User:DavidK

User:DavidK/Unsorted CBFS message threads

Notes while learning about FSAirlines and CBFS (Classic British Flight Services)

Some of the aircraft used by CBFS

With virtual cockpit (FSX): Hawker Siddeley HS-748 (A748, two-engine turboprop)
Hawker Siddeley HS-780 (two-engine turboprop)
BAC 1-11 (two-engine jet)
Armstrong Whitworth Argosy AW650 (unusual four-engine turboprop; check if 2-d cockpit working, change engine sound)
de Havilland Comet 4 (four-engine jet)
2-d cockpit only: Handley Page HP7 Dart Herald (two-engine turboprop, change engine sound?)
Vickers VC9 Vanguard (four-engine turboprop)
Vickers VC10
Vickers Viscount
Vickers Viking
(Vickers Valleta?)
(Vickers Varsity?)
Apparently not compatible with FSX: de Havilland DH104 Dove (two-engine [?turbo]prop)

Plain text = DaveB; Italic text = me

Early correspondence

As for what aircraft to go for first.. The best one is always the one you're most comfortable with. Getting to grips with the few rules FSA impose can be distracting enough without having to fight against an unfamiliar aircraft so make sure you choose something you're already happy flying. When we started the VA, everyone had to do flights in the Dove first as this is an easy aircraft to fly, it's not too fast.. not too slow and is an ideal trainer. However, it became obvious that as soon as pilots had done their stint in the Dove, few ever flew it again so for this reason, we dropped having the Dove as a 'requirement'.

So.. you can choose whatever aircraft you like from the list of types we use. It is handy now that we have the facility to make proper training flights so your first 6 flights will be done as a Pilot U/T and anything you get up to during these flights will not reflect on the VA. The training flights are there for us to see you've got to grips with FSA NOT to check that you can fly the aircraft.. this we expect you to be able to do already. It's a good idea to do as you suggested and fly a couple of training routes offline first. Just make sure you 'work in' the FSA faults that you can be penalised for and get into the FSA routine. When you're happy, try a live flight. If we can see after your initial 6 flights that you've got FSA sussed, you'll be ranked from Pilot U/T to Pilot and your training rating will be upgraded to full for the type you are flying. From then on, all your flights will (if you don't faux pas) be fare making so you'll earn wages for yourself and the VA. After 10 fare taking flights (6 initial + 10 'earners') you can then request another TR if you wish. Of course, you don't have to;-)

DaveB notes on the Dove, BAC 1-11 and VC10

I've not tried the Dove in FSX but I'm guessing the problems with it are as you suggest.. it's not fully compatible (which in reality isn't surprising as it was made for FS9). The Dove does have a rudimentary AP but this may not be showing due to window naming conventions in FSX which changed slightly from FS9. As it is, the 748 isn't a bad aircraft for FSX even though this too was designed for the older sim. It doesn't push the pilot too hard and is mild-mannered enough to stand some abuse. The only things of note are that Fraser programmed it to be susceptible to engine damage (as soon as you're off the deck and in a positive rate of climb.. pull the throttles back to climb/cruise.. 14200rpm or thereabouts) plus landing hard may trip the generators. It tends to be slightly all or nothing when moving on the ground making it easy to accelerate above 25tks unless you're paying attention but it's something you get used to.

Ben posted details of loading the 1-11 into FSX and I think similar applies to the VC10. Both of these are smashing aircraft to fly (in FS9 at least) but be wary of the 1-11 at or below FL100. It doesn't slow as well as the VC10 and many of our pilots have been caught out with speeding fines! I tend to be over-cautious which is boring but has saved me a fine.

Six questions answered

1. Am I meant to carry a certain number of passengers / weight? -- and is that meant to include a certain amount of fuel, or are fuel levels entirely up to me?

Each flight has a loading page specific to the route and aircraft you are flying. However, you do NOT have to load the aircraft iaw the flightplan if you don't want to. Many FS models come ill equipped to do this anyway and it can become complicated.. depending on the models loading stations. For training flights, the fuel is up to you as this resets to what it was when you picked the aircraft up on completion of your flight. When flying 'for real'.. you will be expected to carry enough fuel for the flight plus reserves which usually equates to around an hour in the cruise. Don't pick one up full and leave it empty.. it annoys the other pilots!

Sometimes, you have to compromise. FSA knows what the empty weight/MZFW/MTOW is for each aircraft and based on 'what it thinks' your payload is, it will let you carry fuel accordingly. If the payload plus 'required fuel' exceeds the MTOW, FSA won't let you takeoff. You will have to either lose cargo or passengers.. this done on the loading page at FSA. Carrying excess fuel means carrying extra weight which in turn decreases the performance of the aircraft AND costs the airline money and cuts down your profit for the flight.

2. Am I meant to enable, follow and act according to FSX's ATC communications?

This is entirely up to you. I hate the native ATC with a passion so never use it ;)

3. Am I meant to begin flights...

....(a) from the start of the active runway at the given departure time;

....(b) from a gate or parking at the given departure time;

....(c) from a gate but not parking at the given departure time, since I'm meant to be carrying passengers;

....(d) from (b) or (c) say ten minutes before the given departure time, so I may then startup and taxi to the active runway in time for takeoff at the given departure time?

Again.. this is entirely up to you. If you want to start at the gate, you can.. if you want to start at the hold, you can.. if you want to start at the active runway, you can. Flight times are calculated 'direct' with (in most cases) a factor of 40mins added to take into consideration weather, any holds if you're flying ATC and getting from and to the gate should you start from or go to either position. Though the routes are accurate, the flight times are not.. even though they've been loaded with some thought to turnarounds e t c. It wasn't possible to take an entire years plans and make them available daily as there are just too many seasonal variations.

4. Are flights taken to have arrived...

....(a) at the moment I touch down on a runway;

....(b) at the moment I apply the parking brake having pulled up beside a gate (which?), rolled into a parking spot (although I'm meant to be carrying passengers), or anywhere so long as it's not on the runway?

FSA knows when you have landed so prepare to end the flight from that point onward. It is not considered to be completed until you have applied the parking brake and have then ended the flight in the FSA client. You can 'complete' the flight by applying the parking brake at any position on the airfield but ensure the aircraft is fully stopped otherwise you may encure a 'moving' violation. The aircraft has to be fully stopped before the parking brake is applied ;)

5. Is the method of navigation up to me? I'm happy with VORs (so I avoid GPS for the sake of some more realism) but I haven't practised ADFs/NDBs(!).

Yes.. completely. You can fly DTO (direct to).. VOR to VOR.. online with VATSIM.. however you see fit :)

6. Things like what altitudes to climb to before commencing navigation, approach requirements at destinations, etc...? The FSX automated ATC isn't good at these...

This is a pretty open-ended one mate. You should be ready for navigation on the deck and the method of climbout depends very much on where you're starting from. Likewise, your approach at the destination airfield. Flying out of the UK to a UK destination, you shouldn't have much by way of obstructions to avoid so climbout iaw the aircraft you're flying. The 748 doesn't go super high anyway so plan your cruise alt iaw the distance you're flying. I only ever fly a handful of local routes in the 748 so I restrict myself to around 9000ft. You can of course go higher.. that is down to you. What you don't want to be doing is wasting fuel climbing to an unnecessarily high cruise alt so it's a balancing act. The idea is to get to your destination as quickly and as cheaply as possible (noting you still have to carry diversion fuel whenever possible) which will ensure both you and the airline make a reasonable profit. We have in excess of $20bn in the kitty but we still like to keep it tight.

