MD-11 Fuel Planning Project

[claviermichel 0]

Hi Nick,Fully agree with you the combination FOC / TOPCAT is the closest you can get to real life dispatching. In my opinion a must if you fly sophisticated add-ons like PMDG and LevelD.

If memory serves me correctly, I was within 1 minute of my ETE's all the way out to 40W. The Winds Aloft over the NAT that day was supposed to give me a relatively constant 40kt tailwind, but at 35W, FSX decided that the winds should be calm, so I lost my planned tailwind until coast-in over Shannon.

Unfortunately ASA is doing the same at a certain point over waters it just stops feeding weather datas. There are currently no accurate weather programs for transoceanic flights. This is very unfortunate.

This was using the NAVTECH planning software, which I maintain is a piece of crap. And with the company pressuring everyone to plan every single flight using the MTTA "release-and-forget" button, a lot of mediocre dispatchers released flights through Convective SIGMETs, along routes with MIT restrictions, through hot MOAs, and through TFR's.

I just subscribed to a trial of the NAVTECH planning software today via one of their re-sellers called Universal Weather and Aviation. Anything in particular you dislike with the NAVTECH software apart of the MTTA thing?Cheers

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

I just subscribed to a trial of the NAVTECH planning software today via one of their re-sellers called Universal Weather ans Aviation. Anything in particular you dislike with the NAVTECH software apart of the MTTA thing?

Hi Michael,My biggest beef with NAVTECH is that the program is composed of multiple non-resizable windows. Bringing up the weather screens, the routing screen, or calculating a FP results in a bunch of overlapping windows. It's disorganized and messy. It really drags your SA down because there's no way to just look at your list of flights and tell which ones have been calculated, which ones have been released, and which ones are still pending.Often flights will send an ACARS that they're holding over XYZ VORTAC with 7000lb of fuel and an EFC twenty-five minutes from now, and want to know their BINGO fuel. Trying to recalculate a release from the holding point using the current FOB means jusmping through all kinds of hoops to get the computer to cooperate, and even then, about 50% of the time it wouldn't work. I'd have to tell the crew to use the FMS to calculate their own BINGO, and to let me know if/when they decide to divert. That's not cool.Routing was also a pain. Entering DP's or STARS was an excercise in finger gymnastics, and I can't tell you how many times I wanted to put my keyboard through one of my monitors. The formatting was very specific, and if it wasn't perfect, it would reject the entire route...even if you typed it in exactly as ATC gave it to you. Sometimes it would take normal syntax like NUGGT4.RAFTN..FLM.KEKEE3, but you'd do the same thing with another city pair, and it would make you use spaces instead of dots. Or it would refuse to recognize a specific Transition to a STAR, so I'd actually have to file a non ATC-preferred route just to get the flight plan to calculate. Then I'd have to call the Miami Center Flight Data or TMU to get them to amend the route in their system and issue a Full Route Clearance to the crew instead of a normal abbreviated one.My other (trivial) complaint is that it just feels ancient. It has a distinct "Windows 3.1" feel to it.And while I can't really poo-poo on the MTTA function itself (it works pretty well, actually), I do think that a lot of people use it as a crutch. Don't feel like looking at a US High chart? Tired of deciphering NOTAMS? Is the ATCSCC OIS website too hard to navigate? No problem! Just click MTTA to "release it, and FORGET IT!" Where's Billy Mays or Vince from "Sham-wow" to sell that feature? LOL...At various times in my career I've used versions of NAVTECH, Jeppessen, Lido, and Sabre (DrB) software. Of those, NAVTECH and Jepp were similar in feel and operation. Needless to say, I did not like them. The Lido software takes my MTTA gripe to the next level. It reads the NOTAMs, decodes them, and then displays only the ones it thinks are applicable to your flight. It supposedly automatically checks for TFR's, OTS navaids, looks at the radar, plans a route, and a bunch of other "gee-whiz" stuff, then spits out a release with "one-click". There's only about a million bad things that can happen as a result of letting the software do the dispatcher's job, while he mindlessly clicks the RELEASE button every few minutes. But I digress.Sabre (DrB) is by far the easiest to use. It's all on a single screen, and everything is color coded so you know what releases are due and when. You can see the status of any release you've done or have yet to complete. Amending releases for added MEL's, or diversions are extremely simple. Calculating Bingo fuel for airplanes that are holding on arrival is very easy. The routing function is simple and intuitive. It's great.The only complaint I have is that the computer can't pick a good altitude worth sh**. If you don't specifically tell the computer what altitude to use (or if you forget to put one in) it LOVES to put 45 minute CRJ flights at FL390. Every once in a while, I'd forget to override the altitude and actually file one that way. After the crew got their PDC, I'd get an ACARS saying "#####?" in not so many words...Anyway, all the different software does basically the same thing. They all get the same Nav data, the same temp/wind data, and the same airplane performance database. So at the end of the day, they all do what they claim to do. Some just do it better than others.I hope you enjoy your subscription. You'll get a lot of use out of it. I've worked with more than a few people who simply love NAVTECH. Of course, none of them had ever used Sabre, so I guess they didn't know what they were missing.Nick

