>>Craig,>>Thanks for the great link! >>Can their plans be converted to FS9 Planner and FSNav or>entered therein manually?>>Thanks for the help>>JackDThey can only be entered into FSNav manually (that's what I use). I read that FSBuild has a feature to import plans from this site. I don't own it myself, so I can't confirm it.

>Why not perfectly directDidn't have a big enough chart in front of me to see how straight the line would be ;-) In any case, the airways do tend to kink around a bit.>Why around them if you are clearly above them?Thoughts: To minimise turbulence (and who wants to spill their passengers G&T?) you'd need to be above the mountains by several thousand feet (couldn't say how many), which would put you in Class A (above FL195). The mountains are considered remote and inaccessible for SAR purposes, so if you crash you ain't gonna get rescued quickly. The mountains will run pretty good interference with radio, nav and GPS comms.

IFR generally uses airways, that's why flying VFR is generally faster, because you can fly direct.Both airways or VOR-to-VOR can be flown VFR as well.

>I wonder how I'm supposed to collect such a price? I live in>Europe and I can't fly real planes.four options:1: Have the wings taken off then crated and shipped, with the wings refitted at the other end, and a full inspection. ~

Hi Tim >mountain waves are not modelled in FS,you mean ridge turbulences ? strong up/downdrafts in any weather ?> to follow the Rhone Valley South I strongly advise you to avoid the interdiction zones around the string of nuclear power stations along the valley. The French are not so relaxed anymore since 9/11... It's great to fly VFR but it's costly (fines), in the best of cases. Now, ITOH yo've a point you may see also close, coming after you, a Mirage 2000 or for slower craft a helicopter with a marksman inside :-).

>3: Take flying lessons and get a PPL, then do the appropriate>safety training, and then fly it across yourself. ~

Actually, I have/had a client that is a commercial airline pilot, and he indicated that more and more (because of the advent of GPS) that 'they' are instructed to fly direct by ATC.Seems a bit crazy to me as you could have aircraft 'zig zaging' around everywhere, thus the rationale for flying orderly plan within routes. But it seems to be happening these days.Don't know about GA, which is all I fly in FS, and I use a combination of sectional/low enroute/FS Nav/and Golden Eagle...depending. But I always follow the rules to the best of my knowlege....including airspace/altitude/terminal procedures/etc.

>Not really trying to second guess your plans, but I see two>choices: Dijon - Geneva - Torino, which takes you over the top>of the Alps, but is reasonably direct, but really begs good>weather and/or oxygen (mountain waves are not modelled in FS,>but I personally wouldn't want to be anywhere near flying IFR>in IMC in a small aircraft). Preferable IMHO but longer wouldIn stead I did a flightplan from LFQB to LIML (Milano Linate) with Airplan IFR. I started with a cruise altitude of 10000. Closer to my destination i could see that the minimum altitude for the airways was increased (up to 14000 in steps). In airplan I could see that I would be crossing mountains about 10000 ft high. What is best to do?Flying up to 14000 without oxygen for short while?Flying lower than the minimum airway altitude. 11000 would stay above the mountains. Or would this not be permitted by regulations?