"Emergency" button

Please report Bugs and Problems here
Post Reply
User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

"Emergency" button

Post by CAPFlyer » Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:34 pm

I definitely like the new "emergency" button, but I think you should have 2 buttons. One that says "emergency" (like after a FlyNET-induced failure) and one that says "divert" for if the weather isn't good enough at the destination. An "emergency" would have a higher penalty.

For example-

Real World - An airplane has a hydraulic system failure. The crew diverts to the nearest airport. The plane has to make a belly landing on the runway. Now, the passengers & potential customers are quite frightened because of this accident you've just had. The crew did what they were supposed to, but you still loose some reputation. The plane is put on its landing gear, towed to a hangar and repaired (obviously you're not going to be allowed to fly it until it's fixed). The passengers are flown on to their destination on another flight or a special flight brought in by the airline.

FlyNET - Plane has a FlyNET induced failure (landing gear). Pilot diverts, makes a successful belly landing. Plane damaged (probably down to somewhere around 75% due to the damage to the engines and/or belly) and grounded until repaired. VA takes a 10 point reputation penalty and looses any ticket revenue for that flight. Pilot gets a flight rating of 95 for doing a good job of landing the plane in one piece. Once the plane is fixed, the VA can either transfer the plane to another location or have it flown out by adding a temporary flight.

Real World - Flight takes off with weather forcasted to be marginal but improving at the destination when it arrives. Flight gets in the vicinity of the destination but weather hasn't improved as it's supposed to, so they go into a hold near the airport. After a while, the weather improves to near minimums so the crew decides to attempt an approach. They do and the approach hits minimums with no sight of the runway so they go around and try again. Again, they don't see the runway, so now it's time to divert. They divert to their planned alternate where the weather is acceptable. They land, get fuel, and the crew and passengers deplane and wait for the weather to improve. A few hours later, the weather improves, everyone reboards the plane and they continue to the destination. The cost to the airline is little. Passengers understand that weather forecasting isn't perfect and that you did what was safe. There is a little repuation hit because they didn't make their connections or those picking them up had to wait a long time, but nothing major.

FlyNET - Flight diverts for the same reason as above (poor weather at destination). Pilot hits the "divert" button on the FlyNET console. FlyNET lets them input the airport they're diverting to. Now all FlyNET does is monitor the rest of the flight. When the flight lands, there are 2 things done. First, the airline takes a 5 point reputation penalty. Second, a flight using the same flight number is automatically created in the FlyNET database for that flight and automatically booked to the pilot flying the flight that gets the flight from the airport they landed at to the actual destination that they were supposed to land at. This flight will have no ticket or cargo revenue (you don't get paid twice for flying the same passengers) but will have the same amount of cargo and passengers as the original flight. This way, as soon as the weather improves, the pilot will then finish the flight, even if it means turning off FS weather. :) If the pilot is unable to finish the flight within 24 hours, then FlyNET will automatically transfer the airplane and pilot to the destination and charge the VA for the movement of the plane and the pilot for his movement using the existing transfer code.

This sounds somewhat involved, but it eliminates a lot of work for the VA managers & CEOs and it makes things simple for the pilot. All he (the pilot) has to do is hit one button and type in 4 letters and/or numbers and it's all taken care of.
Image

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

Re: "Emergency" button

Post by flightsimer » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:04 am

i like it but the numbers are a little off... a belly landing wouldnt cause 75%... if the pilot does it well, it could cause min. damage. maybe have it around 85-95%, depending on how hard he hits. also remember, the 727 for example has high mounted engines, so there will be no damage to them so that would be higher than a normal plane. the big part of it, is just getting everything inspected. also, props should get more damage than the jets because they are "more fragile". like the saab 2000, its got low attached engines, if it belly landed, you break the prop , and could possibly bend the shaft if the engine(s) wasnt shut down. but in a jet, you really are only gonna damage the skin of the engine. yes they could be more than just skin damage (scrapes, bends, etc), but as this video shows, the damage is not 75% worth and is only to one engine. http://youtube.com/watch?v=z4qWePZb9yQ so maybe have it depend on V speed the harder a landing, the more possible damage, etc... also if i loose hydro. fluid i could always try to manually pump them down... so i think it should depend on the type of "emergency". some emergencies wouldnt cause damage to the plane.

this is another example... very min damage to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aGcn9D0yls&NR=1 that would prolly just require the checking of the engine, possibly to see if if needs to be replaced (bent shaft), and the gear would need to be fixed. but not worth taking down to 75% of the plane.

also the pilot should be able to get a 100% on the flight... if the gear wouldnt come down (as you said), they arent gonna divert they would only find out once they are approaching the airport. only if its a 737 coming into a 5000ft runway airport (just example) would they ever possibly divert the plane to a bigger airport. but the airport should be able to handle it, if the 737 is coming in there in the first place... but if im flying to say jfk and im on approach and detect this, im not gonna divert to newark just because. so as long as i follow the normal rules i should get a perfect flight.