[claviermichel 0]

Nick,Thanks for the details. I'll have a go to the NAVTECH services keeping in mind your observations.Cheers

[phil747fan 14]

Nick,Thanks for the details. I'll have a go to the NAVTECH services keeping in mind your observations.Cheers

Christian,Navtech or UVW is not bad but i dont think they ll release you the Java Pop up we have in Cies when we use navtech.for a simming usage FOC will fulfill your fantasies and without the price of any suppliers. of the all systems i used too Lido is ten times the others but in the same it s more expensive and dont think small companies can afford it ...i prefer the Navtech over Jepplan but only because i have a support with navtech that i cant dream to have with others suppliers. have a good day.

Hi Phil,The flight plan I referred to in my original post was done with the stock MD-11 that shipped with FOC. I had to do all of the planning in kilos, then set the output to pounds, which was annoying. Also, the BOW, MTOW and MLW don't match the PMDG freighter. I avoided the more serious BOW discrepancy by adding additional cargo to cover the difference, and then I just made sure to abide by the profile's conservative MTOW and MLW values. Despite having to toy around with the weights in FOC and the PMDG load manager in order to get a matching TOGW, the end result was very accurate.I haven't had a lot of time for flying the past few weeks, but I did do one trans-atlantic flight (KATL-EBBR) using an add-on profile...I think it was one of yours. The profile was for a GE pax airplane (pounds), but I was flying a PW powered freighter. I couldn't find a profile for the PW freighter in pounds, so I used the next best thing.If memory serves me correctly, I was within 1 minute of my ETE's all the way out to 40W. The Winds Aloft over the NAT that day was supposed to give me a relatively constant 40kt tailwind, but at 35W, FSX decided that the winds should be calm, so I lost my planned tailwind until coast-in over Shannon.Because of that, I burned about 6,000lb extra upon landing in Brussels. I'm confident that if the FSX hadn't botched the winds, I would have been within about 500-1,000lb of my planned burn. Being able to do the planning in pounds is really important to me, so your profile made it much easier to work with. It was also very accurate in terms of ETE, burn, and TOC. It was a bit off on the step climbs, but the flightplan was on the conservative side, so thats okay with me.To be perfectly honest, the FOC/FSX/PMDG combo are far more accurate than in real life. I've never dispatched the MD-11, but I did dispatch the DC-10-30F for a while, and the discrepancy between planned and actual burn on a flight from MIA-BOG would sometimes be as high 4,000 to 5,000lb. Similarly, we weren't RVSM certified at the time, so we had to fly random routes below the NATS over to ELLX. It was always tight, so we paid for the "Planned Re-Delease" OPSPEC, and used it often. I'd say that 70% of the time I planned a "re-release", we had to divert for a tech stop.This was using the NAVTECH planning software, which I maintain is a piece of crap. And with the company pressuring everyone to plan every single flight using the MTTA "release-and-forget" button, a lot of mediocre dispatchers released flights through Convective SIGMETs, along routes with MIT restrictions, through hot MOAs, and through TFR's.The bulk of my experience is with the Sabre (Bornemann) software for planning regional flights on the CRJ and J-41 (with a little A319 action too). It is a much nicer tool, and given the shorter nature of the flights I planned with it (and the smaller fuel burns), it was usually accurate to within 200 to 300lb on a 1.5hr CRJ flight.Anyway, I'm rambling...Do you plan do make a profile for the PW MD-11F in pounds? Regards,Nick

Nick,for the md11 PW F in pounds i have the datas in kilos (the original FOC profile) i can add a F- version but only with KGS my version done of GE pounds is taken from a F- version ... but i dont own the PMDG MD11 so i dont have the weights ... about step climb or climb profiles given by FOC against the FMC predictions i m not sure PMDG used GE datas ...see youPhil

[BobP 56]

Christian,Navtech or UVW is not bad but i dont think they ll release you the Java Pop up we have in Cies when we use navtech.for a simming usage FOC will fulfill your fantasies and without the price of any suppliers. of the all systems i used too Lido is ten times the others but in the same it s more expensive and dont think small companies can afford it ...i prefer the Navtech over Jepplan but only because i have a support with navtech that i cant dream to have with others suppliers. have a good day.Nick,Can you fly the GE version? There is a FOX file in pounds for the GE model.Bob..Nick,for the md11 PW F in pounds i have the datas in kilos (the original FOC profile) i can add a F- version but only with KGS my version done of GE pounds is taken from a F- version ... but i dont own the PMDG MD11 so i dont have the weights ... about step climb or climb profiles given by FOC against the FMC predictions i m not sure PMDG used GE datas ...see youPhil

