Jump to content

Fatman

Members
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fatman

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Fatman's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Week One Done Rare

Recent Badges

3

Reputation

  1. Thanks Captain. I concur that is not a big deal, but I still find it odd (FL302 is closer to 9200m vs. FL301). My approach is to amend generated flight plan to reflect "correct" FL (matter of a few seconds). That way, ATC is happy and I am happy as well.
  2. Thank you Stephen. I concur that the calculation wise, 9200 M = 31200 FT is much closer than 31100 FT. We will have to wait and see if the developer will be able to make this adjustment. If not, solution is simple. Generate OFP and then manually enter correct FLs. Cheers, Andrej
  3. Hello all, few months ago, I started a thread regarding Chinese and Mongolian RVSM. However, today, I am coming back with a new find. My recent flight from Hong Kong to Cologne, my initial flight level was assigned as FL302 and setp to FL322. However, as per Chinese RVSM** assigned FL should be FL301 and FL321. I know that a difference of 100' is not much, but is there any way to apply this rule to correctly reflect accurate FLs? The fact is that Meters wise, PFPX is correct (FL301/302 = 9200M, FL321/322 = 9800M). K0928S0920 BEKO2B BEKOL A461 YIN G586 SJG B330 ELKAL W179 RIRKI W232 WFX W179 OMBON B330 ELPAN/K0916S0980 B330 SUNUV W197 ANDIM B215 IBANO G470 IPMUN W192 FKG A368 SARIN/N0482F340 M166 KRG A95 ATBAN G111 LODEZ/N0481F360 G111 TITUR N985 ORTIM L158 IRGOS T613 DOGOB M864 DURTI L29 TEGLU DCT LAFAT DCT VABER DCT SUWGI DCT ALUKA DCT POVEL Q201 PODER Z189 RUNER T858 KOPAG KOPA32 **sources: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/mission_support/ato_intl/documents/cross_polar/CPWG26/ANSP/CPWG_PM1_PPT_ANSP_Update_ATMB.pdf https://www.vatprc.net/en/rvsm-en If this is not possible, no worries, I just have to make amendment of FLs myself. Thanks! Andrej
  4. Alex, I am also planning the same. It is a shame that the Topcat will not be supported as it would make the switch much easier. However, not sure if you do use PFPX. If yes, you can link Topcat performance to B744 there and substitute for Topcat. I am not sure if aircraft performance for the Topcat is sourced and navdata is used from PFPX database (it would make a sense), or if Topcat supplies navdata as well. Nonetheless, Aerosoft has at least two new customers, thanks to their open mind and willingness to cooperate with Hardy (and the best sim out there). Andrej
  5. If you use real world weather (either add-on or default one; and it is accurate) then yes, it would have an effect on flight planning as one does not have most recent forecast. As this impacts all users that have subscription to the online weather, I am certain that fix is coming. Just hope it is sooner rather than later.
  6. Same here, no SIGMETs and similar TAF issues.
  7. Hello Stephen, quick example: ZBAA - EDDK K0921S0980 IDK9YD IDKEX B339 DEGIR/K0909S0960 B339 UDA A575 DARNO/N0493F340 A575 IDGAR/N0494F360 A575 UNKIS P982 BADIK N181 BAPUN N869 INBUK/N0495F380 N869 DURTI L29 ALUKA DCT POVEL Q201 PODER Z189 RUNER T858 KOPAG KOPA1N Also look at Mongolian AIP: https://ais.mn/files/aip/eAIP/2020-06-18-AIRAC/html/eAIP/ZM-ENR-1.8-en-MN.html It has a very nice graphical representation of FL changes (Russia vs. Mongolia).
  8. Hello all, is there any way to change RVSM rules? Every-time I fly to / from China, the RVSM FLs are opposite. Where it should be, for example, FL361, the PFPX offers FL371. This happens every time I plan a flight. Usually, I manually override these FLs. Source of correct FLs: https://www.vatprc.net/en/rvsm-en I am using latest AIRAC (2102), v.2.04, and my subscription services run till 2022. Thanks! Andrej
  9. Hi Omar, thanks for another amazing update! My wallet and I are ready.
  10. Very true, but at least OP has OFP in a desired version. Having been first introduced to the FAA format some 20 years ago, I prefer the ICAO one.
  11. So if you want to see .. instead of DCT in the flight plan, go to the Configuration -> Panning / Units, in Route Format -> Output Format change from ICAO to FAA Then you need to find and/or select proper OFP format that is formatted for the FAA direct presentation. I belive that PFPX default has DCT option only (as this is global standard). I would suggest to search US airlines OFP files on the aerosoft forum. Look for UAL, DAL, or SWA. Maybe there is a specific FAA format (for domestic operations).
  12. As far as I know, direct are used in the US airspace regularly (for US flights). Instead of WAYPOINT/NAVAID DCT WAYPOINT/NAVAID, it is presented WAYPOINT/NAVAID..WAYPOINT/NAVAID or just WAYPOINT/NAVAID[space]WAYPOINT/NAVAID Here is an example of UAL2264 flight scheduled on May 7, 2020: NEWEL J60 HCT VOAXA Q136 RUMPS OAL INYOE DYAMD5 https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL2264/history/20200507/1710Z/KEWR/KSFO
  13. Thanks for another update and awesome shot! Yak-40, the original regional jet.
×
×
  • Create New...