Issue with Timetable Data and Crossing the Dateline

#1
Hello,

I have ran into an issue using Timetable Data to create a flight plan when having flights cross the International Dateline.

For the record, I am including the XXXX+2 for the Arrival Time. Below is just an example (don't judge the fantastical flight plans):

QF;68;YSSY;CYZT;1740;1255;123567;744;90;360
QF;69;CYZT;YSSY;2225;0740+2;123567;744;90;350
QF;73;YMML;CYVR;0900;0454;1234567;388;90;350
QF;74;CYVR;YMML;2240;0858+2;1234567;388;90;360
QF;75;YMML;CYVR;2055;1656;26;789;90;350
QF;76;CYVR;YMML;2355;1020+2;26;789;90;360
QF;31;YBBN;CYVR;1020;0503;1234567;789;90;350
QF;17;CYVR;CYYZ;0820;1512;1234567;789;90;360
QF;18;CYYZ;CYVR;1810;1945;1234567;789;90;360
QF;32;CYVR;YBBN;2320;0809+2;1234567;789;90;350
QF;17;YSSY;CYVR;0935;0450;1234567;388;90;350
QF;18;CYVR;YSSY;2230;0757+2;1234567;388;90;360


I've attached one of the plans I get from the above. The issue is that for the YSSY-CYVR legs, they arrive -6 days behind the departure when they should be arrivng the same day (or +0). I am using local time standard for everything.

Thoughts with the error? Or (likely) am I doing something wrong?
 

Attachments

gadgets

Resource contributor
#2
No, you are not doing anything wrong. AIFP is "confused".

I suspect this is a side-effect of the update for multi-week FPs incorporated several months ago. Or, perhaps, you are the first to try this with IDL crossings. In any case, I 'll attempt to fix it over the next few days.

Don
 

gadgets

Resource contributor
#3
It looks like the later, i.e., you are the first to try (or at least report errors in) the generation of FPs from timetable data involving crossings of the International Date Line. The program doesn't "realize" it is using two aircraft to fly the YVR-SYD route, for example. The local times are being converted correctly. It may just be that I'm converting to UTC time too late.

I'll continue to investigate.

Don
 

gadgets

Resource contributor
#4
Two issues discovered and fixed. Neither would have had any noticeable effect on short-haul flights, but both would be exacerbated by crossing the International Date Line

If you don't have the development release update checker enabled, you can download Development Release 3.2.19(c) from http://stuff4fs.com.

Please confirm satisfactory operation.

Don
 
#6
Hey there, I think there may be another issue popping up. Below are the flight plans (just a test--obviously not a real schedule)

CP 872 VHHH 2359 CYVR 1930 777-300ER 1234567 350
CP 873 CYVR 0025 VHHH 0530+1 777-300ER 1234567 360
CP 874 VHHH 1400 CYVR 0931 777-300ER 1234567 350
CP 875 CYVR 1455 VHHH 1000+1 777-300ER 1234567 360
CP 876 VHHH 1855 CYVR 1426 A350-1000 1234567 350
CP 877 CYVR 0050 VHHH 0555+1 A350-1000 1234567 360


However, several of the flightplans I am getting are erroring with flights arriving after departures of following legs. Below is one: the last leg which is implemented and creates the circuit arrives after the first leg departs. I believe that this flightplan should be separated into two since there isn't enough time in the week. Am I wrong?


AC#1,, 1%, Week, IFR

(1) 0/14:00, 0/09:31, 350, F, 874, HVIC
(2) 0/14:55, 1/10:00, 360, F, 875, VHHH
(3) 1/14:00, 1/09:31, 350, F, 874, HVIC
(4) 1/14:55, 2/10:00, 360, F, 875, VHHH
(5) 2/14:00, 2/09:31, 350, F, 874, HVIC
(6) 2/14:55, 3/10:00, 360, F, 875, VHHH
(7) 3/14:00, 3/09:31, 350, F, 874, HVIC
(8) 3/14:55, 4/10:00, 360, F, 875, VHHH
(9) 4/14:00, 4/09:31, 350, F, 874, HVIC
(10) 4/14:55, 5/10:00, 360, F, 875, VHHH
(11) 5/14:00, 5/09:31, 350, F, 874, HVIC
(12) 5/14:55, 6/10:00, 360, F, 875, VHHH
(13) 6/23:59, 6/19:30, 350, F, 872, HVIC
(14) 6/19:50, 0/23:44, 350, F, -1, VHHH
 

tgibson

Resource contributor
#8
Just as a comparison, I converted this plan to MRAI Compiler format:

CP;872;VHHH;CYVR;2359;1930;1234567;777
CP;873;CYVR;VHHH;0025;0530;1234567;777
CP;874;VHHH;CYVR;1400;0931;1234567;777
CP;875;CYVR;VHHH;1455;1000;1234567;777
CP;876;VHHH;CYVR;1855;1426;1234567;777
CP;877;CYVR;VHHH;0050;0555;1234567;777

(I used a 777 as a similar plane).

