Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums
eytan

Matching SID with first waypoint

Recommended Posts

Hi

I use FSC both off line and online (VATSIM).

My question is about the SID section of the flightplan.

Many times the VATSIM controller rejects the fp and I just ask him to send me one, which I then enter into the FSC flightplan box.

I don't want to get into this issue because;

1. It's been discussed here many times,

2. The above method of entering the controller's fp is a good solution.

But let's discuss what happens with a flightplan and adding a SID. All this is offline.

FSC generates a high alt fp, and then I try to find a SID that would connect me from the dep runway to the first waypoint.

Here's an example of the problem;

FSC high alt plan is for EDDF-LGAV -

EDDF OMOGI T721 SUNEG UL607 TGO UQ303 VEKEN UP735 DEGUM UY177 ABISO UY450 NERRA UL607 XORKI LGAV

So I open up the SID window and go thrpugh the SIDs to see whivh one would do the job. From any runway.

No SID goes to OMOGI. Some go close to it.

By comparison Vatroute generates this route;

NOMBO Y161 MUN UM867 NIPEL UM178 ILB UL607 SPL UL862 BRD UL612 ARA UB34 NEMES

If I copy this route into FSC, then the SID window gives many options to connect with NOMBO.

Can you comment on this?

Eytan Ornstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eytan,

if Vatsim accepts only its own routes, what shall we do.

The FSCommander created routes while using Sid's, Airways, Star's and Transition.

If these routes will not conform with Vatsim, then you can use VATSIM routes in the FSCommander route string.

Regards,

Volker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volker,

You replied to the first part of the question (VATSIM issues), and I agree.

Could you address the issue I raised in the second part where FSC generates the route, and cannot link to the first waypoint with its own list of SIDs?

This happens quite often from major airports. Thanks.

Eytan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eytan,

the problem disappears when you first choose the SID and then generate the airway route (high or low), as I always do. The reason for this is fairly simple. SIDs are in some sense fixed routes, i.e. they go to where they go and you can do nothing about it. Airway routes are in the same sense variable routes; i.e. FS Commander searches for some nearby airway entry point and constrcuts the shortest route from there. Now, if it so happens that the entry point is not identical to any of the SID's last waypoint, you automatically get a leg which connects the last SID waypoint with the airway entry point. This leg may be non-SID and non-airway.

If you first choose the SID, then this will bring you (in most cases) to an intersection which will then also be the entry point to some airway. When you then autogenerate an airway route, this will connect directly with the final waypoint of the SID.

I believe I have written something along these lines in the manual. But I cannot check right now, because I'm in Japan and my current computer setup is somewhat minimalistic.

Wrt VATSIM problem I believe, though I am not sure, that the VATSIM routes are stored in a database. The reason for this belief is that there are many potential routes between airports for which VATSIM does not offer a route at all. Since I sim-fly in Japan quite often I found that apart from the major airports I couldn't get any VATSIM routes.

Now, if for whatever reason VATSIM decides to only accept routes that are stored in their database then there is little we can do. I know that IVAO does not, but VATSIM may have a different policy. As Volker already suggested the easiest way to circumvent this problem is to take the route string from VATSIM and copy it into our route string text box.

Regards

Sascha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eytan,

the problem disappears when you first choose the SID and then generate the airway route (high or low), as I always do. The reason for this is fairly simple. SIDs are in some sense fixed routes, i.e. they go to where they go and you can do nothing about it. Airway routes are in the same sense variable routes; i.e. FS Commander searches for some nearby airway entry point and constrcuts the shortest route from there. Now, if it so happens that the entry point is not identical to any of the SID's last waypoint, you automatically get a leg which connects the last SID waypoint with the airway entry point. This leg may be non-SID and non-airway.

If you first choose the SID, then this will bring you (in most cases) to an intersection which will then also be the entry point to some airway. When you then autogenerate an airway route, this will connect directly with the final waypoint of the SID.

I believe I have written something along these lines in the manual. But I cannot check right now, because I'm in Japan and my current computer setup is somewhat minimalistic.

Thanks for the detailed reply.

It matches also some real world procedures; here sometimes departure control tells you after flying part of the SID to go direct to the first wapyoint.

This is done if traffic is sparse or not in the way.

Eytan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, if for whatever reason VATSIM decides to only accept routes that are stored in their database then there is little we can do.

Hi Sascha,

No that isn't the case with Vatsim. The Vatroute database is just a selection of valid flight plan routes for people to choose from, it isn't compulsory to use them. Provided one's route is valid then you can use whatever route you want BUT you must use correct sids to join it and hence your suggestion of picking the SID first should work, provided you pick a SID from the correct runway in use as per the Vatsim ATIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sascha,

No that isn't the case with Vatsim. The Vatroute database is just a selection of valid flight plan routes for people to choose from, it isn't compulsory to use them. Provided one's route is valid then you can use whatever route you want BUT you must use correct sids to join it and hence your suggestion of picking the SID first should work, provided you pick a SID from the correct runway in use as per the Vatsim ATIS.

Hi Bill,

Sascha is currently in Japan. The answer may, based of the current situation, take a while.

Regards,

Volker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bill,

thanks a lot for the clarification. Actually, I always thought it would be this way, and was some confused when users told us about rejected flight plans. I assume that in most cases flight plans got rejected because the chosen sid did not match the rest of the route (or vice versa) or maybe a wrong rwy was chosen.

Anyway, I very much appreciate your answer so in the future we can instruct our users accordingly if cases of rejected flight plans emerge again.

Sincerely

Sascha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, my VATSIM experience on this issue has varied, depending on where I'm flying.

In Europe the controllers are stricter. I end up, in most cases, inserting their flightplans's into the box in FSC.

They also issue the SID.

In the USA, they accept your own SIDs with the filed flightplans, and they tend to be more "lenient".

Eytan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eytan,

One of the reasons will be that European airways are far more restricted than in the US. Far more airways over here are 'one way' or altitude restricted, also any time you venture near London or Frankfurt (as examples) then you will find other constraints on such things as to which SID can be used for what for traffic management purposes. These aren't Vatsim constraints, they're real world ones. Lots of DCT in FPs might be frowned upon as well since they're rarely used across Europe wherea in the US they're very common.

Also in Europe it tends to be very important to be flightplanning to a relatively current AIRAC. As an example, as of last month any flight over Sweden using an Upper airway (e.g. UN623) would get rejected because they don't exist anymore, they have dropped the difference between Upper and Lower airways so UN866 becomes N866. Also this month, all the airspace around Oslo Gardermoen ENGM has changed dramatically with all the SIDs and STARs being replaced. Last year all the upper airways that crossed Ireland were scrapped so to transit Ireland is now just direct entry waypoint to exit waypoint.

So, there's a lot to keep up to date on but if you're on a current AIRAC (having run FSC dbmanager of course!) then you have a much better chance of success. Of course, using a database of valid flight plans is the safest method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, there's a lot to keep up to date on but if you're on a current AIRAC (having run FSC dbmanager of course!) then you have a much better chance of success. Of course, using a database of valid flight plans is the safest method.

Hi Bill,

not a criticism but only an information, at the change of AIRAC Cycle does not require to run the databasemanager again.

The re-start of the databasemanager has no effect on the flight planning service but only updated the Scenery data

e.g. Airports, Runways, Taxiways, Appron and ILS'es. (if you have install a new addon)

Regards,

Volker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that Volker but as we say over here "belt and braces" so if you change anything then run it again. It's a good habit to get into!

Hi Bill,

in this case, "belt and braces", you're right, we say here "double needled holds better".

Regards,

Volker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. Guidelines Privacy Policy We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.