Sign in to follow this  
fulfern

No traffic at EDDF ?

Recommended Posts

Hi all.I've noticed that (at least on my PC) there is no AI traffic at EDDF - Frankfurt, with any AI% setting.The same occurs both for standard FSX traffic and for my custom traffic files.BTW, the airport looks perfectly, with all ground traffic moving.I've dumped the installed airport list with the traffic toolbox, and it shows EDDF with all its parkings, runways, etc.Anyone else noticed that?Any reply appreciatedThanks in advance Fulvio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

HI FULVIO. I have noticed this too. It was completely by accident as well. I have been converting my AI traffic with the superb models that are available on this site. I was checking for a Lufthansa model through the TTools flight plan and the first one happened to be at EDDF. I fired up FSX and the Traffic Tool Search facility and to no avail there was no AI traffic at all.I checked the co ordinates in TTools to see if they matched in FSX and they did. The flight plans revealed no errors. I tried to see if I could follow an aircraft from a nearby airport that was destined to arrive at EDDF but wherever you went no matter what time of day Frankfurt was only active with baggage handlers and fuel trucks. I tried a flight from my home area EGNX to EDDF and the ATC works fine. I suppose it means checking the BGL file that contains EDDF airport info. I keep reading little portions now and then but by the time I've got the hang of it FSXI will be out. No doubt someone will find it there are a lot of talented people out in the flight sim world. Till then try EDDL thats a nice airport and there is traffic there.Happy landingsFINCHY:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that you can't mix FS9 and FSX traffic files at the same airport. Here is what I see at EDDF at 11:00 Zulu:eddfuh2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi all.>I've noticed that (at least on my PC) there is no AI traffic>at EDDF - Frankfurt, with any AI% setting.>The same occurs both for standard FSX traffic and for my>custom traffic files.>BTW, the airport looks perfectly, with all ground traffic>moving.>I've dumped the installed airport list with the traffic>toolbox, and it shows EDDF with all its parkings, runways,>etc.>>Anyone else noticed that?>Any reply appreciated>Thanks in advance >FulvioHummm...this is interesting...but I must say, after trying to"deal" with TDDB for awhile, I'm not surprised.I just did a comparison of FS9 vs FSX, same time of day ( 12:15 UTC )starting at EDDF. In FSX I the traffic toolbox explorer shows 19 AI aircraft inthe environment from about 4 or 5 traffic files.In FS9, I see 142 aircraft listed from 5 traffic files.I do have most all of my FS9 traffic files imported into FSX,using a utility which converts the FS9 files to FSX format( so they co-exist with the default FSX file(s) ) and does theday-of-the-week correction plus the new-vs-old airport codeadjustments.I would expect my FSX traffic to be comperable to my FS9 traffic,and at KSFO it appears to be ( 300+ aircraft ) but not so forEDDF. Something is seriously PORKED with the way FSX traffic isbeing generated, or rather NOT geberated.I noticed a similar type of behavior with EPWA when I was initiallyATTEMPTING to satisfy TDBB by converting my FS9 traffic filesusing the SDK data. What a freakin' headache THAT was. In any case,TDBB was continuing to generate error messages stating that it"could not find parking" at EPWA, even though I kept increasing parking spaces of the required sizes until, at 110+ parking places,I gave up. Each time I started FSX at EPWA I was greeted with 100+ empty parking places and a handfull of aircraft there.I found TDBB to be overly restrictive and seemingly not complyingto the SDK data. After abandoning TDBB for the utility I mentionedabove, my skies and airports became filled with AI aircraft. Taking the case of EDDF here, it would appear that there are problemswith AI in FSX beyond those that can be attributed to TDBB!Incidentally, the traffic files and AI aircraft that I importedinto FSX are a mixture of MRAI, AI Ardvark, PAI and custom trafficfiles. I have 215 AI aircraft folders in my FSX installation andmany of those have multiple liveries. Paul EDIT: in reply to the poster just before me, you CAN mix FS9 and FSX traffic IF the traffic BGL's from FS9 have been properly converted to the FSX format. I have done this with my traffic files and have done some tests to insure that both FSX traffic and FS9 traffic are present at the same time, in the same area See my attachment of EDDF traffic. Paul 169370.