Readback after the six questions / Two new questions (7-8)

(a) It doesn't matter how many passengers and/or how much cargo I carry, but, when flying a recorded flight, I need to carry enough fuel for the flight plus around one-hour's worth of cruising as reserve. Excess fuel will cost the airline money. The FSA client knows each plane's MTOW, so I won't be allowed to takeoff if passengers/cargo plus fuel exceeds it.

Correct. FSA doesn't actually 'measure' the aircraft weight.. it calculates what it should be from the database and allows as much fuel to take it to MTOW. It's naff really but it works. If the required fuel exceeds MTOW, you have to either lose cargo or pax.

(b) At the end of a recorded flight, the aircraft I've used should be refuelled to the same level as when picked up at the start -- or to more (full?) if that level was low/empty -- i.e. I need to taxi to a fuelling stand after I've landed. I don't need to taxi to a gate or parking.

Basically.. yes, that's also correct. Look down the list of (for example) 748's and they should all have a similar amount of fuel onboard. Of course some will be lower (but not by much I hope!) and others will be higher. If you go for one with a high fuel level onboard, make sure the last pilot isn't still at that airport as he may have fuelled it high (tanked it up) to do a number of legs. Fuel is more expensive at some locations so it's often prudent to take a little more than required where fuel is cheap so you'll need less of the expensive stuff for your return. DO NOT TAXI TO A FUELLING STAND!! There are a number of fuelling methods.. one is quite complex where you load each individual tank then instruct the Client to 'Compare' the value (this is done to include some payware models that won't be fuelled by the Client).. the other method is 'Simple'. At the fuelling screen, you will see data for the flight and what fuel was left in it from the last flight. FS always loads aircraft up FULL so the 'add fuel' box will show the extra already onboard the aircraft loaded by flightsim. To keep this explanation simple.. assume if you will that aircraft 'A' has a full fuel load of 2000kgs. The last time it was flown on the VA, it ended up with 1000kg fuel onboard. Now.. you have just loaded aircraft 'A' in flightsim and have not touched the fuel/payload section in the sim so.. flightsim will have loaded it to 2000kgs of fuel. The client will read this value and show that it ended the last flight with 1000kg but.. will insert the 1000kg extra loaded by flightsim in the 'fuel added' box. You don't have to accept this level so backspace out the 1000kg from the 'fuel added' box and put in the level you require. If this level falls below the aircrafts MTOW, then you're pretty much ready to go. Once you've accepted the level and hit the 'Fly' button in the client, from that point.. the client is checking your fuel. Should you wander over a fuelling point too slow.. the sim (not the client) may think you want fuel and will top the aircraft up. The client will read this and abort the flight as 'cheated'. Likewise.. once you land.. don't go anywhere near a refuelling point and if you HAVE to go near one.. keep your speed to at least 5kts. If you slow and the sim reads the 'slow' as a fuel request and loads you up.. the client will read this and abort the flight as 'cheated'.

(c) There's no client monitoring of interactions with the automated FSX ATC. (Although I too aren't exactly keen on it, I guess I keep it around to add some more punctuation to the flight. Its approach and pattern communication does seem rubbish, though...

That is correct. As far as the client is concerned, you are on the ground.. in the climb.. in the cruise.. in descent or landed.

7. Since there dosen't appear to be any automated ATC vectoring for patterns or approaches, I'm guessing I'll need to test-fly all destinations to see what to do..?

No.. not strictly speaking. We have an awful lot of routes (well in excess of 5500) and it would be inappropriate to expect every pilot to test fly these first! By all means take a look at your destination airport 'in the sim' so you have an idea of it's layout and the surrounding terrain but this isn't a requirement. The best thing I can suggest is gather around you as many tools as possible. This can be anything from a simple chart or a sophisticated navigation addon. As mentioned earlier.. we supply the routes but how you get from A to B is up to you

(d) Timewise, flights began at the moment the plane leaves the ground and end on touchdown. So, a flight listed as departing 8:00 am and arriving 8:45 am means the plane needs to be lifting off the ground at 8:00 am and, ideally, touching down at 8:45 am -- presumably according to the clock in the cockpit..? Arrivalwise, there's forty minutes' leeway for weather, etc...

Correct.. sort of :) All flights are listed in GMT but you don't have to adhere to that if you don't want to. The client will read if you've not done the flight 'on time' but there are no penalties (real ones) for being either late or early. Using your example above.. if I were doing that flight, I'd start the sim with the time dependant on where I was starting from. If it were on the active.. a start time of 7:55 would be enough for me to sort my life out, prepare the aircraft for the flight and get my nav aids ready. I'd then open the client.. fuel up and as soon as I was ready to go.. I'd go.

8. Presumably settings such as weather, failures, etc, are automatically made by the FSA client?

No.. not quite. You have full control over everything except FSA induced failures. If you want to use real weather or a saved weather, sobeit. If you want to fly in calm air, you can do that also. One word of caution if you use real weather.. be aware of windsheer. Flightsim doesn't handle this particularly well.. not even FSX so you could in theory be descending through FL100 at 248kias and maintaining that for a few thousand feet more. Before you know it, FS has updated the weather or has encountered a weather change and your airspeed momentarily shoots through the 250kias mark. You WOULD be penalised for exceeding 250kts below FL100. I'm not saying this will happen but it's something to be aware of. FSA induced failures are controlled by FSA through the client. They happen when they happen and that's about all I can say on the matter :) Any induced failure is more likely to occur on an ill maintained aircraft (which is why we keep all of ours in good order) but there's no guarantee you won't get one on an airframe with 100% fatigue life left.. it's just more unlikely ;)

(e) The FSA client registers touchdown and does not consider the flight completed until the aircraft has come to a complete halt (anywhere -- presumably on tarmac, asphalt or concrete) and the parking brake is applied. Since, though, the plane will need refuelling, I'm guessing that "anywhere" = at a fuelling stand, i.e. (b) above.

Yes and No. Some of this was touched on in my previous PM. The first part is correct. The client registers touchdown and does not consider the flight completed until the aircraft has come to a complete halt (and yes.. this may be anywhere) and the parking brake is applied. You then go to the client and 'end flight' there though in reality.. it has already ended.. you're simply closing the flight down in the client. As for refuelling.. you do not do this until your next flight. Whatever is in the aircraft after you've applied the parking brake remains there and is not touched until you book your next flight. It is possible that you apply the parking brake.. end the flight in the client then close the client down.. go to FSA and book a further flight in the same aircraft.. close FSA down then open the client.. all while sitting in the aircraft you just landed in with or without the engines running. The client knows what fuel was in there when when the parking brake was applied and reads the fuel level when it's reopened. If you've sat in the aircraft with the engines running.. you will obviously have less fuel in than when you hit the parking brake some minutes earlier and the client will show this in the 'add fuel' box as a minus.. indicating that it knows there is now less fuel in there. This doesn't matter. If your next flight required 500kg and you landed/applied the parking brake with 500kg onboard (as an example).. simply add 500kg.. no more.. no less in the 'add fuel' box. You will see that whatever the minus figure was has been discounted and the aircraft has 1000kg of fuel onboard. So.. you only refuel before takeoff.. not after landing and as mentioned earlier.. keep well away from FS refuelling points.

