Archive > ProPilot Main Forum
New FAC algorithm to enter as soon as possible.
EHM-0948 Bruno:
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version