Southwest (SWA) OFP ETOPS

Hi,

Different fuel buckets are planned for a future update, but probably not until next year I think.

With regards to auto remarks, they are part of the underlying SimBrief system and can’t be easily removed currently. Maybe in a future (distant) update. It’s worth noting the Flag remark shouldn’t be an issue now since it is linked to the reserve option (see my last post).

As a workaround for the other remarks, most can be removed by correcting the underlying condition. For example:

Remark Resolution
PLANNED OPTIMUM FLIGHT LEVEL Force an altitude and/or define step climbs manually in the route string and this remark will not appear
ETOPS FUEL REQUIRED Add the required fuel another way (extra or contingency fuel)
PAYLOAD/CARGO LIMITED BY MTOW/MLW/MZFW Reduce the payload or set a manual ZFW to match whatever the system automatically reduced it to

For the ATOG, SimBrief’s takeoff calculations and resulting takeoff weight limit aren’t accurate enough, so I don’t feel it’s appropriate to limit the payload based on this number currently. But I’ll change the ATOG and takeoff section weight to be equal to at least the ETOW so that it is never lower at least.

The rest of the items should be fixed.

Best regards,

1 Like

Fantastic work, @SimBrief

Thank you very much for implementing the changes and working with us in a very transparent manner.

If I may, we would like to request only 2 more changes made to the SWA OFP layout on SimBrief.

REQUEST #1. I’ve noticed that the SimBrief SWA OFP layout includes the field elevation next to the “T/O ALTN:” Airport, the “ALTN 1:” Airport, and the “ALTN 2:” Airport, on Page One of the Dispatch Release (OFP). This is incorrect and inaccurate to the real world SWA Dispatch Release (OFP).
The Alternate airports on Page One of the real world SWA Dispatch Release (OFP) DO NOT show the airport elevation like the “DEPART” and “ARRIVE” Airports do.

Is there a chance we can please get rid of the elevations next to all of the ALTERNATE airports on Page One of the SimBrief SWA OFP layout?

REAL WORLD SWA DISPATCH RELEASE REFERENCE IMAGE #1,
SHOWN BELOW:


REQUEST #2: I’ve noticed that when there are step climbs planned, the FL CHANGE section on Page One of the SimBrief SWA OFP layout has the different altitude changes on the same horizontal line. This is incorrect and inaccurate to the real world SWA Dispatch Release (OFP).
The planned altitude changes on the real-world SWA Dispatch Release (OFP) appear as a VERTICAL line and not a HORIZONTAL line.

Is there a chance we can please change the format on the SimBrief SWA OFP layout to show the step climbs appear in a vertical line rather than a horizontal line just like the real world SWA Dispatch Release (OFP)?

REAL WORLD SWA DISPATCH RELEASE REFERENCE IMAGE #2,
SHOWN BELOW:

As always, thank you so much for all you do for us in the flight simulation community. Your hard work and dedication is tantamount to the incredible ongoing success of SimBrief and Navigraph!

Let me know if you need anything else regarding these requests.

Regards,

Southwest Virtual Airlines
NOC Dispatch Team
Standards Division

Should be fixed.

Best regards,

1 Like

Perfect thank you very much.

Real quick question, going forward, is there any plans for SimBrief it support user customizable dispatch release remarks solely based off of a specific aircraft profile, and as well based off of a specific airport?

Also, is SimBrief open to the idea of allowing the user to customize takeoff and landing performance data on the dispatch release? For instance, the user being able to select takeoff and landing FLAPS, bleed config, anti-ice, and runway conditions?

Lastly, would @SimBrief be open to implementing a text box on the “NEW FLIGHT” page under “Advanced Aircraft Options” that is dedicated to the manual entry of the “ICAO Mode-S Code”? As well, this entry would need to appear in the correct location on the ATC Flight Plan section of the dispatch release. Is this something you would be willing to implement for us?

image

image

As always, thank you!

Southwest Virtual Airlines
NOC Dispatch Team
Standards Division

Hi,

Unlikely, sorry.