(f) Navigation is wholly up to me and I could fly online with VATSIM. I've heard about VATSIM but didn't realise it could "accompany" virtual airline flying. Perhaps that would be an answer to (c) and point 7 above..?

Yes.. that is correct. I have no experience of flying with VATSIM but what VATSIM does is basically simulate real ATC when flying in the sim. You will be directed from controller to controller depending on where you're going from takeoff to landing. The best place to go to find out how it works is to visit their website but put simply.. they are there to give you 'live' ATC support for wherever it is you wish to fly.

About making that "pre-CBFS" test flight with FSA

I've tried to book a training flight on the FSA website, but I'm at London Stansted -- I think I read somewhere that's where I meant to start -- and didn't "find" an HS 748 there. First, sorry, as ever, if I've missed something obvious; but, second, even if I'd seen that there was an HS 748 at Stansted, I wondered what the impact on CBFS would be if I tried to book my own training flight. The flight should make no impact on my or CBFS's record, but I guess fuel (and other things?) would need to be purchased before or after it... If so, would that cost be taken out of CBFS's coffers, meaning I should request permission to fly a self-training flight from CBFS first..?

Also, if I am permitted to fly one (or more?) self-training flights and there is no HS 748 at Stansted, I'm assuming someone would need to fly one there for me to use..? Since that'd be a chore/distraction for someone, is there a way I may reassign myself to another airport before trying to file a self-training flight..?

Incidentally, "DO NOT TAXI TO A FUELLING STAND!!" -- understood!

Right. Stansted is our main hub as that's where we began. As for training flights.. if you go to the VA forums and look under VA Training Forum/Training routes.. John has put a link there (Training Flights) to our stats page where you can select the aircraft and see where all the training flights for that type go to. In the case of the 748, all the training flights run out of EGPD/Dyce so.. what you need to do is login to FSA and go to your page. At the top of the page, you'll see a few selections (can't remember how many as I see them all being a CEO).. one of which is 'Buy Ticket'. Click on that option and put EGPD into the box then confirm. You will magically be moved from Stansted to Dyce :) There are currently 6 748's there for you to choose from.

As you only have a TR for the 748.. the only flights 'visible' to you will be training flights for the 748.. no others. Flights are Dyce-EGPA/Kirkwall (return).. Dyce- EGPB/Sumburgh (return) and Dyce-ENBR/Flesland (return). Complete all of those (6 flights in all) with the required degree of competence and you'll get your full rating on the 748 (and 780 too if you want it). Once you've got your full rating, you'll see many more flights for the 748. Be sure then NOT to choose the CBFT flights.. the T denoting a training flight. Normal (non-training) flights for the 748 are prefixed CBF ;)

OK.. I think I've covered everything. Once you're at Dyce, book your training flight as soon as you're ready. You then have 24hrs to do the flight before it reverts to an unbooked state. Rule of thumb whenever possible is not to book any flight unless you know you can fly it. Of course, the real world can often step in and spoil things.. this is understood hence the reason for keeping the flight as booked for 24hrs.

Four more qs

1. Is it possible to make sure my aircraft (the HS 748) is identified as a "Hawker Siddeley 748" or "BAe 748" or "British Aerospace 748" etc when I'm flying in multiplayer mode? I'm guessing not, otherwise the issue wouldn't have arisen.

As far as I know, this is controlled (or can be controlled) by a program called Editvoicepak. I 'think' it's free and there are plenty on the forum who can advise what's required

2. Do you know (or have you heard) of this way of supposedly saving your preferred panel positions on screen? I say "supposedly" as I've tried it and so far it doesn't seem to work. Alternatively, maybe you might know of something more straightforward..?

[No -- "Panel Position" seems the only program available; use it to find/reposition panel coordinates and then update the corresponding .cfg file accordingly.]

3. Do you find trying to keep the 748 at a constant taxi speed a near impossibility? I get the feeling that excellent though the plane seems, (one of) its designers doesn't like taxiing!

I mentioned the 748's ground handling a PM or so ago and agree that taxiing in it isn't the easiest thing in the world to do.. all or nothing being the order of the day. I tend to feather the throttles once I'm 'aroung' where I want to be.. that is, open the throttles.. as you start to get close to your desired taxy speed.. throttle off.. then throttle on.. then throttle off.. e t c, balancing the speed with the throttles. An occassional 'dab' on the brakes may be required to bring the plot back to earth again but this should work ok

That's also exactly what this "rcbgh" groundhandling addon does when I activate it. I set the desired taxi-speed to 12 kts to make sure it doesn't get close to 20 (which would certainly be too fast anyway).

4. When arriving in the vicinity of your destination, it's the lack of ATC assistance re heights, speeds, etc, that bugs me. Having said that, I was quite chuffed by my successful Kai-Tak-like negotiation of the hill immediately before runway 33 at Sumburgh. Anyway, I'm guessing it's unlikely that anyone using VATSIM would cover this corner of the world, so, for this and future flights, I'll need to spend more time looking at the (FSX) map of destinations, guessing when to start descending, losing speed, etc..?

This is open to discussion but there are rules of thumb.. generally, 3 x your FL in nm's for start of descent to where you want to be for finals. So.. if you were at FL300.. 30 x 3 = 90 so at FL300, you'd start your descent 90nm before your arrival at point 'X'.. whatever that might be. A VOR, an ADF.. whatever. This assumes a number of variations such as IAS/vertical speed and IS very much a rough rule of thumb but try keeping your same IAS and a V/S of say -1700fpm as a starter.

I've just found the "Descentometer" on this page, so, if it works in FSX, I may have this aspect licked.

After first HS-748 training flight

Landing lights be ON at and below 1000ft and they must be OFF above FL100. How soon you turn them on below FL100 is down to you.. noting that the LL retraction on some of the older aircraft was speed limited. They won't fly off or break in the sim of course. Likewise.. when you're airborne.. how soon you turn them off after you pass through 1000ft is up to you BUT.. and as you've found out.. leave a safety margin for QNH. I know how you feel about getting stung and it's no more than I did when I got stung coming out of Jersey in a Vanguard. I retraced the flight and reckoned the difference was 13ft.. no more but it was enough.

You can (should you wish) have your LL's on all the way up to FL100/10000ft should you so desire but in the interests of self preservation, turn them off well before this. Likewise in the descent.. as soon as you pass through FL100, you can pop the LL's on at any time though again.. in the interest of self preservation, don't sit with your finger on the LL button.. let a few 1000ft pass first ;) The two main criteria are that your LL's must be ON 'at' and below 1000ft or you'll incur a penalty and they must be OFF by the time you pass through FL100/10,000ft or you'll incur another penalty.

...the "Confirm Flight" stage of the FSAirlines client (step 32 in the ABC guide). I noticed I was unable to click on the "Change" buttons -- should I have been able to do so?

