I had that with an AFR flight at LPPR last night. I was given vectors for approach but ATC got so hung up on repeatedly giving this AFR flight its heading, that it totally bypassed me and I ended up descending over the Atlantic!
Everything i get closer to my TOD the frequency suddenly becomes super busy.
In cruise center frequency is pretty calm with a few handovers to traffic every now and then. But as soon I get closer to my TOD there is constant chatter, with center giving landing instructions, handovers, altitude clearances non-stop and more than once not giving a second of break for me to report that I am ready for descent. Even queuing my request does not help.
The other day I was flying to Heraklion and should start my descent near Athens, but center was so busy micro-managing all the traffic to ever airport of the whole country that my whole approach was a complete mess.
I think what we really need is multiple frequencies / controllers for the same center, just as in real life.
No Airliner approaching crete would hear landing instructions to an aircraft approaching corfu, and Athens, and santorini, and , and andā¦.
IRL I only fly in Austria, but not once I heard traffic in tyrol while flying around vienna.
The magic of BATC. I just flew into KSAN. This time I finally got some of those new speed instructions. SoCal told me to maintain 270 as I was passing through FL180. Cool. However, it then forgot about me. When I was at 6,000, it finally told me to slow down to 220, which it kept me at until I was 1 mile from landing at KSAN. Of course, I had long since decided to simply do my own thing. On top of that, I still got ā ā ā ā ā ā vectors with a course change every 60 seconds, even though I was on the RNAV Z approach to Rwy 27. I just wish these guys would stop churning out āupdateā after āupdateā and instead simply fix some of the basics.
Yeah and we just wished that you would actually read our answers and start being more reasonable.
Version 1.8.6 was entirely focused on core systems. That is the basics. The most recent update covered vectoring and descent planning - again, fundamental features. So the claim that weāre just āchurning out updatesā without fixing the core simply isnāt true. Everything we fixed is linked to a bug reported by someone, and we track the outcome and result with user feedback.
At this point, youāre ignoring both our replies and the patch notes, while repeating the same criticism. Thatās not a lack of work on our side.
Weāre also still waiting on your log files in Discord. Without them, thereās nothing to investigate. If you choose not to provide any data, then thereās nothing for us to fix and continuing to complain wonāt change that.
Weāre consistently working on core systems. If you want your issue resolved, send the logs. Otherwise, this isnāt going anywhere.
Sorry if Iām jaded but Iāve been hearing the same story out of you guys since I bought this a couple of years ago. Lots of great verbiage about how the future is so bright and look at all the shiny new updates and how the next one is going to be amazing and yet the most important aspects of the ATC system didnāt work then and are just as flawed (maybe more so) today. So yeah, itās great that you are adding all these really neat new features but maybe, it might have been better use of your time to get the basic ATC system to actually work first. But that doesnāt bring in new customers (and their revenue) does it?
So yeah, the fact that now you are telling us that you are (finally) fixing the broken ATC system is wonderful but itās a story Iāve heard from you dozens of times in the past so youāll have to excuse me if I stopped reading the latest breathless posts in detail. Just fix it once and for all and I promise Iāll post a message apologizing for being a d*ck. Until thenā¦.
Regarding Discord, I donāt know what to tell you. Get a standard website. This forum is filled with probably a hundred comments from people that donāt do Discord, asking the same thing. Itās filled with just as many comments from people who said they took the time to upload their files and never got a response.
Then why did you even purchase early access software?
Weāve been crystal clear from day one about what this is. At no point did we try to make people believe this would be a quick 6-month project or that it would be fully stable right away. Everything is public and transparent: warnings on the website, in the client before purchase, on Discord, and in every article discussing BeyondATC. We said it would take years, and yet people wanted the early access. All bug reports are public. Anyone can check whatās been reported, what weāve responded to, and what weāre actively working on. We genuinely couldnāt be more transparent, you have all information to make an informed purchase decision.
If youāre frustrated because you thought, all by yourself, that you were ready for an early access product but realized youāre not, thatās unfortunately on you. Repeating the same complaints we already warned about doesnāt help anyone.
Nothing is stopping you from putting the software in a corner and coming back later. What does get frustrating is when people start making claims that are simply wrong - claims that donāt align with our patch notes, development philosophy thoroughly presented, resolved issues, or the amount of work the team is putting in. If you want to share your experience, thatās completely fine. Plenty of users report flights that go wrong or issues they encounter. But if youāre going to state things as facts when they arenāt, donāt expect me to stay silent. Our progress is documented publicly, from day one and the project is clearly still in development.
Our support system has also been clearly explained since the beginning. If you choose not to use it, thatās your decision. But posting incomplete reports or venting without proper information just wastes time. Yours, mine, the teamās, and the communityās. Iāve already spent too many hours trying to reproduce issues with missing details, Iām certainly not going through that path again.
We will focus on reports that are complete, submitted through the correct platform, and include the requested information. Thatās how we make progress and it saves everyone time.
