+- FsPassengers Forums (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum)
+-- Forum: FsPassengers (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: FsPassengers Customizing (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: sufficient fuel reserves penalty (/showthread.php?tid=10741)
sufficient fuel reserves penalty - BVU-951 - 31-08-2012
Can I disable this penalty
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - BVU-951 - 31-08-2012
ok sorry about the caps. i have tried to find out how to disable the fuel penalty, with no success. would appreciate if someone could point me
in the right direction.
thanks
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - gbapache - 31-08-2012
Simple answer is "no". You must plan ahead for each flight.
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - BVU-951 - 31-08-2012
Perhaps it is not the simple answer that I require. Because I am combining running a VA on FSAirlines as well as having the company of
FSPassengers I need to adjust the amount of reserve fuel, to make flights economic.
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - gbapache - 01-09-2012
I'm sorry that this is not the simple answer that you require. The simple truth is that the fuel reserve is what saves lives in real world flying
in bad weather. It is non-negotiable, even in sim-world.
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - Leftcoaster - 01-09-2012
In FsP you pay for fuel used and not fuel loaded which is in itself unrealistic. Disabling the penalty for minimum fuel is not only impossible
but the penalty as executed penalizes the user for sloppy flight planning, incompetent fuel management and poor emergency procedures.
Hard coding this is a good idea in my opinion as it prevents exactly the type of corner-cutting that BVU-951 seems to want to do.
Setting fuel minimums were amongst the very first regulations imposed upon commercial airlines (back in the 1920's and 30's) precisely
because operators deliberately skimped on fuel causing crashes, killing passengers and destroying mail.
All in all, probably the correct design philosophy for a program that tries to model at least some aspects of commercial aviation.
Post Edited ( 09-01-12 05:20 )
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - BVU-951 - 01-09-2012
I have been using FSX & Microsoft Flight Simulator 98 Since 1998, I have completed many successful flights all using full realistic settings. I
am fully aware of the fuel regulations & the need for them. All I would like to do is be able to use some of the reserve fuel when flying in
adverse weather conditions and having to hold or go round , without incurring 300point penalty.
It is also against regulations to land with to much fuel. Sometimes having to have 10% fuel in a B737 is a bit extreme and I would like to alter
ammounts of reserve where appropriate.
Please do not accuse me of cutting corners, And I would like to invite Leftcoaster to fly for British Virgin Uk on FSAirlines, So we can
experiment with different fuel loads,
In FSAirlines you pay for fuel loaded at the price the airport is chargihng (very realistic)
Alan
Post Edited ( 09-01-12 11:39 )
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - gbapache - 01-09-2012
I think I understand what you want. All you are asking is to not be penalized for using the fuel reserve for its stated purpose. Next time you
know that your destination has bad weather make sure to plan for an alternate within the IFR reserve. When the wx sucks in cancel the
planed destination and go to the alternate. I have no idea if the line code of the program would recognize that you did the correct
procedure and thereby not ding your points or not. All I do know is that there is no way to disable the penalty in the more_options.cfg.
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - gbapache - 01-09-2012
I hate it when I double post
Post Edited ( 09-01-12 17:13 )
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - Leftcoaster - 01-09-2012
@BVU-951, apologies if you took offence, none was intended.
Virtually all my time since FS-98, has been with propliners and first-generation jets. Managing fuel in a DC-7C, kerosene
guzzling Convair 990 or 1930's flying boats on oceanic trips can be far more complex and difficult than when using contemporary flight
management and engine computers. I bought an E6B circular slide rule to use for navigation and fuel management in FS9 and it works
quite well. So your invite to fly for a modern virtual airline is respectively declined since the newest plane that I've used in FS for years is
the HS-121 Trident, a true Sixties classic.
I have had to eat the FsP fuel penalty on a number of occasions and virtually every time has been the result of poor fuel planning or captaincy decisions in flight that were ill-conceived and so do not believe that the penalty itself is excessive.
Would be interested to know exactly what regulations limit fuel on board at the destination. There are certainly landing weight restrictions
but these can be complied with by reducing payload/passengers, IE. sacrificing revenue for safety. I submit that the decision to skimp on
fuel to increase revenue (if this is the source of the issue you mention) is for commercial reasons and entirely incompatible with safe
operations. If you think short-haul fuel planning in a B-737 is tricky, try doing it with a Martin 4-0-4 on a bus-stop route where minimum fuel
loads severely restrict revenues and fuel planning is driven solely by landing weight after allowing for all reserves including holding,
diversion and emergency.
Anyway, we'll never solve this but the fuel penalty is hard-coded and in my experience (I've been using FsP since 2005), a righteous one.
Fly safe...
Post Edited ( 09-01-12 17:04 )
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - Leftcoaster - 01-09-2012
Quote:gbapache wrote:If double-posting is the worst thing to happen to you today, the day will have ended well... It's all about perspective after all.
I hate it when I double post
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - gbapache - 01-09-2012
Quote:Leftcoaster wrote:
Quote:gbapache wrote:If double-posting is the worst thing to happen to you today, the day will have ended well... It's all about perspective after all.
