Passengers fear (adrenoline) and turbulence

[Bramage]

Last night i was doing a small commuter flight from mrytle beach intl to KDCA and i hit some small turbulence like not even enough to
knock the F33a Bonanza off course. automatically my passenger satisfaction went down to 96%. Does anyone else think this is a little
exaggerated? I know i dont get scarwhen we hit turbulence in flight especially when its just a little hickup.

[xwhitemousex]

It's a bit strange with turbulence. Normally when I hit turbulence the customer satisfaction goes down to 91% and the fear/adrenaline
goes up to 9% (so 100% total right?). Once I'm past the turbulence the satisfaction normally settles at around 94-96%. However, after an
ended flight I get a similar amount of points wether there was turbulence or not.

On the flip side, if there is a bit of turbulence during your approach and landing you get extra bonus points as the customers are relieved
at the safe landing after the extreme weather conditions or some such.

Here's a link to one of my coastal flights with a Cessna 172 where I had turbulence both during cruise and during landing.

http://www.fspassengers.com/?action=va&l...ght=371363

Normally I'm getting around 100-250pts per flight with 2 passengers in a Cessna, but thanks(?) to bad weather, I got extra points. This
was a VFR landing at an airport with no ILS (not sure if bonus points are different wether you land VFR or with help of an ILS during
turbulence and such).

[DavidK]

I think "passenger satisfaction" can also be read as "passenger comfort". Whether or not it's the case in real air travel that up to one in ten
passengers or so (i.e. the 9%) find any amount of turbulence induces fear, however, is something I don't know.

There are a few descriptions used in FSP(X) that seem a bit out of proportion to me, such as turbulence (light or heavy) on approach or final described as "extreme" weather, or a flight featuring penalty points -- especially if they're about safety, e.g. forgetting to set the altimeter
before final -- being described as "Perfect". I'd say flights where safety has been compromised should be described as "Unsafe", regardless of how well everything else went -- and the best flights, e.g. with passengers satisfied and an arrival on time and the correct handling of genuinely extreme weather and/or a (major) emergency, should be described as "Very good". Otherwise, it's "Good" then "OK" before "Poor", "Very poor", etc.

David



Post Edited ( 10-13-10 10:33 )

[SoulFlight]

Well I think the turbulence is quite good modeled the way it is. In turbulent air, passengers do not feel so well (-10 %) or are really scared (-30
%) if you ever flown through a thunderstorm in an airplane, you understand. as soon as situation calms down, passengers do too, but some are
keeping a strange feeling in their stomachs for the rest of the flight, therefore showing 9X% instead of 100 %.
But passengers know turbulence is not your fault: after landing, most oft the time in the end-flight-dialog, passengers will still be 100 % satisfied.



Post Edited ( 10-16-10 14:40 )

[DavidK]

Maybe I've only ever experienced mild turbulence, even during the last storm I can remember.

I'd still like to see descriptions in FSP that are more proportional, e.g. no "Perfect"s and the use of "Unsafe" whenever a flight's safety is
compromised by one or more piloting mistakes.

David