Archive > Ask EuroHarmony

FLogger Stopover System

<< < (2/2)

EHM-1703 Philip:
My opinion..... Why not just divide it in to two distinct separate flights. I.E. Amsterdam - Hong Kong then Hong Kong - Auckland. Anyway, I don't make those sort of decisions but I just thought I would put in another idea. Don't forget most long haul stops are around 2 hours for refuel / cabin clean / re-supply / crew change.

My Next question has to logically be, Who would actually fly these flight? Who is going to sit in front of their PC for 22 - 24 hours to fly half way round the world? I'm guessing almost nobody. Most will set it up, take off, climb, go to sleep, get up, descend, land, take off, climb, go to work / school, come home, eat, watch TV or do Homework, descend, land. Why should they be credited with 24 hours flight time when they probably spent less than a couple of hours actually commanding the plane? Just my thoughts, not those of the MT in general. What do you all think? If we were to introduce these sorts of flights, how would we guard against this?

EHM-1671 Ben:
The problem with replacing two separate flights instead of one, massive flight (while it's a good idea) is that we have to fill out two separate PIREPS for them, and that the flights wouldn't operate between at least one EHM hub, as they do now. All flights listed in the FLogger are between at least one hub. It's a good idea, though, one I like, as two 12 hour flights are actually achievable rather than one 24 hour flight.

As for your second question Phil, despite all the work it appears that people will still find a way to cheat hours from EHM... what people should realize is that EHM is a hobby, so why would anyone actually want to cheat It escapes me. Anyway, back to the subject at hand, what do the senior management think about a Stopover system in the FLogger?

EHM-1703 Philip:
Okay Ben, understood, but let me put it another way then. Do you think enough people would use it to warrant the time from the Senior MT and Developers that adding this sort of feature would take? Not only would the Flogger have to be updated but the Backend as well. Then there would be programming of the new schedules. This would certainly be a lot of hours in vein if only one or two pilots were to use it on a regular basis wouldn't it?

With regards your answer about PIREPS. Real World Pilots have to file a pirep if they move a plane from maintenance to a gate if it travels under its own power. They certainly have to fill out two pireps if they have a stopover. (On long flights the captain would probably change during the stop over as well)

I would agree, in a perfect world it would be great to keep flights to or from Hubs only and this what we try to do, but believe me, flights do exist in our timetable that do not depart or arrive at a Hub. (Flight 1005 is the first one in the schedule, Birmingham UK to Liverpool UK and there are quite a few others) So not every flight on the Flight Logger schedule starts or ends at a Hub.

Anyway, as you say, it was just my opinion so we will have to wait and see what the Senior MT say.

EHM-1671 Ben:
You're right Phil, I didn't think of it that way. I don't know how much time it would take for the MTs to change the FLogger. Just me being selfish, I guess :$

This whole thread was only speculation on my part, and I thought it would be a good idea to have something of this effect (a way to land the aircraft, refuel, and takeoff again without the FLogger counting it as the flight ending) in place in the Flight Logger system.

It's just my opinion, we'll see what the guys in charge say.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page