Also unlikely. SimBrief’s takeoff/landing calculations are nowhere near advanced enough to offer this.

Maybe, but not on the current dispatch system. Possibly in the new SimBrief app that we are currently developing, will look into it.

For now the following workaround works if you need to be able to change the Mode-S code from the flight options page. Scroll all the way down to the Custom Aircraft Data (JSON) field in the Debug Parameters section, and enter the following:

{"hexcode":"MYCODE"}

Similarly, if you want to enter custom ICAO FPL remarks from the flight options page, you can do so by entering the following:

{"hexcode":"MYCODE", "extrarmk":"NAV/RNVD1E2A1 RNP10 RNP4 DAT/1FANSE2PDC SUR/260B RSP180"}

You can also set this in the custom airframe options. The SWA format wasn’t showing the Mode-S code before, but I’ve fixed that now.

Best regards,

This work around works perfectly. Thank you very much! We will definitely make good use of this!!

This might be a long shot but is there any way SimBrief can only add an alternate automatically to the dispatch release if weather conditions in the TAF and/or METAR actually require an alternate? Is this something that could be accomplished @SimBrief ?

Also, is there any chance we can get a reverse of the api policy that regulates “altn_avoid”? It would be a really nice feature if we could tell SimBrief what airports we WANT to be able to use vs. what we don’t want to use. Is this something you think would be beneficial to virtual airline’s who use your API to generate automatic dispatch releases for their pilots?

As well, I just realized the font is slightly incorrect for the SWA OFP on simbrief.

It should be the “HI Kakuhihewa Plain” font. Is there any chance we can get the SWA OFP dispatch release to be changed to this font instead? It would need to be changed to the HI Kakuhihewa Plain font in the API as well and not just in the PDF document.

Thank you very much!

Hi,

Both of these probably won’t come in the short term, will keep them in mind for potential updates in the longer term.

Unsure. Currently changing the PDF font isn’t a quick or easy update. And I’m not sure if the license for this particular font would even allow us to use it (I can’t find any license for it online).

Best regards,

Derek,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the information, sir.

One quick thing though, for the sake of our api-generated dispatch release OFPs to have at least somewhat correct font, is there any chance you can change it to where the “Paperwork Preview OFP” and “DX Remarks” on the “MY BRIEFING” page in the Dispatch System can match the same font as the PDF document OFP’s font?

In our case with the SimBrief SWA OFP format it should be “Courier New” font in api-generated OFP.

I will share some screen shots below to show you the noticeable differences between the two fonts.

this font is incorrect

this font is incorrect

this font is the most correct one

Let me know if you have any comments, questions, or concerns and have a great day.

Regards,

John

So are the new FAA options documented anywhere except here?

Also, am I understanding this correctly?

  • FAA Domestic
    Final Reserve of 45 minutes

  • FAA “Flag”
    Final Reserve of 30 minutes +
    Additional 10% of enroute burn
    (as two distinct items on the SWA briefing, and possibly simply as a
    generic “final reserve” item on some other IRL USA carrier layouts?)
    (or, actually, there must be 2 items for all USA layouts incl. e.g. UAL?)
    (and is that extra 10% on top of the “typical” 5% contingency as well?)
    (finally, what happens if the 10% enroute extra is less than 15 minutes?)

Regards,

Tim

So I answered some of my own questions:

It is noted that the representatives of the major pilot groups recommend that the fuel requirements of FAR Port 121 be increased for specific operations. After initial acceptance of the position that the current rules were adequate. the Allied Pilots Association (APA) and the Air Une Pilots Association (ALPA) completed a more extensive evaluation of all the fuel supply regulations and now propose that the current reserve fuel required by FAR Port 121.645, for intenational operation of turbine powered airplanes (30 minutes reserve fuel plus 10 percent en route reserve fuel), be revised to be never less than that specified for FAR Port 121.639 (45 minute reserve fuel). Thus, domestic and intemational flights would both hove o minimum reserve of 45 minutes. The pilot groups also note that substantial differences exist among ports of the FAR, and it may be necessary to rewrite the ports, in the Mure, to ensure consistency.