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Hey Bob,Yeah, I think thats the one I'm currently using...the GE (pounds) files. It was still extrememly accurate, even when flying the PW powered airplanes.I'd really like to see a FOX file that uses the PMDG Freighter weights. GE or PW doesn't matter to me, since there doesn't seem to be much of a difference. Using the pax version means I need to add a bunch of extra cargo to make up for the mismatch in BOW weights. It's not a big deal, just an extra step in order to get all the numbers to match properly between the FOC, the PMDG load manager, and the FMS.The current profile also uses the pax version weights for MTOW and MLW, which means you're limited to lower weights for those values.Again, not a huge deal, but it would be nice to get the numbers updated. I'd do it myself, but all of the profiles are locked for editing, and I don't have time to try and make one from scratch.Regards,Nick

[phil747fan 14]

Hey Bob,Yeah, I think thats the one I'm currently using...the GE (pounds) files. It was still extrememly accurate, even when flying the PW powered airplanes.I'd really like to see a FOX file that uses the PMDG Freighter weights. GE or PW doesn't matter to me, since there doesn't seem to be much of a difference. Using the pax version means I need to add a bunch of extra cargo to make up for the mismatch in BOW weights. It's not a big deal, just an extra step in order to get all the numbers to match properly between the FOC, the PMDG load manager, and the FMS.The current profile also uses the pax version weights for MTOW and MLW, which means you're limited to lower weights for those values.Again, not a huge deal, but it would be nice to get the numbers updated. I'd do it myself, but all of the profiles are locked for editing, and I don't have time to try and make one from scratch.Regards,Nick

hello Nick,just post the datas and ill try to figure out a new fox.see youPhil

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

hello Nick,just post the datas and ill try to figure out a new fox.see youPhil

Hey Phil,A quick check of the PMDG MD-11F Load Manager & FCOM shows:BOW: 251,000lbMZFW: 461,300lbMax Ramp: 633,000lbMTOW: 630,500lbMLW: 491,500lbThanks!Nick

[phil747fan 14]

Hey Phil,A quick check of the PMDG MD-11F Load Manager & FCOM shows:BOW: 251,000lbMZFW: 461,300lbMax Ramp: 633,000lbMTOW: 630,500lbMLW: 491,500lbThanks!Nick

Nick,may i have the same for pax version ?thanks again.Phil

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Hi Phil,Regarding the data for the pax version... It seems that the PMDG FCOM doesn't match the PMDG Load Manager.The Load manager indicates:BOW: 273,373lbMZFW: 430,000lbMTOW: 630,500lbThe FCOM shows several different combinations of Weight Limits:MZFW: 451,300lb OR 410,000LB (neither matches the LM)Max Ramp: 633,000lb OR 621,000lbMTOW: 630,500lb OR 618,000lbMLW: 481,500lb OR 440,000LBI assume that FSX uses the LM values. So it's probably best to use those, and only use the FCOM data to fill in the blanks (for Max Ramp and MLW).Regards,Nick

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Okay, so I checked the TCDS, and it seems that depending on the incorporation of one of several SB's (or manufacturer equivalents), there are several diffent sets of limit weights for the MD-11 pax. The variations are:610,000lb MTOW Configuration613,000lb Max Ramp610,000lb MTOW458,000lb MLW430,000lb MZFW618,000lb MTOW Configuration621,000lb Max Ramp618,000lb MTOW458,000lb MLW430,000lb MZFW625,000lb MTOW Configuration628,000lb Max Ramp625,000lb MTOW458,000lb MLW430,000lb MZFW630,500lb MTOW Configuration633,000lb Max Ramp630,500lb MTOW458,000lb MLW430,000lb MZFWSo, it looks like PMDG uses the 630,500lb option above.Regards,Nick

[phil747fan 14]

Okay, so I checked the TCDS, and it seems that depending on the incorporation of one of several SB's (or manufacturer equivalents), there are several diffent sets of limit weights for the MD-11 pax. The variations are:610,000lb MTOW Configuration613,000lb Max Ramp610,000lb MTOW458,000lb MLW430,000lb MZFW618,000lb MTOW Configuration621,000lb Max Ramp618,000lb MTOW458,000lb MLW430,000lb MZFW625,000lb MTOW Configuration628,000lb Max Ramp625,000lb MTOW458,000lb MLW430,000lb MZFW630,500lb MTOW Configuration633,000lb Max Ramp630,500lb MTOW458,000lb MLW430,000lb MZFWSo, it looks like PMDG uses the 630,500lb option above.Regards,Nick

nick,i have reals datas i need only the pmdg ones ...see you.phil

[Guest MarcG79]

I have TOPCAT and I watching and hopinghe can get the MD-11 in, works wonders for the 744.

I

[Orlaam 306]

I await the TOPCAT MD-11 integration as well. Great product and I'm happy to have bought it.