Airline Rankings Feedback

[pikitanga]

I would like to give some feedback on the ranking system from the perspective of ZonExecutive.

We have moved from rank #24 (old) to rank #132 (new).

Our policy on deleting pilots is as follows:

Once you've completed your first flight, your account will never be suspended or deleted for inactivity. You are free to take a break, come back and fly again at any time. However, if you do not fly within 100 days of your registration, we'll automatically delete your account unless you've logged in within the past 30 days, or have posted at least once on our forums.

As we have been around for a while we have 592 pilots.

Our active pilots is 36 ie those who have flown in the last 7 days.

Our flight time is 415 hours in the last 7 days.

Basically because of our 592 on the pilot roster we only get 60.811 pilot points and 70 flight time points.

Airlines with 1 pilot on their roster are getting 1000 points just like that.

I think a more fair system would be to calculate the number of pilots on roster as being those pilots in an

airline who have flown in the last 3 months. ie using the same data you calculate active pilots with

This would then be consistent across all airlines since vaCentral would be applying a set

formula across all airlines the same, rather than an airlines policy on retiring/deleting pilots skewing the result.

My second problem is landing rate.

Based on the airlines who have landing rates we are losing on average 750 points.

We are an X-Plane va using xacars, which does not have a landing rate.

The developer of xacars has some very good reasons for not adding it, which I won't go into here.

How about giving airlines which cannot provide a landing rate the points of the worst performing

airline who do have landing rate capability just to even things up a bit. (Currently 414.9 pts)

That way airlines with a landing rate still have an incentive to land well without airlines like Zon

being so disadvantaged.

Otherwise I could just generate a random landing rate between -25 to -450 ie rand(25,450) * -1

and just send that in with each pirep.

Duncan

VP of Operations ZonExecutive

[pikitanga]

I have solved the landing rate problem by writing a X-Plane plugin which copies the latest entry in the

landing log created by the existing Landing Speed plugin, sending it off to phpvms.

[Iraklis]

I have to agree with this!!! Every day we have an average of 10 flights and this week we droped from 7th to 37 losing around 500 points. Why??? i don't know.... and the landing rates are between 150-400f/m.

"Airlines with 1 pilot on their roster are getting 1000 points just like that."

Why??? Can someone anwer this question???

If there is a problem with the system you should tell us.

Thank you!

[simpilot]

There is no problem with the system, it is ranking as the code was written. The ranking calculation is as follows at this time:

• Pilot Factor: Total active pilots in the airline over last 7 days / Total pilots on roster * 1000. (Maximum of 1000 points)
  
• Flighttime Factor: Average flight time per pilot in the past 7 days * 100. (ex: average of 3.0 hrs / pilot = 3 * 100 = 300 points. Maximum of 1000 points - 10+ hrs per pilot per week gets maximum points.)
  
• Landingrate Factor: Average landing rate of PIREPs in the past 30 days + 1000 points. (ex: average of -250 ft/min = -250 + 1000 = 750 points. Minimum of 0 points.)
  
• Likes Factor: Number of likes the airline has received on their vaCentral profile.
  

The old calculation system really based a very high percentage of the ranking on the longevity of the airline, meaning a site that was online for a long time even if it is mainly dormant ranked higher than a newer site that was active, which I did not agree with. As was being shown by the ranking there was no real way for a newer va to make a presence in the rankings.

I have asked numerous times for better design but hear very little until someone's airline is lower than they would like. The some of the very few responses I have gotten are here -> http://forum.phpvms....ly/#entry120811

I am already looking at the active pilots feature and I understand the complaint from your side. The complaint from my side, and many others, is why does the airline with 500+ pilots on the roster that 480 of them have not flown anytime recently get a better ranking than a small va with a small but active pilot base?

Complaints that I am promoting unsafe flight conditions by using a landing rate factor are also being thrown around. More info on that here -> http://forum.phpvms....andings-unsafe/ <- there is mention of the landing rate factor "perverting" the ranking. Wouldn't having 500 pilots with 5 active be the same thing?

I am also receiving complaints about the likes factor, even though its reflection on the overall score is tiny in my opinion. I did this to try and gain some traction in creating a community as the site was originally intended.

[Iraklis]

OK so far so good.

So...can you tell me please why my VA lost over 500 point this week?

Every day we have at least 10 flights with landing rate not over 500f/m and not below 100f/m?

Is there a problem with my VA? Problem with the tracker?

What is going on???

[simpilot]

The area of the rankings you are in has very little separation, meaning that small point changes can result in large changes in ranking. By the looks of the recent history -> http://www.vacentral...nk_history/2080 <- all of the metrics for your airline have been dropping.

