Enroute Climb Limit Weight

[JABBARA]

Oggers, as you make comment you are revealing your ignorance in this issue.

The fake (but better than nothing) solution which was recommended by you was as below and be sure most of the people used to know before you.

If you give the FMC an 'assumed' ZFW equal to the actual weight plus penalty, then the ceiling and fuel burn data will become conservative (you will actually do better)

This quotation shows, unfortunately, you were not aware, neither the way you mentioned was the real solution nor, in fact, there is a real regulative solution.
However, I have to confess there is some progress: At least now you have learned CDL penalty application is not at the way as you recommended before. And I hope you understand it should be at the way I mentioned or by the way as in gear pins thread.

But still it looks you are away from understanding the real concept as considering it is very simple. No, it is not. Slowly read maybe you can get it.

First of all, that table is not particularly for CDL penalty correction. Theoretically you have to use that table for all flight regardless you have CDL penalty or not, to evaluate the obstacles through the route. I do not know how many pilots are doing this before every flight.

This practical solution advised by the table maybe only good for a short range flight; probably as in the operation area of the Airplane (likely to be Boeing) of the subjected Operator of which the given table belongs (e.g from table: For our operations this penalty is s never limiting)

To visualize what this table means, I write this sample (even without CDL): Consider a scenario; Departing from somewhere in Middle East and reaching TOC (single cruise level) after half an hour, then after another 5 hours crossing Himalayas, then arriving somewhere in Far East. If there is no escape route, Let´s say from a similar table (and with another additional table to calculate drift down fuel) we calculated weight to cross Himalayas should not be more than 190 t. This tables assumes you will be at 190t after only 30 minutes from departure or with another word, 5 hours before Himalayas. Therefore, TO weight should be adjusted as guaranteeing TOC weight should not be more than 190T. I guess in such a scenario, for example A 330, it can be implemented only at a Ferry Flight. Besides, if there is CDL penalty, you have to subtract this penalty (let´s say 5000Kg) from 190T, MTOW is 185t. If all these are digestible, yes calculation, either with CDL penalty or not, is very simple.

Let me detail for you: If you understand, for a route of which the highest obstacle is towards the end of route which maybe thousands NM away, according to this table, you have to limit your initial TOC weight, this table only recommends this. Therefore, simplified way may seriously affect your TOW limit so your payload. Consequently, this may be good only for the kind of operations for table´s owner; as they mentioned e.g For our operations this penalty is s never limiting.

To consolidate what I write above: For a true solution you have to find worst case of multiple weight vs obstacle height combinations as including the earlier obstacles effect. And this is not possible with a single table. Opposite the methodology of table (in fact), along the route, the highest obstacle (let´s say 16000) may be less critical or limiting if its location is towards the end of the route because of less demanding critical combination of weight vs obstacle height, because of reduced airplane weight along the route. As oppose the table recommendation, in this case no need to limit TOC weight.

Besides, an obstacle which lower but at the earlier phase of flight (were airplane is heavier) could be giving a more demanding weight vs obstacle height combination. If you want to be really legal and optimized you have to done this evaluation for all obstacles through the route. In this case that appreciated (and better than nothing ) table solution is not enough.

Additionally, This was from me:

The penalty amount should be reduced from Enroute Limiting Weight, but There is no info about that in our hand”

Above the light of all above, since -for example- Airbus is not distributing Net Flight Path data for pilots, then – although my English may not be so good as yours- but I guess, commenting my interoperation like
"how is this done?" as "how is this done if I don't have the net performance data which must by law be provided to the operator and used to accomplish this task"
itself is really absurd.