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By comparison to the FSX traffic above, here is just a portionof the FS9 traffic listed in and around EDDF in FS9 using many ofthe very same traffic BGL's that I converted and used in FSX!The whole list is too long to show in a single screenshot... PaulNOTE: My default traffic in both FS9 and FSX use real world liveries in lieu of the "Soar", "World" etc ficticious airlines. I just edited the aircraft.cfg files to replace the default textures with real world textures and atc_airline= entries. The default traffic wasn't modified. Also I notice that I do have some duplicated traffic, most likely due to testing, but even taking the duplications into account, there is FAR more traffic in FS9 thatn in FSX.169371.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>> in reply to the poster just before me, you CAN mix FS9 and FSX>> traffic IF the traffic BGL's from FS9 have been properly >>converted to the FSX formatThen they are not FS9 traffic files :-violin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>> in reply to the poster just before me, you CAN mix FS9 and>FSX>>> traffic IF the traffic BGL's from FS9 have been properly >>>converted to the FSX format>>Then they are not FS9 traffic files :-violin >> They certainly WERE prior to running them through the conversion utility. It was a simple matter of identifying the input BGL and were the output BGL ws to be placed. In essence, they are FS9 BGL's which have had the day-of-the-week problem induced by FSX "adjusted" and some changes to the format to conform to the FSX format. The point is, nitpicking aside, one does not have to suffer through attempting to satisfy TDBB to get their FS9 AI traffic flying in FSX. It's a simple matter of bringing the AI aircraft folders into the "SimObjects" folder ( I created a new "AI Traffic" folder to hold them, as well as an "Aircraft" folder to hold my FS9 imported aircraft ). Then, simply running the existing FS9 traffic BGL's through the utility and moving them into the Sceneryworldscenery folder. Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found that TDB created traffic .BGL files and TTools created traffic .BGL files will not display aircraft on the same airport. Vehicle traffic will not display on airports where TTools aircraft are located.If there are a certain number aircraft from TTools files active in the area, then the TDB created aircraft do not display.When you say you were adding parking to EPWA, I hope you were adding entries to the airport information in the .DAT file, and not adding parking spots with AFCAD or XML.Yes, TDB is restrictive, because that is how the flight plans will be flown once FS is active.TTools is designed to cheat and ignores the way the aircraft will be flown in FS. Which is why TTools has so many problems.I've tried the conversion utility you mentioned, not terribly happy with it. But it does appear to have resolved the issues between TTools and TDB created traffic files creating aircraft at the same airport.There are now a couple decompilers for TDB created traffic files available and I expect to see a compiler which can create TDB files without the parking data and the aircraft performance standards soon.FSX used a value called a traffic scalar in it's airport data files. So far we know this value will keep default traffic levels at 70% of airport parking capacity when flight plans are generated with TDB.We do not know if this value is also cutting down the volume of active airport AI traffic, but there is something definitely having such an impact.And no, I have no problems with AI traffic at EDDF, with either TDB or TTools created .BGL files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I have found that TDB created traffic .BGL files and TTools>created traffic .BGL files will not display aircraft on the>same airport. Vehicle traffic will not display on airports>where TTools aircraft are located.> If the TTools created files are run through the conversion utilitythey co-exist just fine with the FSX files. If you look at the listing I posted above, the trafic generated fromthe "trafficaircraft" file are the FSX default aircraft.Traffic generated from the "other files listed are FS9 BGL's run through the conversion utility.