New Penalty Idea

You are missing something, or have a cool idea for us ? Tell us here !

Moderator: FSAirlines Staff

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2251
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

New Penalty Idea

Post by joefremont » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:20 am

I saw this new story and it gave me an idea, first the incident.
Northwest pilots distracted by laptops lose their FAA licenses
By Joan Lowy Associated Press
Posted: 10/27/2009 02:28:58 PM PDT
Updated: 10/27/2009 02:28:58 PM PDT

Federal regulators have revoked the licenses of the two Northwest Airlines pilots who flew past their Minneapolis destination by 150 miles last week.

The Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday the pilots had violated numerous regulations, including failing to comply with air traffic control instructions and clearances and operating carelessly and recklessly.

The pilots — first officer Richard Cole of Salem, Ore., and captain Timothy Cheney of Gig Harbor, Wash. — told investigators they lost track of time and place while working on their laptop computers.

The pilots' union had cautioned against a rush to judgment. The pilots, who said they had no previous accidents or safety incidents, have 10 days to appeal the emergency revocation.
My idea, if you fly over your destination at your cruise altitude, there should be a 10 percent penalty.
Image

MadJosch
Flight Attendant
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:14 pm
Location: germany
Contact:

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by MadJosch » Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:15 am

...or the account banned... ;)

User avatar
Brian Peace
Chief Pilot
Posts: 685
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Cardston, Alberta
Contact:

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by Brian Peace » Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:53 am

hehe that would catch a lot of guys flying direct GPS across half the world at 16x while going out to mow the lawn only to find when there back, that the a/c has been circling the feild for a while at cruise!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
MAINLAND PILOTS CLUB
http://bcnorth.tripod.com/

Image
Image

hezza
Captain
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:08 pm
Location: Banbury

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by hezza » Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:37 am

It would also "catch" pilots flying a published procedure where the arrival level over the alpha beacon happens to be the same as cruise level (eg on a short flight).

If implemented maybe it should only apply above a certain FL?

/G
Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by CAPFlyer » Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:53 pm

Agreed. I don't know of any approach procedures that start above 18,000ft MSL, so maybe that would be a good altitude for the penalty to come into effect? This would also allow for high altitude airports (even semi-high altitude like Denver) where it's certainly possible that when flying online you might be held at a higher level (11,000 - 15,000) when flying past the airport to stay clear of other arrival streams during the vectors onto final approach.
Image

vaccaro
Captain
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:03 pm

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by vaccaro » Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:22 pm

Can be implemented for the FL filled. If the a/c is still at the filled FL within a certain radius around destination airfield then the client dings and applies the penalty.
So I think there should also be an option entered by the pilot for FL and/or altitude inside the client.

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2251
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by joefremont » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:33 pm

I kinda think it will not catch as many 16x pilots, as the 1x pilots who go to work/sleep/play while there flight continues unattended.

I don't like making it optional based on the filled plan, cause the pilots who plan on flying unattened would simply not fly at that level, and since may flight profiles use multiple cruise altitudes as the AC burns fuel and can the fly higher.

If we keep it simple, if you are within 3nm of your destination and your above 18,000ft MSL or above 1/2 your maximum altitude the client dings and applies the penalty.
Image

hezza
Captain
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:08 pm
Location: Banbury

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by hezza » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:49 pm

if you are within 3nm of your destination and your above 18,000ft MSL or above 1/2 your maximum altitude the client dings
Same objection as above.
Eg: I fly from EGGD to EGFF at 6000 (the SID limit), but must cross the NDB on the destination airfield at 4000 to fly the procedure for ILS12 (or 30).
This is more than half maximum altitude but should definitely not be a penalty. ;)

/G
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2251
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by joefremont » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:55 pm

hezza wrote:
if you are within 3nm of your destination and your above 18,000ft MSL or above 1/2 your maximum altitude the client dings
Same objection as above.
Eg: I fly from EGGD to EGFF at 6000 (the SID limit), but must cross the NDB on the destination airfield at 4000 to fly the procedure for ILS12 (or 30).
This is more than half maximum altitude but should definitely not be a penalty. ;)

/G
Reasonable, we can say there is no penalty if you are less than 5000ft AGL.
Image

hezza
Captain
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:08 pm
Location: Banbury

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by hezza » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:07 pm

Reasonable, we can say there is no penalty if you are less than 5000ft AGL.
Still not high enough. ;)
Procedures at LOWI involve crossing the destination at 9500AMSL (which is 7600ft above threshold elevation) due to surrounding terrain. I am sure there are many other examples. Notwithstanding the possibility of online ATC keeping you higher for traffic flow.

Why not stick with F180 as suggested by Chris?
If people fly by the airport on short flights then it is intentional, not because they are asleep.

/G
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2251
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by joefremont » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:49 pm

Why not use 18,000 MSL? Because then the propliners will be immune from the penalties, an unpressurised aircraft like the DC-3 and DC-4 are limited to 14,000 MSL and I would not want to exclude them from the fun.

Remeber the radius we are talking about is only 3nm from the airports coodinates.
Image

User avatar
flightsimer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:35 am

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by flightsimer » Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:13 pm

i dont know about this one... seems just too much because this is a game afterall and not everyone is here to simulate as real as it gets which it seems like this will make it even more geareds torward.

but the FAA didnt punish them because they simply overflew the destination (that would be the airlines job to do) but because of the reasons why they overflew it and the rules they broke in doing so.

im not sold on it yet.
Owner/CEO
North Eastern Airways

Image
Image

hezza
Captain
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:08 pm
Location: Banbury

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by hezza » Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:42 pm

Remeber the radius we are talking about is only 3nm from the airports coodinates.
Yes, but many procedures are based on a VOR or NDB which is actually located on the airfied (0nm from airport coordinates).
You can be required to fly (or hold) here at over 10000ft AGL as noted above.

Surely FSA does not want to sink to the level of actually penalizing realism, even if it is not rewarded?

/G
Image

WIF1073
Flight Attendant
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:58 am

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by WIF1073 » Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:42 pm

The only way I think this idea could be sensibly implemented, to take into account the various procedures, would be to have a time limit within a prescribed distance of the destination airfield. So a pilot must land within a certain time of coming within say 5nm of the airport for example, of course there must be enough time allowed to cope with online flights being vectored into a hold during flyins etc.

Malcolm
Image
Virtual Widerøe CEO

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2251
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: New Penalty Idea

Post by joefremont » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:49 am

I think the point is that in the RW case, the pilots were punished by the FAA because they were not paying attention when they should have been. If someones piloting an aircraft on autopilot at cruise altitude and it starts circling the airport on autopilot, or just flys over and keeps going somebody is not paying attention to whats happening. I don't think we want to penalize pilots unnecessarily. I think if we take into account if the autopilot is on and changes in altitude and heading it can have a pretty good idea if the pilots are actually flying the plane.
Image

Post Reply