Help planning QFA73 YSSY-KSFO 744ER

[Michael Moe 493]

Hi,

I am having a hard time here planning with PFPX this route with Quantas 747-400ER VH-OEI

I have download latest profiles for PMDG747-400 to PFPX and choosen the 747-400ER aircraftdata .

But cant seem to get it right. I am always limited .

Right now on Flightaware the route is 

DCT DIPSO G595 GUTIV DCT 3039S15849E 2846S16300E 2830S16335E 2405S17254E 2123S17658E 1508S17559W/M084F330 1340S17449W 0748S17018W 0500S16823W 0007S16504W/M084F350 0733N15947W 1507N15417W/M084F370 1831N15103W 2142N14732W 2727N13939W 3237N13203W/M084F390 DCT CREAN/N0480F390 R465 CINNY DCT PIRAT DCT OSI

 

What am i doing wrong here ? and what about etops ?

 

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=yssy-ksfo&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=180

 

 

BTW : Fuel Density is the same in  EKCH as YSSY (0.803) is this modelled in V4 ?

MAX fuel is 182739 kgs

Thanks

Michael Moe

 

 

 

[skelsey 765]

In what way are you limited? It's entirely possible that on a sector of this length you will be TOW or LAW limited.

1 hour ago, Michael Moe said:

what about etops ?

For practical purposes, not applicable to quads. More of an issue is the decompression/engine out scenario (i.e. you have to be able to reach a suitable diversion field from the most critical point in the event of an engine failure and/or decompression... decompression is usually the more limiting scenario as you will have to fly at FL100 and this may require extra fuel to be loaded). Cargo fire suppression capability is the main constraint on the distance you can fly from a suitable alternate.

[Meekg 86]

It might help if you copy paste here your OFP fuel section.

What profiles did you download?

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

Have you tried to do a redispatch scenario?

That was the my way I could get it to work while still having an airplane that was more than half full.

[Michael Moe 493]

50 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Have you tried to do a redispatch scenario?

That was the my way I could get it to work while still having an airplane that was more than half full.

Thanks but what do you mean?  Let PFPX choose  the route? 

Not so realistic. I get a fuel limited by mtw. Tried with zero passenger and still Exeed MTOW. 

Thanks Michael Moe 

[TopGun33 124]

1 hour ago, skelsey said:

For practical purposes, not applicable to quads. More of an issue is the decompression/engine out scenario (i.e. you have to be able to reach a suitable diversion field from the most critical point in the event of an engine failure and/or decompression... decompression is usually the more limiting scenario as you will have to fly at FL100 and this may require extra fuel to be loaded). Cargo fire suppression capability is the main constraint on the distance you can fly from a suitable alternate.

ETOPS does cover more than twin engines since 2016. Its name now means ExTended OPerationS

The new FAA regulations states "All passenger-carrying airplanes with more than two engines and more than  180 minutes flying time from an adequate  airport (at a one-engine-inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air)."

Basically it does not change much in real world, but it is wrong to assume quadjets are exempted from ETOPS regulations.

9 minutes ago, Michael Moe said:

Thanks but what do you mean?  Let PFPX choose  the route? 

Not so realistic. I get a fuel limited by mtw. Tried with zero passenger and still Exeed MTOW. 

Thanks Michael Moe 

Have you checked the weights are correct iin the PFPX profile ? It can't be that your MTOW is exceeded with 0 payload and full fuel.

[Michael Moe 493]

1 minute ago, TopGun33 said:

ETOPS does cover more than twin engines since 2016. Its name now means ExTended OPerationS

The new FAA regulations states "All passenger-carrying airplanes with more than two engines and more than  180 minutes flying time from an adequate  airport (at a one-engine-inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air)."

Basically it does not change much in real world, but it is wrong to assume quadjets are exempted from ETOPS regulations.

Have you checked the weights are correct iin the PFPX profile ? It can't be that your MTOW is exceeded with 0 payload and full fuel.

Thanks 

 

But should i even do ETOPS on this route ? i guess so ?  

 

DCT DIPSO G595 GUTIV DCT 3039S15849E 2846S16300E 2830S16335E 2405S17254E 2123S17658E 1508S17559W/M084F330 1340S17449W 0748S17018W 0500S16823W 0007S16504W/M084F350 0733N15947W 1507N15417W/M084F370 1831N15103W 2142N14732W 2727N13939W 3237N13203W/M084F390 DCT CREAN/N0480F390 R465 CINNY DCT PIRAT DCT OSI

 

As long as i dont fill out the ETOPS section it is okay in PFPX (180 minutes) but i guess not quite realistic. 

