I think many of us have been or are concerned that both Konny and Claudio mull this stuff around among themselves and throw it out to us without much thought to the end-user. Aircraft attrition is a prime example. The sums, although I can't remember them now, were logical in FlyNET after a period of total cr@p so why change it. Was the old client really that badly programmed that a complete re-write was required Whatever..
A re-write is what we have and there's no turning back. The entire rating structure, as far as pilots are concerned, is now a complete sham. OK.. pilots will eventually get their 100% ratings back (I hope) but will have to live forever with a much reduced 'flights' percentage and through no fault of their own.. by and large. I don't suppose this figures very highly in the grand scale of things (behind the scenes) but it should as pilots, ours as well as everyone else's like to keep the 'score sheet' as clean as is humanly possible. Tough sh1t.. suck it and see.. you should have done more beta testing.. are comments about as useful as having the 'sh1ts' on safari.. an ashtray on a motorbike.. 2 x 5p's for a Scottish public toilet when only a 10p will do...
Anyway.. I'm glad you're back. I can sit and watch again.. from altitude that is :flying:
I think everyone is against change whenever something new gets introduced. I found it frustrating trying to tell what was going on whilst I was away this last week without the facility of my own flying PC to check things more thoroughly. Having got back yesterday and looked at the new client and its functionality there are some good things to be said about it and in time the bugs that are currently residing in it will get swatted. The transition to FSA and the new client had to be made before a more malicious hacker entered the old FlyNET site and did his worst. Hopefully the new site/client is more secure and will serve us well.
Hi Chaps, just completed my last flight with the new client without issue, but I can't seem to find the wear factors on the airframe anywhere. Where should I be looking? :think:
Cheers for that Dave. Very usefull. It seems that the general wear is sorted, if anything a bit low... but I did have a pretty good landing (at least it looked good to me lol.)
Yup.. my 703 landings were not too bad. Difficult to tell just yet how it's going to compare. I used to work on the assumption that for a given route.. with reasonable landings.. I could stretch about 3 flights per percentage point.. that is .9, .8 for example. Fingers crossed they have it nailed this time ;-)
Oz (Ogee) has a second format of that table that will on demand reorder by registration/Location or even wear percentage
we've been using it for about a year to track maintenance.
With a little "tweaking" it will even print out wear and tear on specifics -- Engine/Gear/Airframe
Whatever..
