VHOJT

All default profiles: 77F: 0.8% fuel bias, drag 0.6%, approach burn 800kg 77W: -0.7% fuel bias, drag 0.5%, approach burn 800kg 738: -2.6% fuel bias, drag 0.3%, approach burn 300kg 744RR: -2.9%, drag 0.3%, approach burn 1000kg Again, all of these were derived before PMDG fixed (they've now fixed all their aircraft) the fact their aircraft fuel burn didn't change per ISA deviation. So I edited the PFPX profiles removing any change for ISA deviation. Further testing on the aicraft have shown that PMDGs do now burn ~ +/- 3% per +/- 10 degrees ISA deviation, as they should. So in theory, these bias figures should still be sound.

I think I am going to go bald if I read this thread again. Please read Stephen's post. There is no issue with PFPX. I just realised before I say that in bold - can you still release your flight plans?

I will have a look tomorrow for the 77F figures I use. Note that these were before PMDG updated the 777, which now correctly burns differently depending on ISA deviation. The figures I have for it are for the default 77F profile where I took all ISA deviation burn changes out of the profile. So in theory, it should be a reasonable number.

Thanks Stephen!!

Have you guys all read what Stephen said above ^^^^. It's not an issue, it's telling you that there is no wind forecast when using Activesky weather, which is true. So how is this an issue?

Awesome, cheers mate. I use that site all the time but never noticed that "view source" button. That helps a lot - thanks very much! You learn something new every day...

Hi all, I have doing a bit of cargo flying of late and was wondering if anyone would know if LH/GEC file SIDs/STARs or account for them in the OFP? Most airlines I'm used to in Oz don't but am less sure about European practice! Any ideas would be much appreciated. I am also slowly building a statistical contingency database for airports I fly into - I was trying to think of some way we can all contribute to something similar, but it would depend a lot on whether or not the user's PFPX profile/bias are accurate. Cheers, Rudy

Would the <&MinReserveFuel> be what you're looking for? It is defined as Alternate Fuel + Final Reserve fuel + ballast fuel. So will generally be alternate fuel + 30 minutes in your case?

Yeah I think you have used the options up. With so so many different types between all the airlines, it is difficult to get everything exactly the same - I definitely found that with the QF ones - lots of unusual fields. Thanks for the kind words. Good luck with your OFP and don't forget to upload it when you're done haha It looks a bit DLHish?? Rudy

Hi mate, 1) No, I don't think there is any field to get EROPS time. 2) Again, don't think so. 3) Not that I can tell. You'd have to leave the field blank, calcualte with/without antice and add in manually after you've released the OFP in a text editor. 4) Don't think possible. 5) Not sure. 6) No. A lot of these things you've mentioned I give a quick tweak in Word or some other text editor after releasing. Cheers, Rudy

You can get rid of them by using an abbreviated navlog in your OFP format, but you'll also lose ETPs, ETOPS entry/exit, and TOC/TOD in your navlog too.

I don't know - the product works and is what it is. We paid once for it - why should we expect updates, for me at least, 8 years down the track? Granted, exporting to some platforms would be good.

Yes - I told them about that! Looking forward to testing it out.

Yep - I mean it is a flight planning program. It is excellent at that. It doesn't really need new features regularly to stay relevant. I would like a couple of bugs fixed - such as the altitude bug which has been around various forms since 1.29, and is starting to get a little annoying!

I do quite a few when I'm sorting out an aircraft's bias. Several per flight if a long-haul: you'd be surprised by how much bias can cary depending on gross weight (even when controlling for ISA deviation). Don't know if it's a profile issue or some of the aeroplane's flight models.