Having had the chance to address the specific update claim Iād mentioned Iāll conclude this conversation here. This isnāt the right forum for further discussion on this topic. I hope youāll find a way to ease your frustration and acknowledge our progress which is well documented and supported by many users youāre conveniently overlooking.
This is not the place to engage in a 1-on-1. Suggest you move that somewhere else.
I share some of the frustrations expressed over time with BeyondATC, and I understand and accept that it is experimental software, and I agree to that.
But I would like to ask a question:
If BeyondATC was running with no other traffic - just managing ATC for the single human user with no other aircraft being simulated to manage - does it handle descent, speed and altitude clearances and vectoring to destination better, with just 1 aircraft?
I consider that to be the ācore functionalityā (for me) because thatās the reason I purchased the software. I consider the additional traffic injection and radio traffic āvery nice to haveā, and I definitely want traffic, but it is secondary to the core functionality.
In a contest / conflict between the 1 human userās flight, and the other AI generated traffic, I would hope BATC would prioritize handling the userās flight and sacrifice the other traffic - sometimes it can feel like itās the other way around, which naturally leads to frustration.
I continue to support and be amazed at the development. Thanks for engaing with the community.
It might alter some things but ultimately other unrelated problems still exist as there are multiple variables that are involved. The team works on issues assuming traffic is active as weāre designing the ATC with the overall experience in mind.
In my opinion, the frustration is the bug itself rather than whether youāre the aircraft with priority or not
Fully agree that we knew what we were signing up for when we bought an early access product ā which, by the way, is infinitely better than the default ATC ā however there does appear to have been a regression with the last couple of updates. Iāve noticed ATC is repeating the same instruction ad nauseum to a single AI aircraft ā with this preoccupation, itās ultimately forgetting about me and letting me drift way of course, to the point that I have to disregard ATC completely and manually complete my flight.
Still a great product, if you ask me. And it is constantly being updated. Patience is key here, I think.
This is the theme, and articulates what Iām saying also. Iām sure they are aware of it, all we can do is keep giving them feedback of our user experience.
I said this a few days ago, and I will repeat it again.
It helps me remember what I signed on for; especially as a Supporter.
All I can say to this discussion is how thankful I am to BATC and the other developers that donāt stop their updates during MSFS beta testing because āfixing something during the beta might change at the releaseā. That excuse is really starting to wear thin with a lot of us.
Thatās exactly what I meant by cycles. Some changes come with trade-offs, and this is usually the phase where people start noticing that things donāt feel as smooth or reliable as they once did. It can be frustrating, but itās often part of the process before improvements arrive and a new, more stable version takes shape.
Thatās why itās important not to hold back on feedback. Whak is currently going through a stabilization phase. It may not be the most exciting stage since it mainly involves fixing bugs and ironing out issues, but itās a necessary part of development 
Iāll also be reviewing bug reports on Sunday night to identify and highlight the most common issues reported so far.
More batc KSAN maddness:
I am cleared to land rwy27, United on the ground is told to āhold short rwy27, traffic 2 miles final (me)ā, just after passing the treshold United is given āclear to takeoffā and 20 feet from the ground (āretard, retardā) I was given āgo aroundā. 
Be sure to submit the BATC log file on their Discordā¦
Iāve had two last second go arounds issued landing at major airports in the last few days. First one I could see no reason whatsoever. There were no other planes on approach or on the runway or even taxiing close by. Weather was mellow. The second was caused by BATC clearing a big airliner to cross the runway while taxiing as I was around 40ft.
I have taken hundreds of flights in my life and, while aircraft have been put into holding patterns at thousands of feet before being allowed down to land to deal with congestion, not once has a plane I was on been told to go around during final approach. Landing aircraft always have top priority and it is the job of ATC to ensure their landing is unimpeded once its approved.
We need to be given a communications option in a case like that āWeāre landing. Deal with itā because thatās exactly what I do. By the way, EVERYTHING else BATC did during that A320 flight went flawlessly but we are people sitting at our computers who have allocated the normal flight time into our lives and adding another 20 minutes to the end of what could have been a long flight, is a no go especially for something that in real life would only happen in a weather emergency or an ATC controller gaffe that could result in their termination.
And no, I donāt have a Discord account anymore. This clearly is not a bug but designed. Iād prefer BATC developers create holding patterns for spacing if they want to simulate the logistics of busy airports. Now thatās a realistic challenge Iām willing to accept.
I agree that I would rather be given a hold than a goaround. That would be an improvement. Although I have never been given a goaround by BATC. I have been given a couple on VATSIM due to spacing.
Irl Iāve only been given an orbit or extension on downwind. I was given a go around on late final once when the aircraft that landed just before me did not exit rwy at the earliest possibility.
Cost me another 30 bucks 
@BragRaindrop933 have you had any problems with Ini EGCC trying to take off from 23R? I just got stuck waiting for some ghost traffic that never arrived. I just went, got shouted at of course lol. Not yet happened on 23L as yet.
Weirdly, after Iād left, the rest of the queue departed as normal according to the traffic map.