I have been beating my brains against a wall trying to figure out what is wrong with my SID syntax.This is the departure instruction I want to create a SID for:"Fly heading 147 until you reach 4 DME from navaid YTP then fly heading 180 until you reach 6.5 DME from navaid YTP at which point you should be at 2300 feet then fly heading 180 until you reach 9.2 DME from navaid YTP at which point you should be at 3000 feet."This is the SID that the FMC is rejecting:SID PEAR7.15R RNW 15R HDG 147 UNTIL 4 NAVAID YTP HDG 180 UNTIL 6.5 NAVAID YTP 2300 HDG 180 UNTIL 9.2 NAVAID YTP 3000Can you see any syntax erros? The FMC is complaining about the 2300 and the 3000.Alan

>This is the SID that the FMC is rejecting: >SID PEAR7.15R RNW 15R HDG 147 UNTIL 4 NAVAID YTP HDG 180 >UNTIL 6.5 NAVAID YTP 2300 HDG 180 UNTIL 9.2 NAVAID YTP 3000 >>Can you see any syntax erros? The FMC is complaining about >the 2300 and the 3000. >Yes. The grammar you are using is as follows:HDG NB UNTIL NB helperfixentry speed Helperfixentry is defined as NAVAIDFIX NAMETherefore, you cannot use an altitude constraint when using the HDG UNTIL vector.Try the following and it should work fine: SID PEAR7.15R RNW 15R HDG 147 UNTIL 4 NAVAID YTP HDG 180 UNTIL 6.5 NAVAID YTP HDG 180 UNTIL 9.2 NAVAID YTPNot exactly what you wanted - but as close as you can get!-michael

Michael,Thanks for your help. I hope you don't mind if I ask you other questions just to make sure my understanding is correct.Do you mean that I must define non-existent FIXES in order to automatically include altitude restraints into a SID? Would the resulting SID look something like this?SID PEAR7.15R RNW 15R HDG 147 UNTIL 4 NAVAID YTP HDG 180 FIX NOT_REAL1 2300 FIX NOT_REAL2 3000(I would carefully calculate the LAT/LON of the pints at which 6.5 NAVAID YTP and 9.2 NAVAID YTP were reached and identify them in the FIXES section.)Alternatively, can I manually specify altitude levels for each leg of a SID inside the FMC LEGS page?Alan

Alan,No you do not have to define false fixes because the fix is not the issue. The issue has to do with the grammar "allowing" specification of the altitude after you provide the NAVAIDFIX name.For the case of INTERCEPT, the grammar does not include the option for specifying an altitude.Yes - in the FMC you can assign altitudes to each fix in the flight plan.PS: I saw your other post about my suggestions not working - now I'm baffled. I'll have to give it a try late tonight to see what I can come up with.-michael

Michael,Thanks for being patient with my ignorance. Please take as much time as necessary to get to the bottom of this.From your other post it dawns on me that there is a method to the madness of splitting a SID into several lines. (I had thought it was simply a way of making the code more understandable!)Does it make sense to create the following in order to add altitude restrictions to a SID?SID PEAR7.15R RNW 15RHDG 147 UNTIL 4 NAVAID YTPHDG 180 UNTIL 6.5 NAVAID YTPHDG 180 2300HDG 180 UNTIL 9.2 NAVAID YTPHDG 180 3000Alan

>Michael, >>From your other post it dawns on me that there is a method >to the madness of splitting a SID into several lines. (I had >thought it was simply a way of making the code more >understandable!) >>Does it make sense to create the following in order to add >altitude restrictions to a SID? >>SID PEAR7.15R RNW 15R >HDG 147 UNTIL 4 NAVAID YTP >HDG 180 UNTIL 6.5 NAVAID YTP >HDG 180 2300 >HDG 180 UNTIL 9.2 NAVAID YTP >HDG 180 3000 >>Alan Alan,It is helpful for readability/understandability, but no benefit other than that is gained from doing so. Whether on separate lines or one long line, the FMC ultimately sees the same information, and I think you would be able to enter altitudes for each - that would be something to try out. What I was referring to in my previous post (regarding separate lines) is this: The phrases that you specify (e.g., HDG 150 UNTIL 2.0 NAVAID CSN) is a sentence in a limited language. The list of all "legal" sentences is called the grammar. The current grammar allows you to express INTERCEPT vectors in two different ways. *IF* the FMC was confused as to which form of the INTERCEPT vector was begin specified, it could erroneously signal an error when in fact nothing is wrong. It's possible - but without seeing the code behind the FMC I could not say for sure (Anthony can ...!) :-)So - I'm only speculating at this point. After trying some combinations we might be able to figure out what is and is not working. Again, all this assumes that we are specifying legal sentences in the first place ... ;-)-michael