Disable "off filed route, fly heading..."

[RestUnknown 0]

Hi all

 

I make a flightplan using FsCommander (without sid's as I don't know which runway I'll be taking off), load it in RC4 (v.4.3) and take off using a sid.

After a while RC starts saying I'm off my filed route and have to fly heading... (which usually is a 180° turn), this is quite annoying as I eventually will be getting back on my filed route because I'm just using a sid. I have to use Dir Ckp quite often because of this.

 

Is there a way I can disable this message? I tried putting 360 in "heading deviation" but this doesn't help (in fact it makes it even worse and even at a 1 degree deviation it starts notifying me I'm off course). Smaller numbers in this option, won't help either.

 

Thanks!

[agutz 15]

Hi Peter,

this is a "feature" (aka bug) of RC4. Especially on long SIDs (south of EBBR there is one almost 100 nm long) RC will assume you are lost. "Direct to next Checkpoint" is the only solution.

Perhaps in RC5 ...

Cheers, Andreas

[ronzie 21]

Several items:

 

First for initial departure within 30 nm and arrival within 35 nm you can use the NOTAMS feature to get some flexibility. If your first departure waypoint is within 30 nm you will be expected to navigate on your own path to the first waypoint outside of 30 nm. That behavior can also be forced by selecting one of the altitude restriction options.

 

Second, when using SIDs or STARs (terminal procedures) and especially with a GPS or FMC type system the nav instruments terminal procedure database must be in sync with the waypoints in the plan. Use at least a one time Aerosoft or Navigraph subscription update to update your instrument (FMC) database and planner database (AIRAC) so procedure waypoints are synced. These subscriptions are incident or period based and for single or period subscription you can download as many formats as you need for that single price.

 

When using runway specific terminal procedures try using just waypoints common to all runways in the plan sent to RC.

 

Third, be sure FSUIPC is current and you have rebuilt your scenery within RC after updating makerwys.exe.

 

The following document is based on FSBuild 2.4 but still has several items that can apply in these situations.

 

 

[agutz 15]

Hi Ron,

sorry for having called this a bug. I apologise.

Normally I don't have problems with DPs. It is just with long SIDs (longer than 30 nm) that it seems to need special handling.

The flightplan was simple: EBBR - GTQ - BLM - LFSB, the long SID in question, ROUS5L from EBBR: I had to choose this SID (BRO12 - BRO13 - REMBA - RITAX - ROUSY) in Aivlasoft's EFB and save it BEFORE starting RC4 so it gets recognised by RC4. Then eveything is well. I haven't checked all possible variations but I think just ticking "departure procedure with alt restrictions" won't help here, the first waypoint (GTQ) being about 100 nm away.

In this case it means that I have to guess a runway before I get one from RC4.

Does that make sense or is there another way to handle it?

Apologies again, Andreas

[ronzie 21]

All of the ROUSY transition SID routes on charts from EuroControl except 4Z pass through HUL as the first waypoint. This includes 5L and the chart is current as of 13DEC12.

 

I have for example HUL REMBA RITAX ROUSY (old AIRAC in my planner.) but they seem to be common for all of the runways. This earlier version was ROSSY3L.

 

 

 

HUL and REMBA are within the 30 nm airport boundary so you would be expected to fly over those on your own.

 

BRO12 - BRO13 are soft waypoints local to the digital version of the AIRAC for EBBR to define the curve for the FMC. I do not see those on the charts. Those should be left out of the .pln sent to RC and use the NOTAMS option on the controller pageto allow flexibility. If in there remember RC only fives you a two nm radius for waypoints in that boundary difficult to get exact in fast aircraft.

 

I use in RC a heading option of 25 degrees.

 

See if this helps.

[ronzie 21]

I found the ROUSY 5L RNAV chart:

 

 

 

which shows BRO12 and BRO13 which is a defines the curve and then into REMBA. As stated see how your nav equipment is handling flying over those waypoints in controlling the aircraft if you leave them in the plan sent to RC and use NOTAMS. See if you get credit for those waypoints by looking at the RC window. A missed waypoint causes a 180 back to it. When available the Direct Checkpoint option in RC can get you out of that bind but that choice may not be available that close in within the airport traffic boundary (30 nm).

 

Now NOTAMS does not relieve the necessity of crossing a waypoint and getting credit. It just eases up heading and altitude except the arrival crossing restriction at 40 nm out from destination. Within the departure boundary of 30 nm you still only get the 2 nm radius to cross the checkpoint. You can still leave at least BRO12 out of the plan sent to RC if nothing is resolved.

[agutz 15]

Hi Ron,

thanks for your detailed investigation. I learned something!

