Maximum Landing Weight

[Vjacheslav]

I wish to offer idea about addition of parametre Maximum landing weight (MLW) to the data about the plane. In a case if such parametre will be considered, will probably define when the pilot makes landing with excess of this parametre, That in turn could serve as motive about additional damages or plane wear.

It would add more realism to planning and to carrying out of flights in FSA network, and that would not allow to make to pilots such focuses, as landing with full tanks of fuel bought on the smaller price in port nearby

Thanks
Vjacheslav

[Quantum]

Hi,

MLW is something I've been pushing for some time now. The developers know and hopefully it will be included in the future. I've also asked for a penalty to be imposed if you land over MLW.

Regards

John

[alemaobaiano]

Good idea, I'm all for it, but I can see a lot of complaints from people getting penalised for overweight landings.

TTFN

[Telide]

but I can see a lot of complaints from people getting penalised for overweight landings.

TTFN

A well managed airline would not have such a problem the main problem that I would see from that is having you loaded fuel amount to close to the block fule used so I do think alotof "new" pilots on FSA would be making alot of diverts due to low fuel as you no in a head wind you use more fuel but it would teach them to manage it better

[Quantum]

Hi,

There are a couple of things that need to be implemented before this feature could be introduced. Firstly, the aircraft type database has to be populated with MLW's and secondly the client payload adjustment page would have to be reworked. Currently the client payload will always try to load you to MZFW. Loading to MZFW would in many cases cause aircraft to exceed MLW's particularly on short sector lengths. To plan that MLW's isn't exceeded pilots would need to be able to insert a 'planned block fuel' figure which the client would use to calculate MTOW. MTOW = MLW + Planned Block Fuel. This would allow an automatic payload adjustment to ensure operations within limits.

Regards

John

[Quantum]

...........the main problem that I would see from that is having you loaded fuel amount to close to the block fule used so I do think alotof "new" pilots on FSA would be making alot of diverts due to low fuel as you no in a head wind you use more fuel but it would teach them to manage it better

It never ceases to amaze me why pilots do not fly with fuel reserves to allow for headwinds, holding and weather diversions. I see large aircraft landing on fumes by many pilots in many VA's. I wonder how many of those pilots would fly on a real aircraft if they heard their flight crew planning the departure fuel :-

Captain to Dispatch : "What's the expected fuel burn for our flight today ?"
Dispatch to Captain : "We're expecting a 10knot tailwind today so you should burn about 40,000lbs"
Captain to Dispatch : "Cool, can you load me with a departure fuel of 40,500lbs please"

You wouldn't get me to fly with them !

Regards

John

[Telide]

...........the main problem that I would see from that is having you loaded fuel amount to close to the block fule used so I do think alotof "new" pilots on FSA would be making alot of diverts due to low fuel as you no in a head wind you use more fuel but it would teach them to manage it better

It never ceases to amaze me why pilots do not fly with fuel reserves to allow for headwinds, holding and weather diversions. I see large aircraft landing on fumes by many pilots in many VA's. I wonder how many of those pilots would fly on a real aircraft if they heard their flight crew planning the departure fuel :-

Captain to Dispatch : "What's the expected fuel burn for our flight today ?"
Dispatch to Captain : "We're expecting a 10knot tailwind today so you should burn about 40,000lbs"
Captain to Dispatch : "Cool, can you load me with a departure fuel of 40,500lbs please"

You wouldn't get me to fly with them !

Regards

John

ROFL

Yes I no what you mean

I no when I fly my reserve are not a great amout but then saying that I think most of my flights on FSA have had about 2000kg just in case of a small divert or go around

Is there any [online] docs you could recommend in regards to fule calculation?

Thanx
Will

EDIT: said 200kg should have said 2000kg lol

[Alky]

Is there any [online] docs you could recommend in regards to fule calculation?

Thanx
Will

I found this little program on AVSIM. It's a fuel calculator that has a number of aircraft already configured and allows you to setup your own. It also has a window that you enter additional miles for diversions or alternate airports to consider in it's calculations. There is also a unit conversion function built in.
I've used it a few times to get a general idea to how much fuel I will need and it seems to do as it's supposed to

The author is Bracken Dawson you can search on his name to find it or download directly from this link

http://library.avsim.net/download.php?DLID=71098

[Telide]

thanx George I will take a look

[flightsimer]

i understand the reason why you would want it but really who does it hurt if they land overweight? nobody really, it is a game after all... if you want to run your airline with every T crossed and every I dotted, then do that, but its your decision too. If they want a more relaxed airline where they dont have to worry about everything then they should be able to because after all this isnt the real world where it actually matters that they are under the max takeoff weight.

[Telide]

Tyler

I agree with that BUT i think FS Airlines (FlyNET) was created to simulate real world and in turn that means dotting i's and crossing t's to make it simulate the real world and so far they are doing a great job but there is these few things missing and I guess they have not been put in yet due to the amout of coding they will have todo to create them.

[CAPFlyer]

i understand the reason why you would want it but really who does it hurt if they land overweight? nobody really, it is a game after all...

Ummm...weren't you just the one talking about only allowing 1x?

Kinda sounds like a bit hypocritical to me.

[alemaobaiano]

Game or simulation, that is the question...

The current situation is that we have both camps represented on FSAirlines, some do want to dot every i and cross every t, and others are only concerned with making as much money as possible. I try to run an airline in the first category, respecting SOPs and real world limits, but that doesn't make my airline "better" than anyone else, it's the way I choose to run things. For me this restriction wouldn't change our operations, but would, in a way, reward our efforts. I would love to see this extended to airports as well, but I can imagine the difficulty of incorporating pavement classifications, runway friction co-efficients, and gate size limits in the database.

I always try to plan realistic flights to airports, using suitable aircraft for the limits of that airport, and it does irritate me to see flight plans that put the A380/B747/B777 at Congonhas for example, but then for those airlines it's just a game and my focus on "reality" is a needless obsession

If these ideas are to be implemented, I think they need to be optional, allowing everyone to enjoy FSAirlines the way they choose.

TTFN

[Quantum]

Hi,

We accept the penalties for lights, taxi speed, overspeed below FL100 etc and we accept the attrition to an a/c maintenance state for hard landings. To get a penalty for exceeding MLW is a more meaningful penalty. The MLW restriction could be a simple thing to implement from the pilots perspective although it would take a little work from the developers to implement it in the client. All the pilot would need to do is input his expected block fuel into the client and the client would do the calculation and set a restricted take-off weight to ensure expected MLW is not exceeded. After that, the pilot just needs to ensure he has burnt off the fuel that he was expecting to use.

Regards

John

[Vjacheslav]

Hi,

We accept the penalties for lights, taxi speed, overspeed below FL100 etc and we accept the attrition to an a/c maintenance state for hard landings.

thanks. this is a great news!