The ABC shows the complex method of fuelling (which you're free to use).. I use the simple method. On the client page you fuel up on (whichever one it is).. you can add as much fuel as you wish. If this figure pushes the 'expected' weight above the aircrafts MTOW.. at the next page you are given the option to either remove fuel, cargo or passengers. If the fuel you loaded doesn't exceed the aircrafts MTOW, then the client 'takes your figure as read'. Should you make a faux pas you can't get out of.. simply close the client and the system will revert to it's previous state

This is what I found I was unable to do, i.e. nothing happened when I clicked on the "Change" buttons beside the Passengers, Cargo and Total Fuel entries. I wasn't unduly perturbed, just left wondering why nothing happened.

This FSA client thing you're seeing is an odd one and I'm wondering if it's because you're a pilot u/t doing training flights? *-) Just to reiterate.. FSA has data for all aircraft in the database and thus works out the MZFW figure accordingly and allows fuel loading on the assumption that the aircraft is at MZFW.. eg, full of pax and cargo. Based on this, it will allow you to add fuel up to and including the MTOW figure. Should your flight require more fuel than up to and including the MTOW figure, it will allow you to load it BUT.. at the cost of reducing either cargo or pax. In this circumstance, the boxes will be 'active' once you've loaded the fuel. The scenario you might be seeing is that the fuel load you're putting in (plus the fuel that is already onboard) does not take the aircraft past the MTOW figure therefore the pax/cargo boxes are not active. FSA is built around getting the maximum cargo and maximum bums on seats to give the maximum profit so I guess there would be no reason to off load either pax or cargo if your aircraft takeoff weight isn't exceeding the maximum permitted.. if that makes sense

Further to my last, I can confirm that the client boxes for changing pax and cargo DO NOT become active if the fuel load doesn't force the aircraft over it's MTOW. Should the fuel load required exceed the MTOW, you then have the option to remove either pax or cargo. When this happens, you don't really have to choose a number.. simply click on cargo of you want to remove cargo and pax if you want to remove pax. The client will automatically remove only enough weight (in whole numbers) to get the aircraft back to MTOW. This is more accurate when removing cargo as cargo is an entity/mass of 'X' kgs and so the exact amount of cargo will be removed. When removing pax, you have to keep in mind that each passenger weighs so much plus it's baggage and if the amount required to be taken off is only slightly over the weight of 1 passenger (+ baggage).. then you lose 2 passengers. Swings and roundabouts

After an engine loss

If it WAS an FSA induced failure, the engine will not restart no matter how hard you try but.. don't let this put you off as it will fly ok on one. You could've accepted the engine-out and continued on your way or chosen to divert. As you are now aware, if you divert.. the system will automatically book an onward flight for you from the divert field to your booked destination :) It is possible to get the engines to restart after icing but if they've been 'over run' during takeoff/climb.. the damage is permanent. Never had a flameout in the 748 but I tend to keep the fuel heaters on and engine deicing on 'slow'. Basically.. if the OAT drops to +5deg or below.. you need deicing on ;)

The other thing I've learned is that the FSA client doesn't like instant replays or (accidental) amendments on the FSX map page during a flight-- yes, I've had two flights aborted this way. I guess it should've occurred to me that the client might not like an instant replay. There doesn't appear to've been any adverse effect as regards CBFS's (or my) profile, but, if this were to happen once I'm no longer under training, would the consequences be dire?

No.. FSA doesn't like you replaying on a live flight because your positional info and fuel burn will keep changing hence.. it spits the flight out :)

Would there be any consequences if this happened during a standard, non-training flight? I'm guessing there would be, otherwise it seems an easy way to abandon a flight that's "gone wrong" without penalty..?

You can get away with a divert on a live flight with no adverse affect on either yourself or the airline. Some of our very long flights with older aircraft need 'diverts' to be factored in as refuelling stops otherwise they may not get to their destination ;) (Perhaps stopovers should be (or are already) on the to-do list for the next version of the FSA client...)

The 748 is restricted (as are most aircraft of a similar ilk) to a maximum of 5mins at takeoff/maximum power. If you want to use max/takeoff pwr until you're well into the climb.. use the chrono/stopwatch on the panel and time it making sure you do not go beyond 5mins. With this aircraft (and Darts in general).. use takeoff power for the takeoff and when you're clear of obstructions, gear up and in a positive rate of climb, throttle back to 14200rpm. 14200rpm is the climb/cruise setting for the 748 so it's pretty much fire and forget. Get it off the deck, throttle back.. and you don't need to touch the throttles again until you're at the TOD. As you start your descent.. throttle back to around 11000rpm. I'm pretty certain you cooked the engines on this occassion ;)

Re Diversions.. I don't think it was possible to have diverts 'and' tech stops factored into the client mate so it was agreed at the time that 'Divert' would serve both. You will notice when you do the second part of the flight that payments for the second part are completely different. You do NOT get paid for passengers as these poor folk have already paid to get from A to B and if you fuelled correctly, you should not need any further fuel. In the case of using it as a tech stop.. you have to make it as close to your destination as possible because any additional fuel will come out of the coffers and you're getting no extra payment/income.. if that makes sense :) To be able to 'Divert' is quite a recent thing. Prior to it's introduction, if you had an engine failure (and I've had a number over my 2800-odd hours).. to divert would bring the airline into disrepute and we'd lose our 120% rating (I think it would go down to 112%). The only other option was to fly on and hope you could get there or.. bug out of the flight (Ctrl+alt+del and stop FS or close the client) then do it again later. I've had engine failures in the Vanguard, Viscount, 1-11, Viking and the worst of all.. the Rapide. The Dh89 does NOT like flying on one engine.. in fact if you load the aircraft to MZFW/MTOW in the sim and you lose an engine.. the only way to fly is down! :lol: Fortunately for me.. the model was at it's default weight and I was only going from GUE to JER but even so, it is one of the most nail biting experiences I've had. The Viking doesn't fly too bad on one engine.. in fact, it flies very well. What it doesn't do is handle on the ground with one engine so it's brakes on and pretend you're at the gate ;)

VA reputation above 100%?

120%... I guess that means 20% better than FSA thought possible..?...!

Where this comes from is the airlines operational safety record and the publics willingness to use to use the airline so.. if a pilot makes a faux pas, while the airlines safety isn't in doubt (unless you crash then it drops below 100%!).. the publics perception and willingness to use it takes a beating. This manifests itself as a drop in passengers/cargo until the reputation reaches 120% again. Put simply.. if you land at the wrong airport.. the virtual world has a snigger in our general direction so the next flight and subsequent flights up to 120% will all be short. If an aircraft should carry say 50 pax, you book the flight as normal and you'll find you're only carrying perhaps 48.. these 2 passengers decided NOT to fly with you. It all works out reasonably quickly but try not to cock up! :lol: This doesn't only apply to the pilot who made the faux pas.. ALL flights are short until the 120% mark is reached ;)

Understood -- although why it should be based on reaching / maintaining 120% rather than 100% still seems a bit odd.

I don't understand the logic of that decision/figure and agree entirely

No penalty when flights aborted?

Don't you think this bug-out option makes the experience far less realistic? Yes, there'd be times when circumstances are beyond control, e.g. computer crash, internet disconnection, power cut, etc, but that's life... In other words, assume all aborted flights to be bug-outs and penalise accordingly, even if some won't be..?

