IFPS/CFMU descend - what is wrong with these people ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFPS/CFMU descend - what is wrong with these people ?
I have just recently filed a FPL - or rather tried to file it - with our C680 (Citation Sovereign)
LFLY to EDFM
The german DFS flight plan office told me, that I could not file this way and they would try to give me another route. After about 2 hrs they got back to me, saying they now filed the original route, after having tried to file the exact same plan with a C650 type instead of the C680. That went through, so they called the dudes in Brussels up and they then accepted my original plan. I naturally asked was the issue was and the DFS flight planners told me, that IFPS/CFMU has descend profiles for each type and that the C650 type profile was more accomodating and thus the flight plan could be filed with that type.
Now, I have flown the C650 and still fly the C680 - if there is a jet that can descend at almost insane rates, then that jet is the 680 whilst the 650 gives you a headache in this department, especially when flying the VI and VII variant with a lower Vne, you regularly would have to use speedbrakes when anti ice is on to get 1000 to 1500 fpm. The 680 we can descent with A/I on at 2500 to 3000fpm without speedbrakes and and if no A/I is used we can descend at 4000fpm easily.
So, to cut the long story short, we get more restricted on a type that performs way better (BTW: it also really climbs, even hot and high, compared to the tired old 650s). What is wrong with Eurocontrol, have they ANY clue on aircraft types and performances ? AND why one gest a cryptic reply, instead of: YOUR aircraft cant descend good enough, thus buy another one. If the DFS flight plan office (who - according to them - tried with all hands for more than half an hour to find a "fileable" route at a halfway decent flight level - canīt really find out, how are we pilots/flight planners supposed to ?
This defies also the idea of a route catalog.
LFLY to EDFM
-N0456F280 MABES UJ32 MOREG UL47 ARBOS/N0459F310 UL47 IXILU UN853 GIVOR UL47 GTQ G21 MAKOT/N0260F090 Z818 MANEM Q762 BADLI DCT
Now, I have flown the C650 and still fly the C680 - if there is a jet that can descend at almost insane rates, then that jet is the 680 whilst the 650 gives you a headache in this department, especially when flying the VI and VII variant with a lower Vne, you regularly would have to use speedbrakes when anti ice is on to get 1000 to 1500 fpm. The 680 we can descent with A/I on at 2500 to 3000fpm without speedbrakes and and if no A/I is used we can descend at 4000fpm easily.
So, to cut the long story short, we get more restricted on a type that performs way better (BTW: it also really climbs, even hot and high, compared to the tired old 650s). What is wrong with Eurocontrol, have they ANY clue on aircraft types and performances ? AND why one gest a cryptic reply, instead of: YOUR aircraft cant descend good enough, thus buy another one. If the DFS flight plan office (who - according to them - tried with all hands for more than half an hour to find a "fileable" route at a halfway decent flight level - canīt really find out, how are we pilots/flight planners supposed to ?
This defies also the idea of a route catalog.
Last edited by His dudeness; 17th Sep 2019 at 08:00. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: In the middle
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His dudeness,
just out of curiosity, what kind of rejection (not accepted FPL) message did you get from IFPS system?
Simply checking the FPL in the publicly available "FPL tester" on Eurocontrol's NOP portal gives no errors (picture below - all data except TYPE, DEP/DEST and ROUTE are made up just to pass the FPL).
IFPS is complex and generally working quite ok (it takes into account huge amount of data, tens of thousands of flights, regulations, restricitons, military zones... etc. - but true, climb/descent profiles can be an issue sometimes, however solvable).
just out of curiosity, what kind of rejection (not accepted FPL) message did you get from IFPS system?
Simply checking the FPL in the publicly available "FPL tester" on Eurocontrol's NOP portal gives no errors (picture below - all data except TYPE, DEP/DEST and ROUTE are made up just to pass the FPL).
IFPS is complex and generally working quite ok (it takes into account huge amount of data, tens of thousands of flights, regulations, restricitons, military zones... etc. - but true, climb/descent profiles can be an issue sometimes, however solvable).
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: In the middle
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chevvron,
I think the link connects to a page with more or less just basic info, an overview of aircraft data and performance, mainly used in the intital ATM training.
If I'm not wrong, IFPS is using a highly realistic BADA profiles/specifics. (https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/de...w-bada-apm.pdf and https://simulations.eurocontrol.int/...ormance-model/). These are mathematically developed profile envelopes, for all stages of flight and a number of acft types. Of course, they are based on more-or-less average style of flying, and do not take in to account the possibility of "insane" or military-jet style flying - even if modern business jets are capable of doing it safely... The models will probably work in more than 95% of processed FPLs - they're just not perfect.
I am not an expert, so if there's anybody more proficient in this, I happily accept corrections.
I think the link connects to a page with more or less just basic info, an overview of aircraft data and performance, mainly used in the intital ATM training.
If I'm not wrong, IFPS is using a highly realistic BADA profiles/specifics. (https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/de...w-bada-apm.pdf and https://simulations.eurocontrol.int/...ormance-model/). These are mathematically developed profile envelopes, for all stages of flight and a number of acft types. Of course, they are based on more-or-less average style of flying, and do not take in to account the possibility of "insane" or military-jet style flying - even if modern business jets are capable of doing it safely... The models will probably work in more than 95% of processed FPLs - they're just not perfect.
I am not an expert, so if there's anybody more proficient in this, I happily accept corrections.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just out of curiosity, what kind of rejection (not accepted FPL) message did you get from IFPS system?
