A Proposal to prevent accusations of "cheating"

vknierim · Post by **vknierim** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:50 am

To go back to the original intention of this thread.....

Since there is some controversy about imiting the flight time of a pilot, here is a suggestion that would one the one hand 'limit' the flight time of pilots per day while let them fly as often as they wish on the other hand:

Maybe a function implemented in the website that "blocks" a pilot for a certain amount of time. This "block" time would of course be the flight time of the flight the pilot has booked corrected by the maximum sim rate allowed for that flight. One example:

Lets say that at 2pm in the afternoon a pilot booked a flight from EDDF - KORD which takes about 9 hrs to comlete. The max sim rate for that flight is set to 4x, this would mean that the pilot is blocked for approx. 2 hrs (real time), since this would be the absolute minimum time he needs to complete the flight when he/she is not cheating using slewing.
So the next flight can be booked by this pilot at 4pm.

Of course this does not solve the fuel burn issue, but it would prevent (or at least make unattractive) cheating using the slew mode.

Comments welcome.

Volker

Post by **cmdrnmartin** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:49 pm

Of course this does not solve the fuel burn issue, but it would prevent (or at least make unattractive) cheating using the slew mode.

Actually it doesn't correct anything.

Player B is not a cheater. He books the route you suggested, and the timer starts. He goes and has a sandwhich. He goes outside, goes to work, and then comes back. 8 Hours have elapsed... And how long do we know the average flight is? Do we go based upon the times CEOs have entered? Because then a cheater simply changes the 'required' time to a minute.

Player A is a cheater, he sets up at 16x, slews, and completes the flight. He is blocked for 15~30 minutes. If he sets the flight time of the flight to 1 minute, he is blocked for 6 seconds.

It's not really a feasible proposal, and it is still violating the principle that we should not have any restrictions on when, or for how long someone chooses to fly.

IslandBum · Post by **IslandBum** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:50 am

I take umbrage at the statement that the proposal was a "violation of principles" - FRANKLY I Get a little annoyed at the
"holier than than thou" attitude taken by certain Mods here - I think you need to read what I wrote - it was a proposal
at a vain attempt to stop some of the petty bickering on the forum concerning cheating - And I will repeat if you think
flying 15 hours a day (in compression or real time - is realistic then your very much mistaken , It takes Flynet to the level of a first person shooter type game - as do flying aircraft for 15000nm that have a maximum range of 6000nm - I see nothing real there at all . What I said was that if one wanted to have a more realistic scenario scenarion then AMONGST other things the use of FDPs would be a start - I could also add that NO real airline flies "direct" from London to say LA yet I see that going on all the time. - Other items that would need to be added have been mentioned before - REALISTIC fuel pricing, the ability to tanker through destinations , Updated and more realistic maintenance pricing and scheduling, better pricing and load models - I could go on for a while - At present Flynet provides a ROUGH model of how an airline works and gives flying both in FS and as a VA a certain amount of purpose . However it could be vastly improved IF Konny wasnt advised by folks who's experience in the industry is limited to reading airliners.net and what they think airlines operate like.

Martin Imsure you will be locking this thread as it violates "forum rules" but I have spoken my mind. I made a legitamate suggestion and feel that as a moderator your response was uncalled for .

Leif Harding

Post by **joefremont** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:32 am

Actually Lief, there are lots of direct real world flights between LAX and Heathrow (including by UAL, BA, AA, and more). There are real world flights where they will take off with two crews on board, and they will switch in flight. If we were to implement some sort of hours limitations how would such flights be recreated?

As for your comments about "holier than than thou" attitudes and the need for more realistic pricing models I am in agreement with you. I think that what flynet tries provide is a more realistic economic model and the fuel cheating that is going on is upsetting that.

vknierim · Post by **vknierim** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:50 am

cmdrnmartin wrote: It's not really a feasible proposal, and it is still violating the principle that we should not have any restrictions on when, or for how long someone chooses to fly.

No I do not agree on that point with you. It's not a restriction on when or how long someone flies. If someone is not cheating then he/she is 'blocked' anyway for a certain amount of time because he is flying. This time is usually higher than the block time of the system I proposed in my last post, assuming that no real pilot would taxi to the runway, take off, cruise, land and taxi in with a time acceleration of 16x. So no one would be affected who uses the system in a genuine way. Of course restarting the current flight should be possible all the time. Also cancelation of booked flights and subsequent booking of a new flight should be possible all the time.

