Strange crusing altitudes from PFPX

[ArjenVdv 190]

Can you make changes manually? Replace UL340 with UA611F, and try to validate (if you can, I'm not familiar with PFPX).

 

UL340 is not published by Angola AIP (which is quite a mess btw), I do not know how it ended up in skyvector and who published that airway and what restrictions are applied. UA611F is available at odd FLs from FL245 up to space.

 

EDIT: Snipped   :ph34r:  :lol:

I can't, whenever I try to change UL340 into UL611F the whole Route field goes magenta and I can no longer Compute my flight, meaning I cannot view my OFP and thus my ATC ROUTE too.

[g_precentralis 191]

Can you enter whole route manually?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I can't, whenever I try to change UL340 into UL611F the whole Route field goes magenta and I can no longer Compute my flight, meaning I cannot view my OFP and thus my ATC ROUTE too.

 

When the route goes magenta, doesn't that mean you just have to click BUILD to have it validate the route?

[ArjenVdv 190]

When the route goes magenta, doesn't that mean you just have to click BUILD to have it validate the route?

Oops yeah, you're right. I tried it and I can modify the route this way. However, between VNA and ILGER it doesn't accept UL611F. If I enter that and click Build it will change into DCT (direct to).

Can you enter whole route manually?

Yes you can, and I just found how to manually modify it. I tried UL611F but it doesn't accept this airway, it will simply change to DCT if I try to put it there between VNA and ILGER.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Oops yeah, you're right. I tried it and I can modify the route this way. However, between VNA and ILGER it doesn't accept UL611F. If I enter that and click Build it will change into DCT (direct to).

 

haha - isn't learning new software FUN?!?

 

So if it's changing it to DCT, it doesn't recognize it as a valid airway between the points.  If you're getting your PFPX nav data and the PMDG nav data from the same source, it's likely that the plane would object, too.

 

Oh the joys of dispatching...

[voske 34]

I just checked the Navigraph navdata for PFPX and PMDG: UA611F is not included. Solution for PFPX: adding it as a user airway.

[BeechPapa 32]

European airspace rules and CMFU validation are a pain. It's fun to fly heavily trafficked routes with realistic procedures, but instead of parsing through airways and regulations I usually cheat and lookup popular Vataware routes online. They always pass CMFU validation. PFPX's "find route" feature is nifty, but charting the maze of euro regulation is a lot to ask of sim software, and makes my head ache to do it manually. 

 

Euro routes aren't shown on Flightaware, but you can see the altitude profile for euro flights and that can be a great source of info for choosing efficient cruise levels. 

[g_precentralis 191]

^Agree. I doubt they can do it automatically even with RL dispatch software. 

[ArjenVdv 190]

But I don't get it. What else can be done to create normal routes, without getting a crazy cruising profile? Perhaps there should be an option to make it ignore altitude restrictions on some airways. But how do they deal with this problem in real life?

 

Apart from this problem there is more that PFPX is doing wrong. For example, the optimum cruising altitudes given by PFPX often don't even match up with the ones given by the FMC. For example in the NGX on a 500 nm route PFPX sends me to FL370 (without a step climb), while the FMC tells me FL390 is optimal and later in the flight FL410 is optimal. I checked the weights in the aircraft profile, and I set them so they match up precisely with the NGX. The only thing that concerns me is the aircraft variant I selected. I can choose between the -800 and the -800ERW. Which one of the two is the 800WL?

 

PFPX also told me in a flight plan that I should ascend my 777 to FL430 in the last stage of cruise, which we know is impossible assuming the plane is moderately loaded.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

[g_precentralis 191]

The good thing is I wanted to buy PFPX, but after reading this thread, I'm sure I'm not going to buy it.

 

Expected much more "robust" auto route build engine that would save me a little time, but obviously, one still needs to dig through AIPs to build a correct route. I guess my expectations were too high. 

[megs8888 20]

PFPX is awesome don't be discouraged by a few negative posts you name me a better flight planner out there and it's always being updated, your loss I'm absolutely loving mine. If you don't like the route it does you can paste one in from flightaware.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[g_precentralis 191]

Unfortunately, flightaware is available only for US, and I do not fly in US. I would love to see flightaware global, but that's not going to happen.

