Jump to content

FL change in flight plan


Recommended Posts

LEPA -> LOWW

Automatically calculated by PFPX:

N0447F340 MERO1L MEROS UN853 LUMAS UM985 EKSID/N0449F360 M985 OSKOR/N0453F370 L615 ELTAR/N0454F360 T147 SOVOX DCT LAPNA LAPN1W

I had to manually change it (in vPilot) to:

N0445F340 MEROS UN853 LUMAS UM985 EKSID/N0445F360 M985 OSKOR L615 ELTAR T147 SOVOX/N0445F370 DCT LAPNA

All up to OSKOR is correct, but Italy is complete N/S semicircular rule. So FL370 at OSKOR would be wrong. However then at ELTAR, it changes to FL360, which is right, so only two waypoints are to FL370.

And at SOVOX, it should change to odd, FL370 in my case, for the RVSM rule.

flight.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Italy is now Free Route Airspace ( FRAIT ) above FL335 so the route from EKSID is not available at those levels.

 

The direct links required do not form part of the AIRAC data files so I strongly recommend using David's 'PFPX RAD Restrictions and Directs' available from the Aerosoft downloads above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I looked into this, new thing for me. I get the principle, and looked at the charts etc. However, how is flightlevel still managed? In FRA, there is no more RVSM as I understand, aircraft basically fly from A->B directly (oh the times of direct flying in FS9 internal flight planner from a to b are back??, lol...), so how is vertical separation done? If only by ATC, as noted in the document, then we are kinda left alone... did I misunderstand something?

Btw. downloading that file did a lot - now I really have FRA through Italy. Still unsure about FL though.

MERO1L MEROS UN853 LUMAS UM985 EKSID M985 NOSTA DCT NOPMU DCT ETPUB Q985 MALUG DCT ABTAN ABTA1W

 

Sorry, found it:

https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/nm/cartography/flight-level-orientation-scheme-nm-area-march-2016.pdf

 

And while checking it, question for Spain: to which rule does Spain adhere really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spain sill use Airways except for the Madrid sector which has directs assigned according to the RAD, N/S RVSM applies.

 

Some airways however have differing FL arrangements to RVSM especially crossing FIR's, again PFPX should accommodate the correct levels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Djembe said:

Did you try to Validate the route?

Using directs, the problem is solved, and yes I did validate.

The only message I get in there is M985 is preceded by EKSID which is not one of its points - I will guess that its in the conjunction with FRA and DCT. Because if I exchange M985 with DCT, there is no message any more. EKSID is a FRA entry point of Italy. And there is no airway connection between. See here:

fra.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Djembe said:

I get the same messege.

The chart show UM985 and M985 with no connection. But in PFPX seems connected.

I will update to 1703 (relase today) with the new RAD and check again.

 

Can you please show what you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Djembe said:

I get the same messege.

The chart show UM985 and M985 with no connection. But in PFPX seems connected.

I will update to 1703 (relase today) with the new RAD and check again.

 

Jeppesen... how about Navigraph 1702 in PFPX?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UM985 does not exist in Italian airspace according their AIP, M985 links EKSID and NOSTA with a maximum FL335

 

However, the AIP of France indicates UM985 continuing to NOSTA in Italian airspace.

 

The Italian AIP charts also indicate M985 only.

 

Navigraph data reflects the Italian AIP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeppesen does agree. Please note that Jeppesen is a RW provider and, if I am not mistaken, Navigraph takes its data from Jeppesen.

 

As Stephen states the French AIP (SIA) does not show the change of airway. It is quite normal as each country shows only its airspace and does not care about their neighbours. It is wrong but it is the way. It is why there are private companies like Jeppesen or Lido that provides informations for all the world.

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

Jeppessen and Lufthansa Systems both do mistakes though and this may be one of them.

 

This is what LIDO shows:

-2017-mar-3-002.jpg

 

And this is what Skyvector (who seem to use the same source as LIDO) shows:

-2017-mar-3-004.jpg

 

According to the LIDO Chart the free route airspace (FRA) starts only at NOSTA and thus UM985 continues to NOSTA.

 

The error Kosta gets from the CFMU validation suggests that LIDO is right and Jeppesen is wrong in this case.

 

 

On 2.3.2017 at 8:54 AM, Kosta said:

Using directs, the problem is solved, and yes I did validate.

The only message I get in there is M985 is preceded by EKSID which is not one of its points - I will guess that its in the conjunction with FRA and DCT. Because if I exchange M985 with DCT, there is no message any more. EKSID is a FRA entry point of Italy. And there is no airway connection between. See here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Kosta said:

Maybe adding the DCTs from this forum fixes the issue? Because this is a FRA in the end. And not sure if Navigraph has these, as you read above.

 This is the route (LEPA-LOWW) i get (find route/upper airspace) with the last AIRAC (1703) from Navigraph, and last David's 'PFPX RAD:

 

N0446F380 MERO2A MEROS UN853 LUMAS UM985 EKSID M985 NOSTA DCT NOPMU  DCT ETPUB Q985 MALUG/N0443F370 DCT ABTAN ABTA1

 

I do not know what algorithm PFPX use for find the route, but the airway seems to have priority to directs.

What route PFPX show when you create the route with NavDataPro data?

 

 

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And not only that, but it also seems to nag about it. When validated, says M985 is preceded by EKSID which is not one of its points. So it plans, but fails when validated.

However, when I manually change to this, it's fine:

MEROS UN853 LUMAS UM985 EKSID DCT NOSTA DCT NOPMU DCT ETPUB DCT MALUG DCT ABTAN

Note that I had to change two airways to DCT and that was it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Kosta,

 

I would suggest backing up the \Public\Documents\PFPX Data\NavData

 

Delete all the contents except navdata.nav, cycle_info.txt and user.nav.

 

Install David's directs file again, the route LEPA-LOWW should plan straight through and validate without change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...