(Dispatch Release/OFP) Planning Calm Wind vs Forecasted Wind | Forecasted Temperature/QNH

SimBrief Dispatch
1

Hi @SimBrief hope you are well sir.

Issue #1: Takeoff and Landing Performance - PLANNED WIND (Dispatch Release/OFP)

Something I have noticed with simbrief is we currently dont have an option to plan current wind at our departure airport and forecasted wind at our destination. I know that I told you in the past that we NORMALLY plan calm wind irl. And that is totally true.

However, if we are going to have a bad weight restriction (because of either being takeoff limited or landing limited), we will plan actual wind data in an attempt reduce the weight restriction as much as feasible. Would there be anyway to include an option for wind so that we can toggle between calm wind and actual wind? This would greatly improve performance at airports where the runway is short or there is a bad climb weight hit due to high elevation/high temperature.

What I was thinking was to have two separate options. One for departure airport and one for arrival airport. And all it would be is an option to either select calm wind or to select actual wind. ACTUAL toggle would plan forecasted wind at ETD for departure airport and plan FORECASTED wind at ETA for arrival airport.

Issue #2: Takeoff and Landing Performance - PLANNED TEMPERATURE/QNH (Dispatch Release/OFP)

For temperature and altimeter planning, would it be possible to change it to where the system will (automatically on the backend) plan the FORECASTED altimeter and temperature rather than the current altimeter and temperature? Thats how we plan in the real world when dispatching and it allows us to plan for possible weight restrictions based off what is expected (versus what is currently happening and is subject to change before we get to the destination, for instance, which could potentially cause us to be overweight on arrival).

Real World Examples:

image
image751Ă—633 125 KB

image

image
image761Ă—765 132 KB

image

Just to give you a more detailed idea of how we plan takeoff and landing performance data irl, above are 2 examples of what I mean. The program in the screenshots is called AeroData Flight Planning Client (FPC) - it is the “go-to application” that we specifically use in dispatch for planning takeoff, enroute (driftdown), and landing performance for all of our flights.
The pilots will request and receive their takeoff and landing performance calculations from AeroData directly through the ACARS on their FMC.
Notice how, in the screenshots, the dispatcher chose the forecasted temperature and altimeter settings for both takeoff and landing. Not the current ones in the METAR at the departure and arrival stations.

As well, yes the dispatcher planned calm wind for both departure and arrival, but notice how there is a box below “Wind Dir/Speed” at the top where you can manually input wind (except for Gust - you cant enter gust with the system).

Summary/Conclusion:

Just to clarify, I understand you said that the ability to customize the TLR data is not available currently will not be for a long time.

However, that is not what I am asking for in this request.

Rather, I am asking for the system to be amended so that it AUTOMATICALLY plans for forecasted temperature and QNH ON THE BACKEND and to have a toggle where we can choose if we want to plan calm wind or plan forecasted wind for either takeoff or for landing.

Thank you very much sir for everything you do for us!

10 Likes
2

I second this post. Please consider adding this feature.

1 Like
3

Looks good, would like to see this.

1 Like
4

Would love to see this.

1 Like
6

I’d like to see this feature added as well.

1 Like
7

@SimBrief I was just messing with him on my prior reply I would love to see this addition.

1 Like
8

I would love to see this implemented. Hell yeah brother!!

1 Like
9

Cool feature. Excited for the release. Happy 4th​:us::oil_drum::man_pilot:t5::eagle:

1 Like
10

@SimBrief Hi Derek! I hope you have been well sir!

I was curious if we could maybe get your freedback/thoughts regarding this post.

Thank you sir! :slight_smile:

11

Looks great! Please consider adding this.

1 Like
12

Hi,

I have updated the SWA layout to automatically plan current/forecast winds if performance limited on short runways. But only if the TOW is > ATOG, and only if planning current/forecast winds will result in a higher ATOG (i.e. only if there is a headwind forecast). Otherwise it will stick with calm winds.

Planning forecast temperature and QNH is not possible right now. We don’t have this data in the backend (TAFs do not contain this info obviously).

1 Like
13

Thank you so much @SimBrief !! This sounds incredible Derek thank you!

Could we also get the system to automatically plan current/forecasted wind if ATOG is exceeded due to a CLIMB limit (for either takeoff or landing performance)?

For instance, if ATOG is TAKEOFF limited, AND the limit is CLIMB, AND TOW exceeds ATOG, then the system should plan actual wind for the TAKEOFF runway, regardless of runway length.

For landing it would be the same. If ATOG is LANDING limited, and the limit is CLIMB, AND TOW exceeds ATOG, then the system should plan actual wind for the LANDING runway, regardless of runway length.

Also, real quick, i noticed that SIMBRIEF will only plan flaps 30 or flaps 40 on landing for the 737. If you look at the screenshot in the original post you will see that IRL with aerodata we have the option of planning/selecting flaps 15 (and the system will select it automatically if it is the most optimum flap setting for go around climb limit performance, if necessary.

I also noticed with the simbrief landing performance tool, we only have the option of selecting flaps 30 or flaps 40.

Would there be anyway to add flaps 15 to simbrief performance calculations for the 737?

Flaps 15 is to be used if wind is too strong headwind or crosswind for flaps 30/40 and go around would cause a possible flap overspeed condition.

For preflight planning landing performance selection, flaps 15 would be selected by the system if we had a bad climb limit weight with flaps 30/40 and would allow for a better climb gradient there by increasing the climb limit Max Runway Landing Weight (MRLW).

Thank you again for everything you do for us sir!!

14

This should already be the case. But note that a CLIMB limitation is not affected by wind component. Max climb weights ensure the regulatory 2.4% gradient during the second segment, but the resulting climb gradient is not corrected for wind component (again, per regulation). OBSTACLE clearance is corrected for wind component, but SimBrief does not evaluate obstacles at the moment.

That being said, while a headwind won’t directly improve your climb limit, it may enable you to increase your takeoff speeds a bit more and benefit from improved climb. Since this will result in a slightly higher ATOG, SimBrief should already plan current winds if this is the case.

SimBrief does not currently evaluate missed approach climb gradients. This will come later, no ETA but it’ll be a while.

Not soon, maybe down the road.

Best regards,

1 Like
15

that’s crazy… I would i to see this.