PFPX - Do you usually fly real world routes or automated routes?

[captain420 3,099]

I usually try to fly realistic routes as much as possibe, but sometimes it's difficult finding real world routes when flying outside of the US. I have been letting PFPX create the route for me automatically and have been flying those routes especially when flying in other parts of the world such as Europe and Asia and it seems to be working very well. I find it a pain to be realistic as possible for every single flight. Sometimes I just want to taxi and fly without fussing with every little detail.

 

What about you guys? What do you think about the automated routes that PFPX gives you?

 

Is there a way to have PFPX choose ILS-only runways for arrival? 

 

Also if the weather report says surface winds of 270º at 10 knots... Does that mean the wind is blowing from or to the west? Kind of confused because I want to select the correct runway for departure/arrival. 

[Raven9000 272]

Not sure what you mean with "real world" vs "automatic"... Why are the two terms incompatible? Doesn't the program automatically select a real world route?

[fluffyflops 1,846]

Thats because Asia uses China , HK, Russian, Jap and Korean specific routings on specific airways.   Same with mid east routings.  

 

I dont think PFPX has these built in so it will just find you a route based on the inputs you give it ,so it will find you a plan based on time or fuel looking at the winds.

 

This is the same with most commercial flightplanning systems such as LIDO, Jetplanner, and FWZ/Sabre (ive used all 3 of them) Unless you tell it what airways you want to use all 3 of them will just "J" it based on fuel burn.  

 

Its not like europe where you can use a variety of routings to get from A to B so long as its complies with the RADs and CRAMS ro make it compliant  or the USA / Canada where they have a huge airspace so you have have large directs between waypoints.  Although europe is moving towards that way.  Some of the flightplans I see filed on vatsim are shocking but I guess people dont have the knowledge.

Not sure what you mean with "real world" vs "automatic"... Why are the two terms incompatible? Doesn't the program automatically select a real world route?

 

they are completely incompatible for the reasons I have just explained

[captain420 3,099]

From my understanding PFPX "automated" routes are generated on the fly, sometimes you'll end up lucky and it will create a route based on a real world flown route, but it's very rare. However I find the routes that it creates are very good, even though not flown in the real world. But still it works well for me, and is a big time saver.

 

Thanks Pete for your explanation. I think for the time being, I'll just use the route that PFPX assigns me. I think the routes are well defined, It doesn't need to be 100% realistic as long as its close.

 

For those of you who use PFPX along with Active Sky Weather. Do you find that the runway it selects in your flight plan correct? Because it's suppose to pick up the wind and weather data from ASN in order to assign the runways. 

[spesimen 135]

 

Is there a way to have PFPX choose ILS-only runways for arrival? 

 

Also if the weather report says surface winds of 270º at 10 knots... Does that mean the wind is blowing from or to the west? Kind of confused because I want to select the correct runway for departure/arrival. 

 

 

i don't believe pfpx lets you filter runways like that but it does let you pick the runway you are planning to use from the dropdown and will retain that setting. so you can look up the ones you want and force it. there's also no real reason that you can't use whatever runway is appropriate when you arrive at the airport. on longer flights it is quite possible that shifting winds may have made another one active.

 

to answer your other question, when the wind is listed as 270 that means it is coming from the west. (and you'd probably want a rw27 in that case, or whatever is angled closest to that)..

 

 

 

 

For those of you who use PFPX along with Active Sky Weather. Do you find that the runway it selects in your flight plan correct? Because it's suppose to pick up the wind and weather data from ASN in order to assign the runways. 

 

i use the pfpx subscription weather and it seems to make a reasonable selection most times. haven't tried using the activesky weather import but it should make the right choice assuming that it is finding the weather files in the correct place. if you are noticing that the choices it is making are incorrect you might want to check your settings for the paths.

 

cheers

-andy crosby

[B777ER 2,484]

I use PFPX automated routes for everything but US domestic. It has a way to validate the auto routes so that the route you fly say in Europe is valid for that date with regards to airway direction, altitude restrictions, etc....

[simbio 56]

Unfortunately PFPX in Europe don't do a good job, for the mentioned restriction RAD.