The bug-out option DOES make it a little less realistic but we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. One of the many bugs in FS (both FS9 and FSX) is that there are 'invisible' obstacles in our virtual world. You wouldn't know they were there unless you ran into one and had crash detection turned on which is why we recommend that crash detection is turned off. One of FSA's induced failures is gear failure (which I personally don't like.. I've had it happen!) and while you could land with gear up and walk away, it would be considered a crash and we'd be wrapped over the knuckles. On some aircraft (newer ones).. it is possible to pump down the main gear using (I think) shift+G but on older models (take Ricks Viscount for example) you can hit shift+G until the cows come home and nowt happens. With crash detection turned off, landing on your belly will leave the aircraft to continue on it's merry way for many miles before it eventually stops so again, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Sometimes, the crash will continue on until you reset the sim so under the circumstances, the only real option is to bug-out of the flight and do it again. This may seem like a cop-out but if the flight had lasted 4hrs or so.. it's a complete pi$$er to have to do it again so you end up in a no-win situation. FSA doesn't know which aircraft can have the gear pumped down and which can't and neither can it see where all these invisible objects are so you can't really penalise anyone for bugging out.

On maintenance

Perhaps all flights, training as well as regular, could add wear and tear that isn't automatically fixed. That way, if/when the state of an plane's engines / undercarriage / etc reaches say 90% / 85% / etc, the plane cannot be flown until it has been taken offline for a (short) period and serviced. Pilots could be able to request a service before the plane reaches this state.

No.. training flights are there to simulate the pilot using a simulator to follow/learn procedure. When I joined the VA (I was a bit apprehensive so didn't join until it had been going for some months).. there were no training flights. Your first flight was live and that was that so this system is much better. It also lets us ensure that we don't get any rogue pilots who are intent on self destruction! As it stands, the airframe, engines and landing gear all have wear and tear calculated for each flight (each live flight) and depending on the age of the aircraft, wear will be greater or shorter. For example, the old piston props we operate were quite labour intensive as far as the engines go so this type of aircraft suffers greater 'wear and tear' than say a turbo prop or jet. We as an airline, try our very best to keep the fleet in good order so lessening the risk of failure. None of our aircraft are allowed to drop below 96% unless there is a very good reason and generally, the pilot must ask permission to fly an aircraft at that level. When an aircraft gets close to 96% (overall).. we put the aircraft to maintenance and the 'A' check lasts for one whole day and costs roughly 10% of the cost of the aircraft when new. What we get back is an aircraft with 100% and is ready to go. If an aircraft goes into maint below 96%, it will get a 'B' check which takes 3 days and can cost as much as 30% of the cost of the aircraft when new so.. this is why we keep the fleet in good shape. It costs us less and the airframe can be back in service within 24hrs

On timings

...how about some consequences from failing to keep to arrival and departure times..? (Or have I missed that?) I don't know what counts for real airlines, but, for example, the departure from a gate (otherwise from parking) before the advertised time could incur a penalty (or, if starting from a runway, before the advertised time plus 5 or so mins), while there'd be an ever-greater penalty for every say 5 mins that an arrival is delayed -- so an arrival would have to include taxiing to a gate (otherwise to parking).

I think I've partially covered this before but to quickly reiterate.. while our routes are genuine (with the exception of the Dove).. the times have had to be adjusted to take into account seasonal variations. It would not be possible to cover say April to June then June to Sep from the timetables we use so some wrangling has had to be made to make 1 schedule work for 365 days of the year. Therefore, while you are welcome to keep to the flight time, it is not 100% necessary. If you DO.. your overall score becomes higher as it accumulates. This is difficult to see but when the next monthly figures come out, you will see that some pilots achieve an average of over 100% which strictly speaking isn't possible. This is due to them keeping to flight times (departure at least) and accumulates over the month :) To put in more penalties than are already in place would be folly I think. VA's are in the business of getting folk to fly for them and too many penalties would I think be counter productive.

Just to confirm, however: the flight duration according to FSA is from the moment the aircraft leaves the ground (and it doesn't matter if this is before the supposed departure time) to the moment the aircraft first comes to a stop at the destination and the parking brakes applied. That's the duration that ideally should fall within the estimated duration the FSA client gives before the flight begins. Is all that correct? (So far, I still think the times provided by the FSA client are pretty optimistic when it comes to less-than-direct flights, e.g. Dyce to Flesland or vice versa via the Sumburgh VOR.)

I think you'll find that the time starts as soon as you've fuelled up and hit the 'FLY' button on the client as you are being monitored from this point on. If you have 'Tracker' on and you sit there on the runway or at the gate (wherever you start from).. your sig message will say 'Boarding'. Release the brakes and start to roll and the client will warn 'Taxi' as you reach 6kts e t c. Other than with flights taken directly from timetables, the flight times are calculated point to point at the aircrafts normal cruise speed plus the aforementioned 40-45mins added on for taxiing out/routing e t c. I'm sure that some times might be close even with an added 3 quarters of an hour but you can usually get to your destination with time in hand.

So the flight time doesn't begin when the FSA client reports "Takeoff" or even "Taxiing" -- it begins as soon as you see "You may begin your flight now" (or whatever the words are) in the client's own window? In other words, I should start up, configure, pushback and then taxi the plane until lined up on the runway, then click "Fly!" in the client window? If so, sorry this penny hasn't dropped until now.

To be honest, I've never timed a flight to this degree. While you're not actually flying until you takeoff, you are 'active' as soon as you hit the 'FLY' button. Sit and look at that window having hit 'FLY' and you will see your fuel start to count down. As you move around the airfield, your positional info will change as will your groundspeed. Don't get too bogged down by 'flight times' mate. As I mentioned before, we calculated the flight times for a large percentage of our routes by using such software as FSNavigator. Click on the departure airfield.. click on the arrival airfield and it will give you a rough route time for the aircraft you have selected taking into consideration climb, cruise, descent and airspeeds. Add 40 minutes or so and that is how the flight time was arrived at. It's not set in stone ;) Also.. consider your 'live' time on FSA when pushing back from the gate, taxiing out from somewhere deep in the depths of LHR to a takeoff runway at the other end of the airfield.. slowed by active traffic in front of you waiting to take off and you can see where this is a different scenario from pushing back from Wick to the active then making your way to Kirkwall. ;)

I can see why the client is set to consider a flight ended the first time the plane comes to a stop at the destination with the parking brakes on, as this means you don't have to wind the Instant Replay back that far in order to check out your landing. So, as soon as I've landed and cleared the runway, I now trigger the end of the flight before taxiing to a gate or parking and coming to a full stop with parking brakes on (then powering down -- though I'd say it's at that point the flight could be considered to've arrived, although I don't know whether that's how it's done in the real world). But, for the sake of some more realism, don't you think a flight should officially start from a powered-down standstill at a gate or parking spot? And, if the flight's departure time (not start time) is taken as the moment the plane leaves the ground, for the client to include a time check at this moment to see how late (or early) the plane is departing? (So that would mean either the pilot and/or the client would need to set the time in the simulation to some minutes before this takeoff time -- as above, I use 10 mins.)

So I wonder how FSA has, for example, that "22 mins" as the flight time for Dyce to Wick (81 nm)..!

Sri.. I didn't understand what you've been getting at until that post. There is a bug in FSA that causes such ridiculous flight times in the client. It's not always been there.. it certainly wasn't there when they were FlyNET but there it is. It's been complained about more times than I can put a number to but still it exists. In two words.. ignore it

If your flight is at (for example) 10am, start the sim to give yourself enough time to be on the runway ready to takeoff at 10. While the client is active from the moment you hit the 'Fly' button, it is up to you to be ready to takeoff as close as possible to the designated time.