I get about the same plan Using FSBuild (Except for the total distance which is more like 240 nm)

when I don't check "Exclude SID/STARS" in FSBuild. This is certainly flyable with RC4. Even without

NOTAMS.

But I was of the opinion that a flightplan should not include SID/STARS (is that correct?) so I check

"Exclude SID/STARS" in FSBuild. I then get EBBR - GTQ - BAMEV - BLM - LFSB.

In EFB I look at the weather and choose SID ROUS4F. When activated this gives EBBR - ROUS4F - GTQ -

BLM - LFSB, with waypoints HUL - REMBA - RITAX - ROUSY as part of the SID.

Now, the result is about the same but the way I got there is different.

BTW: I think the reason why RC4 was yelling at me for having lost orientation was due to the fact

that I had a SID in FSBuild and EFB was putting another one in front of it. No wonder, RC4 was

confused.

Also BTW: Does the 30 nm limit where I will be expected to navigate on my own path to the first

waypoint outside of 30 nm have an equivalent in the real world?

Cheers, Andreas

[ronzie 21]

First, in FSBuild, you do not have to exclude all SIDS and STARS since you have that non-sticky option to build the plan from the route tale/grid that is editable once you have done the initial build. That way you can drop the undesired waypoints of a SID-STAR just keeping the common ones to all runways. With this option enabled the contents of the main route line no longer apply to the build and do not destroy your edits. Remember that the route table expands off of the terminal procedure waypoints so you can examine them, edit, and then elect to rebuild from that edited grid. This option must be set for each FSB session.

 

If EFB is updatable by AIRACS from navigraph or Aerosoft than that should be done to match your FMC data and the plan sent to RC (with the exception of dropped waypoints). It needs to be synced with with the FMC terminal procedure database and planner if used. I am not familiar with the EFB product.

 

In the real world the SID description will detail if you get vectors to the first defined waypoint or if you follow it all the way from take-off. As far as RC the the CD phrasing will tell you wwhat to expect. From page 40 of he RCv43 manual;

 

"IFR Clearance though Clearance Delivery (CD)

It‟s pretty simple. Delivery tells you „cleared as filed‟, which means you can fly the plan just as you filed it. You will be issued an initial interim altitude and transponder code, a so-called „squawk‟, which can be a number between 1000 and 7999. Certain numbers which have a special meaning are excluded however: 1200 for instance is used for flights operating under visual flight rules, and certain numbers over 7000 are used for various emergencies. A typical clearance might read: “King Air 1231C, cleared to the XXX airport as filed. Climb and maintain (altitude). Expect (filed altitude) within ten minutes after departure. Squawk XXXX. Departure frequency XXX.XX”. If your first filed checkpoint is within 30 miles of your departure airport (constituting a DP), or if you selected one of the Departure Procedure option checkboxes, your clearance will include the phrase “…via published Departure Procedures, then as filed”.

 

Also a SID can include the enroute phase, as do STARs, that can take you outside of departure or approach jurisdiction. RC is set for 30 nm departure and about 35 nm arrival for monitoring and commands as needed. this is an average of real world conditions. ATC can always order deviations as necessary but you if the published procedure does not indicate vectors then you are expected to fly the details.

 

 

 

is a SID ( outdated 2008) from Manchester, England. Note the descriptions on the bottom of the page for each one and the defined turning points in the diagram. No vectors needed.

 

This DP (SID) from KMSP (current cycle but not for real world navigtion) is a bit confusing.

 

 

 

On the second page note the first statement showing vectors to intercept GEP R-119 but somwhere and thence to COULT via your own nav follwing the SID waypoints. Look at the 30 L/R description. You get the GEP crossing altitude but that is is. Here GEP would not be a waypoint (and I'd leave it outside of the RC plan or you would not get vectors to GEP R-119). An RNAV SID if available would be more restrictive.

 

While this link lists APP I also think that might cover DEP as well as I recall:

http://www.liveatc.net/search/?icao=KMSP

 

There might be some security mismatch in watching the map on flightaware.com and ATC but you should find it instructive:

http://flightaware.com/

 

Just put in the lower left KMSP and cick Activity

[agutz 15]

Thanks for all clarifications.

EFB is updatable by Navigraph and is in synch with the databases of FSB and the FMC.

Andreas

[agutz 15]

Addendum:

I know this is not the place to discuss merits and demerits of RC4. But anyway:

 

I fed the "SIDless" flightplan (mentioned in post #4) generated by FSB to VoxATC. It gave me the correct rwy (OPUS weather) and assigned the correct SID, then let my fly the filed flightplan, gave the correct Arrival Procedure, picked me up from it to vector me to the IAF and let me land.

 

Some things I like better with RC4 but VoxATC certainly is an alternative while we are in the holding pattern for RC5.

Andreas