Will C 5 Posted December 3, 2022 Share Posted December 3, 2022 Hypothetically, the route is OERR-GCLP. The STAR is RUSIK1K which ends at LALTO. The approach is going to be GCLP ILS Z Rwy 03L, which involves a 12 mile leg from LALTO to intercept the 10 DME arc from LPC to the final approach course. My question has to do with fuel planning for the approach. The stretch from the origin (OERR) via RUSIK1K to LALTO is fine, but PFPX plans a direct leg from LALTO to the airport, whereas the approach takes a non-direct route because of the DME arc. This increases the fuel burn, especially if ATC ends up asking for the arc to be flown at a constant altitude. Therefore, what is the typical and preferred way to account for extra fuel burn in the approach itself? Would you add this to contingency? Or to "Approach Time" on the Aircraft editor? Or somewhere else? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted December 3, 2022 Share Posted December 3, 2022 For the example if we use the route editor summary page PFPX has legs from LATLO giving a total @27nm From the approach chart the total leg distance via the arc is @37nm You could enter the 10nm difference as a circuit in distance on the route section of the planner. Additionally you could enter an average or maximum circuit in distance for the various approaches in the airport editor for automatic application on any arrival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will C 5 Posted December 3, 2022 Author Share Posted December 3, 2022 Got it, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Eurocup 2 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Am 3.12.2022 um 18:39 schrieb srcooke: You could enter the 10nm difference as a circuit in distance on the route section of the planner. Additionally you could enter an average or maximum circuit in distance for the various approaches in the airport editor for automatic application on any arrival. Unfortunate with PFPX v2.04 'Circuit In' in the Airport Editor has no effect. Entering a number in 'Circuit Out' the Routeplanner wil use this same value as Circuit Out or Circuit In respectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 27 minutes ago, Mr.Eurocup said: Unfortunate with PFPX v2.04 'Circuit In' in the Airport Editor has no effect. Entering a number in 'Circuit Out' the Routeplanner wil use this same value as Circuit Out or Circuit In respectively. I prefer to use v2.03 As a test I have assigned a circuit out at Barcelona and circuit in at Casablanca as depicted, you an see the circuit distances are loaded from the edited airport files. The difference in distance is as expected when compared to no entry: Please login to display this image. Please login to display this image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Eurocup 2 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 vor 6 Stunden schrieb srcooke: I prefer to use v2.03 Thx I will completely reinstall pfpx to v2.03 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Eurocup 2 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 ok I have Installed v2.03 from scratch and the problem is still there. Entering 10nm in the Airport Data 'Circuit Out' at GMMN the Routeplanner use it as 'Circuit In' Please login to display this image. Please login to display this image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 It appears to be related to when STAR's are in use as without them the circuit in remains correct. As the distance is initially correct before computing the flight it is likely a bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts