Jump to content

TOC ISA Deviation Problems


Recommended Posts

Since installing 1.14 (poss. earlier, but at least since then) the <&TOCISADev> field has given some strange negative values, typically between -20 and -45, that aren't even close to the true deviation according to the TOC temperature.

It is worth noting that the TOC for all of my flights is above FL370, so I'm wondering if PFPX has a problem calculating dev when ISA temp becomes static..?

For example (all temps degrees Celsius):

A flight I planned today has cruise at FL410, a TOC temp of -61 and a TOC ISA Dev of -29!

Under ISA, 41000ft temp should be -56.5, so the actual ISA deviation is -4.5 (~ -5).

Anyone else having these problems?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really fail to see how weather program makes a difference, all the values I quoted were from within PFPX itself.

It looks as if there is a problem in the internal calculation of this variable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the above example, the PFPX OFP shows that TOC temp is -61 and that the TOC ISA dev is -29.

At my TOC (41000ft) ISA states a temperature of -56.5, which means the actual ISA deviation that PFPX should be calculating is -4.5

--> (-61) - (-56.5) = -4.5

Somehow, PFPX is calculating -29, clearly a significant difference from the actual value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes <&TOCISADev> field is giving wrong values ... At FL340 temp is expected to be -53 C but ISA DEV value was -47 :(

So there is a problem with that field , did you checked the latest documents about the template editing/ building fields ? Maybe Christian changed something or added some new functions for ISA DEV ... [ I did not checked them , just tested with an older template ]

@CaptainTim ;

ISA DEV (ISA Deviation) is not related to the WX software we use and it is not related with the simulator wx you had during flight ... If you are interested please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere for basic details , from that page you can find more links with more info ;)

Best wishes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for confirming the problem :)

The latest Flight Plan Template Guide (Rev. 10) shows no change to <&TOCISADev>, however I remember that a change to the field took place within the last few revisions, with the addition of a second formatting parameter (so [0] gives + / - formatting, and [1] gives P / M formatting).

I'll have a play with different PFPX version installs this afternoon to find out when the field last worked correctly, and maybe look at the <&AvgISADev> field as a possible interim solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiousity what does ISA Dev tell you when planning a flight? I know that it means that its warmer or colder than ISA but when you are planning why is that important?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Others may be far more qualified to answer that than me, but here's my 2 cents ;)

Let's not disregard the fact that ISA dev is just another way of writing outside air temperature for a given altitude.

In truth there are probably many dispatch calculations involving temperature although I'm not sure how deep the PFPX calculations or available flight model data go...

One example that springs to mind is that outside air temperature directly affects Mach number, and therefore fuel flow is affected.

Interestingly, if you use any of the modern Boeing FMCs, you'll notice a field on one of the preflight pages for inputting ISA deviation. I'm led to believe that this is used to calculate the most economic climb profile for the aircraft (with reference to the cost index), among other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, to update my 18th Apr. post, I've sadly not yet had the chance to experiment with past PFPX versions.

I'll complete ASAP and report the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My apologies, been very busy with academic work recently and not had the chance to look at previous versions.

In my latest OFP template I simply changed the 'TOC ISA Dev' field for the 'Average ISA Dev' field until it is addressed- this is intended to only be a temporary workaround but at least the output is believable!

I was very surprised they let the bug persist into 1.15 to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use