…but it doesn’t look like that ever became a requirement?

It also seems like the FAA regulations have no specific minimum requirements for contingency fuel other than (7) Contingency fuel. The FAR requires that consideration be given to any other condition that may delay the landing of the aircraft. These conditions include meteorological conditions, air traffic delays, and deviations from the planned flight route that could increase the amount of fuel consumed.

I’m kind of hijacking this thread a bit, I guess, and thinking out loud, sorry :slight_smile:

Would it make sense that:

  1. when the simBrief generic AUTO final reserve is selected, the aircraft is a jet, and the flight both departs and arrives in FAA-regulated airspace, simBrief implicitly use the “FAA (AUTO)” rule instead of 30 minutes like it does now?

  2. when the simBrief generic AUTO contingency is selected, and the FAA FLAG reserve rules are used (either explicitly or implicitly via FAA/generic AUTO), the contingency fuel be set to a reasonable fixed value rather than an extra 5% (bringing the actual enroute reserve to 15%, which for trans-oceanic flights seems a little excessive)?

OR

  1. perhaps more generically, whenever the FAA reserve rules are being used, the AUTO contingency should simply always be a sensible fixed value rather than a percentage like is commonly done in Europe and elsewhere?

  2. similarly, when the flight both departs and arrives within EASA airspace, the AUTO contingency should implicitly behave like the EASA rule?

  3. when the flight is “mixed” (departure is EASA, FAA or other, and destination is different from the departure), the rules applicable for operators of the departure country should be used?

I realize this is probably not something one would want to look into with a “brand new” simBrief just around the corner in a few months, but even then, there will be users who simply set it to AUTO/AUTO, so it makes sense to eventually make them a bit smarter anyway?

Regards,

Tim

My airline is a US 121 operator and we fly worldwide. Foreign countries can not tell me how to fuel. I do not use China’s fuel requirements for operating solely within China. I comply with the requirements of my regulator, the FAA, the FAA being a signatory to ICAO. The EU, however, does require as a byproduct of having a European TCO Authorization, to plan my alternate fuels using a realistic routing at a realistic airspeed, but I don’t, no can’t, use EASA’s fuel rules.

The last time I looked at FAA’s inspector guidance, is that realistic routings for the alternate should be used.

Domestically within the US its 45 minutes reserve. There is no minimum for the 10% flag enroute reserve under straight-flag rules; if its 2 minutes mathematically 2 minutes is what you carry. In another post in here I detail all of the current fuel rules for the US 121 operator, which are straight-flag of 121.645 (10% + 30 minutes), and if you hold the optional Operational authorizations, B044 (redispatch), B043 (special fuel reserves in international operations), or the new one B343 (performance-based contingency fuel for flag and supplemental operations). There is also an authorization called A012 that allows me to use US domestic fuel rules for crossborder flights to MX or CA or the Caribbean, but the real reason for that one is for crew duty rules, without it my crew that flew ORD-YYZ-ORD would require minimum legal rest to go to a domestic city as flag crew rules are different.

I can’t use the 5% enroute reserve reducible to 3% with an enroute alternate of EU-OPS as much as I’d like to.

Current US rules were first written in 1964 when the 707 flew the skies; they made sense in 1964 based on the level of technology then in terms of flight performance data from the manufacturers and the level of granularity in winds aloft forecasting back then. I’d like to think we have improved slightly over the previous 58 years on weather forecasting and flight performance data from the OEMs, but not to the FAA; the dispatcher that dispatched the first PAA 707 would still recognize the fuel planning I’m required to use today.

I have no problem with how the fuel rules selector is set in Simbrief, other than maybe at the user account level, allow the user to set his default fuel planning instead of doing it at each individual flight.

My airline is a US 121 operator and we fly worldwide. Foreign countries can not tell me how to fuel. I do not use China’s fuel requirements for operating solely within China. I comply with the requirements of my regulator, the FAA, the FAA being a signatory to ICAO.

