On my way through the ToDo-list

Post by **Konny** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:31 pm

The deposit is added to the normal lease costs and given back after the lease, but you have an interesting point Justin, maybe I'll change that.

Anyway, some more things I added:

- Transfer receipts for all money transactions. Just click onto the info-button next to a transaction and you'll see some more details (only works for new transfers).
- Flight reports can now be marked as "cheated" by anyone. The db admins can easily check and delete/approve them then. There's also a function which automatically marks suspicious flights. So please, in order to prevent any misunderstandings, report any problems the client had taking the time or fuel immediately, otherwise a zero-fuel flight might be deleted...

Stan · Post by **Stan** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:30 pm

Thats OK but i hope b4 somebody marks a flight "cheated" they take the time to look at the previous flight as the pilot may have overfilled the aircraft to such an extent that no fuel was needed to be added for the return flight.

Airboatr · Post by **Airboatr** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:43 pm

does it work like that?
I thouhgt the fuel block was just how much fuel was burned.

Post by **cmdrnmartin** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:31 pm

Airboatr wrote:does it work like that?
I thouhgt the fuel block was just how much fuel was burned.

From memory, this is my recollection: There is a fuel block, which is fuel used. Fuel bought is a separate field, and can be zero

Post by **Konny** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:38 pm

It doesn't do anything itself

. Everything's still in the hands of the db admins. The only thing you can do is marking flights so it's easier for them to identify any cheated flights, they will still check if it really has to be deleted. Additionally there's a system which marks flights automatically where there wasn't any fuel burnt or the block time was 0.

Stan · Post by **Stan** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:52 pm

I hold my hands up,you are quite corect, it is the block fuel not the fuel purchased.

Post by **cmdrnmartin** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:03 pm

Leasing Deposits: Havn't checked them recently, but can we set them to display to the leasing airline before purchase of the lease, and also have them applied only if the conditions arn't met. That way airlines can operate the aircraft responsibly without a huge cash outlay, and only pay the extra if they muck it up.

I think it is a bit fairer (and keeps the economic balance) that way.

Airboatr · Post by **Airboatr** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:21 am

Airboatr wrote:is it possible to have the
FlyNET Take up the Challenge Icon
in the upper left corner of the forum page
link us back to the FlyNET home log in page?
http://www.fsairlines.net/

Joe

so uh, no then?

Airboatr · Post by **Airboatr** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:32 am

Konny wrote:It doesn't do anything itself . Additionally there's a system which marks flights automatically where there wasn't any fuel burnt or the block time was 0.

I had a few when I was with VHA in a Agusta 109 (0 time block)before I realized I had to roll the
aircraft forward on the ground before lifting off the ground.
It turned out to be a god pic for a helicopter as one with skids can't roll.

Ionathan · Post by **Ionathan** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:36 am

Stan wrote:Thats OK but i hope b4 somebody marks a flight "cheated" they take the time to look at the previous flight as the pilot may have overfilled the aircraft to such an extent that no fuel was needed to be added for the return flight.

Just looking inside the VA's logs is not enough as the aircraft may have been returned with full tanks from a leasing, in which case the flight which left enough fuel for the "suspected as cheating" one will not be displayed in the owner's log. It has happened to me many times having a B744 returned from a leasing, with enough fuel for a 12 hours flight.

...and just in order to prevent forum "fireworks" celebrating pireps marked as cheating evidences, be very careful when you consider cheating a low fuel consumption. In fact you can never be sure with that. There are aircraft models, including FS9 defaults, which have unrealistically low fuel consumption. It is not cheating not knowing it and it is not cheating using the default models. I suggest, before we mark something to contact the suspected person asking what happened. If the situation can be reproduced in a "legal" way (no aircraft moving, no zero fuel, no configuration changes) we have to accept the pirep.

CAPFlyer · Post by **CAPFlyer** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:59 pm

All of what you're asking for is stuff that is the responsibility of the DB Admin.

As well, if I look at this correctly, the fact that a PIREP has been flagged is only visible to the DB Admins and the pilot in question. As such, flagging is anonymous and will be handled the same way as before - the DB Admins e-mail the pilot or VA in question, determine if any intentional cheating occured, resolve the issue, and move on with the appropriate action, if any.

As such, we have no real need for all this debate as to how to handle this. We've been doing a good job of keeping cheating to a minimum as a community and reporting suspected cheating via private message and e-mail to the DB Admins and we, the DB Admins have been responsive to these reports in a civil way. I don't see why that would necessarily change now. The only difference now is that instead of having to write a PM or e-mail, an observation of potential cheating can simply be reported by flagging the PIREP in question so it'll show up to us DB Admins to review.

Just as an FYI here too, I've only had to take action (removal of VA, deletion of flight, removal of pilot) on 1 out of 10 complaints. Most were completely resolved by a simple message to the person in question to let them know that their actions weren't considered acceptable under the rules of FlyNET.

Airboatr · Post by **Airboatr** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:27 pm

Thanks Chris

I can see it'd not a bowl of peaches
to handle the work load.

Joe

Stan · Post by **Stan** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:43 pm

Well ,something is not right then, because i can see the flag on one of "Global Wings" flights that has been flagged.

CAPFlyer · Post by **CAPFlyer** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:12 pm

Well it's not showing up on the Admin side. Might want to check again.

Stan · Post by **Stan** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:37 pm

It shows up if you enter global wings in the drop down menu then check their fleet ,click on the a346 and then look at the logs at the bottom.Might need fixing.

Been fixed,not showing now.