If you want a Honeycomb Alpha for Christma you better order fast because we are quickly running out of stock!

Jump to content
BerndB

Altitude Related Problem

Recommended Posts

Since I updated to V2 all flightplans created are ending up with strange cruise levels. For instance: a planed flight from EDDH to EDDM with an Airbus A320 comes out with an cruiselevel of FL180, that's just wrong. A Lufthansa flight from Hamburg to Munich is flown usually in FL above from FL320 and above. This is very important for fuel consumption. Airliners always try to fly as high as possible, because the consumption bias of the Fans is getting more efficient as higher you get and the air is getting "thinner". A flightplan from EDDH to EDDK came out with an flightlevel of FL120 and another one from EDDF to EDDM with even 5000 feet. That's wrong for an airliner who will never fly at 5000 feet from Frankfurt to Nuernberg.

 

I´ve tried different ways for the routing (use only high alt airways, optimize for lowest fuel, lowest cost etc., even ignore any restrictions) Those settings don´t make any difference in the FL that is computed by PFPX. The output FL is always incorrect. Only if I put manually my wished FL at a certain waypoint, the output comes with that FL.

 

In the PFPX version before I've never needed to put manually the FL but the output of the computed route in case of the FL was always reasonable and realistic. Maybe I've set something wrong?

 

POST EDITED BY STAFF TO REMOVE INAPPROPRIATE OR FOUL LANGUAGE. :mallet_s:

 

Share this post


Link to post

Can you post the OFP.

 

Flight level restrictions ED4140 limits the EDDL-EDDM route to a max FL315. Whilst the Lufthansa flight may have flown a higher altitude it may have been on request to ATC.

Share this post


Link to post

And can I suggest renaming the post to 'Altitudes are incorrect'?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
vor 4 Stunden , srcooke sagte:

Can you post the OFP.

 

Flight level restrictions ED4140 limits the EDDL-EDDM route to a max FL315. Whilst the Lufthansa flight may have flown a higher altitude it may have been on request to ATC.

what would mean that there is no reason for PFPX to compute a FL180 for an airliner, right.

 

I´ll try to reproduce those OFP this evening to post them.

Share this post


Link to post
vor 3 Minuten, Mathijs Kok sagte:

And can I suggest renaming the post to 'Altitudes are incorrect'?

LOL, Of course you can. But maybe they are not really "incorrect" based on special settings which PFPX took into account which are maybe "only" wrong set. Like "put rubbish in get rubbish out". - You know what I mean.

But anyway, if you don't like the "crap word" it can be changedB) (can I do this? no I think not...)

Share this post


Link to post

(FPL-DAESE-IN
-A320/M-SDE1FGHIJ1RWXYZ/LB1
-EDDH1345
-N0451F310 AMLUH UM852 DENIX DCT LARET DCT SODRO T703
 LULAR/N0454F300 T105 EXUSI
-EDDM0056 ETSI
-PBN/A1B1C1D1L1O1S1 NAV/RNVD1E2A1 DOF/190115 REG/DAESE
 EET/EDVV0011 EDUU0020 EDMM0040 RVR/75 OPR /  /
 PER/C
-E/0148)

 

Cannot be validated due to RAD restriction, maybe overridden by EuroControl IFPS

Share this post


Link to post
vor 5 Stunden , srcooke sagte:

(FPL-DAESE-IN
-A320/M-SDE1FGHIJ1RWXYZ/LB1
-EDDH1345
-N0451F310 AMLUH UM852 DENIX DCT LARET DCT SODRO T703
 LULAR/N0454F300 T105 EXUSI
-EDDM0056 ETSI
-PBN/A1B1C1D1L1O1S1 NAV/RNVD1E2A1 DOF/190115 REG/DAESE
 EET/EDVV0011 EDUU0020 EDMM0040 RVR/75 OPR /  /
 PER/C
-E/0148)

 

Cannot be validated due to RAD restriction, maybe overridden by EuroControl IFPS

 

hi Stephen, below i´ve tried to reproduce the altitude issue i have. The plng_EDDH_EDDM you can see my basic planning data. I planed a flight DLH2042 to Nuernberg and it puts me on FL250 which is too low. What i know a flight within this distance will be done at FL320 and above to save fuel. 

