New FAC algorithm to enter as soon as possible.

[EHM-0654 Murray]

Karsten,

Regarding the "be at the PC" rule (I'm guessing that's what the guist of your "complaint" is about) the problem is that in an offline situation it's difficult to enforce. IVAO/VATSIM have it easy - if an ATC/Supervisor suspects a plane is flying "dead-stick", all he/she needs to do is send the pilot a message (voice or text) - if the pilot doesn't answer in X minutes, they can "legally" be kicked off the network and if necessary banned.

Now, since PP flights *require* the use of the FLogger, it could do something similar. After X amount of time where the FLogger hasn't been interacted with, pop up a dialog that expects the pilot to answer a simple question and click OK (that would stop someone developing a "if a message pops up from this parent program that reads like this, OK it" program). If the question isn't answered in say 15 minutes (which I believe to be the EHM "rule"), the FLogger can mark the flight as "suspect" and not automatically accept it as a PP flight. It would then be up to the Pilot/Hub Manager to discuss the flight before it gets included as a PP flight.

Only problem is that such a system would need a fair bit of development of both the PP system and the FLogger (Bruno, you are welcome to have this idea for PP/FLogger).

[EHM-0654 Murray]

Originally posted by EHM-1821 Javier
So negative would be good or bad? :s

To my reading, negative is good, but I'd like to see the FAC work more naturally - negative = bad, positive = good.

And just picking up others, there definitely needs to be "bonus good" things. That would be treading on FS Passengers "territory" but would give the most "professional" pilots a goal to work towards; to equate such things to cash - a negative score means you got some thing(s) wrong in the flight (you owe the VA this month), a zero score means the flight was acceptable (you get a basic wage this month), a positive score means you went "above and beyond" (and get a bonus).

[EHM-1001 Robert]

Oh no. Basically you continously gain points with successfull flights, just like the salary. But any penalties you got will be substracted from these points. And if you did your job bad, you will got too much substracts, which can lead to a negative score overall.

[EHM-1821 Javier]

ok, thanks guys, cleared up my mind;D

[EHM-1703 Philip]

Originally posted by EHM-0361 Karsten
At the risk of stirring up trouble I'm going to say this. Phil and Bruno I find your opinions and answers to subject of the rules in paragraph 4.6 a little weird.
First of all I agree Phil we do have a liberal reporting system. However that system don't apply when it comes to ProPilot. When you are using PP theres only one way to report it. But you are not going to change the rules, and I guess that is that. We can either live with it or take our flying business somewhere else.
But I think it's a little funny to have a rule and say we have this rule. But we know not all is following it. But we are not going to do anything to make sure that people do. It sort of like running a shop, where people them self use a scanner to check out the items they want to buy. At the exit a big poster says: "don't shoplift." How long is a store like that going to stay in business when people figure out that, there no alarms on the items, because the store owner trusts people and their moral.
Okay I have said what I wanted to say. You can either agree with me or disagree with me. Don't really mater.

Karsten,

I do understand what you are saying, honestly, but we have here a number of conflicting views from many different pilots and MT members about the "away from the controls" point.

The only way I can see of combatting this situation is to introduce a reporting system where you either have to interact with Flogger or the website every 15 or 30 minutes. Other airlines do this and if we introduce it, I feel we are going to lose pilots, I guess what you are saying if we don't do it we are also going to lose pilots anyway, so I guess we are damned if we do and damned if we don't......

Lets leave it for a while and let the Dakar event get put to bed and then we will discuss this matter further when we have all had a chance to formulate views and ideas about the topic.

[EHM-0948 Bruno]

Originally posted by EHM-0361 Karsten
At the risk of stirring up trouble I'm going to say this. Phil and Bruno I find your opinions and answers to subject of the rules in paragraph 4.6 a little weird.
First of all I agree Phil we do have a liberal reporting system. However that system don't apply when it comes to ProPilot. When you are using PP theres only one way to report it. But you are not going to change the rules, and I guess that is that. We can either live with it or take our flying business somewhere else.
But I think it's a little funny to have a rule and say we have this rule. But we know not all is following it. But we are not going to do anything to make sure that people do. It sort of like running a shop, where people them self use a scanner to check out the items they want to buy. At the exit a big poster says: "don't shoplift." How long is a store like that going to stay in business when people figure out that, there no alarms on the items, because the store owner trusts people and their moral.
Okay I have said what I wanted to say. You can either agree with me or disagree with me. Don't really mater.

