But what about the risk leaking Alpha things explaining the situation?
Are all appeals members also Alpha testers?
And if not, should they?
So if I appeal and say the aircraft that was in front of me, live, I can’t see and wasn’t there but that same aircraft y’all can see (appeals) can see in the replay, and I get a level 2 violation will you reverse the violation? Pilot on latest Alpha, ATC on the RTM.
Understand that is the issue, I don’t see the plane, but y’all do in the replay, should that violation stand?
Excellent question. Cause many ATCs are not Alpha testers while they are on RTM. They may not see what we (Alpha testers) see or don’t see. Which what happened to me today. Got a level 2 violation today (second time) for that with no warnings from ATC.
There are flaws in the system. Planes do disappear and reappear. Some new liveries may been seen may not. And I got violations behind those reasons.
Just edited my message as you replied…
Bringing the question should they be Alpha testers to understand all and everything about a situation
1 Like
Thank you for sharing your experience, LasVegas!
I’m always happy to see you in my airspace! 
1 Like
Maybe to the bare minimum an Alpha user appeal looked at by an Alpha AND Appeal member under the same build played
1 Like
I edit my comment too! But yes excellent point. The ATCs giving out violations to testers when at times they can’t see what we see and vice versa.
1 Like
Thanks a bunch 
1 Like
What was out of my control is disappearing aircrafts and internet connection issues. @vipr needs to see this entire topic!
And I’m really sorry for what you experienced on the ES. Indeed, violations might be harsh, unneeded or very quick, but it depends on the situation.
For example: it was very busy airspace, I was vectoring aircrafts for sequencing, and one of them just turned themselves from base to final. One more minute, and they were going to break separation. ‘Please follow instructions’ was kind of useless, because the spacing is very tight, and no matter where they turn— they are going to cause troubles. Hence, I issues a violation without hesitation.
And frankly there’re many more examples 
On the other hand, I understand the factor of ‘not being attentive’, that’s why I can double- or even triple- send the command. If there’s no response, I just disconnect, because it’s clearly connection issues, not ‘not following instructions’
That being said, violations are there to help to maintain overall user experience, not to feed controllers’ egos, as a lot of pilots think… And a proper violation must always be used, based on a good judgment of a situation.
Again, thank you a lot for flying with us for so many years! And hope to see you very soon!
4 Likes
Please read this topic for further information
Agreed with what others have said, have controlled several times when you’ve flown in/out of the airport and it’s always a pleasure!
I will say it’s sometimes difficult to work out if someone loses connection as their name doesn’t always go “orange”, disappear or it’s difficult to see them glitch in busy airports/airspace, so it’s difficult to interpret if what they’re doing is because of connection, mistake or trolling.
I think the majority if not all of us find the sessions more enjoyable when we don’t have to issue any violations. It would help ATC massively if we could give more detailed “Check User Guide” instructions than just the generic one we have.
2 Likes
I agree with everything said. And I might have a solution for future feature implementations. If getting done right, it could improve the experience on both sides drastically: Reporting feature: „Warning“ option ⚠️ for ATC
3 Likes
Voted! Great idea!
1 Like
Had already voted in that! It’s a very good idea.
1 Like
I hear ATC using that check user manual for help using… For every wrong request. Lol i even heard one ATC not only send no flight following is required after… Than throw check manual for help… a second later lol that guy deserved a promotion
Warnings are a courtesy, not a requirement. You may receive a warning in quiet airspace, but when it’s busy, and it doesn’t seem you’re making any attempt to comply, you can’t expect tolerance.
Connection-wise, we have a specific violation that only disconnects you and doesn’t impact your record, which is ‘unable to communicate’. If you receive a violation for that, it’s nothing to worry about.
The alpha version is on the same server as the stable version. You’re advised to be careful of any bugs on the alpha version for this reason.
Don’t apologize for me. I support the decision of the controller. There was an aircraft who collided with another. We acted accordingly based on the information in our screen. I can’t see his screen nor his internet being intermittent.
1 Like
If you are not an Alpha Tester… then you don’t know what bugs we test and currently there is a connection bug as of right now. Does that warrant a violation to be given (that does have an impact on your status) if an aircraft disappears and then pops back in on top of another plane or going thru, taxi or in flight, another airplane? Absolutely not.
There are flaws in the violations where violations are given where aircrafts disappear then reappear, especially in busy airports or air space. In some not all cases… it may be an Alpha Tester, testing. Which happened to me, not once twice on two different occasions, without warnings, which affected my status and why this topic was made.
The server doesn’t matter. Alpha Testers are in a different version of I.F. and have features others including ATCs will not have. ATCs need to consider this. That’s why a warning can be important.