"We would now like to begin boarding United 895 non-sto...

[Brian Doney 127]

Just to add on a bit here..Gotta give credit where credit is due.If you look at the first shot I posted, the FMC is predicting 14,400lbs at VHHH, I touched down 07L with 14,600lbs.That said, I did not fly the full arrival procedure, instead taking vectors from RCv4 to the runway. Even still, the difference should have been negligable, and well within contigency planning IF the plan had been up to snuff in the first place.I planned using FSBuild, PS1.3 profile. I also used ActiveSky, in offline mode for consistent winds, and all wind data was entered during preflight. All steps were performed within about 100NM or so of FMC predictions.I've just downloaded the PMDG profile by Larry Stewart, I'll give that a shot next, for CX289 HKG-FRA:

FLT REL IFR CPA289   VHHH-25L/EDDF-25L  MACH 86  A/C  B747-400 PMDG		   FUEL  TIME	CORR   TOGWT	LDGWT   AVG W/CTAXI	  001780 0020  . . . .  871574   539568  M040DEST EDDF 332006 1234  . . . .  ELEV. 364 FTRESV	  012160 0038  . . . .ALTN	  005040 0015  . . . .  ALTN EDDK   DIST  73HOLD	  009600 0030  . . . .EXTRA	 000000 0000  . . . .  ZFW 512768	  PAYLOAD 118680TTL AT TO 358806 1357  . . . .				  DIST  5272REQD	  360586 1417  . . . .				  ETD   2345CLB BIAS 0.0%  CRZ BIAS 0.0%   DSC BIAS 0.0%DEP BIAS 0 MIN 0 DIST 0 FUEL, ARR BIAS 0 MIN 500 FUELVHHH BEKOL A461 YIN G586 QP B330 YBL B215 FKG A368 KRG A95 ATBAN G111 TITUR G351 MGR G234 KZN A300 MF CRDR9 RW 6E5 BP 6E2 AR CRDR2 BG R805 TU R11 RATIN SIVRU UN858 LAVAR UL29 VABER UL735 TADUV T173 WEMAR UZ94 PIGMI UL984 LOHRE UL610 ESAMA T880 ROLIS EDDF/1234(FPL-CPA289=IS-B744/H-SIPRXWY/S-ZZZZ-VHHH2345-N0398380 VHHH BEKOL A461 YIN G586 QP B330 YBL B215 FKG A368 KRG A95 ATBAN  G111 TITUR G351 MGR G234 KZN A300 MF CRDR9 RW 6E5 BP 6E2 AR CRDR2 BG R805  TU R11 RATIN SIVRU UN858 LAVAR UL29 VABER UL735 TADUV T173 WEMAR UZ94 PIGMI  UL984 LOHRE UL610 ESAMA T880 ROLIS EDDF-EDDF1234 EDDK-)

Preliminary comparison on this route between the two profiles gives a difference of about 40,000lbs of fuel, which seems to be a bit much, but we'll have to see how it turns out.In the end, the FMC was pretty darn accurate overall.

[altstiff 71]

With a few flights like that you will be out of bidness in no time!

[Brian Doney 127]

Yeah, I only realized after the flight that you shouldn't add more than one aircraft to your fleet at a time. An aircraft that hasn't been flown BY YOU will not generate fleet income, only accrue costs. I added 3 or 4 new aircraft to the fleet just before this flight :)

[razorseal 0]

hey that fspassengers thing looks cool!and what is this fscrew that I keep hearing about?

[Datalink 26]

Hopefully with FSX this problem may be a thing of the past, allowing us to fly at these high latitudes :-)

[DF9AA 0]