Hi Karsten,

The PIREP reporting system for ProPilot had to be done like that because it's the only way we have access to some automatic information given by the Flight Logger that needs to be checked with the information given by the pilot when he flies it.
So, if we implement a system where a pilot could insert an offline PIREP we would loose access to that information.
That's the reason why we can't change it.

You're worried about pilots that actually don't spend 8 hours on front of the computer ... Then you should also be worried about pilots that do the flight on one aircraft and submit the PIREP with another one, pilots that don't use flight logger and report flights that they actually don't do, besides much more situations that are impossible to prove otherwise.

This is a web site Karsten, where you should understand that we don't actually have a camera pointed on every home of our pilots, where we actually could solve your problem and really see that the pilot is flying .
What we need to do is to create rules that tell our pilots what they should do, but it's impossible to check all the rules, and that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do them. They need to exist in order to mantain the business organized.

It's like when you drive a car and you see a street that has a sign that shows you cannot enter there. The Goverment placed that sign there but actually you can go there! The problem is if you get caught, you're nailed down with a traffic ticket .. That's how rules, on the society applies.

To end, I am really unpleased to hear from you, an ex-MT member, that you don't care about what we said and that you even think we don't care for what you (pilots) says. It's not my type to enter on this personal discussions but logically it isn't the first time you give that thought to us...

Regards,

[EHM-0361 Karsten]

First off, don't want this to turn into a personnel yelling where I'm at one and and member of the MT are at the other. So I'm going to e-mail you Bruno and Phil. Because it seem like you don't really get what I'm saying . But let me say this much, I have never said anything about that I don't care about what you said, and if you read my English like that, then I guess a need a course in English.

[EHM-1199 Philip]

I think this one might need resting now. Seems a shame that Bruno with all your current time pressure now had to explain away an issue with such a long posting. Phil was right; in this case you can't please everybody. And, it really shouldn't be a matter that makes folks leave EHM. For what its worth having thought about how things go part of the reason for joining EHM years ago was the relaxed atmosphere and this great website.

Considering my irritated posts of last night this might sound odd coming from me but let's not loose sight of that. How cool in a way that a proposed change to the FAC algorithm is a source for discussion here. I say, let's trust the guys doing the work and if the changes bring about discontent then this may well be the forum to discuss how things could be better.

I do think that the reward should weigh in favour of tougher conditions so the move to reward online flying is positive. I'm not completely sold on the reward for longer flights but I think in the cool light of day I don't feel strongly enough to mind too much. Let's try it and see.

[EHM-1442 Luis]

ProPilot – New Algorithm – Targets
-More online flights
-More PP flights
-A more fair system

To consider :
-PP is optional, nobody is obliged to fly on PP. EHM has much to choose, for beyond ProPilot.
-PP is a demanding challenge and does not have to be used to relax
-PP does not have to be used for pilots with little experience
-The pilot with little experience must use only the Flight Logger and verify the ACARS, to see the penalties , correct  them in futures flights  and only after improving its PP skills, to use the PP.

-How to have more people flying online?Giving them some bonus in PP.
-How to have more people flying with PP? I don't know.
-How to have a more fair PP System?My answer is bellow

IMHO with the new algorithm long flights vs short flights is a false question :
1 flight with 10 hours
10 x 60 = 600 minutes x 0,3 = 180
1 flight x 0,5 = 0,5
Total score = 180,5

Versus

10 flights with 1 hour each
10 x 60 = 600 minutes x 0,3 = 180
10 flights x 0,5 = 5.0
Total score = 185

The risks are different but they are balanced, the10 hours flight only has a landing, but it has many items to verify, as to avoid overspeed, take care on winds changes, climb/descend angles to control during more time, etc,etc... in the same time, in short flights more landings, bigger score. I think it is fair.

I made few long flights, only the necessary ones from the EHM Divisions and EHM World Tour, this ones without PP and I never leave the cockpit for much time.But I wanted to take a 767-300ER to the USA and  I made a long flight on PP and IVAO from Zurich (LSZH) to Boston (KBOS) .
Take off from LSZH at more or less 02:00 AM and two hours later I fell  in a deep sleep at the desktop and when I woke up had some penalties on PP, overspeed, stall, Maximum 4500fpm vertical speed excedeed....only fortunately  I didn't crash the airplane..........Therefore to make long flights in  PP without following them is an immense risk...
I was flying the LevelD 767-300ER and until today i can't understand how it happened....strong winds changes?Touch with my sleeping head on the keybord?..i don't know.......