Another example is DLH152 from EDDF to EDDN where it give a FL090. Even for an short haul this is way too low for an airliner. An A320 climbs easily up to FL230 or above for those short range flights, even if the TOD is right after you reach the TOC.

I post the aircraft performance aswell. 

I hope you can give me a hint what i´am doing not right maybe. 

But have in mind that with the former version of PFPX i´ve never ever had those problems to get an appropriate FL with the same database.

plng_EDDH_EDDM.JPG

DLH2042 EDDH-EDDN (15-Jan-2019) #1.txt

plng_EDDF_EDDN.JPG

DLH152 EDDF-EDDN (15-Jan-2019) #1.txt

Aircr_perf.JPG

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks to David we have a valid route at FL310:

 

(FPL-DAESE-IN
-A320/M-SDE1FGHIJ1RWXYZ/LB1
-EDDH2025
-N0451F310 AMLUH UM852 DENIX DCT LARET DCT GALMA T703
 LULAR/N0454F300 T105 EXUSI
-EDDM0058 ETSI
-PBN/A1B1C1D1L1O1S1 NAV/RNVD1E2A1 DOF/190115 REG/DAESE
 EET/EDVV0012 EDUU0020 EDMM0042 RVR/75 OPR/ /  /
 PER/C
-E/0204)

 

This fits with the city pair level cap, the higher altitudes seen may have been granted by ATC.

 

Are you using a third party aircraft performance file ?

 

Can you post the EDDH-EDDM route

Share this post


Link to post

Here is your EDDH-EDDM route using the same ZFW and M0.78 CRZ:

 

(FPL-DAESE-IN
-A320/M-SDE1FGHIJ1RWXYZ/LB1
-EDDH2025
-N0451F310 AMLUH UM852 POVEL Z94 GALMA T703 LULAR/N0454F300 T105
 EXUSI
-EDDM0056 ETSI
-PBN/A1B1C1D1L1O1S1 NAV/RNVD1E2A1 DOF/190115 REG/DAESE
 EET/EDVV0011 EDUU0018 EDMM0040 RVR/75 OPR// /
 PER/C
-E/0202)

 

The flight level is capped at FL310 by the RAD, you cannot override this currently without disabling the route restrictions totally.

 

I have a performance file from AirlinerPerformance in use.

Share this post


Link to post
vor 7 Minuten, srcooke sagte:

This fits with the city pair level cap, the higher altitudes seen may have been granted by ATC.

Ok, i get lost...😢 What the hell is "city pair level cap"

 

vor 15 Minuten, srcooke sagte:

Are you using a third party aircraft performance file ?

Indeed, its a performance file for the Jeehell FMGS/Project Airbus A320

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, BerndB said:

its a performance file for the Jeehell FMGS/Project Airbus A320

 

Where was it obtained from ?

Share this post


Link to post
vor 8 Minuten, srcooke sagte:

The flight level is capped at FL310 by the RAD, you cannot override this currently without disabling the route restrictions totally.

But why computes a FL270 then instead of FL310 if i set the minimum already above it???😦

Share this post


Link to post

The EuroControl Route Availability Document, RAD, city pair level capping between EDDH and EDDM has a maximum FL310 this is implemented and enforced by PFPX.

 

Your flight level assigned is going to be influenced by the performance file, weight and weather.

 

So with me using an AirlinerPerformance profile, PFPX online weather and the same weights and cost profile as yourself I consistently return the max available FL310

Share this post


Link to post
vor 3 Minuten, srcooke sagte:

The EuroControl Route Availability Document, RAD, city pair level capping between EDDH and EDDM has a maximum FL310 this is implemented and enforced by PFPX.

 

Your flight level assigned is going to be influenced by the performance file, weight and weather.

