Jump to content

Fatman

Members
  • Posts

    36
  • 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

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare

Recent Badges

3

Reputation

  1. Thanks JP...I confirm that TAF is now back online.
  2. Thanks Stephen. I was under the impression that yesterday it was working. Cheers, Andrej
  3. Hello all, today I experienced problems with TAF (not showing for any airport). Yet my weather is updated. Is this isolated incident or is there more of us? See sample:
  4. Dear Mathijs and Guenter, thank you for your reply. I am looking forward once NavData will be offered for Aerowinx PSX. I will subscribe to it once available. Sincerely, Andrej
  5. Hello, don't want to sound rude, but am I asking this question in the appropriate forum? Is there a better way to get an answer (such as email)? Thank you, Andrej
  6. Very sad news. I hope that server subscription will continue for years to come. Despite the fact that PFPX could be updated (I don't expect it for free), it is still the best flight planning tool our there. I guess that if Navigraph would buy PFPX license, we could see further development, but sadly that is not the case. David, thank you for your continuous support! Mathiijs, would you give us heads-up if there is a plan not to sell subscription services anymore? My expires in FEB-2022. Thank you, Andrej
  7. Dear all, I would like to ask, if you know a date, when you will add Aerowinx PSX to your regular NavData updates. I am more than happy (surely there is more of us) to purchase NavData once Aerowinx PSX is supported on regular basis. If not on a monthly basis, do you think that we can expect more than annual NavData updates? Thank you, Andrej
  8. Look here for OFP formats: https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/files/category/48-pfpx/
  9. Will, what I would do is select RAYNR in the field below "Waypoint" and type 310 into the "Altitude/FL" field. This would give you FL310 from very first waypoint. What is your step altitude at what waypoint? Subsequent step climbs seem to take a "benefit" from enroute winds. However, sometimes, step up at later stage provides you with a better fuel management. After VAULT, there are too frequent change for my liking. Once you selected another waypoint, where you wish to step climb, you can then manually select desired step altitude (eg. 330, 350 -> for respective flight level). Here is a sample of my "Advanced Tab" after I created flight from EDDK to KMIA. During my flight planning process, "From Waypoint" and "To Waypoint" option is used for speed (mostly). I don't tend to utilize Fixed Altitude option here. This way, I don't have to deal with initial lower FLs (e.g. FL240) on departure from EDDK (as specific low level airways are designed for it). Then I selected initially calculated step climb points with desired FL change. Sometimes, when I play around with this, I can reduce fuel consumption. Today, PFPX did very good job. Hope this helps. Andrej
  10. I presume that this depends on the Flight Plan format maybe? Can you not add OAT (edit; I do know how)? My format is PFPX and looks like this (ISA deviation):
  11. For past few days, I did not encounter any issues with the server. I am located in the UAE. But there were issues in the past (all fixed - at least for me).
  12. Will, I usually play around with desired flight levels on the "Advanced" tab. I know the general FL idea and conducting test-and-trail, I find proper fit between FL and fuel consumption. There you can choose OPT, MAX, or a direct entry (helps with flights in China RVSM). For NAT crossing (but not only for that) you can play around with Fixed Speed as well. Easy fix may be selected "Open MAX" and "Open OPT" flight level Usually after these edits, my FLs are set straight. Also, make sure that the route allows for certain FLs. For example in Italy, direct routing is used above FL305 (that is my experience; happy to be corrected). Cheers, Andrej
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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
×
×
  • Create New...