In the current PP system If I  want enter and keep me in the Top of the PP what I must do?
1 – Fly easly controlable airplanes.
2 - Fly offline with good weather, that I can select as I want, clean sky and without winds.
3 - Make many short flights, without exceeding the 250Kias and not above of 18000ft.
4 - Choose easy airfields, with long runways and ILS.

Fly with the above conditions does not have any interest for me, but sure i 'll be always on the PP's Top.........LOL

Why is the current system not fair?
-It does not consider the flight times, (more time = bigger risk)
-Considers equal flights made in airplanes of different difficulty  
-Considers equal flights made in different circumstances (online versus offline)

With the current system it is possible to enter to number 1, with some minutes flying on PP and 1 or 2 flights, against others with hundreds or thousand hours of good flights.(hundreds of zero penalities flights).

What must be done to reach a more fair PP for all?
1 – To Consider the flight times and not only the number of flights.
2 – To Consider the different difficulty (complexity ) of the different airplanes.
3 - To consider different the online and offline flights
4 - The total amount  of the penalties does not have to be bigger that the value of one crash.The penalties values must be review to balance with the crash value.
5 - The Popup Murray's idea, is a good ideia.(only read it, while I was posting this).And it finish the flights with the pilot far away from the cockpit.(Pilot in bed, in bathroom having a shower, in kitchen or walking the dog on the street or sleeping.....heheheheh)

And if you want  a more complex PP, include penalties for take offs on wrong winds direction,touch down angle on landings, smoothest landings, hardest landings...etc...etc...

I speak on this, without problems, because the most important for me, is not the score in the PP Top 10, is important, but it is not the most important.
The important is that we must have a fair and challenging PP system that reward or punish people on the same way with similar circunstances.

A new system 'll not benefit  me, but i want a new and more fair system.
At this moment I have a comfortable FAC of 82,10 and with the new system and without values correction I 'll have a  score about  4000 negatives.....eheheheh.....

I fly ProPilot from the beginning and  I have 5 crashes in my curriculum.(No problems with that, everybody as his own learning curve)
I rested always with the feeling  that I could prevented them, and after the bad feeling that one crash provokes me,I am sick  with a crash.
I always learned something  new in each crash.And i remember all of them and i remember the causes that provoqued them as well.From the first until the last.

I will always fly in the PP system as much as possible, make the new algorithm, stay with the old one , but never will take off me the pleasure and the challenge to fly in the PP.

Ufff.................Forgive me for this long post, but it is only my opinion

[EHM-0471 Peter]

Luis, bravo. I am following this loooong debates about PP, but after reading your article I must confess: THIS IS IT! I have very similar or even equal oppinion about using PP, and since I started with PP last year in November I am a real fan of it. Since then I made only one flight out of PP( Razza is guilty for that ) and all the rest on PP. And even if I am sometimes mad as a hell due to some stupid and ununderstandable penalties from PP, I adore it.

The very simple solution would be: let it try experimentaly and we'll see the results. We should try this experiment in the duration of one, or two months and after finishing just make a careful analysis. All the rest is just theory. And experiment costs nothing.

Maybe we should close the existing PP for the time of the experiment and start for the certain period of time with brand fresh PP, based on new alghoritm. All of the users would start from zero and this way would be the honest and most useful, especially concerning the comparative analysis. Bruno, Phil, Armando, would be this too complicated?

Peter LGAV Hub Manager

Peter

[EHM-1199 Philip]

Originally posted by EHM-0471 Peter
And even if I am sometimes mad as a hell due to some stupid and ununderstandable penalties from PP, I adore it.

This is the thing. It drives me crackers when it seems to be going wrong but it is quite good fun. When stuff goes wrong there is a real feeling of injustice but when its going right it is a real wheeze

[EHM-1570 Bruce]

Having browsed through many of the posts on this subject, it is quite clear that whatever is the final outcome it will not please some people. I would have thought that the idea of joining this great VA was the community, the varied choice of aircraft, and the relaxed way in which it is run. Some of the posts now look as if the object of the exercise is to obtain a high/low FAC depending on the final outcome, yes a good FAC is important but not to the point that we are chasing numbers. With regard to the long/short flight issue, without doubt the possibility for more penalties is with the many short flights, the largest risk is during TO/Landing, while these risks are there on a long haul flight they are only encountered once per flight, once into the cruise the only penalty you will incurr is an overspeed, and if you don't fly any closer than about 20Kts to the overspeed mark you will not get an overspeed. So flying on the autopilot for long periods is a breeze as nothing disasterous is going to happen, until Propilot starts to introduce failures, then I would agree that a bonus for long haul would be justified. Again this is just my opinion.