The majority of the time when you validate the route within PFPX it doesn't pass eurocontrol restriction.

For Europe I will use https://www.eurofpl.eu/ just create an account set an airframe information, then fill your DEP and ARR it's free.

For USA nothing can be wrong apart that you read Notam for airspace and airport.

Create proper flight plan it's a big task that need a lot's of knowledge if you want to simulate as real as it get. 

[captain420 3,099]

 

 

to answer your other question, when the wind is listed as 270 that means it is coming from the west. (and you'd probably want a rw27 in that case, or whatever is angled closest to that)..

 

Okay this doesn't make much sense, so if you say the wind direction is coming from the west (270), and I depart from runway 27, wouldn't that mean the wind would be conflicting with the direction in which I'm taking off? 

 

Wind coming from 270 -------->.      <----------- Plane Departing Runway 27... That means I would be flying into the wind and face Headwind. Shouldn't I be departing from runway 09 instead, so that the wind would be pushing me (Tailwind) instead?

[Samaritano 304]

You always want, if possible, to take off in to the wind.

Quote from the internets.

"In this case of takeoff, the fast air bearing down on the plane generates an upward force on the wings (analogous to a gun's recoil), which helps lift the aircraft. In short, pilots like to take off into a headwind because it helps them achieve "wheels up" faster."

 

Also when landing you do it into the wind. If you land with a tailwind, let's say 15 knots, you are going to be approaching the end of the runway before you touchdown really fast.

[skelsey 765]

 

 

Shouldn't I be departing from runway 09 instead, so that the wind would be pushing me (Tailwind) instead?

 

No.

 

The aeroplane flies because airflow over the wings generates lift. Whether you generate this airflow by blowing air over the wings of a stationary aircraft or by accelerating the aircraft through the airmass makes no difference.

 

Take a light aircraft like a C172 which will typically get airborne at around 60kts on takeoff.

 

Park it facing in to a 40kt wind, and the aeroplane will be about to get airborne (and, in fact, they sometimes do).

 

By the same token, if you are sitting at the start of the runway with a 40kt headwind, you will already have 40kt worth of airflow passing over the wings. When you release the brakes and accelerate, you now only need to add, say, another 20kts of forward speed to total 60kts of airflow over the wings and you're airborne.

 

Now reverse the situation -- if you have a 40kt tailwind, you need to accelerate the aeroplane to 40kt over the ground just to match the speed of the tailwind and bring the airflow over the wings to a standstill. Having accelerated to 40kt along the ground, you now need another 60kt in order to to get the airflow you need over the wings.

 

When you are landing, landing in to a headwind reduces your ground speed and therefore the amount of energy the brakes must absorb in order to bring the aeroplane to a standstill, thus reducing the landing run.

[captain420 3,099]

Ahhh that makes sense, thanks for the explanation. So the same rules apply for landing, you want to land into the wind so that the wind will slow the plane down.

[kamaz74 81]

Just build your own routes it's fun.

[swiesma 625]

For European routes I go to vatroute.net and insert the flightplan to PFPX and rebuild the route. Simple.

[vololiberista 205]

Another good route planner is http://onlineflightplanner.org/

It uses the latest airac cycles as well.

[skelsey 765]

PFPX is quite capable of generating a CFMU -validated, wind-optimised route -- isn't that what you paid the money for?

 

If all you are going to do with it is paste in a plan from Flightaware or Online Route Planner then to be honest you might as well have saved your money and just used Simbrief...

 

Of course, the automated generator is far from perfect -- but by using the various options provided you can generally get a route to validate after two or three passes. There's a tutorial on the PFPX forum, but in essence you just go in to the "avoid" options and tell it not to route via the offending airway/waypoint etc. It may take a few goes as the new route may have its own problems, but as I say, generally after a couple of passes you can get a route to pass validation quite comfortably (and quickly, once you get the hang of it).

 

Like any planner you do have to sanity check the routes and at present AFAIK it just selects SID/STARs alphabetically (which can lead to some issues at some airports) but if you just take a second to check the departure/arrival against the airport charts it's easily changed.