Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I am planning a flight from LXGB to LEAL and I got the following route in PFPX using the lower airspace: N0273F240 DCT VJF G5 MAR A44 MGA B46 RESTU REST1Q

 

However, according to the Spanish AIP, A44 from MAR to MGA has an odd flight level. Why PFPX is not changing levels? Any way to force a descent to FL230 at MAR?

 

Thanks,

Juan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the developer will take a look at this to ensure it's correct.

 

Just a little more info on RVSM (taken from an old Newsletter I used to send out) in different countries. Not all countries are listed.

 

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums (RVSM)


RVSM is a vertical separation of 1000 feet for aircraft above Transition Altitude to FL410. Above FL 410, only ODD flight levels are used to ensure the vertical distance between aircraft will always be 2000 ft.


Generally most countries use a typical East-West method to determine/assign Flight Levels. Odd is for Eastbound Traffic, and Even is for West bound traffic. But there are a few countries that do this differently.

 

France, Spain, Portugal & Italy employ a North/South method for Flight Level. This results in the use of odd flight levels for magnetic tracks from 090° to 269° (South) and even flight levels for magnetic tracks from 270° to 089° (North).


I hope this is helpful.

 

Best wishes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DaveCT2003 said:

France, Spain, Portugal & Italy employ a North/South method for Flight Level. This results in the use of odd flight levels for magnetic tracks from 090° to 269° (South) and even flight levels for magnetic tracks from 270° to 089° (North).

 

Thanks for your answer, DaveCT2003. In Spain we also use the East-West method if the levels are not published in the AIP. This is not the case, as you can see in the screenshot this leg has an odd level from MAR to MGA. 

 

Juan

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Emanuel Hagen said:

Hi Juan,

 

I assume your AIRAC is up to date and you also installed the latest RAD restrictions and directs?

 

Thanks, Emanuel. My AIRAC is supposed to be up to date (NG1811). I had a look at the RAD restrictions in Eurocontrol and I couldn't find anything related to this route. I also assumed that PFPX is getting them automatically with the Navigraph AIRAC package, is that not the case?

 

Juan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Juan,

 

My guess is that PFPX is not stepping down the altitude from the initial optimum in this instance.

 

Having established a cruise of FL240 in the first pass you can set a next lower altitude initially:

 

fls.jpg.615e237d9cab32810c455c30d20436cf.jpg

 

computing the flight will then give the step up at MAR followed:

 

(FPL-GOESX-IN
-E135/M-SDE1FGHIJ1RWXY/S
-LXGB0825
-N0353F220 DCT VJF G5 MAR/N0359F230 A44 MGA/N0353F220 B46 RESTU
-LEAL0108 LELC
-PBN/A1B1C1D1L1O1S1 NAV/RNVD1E2A1 DOF/181103 REG/GOESX
 EET/LECB0053 RVR/200 OPR/
 PER/C
-E/0204)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Stephen. If I enter the data as in your screenshot, I still get the same issue, no change of level. If I set VJF at FL240, then MAR at FL230 and UNTOS at FL220, then I get the right flight plan with all the changes. But I was expecting that PFPX would be smarter and could detect and manage these flight level changes. I have to say that I fly a SAAB 340B and these flights are so short that I don't use step climbs.

 

I guess that PFPX is getting the correct information from the AIRAC as I suspect the CT field is marking the A44 airway as a different type in the Cruise Table (not sure about the SO and SA meaning though).

 

image.thumb.png.146a279247c97f323f0ebe577a9529a7.png

 

Regards,

Juan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cruise table data looks correct and would give ODD flight levels MAR to MGA ( SA )

 

Having just added Saab ( PFPX supplied profile ) and planning the same way as above with close to max takeoff weight:

 

(FPL-SSAAB-IN
-SF3/H-SDFGIRWY/S
-LXGB1210
-N0260F220 DCT VJF G5 MAR/N0257F230 A44 MGA/N0261F220 B46 RESTU
-LEAL0136 LELC
-PBN/A1B1C1L1 NAV/RNVD2E5A2 DOF/181103 REG/SSAAB
 EET/LECB0118 RVR/300 PER/C
-E/0254)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something is wrong with my SAAB 340B profile... Could you please send me a screenshot of your aircraft parameters to compare?

 

Thanks,

Juan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks to be related to the short leg distance of MAR to MGA @31nm, using a longer leg on A44 and no advanced level entries:

 

(FPL-SSAAB-IN
-SF34/H-SDFGIRWY/S
-LXGB1210
-N0252F240 DCT VJF G5 MAR/N0257F230 A44 AMR/N0263F220 G850 RESTU
 DCT
-LEAL0143 LELC
-PBN/A1B1C1L1 NAV/RNVD2E5A2 DOF/181103 REG/SSAAB
 EET/LECB0125 RVR/300 PER/C
-E/0302)

 

saab340.thumb.jpg.2acc57b8a166cc62b74d6f7d8772ac73.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks, I use the same aircraft parameters, and you are right, taking a longer leg then I also get the change in the flight level.

 

Is that a bug? We can easily descend 1,000 ft in 31 NM. Then descend again to FL220 to fly along B46.

 

Best regards,

Juan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now