Jump to content

omendoza

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About omendoza

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork
  1. So today, PFPX issued me two warnings of restrictions offense along a particular route EGGW-EGPE However, when manually validating the flight plan on NOP Network Operations Portal (eurocontrol.int), it doesn't come up with any errors or warnings. Are PFPX route restrictions [Eurocontrol] outdated or there is something else at play here?
  2. 1) Why is the INI ALT FL110 when on a D-> segment and not an airway? 2) Why is the TOC bound to this INI ALT if then it asks to continue CLB to 230
  3. I really don't understand why this route proves to be that tricky. I have done another attempt LSGG-EGSS with v2.3 either at OPT FL or MAX FL and despite asking for High Level awys, PFPX will insist with this routing: DIPI6A DJL A6 SOMDA T11 VATRI B3 RINTI L10 DVR L6 DET DET2A Forcing it to stay around FL180 ***edit: sorted now, just had to clear the route and request it again.
  4. My bad. I mistakenly took LSGG for EGSS. LSGG is actually +2 UTC. Thanks for clarifying. Going back to the cruise table awy change... anything I can do here or it is down to the developer?
  5. Thanks for your time. I've seen your contribution around the forum and I find it really nice from you to help. Anything I can do to provide further input? lost me at the cruise table with the airway changes needs revision. Can I slip one more question? After reverting to v2.03 the local times for the UK are now +2h ahead of UTC where it should be +1h vs UTC. I vaguely remember this issue back in '17 when I started using the program. Any help would be much appreciated.
  6. Alright. I think I will revert to 2.03 if that is the preferred approach. For the LSGG to EGSS, I am attaching the first page and the relevant page where the DIK station is shown (where that small FL change occur just to be brought back to the INI CRZ LVL
  7. Hi, Thanks for the reply. What kind of issues could there be re FL? Issues like the following? I see there is a short DES in CRZ to cross DIK but the predecessor route as well as the successor would have allowed for the same CRZ level to be maintained. Wonder what the reason is if the winds do not seem to be that much of a significant factor here.
  8. Hi, All. So, ATC route goes as: "ATC ROUTE: N0440F360/N0440F380 DIPI6A ARBOS UL47 EPL UM624 JARNY/N0441F360 UM624 ROUSY/N0441F370 M624 DIK/N0442F380 M624 BUB L608 INLOD/N0465F180 L608 SUMUM Y6 IDESI IDES1A" Just disregard the up and down typical of an automated generated route in European airspace. However, if I were to follow this ATC route, I would expect to initially climb to FL360. However, the OFP as below shows initial of FL380 and then, somehow after the TOC, descend to 360, crossing NANCY at 360. The ATC route
  9. First image taken from the Browser shows at least two or more SIGMETs (Isolated Embedded Cumulonimbus) over the UK and France Now, second image shows the Flight Map where we see two SIGMETs that by a stretch could be considered a few of the above ones but for sure the dimensions nor the locations match. Does this mean there is an issue reporting the SIGMETs above Europe or am I doing something wrong
×
×
  • Create New...