immediate report.
In other cases, such as lag/disconnections, which you mentioned, then, it is slightly different. The most usual case is that we, as controllers, send you instructions, but you, pilots, do not receive them. So, we think you might have missed it and re-send it. Then, proceed to send warnings and eventually, will issue a violation. From our interface, we don’t know for sure you are having internet issues, and while we could imagine it, we need to report you if you are not following the instructions. The thought process is simple: this user is not following instructions even after several warnings → they will get reported. Was it a connection issue? If so, we don’t know, but they are free to appeal their violation. If not, then the violation was justified. As I phrased it, it sounds a bit too strict, but it is how it works, and if the user was not actually following instructions, then it was the good choice to issue the violation, based on the rules you and us both have to follow.
I haven’t quoted the entire part of your message as it was a bit long, but read it entirely. I see what happened. I have a few tips for this. Missing or misreading an instruction is something which could happen to everyone. However, just for your and everyone else’s information, who may not know this, the ATC comms menu has all the information you need to know. In extremely busy airspace, you can easily miss commands. But this is what you can do:
- Double-tap on the ATC comms list/messages on the right-hand side to see the messages directed to you only.
- Watch the top right corner of the menu to see the latest altitude, heading, speed and runway given.
In the unfortunate case of missing an instruction, and you are reminded about it, you can quickly use the menu to see what you were given. In the example you made, it seems the violation was given slightly quicker than usual; however, at the same time, the airspace was busy, so controllers are under more pressure and violations may come sooner than in a (so-called) dead airspace. In the case you described, I would personally quickly change my runway visually (= not activating any APPR or similar; remove AP → proceed manually and visually towards the correct runway) if still far away; or Go Around immediately if closer.
Regarding what you mentioned about the IRL procedures, that is correct. However, this is a simulator which, at least in the ATC aspect, is a bit limited. I mentioned above the fact that we have enough commands to warn you, but it is nowhere close to being a voice ATC simulator or IRL ATC. So, sadly, sometimes, it is very hard to communicate with pilots. I can assure you we all try our best to establish communication, but it is not always possible to have the perfect/best communication we would like to give. That said, just as the ATC communication and violation system is not what happens IRL, we could say the same about other things which happen in this simulator (precisely because it is so), such as the level of traffic. In the real world, ATC not only can speak (so, it doesn’t have a limited amount of commands, even though, of course, there is a precise language system), but it will never reach the impressive levels of traffic Infinite Flight gets at the hub of the day almost daily. So, yes, it is not an excuse; however, making the simulator exactly as IRL not only lies on the ATC communication and violation system aspect, but in many other as well.
Regarding the whole paragraph which follows the quoted sentence above, I would disagree. I have been part of the Appeals Team for over two years now, and I have to say that recognising an oversight rather than someone purposely/directly disregarding the rules is pretty simple once you get used to reviewing the replays, which is a fast process (the learning curve for new Appeal Team members). Often, other members of this community are incredibly surprised to see how many violations we remove as a courtesy for pilots to learn. You may see the stats in topics such as this one by one of our members, Erik. So, I find myself to disagree with the transparency and balance fact you mentioned, as we are very understanding, and most importantly, utilise much of our time to carefully explain what happened, whether the violation is removed or not, which can be helpful for you to learn whatever the outcome is.
I can agree with this. I think I have covered most of the things at the top of this message, where I mentioned that a better Training Server system should probably exist, even though, personally, I don’t know how to improve it, if I were given a chance to express my ideas about it.
I would say the first two suggestions you made, if further worked on, of course, could be nice. I am not a developer, nor really have direct contact with the developers currently, so I cannot help with that, but only redirect you to the Features category of this forum.
Regarding the third (“Improving the appeal process”), I disagree. As of now, for someone who has access to all the behind-the-scenes of it, I would say it is pretty clear and transparent, also thanks to the stats topics I linked above, and is as good as it can probably be. As for anything else, it could be improved in some aspect, but I must say it is pretty good and helpful for everyone as of now.
Again, thanks for your message. No worries at all, it is always good to discuss and express thoughts. This is as long as it is done properly (= respectfully and professionally) as you did. Hope my message (which was pretty long as always for messages by me) was helpful 