He's talking about setting the plane up to automatically step climb because he's not going to be there...

Yeah, you can't unfortunately. The simplest way to step climb is as I mentioned.

Yeah, you can't unfortunately. The simplest way to step climb is as I mentioned.

 

Understood. I was just making sure it was known what he was talking about.

 

I wouldn't call it unfortunate, though. That's just my own opinion.

Understood. I was just making sure it was known what he was talking about.

 

I wouldn't call it unfortunate, though. That's just my own opinion.

I know what you mean, but in reality I think it makes sense based on my experience. Even when the ZFW during planning was accurate, quite often you can't make the cruise altitude in the air that the FMC reckoned you could on the ground due to ISA deviations. Also, planned step climbs on the flight plan seldom match up to what is achievable in the air due to ZFW differences, ISA differences, ATC, etc. So you can achieve the step climb sooner or later. I suspect the lowest workload and most efficient method is to simply see what you can achieve when airborne.

Also, planned step climbs on the flight plan seldom match up to what is achievable in the air due to ZFW differences, ISA differences, ATC, etc.

 

Listening to ZDC (Wash Center) yesterday, the poor controller had to deny a bunch of that.

"[Callsign], I have your request. Unable at this time: traffic flow."

 

The only guy who actually got it was a biz jet, and the reason was that he was already above most of the traffic. He still had to wait 1-2 min, though, because of another biz jet near his path.

 

A lot of traffic was headed down here to FL for the beginning of Spring Break, and likely the lead in to the Daytona 500.

In the real world aircraft of the NGX type are operating 99% ot the time in contriolled airscpace on IFR flight plans. At flight planning proposed level changes enroute can be indicated at specific waypoints. But a pilot cannot change an ATC assigned level without a clearance. It's a NO NO for obvious reasons so having the FMC automatically make alevel change would likely result in a visit to the regulators office for aplease explain at best, through to loss of licence to a mid-air at worst.

 

Neil Bradley

Hello all,

 

Changing altitude long into the flight requires permission plus that the exact optimum point to do it really depends on a couple of factors.

 

BUT, just for fun, if winds will stay the same, you could automate just the next step: set next alt in mcp, make a pseudo point at the distnace indicated by FMC, set current alt restriction till there and then MCP alt as cruising alt from pseudopoint onward. Queen should "step up" just as with any TO profile

 

Ionut "John" Micu

Enter it as F370 and not /370

 

I don't think this will work when entering a restriction on the LEGS page of the FMC.

Obviously my question only concerns the simulated world and I wish it was even closer to the real world than it already is where you always will have 100% ATC coverage all the way and the same amount of surrounding traffic as you have in real life but sadly that is not the case.

 

So...in this simulated world I won't get any penalties for changing FL when for instance crossing into airspace that don't use the NEODD-SWEVEN rule like France, Spain etc but instead I'm supposed to do so. When there is online ATC I will of course not do this without their permission but when there is not there is no one that can approve my FL change and thus I have to do this on my own and in those situations it would be great to sometimes be able to have the NGX do this FL change by itself at the correct point along the route without my intervention.

 

Will try the methods that have been suggested in here next time I'm in such a situation.

In the real world aircraft of the NGX type are operating 99% ot the time in contriolled airscpace on IFR flight plans. At flight planning proposed level changes enroute can be indicated at specific waypoints. But a pilot cannot change an ATC assigned level without a clearance. It's a NO NO for obvious reasons so having the FMC automatically make alevel change would likely result in a visit to the regulators office for aplease explain at best, through to loss of licence to a mid-air at worst.

 

Neil Bradley

Most likely. But after a bit of thought there is some value to such a feature (not to automatically climb!). For example, say you have an ATC restriction for a significant distance or you are climb limited due to weight. During pre-flight you enter this initial level off altitude as the CRZ altitude, because that is where you expect to stop the climb and stay for a while. However, your flight plan has a series of step climbs with winds. You put the winds into he FMC from the flight plan because that is the information you have and expect to use. But your fuel predictions are now based on a higher level wind and a lower cruise altitude and is therefore probably wrong. This isn't a major issue as you can do HOWGOZIT fuel check for the actual fuel vs the planned, but it would be nice to enter the expected enroute step climbs to get an accurate fuel prediction from the FMC.

but it would be nice to enter the expected enroute step climbs to get an accurate fuel prediction from the FMC.

 

It would be good to have this, but since in the real world, you also have flight dispatch departments, which use software to accurately predict fuel burn, taking into account winds, routing, holdings, diversions and step climbs. This reduces (IMO) the need for a fuel calculator in the FMC.

 

Considering the larger birds, 777, 747 are more likely to step climb as they have longer routes to fly, it makes more sense to have the step climb taken into consideration in their FMC. I'm not saying that NG's never step climb, just that because the frequency is lower, there is less of a need for it in the FMC.

It would be good to have this, but since in the real world, you also have flight dispatch departments, which use software to accurately predict fuel burn, taking into account winds, routing, holdings, diversions and step climbs. This reduces (IMO) the need for a fuel calculator in the FMC.

This is true to a degree, in terms of weather the plans can be very accurate, but we get the strangest plans sometimes - I have seen them with a climb, descent, then another climb because it worked it out as optimal for the winds! Clearly, this is usually impractical in world outside of the control center

 

Considering the larger birds, 777, 747 are more likely to step climb as they have longer routes to fly, it makes more sense to have the step climb taken into consideration in their FMC. I'm not saying that NG's never step climb, just that because the frequency is lower, there is less of a need for it in the FMC.

I suspect Boeing wanted to put a cap on the number of features and complexity of operating the 737 and your excellent point was conceivably a consideration. However, I do a lot of 5-6 hr sectors in the NG, step climbing is common, not just fuel, but also wind changes and ATC restrictions.

but we get the strangest plans sometimes - I have seen them with a climb, descent, then another climb because it worked it out as optimal for the winds! Clearly, this is usually impractical in world outside of the control center

 

hahaha, yeah very impractical!

However, I do a lot of 5-6 hr sectors in the NG

 

I normally don't do anything over 2 hrs so thats probably why step climbs are not common for me.