Just to clarify, the modifications I am talking about would apply specifically to simBrief’s “AUTO” modes for contingency and reserves. Currently those automatic modes use one set of very generic rules, and, time permitting, this could be made smarter (although it can never be “perfect”, I think).

I suppose, in theory, possibly the “best” solution would be to use the rules corresponding to the “Airline” field entered by the user, but that’s probably longer to implement, plus you still need to handle the case where no airline is specified (perhaps using the airframe registration as a fallback) and then there’s also the problem of fictitious airlines and registrations.

I have no problem with how the fuel rules selector is set in Simbrief, other than maybe at the user account level, allow the user to set his default fuel planning instead of doing it at each individual flight.

That’s already possible. The Save Default button next to Selections already saves the fuel rules (contingency and reserve) so that they apply for all new flights in the future.

Now on to contingency fuel. EASA seems to have a minimum legal amount of contingency fuel, but the US rules I could find do not (the 10PCT rule seems to be considered reserve fuel by the relevant regulations)? So, you must carry:

  • enroute fuel
  • alternate fuel
  • reserve fuel (45 minutes or 30 minutes + 10% enroute)

…is there any other type of fuel that you must carry that is specifically (as in, mathematically) determined by a rule, or is that it?

Also, how much fuel would dispatch add on top of the above in a “typical” scenario (that would go in the CONT/HOLD row on e.g. the SWA layout, resp. CF row on the UAL’18 layout), if any?

Edit: also, I was wondering about the simBrief-specific case where you select “FAA (FLAG)” with a non-US layout (which won’t have a specific field for the “10PCT” fuel); would it make sense to add said 10% to the contingency fuel row rather than the row corresponding to final reserves?

Regards,

Tim

Considering the below OFP snippet

FLIGHT NBR XXX9500        DATE 30NOV22         SCHEDULE              PLAN 
  ACFT REG N757XX                           EGNX STD 00.50        ETD 00.50
 ACFT TYPE B75237                                TXO 00.22 
                          SELCAL ABFF            STE 00.15        ETE 00.31
SPEED  CLB 250/290/78    AVGWIND 308/001         TXI 00.08        STA 01.35
       CRZ CI 40         TOC TMP M06        EGSS STA 01.35        ETA 01.43
       DSC 78/290/250      ROUTE EGNXEGSS-MCT                   DIFF +00.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              FMC DATA ENTRY

CO RTE        ORIGIN  RWY  SID     RAMP FUEL  ZFW     RES     CI   CRZ ALT
EGNXEGSS-MCT  EGNX    09   DTY4P     19.4     175.2   11.2    40   FL150   

              DEST    RWY  STAR    TOC WIND   TEMP    CRZ     DESC WIND
              EGSS    04   FINMA1L  311/001    -06    ECON    280: 348/039 
                                                              150: 001/016
                                                              100: 307/002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TANKERING NOT RECOMMENDED (LOSS 652 USD / 5000 LB)  .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TC CHECK - TERRAIN CHECK COMPLETED WITH NO RESTRICTIONS

TERRAIN CLEARANCE - METHOD I            TERR HGT 587 FT  ISA M01C
ENGINE/WING ANTI-ICE PENALTY APPLIED    METW 231000 LB 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              FUEL  TIME  DIST WCMP           PLANNED           OPERATIONAL  
BURN OFF        4.5 00.31 0136 T002         PTOW  193.9         MTOW  203.2
ALTN/EGPK       7.8 01.03 0331 H022         PLDW  189.4   MFW   MLDW  198.0
RESERVE         3.5 00.30                   PZFW  175.2  115.6  MZFW  183.8
HOLD            0.0 00.00                   PYLD   55.0
10 PCT          0.4 00.03  
DISP ADD        0.0 00.00
MEL/CDL         0.0
REQUIRED FUEL  16.1 02.07

