Budlake 16 Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Why when validating a route from BIKFto EGPH OSKU1A OSKUM DCT ALDAN DCT 57STN DCT ATSIX UP60 AKIVO UN601 STN UN610 FINDO UP600 PTH STIR1A PFPX reports 57STN as an unknown designator even though the route has been designed by PFPX and 57STN is shown on the PFPX map as a valid waypoint. However, Navigraph charts identify that same waypoint at 61N 1234E as FIR01 and Skyvector identify it as FIR40, neither of which are recognised by PFPX? I had a very similar problem on another route from EDDM to PANC with waypoint 6800N (which is identified as such on the PFPX map) which was only accepted by PFPX if I entered it as 68N000E. From these two examples it would seem that there is a discrepency between some of the PFPX identities and the real-world ones. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpgmultimodal 61 Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Hello Mike, It is not PFPX saying 57STN is "unknown" but EUROCONTROL/CFMU when you try to validate the route. I never flew routes on the North Atlantic but I believe it is because you enter SHANWICK OCEANIC between 57STN and ATSIX that you get this message as this small part is not under EUROCONTROL responsibility so cannot get validation. On the Jeppesen charts it shows also that point as 57STN. Regards, JP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiago91 7 Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 If you edit your FPL and erase 57STN it should be fine. A DCT segment between (ALDAN DCT ATSIX) is validated fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budlake 16 Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share Posted November 30, 2015 Thank you JP and Tiago91, This surely raises a question about the value of programmes like PFPX; I bought PFPX and stopped using Vroute-premium, because of problems with route validations where riduculous (and insignificant, particularly in terms of virtual avialtion) validation failures were reported, a lot of which seemed totally irrelevent, illogical and contradictory. Although realism is the main reason that I want to validate my routes I am coming to the view that the hassles of getting a successful validation are not really worth it. There are times when I have spent, literally, several hours over a number of days trying to find a route that will escape the purges of the validation process, particularly within Europe. During these processes I have descerned that a lot of the reasons for rejection have their roots in mysterious and unfathomable logic (although I think logic is the one quality that is lacking) that quite often contradict one another. It seems to me that the rules that govern the use of the airways have been written with extremely low levels of quality control or in the bliss of naiivety. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 If you take a look at EuroControls IFPS user manual for Error Class/Error Id: ROUTE130 it explains the rejection. As posted above there are ways to overcome the issue, just as dispatchers have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budlake 16 Posted December 5, 2015 Author Share Posted December 5, 2015 Thank you for your reply Stephen, Surely having a copy of the IFPS user manual readily at hand and then being able to understand a lot of the terminology within, particularly some of the acronyms (I always thought OAT stood for Outside Air Temperature or was a shortened form of Oxford Air Training School (perhaps I am showing my age now :-)), is far beyond the requirements of flying for pleasure in the virtual world? Furthermore, some of the explanations (route130 for instance) clearly are very minor and indeed irrelevent, to the point where the document actually says that the IFPS operator or dispatcher can use discretion and ignore the particular code if neccesary. Doesn't this clearly support what I have said many times that a lot of the validation errors or reasons for a failed validation are subjective at the very least and are completely superfluous in the context of virtual aviation? Software like PFPX and vroute need to consider the market to which they serve. It should not matter to the software what aircraft is flown or when it is flown (time of day or even the season) unless such information has been specifically stipulated by the user. Or, if it is required, be specific and ask for it in clear English. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I believe PFPX does indeed consider the simulation user, it is quite clearly your own choice whether you 'validate' a route or not, there is no requirement to do so within the bounds of simulation. If you have no interest in achieving validity then simply ignore that part of the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budlake 16 Posted December 7, 2015 Author Share Posted December 7, 2015 On 05 December 2015, srcooke said: I believe PFPX does indeed consider the simulation user, it is quite clearly your own choice whether you 'validate' a route or not, there is no requirement to do so within the bounds of simulation. If you have no interest in achieving validity then simply ignore that part of the process. There is a contradiction here! Some time ago I asked, in this forum, why I could not export a flightplan to FSCopilot, the reply I received was that I needed to validate the route before I could do so. I am now being told not to !?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 2 hours ago, Budlake said: There is a contradiction here! Some time ago I asked, in this forum, why I could not export a flightplan to FSCopilot, the reply I received was that I needed to validate the route before I could do so. I am now being told not to !?! That is not correct Mike. If you review that topic I explained that it is required to compute the flight before exporting to FSCopilot, this to populate the route, aircraft performance and weather to a PLAN that FSCopilot requires. There is no requirement on Vatsim to validate a route, it does however have to be broadly correct especially in dep/arr in respect of the AIRAC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.