Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I get some curious OFP (ATC) results on the above.

 

The approved is at even FL's, not odd for flights in that north east direction. It is as best I know it a 1 way in that direction, but behaves in the opposite (?)

 

"VMR M771 DULOP" is the route used to VHHH. If I use "VMR DCT DULOP" odd levels are filed.

 

Is this an airac problem or ....... it is unique amongst many others (could it be because the WSSS track to VMR is west of north..

 

Comments welcomed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

320 is looking acceptable John:

 

Uni-directional for north-east bound flights from VMR to DUDIS. No PDC Flight Levels FL310, FL320, FL350, FL360, FL390, FL400 applicable. Other levels available with prior approval.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 9:21 PM, srcooke said:

Could you post the OFP where FL320 is allocated John

 

stephen

 

thanks & apologies for a tardy reply (notifications not set correctly)

 

yes, the attached OFP's (light, medium, heavy ZFW's for a 77F) show how the FLAS's work ..... & extend through vietnam & chinese airspace but not into hongkong.

 

is there a way one can see such data in PFPX ...... i could not find it in a search of the respective FIR's eAIP's.

 

the approved atc's make interesting need for level changes in sim atc addons.

 

cheers

john

CPA2042 WSSS-VHHH (22 Oct 2020) #1.txt CPA2042 WSSS-VHHH (22 Oct 2020) #2.txt CPA2042 WSSS-VHHH (22 Oct 2020) #3.txt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello John,

 

The available flight levels are airway specific and the installed AIRAC includes a cruise table tag that PFPX references in a table located in the program root folder. Mousing over M771 on the map you'll PJ is called in this instance but L629 that converges at DOLOX calls the standard SA entries.

 

You could check the available CT entries by accessing the User Airway Editor, BUT in this instance it has highlighted an apparent issue where the data is contained on multiple lines and PFPX apparently only reads the first, leading to a restriction in available FL range:

 

capture_001_16102020_084726.jpg.f60a2041da5ccc0a00ccacfcfd6450f9.jpg

 

As long as the AIRAC tag is correct the assigned levels should be fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Stephen

 

The attached (V2.03) OFP (my custom one) shows an ATS profile on L642 different to what I expected.

 

After the initial climb to F360(SA), I was expecting metric 11000(FA) thru Sanya, then F360(PJ) most of the way to WSS.

 

Max possible would not have achieved F390(PJ) but certainly F360.

 

Your thoughts.

CPA741 VHHH-WSSS (19-Apr-2021) #1.txt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you PM me your custom OFP John.

 

The OFP alone wouldn't account for the change to odd level at EPDOS which is incorrect also.

 

v2.03 & NG2103:

 

 

 

 

(FPL-DALFG-IN
-B77L/H-SDE2E3FGHIJ1J3J4J5M1P2RWXYZ/LB1D1
-VHHH0635
-N0488F360 DCT PECAN V12 EPDOS L642 EPKAL/K0901S1100 L642
 EXOTO/N0486F360 L642 VEPAM/N0487F350 L642 ESPOB/N0484F360 Q801
 ESBUM/N0485F350 Q802 ELALO/N0485F340 DCT
-WSSS0305 WMKK
-PBN/A1B1C1D1L1O1S2 NAV/D1E2A1 DAT/1FANSP SUR/RSP180
 260B DOF/210422 REG/DALFG
 EET/ZJSA0037 VVTS0100 WSJC0212 WMFC0244 WSJC0303
 SEL/HMKS CODE/3C70C7 RVR/75 OPR/GEC ORGN/EDDFGECO
 PER/D
 RMK/LUFTHANSA CARGO TCAS
-E/0426)

 

 

 

OFP attached

 

VHHH-WSSS (22-Apr-2021) #1.txt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen

 

Hope you enjoy your morning coffee as I am now ........... I believe I've found some of the glitch herein (though odd's at VEPAM as yours) but also the glitch with "negative" ADEQUATES (cancelling my support enquiry next)

 

My routes to date had been imported from V1.28 ....... but have built "newbies" with apparent success for V2.03.

CPA741 VHHH-WSSS (23-Apr-2021) #1.txt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pleased to hear some progress is made John, especially the negative distance.

 

The 'PJ' cruise table allows for odd and even levels at certain altitudes and this certainly occurs on some airways. Unfortunately I cannot access the Vietnam AIP to verify the airway route.

 

Another observation is the time taken for the alternate WMKK, at 01:41 in your OFP as compared to 00:40 in my own leading to an additional 6t fuel.

 

EDIT: From the Signapore AIP:


 

Quote

 

1.1.1

In order to minimise flight level transition requirements for flights entering and leaving the Western Pacific / South
China Sea area, the following flight level arrangements will be implemented simultaneously and permanently:

 

a. a single alternate FLOS (i.e. ‘east odd flight levels, west even flight levels’) in compliance with the Table
“RVSM-FEET” of Appendix 3 of ICAO Annex 2 and in accordance with the FLOS in surrounding areas;

 

b. special high capacity arrangements for six unidirectional parallel routes (L642, M771, N892, L625, N884
and M767) that involve managed use of odd and even flight levels in the same direction of flight
; and

 

c. an associated FLAS agreed between affected ACCs to facilitate ATC ‘No-PDC’ operations.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, srcooke said:

some progress is made

 

Unfortunately, my exuberance has waned a tad... with both V2.03 & 4.

 

After my previous, I moved on to customise my recent install a little more ...... but found some interesting "disconnects / glitches" which collectively & separately it seems give one a differing OFP's for the same aircraft / route / weather, particularly in respect of the "negative distance" issue, but also as discussed in this topic.

 

In no order, I notice:

  • The Configurator/Planning does not save changes to SID/STARS nor Runway Selection.
  • If one imports an enroute plan, it overrides (the newly added) circuit in/out airport data but/also includes its own assessed SID's/STARS for a "flawed" OFP
  • Alternatively, building an enroute in the planner itself, retains the airport data, but the OFP is still "flawed".
  • The only way it seems to get a "tidy" OFP is to avoid the use of circuit in/out period and build only the enroute in the planner (my previous success tale)

So, no big deal actually, just a nuisance to not be able to import enroutes. The only thing I haven't tried is adding circuit in/out to the import before planning.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally reproduced the negative distance John, linked to the use of 'circuit-in', looks to get applied to the adequates and depending upon the 'GO' position can give the negative result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...