The future of SAX

[shackler781]

I sure have enjoyed the year-and-a-half since joining SAX. I fly when I can and strive for the greatest realism I can achieve having not been trained as a real pilot. I am concerned with the scrutiny that something like FSFK brings to our flights, though. While I agree that it s a useful tool in examining our skills, I fear-perhaps wrongly-the overwhelming amount of data it records will sap some of the joy out. Will we be concentrating on getting a good score instead of the overall satisfaction of the flight? I don't know. Maybe that's the point. A better score means a safer flight. With the elimination of hard touch-downs and accelerated time (which I rarely, if ever, use), I worry that the organization is moving toward more stringent, less enjoyable VA. I could be wrong. I am downloading FSFK now and will give it the ol' try. I am sure I will be a better pilot for it. And I am sure SAX pilots will continue racking up the miles. I just hope we don't get too serious in the process. I'll see you out there!

[Marty_Becker]

Shawn,

This is the normal progression of SunAir moving forward to keep up with the times. If we didn't we would still be submitting pilot reports that consisted of one line of text, either to our hub chief or publicly to a message board as we did in 1992 and a few years after that. I am sure pilots didn't like switching to FSACARS and having to have a continuous internet connection. This was at a time when dial-up was in the majority.

As for moving to only supporting FSFK, as stated in the announcement, FASCARS is no longer supported by the developer. It has not been supported for about two years. FSFK is a far superior product and Thomas provided excellent for FSFK and his other products. Also, mentioned is that we have to support two code bases for the POC's interface with FSACARS and FSFK. This encompasses the portion of code that relates to live map tracking and the receipt of flight reports. While Dave Vega and I enjoy the work we do in the POC, we do not want to do double coding.

As for FSFK scoring, that is just one of many parts of FSFK that provides data feedback to the pilot. Since you said you are downloading it, you will see. The scoring critique portion of FSFK is not controlled in any way by the POC. The POC can control a few aspects of FSFK, but not the scoring critique. Also, we do not ask you to replace the default scoring parameters with modified ones from SunAir. The one everyone uses is the one included with FSFK. Could we require pilots to use a modified version with tighter parameters? Sure, but we do not. The POC accepts the default scoring critique from FSFK as part of the flight report.

We will also be able to reduce the amount of data in our data base. We store every latitude and longitude reporting point for use in creating the flown route on the archived map for each flight report, (the map accessed by the Globe icon). Since FSFK provides the map images for the flown route, we will be able to turn off the capture and storing of all the reporting points. In the future, we can then delete all this old data and reduce the physical size of our database.

The use of FSFK will make less work for Dave Blake in regards to screening initial checkrides and pilot-aircraft checkrides.

You mentioned, "...the organization is moving toward more stringent, less enjoyable VA." I see SunAir be middle of the road in that aspect. It is an organization that provides a structure environment to simulate airline flying. SunAir is not a "free for all" in that pilots can do as they please. There are some VAs like that. There are other VAs that are ALOT more stringent than us. Some require that a pilot must be dispatched before they can even fly. We do not. Others require that you only fly on VATSIM or IVAO. We do not.

I hope this shed some light on some aspects that you were questioning.

[David Vega]

All

We won't get "too serious." As Marty points out, there are other VAs out there that are way more "serious" than SAX. At the same time there are some that are way less "serious" than SAX. The original founder wanted it to be as real as possible, but we haven't gotten to the point were we have to provide the equivalent of airline flight training to all our pilots before they can start flying for SAX.

Our desire is to offer a challenging environment where all our pilots can improve their virtual flying skills. Some folks have said that it feels like "work." Perhaps the amount of details to remember w/o using checklists, or the feel that one doesn't measure up may discourage some. I assure you nobody is thinking less of anyone for not having the best scores, greasers, etc., that's not the point. The numbers are there only for personal feedback. Using Shawn's words, "the overall satisfaction of the flight" should be based on how well one performed. An example comes to mind, consider a pilot that, while manually flying the airplane, suddenly realizes that he missed a point and decides to catch up by banking the airplane to its limit to resume course as soon as possible. If this were to happen in real life, the airplane would pull enough Gs to make the passengers very uncomfortable. Other examples would be very steep descends, hard landings, fly in prolonged turbulence, etc.

About three years ago, I was flying (for real) from San Antonio, Texas, to Los Angeles, California on Southwest Airline. About half an hour into the flight, the Captain told us that someone at the airport had reported seeing some sort of leak upon takeoff. The Captain said we were diverting to Dallas, and that, because we had too much fuel on board, we needed to deploy the spoilers while keeping constant altitude. I remember the Captain even explained the function of the spoilers. The Captain apologized for the noise inconvenience. All of this because there's a maximum landing weight on the airplane. Landing above the max landing weight is unsafe. So, do I think about max landing weight when planning a SAX flight? I do. Instead of just loading the fuel tanks to the max and go, I either make the computations or use an automatic fuel planner to ensure that when I get there we are below that max landing weight. That's not work, that's just one more thing that I know real airline pilots consider, that I can take into consideration in my virtual world.