Regarding the flight time issue: it is of course always a problem, if the CEO chooses to cheat. But there are easy ways to prevent using unrealistic flight times: you have the distance between airports in your database, and you have the cruise speed of the aircraft in your database. So it's no problem to calculate the minimum flight time for a given flight. You could even add 10% to that time to take into account that the aircraft will not do the whole flight with maximuym speed if you want to. So unrealistic flight times can be prevented very easily in my opinion, if departure and arrival times are given in the same time zone (which could be made a requirement of the system, since it is usefull anyway).

If you stick to your principle to have "no restriction at all on when or how long someone chooses to fly", you should not care about cheating using the slew mode, because with that principle it does not violate any rules.

Greetings

Volker

CAPFlyer · Post by **CAPFlyer** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:41 pm

Justin, I'm sorry, but your opinion is not the same as "being in the spirit" or a "principle of" of FlyNET. Konny already made it clear he didn't agree with unlimited time for pilots to fly because of the exact problem that happened with Canadian Air North - the perception of cheating. He didn't agree with restricting them to 100% real-world requirements either, but he did not agree with people being able to fly as long as they wished and abuse time acceleration.

That is the FlyNET "spirit" or "principle" as Konny is the one who created this and has the final decision on the issue.

CAPFlyer · Post by **CAPFlyer** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:47 pm

joefremont wrote:Actually Lief, there are lots of direct real world flights between LAX and Heathrow (including by UAL, BA, AA, and more). There are real world flights where they will take off with two crews on board, and they will switch in flight. If we were to implement some sort of hours limitations how would such flights be recreated?

And those are the EXCEPTION and not the RULE, which is what Lief is speaking of. He's speaking of the people who fly 15 hours over 3 or 4 flights, something that you can't do in the real world with a single crew.

Out of the THOUSANDS of flights a day that UAL flies, less than 200 are over the 10-hour maximum that is available without a full relief crew onboard (you can fly up to 10 hours in any 24 as long as there is at least a relief captain aboard).

IslandBum · Post by **IslandBum** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:17 pm

Joe & Chris

Im sorry I should have clarified what I said and meant - Direct as in ATC direct - like draw a straight (well curved Great circle)
line between two points - Is what i was reffering to in real life THAT doesnt happen either - In Flynet it seems the norm - People fly with no concern for airways, MOAs, RAs or any other real world features - something which you are totally unable to do in the Euro-Control enviroment and less and less in US Airspace as well - there seems to be little concern with RVSM, NATs or NOPACs - probably the only people who fly realistically are those using VATSIM.

Leif

Post by **cmdrnmartin** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:17 pm

I take umbrage at the statement that the proposal was a "violation of principles" - FRANKLY I Get a little annoyed at the
"holier than than thou" attitude taken by certain Mods here

I fail to see how my opinion constitutes a holier than thou attitude.

I think you need to read what I wrote - it was a proposal at a vain attempt to stop some of the petty bickering on the forum concerning cheating

There's a much simpler way to stop the forum bickering over cheating, a new rule:

Any threads accusing an airline of cheating in some way shape or form, will be deleted. All inquiries/complaints should be made to one of the admins, or to info@flynet.en-studios.de

The forum rules have been updated accordingly.
Problem solved

And I will repeat if you think flying 15 hours a day (in compression or real time - is realistic then your very much mistaken

I never said it was realistic, I just said that I'm not against it if someone wants to do it.

It takes Flynet to the level of a first person shooter type game - as do flying aircraft for 15000nm that have a maximum range of 6000nm

1. No it does not take flynet to a FPS game, if someone wants to put in the hours using our system, I will not tell them they can't.
2. Your second point is related directly to fuel cheating, which I am against, it is not related to how often or for how long someone flies a day.

I could also add that NO real airline flies "direct" from London to say LA yet I see that going on all the time.

You should talk to Virgin Atlantic then...

At present Flynet provides a ROUGH model of how an airline works and gives flying both in FS and as a VA a certain amount of purpose . However it could be vastly improved IF Konny wasnt advised by folks who's experience in the industry is limited to reading airliners.net and what they think airlines operate like.

Yes, flynet provides a rough approximation of airline operations. For a free program/service, it does what it does well. I have always advocated a user friendly system, and I will continue to do so. As to me 'advising' Konny, the last I checked, we had a new features/ideas forum, and its chock full of suggestions from the entire forum. The community provides a sampling for what is wanted, and Konny and Dakurt implement what they think will work.
And no, I'm not going to lock a thread because someone disagrees with me, I'm not an admininazi.

If you stick to your principle to have "no restriction at all on when or how long someone chooses to fly", you should not care about cheating using the slew mode, because with that principle it does not violate any rules.

Are you high? If someone wants to fly for 24 hours, without slewing, i'm fine with it. Why not? Who am I to say 'No, you can't do that, because other people can't make the same commitment as you!"
Slewing is a totally different subject, since you're gaining an unfair advantage over the other players, and not really flying.