>If there are a certain number aircraft from TTools files>active in the area, then the TDB created aircraft do not>display.>True, if the FS9 files have not been converted ( adjusted ) to bein the FSX format. They need not be de-compiled and sujected tothe TDBB and recompiled.>When you say you were adding parking to EPWA, I hope you were>adding entries to the airport information in the .DAT file,>and not adding parking spots with AFCAD or XML.>I added parking using the appropriate tools and created a newairport.dat file using the dump airports feature of traffic tools.The airport parking was created using AFCAD, then decompiled to XMLand recompiled using BGLCOMPX. The resultant BGL is fully FSX compliant.>Yes, TDB is restrictive, because that is how the flight plans>will be flown once FS is active.>I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "that is how the flight plans will be flown once FS is active".TDBB is flawed...seriously flawed, IMO. Not just the unnecessarilyrestrictive of it.>TTools is designed to cheat and ignores the way the aircraft>will be flown in FS. Which is why TTools has so many>problems.>I do not believe TTools was not purposely designed to cheat. I believe it was created before M$ released a SDK and thus itbecame a defacto standard in the absence of any "official" standard. And the only "problems" that I've encountered withTTools have been related to the new FSX "wheel"...>I've tried the conversion utility you mentioned, not terribly>happy with it. But it does appear to have resolved the issues>between TTools and TDB created traffic files creating aircraft>at the same airport.>What do you find lacking with it? The user interface is straight forward. You specify the input BGL's to be converted and click "Go". The output BGL's, a few seconds later, can be moveddirectly into FSX. The day of the week gets adjusted and the formatis FSX compliant as faras co-existing with FSX default traffic files.What more could one ask of a tool whose purpose is to providea simple, fast, effective means of using AI resources that alreadyexist without having to re-invent the wheel, which seems to havebeen a major part of the Aces effort...>There are now a couple decompilers for TDB created traffic>files available and I expect to see a compiler which can>create TDB files without the parking data and the aircraft>performance standards soon.>>FSX used a value called a traffic scalar in it's airport data>files. So far we know this value will keep default traffic>levels at 70% of airport parking capacity when flight plans>are generated with TDB.>My experience with TDBB created files seems to show the trafficscalar operating at more like 7.0% ... The case of EDDF shown above should be a good example, showing that there is definately something VERY wrond with the way FSX generates AI traffic. When the samefiles that generated 140+ aircraft in FS9 only manage to generate22 aircraft in FSX, then I submit there is a problem.-SNIP->And no, I have no problems with AI traffic at EDDF, with either TDB >or TTools created .BGL files.When you say you have "no problems with AI traffic at EDDF" are you saying your EDDF is operating at something approaching 70% capacity? PaulEDIT: I had forgotten that I had traffic set at 12% or so and when I ran the FS9 files through the conversion process I had it randomize the traffic percentage settings. I just craked my FSX traffic setting back to 100% and now I am seeing "normal" amounts of traffic...200+ aircraft in the Explorer listing while sitting at EDDF at 12:15 UTC. A good 3/4 of that traffic is from my converted files, so the default FSX traffic file is contributing somewhere around 40-50 flights in the area. My previous TDBB files for EPWA, etc, were using a 1% traffic density setting, so I should have been seeing all my traffic during that exercise but did not, so I still feel there are problems with TDBB/FSX AI generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traffic Tools was created after we knew the parameters for creating traffic files for FS2002.Traffic Tools was specifically created to allow:1. sending aircraft to airports with the wrong surface runway2. or too short a runway3. to send aircraft on routes longer than their range4. to send aircraft to airports without a capacity to park the aircraft5. to send aircraft on routes which