Finally got the download now, the setup crashes with some weird error after pressing next from the language selection. Anyone get this?

The difference between you and a lot of others is this:

You actually plan your route yourself, you calculate mass and balance, you check weather, calculate performance,.. You're doing the same thing PFPX does, you're just doing it by hand. (Which USA skill I admire)

A lot of other people just pull the route from some database, enter it in the FMC and off they go. If you ask them about fuel burn, performance, actual weight, V-speeds, balanced field calculations,.... They won't be able to answer you.

 

Don't get me wrong, if that's what you like to do, by all means do it. It's still just a piece of computer software. If you want to fly inverted under the Golden Gate Bridge with a 747 while drinking a whiskey, I very much encourage you to do so. But it does mean that those people are not the intended audience for PFPX. They are the "Ctrl-E" people.

I had the full list of the airline codes available after installation. When I opened PFPX next time, the list of the airline codes was almost empty (there are just 6 airline ICAO codes).

What is wrong?

Well, they are kinda right. What do you think, does my flight school own flight planning software, and do all dispatch for me? No, I just open skyvector, build route on my own, from waypoint to waypoint, confirm that with paper chart; build my own nav log, calculate performance, weight and balance, file a flight plan and send it via email, and then I get route confirm as reply. Does this makes me a bad pilot? Don't get me wrong, PFPX is great software, I'm probably gonna buy it, but there is nothing wrong, nor unrealistic with manual flight planning (like CTRL + E )

Well, that's the distinction. Of course there are no dispatch papers when you're flying out of your local FBO. PFPX is meant to replicate the papers used by commercial carriers who are doing something a little more complicated than taking your 172 out for a spin.

Currently I have demo version of EFB (Aviasoft) and am starting to wonder about PFPX and their differences.

Well, that's the distinction. Of course there are no dispatch papers when you're flying out of your local FBO. PFPX is meant to replicate the papers used by commercial carriers who are doing something a little more complicated than taking your 172 out for a spin.

The flight planning process for C172 doesn't differ significantly than flight planning process for T7 (difference is maybe ETOPS, and upper vs lower airways)

Currently I have demo version of EFB (Aviasoft) and am starting to wonder about PFPX and their differences.

Aivlasoft EFB's "planning" function is incredibly basic compared to PFPX. The only thing you get with Aivlasoft that you might miss if you pass on buying the license is the moving map. That can be quite useful. To be honest, though, I've always looked at the moving map as a bit of a crutch. We're better pilots for flying without it.

I've planned my routes the difficult way without fsbuild and scrambled data a cross the web but PFPX will be my first tool I'll start from now on.

Currently I have demo version of EFB (Aviasoft) and am starting to wonder about PFPX and their differences.

Isn't that takeoff performance?

 

It appears lots of people are unclear about what pfpx does. It is not a simple route planner, (although route planning is part of it) it's much more than that.

 

Take fuel planning for example. Many people will use the fmc to wing it. A few may use fscommander. But have you made proper allowance for an alternate? Holding? Do you actually know what fuel figure to enter as RESV in the fmc? If you don't have pfpx you're probably guessing.

 

Conducting an etops flight? Do you know what your alternates are? Where on the route you'll enter etops? Equi time points?

 

Then there's the flight progress sheets it gives you including winds aloft, temperatures, estimated times. Weather reports for departure, destination and alternates. It even gives you real world notams. The list goes on.

 

...and of course, this is all in one place. No more need to have a dozen browser tabs and programs running. If you want realism this is really essential, and I've probably missed of half the things it does.

The flight planning process for C172 doesn't differ significantly than flight planning process for T7 (difference is maybe ETOPS, and upper vs lower airways)

Of course it differs. You can't just top up the tanks and go in a 777.

Of course it differs. You can't just top up the tanks and go in a 777.

You can't just top up the tanks and go in C172 neither. 4 people and baggage and you exceed MTOW and you are out of balance. At hot day and high altitude you can die easily (look at Kyle's post few days ago).

You can't just top up the tanks and go in C172 neither. 4 people and baggage and you exceed MTOW and you are out of balance. At hot day and high altitude you can die easily (look at Kyle's post few days ago).

What has exceeding limitations got to do with anything?

What has exceeding limitations got to do with anything?

Seriously?

 

I mean, you can fly it out of balance and over MTOW for sure, but only in my country I saw several reports of crashing GA aircraft. 95% was caused by imbalance and/or exceeded limitations. Hot day, short runway, aircraft full of skydivers, dismantled doors = disaster.

 

Anyway, process of flight planning is almost identical no matter of aircraft.

Anyway, process of flight planning is almost identical no matter of aircraft.

No it isn't. I fly a 172; I can (within reason) put another 2 people in with full fuel for a x country and just go, knowing I'll be within limits. No planning required (not that this is what I do, but I could).

 

How do you expect to be able to do the same in a 777? You could just guess the v speeds I suppose, and as long as you're fairly light you're probably ok weight and balance wise. What about fuel? Guess? Fill up? You'll still need to file an ifr flight plan at minimum. I'm not sure how much of that you could legally skip. No need for any of that in a Cessna, so what makes you think there's any similarity is beyond me.

I had the full list of the airline codes available after installation. When I opened PFPX next time, the list of the airline codes was almost empty (there are just 6 airline ICAO codes).

What is wrong?

Scroll down here for replacement http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/72227-issue-with-the-airlines-codes/

 

Airac update knackers the original

No it isn't. I fly a 172; I can (within reason) put another 2 people in with full fuel for a x country and just go, knowing I'll be within limits. No planning required (not that this is what I do, but I could).

 

How do you expect to be able to do the same in a 777? You could just guess the v speeds I suppose, and as long as you're fairly light you're probably ok weight and balance wise. What about fuel? Guess? Fill up? You'll still need to file an ifr flight plan at minimum. I'm not sure how much of that you could legally skip. No need for any of that in a Cessna, so what makes you think there's any similarity is beyond me.

As I said, the process is almost same, but for some reason you (and not just you, all of us) decide to skip some steps.