GUGAP3000 0 Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 Hi, I have contact Judith about a problem that I'm facing regards planing a flight that uses tracks (NATS for example). The problem is that PFPX does not take in consideration the tracks when finding a route that in real life should use the track. Thank you. Please login to display this image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillip Speer 2 Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 Hi, I believe there is an issue with 1.28 not accouting for wind and defaulting to grand circle routes which is in the process of being repaired but I'm not sure the route you've posted would follow the eastbound NATs given the the northern displacement of the grand circle. I've just run a couple of route through PFPX. The first route I've forced PFPX to use NATT the northern most NAT (YUL V382 VBS/N0489F330 DCT BAREE/N0491F350 N445A TUDEP NATT 52N050W/M084F350 NATT 54N040W/M084F360 NATT 55N030W/M085F370 NATT RESNO DCT NETKI DCT MIMKU/N0494F350 DCT KLONN P600 ZOL Z132 OSKOM Z316 RIPAM). This plans in a B744 to travel 3231.5nm, 06:12 hours and will burn 85194kg fuel. Using the AUTO generated route following the grand circle (YUL Q824 PENTU DCT YBC/N0498F330 DCT YYR DCT 57N050W/M083F350 60N040W 62N030W 63N020W 63N010W/M084F370 DCT IPTON/N0493F370 Z263 ADOPI) with the same aircraft is 3029.4nm, will take 06.03hours and will burn 82759kg fuel. This is a fairly quick assessment and using a different aircraft to the one you've planned with but based on todays NATs I suspect a more northernly random route would be filed given the lower fuel burn. Phillip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUGAP3000 0 Posted June 26, 2017 Author Share Posted June 26, 2017 Thanks Phillip for the quick response. It's true that this specific route takes place far northern than most normal routes crossing the Atlantic. I will wait for an update to PFXP fixing this "issue". However, I just want to show you a route that I did before and that was considerably far southern LFMN-CYMX. Please login to display this image. Please login to display this image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 There is no requirement to plan or use NAT's and PFPX is not aware of 'real-world' flightplans. In your first post planning via the track would add 8% to the plan distance and unless the winds were very favorable would be a less efficient route. The same in image two, when wind optimization is restored the result may well be different Image three the tracks are are actually Eastbound and should be avoided. If you wish you can force to plan using a NAT by using the VIA or VIA+ options, or setting a VIA in the advanced planner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganu88 0 Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Can confirm the same issue EGKK - KBOS flight plan didn't take into account NAT Tracks STD was planned as 07/28 1600Z as can enter the track within the validity period of the TRACKS in my case track E (NAT-1/2 TRACKS FLS 310/390 INCLUSIVE JUN 28/1130Z TO JUN 28/1900Z PART ONE OF TWO PARTS- E PIKIL 57/20 59/30 59/40 58/50 DORYY (TMI IS 179) Finally did input Track E manually and got 1. 14min time saving 2. 1133kg less fuel burn 3. 197.8nm more distance *** PFPX Route *** SAM3Z SAM UL620 GIBSO UN514 DIDEL UL149 MERLY UL22 MOPAT DCT TOBOR DCT 53N020W 53N030W 52N040W 50N050W DCT ELSIR N318A ALLEX Q822 AJJAY OOSHN4 *** Manual Route *** LAM1Z LAM L10 BPK UN601 LESTA UP6 RODOL UL28 PENIL UL70 BAGSO DCT ERNAN DCT NIBOG DCT PIKIL DCT 57N020W 59N030W 59N040W 58N050W DCT DORYY N638A TAFFY DCT ENE OOSHN4 at 7/28 1550Z, NAX7147 will make the same flight as the one EGKK-KBOS Interesting to watch what route it will take https://flightaware.com/live/flight/NAX7147/history/20170628/1550Z/EGKK/KBOS Please login to display this image. Please login to display this image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 @ganu88 Your routing is clearly related to the wind optimization issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mklemme 9 Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Hi ganu88 Further to Stephen's reply, from my observations it seems that the PFPX algorithm has been set to ignore any organized track routing if that would give a flight plan distance c. 4% higher than the GC, in which case PFPX will ignore the track and give a GC routing. In your example above, the flight plan distance along Track E is around 9% more than the GC distance so is ignored by PFPX notwithstanding the more favorable wind situation. Anyway, let's hope the developers manage to address this issue sometime soon. BTW, it looks like NAX7147 is actually going via Track D tonight! Cheers Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUGAP3000 0 Posted June 30, 2017 Author Share Posted June 30, 2017 On 6/27/2017 at 5:19 AM, srcooke said: Image three the tracks are are actually Eastbound and should be avoided. Was just showing that the Flight Plan was going to interfere with Eastbound tracks and should be avoid, but was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 6 hours ago, GUGAP3000 said: Was just showing that the Flight Plan was going to interfere with Eastbound tracks and should be avoid, but was not. I doubt that PFPX is going to achieve that, down to you the dispatcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.