Justin, I'm sorry, but your opinion is not the same as "being in the spirit" or a "principle of" of FlyNET. Konny already made it clear he didn't agree with unlimited time for pilots to fly because of the exact problem that happened with Canadian Air North - the perception of cheating. He didn't agree with restricting them to 100% real-world requirements either, but he did not agree with people being able to fly as long as they wished and abuse time acceleration.
That is the FlyNET "spirit" or "principle" as Konny is the one who created this and has the final decision on the issue.

Please show me the thread for this Cap, I honestly can't recall seeing it. As to 'abusing' the time acceleration, what are you talking about? If you allow people to use time acceleration, than you can't just spin around and tell them they're abusing what you let them have. If we didn't want people using time accel, we wouldn't allow it with the client, but you remember how that went over when it was suggested...

I welcome any comments regarding any of this.

CAPFlyer · Post by **CAPFlyer** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:12 am

First, Justin, please read Lief's response again. He clarified that he meant direct ROUTING (i.e. LAX then GPS Direct to LHR, something that does go on quite often on here), not non-stop flights.

Second, I said ABUSE. If you have any question what abuse, take a look at the thread that I locked about Canadian Air North. Flying 2-6 8 hour flights a day, 7 days a week using 16x acceleration is ABUSING the privilege that they've been given to help those who are time constrained and can only fly a few hours a day (or week) but want to be able to fly a long-haul flight. That means using it to fly 1 8-hour flight (thus being realistic) at whatever time acceleration they want but not using it in an attempt to create a "megalith" airline, which was what CAN was doing (although I've since found others, none of whom are still active).

Real pilots are limited to 16 hours on duty and 8 hours of flying in a 24-hour period. They are also restricted to no more than 100 hours of flying a month. This is a world-wide restriction put in place by the ICAO. If a relief captain is aboard the aircraft, a pilot is allowed to fly 10 hours in 24 hours (must be continuous flying) and if a full extra crew is aboard, the flight can continue for up to 16 hours. There are special waivers for flights over 16 hours and have very strict rest requirements. What has been proposed here is simply to slow down how often people can fly so that they are not abusing the system put in place.

Now, here's another thing - any solution would be only *PART* of a comprehensive package to help stem cheating. This package would (eventually) include prevention from flying with unlimited fuel and slewing the aircraft (which is possible using FSUIPC) in addition to any server-side controls, so please use this information when considering *ANY* proposal by users or staff members to help resolve cheating and abuse within the network.

Post by **cmdrnmartin** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:31 am

Second, I said ABUSE. If you have any question what abuse, take a look at the thread that I locked about Canadian Air North. Flying 2-6 8 hour flights a day, 7 days a week using 16x acceleration is ABUSING the privilege that they've been given to help those who are time constrained and can only fly a few hours a day (or week) but want to be able to fly a long-haul flight. That means using it to fly 1 8-hour flight (thus being realistic) at whatever time acceleration they want but not using it in an attempt to create a "megalith" airline, which was what CAN was doing (although I've since found others, none of whom are still active).

What is the problem with that? Is it unfair if an airline with a lot of pilots flies the same number of total flights as these guys? What are you so worried about? That their airline will be bigger than yours? The only competition on flynet is in attracting pilots. If a person wants to fly as much as they feel they can, without resorting to cheats like slewing, we have no reason to stop them from doing so.

Real pilots are limited to 16 hours on duty and 8 hours of flying in a 24-hour period. They are also restricted to no more than 100 hours of flying a month.

Real pilots don't pause the world, leave the cockpit for 4 hours, fly transatlantic with only 1 crewmember, etc etc. This is not the real world. We are providing a service to people, a program that tracks their flight. There is not, and should not be a limitation on how often a day, or a month they can use it. The beauty of flight sim is that you can play in a sandbox. If you want to follow realistic hours and such, go ahead, do it. But not everyone has to do what you do.

Now, here's another thing - any solution would be only *PART* of a comprehensive package to help stem cheating. This package would (eventually) include prevention from flying with unlimited fuel and slewing the aircraft (which is possible using FSUIPC) in addition to any server-side controls, so please use this information when considering *ANY* proposal by users or staff members to help resolve cheating and abuse within the network.

There was no idea here that solved the cheating issue. As leif pointed out, this was to resolve the accusations of cheating. if someone wants to post an algorithm or method for detecting slewing, or inappropriate fuel burn, they are welcome to do so in the new ideas thread.

Wolfar100 · Post by **Wolfar100** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:53 am

I have been reading this thread for some time now.

My two cents worth if everyone will indulge me.