TAXI            0.8 00.22
TANKER          0.0
EXTRA           2.5 00.22
TOTAL FUEL     19.4                           ALTERNATE DATA 
                                         EGPK FL380  CRZ CI 0 M022.
LANDING FUEL   14.2 01.58                N55 30.9  W004 36.7 
FMS RESERVE    11.2 01.33                UTAVA1S UTAVA Q75 BUZAD T420 TNT
                                         UN57 POL UN601 RIBEL RIBEL2P

There is no minimum enroute reserve required by the flag rules of 14 CFR. In this example with 3 minutes of contingency fuel as the percentage-based enroute reserve, that is all that is required above the line for this short intra-UK flight. In your list the 30 minutes is the final reserve (just like EASA) + 10 percent, the 3 minutes. But the fuels are considered separately as at least for the 121 operator, all that %-age based contingency fuel does NOT need to be protected as FMS Reserves, which is the sum of the 30 minute final reserve, and the fuel to the alternate. In this format, HOLD is the amount of fuel I’d add over and above the reg mins to account for probable holding at EGSS, and with WX of

TEMPO 3000/3010 SCT003 OVC015
  PROB40 TEMPO 3000/3009 0300 FG BKN001

You bet if this was a real OFP, I’d be adding gas in the HOLD bucket, as that’s calculated at 1500’ at hold speed. In this format, the DISP ADD fuel is for any other condition which may delay the landing of the aircraft; me not trusting the enroute weather so I may add gas, ATC radar being NOTAMMed OTS so I might add gas. We have a company requirement that if going thru Turkish airspace between SE Asia and Western Europe, to add 15 minutes of DX ADD gas as that airspace is “interesting” right now. We also use EXTRA fuel as more fuel for the crew to have to react to problems on the line.

You asked for other reasons - there is one right there - MEL/CDL. Depending on which main tank fuel boost pump was on MEL on the 757, I’ll need 3000 lbs of MEL/CDL gas for that (which is not burnable), AND a minimum takeoff fuel of either 16000 lbs, or 24400 lbs (the added fuel of which to make the 16.0 or 24.4 is burnable), but it all goes above the line.

Some of our aircraft types have a MinFOD value - I can’t plan under any circumstances to plan to land with less than X on board, and our FPS will build up to that landing fuel to meet that X value stored in the aircraft database, and all that fuel is burnable.

Some of our aircraft types also have a Minimum Zero Fuel Weight. If the actual ZFW is below the Minimum (and on some aircraft types the empty weight is below the MinFW), then we add MinFlightWeight fuel (not burnable) to build the ZFW to the minimum.

Some aircraft require Ballast fuel, also above the line, to keep the aircraft in balance, especially when flying empty (or close to it), all of which is unburnable.

Thanks! :slight_smile:

Now here’s the two minor issues I currently see with simBrief (probably made more obvious by long-haul flights):

  • when you combine AUTO contingency with FAA FLAG reserves, you end up getting: (1) 30 minutes of “final reserve”, (2) 10% of “route reserve” and (3) 5% of “contingency”; when FAA Flag reserves are used, wouldn’t it make more sense that item (3) be a fixed time rather than another percentage of the enroute burn?

  • when you use FAA FLAG reserves with a non-US OFP layout, the “10PCT” fuel gets added to the final reserve (for e.g. a 10-hour flight, you end up with a total of 90 minutes of “FINRES” in the default layout); IRL the dispatcher would simply use a layout compatible with the fuel strategy being used, but in the context of simBrief, wouldn’t it make more sense for the 10PCT fuel to be mapped to the “CONT” fuel rather than “FINRES”?

Regards,

Tim

Your 3rd element is not a requirement for a 121 operator.

In your second bullet, I could agree with that.

Indeed, but simBrief is adding it anyway because that’s how “AUTO” works. Currently it adds 15 minutes or 5%, whichever is higher.

I’m suggesting that it would make more sense, when FAA reserve rules are in use, that it maybe instead add 15 minutes (or 0 minutes, if the idea is to only the strictly/legally-required fuel by default) without the 5% rule even if/when the latter is higher?

Regards,

Tim