 

I meen the circle mapper shows problems above 60 minutes on this route (maybe i dont need a 180 minute solution for ETOPS but more like a 138minutes)

Thanks

Michael Moe

 

[PinkPony 171]

3 hours ago, Michael Moe said:

Hi,

I am having a hard time here planning with PFPX this route with Quantas 747-400ER VH-OEI

I have download latest profiles for PMDG747-400 to PFPX and choosen the 747-400ER aircraftdata .

But cant seem to get it right. I am always limited .

Right now on Flightaware the route is 

DCT DIPSO G595 GUTIV DCT 3039S15849E 2846S16300E 2830S16335E 2405S17254E 2123S17658E 1508S17559W/M084F330 1340S17449W 0748S17018W 0500S16823W 0007S16504W/M084F350 0733N15947W 1507N15417W/M084F370 1831N15103W 2142N14732W 2727N13939W 3237N13203W/M084F390 DCT CREAN/N0480F390 R465 CINNY DCT PIRAT DCT OSI

 

What am i doing wrong here ? and what about etops ?

 

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=yssy-ksfo&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=180

 

 

BTW : Fuel Density is the same in  EKCH as YSSY (0.803) is this modelled in V4 ?

MAX fuel is 182739 kgs

Thanks

Michael Moe

 

 

 

 

 

Michael,

Did you get your -400ER PFPX profile from 

airlinerperformance.net/installation/ ? 

If so, it is coded incorrectly. On the longer routes it will always exceed the maximum fuel capacity of the aircraft.

Best thing you can do is use the default -400ER PFPX profile (IIRC believe it ships with one). Or take the -400 and increase the MTOW/MLW/MAX fuel capacity to match the -400ER numbers.

Qantas operate this sector under EDTO 180 (CASA's ETOPS 180 equivalent). 

TRIP fuel for this sector will be ~145t eastbound and ~154t westbound (averages), depending on the day. Fuel at destination 10-12t. 

More on Qantas B744 EDTO ops (see Rudy's ( VH-OJT) posts)
 

Ive done this sector a dozen times. Enjoy!
 

[TopGun33 124]

 

2 minutes ago, Michael Moe said:

Thanks 

 

But should i even do ETOPS on this route ? i guess so ?  

 

DCT DIPSO G595 GUTIV DCT 3039S15849E 2846S16300E 2830S16335E 2405S17254E 2123S17658E 1508S17559W/M084F330 1340S17449W 0748S17018W 0500S16823W 0007S16504W/M084F350 0733N15947W 1507N15417W/M084F370 1831N15103W 2142N14732W 2727N13939W 3237N13203W/M084F390 DCT CREAN/N0480F390 R465 CINNY DCT PIRAT DCT OSI

 

As long as i dont fill out the ETOPS section it is okay in PFPX (180 minutes) but i guess not quite realistic. 

 

I meen the circle mapper shows problems above 60 minutes on this route (maybe i dont need a 180 minute solution for ETOPS but more like a 138minutes)

Thanks

Michael Moe

 

Again, I urge you to check your profile I think it is wrong.

Why not go 180 minutes ? If a T7 can do this, I am sure a 747 can too.

You might need the use of the "Redispatch" function. I know this trick was used a lot at Air France in the Boeing 747 classics times.
Basically, you take off with a dispatch for an airport that is enroute, because dispatching to the real destination does not work since ou are out of the numbers upon take-off.

As fuel goes and you optimize your vertical path and fuel consumption, the pilots and navigator would recalculate figures and could then "legally" proceed to destination. I am not a real world flight dispatcher so I don't remember right now the exact trick but here is the principle.

[Michael Moe 493]

8 minutes ago, calzonister said:

 

 

Michael,

Did you get your -400ER PFPX profile from 

airlinerperformance.net/installation/ ? 

If so, it is coded incorrectly. On the longer routes it will always exceed the maximum fuel capacity of the aircraft.

Best thing you can do is use the default -400ER PFPX profile (IIRC believe it ships with one). Or take the -400 and increase the MTOW/MLW/MAX fuel capacity to match the -400ER numbers.

Qantas operate this sector under EDTO 180 (CASA's ETOPS 180 equivalent). 

TRIP fuel for this sector will be ~145t eastbound and ~154t westbound (averages), depending on the day. Fuel at destination 10-12t. 