also the divert, i like it also, but i dont agree with the VA losing 5 reps. after the whole jetblue thing, less people didnt board the planes. they probably got their money back or got a free flight, because they were stranded, not because they had to wait for weather. if im on a flight from pit to den, and at den we come into a snow storm, i would rather have them divert and arrive later, then risk my one and only life with them trying to land. so i wouldnt hold that against the airline, they had no control over the weather. so why should should that be held against them here.

now say i fly the flight, but dont load enough fuel, and have to divert, then yes i would agree with points being taken away. but things out of the control of the airline, i dont agree with them taking a hit.
Owner/CEO
North Eastern Airways

Image
Image

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

Re: "Emergency" button

Post by CAPFlyer » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:21 am

First, under the current maintenance program, 75-80 percent is correct. The aircraft must undergo a heavy maintenance check. You don't just repair the damage, you have to completely tear-down and inspect the airplane, no matter how much or little damage you think it took. It's EXPENSIVE to do this. Say you knock down a 727 to 95%, under the current setup, it's only an A-Check and thus it's not going to cost much to "fix". By knocking it down to a "C" Check, you make the cost more in line with what it is in the real world. Also, for the pilot - no matter how well he did, there is still some hit. There always is. I've been involved in the industry long enough to know better than to think that pilots ever walk away from any accident with their reputation totally unscathed.

As for the airline's reputation hit - if you divert (which happens fairly infrequently) 5 points isn't going to loose you any passengers, but it's going to make everyone think twice before taking off into known poor conditions. The idea here is that while the airline doesn't take a huge hit (as it doesn't in the real world) there is something to be considered when deciding, just as it is in the real world. If your airline starts diverting a lot, whether for good reason or not, your customers are going to consider going elsewhere. Jet Blue DID suffer a not insignificant market share hit after their problems. They have resolved a lot of them and so they've restored their reputation, just as you'd do in your VA. It will take 4 diverts to even get your reputation below 100, but considering that every 100% airline reputation flight that you fly after that will rebuild your rep pretty quick, how much of a hit would it really make? But if you have pilots diverting every other flight, then your reputation goes down because the public starts to wonder just what kind of airline you're running that you're always having to divert, no matter why. They expect service. They understand the occasional divert, but they have no tolerance for a constant issue.
Image

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

Re: "Emergency" button

Post by flightsimer » Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:48 am

CAPFlyer wrote:First, under the current maintenance program, 75-80 percent is correct. The aircraft must undergo a heavy maintenance check. You don't just repair the damage, you have to completely tear-down and inspect the airplane, no matter how much or little damage you think it took. It's EXPENSIVE to do this. Say you knock down a 727 to 95%, under the current setup, it's only an A-Check and thus it's not going to cost much to "fix". By knocking it down to a "C" Check, you make the cost more in line with what it is in the real world. Also, for the pilot - no matter how well he did, there is still some hit. There always is. I've been involved in the industry long enough to know better than to think that pilots ever walk away from any accident with their reputation totally unscathed.
but isnt that more of a time issue. your saying to make it down to 75% value. when the damage is not that high. if its just a normal landing gear failure in a 727 but only affects the nose gear, your telling me, that they are gonna take down the engines, disassemble them, then put them back up. no there not. i understand and agree with the time. its gonna take a while. but it shouldnt just be an automatic thing, the damage itself wouldnt take that aircrafts value down that low. if you want to have the feature of the C check (length in time and cost) that should be a seperate thing. If i decided to scrap that plane (even though it would be stupid to in that case) that plane would be worth more than 75%, probably around 80-95% (with 95% being upper extreme).

i understand that you want the c check specs, but to get that should not mean that the value of the plane has to be put down lower than what it might actually be just to get it. there should be a "new" repair service that is required after a crash landing. so it costs the same as if the value of the plane was actually 75%, but the plane might not be at that level.

also the reptuation is from the passengers view, not the company's. some qoutes from RW accidents that shows the pilots reputation is not lost-

this is from the recent Qantas flight from a 1st class passenger-
must say that the cabin crew along with the guys on the flight deck were amazing.
doesnt sound negative

this was from China Airlines 0006, which tumbled from 39k to 9600ft, tearing off doors, and parts of the tail -
On touchdown, Ming received a round of heartfelt applause
he just saved ur life, i dont think they are gonna hold anything against him...

this is for the UA 232, though not a personal account still proves the point-
The fact that the aircraft was controlled at all and that there were any survivors in these unusual circumstances was recognised by the industry as an example of extraordinary airmanship by the crew. Among many other accolades, Captain Haynes and his crew were awarded the Flight Safety Foundation President's Special Commendation for Extraordinary Professionalism and Valour during the Foundation's 42nd International Air Safety Seminar in Athens, Greece, during November 1989, the first formal international recognition of their accomplishment.
the whole crew saved what, 174 lives? they are heros, why should they be pentalized? my brother has actually met the captain, and got to talk with him, he was giving a seminar about safty and such, and was telling his story. he wouldnt be doing that if he didnt have a good rep...