[EHM-0948 Bruno]

Hi,

Regarding Luis Post:

1 – To Consider the flight times and not only the number of flights.
We do consider.

2 – To Consider the different difficulty (complexity ) of the different airplanes.
We don't consider.

3 - To consider different the online and offline flights
We consider.

4 - The total amount of the penalties does not have to be bigger that the value of one crash.The penalties values must be review to balance with the crash value.
We consider.

5 - The Popup Murray's idea, is a good ideia.(only read it, while I was posting this).And it finish the flights with the pilot far away from the cockpit.(Pilot in bed, in bathroom having a shower, in kitchen or walking the dog on the street or sleeping.....heheheheh)
Not possible to implement for now, and still complex to decide.

So, we will think about the airplane difficult coeficient, and we will give an answer soon about it.

Regards,

[EHM-1199 Philip]

Just one other possibility Bruno...what about a weather factor, is that possible? So, if somebody is flying online and the weather has been particularly challenging can that be scored in too?

[EHM-0654 Murray]

Originally posted by EHM-0948 Bruno
5 - The Popup Murray's idea, is a good ideia.(only read it, while I was posting this).And it finish the flights with the pilot far away from the cockpit.(Pilot in bed, in bathroom having a shower, in kitchen or walking the dog on the street or sleeping.....heheheheh)
Not possible to implement for now, and still complex to decide.

Just to add a little more to this suggestion of mine, make the pop-up system modal and it won't matter if you run FS full screen or not, the pop-up will appear above everything else. Further, if you've forgotten to turn off "pause FS when it doesn't have focus" it'll pause FS until the dialog is dealt with.

[EHM-0948 Bruno]

Hi,

But on that case the full screen mode will turn off causing the user to be annoyed with it. It's not practical in my opinion ...

Logically we will discuss this internally and see what we can do about it (there is already a thread about it on the MT forum)

The rest will be mantained.

Regarding to the weather factor, right now we don't want to code on the Flight Logger. We just want to create a new FAC based on the inputs that we already got from it. Maybe later we can improve the Flight Logger, and improve the FAC again

Regards,

[EHM-0250 Magnus]

Things like this can be discussed forever. Why not let a few frequent PP pilots try a new algorithm to see what the actual result will be? There are always beta-testers for new versions of things.

One thing that strikes me is this: You are rewarded for the number of online flights you do. One argument for this new algorithm was that longer flights should be rewarded more than short flights. The reward for the number of online flights instead for the time online, directs pilots into this direction: Short flights should be done online, long flights offline. My suggestion is, since this is supposed to encourage online flying, to reward the time online instead of the number of flights online.

[EHM-1752 Luciano]

And what about fuel?

I think one of the most important thing for a pilot is to monitor his fuel quantity  (a recent ATR crash happened because of the wrong gauge installed on the aircraft and insufficient check by the crew). In the beginning I used to fly always with full tanks and 'unlimited fuel' setting. Later, starting to use FSPassengers, I checked more often my fuel, trying to consider the most economical/fast way of flying, with sufficient reserves at destination.

Now, since FLogger monitors the fuel quantity in the aircraft, wouldn't it possible and fair to imagine a penalty for too low/negative fuel at destination? Or even for too much reserve? (but this may be too hard to say for each kind of aircraft).

As far as the fuel matter is concerned, I believe something wrong occurs in the Flight Analysis: sometimes fuel burnt and minutes of flight seem to be incorrect. In my latest flight, for instance, (F1 B747 to YMML) the Flight Analysis indicates  fuel burnt during climb equal to 85.241 lbs in 30 min (which would give about 170.000 lbs per hour), instead of the actual consumption of 19.363 lbs. Moreover, the cruise time indicated is 22 minutes instead of 7 hours and 2 minutes.

