Diversionary ideas

[Travis]

Hi Dutch,

A while back I had - and then dismissed - the thought of optionally enhancing the ability for dispatch to force a diversion (from this thread fscaptain.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=general&thread=435&post=1998). My thinking was, "what's the use of carrying the fuel to get me to an alternate airfield if I never have to go there?" It's almost like I'm carrying more fuel than I'll really need so I don't have to worry about fuel management as much. I usually barge up to cruise altitude and I don't fly on ECON - I have a stellar on-time rating that I'm proud of, even if I've bent the rules a few times to keep it. :-)

A couple of weeks ago an RC4 controller put me in a long WX hold and ever since, I've been thinking about this again.

When I entered that hold, I knew there was low visibility at my destination, and I had not heard from dispatch and my alternate airfield was over 100 nm away. After what seemed to be 20 minutes of flying in circles wheeeeee ATC cleared me to my destination, then literally as I passed the 40nm range from my field, Dispatch rang up on the FCOM with orders to divert. Dense fog.

So unlike your flameout last week, I paused FSX to think it out, and consulted a separate flight information panel to get my estimated ETA to the alternate vs my Time-In-Air-With-FOB. Razor thin and on the bad side of the blade. I realized I could ask to extend my ETE for weather, slow down and perhaps make it there safe, but I chickened out and elected to stick with the original destination. ILS, smooth, PAXCOMPLIMENT, On-Time.

But I realized that ignoring the call to divert in this case was really cheating because I've been lax in my fuel management. I've loved flight simming for years. It's gotten me into real cockpits, and although I've only every flown Skyhawks and the like in VFR for personal pleasure in real life, I know instrument rules are much more complex and furthermore commercial pilots have company policies they constantly complain about.

So while I like the option to fly with loosy-goosy Landmark and make my own rules, I also like to know that when I want to fly for a demanding airline... then I have to do what they tell me when the time's appropriate, and moreover I have to be ready for it.

So I've been thinking about this issue and I'd like to write out my ideas because I'm being told to divert for a reason. A serious reason.

While I'd like to keep the option to "plead my case with Dispatch" I'd like to think that the likelihood of my plea falling on approving ears could be thought of as "weighted randomness." If my stats and experience speak well for me, I should have a better chance of gaining approval.

• Regardless of the reason for diversion, the more souls there are on board, the lower the chance that a diversion would be approved. Acme can insure boxes, Ming vases, and even me. But 6 passengers in a Caravan? 250 in a Boeing??
  
• If the diversion is for visibility reasons, the pilot's experience, the flexibility of the airline, and the presence of an ILS could weigh into how strict Dispatch could be. A trainee pilot and 0 visibility? Only Crazy Eddie Airlines would allow him to try to land. With no ILS?? Hope we're on Maniac Eddie Airlines.
  
• Otherwise if the call for a diversion is for "surface winds / crosswinds" then a diversion to an alternate where winds aren't a problem should be more likely to be enforced based strictly upon my airline, my rating and hours. So if I've 300 hours with Acme, but 270 of those are in piston a/c and I'm just certified for this CRJ I'm in, then that 30kt crosswind should warrant an automatic diversion.
  
• The same thinking would apply if other serious wx conditions are present: Severe thunderstorm, funnel cloud, heavy snow, icing, wind shear. I've seen AI planes land in hurricane-like conditions, but I'm glad that I wasn't on board.
  

Now those concepts are ways in which I can fly without having to ask for any code changes. (Although it would be nice to have Dispatch make objective calls rather than me constantly making subjective calls, not to mention docking my pay and threatening to sack me if I'm flying recklessly.)

But I see a few possible in-code-only features that I'd like to propose:

• What about having a new category of certification for ILS approaches? What about an ILS / CAT II / CAT III checkride? In those, you would have to capture a glideslope and fly it to a smooth landing with an increasingly smaller deviation allowance. The benefit being that a CATIII certified pilot might not be asked to divert for a 200ft ceiling, and even if asked... their chances of being approved would be much higher than Joe Greenhorn's.
  
• On the other hand when Dispatch suggests a diversion, if the pilot is utterly sure that the conditions-for-diversion will clear and they're willing to spend their and their a/c's time and fuel, I'd like a third option - to be able to ask Dispatch for a holding pattern (where the pilot could fly randomly however they like but not approach any closer to the destination until cleared or diverted). When the pilot's ready, they would re-ask for landing approval and Dispatch would re-evaluate based on the new conditions.
  

I wouldn't be surprised if this is a lot more ambitious than what you were looking to get into for the next release, but I thought I'd lay out my ideas.

I really enjoy what you've put into FSCaptain - especially the weather related functions - and it's an essential part of my "serious simming" routine.

[Travis]

Perhaps increase any penalties that might arise if a pilot disregards a diversion and lands at the original designated field? Tripled or quadrupled penalty points would be a downer.

[Dutch Owen]

Thanks for your ideas Travis. I always like the idea of expanding the depth and realism of dispatch and always willing to do so when we can.

In the real world dispatch is never able to "force" a captain against his will. By law in the US and I'm sure elsewhere he/she can invoke emergency authority and no one, not his dispatchers or even ATC can stop him during the flight. After landing, however, there may be some explaining to do and consequences if the call turns out to have not been justified.

Concerning weather (currently the only reason Dispatch will suggest you divert) our problem is the flaws in FS, specifically FSX.
If the weather depiction was truly realistic you could not get away with landing below minimums, you wouldn't dare try. But it's not.

In my personal experience, weather is almost never as bad as the METAR reports in FSX. It may say 1 mile visibility but so many times I can actually pick up the airport lights shining through a smoky haze as much as five miles out. FS9 is another animal. When it says 1 mile you probably are in the soup and can see nothing until you're really close. I respect the weather SO much more in FS9, and this is a disappointment. But we must live with it. The weather add-ons can't seem to fix this -- it's built in to the way MS implemented visibility and clouds in FSX as far as I know.

I, too, have cheated and flown on to destination in FSX with ceiling/visibility below minimums and gotten away with it easily. I have tried that in FS9 and couldn't land after several tries and was late at my alternate.

Now, on principle, what can a dispatch office say if the captain makes the call and everything turns out rosy? What would FSCaptain pilots say if they did just that but FSCaptain docked them anyway? They'd be mad -- not at dispatch but at the program.

If everything doesn't turn out rosy, the resultant badness would dwarf a complaint by dispatch. What are they going to do, stand up at your funeral and say "I told you so?"

The bottom line is there are limits on the realism we can shoot for.

I would consider making this an option on an airline. That would involve adding a "request override" button to the "suggest diversion" message, which wouldn't be a problem. Perhaps the airline's decision would be based not just on the presence of PAX, but on your record as a captain.

I'm always looking for ways to reward a good record. This would be one! Good record = likelihood of dispatch concurring in your judgment greatly increased. Same principle could apply to the "weather hold" takeoff option.

I like that.

Dutch

[Travis]

Dutch,

It's been over 5 years since I tooled around in FS9 and I am thinking of the lousy weather (limited visibility lousy that is) from there vs. FSX. I’ve never flown in bad weather unless I was more than an arm’s reach from the cockpit, but you're right -- in FSX there's almost no reason not to ignore the weather.

I know where you’re coming from in balancing realism against ticking off users. I’ll be the first one to enable the “request override” option… and if I ignore dispatch’s insistence and bang up the plane and/or generate passenger complaints, I’d understand being demerited heavily and possibly put on probation on the spot. There should be some risk, after all.