I'm not sure if I made this clear before and it's sometimes difficult to comment on what you do 'as routine'. As I mentioned before, it is not critical that you do this.. you can start and takeoff whenever you see fit but if you want to play it as close to the schedule as possible.. this is the way to go

Following a company timetable

Second, it looks so far as if I can book a flight to any of the destinations listed at my current airport rather than follow some sort of company timetable or demand. Is this correct?

Yes.. that is correct. By flying a particular flight, you are already following the 'company' timetable and if all you wish to do is one particular flight, you can keep doing it. You do not need to do all the others now you are type rated. However, flying 1 flight all the time does get boring so you can fly the others when and if. You will have favourite routes and some you don't like and you'll find in the end that you fly the routes you like and leave the others well alone. It doesn't matter. Just because the routes are there, it doesn't mean they have to be flown all the time. With close to 6000 routes and around 20 or so pilots, neither we nor any other VA would be able to fulfill it's complete timetable and many of the VA's out there have nowhere near as many routes we have

Crash detection

The bug-out option DOES make it a little less realistic but we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. One of the many bugs in FS (both FS9 and FSX) is that there are 'invisible' obstacles in our virtual world. You wouldn't know they were there unless you ran into one and had crash detection turned on which is why we recommend that crash detection is turned off ...... One of FSA's induced failures is gear failure (which I personally don't like.. I've had it happen!) and while you could land with gear up and walk away, it would be considered a crash and we'd be wrapped over the knuckles ......

But, though it would be tough cheese as regards the penalty, isn't the collapse of the gear on touchdown indeed a (mild) crash? Maybe the penalty could be not as great as a crash where no-one would be likely to survive. Sorry if I'm still missing how invisible objects or manually-lowered landing gear can affect all this...

The point is, with these invisible obstructions spattered around the FS world.. it is quite easy to crash into something you can't actually see. Many times before, I've had FS come up and report 'Building Crash' when there has been enough space inbetween me and the building to fit a row of houses. The obstructions can be just about anywhere and as I said, you could hit one with crash detect on and effectively crash through no fault of your own. So.. we advise crash detection is turned off to stop this happening. A consequence of turning crash detection off is that an aircraft will not crash correctly. Where you could come in gear up.. skid along the deck for a couple of hundred yards and come to a halt, with CD turned off, this doesn't happen. The model will continue on it's merry way for hundreds and hundreds of yards and try to keep flying rather than accept the inevitable. It's another one of those FS bugs that has been around for years and one the developers seem unable to sort out. Which leaves us where.. Turn crash detection ON and risk running into something you can't see or turn it off avoiding the invisible obstructions but laying yourself open to not being able to crash. It's not a difficult one to answer I think

"On block"

ON BLOCK is at the ramp/gate and secured. When you apply your parking brake, FSA assumes you are at your designated STOP position (wherever that may be) and you have the chocks in place

Weather

I happen to have "Real weather with updates" as default -- but I thought the FSA client set up and varied the weather..?

No.. the FSA client has no input to your weather at all. It only monitors speed, alt, positional info, if you're airbourne or on the ground

Perhaps it could set the initial weather, or switch your simulator's weather to real with or without updates. Real with updates could give highest v$ return; real without updates, or set-by-client, less; set-by-user, less again.

More small penalties?

Also, small penalties resulting from less-than-smooth or controlled flying. It looks like there's one already being measured by the client: the "Touchdown V/S" entry (vertical speed on touchdown, I assume) that appears on the post-flight report page.

Yes.. the client measures your TD V/S (though this is not an exact science!) as a means of monitoring aircraft lift. Airframe, engines and landing gear all have calculations which contribute toward the maint routines for the aircraft and they differ from type to type.. that is, piston props are different from turbo props and turbo props are different from jets. Piston engines are more labour intensive to maintain so their degradation is greater than say a turbo prop or a jet. Airframe and landing gear are similar across the range. If you land very heavy all the time, this will have an overall effect on the maint life of the aircraft as the gear life degrades at a faster rate than it should e t c.

Basically, the client isn't able to monitor all the variables you're talking about with regard to penalties or '100%' flights. While I'm sure that FSA could add more, there has to be a balance between running a system with god knows how many pilots active and keeping both the bandwidth and user systems running at a reasonable level. We know through experience here with our own client (we have one but it's not available for general use) that the more things you ask the client to check, bandwidth increases and it actually starts to slow the users sim down so we had to cut back on what the client looked at. FSA are in exactly the same position but with many more users online at any given time.

Realism

I don't think it's realistic to score 100% for a flight so long as you don't make any major mistakes......

The real world isn't this accurate mate so you can't really expect the virtual one to be any different. There are too many variables at work in order to make the kind of penalties you speak of workable......

Well, yes, FSX may simply not provide information about small errors...

For example.. do you fly DTO (point to point), do you fly Navaid to Navaid, do you fly Low Level jetways, to you fly High Level jetways?

So long as you arrived at your destination on time -- unless delayed by cloud/fog/etc -- and didn't cruise below certain levels for certain types of aircraft, you'd fly and navigate as you saw fit.

Any combination of the above will have an effect on your landing time.

Yes, but if there were no events or weather that could cause a delay, e.g. if it were errors such as misjudging your descent and/or a go-around that caused a delay, then shouldn't that be reflected as a less-than-100% flight..?

What would you do if you reached your destination 20minutes early? Would you simply land early saving on fuel or would you hold for 20minutes burning fuel.....

No, you'd land without penalty for arriving early. I'm assuming arriving early isn't a major problem in the real world.

In short, if I make errors such as misjudging a descent (e.g. making it too steep, end too close to the runway, cause a bumpy landing, etc), missing an approach despite good weather etc, making abrupt movements (outside turbulent areas), arriving late despite good weather, etc, then the flight shouldn't be 100%. I've certainly committed all these (with the exception of abrupt movements, probably) and yet received a 100% assessment.

Meanwhile, I've just finished a flight (Blackpool to the Isle of Man) and received a 100% rating when -- I had landed on (and just overran the end of) the wrong runway! Surely that goes to the top of the list of penalties that are missing. Otherwise, why have penalties based on (much) less significant mistakes involving landing lights, parking brakes, etc..?

Landing on the wrong runway at the right airport.. I can't see how this can ever be a penalty mate......

I'd say because it'd be a major error in real life, unlike the smaller errors involving landing lights, parking brakes, etc, that the client does currently monitor.

......the client has no idea what runway you've chosen and again, we go back to the weather and what the client can monitor.

It isn't possible for the client to look up the length of the runway you've just landed on and see that it's shorter than the minimum length set for the aircraft you're flying..? That would be a single check, i.e. not some real-time monitoring, so I'd hope it wouldn't slow things down.

......when I land at most of the airports the Rapide serves, I often land on the grass as when I'm flying the Rapide.. I'm flying pre-hard runways......

So the profile for the Rapide would permit landings virtually anywhere, so long as there's no collision and it's within the area deemed to be an airport (otherwise you'd get the "wrong airport" or "didn't land at an airport" penalty). For this and similar planes, trying to determine whether they touched down on a marked grass runway might be a complication too far -- but for planes that require a paved runway (and of a minimum length) I'd hope this wouldn't be too difficult. The client must already be able to look up information about airports as it already needs to determine whether or not you've landed at the advertised airport (excepting diversions) so I'd imagine the next level of information about how many, what types and in what directions its runways lie isn't far away.

