How can I fly this ?

[MBunjes 2]

I'm building a flight from LIMC to LKPR using PFPX. The route PFPX comes up with is : N0455F360 SRN7G OSKOR UM985 TAGIP UT876 OGEPI UM726 KOGOL/N0457F370 UN871 NENUM UZ39 GOSEK.

Now, the first part of the flight is in Italian airspace which has the NORTH/SOUTH rule. Everything fine so far : PFPX puts me at F360.

At waypoint BRENO I enter Austrian airspace on a heading of 002 degrees, which should take place at an odd level. PFPX still has me at F360 though. Even if I wanted I can't fly this because 12 miles later I'm in INN on a heading of 357 and I'm supposed to go to an even level again. At KOGOL in Germany all is well and PFPX puts me on an odd level.

So I wonder what's the best way to fly this ? Should I ask ATC if I can stay on an even level the 12 miles from BRENO to INN ?

 

[brett 2,310]

Doesn't sound like a VFR flight which would need to follow those altitude restrictions based on compass heading rules.

 

Sounds more like a IFR commercial flight where ATC would give you your altitude based on aircraft separation. 

[MBunjes 2]

Ah, no at F360 it wouldn't be a VFR flight.   I'm just trying to follow the RVSM rules in this part of the world but the short distances between waypoints make it almost impossible. Of course when ATC assigns me a different flight level, ok, but I have to plan according to the rules

[brett 2,310]

What I am trying to say is that it would still be up to ATC to decide in the RW so in the sim there is no problem with asking for a different altitude based on what you know to be correct but the sim ATC doesn't.

[Bruce (a.k.a. brian747) 142]

Hi Martin!

If you go to the "Downloads and documents" pinned post in the Aircraft | Commercial Airliners subforum you'll find a link to a document called "Simmers' guide to IFR RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minima) cruise levels".

Hopefully, it will give you the information you need. (If not, please give me a yell).

Cheers,

bruce

a.k.a. brian747

[brett 2,310]

Thanks for bailing me out Bruce.

[MBunjes 2]

Thanks Bruce, I'll check it out. Although I'm quite familiar with the RVSM rules sometimes they are impossible to implement.

[Bruce (a.k.a. brian747) 142]

@brett

 

You're welcome, my friend!   

 

@Martin

 

<grin>  Roger that!    

 

> "Should I ask ATC if I can stay on an even level the 12 miles from BRENO to INN ?"

 

I'm not an ATC expert, but I reckon that's exactly what would happen. My guess would be that after a brief chat with the Austrians they would surely permit you to stay at your present level (unless a conflict would result, of course) and then report leaving their airspace a very short time later?

 

On the wider question of flight levels with PFPX, though, I too tweak them as required to be as fully compliant with RVSM rules as possible for the airspace(s) I am flying over. This is unavoidable because, whilst PFPX goes a great job in many ways, it does fail us in this particular aspect. I think the origin of its problem in this respect can be found in Christian's statement that —

 

"The altitudes/flight levels on the OFP are always shown in the units set in the aircraft properties for the selected aircraft."

 

<sigh>  So we will never get a flight plan that shows flight levels in feet where appropriate and then in metric whilst overflying over China, for example; hence in such cases it's up to us to intervene.         It's a nuisance, but it sounds to me as though this behaviour was built in to PFPX's design from the beginning, in which case changing it now could be extremely difficult.

 

Therefore I entirely agree that sometimes the implementation (in the widest sense) can be problematic. Regarding your specific example of a 12 mile corner of Austrian airspace, I suppose that in Real Life (a dangerous illusion that I suspect is mostly caused by a shortage of alcohol) it would be a question of talking to the controllers concerned and then responding appropriately, but as simmers we seldom have that luxury.

 

(Just occasionally, aspects of simming, especially for those of us who do long haul as realistically as we possibly can, can in fact be more difficult than reality — as in this case).   

 

Cheers,

 

bruce

a.k.a. brian747

 

[MBunjes 2]

Thanks Bruce,

 

I thought it would be something like that. My VA however requires me to accurately file my flightplan so I guess I'll have to put all the changes in at the appropriate waypoints.

Ok, so I'll have another beer and see if I can fly this mother.

[Bruce (a.k.a. brian747) 142]

> "My VA however requires me to accurately file my flightplan..."

 

  <DEEP sigh>  That makes life difficult indeed, my friend. I'm not sure what to suggest (except perhaps, change your VA?     ).

 

> "I'll have another beer..."

 

  *Always* a good idea.

 

> "... and see if I can fly this mother."

 

Good luck, Martin (although I have to say that some VAs are run by people who know little of these matters, unfortunately). Being forced to compromise for practical reasons is one thing, but being forced to fly it wrongly just because the VA doesn't know about how things should be done is another.   

 

The very best of luck, and all the best,

 

Cheers,

 

B.

 

[jaydor 345]

With such a short course to the waypoint, would it not be better to delete the waypoint and continue to the next waypoint.

 

I use PFPX, but when I program the flight into the FMCU (Airbus driver) inputting the Airways and VOR it by-passes some waypoints.

 

I have notice this happening as I use Aivlasoft EFB to follow the flight.

[MBunjes 2]

That's an idea. i could always ask for a "direct to" which is always granted. Why didn't I think of that ?

[jaydor 345]

When you have your plan in PFPX completed, before you compute the plan look for any short span deviation  waypoints and delete them off,  Then compute the plan and use that one to submit to ATC.

 

Remember the route chosen by PFPX can always be altered before submission to ATC for the  flight..   Airlines look for fuel saving these days and the straighter the route then that means saving fuel..

[Bruce (a.k.a. brian747) 142]

Hi, James!

> "...when I program the flight into the FMCU (Airbus driver) inputting the Airways and VOR it by-passes some waypoints."

That seems strange. Could it be a "fly by" as opposed to "fly over" thing?

Cheers,

B.

[jaydor 345]

Hi, James!

> "...when I program the flight into the FMCU (Airbus driver) inputting the Airways and VOR it by-passes some waypoints."

That seems strange. Could it be a "fly by" as opposed to "fly over" thing?

Cheers,

B.

You got me thinking now Bruce, maybe this senior thing is getting to me also, will double check and get back..

[Bruce (a.k.a. brian747) 142]

Senior? Nothing so posh, in my case.

B.