Crew duty

[IslandBum]

Ive read through all the threads about ways of streamlining the system and making it more (or less) difficult for pilots.
and Ive noticed that alot of singleton CEOs are high in the standings for one reason - They wait till almost the end of the
month and fly very long legs in Hi density aircraft which artificially inflates the stats. In fairness - I could ask all my pilots to
go out and fly say B777s fron LHR-SIN or JFK-TYO for a week and we would be the top of the stats ratings, However we at
VHAVA fly for our own enjoyment rather than playing "whose is Bigger". So here the line of thought which would make the
"game" if you wish much more interesting and more a level playing field as well as providing incentive to hire pilots.

CREW DUTY

Load into the basic programming either FAA or JARS crew duty regulations and tie them to the pilots ids -

viz - no More than 8 hours (compressed or not) in any 24 hours period
no more than 30 hours in any 7 day period
no more than 100/120 hours a month (depending on wether you fly domestic or International)
no more than 1000 hours in any 12 calendar months

As Flynet nor MSFS has anyway of recognising a "heavy crew" then these would become gold standard.
however for those who enjoy flying those incredibly long legs in acft like the B777/A330 and the like - a simple
penalty could be added to encompass operations with three pilot crews or where slip crews would be used in real
life.

You could also impose rest periods between flights.

Now I can already see the flames coming - so I will type this very slowly and very clearly

This is only a suggestion and is aimed at adding a greater degree of reality to what is already a fine system, however
it adds yet another twist to the "game" - and it should be fairly simple to program into the client as it already tracks
flights - therefore it would be fairly easy to log crew times as well.


Ok thats it - said my piece so fire away....just looking at ways to make it more realistic is all


Leif

[cmdrnmartin]

Hey Islandbum, no flames from me, just not that kind of guy.

However, I do enjoy discussing new ideas and such, and since, as of right now, I am pretty much one of those Single CEO airlines, I figured I'd post my response.

Firstly, I don't think any one pilot flies just to boost the stats page. Maybe at the beggining, last year, when it was a five way split between airlines (Io, Ward, Scotjet, and two others) but now, even a flight in a 773ER akes no real impact. Maybe half a percentage point. As to me personnally, I 'fly' a lot of flights, but I tend to vary them, mostly flying around Canada, and the occasional International jaunt. I figure I fly rather consistently, with one or two extra on the weekends, when i have the time. Certainly no 'race to the finish' for me.

As to having incentive of hiring pilots, believe me, every singleton CEO on Flynet wants to do that. Nary a day goes by that there arnt 'pilots wanted' ads posted.

Anyways, that's just my opinion, now on to your suggestion.

Crew Duty has been discussed before, as have putting limits on how much a pilot can fly. The focus of Flynet has always been accessibility. At times, this makes things difficult (the ever expanding VA page has brought for suggestions on restrictions to creating VAs, each of which has to be turned down, since it really wouldnt be fair) as we see things that could be improved for realism, but would affect how easy and simple FLynet is to use. I remember discussing having a pay system for pilots, like a salary, and this was turned down (all though i did argue to hell and highwater about it) because people liked to see the direct net effect of flying a flight. Realism was sacrificed for fun.

While your system would be realistic, would it be fun? I don't think anyone should be penalized for flying a long range flight, in fact, as a child I was never interested in the 737s, I wanted to fly the heavies (despite how notoriously boring long haul is).
As well, the proposed restrictions also violates one of the cardinal rules (unwritten rules) of Flynet, namely: Flynet should not prohibit or restrict our members from flying. If someone wants to fly 4 Atlantic flights in a day, should we tell them they can't? I personnally don't think so. Flynet gives people a purpose to fly, and in my opinion, should not make people worry about whether they've flown too much.

Anyways, thats my bit, no flames

[IslandBum]

Thank you Mate that was fair

However - Leaving landing lights on above 10,000 (a very minor infraction and happens frequently) is to be meted out a 5%
penalty, but Bust 8 hours flight which in IRL would cost the company and the pilot a very hefty fine up to and
including revocation of the companies operating certificate for repeated offences - is not only no penatly but to be
condoned? Not very real is that now


Leif

[cmdrnmartin]

Ref the Landing lights issue, i think Konny is re-writing the whole rule on that, so that we can deal with low level flying, mountain operations, and high airports better than we can currently.

As to the 5% ding, it's more piloting 'technique' at issue, not really an infraction of any type. Anyways, we're working on refining it.

Cheers,