 

So with me using an AirlinerPerformance profile, PFPX online weather and the same weights and cost profile as yourself I consistently return the max available FL310

Ok, now i think i begin to understand. But what do you think about the Route from EDDF to EDDN. I think you agree that you will not see an airliner at a FL090 and this is an actual leg that is served by Lufthansa 6 days a week. including returnflight.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems that i need to go even deeper in dispatching. But it would be helpfull if the Manual for PFPX would give some help to understand all the settings and restrictions and what ever and how they influent the flightplan computing in PFPX.🤨

Share this post


Link to post

Oh sorry, Stephen i will not forget that i really appreciate your help especially at this time of day👍😀. I´am sure i will come back with the one or another question, once i understand how PFPX wants to be used. I thought i know it already because in version 1.28 i´ve never ran into those issues.🤨

Thank you much and have a good night.

reg. Bernd

Share this post


Link to post

I couldn't use your EDDF-EDDN route as it is from an outdated AIRAC cycle.

 

This validated and matches the flight levels seen on FR24:

 

(FPL-DAESE-IN
-A320/M-SDE1FGHIJ1RWXYZ/LB1
-EDDF2115
-N0406F170 AKONI Z74 HAREM T104 DKB
-EDDN0029 EDDM
-PBN/A1B1C1D1L1O1S1 NAV/RNVD1E2A1 DOF/190115 REG/DAESE
 EET/EDMM0019 RVR/75 OPR// /
 PER/C
-E/0143)

 

Where did your aircraft profile come from? If not from AirlinerPerformance the i suggest giving that a try, disable any similar profile.

 

What weather source is in use?

 

Share this post


Link to post
vor 1 minute, srcooke sagte:

I couldn't use your EDDF-EDDN route as it is from an outdated AIRAC cycle.

What? Outdated😲...it´s just from ...well, 1805..😊 but it works fine for me because all other addons using the same AIRAC.

 

vor 5 Minuten, srcooke sagte:

Where did your aircraft profile come from? If not from AirlinerPerformance the i suggest giving that a try, disable any similar profil

 It was done from ToTom and it´s based on the Airbus template that came with PFPX V1.28, but It was slightly reworked to fit with the corresponding TOPCAT file and with the performance of the related aircraft.cfg in P3D for the Jeehell FMGS. I will try your way because it should work with my Airbus anyway. 

 

vor 21 Minuten, srcooke sagte:

What weather source is in use?

Well i use always AS16 live weather. But for the OFP files i produced today for posting i just used the live weather by PFPX because i didn´t want to start my whole cockpit network.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎15‎.‎01‎.‎2019 at 22:00, srcooke sagte:

I couldn't use your EDDF-EDDN route as it is from an outdated AIRAC cycle.

 

This validated and matches the flight levels seen on FR24:

 

(FPL-DAESE-IN
-A320/M-SDE1FGHIJ1RWXYZ/LB1
-EDDF2115
-N0406F170 AKONI Z74 HAREM T104 DKB
-EDDN0029 EDDM
-PBN/A1B1C1D1L1O1S1 NAV/RNVD1E2A1 DOF/190115 REG/DAESE
 EET/EDMM0019 RVR/75 OPR// /
 PER/C
-E/0143)

 

Where did your aircraft profile come from? If not from AirlinerPerformance the i suggest giving that a try, disable any similar profile.

 

What weather source is in use?

 

 

Hi Stephen, because I took your time to support me, I just want to inform you, that meanwhile I´ve decided to subscribed to Aerosoft´s NavDataPro + Charts annual update. And now, since I use always the actual airac cycle within PFPX, the routing AND the altitudes computed by PFPX are correct, or better to say make more sense to me again. So it seems, that the complex parameters PFPX v2 is taken into account while computing the routing works much better if the airac data is more actual.

 

I have to say MEA CULPA, because i´ve blamed PFPX first instead of looking if there is may be an issue on my side.

reg.

Bernd

Share this post


Link to post

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

×
×
  • Create New...