B.Fatih KOZ 3 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Hi , Using the latest version 1.11 and already reported this error via both ticket system and this forum (while testing the hotfix) . PFPX is "still" forcing me to fly low and this is not changable ! Also the ATC Flight Plan is wrong , for ADB-AYT PFPX is using (and forcing me) to use FL270 . But the ATC flight plan indicates that the airway is UN135 ... This airway is avilable only above FL290 so FL270 on UN135 is not allowed . As I stated earlier this is not acceptable , if I want to fly low I can change the level myself , there is no need to be forced by the software ... This function must be user editable , otherwise it is useless and this effects overall use of PFPX for domestic/short haul flights You can see my older post here : http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/74773-pfpx-hotfix-1101-available/#entry534315 And for the ticket I opened the reply was simple as Fixed at next release but I see that nothing fixed . Any suggestions to overcome the low level forcing or and input from Christian will be great . ( I know he is busy with Real World Ops , so do I ) Best wishes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Out of interest which data provider are you using for the AIRAC? EDIT: the Navigraph database shows a lower limit of FL290 on UN135 yet PFPX is assigning a lower level than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Using the AUTO+ feature to build the route and selecting the aircraft you intend to use results in the lower airway been selected in this case: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.Fatih KOZ 3 Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 Hi Stephen, I'm using Aerosoft Navdata Pro with latest Airac update ... And as you said this is not related with the problem Tried several ways to force back PFPX for upper levels , nothing worked . Even with an empty 800WL , software forces me to fly FL270 ! This is not reflecting Boeing FPPM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcasclimb 0 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Also the ATC Flight Plan is wrong , for ADB-AYT PFPX is using (and forcing me) to use FL270 . But the ATC flight plan indicates that the airway is UN135 ... This airway is avilable only above FL290 so FL270 on UN135 is not allowed . You know you can just change the UN135 to N135, thereby using the lower airway right? I've heard that even real world flight planning and dispatch programs have their quirks that the dispatcher himself has to correct. So stop being lazy, a little human work wont kill you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Hi Stephen, I'm using Aerosoft Navdata Pro with latest Airac update ... And as you said this is not related with the problem Tried several ways to force back PFPX for upper levels , nothing worked . Even with an empty 800WL , software forces me to fly FL270 ! This is not reflecting Boeing FPPM I can only report my findings of quite a number of flights now with the NGX -800. The fuel figures are accurate and plan altitudes have been pretty much spot on giving a short CRZ level on the shorter trip. How this equates to a real 737 and the Boeing FPPM I couldn't say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.Fatih KOZ 3 Posted November 22, 2013 Author Share Posted November 22, 2013 You know you can just change the UN135 to N135, thereby using the lower airway right? I've heard that even real world flight planning and dispatch programs have their quirks that the dispatcher himself has to correct. So stop being lazy, a little human work wont kill you Did you read my post carefully before writing this sir ? FYI , I'm an airline flight dispatcher ( ICAO licenced , EU-OPS Carrier ) and I'm using the real world software you mentioned ( currently LIDO ver 5.72 ) ... Be sure we are not correcting every domestic flight we dispatch 'cause our software is not "forcing" us to fly low with an empty aircraft ! And again for your kind information , I'm not talking about correcting UN135 to N135 in the FPL MSG ! Safe flights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.Fatih KOZ 3 Posted November 22, 2013 Author Share Posted November 22, 2013 For really interested users , here are two flight plans ... 1. Empty Aircraft , offered level is FL390 , cruise time aprx. 15 mins. OFP TEST/22 22NOV LTBJ/ ADB LTAI/ AYT ELEVATION 176 7 TCJFF (104.0) 2100/2113 2204/2200 FMS EST ..../.... ..../.... COST INDEX 3 CTOT .... ROUTE ADBAYT3 ATS C/S TEST ACT ..../.... ..../.... TTL DIST 291 SPEED ECON LOAD ZFW ADDFU LW TOW AVGE FF 2093 EST 0 43501 0L MAL 66088 79015 AVGE WC P010 PLN 0 43501 0L PLN 45569 47357 ACT ...... ...... ...... ...... TKOF ALTN ....... --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- FLIGHT PLAN ROUTE -LTBJ/34R F390 KULAR1E KULAR UN131 KOZLU LTAI/36C --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- TRIP 1788 00.51 ..... ..... MINCONT 153 00.05 LTAY ..... ..... ALTN 1029 00.27 LTAY ..... ..... .... FINAL RES 886 00.30 ..... ..... PLNTOF 3856 01.54 ..... ..... THREE EIGHT FIVE DIFF ...... ..... PLNTOF ..... ..... (CORRECTED) EXTRA ...... ..... POSS 16808C ..... ..... TOF ...... ..... ..... ..... TAXI .... 