25-07-2005, 03:20 AM
Daniel,
I like your idea about the turbulence detection (I made a similiar recommendation in a nother post of mine entitled "ATTENDANT
CALL SYSTEM" perhaps you can search for it, and let me know if you like that feature.).
There's only one problem with turbulence detection. There's really no guaranteed way to detect turbulence in FS9 (unless you set it, and
know where you'll encounter it). Sure, you may be using a add-on WX radar, however not everyone has these, and a WX radar is only
going to show precipitation returns. You might be able to find turbulence in heavy precipitation, and therefore be able to notify the PAX
ahead of time (by flipping on the belt sign), however what about all the CAT that's out there? Good luck detecting that from in front of a 19"
monitor... it's hard enough in reality.
I think the alternate airport is a good idea. Normally, before takeoff we'll have preselected enroute diversion airports, and at least one
destination alternate. Perhaps Dan could add a feature that would enable you to set a single destination alternate (since the presetting
of enroute alternates, and multiple destination alternates would require lots of coding, and frankly be not worth the work) before takeoff.
This would be a simplified version of real work alternate selection, and would at least allow us to deviate to an alternate airport due to WX
without getting too hefty a penalty.
What do you think?
Oh, and about the "broken parts". Why would you want to fly with broken parts in the first place? Safety is of top concern here at all US
airlines (I'm not sure what country you're from), and I'd never dream of taking off anytime I know something could be in better shape. Of
course we have MEL's, and they usually have a few items listed on them, but NEVER any safety infringements. Oh, and by the way... you
wouldn't be getting a fine from the government. It would be more like a full NTSB investigation and grounding of your fleet after your fuel
tank leak caused an engine fire and crash with 142 fatalities. Not a good idea to fly with a leaking fuel tank. lol
I like your idea about the turbulence detection (I made a similiar recommendation in a nother post of mine entitled "ATTENDANT
CALL SYSTEM" perhaps you can search for it, and let me know if you like that feature.).
There's only one problem with turbulence detection. There's really no guaranteed way to detect turbulence in FS9 (unless you set it, and
know where you'll encounter it). Sure, you may be using a add-on WX radar, however not everyone has these, and a WX radar is only
going to show precipitation returns. You might be able to find turbulence in heavy precipitation, and therefore be able to notify the PAX
ahead of time (by flipping on the belt sign), however what about all the CAT that's out there? Good luck detecting that from in front of a 19"
monitor... it's hard enough in reality.
I think the alternate airport is a good idea. Normally, before takeoff we'll have preselected enroute diversion airports, and at least one
destination alternate. Perhaps Dan could add a feature that would enable you to set a single destination alternate (since the presetting
of enroute alternates, and multiple destination alternates would require lots of coding, and frankly be not worth the work) before takeoff.
This would be a simplified version of real work alternate selection, and would at least allow us to deviate to an alternate airport due to WX
without getting too hefty a penalty.
What do you think?
Oh, and about the "broken parts". Why would you want to fly with broken parts in the first place? Safety is of top concern here at all US
airlines (I'm not sure what country you're from), and I'd never dream of taking off anytime I know something could be in better shape. Of
course we have MEL's, and they usually have a few items listed on them, but NEVER any safety infringements. Oh, and by the way... you
wouldn't be getting a fine from the government. It would be more like a full NTSB investigation and grounding of your fleet after your fuel
tank leak caused an engine fire and crash with 142 fatalities. Not a good idea to fly with a leaking fuel tank. lol
![[-]](http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/images/collapse.png)