It is possible to program the client to detect differences in surfaces.. our test client can do this but what do you do when you fly from the 30's to the late 70's :dunno: ......

Match aircraft type with permitted runway types and lengths?

I'll get round to making a post at FSA about developing the very limited flight rating system. I guess that, long term, I'd enjoy the greater reality of not having a 100% record but trying to work my way back toward it flight by flight. Right now, my rating may be 100% and, for example, yours may be too -- but I know who I'd bet is the better and more consistent pilot. Shouldn't the rating system do more to represent this?

Client crashes

And I found out the hard way that you mustn't end your flight in FSX before you've ended it in the client, i.e. not until you've entered any post-flight comment and the client has returned to its initial News message.

...paused FSX and then switched to the client...

This is not a good move. You can pause the sim while flying but at the beginning and end of a flight.. it is not recommended ;) There is no reason to pause the sim at either of these phases of any flight. As soon as the Parking Brakes are applied.. you get the message and that's it. Reduce the sim and either hit END FLIGHT in the client or type your message....

Dundee and flight numbering

I revisited Dundee (EGPN) the other day and once again found the runway barely long enough for the HS-748...

I've just had a look at Dundee in FS9 and it does look rather small doesn't it :lol: However, having checked the runway length and width in FS with the real one, the FS runway is correct believe it or not. :-O

Re flight numbers.. If a route has a number of stops before reaching it's destination, the flight number can be the same at each stop. It will change for the return flight stops ;)

Timezones

Regarding timezones.. This has always been an FS bugbear with me. Flying from say Stansted to Plymouth.. you don't lose an hour in real life so why the hell should you lose one in FS?? 8) I guess that with the UK sitting on the meridian, it complicates things a little and this complication will stay for the foreseeable future. TBH.. I don't know how John has calculated 'time' as such but for us here.. all times are assumed to be GMT so wherever you are in the world, however many hours plus or minus you are from either GMT or BST.. the published flight times should be 'read' as GMT. There is no facility at FSA to add footnotes for times of year (as are found in RW timetables) so.. one must assume that departure and arrival times are all GMT. It would be too complicated to publish 'all times local', especially for longhaul where many different timezones are crossed so stick with the GMT convention. Unfortunately, the vast majority of FS clocks don't 'maintain' the 'start' timezone so keeping an eye on the chrono is of little help. One clock that does keep the 'correct' time is the old Concorde clock which maintains Zulu time (GMT). I have it installed on a number of aircraft ;)

From FSAirlines forum

"Departure" and "Arrival"

http://www.fsairlines.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7866&p=39025#p39015

In the real world, there are several "departures" and "arrivals".

Departures: 1) Scheduled Departure (mainly for passengers, but is generally set for when the plane is supposed to close the door) 2) Gate Departure (when the door is closed and the jetway or airstairs are removed from the airplane) 3) Off Blocks (when the airplane is connected to the pushback tug or the chocks are removed) 4) Departure (when the airplane leaves the ground)

Arrivals: 1) Arrival (when the plane actually touches down and speed reduces below 60 knots) 2) On Blocks (when the chocks are installed and the engines shutdown) 3) Gate Arrival (when the door is opened and the jetway or airstairs are moved up to the plane) 4) Scheduled Arrival (when the plane is supposed to open the door at the gate)

For the airline, the important times going out are Gate Departure (when they show in their planning software that the plane is departing) and Departure (when the plane actually gets into the air. With the first, that's when any airline delays are assessed, with the second, that's when any ATC delays are assessed. Coming in, the important times are Arrival (again, enroute and ATC delays are assessed) and Gate Arrival (ATC/airline ground delays assessed). One important note - Gate Arrival can occur even if the passengers are not allowed to leave the airplane. In case of foul weather (mainly lightning), the aircraft can be parked, the doors "opened" (disarmed) and the plane shown as "arrived" but the passengers not allowed to leave the plane until the weather improves. For pilots, the Off Blocks and On Blocks times are what they record for their flight hours. Any time outside of that is recorded as "on duty" but not as "flying".

This goes a bit more in depth than what passengers and most crew need to be aware of, but it's a good snapshot of the things the airlines have to track and be aware of for every flight that occurs.

More comprehensive flight-rating assessment

http://www.fsairlines.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7865&p=39058#p39058

Thanks for the positive comments -- I'm glad a more thorough assessment is being considered. Here are some of the criteria that've occurred to me (to keep this post a manageable length, I've omitted suggestions as to how subtractions or additions to the flight rating percentage might work):

• Flights start and end from gates or parking spots.

• Set the departure and arrival times to refer to scheduled departures and arrivals ([url=http://www.fsairlines.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7866&sid=1391ea80cba2b9f0df8efa30e47f04dd#p39015]thanks, CAPFlyer[/url]), i.e. to the moment your aircraft moves away from a gate or parking spot and the moment you power down the aircraft having set the parking brake at a gate or parking spot. (The penalty for setting it while still moving would still apply.) From the point of view of transporting passengers, this seems more realistic to me. Penalties for leaving the gate/parking early or late and arriving at the gate/parking late would apply, but perhaps not for arriving early. (Incidentally, the time FSX enters in the logbook appears to be as above, i.e. when the aircraft starts moving.) [i]PS I imagine this is already well-known, but at present the client program seems to calculate flight durations incorrectly.[/i]

• At airports/airfields that have them, a penalty (per second?) when straying off paved areas (i.e. wheels onto grass) and too far away from taxi lines.

[i]With the exception of movements caused by turbulence:[/i]
• Climbing too steeply after takeoff and during flight for a passenger airliner.
• Similarly, descending too sharply.
• Banking at too great an angle for a passenger airliner.
• Making any of these movements too abruptly.

• If instructions from (artificial) ATCs can be monitored, then responses to IFR instructions, traffic patterns, landing on the correct runway, etc, etc, could be evaluated. Perhaps aspects such as angle of approach to runway could, hopefully, be evaluated anyway.

• Penalty for flying below a minimum altitude before starting final descent onto runway, especially when airport is near a city or town.

• Graded penalty or bonus for vertical speed on touchdown, e.g. >200 fpm or <100 fpm.

• Penalty for failing to activate deicing system within say one minute of the outside air temperature falling to 0°C or below.

• Penalties for stalls, overspeeds, etc, i.e. transitory events that would compromise an aircraft's ability to fly safely.

• Vary the number of passengers per flight, maybe according to season/destination plus a little randomness.

• Penalty if landing lights switched on before reaching runway or left on after exiting runway during daytime-- if that's the rules for real flights..? Similarly, penalty for port/starboard wingtip lights not switched on before moving away from gate/parking and/or not switched off before powering down..?

• (Increasing) bonus when more realism activated in the flightsim program, e.g. higher realism settings, real weather (with updates), etc.

• Real-time application of penalties/bonuses rather than when flight has been ended in client program.

• (Small) bonus if route flown in real-time (1x) only?

Hopefully most if not all these criteria could be monitored. They also read as only penalties, but, for each one not penalised, a small (fraction of a) percentage could be added to the flight rating so that, over time, an average flight rating that's less than 100% could be improved.