156/00.13 BLOCK ...... TCAP 20820 ..... REM FUEL ...... AT .... -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 17200 Kgs Payload ( 189 Pax x 90 kgs inc. bags ) , offered level is FL330 , cruise time aprx. 15 mins. OFP TEST/22 22NOV LTBJ/ ADB LTAI/ AYT ELEVATION 176 6 TCJFF (104.0) 2100/2113 2204/2200 FMS EST ..../.... ..../.... COST INDEX 3 CTOT .... ROUTE ADBAYT3 ATS C/S TEST ACT ..../.... ..../.... TTL DIST 291 SPEED ECON LOAD ZFW ADDFU LW TOW AVGE FF 2580 EST 17200 60701 0L MAL 66088 79015 AVGE WC P008 PLN 17200 60701 0L PLN 63285 65496 ACT ...... ...... ...... ...... TKOF ALTN ....... --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- FLIGHT PLAN ROUTE -LTBJ/34R F330 KULAR1E KULAR UN131 KOZLU LTAI/36C --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- TRIP 2211 00.51 ..... ..... MINCONT 188 00.05 LTAY ..... ..... ALTN 1243 00.26 LTAY ..... ..... .... FINAL RES 1153 00.30 ..... ..... PLNTOF 4795 01.53 ..... ..... FOUR SEVEN NINE DIFF ...... ..... PLNTOF ..... ..... (CORRECTED) EXTRA ...... ..... POSS 2803L ..... ..... TOF ...... ..... ..... ..... TAXI .... 156/00.13 BLOCK ...... TCAP 20820 ..... REM FUEL ...... AT .... -------------------------------------------------------------------- And for both flight plans , I'm able to change the offered levels ... If I want to fly lower , I can reduce it manually , no need to be forced by the software ! This is what we do for real world planning , our software only "offers" the best solution it finds but we give the final decision according to several factors . Stephen , Boeing FPPM does not offers or forces low levels for short flights . Boeing mostly suggests "shortest cruise flight time" , so basic theory is to climb to the maximum possible level , make the minimum cruise -level- flight , then start a continuous descend (which is not possible always due to ATC , company policies , in flight meal/drink service etc) . The older version of PFPX was correct according to Boeing specs and FPPM . But unfortunately Christian wanted to make a favor to users complaining about higher levels for short distances , so he altered the code but now the software is not allowing us to correct this "favor" . ( In my opinion that users had to change the levels to a lower one accoring to their wishes , forcing all of the users is not the correct path ) Anyway still waiting a fix , a solution , a walk-around from developers or experienced users . Best wishes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcasclimb 0 Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 Hmmm I guess I should have read your post thrice, I now see what you are talking about, sorry! Apparently nothing I try can change the cruise altitude, weird issue indeed. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding with this issue and the what the developer thinks you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil747fan 52 Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 we may maybe not having the same manuals .... the FPPM in the chapter 2 simplified planning is giving a low FL up to a trip of 350 nm. the qrh in QI 11 all engine flight is giving 400 nm for the start of higher FL. i may add i never dispatched the 738 nor used Lido in my dispatch career but a lot of different others 737 and for a such short flight we never go that high as the OP done so different SOPs certainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.Fatih KOZ 3 Posted November 24, 2013 Author Share Posted November 24, 2013 Hi Philippe , Yes , we may have different manuals ... Here is basically what I have for Short Trip Cruise Altitude FPPM for CFM56-7B26 / 738W / JAA ( Also CFM56-7B26 SFP indicates the same table ) Safe flights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil747fan 52 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 you re right on the FFPM my version is not so good lol .... but check with your QRH and you ll see what im talking about. all the best. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.Fatih KOZ 3 Posted November 24, 2013 Author Share Posted November 24, 2013 Hi Phil , Definetely we are refering to completely different manuals Maybe your coppies are outdated for 737's or changed by manufacturer on request of the customer ... But my docs do not advise low levels for Short Trip Distances . I have all the valid documents and performance data for NG's ( we operate a fleet of 700,700WL,800,800WL,800WL SFP ) . I'm dispatching over sixty Boeing aircraft on my shifts, most of them do domestic short hauls and never had an issue with selecting the optimum flight levels . Also never heard a word from the pilots flying that routes , in some sectors we have ATC restrictions but that is another issue as you know . BTW , My QRH (PI Sec 11) gives FL340 for 70 tons / FL350 for 65 tons (which is also offered by my planning software as you can see above) Anyway , returning to topic again ; When we will be able to modify the flight levels PFPX forces us to use I simply do not want to use the "favor" Christian did for some users , give us back the old and correct flight levels . ( Then we can explain interested users how to select the optimum levels for a route ) Best wishes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.Fatih KOZ 3 Posted December 5, 2013 Author Share Posted December 5, 2013 Checked version 1.12 ... Nothing changed , SHORT TRIP CRUISE ALTITUDE CALCULATION is still wrong and I did not get any reply to my support ticket This is not the way to give support to customers , at least we deserve a reply from the "team" or the "developer" ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.