Hi Brian,very interesting report from your trip - my main objective in flt-simming is exactly what you achieved with your trip - as close as you can getwith your initial planning.Nevertheless a few questions :For flightplanning I use my own little excel program which I wrote based on the figures from the PMDG handbook - and I arrive pretty close to the figure of fuel what should be onboard after landing. The only problem is that the weather which MSFS loads from Jeppesen is not very often close from what I figured out from weather sources on the net. Are there better sources for more accurate winds aloft than Jepp. ?You arrived with 14600 lbs, which, accdg PMDG handbook, is below the MIN.Ldg.Fuel ( 24.000 lbs for LongH flights )...?You calculated a contingency fuel of 4 % of the trip fuel - in the handbook there is nothing specified on the percentage - in real flyingi.e. Lufthansa is calculating 5 % for this.Where did you get the routing via the polar route ? Routefinder (asalink.net) will not give you a routing via the pole, but a much longer one, which you cannot fly with max. fuel. Just checked again and they show a much southern route ( Whitehorse and Anchorage and north Pacific track system ) which is about ( only ?? ) 100 nm longer than your 7023nm . Just wondering : only 100 NM ?? GCM gives 6773nm and shows a track similar to what your FSnavigator indicated on your screenshot.More questions in my mind but I don't want to bother you and others.Karl

[Jim Harnes 13]

Karl,UA changes the route for 895 for any number of reasons, winds and NOTAMs included. For example, here are the routes for today and yesterday:24 May: KORD BAE J68 GEP J36 FAR MOT J483 VLN J475 YWV NCA11 REMBY NCA11 YESKA J133 ANC NODLE R220 NEONN G349 MARCC G583 BISIV G583 MVE V8 SPE V2 HWE V30 JEC V54 HKC A1 APU A1 HLG A1 ELATO ASTRA VHHH23 May: KORD PETTY GRB 5500N 08700W 6000N 08600W 6500N 08600W 7000N 08600W 7500N 08800W 8000N 09200W 8500N 10000W DEKMO DEVID B480 TOLIK B480 UOHH B480 POMAR B480 KUMAR B480 BRT G490 CS G490 NH B155 IRK A815 SERNA M520 MODUN M520 POLHO G218 TMR B458 WXI LIG WYN NLG ZUH SIERA VHHHThe beauty of simming is being able to wait just a bit and simulate the real world route for the day :)! Better have an iron seat though LOL.Jim Harnes

[Brian Doney 127]

Hello Karl :)Well that's just it. If you look at the plan again, my planned landing weight was 512968, over a ZFW of 484768, for a difference of 28200, well over planning minimums.I have just flown HKG-FRA now, and by adjusting the CRZ bias in FSBuild upwards, by about 3% for the PS1 profile, I was within about 4000lbs of PLW, to the high side. Will keep tweaking.As to calculated reserves, it was my understanding, which may be flawed, that in addition to Alternate Fuel and 0h30m Holding Fuel, that the requirement is to carry fuel as a percenatge of time, not amount, based on ETE, i.e., 5% of route fuel at 14h46m ETE = 0h44m, I carried 0h47m.At any rate, I was obviously not carrying enough fuel, bottom line, and I am trying to fix that. If anyone feels like trying the PS1 fix, just edit the PS1 profile to add:CruiseFuelbias=3.0The more of us that try it and share our results, the quicker we can find a good compromise, I'd think.The route came from the AVSIM flightplan forum down the hall from here :), but as Jim says, this is a definite test of endurance. I won't try and claim I sat in this exact seat straight through, because I surely did not, but I was in the room 99% of the time, and always listening. 15 hours straight of what was once the sweet sound of of Pratt and Whitney soon has you questioning if maybe you really are as crazy as your wife says you are :-lol

[DF9AA 0]