For what concerns the new FAC calculation, I am positive as long as a new scoring table is created alongside with the present one, which would remain in effect, at least for a period of time. The FLogger would give two scores at the end of the flight, one for each table, so that we could compare them. Eventually, if the new table is satisfying, the old one could be disregarded (maybe with a sort of merger between the two).

Safe ProPilot flights to everybody!
Luciano

[EHM-0948 Bruno]

... you're asking too much in one time Luciano

We can't have 2 FAC's running at the same time. Has much development complexity envolved and our development schedule doesn't permit it.

The fuel consumption could be a good thing. Maybe you could write it down on the Flight Logger 3.0.9 suggestions ... We will think about it.

The ProPilot bugs: Send me an email please.

Regards,

[EHM-2029 Sotiris]

Hello All,

for what it's worth I'd like to share my opinions on the debate.
The PP and especially the FAC will always have inherent limitations and as said earlier it's can't be all things to all people. Times change and we should change with them. Let's see what is common in our views and implement it, without focusing on what we disagree on.
It looks like a lot of people feel pasionately about issues but let's not forget, we're all members of the EHM family and each of us is respected equally.

Regarding people, reporting flights they have not done, or fooling around with A/P's overnight and so on, well, that's their choice. I don't personally see what advantage logging flights you haven't done can bring but I also respect the guys that do.

I have been here for a small while, not as most of you. But even now, I do have a feeling for which pilots tend to fly a lot and which ones don't and also for some of the better pilots out there.

EHM for me is more of a community than a competition. Yes, I have flown PP and crashed too. So what? given time, I'll improve. But for me the real fun is sharing news, views and goals. We're all 'harmonians' and at the end of the day how each of us choose to experience this virtual 'home' is up to them.

I felt very welcome coming here and it's a pleasure to read from you guys every now and again. Let's keep the harmony and prove true to our name.

P.S. From some of the posts I read it would look like we have dedicated team of S/W engineers working on the new PP. Let's respect the limitation of this exercise. IMHO, the team has done more than most, and so it's easy to assume they can do anything.

Keep up the good work and let's all enjoy our time here

[EHM-0948 Bruno]

Wise words Sotiris

But also I think that our community is one of the best. Definately this kind of healthy and hard debates just bring us more further, but also, sometimes, pilots loose a little the context out here. Something that we cannot avoid

So, next monday the MT will debate the FAC and with the poll results will take a final decision to implement on the current next week.

Regards and safe flights!

[EHM-2089 Vincent]

Hi,

I personally feel that faults are done by the pilot at maximum during the take off and descent procedures only. Cruise is the time when the autopilot is on full blast and we take time off for leaks and refreshments. So long cruises should be given less preference.

But at the same time, if the flight is online, then he should be given points, so points should be I think with an if condition where in an online flight gets more benefits of the cruise, while an offline flight should not get the benefit of the cruise.

[EHM-0948 Bruno]

Hi,

We are going to implement this new FAC as soon as we can. Expect more news in some days.

Regards and thank you for all of your opinions! Surely it is very healthy to have a community like we have, where we can express our ideas, and have a MT team that will hear them.

I am very happy that we had ended to a good FAC, and all I can say is that we will see if this is the best FAC or not. If not, we will be here to again discuss it.

Regards!

[EHM-1671 Ben]

Hi everyone, here's my opinion for what it's worth.

The new FAC algorithm (as well as other improvements to PP) don't have to be perfect as soon as they are released! I have been reading through the posts in this thread and while I've seen some great ideas come along I think we are either getting too impatient or we are losing sight of the fact that ProPilot is still a new system, unique to EuroHarmony. It is still being worked on and it may take some time before we, as an airline, have 'perfected' it - until we have found something that fits most (can't please everyone at the same time) pilots and what they want.

Maybe we should just be a little more appreciative of Bruno, Phil and Murray for the work they've already put into the system and for the upcoming labor required to make it a better experience for the rest of us? Without doubt there will be more revisions made to it; so just remember that we don't need to add everything that we want to it at this PARTICULAR improvement.

And, for an airline where participation and membership are optional, I'd say the management are doing a d**n good job at keeping pilots (the number of active pilots is at 160!!), so they're doing something right.

[EHM-1703 Philip]

Thanks Ben,

I have little or no technical input though.... Our beavers behind the scenes are indeed Bruno, Murray, Maarten and now Magnus. These four guys are pretty much responsible for every thing we do now at EuroHarmony and I would like to take this opportunity to also tip my hat and say thanks for the great work they all do!

Cheers