Can you think of other details like that?

David Vega
SAX702

[SAX792]

Well, gentlemen. I've been thinking about this topic since I joined. Here is my own opinion. Please keep in mind that it is worth exactly as much as you paid for it.

First off, you seem a very close-knit group of people who are quite expert at flying. I have come to respect many of you whose wisdom I read in this forum. I have great respect for Dave, based on e-mail discussions that he and I have had.

FSFK is a great tool, IMHO well worth the purchase price. I like getting a critique of my flying skills and seeing where I can improve.

At the same time, though, I intensely dislike the idea of having that critique and my scores posted on a web site for all to see. I did not come here to compete with or to be judged by other pilots.

Since joining, I have flown the KTPA-KORD route twice. I will not submit either report. The first time I landed too hard. The second time I was docked points for things I didn't even know about; I lost points for flying in turbulence for over 30 minutes. Looking out the window and at my cockpit instruments, I had no idea that there was any turbulence. I felt like I had just taken a final exam without knowing what was going to be on it and the teacher posted each student's score.

For me at least, it has taken much of the fun out of these flights. I feel as though I am far out of my depth. I am not certain whether I'll be flying here any more. The SunAir roster shows 17 active pilots, out of over 800 applicants. Perhaps I am not the only person who feels this way.

SunAir Express has been around for as long as I have. Surely it will continue with or without me. I wish nothing but continued success for you.

Respectfully,

Danny

[peterom]

I have to agree with some of the sentiment of the pilots who have voiced some concern for the "strictness" of SunAir Express. I am not opposed to using FSFK to track my progress, and I understand the need to be able to automatically record aspects of my flight to post to the SunAir POC. I also do agree that there is a wide variety of knowledge and flight experience from many in the management positions. However, I really only fly for fun. I don't fly 172's anymore, so FSx gives me a chance to fly in the virtual world. Maybe there should be two levels within SunAir...one for people who want to use many of the software flight planning programs available to plan and fly their line (using FSX) and one for those who just want to use FSX as a way to enjoy part of the flying experience. There were many times as a Private Pilot that I rented a plane just to get up in the air and enjoy the feeling...without having to do anything else but takoff, fly VFR and land after the hour rental is up.

One way to have the "Recreational" flight would be to have an FSFK critique file just for those individuals who want to fly a line for fun and don't want all of the critique to follow, and another for those who want the entire flight planning experience with associated critique.

Just a thought.

[David Vega]

Danny,

Sorry it isn't what you expected. There are some virtual airlines that should be designated as flying clubs, and there are some that would not allow you to fly unless one of them manually dispatches your flight. We are trying to keep the original intent of simulating flying for a real airline, with some deliberate exceptions. FSFK and previously FSAcars, are tools to assess achieving a level of realism that mimics airline operations. Airline pilots do report their flights, and there are other methods that provide feedback to the airline on how their pilots are flying.

Peter, suggest also joining a less realistic VA. Nothing says that you can't fly for more than one. I used to belong to two other ones with different levels of realism. I wanted to get a feel for what SAX offers while seeing how the other ones operate.

Best regards,

Dave
SAX702

[peterom]

Ok, goodbye.

[David Vega]

Pete, note I didn't say to leave SAX, but just to join another VA just to compare. It was only a suggestion.

Regards,

Dave
SAX702

[peterom]

David, I understood your message. I just don't have time to be part of two VAs. As you can see by my flight stats, I have flown over 700 hours since rejoining SunAir, which means I have taken flying for this VA seriously. I guess I feel that it's getting a more professional flair, and I'm not really sure what my part is in the airline...or whether I really fit. I think I'll take a few months off to decide how I want to spend my time with FSX and with SunAir Express.

Thanks.

[Dave. S]

What is the problem? We all have our own choice, its not our job to fly for SAX, we dont earn our living from it, i personally do it because i really enjoy it & i try to adhere to the policies that SAX has set, i appreciate the work that people do,flight plans,info, etc, yes there are times when i wish i could accelerate time,always land at -10 fpm,not have to work out how much fuel i,m gonna need, go from A to B direct, but i choose to try & simulate real world operations. It really shudn,t matter what score you get, ov course we try to do our best,its human nature, but as long as we get enjoyment, its not a pool tournament, leader board means nothing, aint gonna win you a million, all i say is if u dont enjoy then dont do