Hi Brian and Jim,thanks for your answers.First a few remarks on my professional background - I am a retired airliner with 40-years+ experience, first in dispatch and flight planning ( but never on longrange flights ) and in the last 20 years mainly on flight scheduling.My son is a professional pilot - captain on MD11F with LH Cargo - so I get expert advice ... by the way, he is really impressed by the quality of the 747 flight sim - and he is waiting for the MD11 of PMDG.I believe that regulations in the US and Europe are different to a certain degree - I have the original flight plan of my last flight with my son from FRA to DKR and here are some data from this flight :FLT TIME : 06:04 TRIP FUEL 50409kgsCONT FUEL : 2520kgs which is 5% of fig. aboveALTN GBYD - BJL : 00:25 and 3539kgsFINRES : 00:30 and 3437kgsMIN TO FUEL : 59905kgsEXTRA : up to CPTNo minimum landing fuel required - except for a normal flight he must land with the ALTN Fuel and the 30 mins reserve - the cont. fuel is not considered as reserve fuel - it might be used for inflight holding, adverse winds, reroutings etc. I tried to fly this route and failed - out of fuel approx 500 nm before HKG. I did not want to sit at the PC for 16 hrs ( with pre-flight preparations ) so I flew with double speed. I had a routing from routefinder as follows: YWG, YOJ, YXY, FAI, OTZ, further on russian airspace - ttl distance 7096 NM and avg wc of -19.Accdg. to PMDG handbook the trip fuel was calculated as 159.500kgs and the difference to full tanks was 14100kgs - plenty of fuel accdg. european reg. ALTN and FINRES of about 6800 kgs using VMMC as ALTN.After levelling off at initial FL 300 I took the first readings:EST YWG 1046 FMC fuel 149.9 - ACT 1049 fuel 149.8EST YOJ 1229 127.5 ACT 1235 124.0EST YXY 1337 114.2 ACT 1336 109.1EST URCEL 1504 97.7 ACT 1451 ! 91.8EST BETAM 1637 80.5 ACT 1614 ! 73.2EST NIKSI 1800 66.2 ACT 1731 56.6EST VALAM 1920 53.1 ACT 1845 43.8EST TONIN 2051 38.8 ACT 2005 28.6EST BOLOD 2235 24.8 ACT 2135 13.7EST TOD 2349 14.4 ACT 2246 ZERO ! hit the ESC button !I suspect the double speed falsified the fuel consumption ....!I would be interested to read your opinions.Karl

[Guest flyboy266]

i salute you! i did my first long..er haul in the 744 today. KJFK > PHNL, went pretty well but the fuel didnt work out so good,m went down too low midway thru, #### winds.

[Qavion 19]

"EDIT: Also forsgot to mention, I just was informed by the FMS that I am now in "Split IRS OPS"...The North Pole has broken my 747..."For info: This is a normal indicaiton for Polar Flights. At low latitudes, the FMC paints the same (MAP) picture on both the Captain's and F/O's displays using all the position data available to the FMC ( IRS(x3), VOR, DME, LOC, GPS).However, at high latitudes, the Left IRS feeds the Captain's Nav Display (instead of the FMC)... and the Right IRS feeds the F/O's Nav Display.VOR/DME updating bias is removed (washed out) in Polar regions if there is any. On 744's without GPS, in polar regions, the displays on the Captain's and F/O's ND's could differ (due different drift rates of Left and Right IRU's). However, on 744's with GPS, GPS still has priority... and, assuming the GPS signals are valid, will provide the ND's with identical position information. If GPS signals are not valid, navigation displays switch back to onside IRU's.Hope this make sense.Cheers.Q>

[Brian Doney 127]

Good info Q, thanks for posting.The level of detail in this aircraft is amazing.EDIT:Just to ask, should you read this, is this in a defined region, above 80N, 82N(polar region, IIRC), etc. ?

[Guest D17S]

And if all goes well, we'll soon get to see the MD11's AFS kick out even that dual, split IRU nav and go a simple "Wings Level" mode as we close within 10 miles of the actual pole. I expect the 744 has a similar polar navigation reversion sequence. I tried a direct, polar overflight in the PMDG airplane to check out the Polar navigation reversion sequence consisting of an Rnav update "out of range" event, then: 1) GPS inhibit, 2) then dual, split IRU nav, 3) then wings level, I had the GPS inhibited to start with because I wanted to watch the Nav system swap to triple-mix IRU nav. That T-mix mode uses the averaged IRU present positions for FMC data. This T-mix should be the normal "no GPS update/no Rnav update" default. Did that work? Can't remember. But I do remember that I got the split navs right on schedule. But as I closed on the actual pole, all of a sudden it seemed as if I had rammed some sort of an invisible force field that MSFS has surrounding the pole. I turned around and dove at it at mach 1.0 (+!). Figured I could punch through that bugger one way or another. Ahh, but to no avail (At that point, I had no idea about the FS9 limitation). Finally ran low on fuel and had to declare an emergency. Found the first ILS equipped airport around and treated my pax to an artic adventure. As you know, FS9 has the world modeled like a cylinder. There is no "top", north pole (. . . or bottom, I would guess). Like the medieval doubters had forecast, I had run off the edge of world. Columbus, I