Page 1 of 9

VA Crew Room

Posted: 12 May 2006, 10:15
by DispatchDragon
I spoke to Ben about having a "crew room" within E&S - and He suggests making a Sticky thread for that purpose - if all are in agreement Ill make it so. :smile:

Leif

Posted: 12 May 2006, 10:36
by Avant-Garde-Aclue
Sounds like a good idea :smile:

Sean

Posted: 12 May 2006, 11:26
by Jetset
Make it so sir, make it so!

Posted: 12 May 2006, 12:53
by RAF_Quantum
Hi Leif,

That sounds good to me. Hopefully it will stop threads being 'hijacked' by 'mid-thread social ramblings' ( :tuttut: ).

Rgds
John

Posted: 12 May 2006, 13:02
by DispatchDragon
That was the Idea John

By the way - (doing a little hijacking) I have some provisional schedules for the Budgie and 1-11 penciled out - how many of each aircraft are you
contemplating starting with (Ive built the weekly rosters around 2 and 2)

Leif

Posted: 12 May 2006, 16:41
by Garry Russell
One thing concerning me is that it seems to be going to run as things are now

It would be better if they could be run as they were then

Procedures and routings were different and there were many more waypoints.

Landing lights wern't generally used like now and in fact it was a different world which I thought is part of the attraction.

There are many more differences I am just using examples.


Garry

Posted: 13 May 2006, 00:52
by Chris Trott
Garry, all the other parts are valid points except the one about landing lights. If the VA is going to use FlyNET then it must comply with the rules of FlyNET which has the two landing light requirements (off above 10K, on below 1K). There is nothing that this VA can do about that unless we are willing to take the penalty for violating those rules each time we fly a flight.

Posted: 13 May 2006, 08:19
by PeteP
Garry Russell wrote:Procedures and routings were different and there were many more waypoints.
Garry, you're right about procedures and routes being different in the past, but not about there being many more waypoints. There were actually far fewer waypoints - or 'reporting points' as they were called.

This was partly because there were far fewer routes than there are today but also because published reporting points were restricted to either radio beacons (VORs, NDBs or fan markers) or intersections with specific purposes. Just because two routes crossed, didn't mean that the crossing point had a name. Today, it's the complete opposite and every single point where routes cross is required to have a 5-letter name whether it has any useful function or not. :crying:

ATB
PP

Posted: 13 May 2006, 08:40
by DispatchDragon
As I understand from John (RAF Q) as far as airways routings go we can toss that out the window - seems tha you can fly just about anything you want and I quote VOR,GPS,Direct, whatever completes the task and
generates the most revenue for the "airline" - Im sorry , I have been
laboring under a total misconception , this seems to be more about generating "virtual" revenue than flying classic british aircraft in the
envoirment that they exsisted in (PeteP and I discussed this a long time
ago as to wether one could reconstruct a 30 year old airways system
on MSFS) Obviously unless someone comes along and rebuilds airports (or debuilds) to the way they were 30 years ago one will have to live with exisisting airport scenery. - Returning to the concept of virtual revenue Im sure some of you may have noticed that Flynet REQUIRES a monetary
value be placed on the aircraft - as almost ALL of the types that have been
suggested are in museums or gone entirly (with the exception of the 748)
Computing the value can only be done by finding how much the original equipment cost new - and then converting from say 1969 Sterling to
2006 Sterling - I think you can all see the problems this might bring about
- to continue within the confines of Flynet would mean that you will
bankrupt the airline very quickly , because if the folks at Flynet have done
their homework corectly the "virtual airline" program will take into things
such as fuel cost, hull depreciation, maintenance costs, and of course customer satisfaction (meaning repeat load factors) IF all these things
have been computed at real world cost of 2005/2006 then operating 35 year old equipment with highly inefficient and thirsty engines will drive
the airline into bankruptcy in next to no time.

Just thought you all would like to think on this


Leif

Posted: 13 May 2006, 10:18
by DispatchDragon
Thank you Tonks

There you go folks


Its all yours , just keep your feet of the chairs

leif