The real issue for me is, Eurocontrol throws all these regulations at us and does not give us either the required answer nor tools to deal with the "****" THEY created. The route catalogue for example is nice an dandy, but almost exclusively for routes between big airports. And because we fly to and from small airports and not generate enough revenue for EC, they just treat us.... badly.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: In the middle
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EURO restriction created due to AIP rule.
What is available publicly on https://www.nm.eurocontrol.int/RAD/ under EURO (excell worksheet EURO Restriction) is saying
In German AIP (if you have the access to it) route from MAKOT onwards is more or less only available below FL100. Now, it is the interpretation of IFPS how it sees your planned descend (as you wrote in FPL above) at MAKOT (G21 MAKOT/N0260F090 Z818 MANEM).
Have you tried to enter an earlier descent in FPL, for example ...UL47 GTQ/N0280F150 G21 MAKOT/N0260F090 Z818 MANEM.... ? (Using original C680 of course, not the 650)
Just to test it, at least...
What is available publicly on https://www.nm.eurocontrol.int/RAD/ under EURO (excell worksheet EURO Restriction) is saying
In German AIP (if you have the access to it) route from MAKOT onwards is more or less only available below FL100. Now, it is the interpretation of IFPS how it sees your planned descend (as you wrote in FPL above) at MAKOT (G21 MAKOT/N0260F090 Z818 MANEM).
Have you tried to enter an earlier descent in FPL, for example ...UL47 GTQ/N0280F150 G21 MAKOT/N0260F090 Z818 MANEM.... ? (Using original C680 of course, not the 650)
Just to test it, at least...
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: In the middle
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His dudeness,
very strange that the original route as you posted does not work... Just for fun I tried a few FPL verification tools available, and it passes. But yes, I haven't tried it directly with IFPS...
Now, what about the below solution, how does your verification / flightplanning system see this one?
-N0456F280 MABES UJ32 MOREG UL47 ARBOS/N0459F310 UL47 IXILU UN853 GIVOR/N0260F260 UL47 GTQ/N0260F210 G21 MAKOT/N0260F090 Z818 MANEM Q762 BADLI DCT
Is it acceptable from pilot's view? (economy, profile...)
very strange that the original route as you posted does not work... Just for fun I tried a few FPL verification tools available, and it passes. But yes, I haven't tried it directly with IFPS...
Now, what about the below solution, how does your verification / flightplanning system see this one?
-N0456F280 MABES UJ32 MOREG UL47 ARBOS/N0459F310 UL47 IXILU UN853 GIVOR/N0260F260 UL47 GTQ/N0260F210 G21 MAKOT/N0260F090 Z818 MANEM Q762 BADLI DCT
Is it acceptable from pilot's view? (economy, profile...)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Mighty 8th land
Age: 75
Posts: 37
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, there’s someone who doesn’t understand the flight planning rules and regs of ICAO. When you request a level change at a Reporting Point that, according to ICAO, is the position that a level change is to commence. Therefore, you are still in the cruise at F310 until you get to MAKOT, when you are then requesting to BEGIN your descent to F090. I wonder who is doing your flight planning; that is a BASIC rule. UpperATC is absolutely correct in stating that if you begin you descent at an earlier stage, then the descent profile will correctly calculate your access into Z818.
So, before “slagging off” IFPS, have a word with your Ops people first. This incorrect filing of an FPL by inserting the level change at an incorrect point has been going on for 25 years; when will filers learn?
So, before “slagging off” IFPS, have a word with your Ops people first. This incorrect filing of an FPL by inserting the level change at an incorrect point has been going on for 25 years; when will filers learn?
Last edited by eMACaRe; 26th Sep 2019 at 11:27.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: In the middle
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I try to go beyond the "finger pointing" or negative feelings, it is totally understandable that many situations cause stress (on all sides, in the air and on the ground), and in our business stress management is important. That's why forums like pprune might come handy. If we can help finding a solution, why not.
I will just complement what eMACaRe wrote.
If you check the IFPS Manual, publicly available on https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/de...al-current.pdf - there are statements clearly indicating how IFPS will treat the level changes.
and the important factor, that IFPS will check the performance and capabilities against its models
I have seen many FPLs through my career and quite a lot of frustration that comes with filling them. I can partially agree with His dudeness - it can be quite hard sometimes (with all the route differences, CDRs, FRAs, RADs, TSAs, TRAs, profile detections, ATFM regulations etc. etc.) especially for those who do not have the most advanced and automated CFSPs. And even the latter ones are sometimes lost.
But it is not all on IFPS... States, ANSPs, Military and even airspace Users themselves are many times the reason for a very complex and seemingly hectic airspace organisation. Despite this, Europe handles more than 37.000 IFR flights daily in quite an organised manner.
I will just complement what eMACaRe wrote.
If you check the IFPS Manual, publicly available on https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/de...al-current.pdf - there are statements clearly indicating how IFPS will treat the level changes.
and the important factor, that IFPS will check the performance and capabilities against its models
I have seen many FPLs through my career and quite a lot of frustration that comes with filling them. I can partially agree with His dudeness - it can be quite hard sometimes (with all the route differences, CDRs, FRAs, RADs, TSAs, TRAs, profile detections, ATFM regulations etc. etc.) especially for those who do not have the most advanced and automated CFSPs. And even the latter ones are sometimes lost.
But it is not all on IFPS... States, ANSPs, Military and even airspace Users themselves are many times the reason for a very complex and seemingly hectic airspace organisation. Despite this, Europe handles more than 37.000 IFR flights daily in quite an organised manner.