the terrain is too high for the aircraft altitude ceiling to cross safely6. to allow the traffic cell grid to be forced with timing information not supported by the aircraft7. to allow AI aircraft to be turned at an airport with a less than minimum ground timeLee knew the standards. We all knew the standards. What we did not have is an easy way to build traffic files. There was also a very big issue in FS2002 - only one traffic file allowed.So over time the TDB source files were growing and growing and growing in size. Also because we did not understand how to make TDB think we had the same airport setups, we had issues with a flight plan which would compile on my system, but not on yours.So Lee stripped out as much of the validation and error checking which TDB does. That error checking is not written into the FS2002 traffic files. He wrote a program to create traffic files without checking for errors.Have you even run a TrafficTools flight plan through AITM's error checker? That program was written to allow many of the TDB checks to be made on a TTools flight plan and advise you to make corrections.Yes, TDB is restrictive. It expects flight planners to know the range of their aircraft, the ceiling of the aircraft and to choose airports for destinations where the runways and parking can support the aircraft.Quite frankly the 'ART' of creating flight plans has degenerated in my opinion over the past couple year. Today it seems like flight plan writers think something on a schedule is infalliable. People no longer seem to try and understand how the airline is operating, it's just a number crunching game to them. And you end up with things like ATR's on 3,000 nm legs and duplicate flights where cabotage prevents intra-country legs from appearing on schedules.When you run a TTools created file through the conversion utility - it is not longer a TTools created traffic file. It is a 'cloned' TDB traffic file. That is why the aircraft appear and co-exist.Unrandomized percentage flight plans have always had performance quirks in FS2002, 2004 and FSX, but I believe the issues with disappearing aircraft you are seeing are the more result of the conversion program you use. That was one thing I saw - the converted traffic files had fewer aircraft at the same airports as the unconverted files.I understand your frustration with principle of conversion of flight plans, however, Aces made many changes in the AI operation in FS2004 and in FSX. Yet people are still insisting that the AI has to be fully compatible with FS2002. Yes, Traffic Tools is a FS2002 utility.It was patched to be barely workable in FS2004, but Lee was very public in his decision to not work to update the program more than the bare minimum to get it functional. He was also very public in two other things, that further development was the responsibility of the community - which is only now happening, and that he was not going to seek to resolve the issues he already saw with TTools created flight plans in FS2004 - which he did not do.A couple tips about generating TDB traffic files.Just like Traffic Tools, Microsoft's Traffic Database Builder is almost totally about the source file format and content.You do not need to rebuild an airport and run another dump to add parking. Just edit your airports file to add the parking spots.The only 'active' reference to FS which TDB apparently does when generating a traffic file is to check the grid system to see if the MSA is sufficient for the aircraft to fly over the route.One great thing about the FSX version of TDB is that a lot of errors which would stop the FS2002 and FS2004 versions from creating a traffic file are only reported as errors in TDB. They are not stop functions which prevent the traffic file from compiling.The normal reason a flight plan will not compile under TDB with a parking problem in FSX is not the number of spaces but the TYPE of spaces. if you have no cargo spots on the airport, and your aircraft is a cargo aircraft - TDB will not compile. But if you have one spot and you will have three aircraft, TDB will normally compile the file, but just give you an warning message.That's one reason that I make sure every parking spot on my airports for TDB flight plans has at least one of every parking spot - at least in the .DAT file.We are seeing GATE aircraft not going into large enough MIL_CARGO spots and RAMP aircraft not going into GATE spots. This