I have locked all long flights to no more than 4x's. I feel that if you can not do it at four times the speed then don't do it. We have MANY long overseas routes at present and the planes to make the hops.

As I have stated in the past I work at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. We have a British Airways 747-400 that flies in and out of there to London 6 times a week. Personally if the Airport is large then who cares what flights go where. If the Airport is small then your not going to get a 777-300 off the ground fully loaded with a 5,000 ft runway.

I have been making and running online squadrons for over 10 years now. Fair play is paramount in any online simulation.

Now for the sticky part that everyone seems to have their hair all up over.

I feel that flying at 16x's for 8 or more hours a day puts that airline at an unfair advantage over the normal. I saw this happening and private messaged an admin as I thought was the right thing to do. (I still feel this way.)

This is after all a friendly competition where the playing field should be level. HARD thing to accomplish at this time I must admit.

I have no problem with flying a long route while you sleep. Let us get real, on an overseas long route you either have a crew change out or one pilot takes a nap and the other one flies and monitors.

4x's speed is more than enough in my opinion.

Ok enough.

tall_guy_pete · Post by **tall_guy_pete** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:04 am

This is where I come in and appologise as I think it may well (probably is) me who has been doing these x16 flights across the atlantic.

I have been doing recommended fuel loads for our entire long haul routes across the pond; so I have had to do these at 16x due to my studying commitments as well (no joke).

I understand about the 777 issue taking off on a 5000ft runway. I personally (being the HM for EGNM) only operate aircraft which can operate in real life at that airport. So in my case I only operate the following (see here). EGNM has a 7000ft odd runway and can operate the aircraft listed. Even though the B744er has only visted rarely it has done and it is possible with a full load to takeoff with 20 flaps. Kind of good fun too.

I like what has been dicussed here. Keeping an eye on whats been said.

I am yet to also edit all my FP's to address the speed issues and set a specific time allowed to complete the questioned route. I think that each VA should have its own system (something along the lines of , routes between 1 - 500nm should be allowed max of x4). Something like it anyways.

IslandBum · Post by **IslandBum** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:14 am

Having started this thread , I do believe I will finish it.

This is addressed to Mr Martin who seems to have mastered the use of the quote function on the thread.

First, never use quotes without addressing from where the quote originated.

Second, if you knew anything about airlines whatsoever you would realise that ALL licensed personnel are routinely,
and randomly, tested for drug usage.

Third, this is a public domain. Therefore, anyone can enter and read the threads (including members of the FAA, CAA and
Aviation Canada.)

I find the question "Are you high?" extremely offensive, because I am in the real world, an FAA Licensed Dispatcher working for an American FAR121 Carrier. It implies that I may indulge in illegal or controlled substances.

The posting of this question is defamation. For your education, defamation is legally defined as "the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. . . . Some statements such as . . . being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se."

I realize this statement was a hyperbole, but the egregiousness of the statement illustrates a lack of professionalism and knowledge of the industry.

Thank you for your time

Leif Harding

Post by **cmdrnmartin** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:29 am

IslandBum wrote:Having started this thread , I do believe I will finish it.
This is addressed to Mr Martin who seems to have mastered the use of the quote function on the thread.
First, never use quotes without addressing from where the quote originated.
Second, if you knew anything about airlines whatsoever you would realise that ALL licensed personnel are routinely,
and randomly, tested for drug usage.
Third, this is a public domain. Therefore, anyone can enter and read the threads (including members of the FAA, CAA and
Aviation Canada.)
I find the question "Are you high?" extremely offensive, because I am in the real world, an FAA Licensed Dispatcher working for an American FAR121 Carrier. It implies that I may indulge in illegal or controlled substances.
The posting of this question is defamation. For your education, defamation is legally defined as "the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. . . . Some statements such as . . . being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se."
I realize this statement was a hyperbole, but the egregiousness of the statement illustrates a lack of professionalism and knowledge of the industry.
Thank you for your time
Leif Harding

Hahahahahaha! I'm sorry, but this is borderline ridiculous.
Let's address the defamation part of this first: I didn't say "You are high" so therefor, I made no statement regarding your partaking of illegal substances. I asked a question, to which you could simply respond no. Asking a question does not constitute a statement nor an accusation. It is an inquiry only.
Secondly: This is an online forum, if you honestly think the FAA will take what is written here as gospel, I really have to question your judgement. We talk about planes crashing, running out of fuel all the time, I doubt very highly the FAA is running background checks on us right now because of our statements. Your taking paranoid to an extreme with this little post.

At this point, I think the original issue has been resolved, additional issues can be discussed in new threads, or via PM if need be.
Leif, if you want to continue talking about defamation and all that, send me a PM or something.

Cheers,