The current calculation is shown below

It looks like you are submitting flights with the last one being today -> http://www.vacentral.net/listings/detail/axn_alexandairvirtual

It looks like in the last two days your points have gone from 1332 to 1131 due to the change in the metrics in that time period.

[Iraklis]

Why the Landing Rate factor is so high when tha landings of the pilots are maximum at 550f/m?

We have the AutoPirep activated a with the parameter of when a flights has over 600f/m landing rate is been rejected.

Thank you for your time by the way!!!

[simpilot]

The PIREPs must be being submitted to vaCentral prior to your rejection as in the last five submitted there is one with a landingrate of -877.

[Iraklis]

is there a way to send them after they have accepted or rejected?

also one PIREP with -877 that has been rejected! All the others as you can see there are below 600f/m!

so you force the pilot to perfom as you saying "grease landings"?

i thing this is unfair!!! a nice landing rate must not be under 150f/m in the real world i think...(forgive if i'm wrong here)

[simpilot]

is there a way to send them after they have accepted or rejected?

also one PIREP with -877 that has been rejected! All the others as you can see there are below 600f/m!

so you force the pilot to perform as you saying "grease landings"?

i thing this is unfair!!! a nice landing rate must not be under 150f/m in the real world i think...(forgive if i'm wrong here)

You should be able to change the order of the PIREP submission process to not submit to vaCentral till after you accept/reject them, I have no idea how your system is setup.

As far as your second comment/complaint, I am going to tell/ask you as I have others in the past, what is fair for airline rankings and how should rankings be calculated? There is a thread about landing rates here -> http://forum.phpvms.net/topic/23100-greased-landings-unsafe/ and a specific post here -> http://forum.phpvms.net/topic/23100-greased-landings-unsafe/#entry122142 that asks the questions I need answered with valid answers.

[pikitanga]

Pilot Factor: Total active pilots in the airline over last 7 days / Total pilots on roster * 1000. (Maximum of 1000 points)

I am already looking at the active pilots feature and I understand the complaint from your side. The complaint from my side, and many others, is why does the airline with 500+ pilots on the roster that 480 of them have not flown anytime recently get a better ranking than a small va with a small but active pilot base?

I was trying to suggest a solution in my original post that was fair to everyone.

The answer to your question is "the small VA would receive the better ranking" ?

You already calculate "Total active pilots in the airline over last 7 days".

So why not calculate "Total pilots on roster" = "Total active pilots in the airline over last 90 days".

Then plug that into your existing formula. (Which I think is fine by the way.)

That way vaCentral is using a more accurate value for "Total pilots on roster".

A brand new airline with 1 pilot would still get 1000 points using the formula, which is fine.

We currently have 77 pilots who have flown in the last 90 days, 36 of which have flown in the last 7 days.

36/77 x 1000 = 467 pts.

A semi new airline with say 10 pilots 9 of which are still flying would get 900 pts.

So a small VA can do just as well if not better than a old VA with a large roster of pilots not flown anytime recently.

Seems reasonable and fair to me.

Duncan

[clawsonsa]

Dear VA Central,

Having a ranking system for a large number of "Airlines" is like the Forbes 500 list. Each airline is built differently. Some are very lax on when or if their pilots fly! Some require this, some that. We also have to remember that everyone doesn't fly the same. Some folks use the easiest settings and some fly with as much realism as possible. Landing numbers can and all be all over the place.

I think what we all have to remember is we are one large group who love the field of aviation. As a whole, I think that the way the standings are done currently are as fair as possible. Every VA is so different it is almost impossible to have a level playing field.

My next point is, yes, everyone no matter who you are wants to be in first place. In my opinion in order for that to happen, the VA Central ranking system would have to have in place a special system for each and every VA.

My one suggestion would be for having different size categories. Cat A = Pilots over 500, Cat B = Pilots from 250 thru 499, Cat C = Pilots from 100 thru 249, Cat D = Pilots from 35 thru 99 and Cat E = Pilots from 1 thru 34.

Of course this would also be debated because once you start the categories, where do you stop.

After all that, I just want to say thank you to the folks at VA Central for spending their time and resources to help provide us, the VA Community, with a great place to visit and use as a resource!

My best,

Scott Clawson

Indianapolis, Indiana

[clawsonsa]

Fellow Pilots,

After waiting two weeks to see if anyone would respond to my thoughts and suggestion, I am overjoyed that it seems everyone is happy with the way VA Central is ranking our VA's. I am glad to see that we are all on the same page.

My best,

Scott