is especially true if the AI aircraft radius is small and the spot is large.I'm seeing EDDF with every parking spot full when I have TTools traffic files active. With the default TDB traffic files, and my TDB created traffic files, I see EDDF over 70% full.If you want to see what FSX can do, buy MyTraffic for FSX. Burkhard uses TDB to generate his traffic files, and has an amazingly few of the problems people have with TTools created traffic - in FS2004 or FSX.One thing which ACES has refused to do, which is essential in my opinion, is to provide decompilers for files.We know that repeated decompile and recompile produces rounding errors. That is why AFCAD runways and taxiways and parking spots move over time as the file is continually decompiled and recompiled.However, we need the ability to be able to see how they are actually constructed, and understand how we need to write source files to create modifications and new files.However, this might not be an ACES decision, but is probably much higher in the MS organizational concept of operation. Where decompile of company files is not allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing - I am finding that a few specific AI aircraft do not appear on the ground in FSX. They will be generated in the air, but upon landing fall through the runway.I think it is a contact points issue, or something similar in the .AIR and aircraft.cfg files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We still have not got over the hurdle of @ (AT) vs no @ (AT).Lee was kind enough in FS2002 to back time the AI arrival into the Visual Active AI Zone Grids by 15 minutes for a more controlled gate arrival time.FS2004 comes along and occupied the @ space with TNG but also took Lee's idea and back timed a hard 15 minutes into the AI Zone FP. That causes FP's with @ to have a double @ (AT) process so, MRAI convinced everyone they had to set aircraft.txt speeds to IAS instead of TAS if they wanted to see the right amount of AI Aircraft at any given ariport. For Reggie and I that was just another clue out of many that FS2002 FP's were not compatible with FS9 using TTools. Lee at a later date posted several warnings pertaining to @ issues when used in FS9 but many popular FP developers did not or to this day heed the warnings.What we were never told was FS9 also hard coded the scaler factor in the TDBB and we never saw a decompiled XML value embedded for the airport records.Now, many are beening told to export (move) FS9 TTool FP's forward again (with no published warnings) to FSX and the Timing becomes more corrupt when processed by the various engines used.It is a true marvel that anything (AI Planes) show up when using converting utilities (same as cloning to FSX) for FS9 FP's into FSX. Factor in that most FP's available have @ with IAS compiled and some FS9 FP's have no @ with TAS's things start to come unclued. Now add another fact that IAS is used when @ is present and the fact that most set the IAS to a fixed value of 200 IAS regardless of type AI Jet Plane and more inconsistancies start showing up in FSX. The first problem is in the FS9 GA FP's where the FSX AI Traffic reload every so often for no apparent reason when the simulator is running. Like Reggie says, Lee gave us TTools for FS2002 with no error checks but also made public the source code (unlike AFCAD) so any one willing could go forward with a TTDB utility decompiler/compiler that uses error checking schemes.How many more times is the SDK's going to tell us that backward compatibility is not going to continue to work in future versions of FS. Furture version are now here and many designers are leaving the FSX arena becasue to get to FSX from FS2002 you had to go through the understanding of FS9.Using FS2002 TTool FP's that were NEVER FS9 total compliant and then copy, convert (same as clone) up to FSX is compounding future problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gypsy Baron, it is all very well saying how clever you were to convert FS9 format traffic files to FSX format, but it doesn't help those poor guys who are having problems seeing their own AI.The simplest solution for them is to rename/remove the default TrafficAircraft.bgl then they will see their TTools compiled aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the replies.Really, what I meant in my first post was that:------------------even by using only one type of flight plan at a time (either the old FS9 ttools or the the new FSX TDBuilder, but not both) I cannot see any aircraft at EDDF.