When compiled using the MRAI Compiler it came up with these flight plans:

AC#,CP777,1%,WEEK,IFR,
1/06:00,@1/17:31,350,F,0874,CYVR,
2/08:50,@2/21:55,380,F,0877,VHHH,
3/15:59,@4/03:30,350,F,0872,CYVR,
4/08:50,@4/21:55,340,F,0877,VHHH,
5/06:00,@5/17:31,330,F,0874,CYVR,
5/22:55,@6/02:00,340,F,0875,VHHH,
6/06:00,@6/17:31,370,F,0874,CYVR,
6/22:55,@0/02:00,360,F,0875,VHHH,
0/06:00,@0/17:31,330,F,0874,CYVR,
0/22:55,@1/02:00,360,F,0875,VHHH
AC#,CP777,1%,WEEK,IFR,
1/08:25,@1/21:30,380,F,0873,VHHH,
2/06:00,@2/17:31,390,F,0874,CYVR,
2/22:55,@3/02:00,360,F,0875,VHHH,
3/10:55,@3/22:26,370,F,0876,CYVR,
4/08:25,@4/21:30,340,F,0873,VHHH,
5/10:55,@5/22:26,330,F,0876,CYVR,
6/08:25,@6/21:30,360,F,0873,VHHH,
0/10:55,@0/22:26,370,F,0876,CYVR
AC#,CP777,1%,WEEK,IFR,
1/10:55,@1/22:26,370,F,0876,CYVR,
1/22:55,@2/02:00,340,F,0875,VHHH,
2/10:55,@2/22:26,350,F,0876,CYVR,
3/08:25,@3/21:30,380,F,0873,VHHH,
4/10:55,@4/22:26,350,F,0876,CYVR,
5/08:25,@5/21:30,380,F,0873,VHHH,
6/10:55,@6/22:26,330,F,0876,CYVR,
0/08:25,@0/21:30,360,F,0873,VHHH
AC#,CP777,1%,WEEK,IFR,
1/08:50,@1/21:55,340,F,0877,VHHH,
2/15:59,@3/03:30,350,F,0872,CYVR,
3/08:50,@3/21:55,340,F,0877,VHHH,
4/06:00,@4/17:31,350,F,0874,CYVR,
4/22:55,@5/02:00,360,F,0875,VHHH,
5/15:59,@6/03:30,370,F,0872,CYVR,
6/08:50,@6/21:55,380,F,0877,VHHH,
0/15:59,@1/03:30,350,F,0872,CYVR
AC#,CP777,1%,WEEK,IFR,
1/15:59,@2/03:30,370,F,0872,CYVR,
2/08:25,@2/21:30,380,F,0873,VHHH,
3/06:00,@3/17:31,350,F,0874,CYVR,
3/22:55,@4/02:00,380,F,0875,VHHH,
4/15:59,@5/03:30,350,F,0872,CYVR,
5/08:50,@5/21:55,360,F,0877,VHHH,
6/15:59,@0/03:30,370,F,0872,CYVR,
0/08:50,@0/21:55,340,F,0877,VHHH
 
Last edited:

gadgets

Resource contributor
#9
Not sure I understand what you did, Tom. Did you simply change the format of the input data and submit it to AIFP (which suggests an input data sensitivity) or did you use the MRAI compiler to produce this output?

Don
 

tgibson

Resource contributor
#10
I used the MRAI Compiler, sorry. I've edited the original post to clarify.

When I load the source file above into AIFP I get 16 flight plans, instead of the 5 the MRAI Compiler created. There are 3 deadhead flights added, vs none for the MRAIC.

PS. What determines the flight altitudes when no altitude is specified in the source file? I get altitudes between 020 and 050 with AIFP, quite humorous for such long flights. :)
 
Last edited:

gadgets

Resource contributor
#12
gonzagafan23, I am unable to duplicate your issue in the latest version of AIFP - Development Release 3.2.19(g). If you are using an earlier version, please download the latest development release and give it another try.

Don
 
Top