I hate it when I double post
I say what you are seeing. It's okay because I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - BVU-951 - 02-09-2012
The basic purpose of a flight planning system is to calculate how much trip fuel is needed in the air navigation process by an aircraft when
flying from an origin airport to a destination airport. Aircraft must also carry some reserve fuel to allow for unforeseen circumstances, such as
an inaccurate weather forecast, or Air Traffic Control requiring an aircraft to fly at a lower height than optimum due to congestion, or some
last-minute passengers whose weight was not allowed for when the flight plan was prepared. The way in which reserve fuel is determined
varies greatly, depending on airline and locality. The most common methods are:
USA domestic operations conducted under Instrument Flight Rules: enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing, then fly to an
alternate airport (if weather conditions require an alternate airport), then for 45 minutes thereafter at normal cruising speed.
percentage of time: typically 10%, i.e. a 10-hour flight needs enough reserve to fly for another hour.
percentage of fuel: typically 5%, i.e. a flight requiring 20,000 kg of fuel needs a reserve of 1,000 kg.
This is an extract from regulations, The reserve amount being a lot more realistic,
I have been using FSPassengers for a number of years, and like it a lot. I think it could be better if you could adjust the parameters for
penalties instead of disabling altogether. ie: flap speeds vary from one aircraft to another.
Thanks for the replys, the invitation to join BVUK is still open. We have lots of old aircraft and over 40000 scheduled flights, you can have your
own personal aircraft of your choice. we have a 24/7 dedicated server for on line flying. Come and have a chat on FSVirtual 24/7 Teamspeak
83.222.235.141
Alan
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - Leftcoaster - 02-09-2012
"The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire."
Variously attributed to Ernie Gann, Paul Mantz and others but possibly just apocryphal.
The regulations have changed considerably over the years but one can still access the historical CAR's* over at the DOT Library web site.
Google DOT Library Special Collections if interested and a more convoluted set of regulations would be difficult to find. The period when I
do virtually all my flight simulation (1933-1962) saw the USA take the lead in commercial aviation infrastructure and regulations, using the
CAR's as baseline regulations for FS works rather well for CONUS, Canada and Europe and the assorted colonial empires. In the Soviet
Union, different rules applied.
That said, fuel planning for large piston-engined commercial aircraft of the era is different simply because everything was procedural and
the PIC had far more discretion (and room for error) than today. Also with jets, fuel burn per hour decreases with altitude as TAS
increases whereas piston engines obtain essentially the same fuel burn rates at any altitude for a given power setting. In a world without
DME all fight planning is based on time and in-route fuel estimates incorporates a significant (generally 15%) headwind reserve. So you
plan on flying 2-hours at economical cruise power but load enough in-route fuel for 138-minutes at max cruise power.
Upon reaching the Initial Approach Fix, (IAF) generally a radio range (early VOR) one would initiate the approach procedure and if the field
was not in sight upon reaching the final approach fix (FAF, usually an NDB), holding at the IAF or diversion were the only legal options
available. So the regulations were that every commercial plane was required to land with 30-minutes Emergency Reserve, generally calculated at METO fuel burn rates plus Holding Fuel, minimum 45-minutes calculated at holding power plus Diversion Fuel minimum
45-minutes at maximum cruise power. For over water flight the diversion fuel would normally be increased to 3+ hours and it was
expected that any aircraft arriving at destination would have unused in-route fuel plus at least 2-hours of fuel, generally calculated at
different fuel burn rates upon landing. Every time.
In a DC-6, this works out to a minimum of some 4300 lbs of fuel but even in the little Martin 4-0-4 the figure would be significant and so for
many flights, fuel planning was predicated on arriving at the IAF weighing less than Maximum Landing Weight and sometimes the
requirement to retain all that fuel meant that you departed with your payload artificially reduced. Particularly since you intend to land
carrying headwind reserves as well.
So you can see that to eat the fuel penalty in FsP using the historical regulations means that things have gone very wrong; most likely due
to errors in initial fuel planning, fuel mismanagement in-route or poor decisions by the PIC (Me!). The regulations may have changed but
the philosophy behind them have not. Since I use multiple installations of FS9, one modded for the 30's through to about 1945 and
another modded from the end of the war to about 1962 these offer the scope to experience different eras and infrastructures.
The above explains why I responded as I did, it's not just that I enjoy old aircraft in FS but that I enjoy flying the procedures, using period
navigation and adhering as much as possible to the spirit and letter of the regulations during the era.
I also need to add that I freely admit to knowing next to nothing about fuel planning in the modern world. I imagine that the principles remain similar even if the specifics differ greatly.
Best Regards and Fly Safe,
Chris
* (Civil Air Regulations, forerunner of the FARs)
Post Edited ( 09-02-12 18:26 )
Re: sufficient fuel reserves penalty - BVU-951 - 02-09-2012
Thanks for your reply, I have learnt quite a lot from it. I like flying the old planes as well
Alan