Perhaps this more comprehensive kind of assessment might be available to folk who sign up for the Premium Account?

Thanks for the feedback, CAPFlyer. Here's my feedback on it:

[quote="DavidK"]• Flights start and end from gates or parking spots.[/quote][quote="CAPFlyer"]Okay, but what do you do about heliports that don't have either?[/quote] • Flights start and end from gates or parking spots, or, with heliports, from helipads.

[quote="DavidK"]• At airports/airfields that have them, a penalty (per second?) when straying off paved areas (i.e. wheels onto grass) and too far away from taxi lines.[/quote][quote="CAPFlyer"]2 things here. First, FS doesn't report automatically whether on a taxiway or runway, only if on paved or unpaved surface. As such, it's hard to make that work. Additionally, it would be a major undertaking to define runway types for all the airports in the database.[/quote] Okay, move this down the to-do list, but, if a runway-type database is what's required, then, if other uses could be made of it -- which I'd hope they could, e.g. to facilitate some of the other ideas -- then compiling it may be worthwhile. If so, I'd volunteer to help. PS Just spotted by chance a link to a program called "MakeRunways" which, on first sight, might help here...

[quote="DavidK"][list][i]With the exception of movements caused by turbulence:[/i] • Climbing too steeply after takeoff and during flight for a passenger airliner. • Similarly, descending too sharply. • Banking at too great an angle for a passenger airliner. • Making any of these movements too abruptly.[/list][/quote][quote="CAPFlyer"]FSPassengers does a good job of this. I think this is going a bit beyond our "relaxed reality" idea here.[/quote] Understood. Seems I should look into this FSPassengers program.

[quote="DavidK"]• If instructions from (artificial) ATCs can be monitored, then responses to IFR instructions, traffic patterns, landing on the correct runway, etc, etc, could be evaluated. Perhaps aspects such as angle of approach to runway could, hopefully, be evaluated anyway.[/quote][quote="CAPFlyer"]Not really feasible as many don't use ATC since it's so bad, and what about online ATC? Again, remember that we want "relaxed reality".[/quote] I agree the ATC isn't great (at least, not as provided with FSX) but it does at least provide some boundaries, i.e. this traffic pattern rather than that one, this runway rather than that one, etc, so something to evaluate (if desired).

[quote="DavidK"]• Penalty for flying below a minimum altitude before starting final descent onto runway, especially when airport is near a city or town.[/quote][quote="CAPFlyer"]How do you determine what is "too low" for a given airport automatically?[/quote] I left this suggestion vague intentionally. Knowing no better, I imagine there are international / continental / national minimum heights and then variations specific to airports, so, if not as far as the latter (perhaps added as part of the runway database) then the former -- or something agreed on by FSA users?

[quote="DavidK"]• Graded penalty or bonus for vertical speed on touchdown, e.g. >200 fpm or <100 fpm.[/quote][quote="CAPFlyer"]We are going to implement damage for landings which will do more damage to the plane as they get harder and at some point will cause a "hard landing" which would entail a penalty, so that will take care of that. Beyond that, landing rates are hard to grade because so many factors are involved in it, many of which are nearly impossible for the pilot to control or compensate for.[/quote] I'm only thinking of converting the current touchdown v/s reading into a small penalty for say >200 fpm (alongside any damage/wear-and-tear) or small bonus for say <100 fpm (yes, "small" would need to be defined: say 0.1%? ). I know only too well that a well-prepared touchdown can be marred by crosswinds etc, but that's life; keep striving to minimise that touchdown v/s and I believe the bonuses would (more than) compensate.

[quote="DavidK"]• Penalty for failing to activate deicing system within say one minute of the outside air temperature falling to 0°C or below.[/quote][quote="CAPFlyer"]Flat out no on this one. Icing is much more complex than that. If icing occurs, there are already penalties for that, especially for many of the airplanes that people fly here, to include engine failures and wing ice accumulation.[/quote] Flat-out understood. I added this one as a not-well-thought-out afterthought.

[quote="DavidK"]• Penalties for stalls, overspeeds, etc, i.e. transitory events that would compromise an aircraft's ability to fly safely.[/quote][quote="CAPFlyer"]Yes and no. Too many models have poorly designed models, and even more than that, the default weather can change so quickly as to cause an overspeed, even when flying at normal cruise speeds during the transition.[/quote] Again, that's life; it happened to me only a few flights back, though with hindsight I realised I could've -- should've -- set the plane to make such a moment far more unlikely. The penalty need only be small, since the event is (usually) transitory; say 0.05% for every second?

[quote="DavidK"]• Vary the number of passengers per flight, maybe according to season/destination plus a little randomness.[/quote][quote="CAPFlyer"]Already on the list.[/quote] Great. Is this list available for perusal? Sorry if I've missed it.

[quote="DavidK"]• Penalty if landing lights switched on before reaching runway or left on after exiting runway during daytime-- if that's the rules for real flights..? Similarly, penalty for port/starboard wingtip lights not switched on before moving away from gate/parking and/or not switched off before powering down..?[/quote][quote="CAPFlyer"]First, technically impossible (see the runway/taxiway comment). Second, no, that's not a requirement/rule, nor are the nav lights, depending on the type of flight.[/quote] Understood as regards the lights -- assuming that's how it is for real (if so, I'm surprised) -- but, when you say it's technically impossible, do you mean because it would need the runway/airport database or because it simply couldn't be monitored (or something else)..?

[quote="DavidK"]• (Increasing) bonus when more realism activated in the flightsim program, e.g. higher realism settings, real weather (with updates), etc.[/quote][quote="CAPFlyer"]Don't really see the point in this. Again, we're here for relaxed realism. If people don't want to fly with weather, then I don't think we should be giving an incentive to those who do as it creates a perception that you must fly a certain way.[/quote] Okay, but if flying a certain way = flying with more realism, how about having the option to factor it in for those who'd want it?

[quote="DavidK"]• Real-time application of penalties/bonuses rather than when flight has been ended in client program.[/quote][quote="CAPFlyer"]Already done. You just don't see them until the end on the report, but they're displayed and recorded in realtime. We don't display them because we don't want people restarting the flight just because they get a small penalty.[/quote][quote="DavidK"]• (Small) bonus if route flown in real-time (1x) only?[/quote][quote="CAPFlyer"]Already done. You receive a bonus for flying only a 1x and that bonus gets smaller until there is no bonus for sim rates 8x and above.[/quote] Understood. Two fewer items, then, on this list.

Thanks again for your feedback. I hope any feedback on this feedback to your feedback is straightforward. "Relaxed reality" meaning "You don't have to fly with all these extra monitoring options enabled, but they're there if you want (as a tool to help you improve your flying)" would, I think, be great.

David K

PS As regards departure/arrival times, does the listing of the various fuel levels in an FSA post-flight report ("Fuel (Departure)", "Fuel (Takeoff)", "Fuel (Touchdown)" and "Fuel (Arrival)" in fact mean that the client calculates the duration of a flight from the moment it issues the "Flight state -- Taxi" message to the moment it issues the "Flight state -- On block" one? If so, I'll correct when I start the flight in the client, with apologies for my misunderstanding. I suppose, though, this won't mean much until what appears to be the client's miscalculation of the expected duration of a flight is fixed..?