More on Qantas B744 EDTO ops (see Rudy's ( VH-OJT) posts)
 

Ive done this sector a dozen times. Enjoy!
 

This is the performance table inside PFPX

[downscc 1,327]

Michael, that is only part of the aircraft performance.  More importantly are the climb and cruise performance tables that provided fuel burn per weight, altitude and temperature deviation.  The tables that shipped with PFPX are somewhat adequate for the -400 but do not include the -400ER that QFA often flies on this route.  Better tables are available from the PFPX forum in their Download section.

You really should look at the redispatch feature in PFPX.  This route almost requires redispatch planning.  First try the automatic redispatch selection (just push the button) and then modify to suit your taste.  I usually accept the fix but change the airport, which in this case will be either PHTO or PHNL depending on my mood.

[skelsey 765]

2 hours ago, TopGun33 said:

ETOPS does cover more than twin engines since 2016. Its name now means ExTended OPerationS

The new FAA regulations states "All passenger-carrying airplanes with more than two engines and more than  180 minutes flying time from an adequate  airport (at a one-engine-inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air)."

Basically it does not change much in real world, but it is wrong to assume quadjets are exempted from ETOPS regulations.

Yes indeed, which is why I was careful to say "for practical purposes" . The big difference, as you will know, is that unlike a twin where ETOPS becomes a factor when you go beyond 60 minutes from an adequate airport, ETOPS for a quad only starts to come in to play beyond 180 minutes (as the FAA regulation says). This is quite unlike, say, an ETOPS 180 certified twin where ETOPS comes in to play beyond 60 minutes and the maximum distance you can go from a diversion airfield is 180 minutes: in a quad you don't even enter the ETOPS portion of the flight until you go beyond 180 minutes, and then in practical terms the only things that limit how much further you can go are, as I said, cargo fire suppression, passenger oxygen availability (for certain routes) and fuel requirements for the decompression scenario. This is, indeed, one of the last remaining benefits of quads (particularly in the part of the world where Qantas operate): you can operate sectors well beyond ETOPS 180 if required (although with longer and longer ETOPS certifications on the way -- are we up to 330 minutes yet? -- that is starting to diminish).

That is not to say, as I mentioned in that other thread I think, that good enroute diversion planning is not a requirement for these sort of sectors over remote areas: it most certainly is necessary. However, a very large number, if not the vast majority, of quad sectors will never enter an actual ETOPS (as applicable to quads) segment.

[downscc 1,327]

6 minutes ago, skelsey said:

good enroute diversion planning is not a requirement for these sort of sectors over remote areas: it most certainly is necessary. 

Thus I have wondered what their planning for the YSSY-FAOR route might be.  There's absolutely nothing in the So Indian Ocean.

[77west 139]

11 minutes ago, skelsey said:

Yes indeed, which is why I was careful to say "for practical purposes" . The big difference, as you will know, is that unlike a twin where ETOPS becomes a factor when you go beyond 60 minutes from an adequate airport, ETOPS for a quad only starts to come in to play beyond 180 minutes (as the FAA regulation says). This is quite unlike, say, an ETOPS 180 certified twin where ETOPS comes in to play beyond 60 minutes and the maximum distance you can go from a diversion airfield is 180 minutes: in a quad you don't even enter the ETOPS portion of the flight until you go beyond 180 minutes, and then in practical terms the only things that limit how much further you can go are, as I said, cargo fire suppression, passenger oxygen availability (for certain routes) and fuel requirements for the decompression scenario. This is, indeed, one of the last remaining benefits of quads (particularly in the part of the world where Qantas operate): you can operate sectors well beyond ETOPS 180 if required (although with longer and longer ETOPS certifications on the way -- are we up to 330 minutes yet? -- that is starting to diminish).

That is not to say, as I mentioned in that other thread I think, that good enroute diversion planning is not a requirement for these sort of sectors over remote areas: it most certainly is necessary. However, a very large number, if not the vast majority, of quad sectors will never enter an actual ETOPS (as applicable to quads) segment.

Air NZ operate the 777 and 787 on some ETOPS-300 routes to south america. I believe you can get the 777, 787 and A350 certified up to 330 but no one sees a need for it yet. (As far as I know)

[Mike777 163]

6 minutes ago, downscc said:

Thus I have wondered what their planning for the YSSY-FAOR route might be.  There's absolutely nothing in the So Indian Ocean.

Not to detour this thread, but I flew this route w the QOT II and was wondering the same thing.  What happens if there is a decompression in mid-route?  Or even an engine failure? 

Mike