Ethiopian airlines flight 961 (the 767 water landing) (also not a person)-

Code: Select all

Both the captain and co-pilot of the flight received aviation awards
i think i made my point. but if everything is done like a normal flight (landing lights, etc), why shouldnt they be able to get a perfect flight. them conqering a thing that they had no control shouldnt get them pentalized, if anything you would think that it would be an increase in reputation for being able to take control of a situation and save a plane, and people on board. you already have the airline taking a hit with rep, it doesnt need to be a double hit...
Owner/CEO
North Eastern Airways

Image
Image

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

Re: "Emergency" button

Post by CAPFlyer » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:35 am

flightsimer wrote:but isnt that more of a time issue. your saying to make it down to 75% value. when the damage is not that high. if its just a normal landing gear failure in a 727 but only affects the nose gear, your telling me, that they are gonna take down the engines, disassemble them, then put them back up. no there not. i understand and agree with the time. its gonna take a while. but it shouldnt just be an automatic thing, the damage itself wouldnt take that aircrafts value down that low. if you want to have the feature of the C check (length in time and cost) that should be a seperate thing. If i decided to scrap that plane (even though it would be stupid to in that case) that plane would be worth more than 75%, probably around 80-95% (with 95% being upper extreme).
I'm glad that you have plenty of real world experience in this matter to know all this. Have you ever been involved in an accident investigation? Have you ever done case studies on accident prevention methodology? Thanks, but I have and I have an idea of what is involved as far as damage and inspection requirements afterwards, even of a seemingly minor accident.
i understand that you want the c check specs, but to get that should not mean that the value of the plane has to be put down lower than what it might actually be just to get it. there should be a "new" repair service that is required after a crash landing. so it costs the same as if the value of the plane was actually 75%, but the plane might not be at that level.
Yes it does because you're incorrectly assuming that the aircraft doesn't take as much damage as it does. Look, go to the NTSB's website and find an accident report on a 727 that's landed with the gear up. Get the full accident report docket and read through it. You'll see the damage is much more extensive than you believe it "should" be.
also the reptuation is from the passengers view, not the company's. some qoutes from RW accidents that shows the pilots reputation is not lost-

this is from the recent Qantas flight from a 1st class passenger...
On FlyNET, the Pilot's reputation is based on their performance to the rules of FLYING (speed, lights, etc). These things are items that the passengers never see, so their "belief" has nothing to do with a pilot's reputation. Again, the pilot's reputation would take a SLIGHT hit. It always does. Why? Because the airline (and fellow pilots) alway have a bit of doubt in its mind whether he could have done better. Ask Al Haynes how he felt after Sioux City. I've had the pleasure of talking to him on several occasions. He's always wondered if he could have done better, so even in his own mind, he took a slight reputation hit of his own. He had to go through an investigation, that took a toll on him and his reputation. It quickly recovered, but it still took an immediate hit because there were questions about how he handled it.

Point being - you're quibbling over 5 freaking points. It has ZERO bearing on him even in the short term unless he does it multiple times in fairly quick succession. Again, if you crash with no consequences, then what sort of discouragement is there for it not to be abused?
Image

dgor
Flight Attendant
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Belfast, Ireland

Re: "Emergency" button

Post by dgor » Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:11 pm

I agree totally and think this would be a great feature to have in the new client. It is frustrating trying to get a realistic experience on Flynet when bad weather which would cause a divert in real life would cause implausible problems for the airline.

Regarding the 727, I am no expert but I know that although it has high engines it has low wings too - any damage to the wing is a serious issue. Not to mention fuel/hydraulic lines in them.

Dave
Regards,
Dave

Image

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

Re: "Emergency" button

Post by flightsimer » Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:01 am

dgor wrote:I agree totally and think this would be a great feature to have in the new client. It is frustrating trying to get a realistic experience on Flynet when bad weather which would cause a divert in real life would cause implausible problems for the airline.

Regarding the 727, I am no expert but I know that although it has high engines it has low wings too - any damage to the wing is a serious issue. Not to mention fuel/hydraulic lines in them.

Dave
yes but what i was saying that if a 737 (engine under wing, like he said) and a 727 (with high mounted engines) belly landed and everything was the same (vertical speed, flare, etc.) he said the 737 would have 75% damage, and i was trying to say that the 727 wouldnt, and that you cant automatically say, oh its gonna get 75%... when really it could range from 80-95%. now the 727 wont get as high as 95% but a Cessna, etc might...
Owner/CEO
North Eastern Airways

Image
Image

dgor
Flight Attendant
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Belfast, Ireland

Re: "Emergency" button

Post by dgor » Mon Aug 11, 2008 7:29 pm

Hi,

No, I'm saying that the 727 would probably be damaged more. It's harder to repair a wing than it is to replace an engine.

Dave
Regards,
Dave

Image

Post Reply