Missing Waypoints

[crashbar 2]

Hello,

 

  OK again I'm still new to PMDG and before I post questions I do try my best to research solutions, in this case I can not find one.  I have created a FLP from KCHA to KTPA using PFPX. This may be a PFPX issue but I thought I would start here first.  The problem is when I load this in the FMC it only shows roughly half of the flight plan waypoints.  The last waypoint shown in the LEGS page is SZW.  The next waypoint at cruise, HEVVN and the following TOD/descent waypoints are not shown.  When I go back to PFPX on the map when I zoom in I can see all the waypoints to the airport including the alternate path to KSRQ, and all the waypoints are shown on the PFPX flight report.  I also noticed that ASN shows the same waypoints that the NGX FMC shows when I load the same FLP.  It does not show the missing waypoints which leads me to believe the is something in PFPX but I'm not sure.  The same phenomenon happened when using PFPX to create a FLP from EHAM to LOWI using the same runway approach  used in tutorial2.  I hope I was able to articulate the problem some what and any help on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, crashbar.

[pschlute 37]

Probably due to your navigation databases not being in sync. You need your PFPX nav database to be the same cycle (they can be updated monthly) as the NGX.

[crashbar 2]

Ya I just purchased NAVIGRAGH a week ago, same time I bought PFPX and the NGX.  I bought the quarterly subscription and  all NAV info is updated.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

I hope I was able to articulate the problem some what and any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

The issue here is simple, but complex for a newer person to fully understand, so I'll do my best.

 

PFPX is a flight planer that attempts to come up with a most-accurate path between departure and destination points.  Because of this, it tries to plot from runway to runway to get a very accurate fuel number.  This is both good and bad.  It's good for the experienced simmer/pilot, but it's rather bad for the new guy.

 

First, it tricks the new guy into thinking that the PFPX-selected SID/STAR and associated runways are set in stone, when they are not (at all, actually - never assume you're going to get the runway PFPX "assigns").  Second, PFPX will include the SID/STAR waypoints in the flight plan file, which again, the new guy assumes will be in the imported flight plan, and this is incorrect for similar reasons to my first point: SIDs and STARs often change (and in Europe, you don't even file a STAR - they assign it to you mid-flight).

 

PFPX isn't wrong to assume the various runways and SIDs and STARs.  You wouldn't be able to get very accurate fuel numbers if you assumed a direct flight path from your last waypoint to the field.  Rather, PFPX simply throws in a STAR as a placeholder to get some kind of fuel number that's more accurate that the assumption of a direct (or some nominal value).  The problem is, people assume what you get from PFPX is the way it should be, when it's more PFPX coming up with a good plan that you're supposed to adjust.

 

So, what you're likely seeing is that the PFPX flight plan is including fixes that are part of the SID and STAR, which you must add back in when you load the PFPX flight plan into the FMC.  From there you'll see the same points (with the exception of TOC | T/C and TOD | T/D - these are dynamic points that the FMC adjusts based on your actual performance - the points in the PFPX flight plan are guesses as to where you're going to reach the T/C and T/D).

 

Hope that helps.

[crashbar 2]

Actually it makes perfect sense, and I believe I even proved the point just a little while ago when i just added in the missing waypoints directly through the FMC and took them right in with no problem.  This is another example of re-checking everything over and over and being able to understand the flexibility of the FMC. Thanks again Kyle, happy flights.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Thanks again Kyle, happy flights.

 

Welcome.  If you haven't tried the tutorials yet, you'll probably get a whole bunch out of them regarding the flexibility of the FMC.

[Oliver Branaschky 2]

(and in Europe, you don't even file a STAR - they assign it to you mid-flight)

Kyle, just to avoid confusion here, at least in Germany you are supposed to file a STAR and it will be included in your enroute clearance (the "flight planned route" part). Of course it can be altered before your arrival, just like any other part of your filed route, but who am I talking to? ;-)

 

The thing is: you file it, and unless you receive a different instruction, you fly it, right to the clearance limit, where - in lieu of further instructions - you enter the published hold.

 

Can't speak for the other European countries, of course, but here this is what we do. Hope that makes sense.

 

Best regards

Oliver

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

The thing is: you file it, and unless you receive a different instruction, you fly it, right to the clearance limit, where - in lieu of further instructions - you enter the published hold.

 

That makes a lot of sense, actually.  Thanks for clarifying!

[Oliver Branaschky 2]

Welcome.

[KriVa 307]

As far as I know, the same routine Oliver described applies in Belgium too.

[downscc 1,327]

 

 

This is another example of re-checking everything over and over and being able to understand the flexibility of the FMC.

 

Just a friendly pointer, this topic is explained in the INTRO pg 0.00.112.  I still go back to the documents frequently.

[crashbar 2]

Just a friendly pointer, this topic is explained in the INTRO pg 0.00.112.  I still go back to the documents frequently.

Big thanks to everyone especially downscc your exactly right...thought I was doing something wrong lol.  Btw I studied the tutorials and manuals for a week before I even started up FSX.......theirs just so much information that 2 weeks isn't enough time to bring it all in.  This forum has been a great help though thanks again guys.  Just did my first flight with a complete route and it went great, very pleased.  All except the default ATC......it really is horrible and quite unusable imo lol.  

[downscc 1,327]

 

 

All except the default ATC......it really is horrible and quite unusable imo lol.

 

We agree on that... unusable.  I get by with an ATC-in-my-head because I've got decades of IFR flight; although, it is all below FL240 I am familiar with FAA procedures and at one time helped an ex-wife learn the 7110.8  (now known as 7110.10 see: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FSS_Basic.pdf ). I estimate at least a third use an on-line ATC such as VATSIM, and there is also RadarContact for autonomous use. I haven't tried on-line ATC but so far the ATC-in-my-head as worked for me.

[crashbar 2]

Haha ya when ATC brought me in on the approach pattern to KTPA they sent me 40 miles past in the opposite direction then brought me back in and handed me off to tower at 25 miles away perpendicular to the runway lol.  Think I'm going to check out RadarContact, although I have read up on problems getting key registration.  I don't think I'm ready for live ATC yet, need to learn the lingo lol.