------------------And if I use the original FSX "TrafficAircraft.bgl" file as the only traffic file in FSX, I can see traffic on the other airports, but not in EDDF.Maybe I have some sort of problem on this specific airports, but I cannot figure what, as I've already tried a GHOST backup copy of the original installation, and EDDF is still desert. ???Thanks in advance for any tipsFulvio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fulvio,Here are the flights to/from EDDF in the default FSX trafficAircraft.bgl:AC#48,D-AMZS,70%,4h,IFR,00:30:04,01:54:55,340,F,5130,ENZV,02:30:04,03:54:55,330,F,5131,EDDFAC#2,D-AZDE,100%,4h,IFR,01:12:43,02:09:49,300,F,7288,EDDF,03:12:43,04:09:49,310,F,7287,LOWWAC#3,D-AMQG,26%,8h,IFR,00:59:51,03:28:23,260,F,3981,EDDF,04:59:51,07:28:23,270,F,3980,HLLTAC#46,D-ABLB,90%,6h,IFR,08:12:25,10:28:29,340,F,2414,LEGR,11:12:25,13:28:29,330,F,2415,EDDFAC#4,D-AFHG,97%,4h,IFR,00:05:00,01:27:57,320,F,7452,ENZV,02:05:00,03:27:57,310,F,7453,EDDFAC#1,D-AGDM,95%,12h,IFR,17:50:17,21:06:05,280,F,4810,EDDF,23:50:17,03:06:05,290,F,4809,URMMAC#6,D-AGQX,71%,4h,IFR,01:08:41,02:37:27,250,F,6549,EDDF,03:08:41,04:37:27,260,F,6548,EIDWAC#98,D-AJPP,7%,8h,IFR,02:38:16,03:41:55,310,F,5323,EDDF,06:38:16,07:41:55,320,F,5322,EGGWAC#39,D-APTC,27%,12h,IFR,14:19:36,18:59:28,340,F,8957,EDDF,20:19:36,00:59:28,350,F,8956,OEJNAC#26,D-AHGL,60%,8h,IFR,01:01:30,02:39:30,290,F,4721,ESSA,05:01:30,06:39:30,280,F,4722,EDDFAC#26,D-APVE,75%,8h,IFR,00:46:28,03:15:00,290,F,2084,HLLT,04:46:28,07:15:00,280,F,2085,EDDFAC#99,D-AUNG,62%,6h,IFR,08:27:11,09:56:11,250,F,2234,EDDF,11:27:11,12:56:11,260,F,2233,ENZVAC#5,D-AJDK,43%,12h,IFR,12:50:25,17:44:42,270,F,9595,UTAA,18:50:25,23:44:42,260,F,9596,EDDFAC#36,D-AUGR,35%,4h,IFR,01:59:03,02:56:09,320,F,2955,EDDF,03:59:03,04:56:09,330,F,2954,LOWWAC#102,D-AQGH,70%,4h,IFR,01:30:48,02:31:39,280,F,1160,EDDF,03:30:48,04:31:39,290,F,1159,LOWWAC#31,D-AMGP,51%,24h,IFR,07:10:30,09:39:02,240,F,9507,EDDF,19:10:30,21:39:02,250,F,9506,HLLTAC#37,D-ANWZ,55%,8h,IFR,01:00:46,02:23:43,300,F,8660,ENZV,05:00:46,06:23:43,290,F,8661,EDDFAC#8,D-AGVK,38%,8h,IFR,01:53:45,02:50:51,310,F,5935,LOWW,05:53:45,06:50:51,300,F,5936,EDDFAC#35,D-ATTA,49%,12h,IFR,17:44:40,22:38:57,240,F,8958,EDDF,23:44:40,04:38:57,250,F,8957,UTAAAC#32,D-AFER,78%,6h,IFR,07:19:18,08:57:18,280,F,5370,EDDF,10:19:18,11:57:18,290,F,5369,ESSAAC#27,D-AHBW,43%,4h,IFR,00:07:07,01:04:13,320,F,9315,EDDF,02:07:07,03:04:13,330,F,9314,LOWWAC#34,D-ASPK,44%,24h,IFR,07:59:24,09:39:01,290,F,1301,EDDF,19:59:24,21:39:01,300,F,1300,EINNAC#97,D-AYME,95%,8h,IFR,00:10:47,01:32:05,340,F,6133,LFBO,04:10:47,05:32:05,330,F,6134,EDDFAC#43,D-AUDU,79%,12h,IFR,14:30:04,19:33:20,280,F,3329,EDDF,20:30:04,01:33:20,290,F,3328,OEJNAC#101,D-AXNQ,72%,12h,IFR,12:14:41,16:29:05,310,F,5532,EDDF,18:14:41,22:29:05,320,F,5531,GCTSAC#47,D-AWWR,97%,4h,IFR,00:42:17,01:40:33,330,F,3081,LOWW,02:42:17,03:40:33,320,F,3082,EDDFAC#50,D-AXBS,81%,2h,IFR,02:25:28,02:53:37,290,F,4707,EDDF,03:25:28,03:53:37,300,F,4706,EDDLAC#42,D-ASNW,56%,24h,IFR,11:11:06,21:23:43,310,F,5101,EDDF,23:11:06,09:23:43,320,F,5100,KLAXAC#7,D-AFQT,82%,8h,IFR,02:09:40,03:09:20,340,F,4912,EGGW,06:09:40,07:09:20,330,F,4913,EDDFAC#49,D-ANVC,53%,8h,IFR,03:44:54,06:25:02,300,F,4376,EDDF,07:44:54,10:25:02,310,F,4375,EFROAC#28,D-ATZR,25%,8h,IFR,03:05:55,06:00:07,310,F,1770,URKK,07:05:55,10:00:07,300,F,1771,EDDFAC#30,D-AJCN,91%,12h,IFR,14:20:04,18:14:53,300,F,9176,GCTS,20:20:04,00:14:53,290,F,9177,EDDFAC#38,D-AAUV,57%,8h,IFR,03:43:35,06:04:42,280,F,7021,EDDF,07:43:35,10:04:42,290,F,7020,HLLTAC#100,D-ASTL,1%,4h,IFR,01:36:36,02:37:27,280,F,3097,EDDF,03:36:36,04:37:27,290,F,3096,LOWWAC#44,D-ARHC,98%,6h,IFR,07:55:41,09:48:02,290,F,0007,UMMS,10:55:41,12:48:02,280,F,0008,EDDFAC#29,D-ADKL,3%,4h,IFR,01:33:49,02:33:29,260,F,2004,EGGW,03:33:49,04:33:29,250,F,2005,EDDFAC#88,D-AECP,91%,12h,IFR,15:16:52,18:37:44,330,F,1747,URMM,21:16:52,00:37:44,320,F,1748,EDDFAC#45,D-ASCN,79%,8h,IFR,01:49:01,04:37:00,300,F,4919,EDDF,05:49:01,08:37:00,310,F,4918,LTBSAC#33,D-AZRA,98%,4h,IFR,01:09:31,02:09:11,330,F,2947,EDDF,03:09:31,04:09:11,340,F,2946,EGGWAC#48,D-ATNF,89%,6h,IFR,07:04:51,08:35:41,300,F,3106,EIDW,10:04:51,11:35:41,290,F,3107,EDDFAC#2,D-AXPL,100%,4h,IFR,00:57:49,01:54:55,330,F,5008,LOWW,02:57:49,03:54:55,320,F,5009,EDDF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this