 

Anyway, simbrief works perfect for the time being, but cannot automatically build a route. Obviously, PFPX cannot do that neither, at least not correctly.

[red259 31]

The good thing is I wanted to buy PFPX, but after reading this thread, I'm sure I'm not going to buy it.

 

Expected much more "robust" auto route build engine that would save me a little time, but obviously, one still needs to dig through AIPs to build a correct route. I guess my expectations were too high. 

I am very happy with pfpx. I have come across this issue before although not very often and its pretty easy to make changes. I wouldn't write it off based on a few negative comments. 

[BeechPapa 32]

But I don't get it. What else can be done to create normal routes, without getting a crazy cruising profile? Perhaps there should be an option to make it ignore altitude restrictions on some airways. But how do they deal with this problem in real life?

 

Apart from this problem there is more that PFPX is doing wrong. For example, the optimum cruising altitudes given by PFPX often don't even match up with the ones given by the FMC. For example in the NGX on a 500 nm route PFPX sends me to FL370 (without a step climb), while the FMC tells me FL390 is optimal and later in the flight FL410 is optimal. I checked the weights in the aircraft profile, and I set them so they match up precisely with the NGX. The only thing that concerns me is the aircraft variant I selected. I can choose between the -800 and the -800ERW. Which one of the two is the 800WL?

 

PFPX also told me in a flight plan that I should ascend my 777 to FL430 in the last stage of cruise, which we know is impossible assuming the plane is moderately loaded.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

I don't think it's a good idea to ignore these alt restrictions, they're just part of the environment. As far as I've seen in real life flight tracking, those altitude restrictions become the max altitude for a flight. Instead of fighting to get to FL350, they'll just stay at FL180 the entire time. I find that the flights that have to criss cross small, low airways are usually inter-European flights not long haul flights, so the benefit of being at a high FL for 30 or 40 minutes (when your climb could be 20) are countered by the fuel it would take to get there. Also, the logic I think I see with the european system is that planes approaching busy airspace, which end up on these smaller airway segments, should be limited in speed/altitude the way a car is limited in speed once it gets off the highway. Sometimes you can only get somewhere in a car by streets, and your travel will be less efficient that way. But if people went highway speeds on the streets it would be chaotic and dangerous. Traffic bound for more distant routes are pushed onto higher/faster airways further away from the hubs, but traffic going from one busy hub to another busy hub on relatively short flights are forced to deal with the restrictions. BTW You can put an altitude restriction on any flight for PFPX, and that will become your max.  

 

Not sure about the issues with PFPX and suggested cruise altitudes. Use the ERW template. It's always been spot on for me. I noticed on a flight yesterday the NGX FMC gave me an FL385 limit on the ground when I was supposed to reach FL390 according to flight plan. What PFPX realized is that I would burn fuel and weight by the time I reached FL385, and FL390 would be no problem. And it was correct. The step climbs are a discretionary thing, and I've heard of real life pilots ignoring a final step climb because it was too close to destination. So whether or not to climb is your decision as pilot. PFPX will only tell you max possible based on weight and route restriction.

 

The good thing is I wanted to buy PFPX, but after reading this thread, I'm sure I'm not going to buy it.

 

Expected much more "robust" auto route build engine that would save me a little time, but obviously, one still needs to dig through AIPs to build a correct route. I guess my expectations were too high. 

 

For what it is, I think PFPX is pretty good. If you want a freeware alternative try SimBrief. It can handle ETOPs and other more complex functions. But it doesn't have things like route/wind exports to planes, database managers, or a detailed map to do manual planning with toggled data. The auto route feature is nice but would be extremely difficult to do right on any program. Its PFPX's core dispatching features (like scheduled flights) that make it alot easier to deal with on a long term basis.  

[Von Rondstadd 15]

Do not choose OPT or MAX for 737NGX if you want to stay on Flight Level.

 

I just choose in Cruise Altitude/FL lets say FL300

And in Cruise/Cost Index CI 50

 

Do not choose Compute Flight

 

Click on find / Upper Airspace!

 

I get a plan for only FL300 then!

 

Robert