Nav Data

[Ton van Bochove]

I installed the Aerowinx Navdata update (cycle 0319). I planned a route today in PFPX (cycle 1219) but every airway I enter in the FMC it says "not in the database" although the single waypoint does not give any problems. There is a six month discrepancy between both databases but I cannot imagine that ALL the airways have been altered. The airways that are not available are e.g M624, UM624, UL608, UL179, L179

[andrej]

Ton,

the best way, and that way I do it, is to export PFPX route to PSX format (to Aerowinx Route folder). Then you uplink the route from your Route folder.

That way you will have the same routing as planned in your FMC.

Cheers,

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Also (this is not new info, but always useful to repeat):

PSX reads route files without matching them to the database. This means that if you have an up to date PFPX but an older nav database in PSX, it does not matter, as PFPX will produce a route file that PSX will pick up with all "new" data right in it. Only if you would want to modify the route using your FMC database, you would notice.

Pilots nowadays rarely key in whole routes. Either their FMC has it in its database as a company route, or their dispatch office shoots them a route through ACARS. CPDLC also has provisions to upload routes and partial routes, so ATC can send you their clearance in executable format.

Hoppie

[Ton van Bochove]

Ton,

the best way, and that way I do it, is to export PFPX route to PSX format (to Aerowinx Route folder). Then you uplink the route from your Route folder.

That way you will have the same routing as planned in your FMC.

Cheers,

Thanks Andrej! I tried that way but one way or the other my path is not right so I cannot connect to PSX routes folder :-( One of the 50 things to sort out ;-)

[Ton van Bochove]

Also (this is not new info, but always useful to repeat):

PSX reads route files without matching them to the database. This means that if you have an up to date PFPX but an older nav database in PSX, it does not matter, as PFPX will produce a route file that PSX will pick up with all "new" data right in it. Only if you would want to modify the route using your FMC database, you would notice.

Pilots nowadays rarely key in whole routes. Either their FMC has it in its database as a company route, or their dispatch office shoots them a route through ACARS. CPDLC also has provisions to upload routes and partial routes, so ATC can send you their clearance in executable format.

Hoppie

Thanks Jeroen ....still having a PS1.3 midset with charts, airways and entering the waypoints and airways ...but one day I will manage :-)

[Will]

Ton, I use PFPX on a Windows overlay on my Mac, which runs PFX. So you can imagine some pathway challenges with route files! But it's actually pretty simple. As long as you can get the PFPX route file to your desktop, all you need to do is drag-and-drop it into your PFX Routes folder and it should work fine.


As for the PS1.3 mindset, just think of doing your flight planning (and dispatching) in PFPX. Let PFPX be your dispatch office, and PSX be your airplane, and all should be fine. As the others have said, ANY route you can build in PFPX can be uploaded to the FMC, displayed on the ND, and flown in PFX. (And if you built your PFPX route from paper charts, your PFX ND will be true to those paper charts.) Like I said, if you can build it in PFPX, you can fly it in PSX. It's a powerful combination.

[Hardy Heinlin]

Ton, as Will wrote, it's just drag-and-drop; the "PSX export" function in PFPX is actually just a direct "copy" function; it won't change any file. In your Aerowinx/Routes/ (installed from the DVD) there is already a sample mix of route files consisting of some Aerowinx route files and some pure PFPX route files. PSX can read both formats.

When you look at the Instructor > Situation > Human > Dispatcher page, there is a route file list in the middle of the page. Some info is displayed on the left side for the currently selected route on the list. The info includes the file format ("Aerowinx" or "PFPX").


|-|ardy

[Ton van Bochove]

Will and Hardy, thanks for your answers, everything is sorted out now. I found the right path and I can export the routes now!

[emerydc8]

Pilots nowadays rarely key in whole routes. Either their FMC has it in its database as a company route, or their dispatch office shoots them a route through ACARS.

I always manually enter the route. Maybe I'm old-school, but there's not much to be learnt by inserting a recall number into the CDU. When they change your track on you at the last minute, you'll want to be familiar enough with the RTE page that you can do what needs to be done, including keying in coordinates using the ARINC format. That's the great part about using PSX.

Jon

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

I don't disagree with you. Many airlines though prefer to have less possibility for error during routine ops and thus ask their pilots to always load from computer memory, just as they ask them to always fly autopilot coupled. We know the pros and cons. Statistics are in favor of less human, more machine. Until it happens, but that is also a statistic.


Hoppie

[emerydc8]

Statistics are in favor of less human, more machine. Until it happens, but that is also a statistic.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I have a captain IOE student who came from the -400. I made him hand-fly from 10,000 on an approach a few nights ago. It was ugly. He said it was the first time he had ever manually intercepted the final approach in a jet airplane. That's dangerous.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

We do NOT disagree on the bad effects of no handflying! Absolutely not!

However, stupid numbers show that if you have 1000 pilots of which 300 are marginal, the overall operation is safer when you have them all use automatics. Of course, there will be an incident or worse when a marginal pilot happens to not be able to use the automatics. But if the marginal pilots all flew hand, you would have 5 incidents.

Solution? Don't have marginal pilots on the line, of course. But... money...


Hoppie

[emerydc8]

The statistics also show that pilots are plugging themselves into the ground all over the planet and have become marginal because of too much automation reliance.  It just gets worse with each new generation of button-pushers who are content to sit back and let the automation do its thing, leg after leg. The solution is not more automation.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

We still agree!

If the goal is cheaper pilots, and the acceptable accident rate is X, then you can get to your goal without exceeding X by increasing automation. That has been proven. However the cost in lives etc. isn't factored into the money equation properly. It's statistics, and stats are very good at being misused.

Hoppie

[emerydc8]

That has been proven.

Proven by statistics that are very good at being misused?

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

That has been proven.

Proven by statistics that are very good at being misused?

No. It is the wrong hypothesis. The hypothesis should be that it is better to use more automation, which has not been proven. But instead the hypothesis is that it is cheaper to use more automation, which has been proven, as cost is always expressed only in money.

Note that I walk the slippery slope of nuance here. I don't support that it is better to use more automation, but this is how science works. You state something (the more outrageous, the better) and then you do whatever you can to prove it is NOT the case.

We do agree: pilots that cannot handfly are no good.

The statement that I make is that for the industry at large, it seems to be a balance between cheap no-good pilots and news headlines, that is slightly in favor of more no-good pilots as long as you have automation to cover it up.

Hoppie

[emerydc8]

I agree with you on that.