Forcing the approach type?

[the_korben]

Hi everyone,

first I wanted to say that I have been having a lot of fun with Pilot2Atc recently. After being a user for about 8 months and slowly learning the ins and outs, still almost every time I use it I discover some new capability and I am simply amazed at how in-depth the experience is and how deep this rabbit hole goes. 🙂 As someone working on professional flight planning software for airlines I must say that I am deeply impressed with the scope of this tool!

That said, I ran into an issue today where I was flying from KPRC to KTNP with my Robin DR400 using FSEconomy. As my Robin is not equipped with a GPS autopilot within the FSEconomy system, I try not to use the GPS systems at all but rather navigate using the radios. Planning my flight with P2A, I therefore assigned the VOR approach for KTNP and by disabling the "auto-load recommended procedures" I managed to get a flight plan validated that indeed uses the VOR approach to RWY26. As I was approaching the TOD, however, ATC reassigned me to the RNAV(GPS) approach. I ignored this and still flew the VOR approach and everything worked out just fine, since the approaches are not that different. However, I was wondering if there is any way to stick with an approach or to filter the approach type for planes that are not equipped with then necessary systems. Or is this already being considered and am I just out of luck because from the perspective of P2A the Robin DR400 model indeed does have a working GPS (FSEconomy simply disables the GPS autopilot slaving to simulate its absence)?

Thanks a lot and best wishes,

the_korben

[RobW05]

Uncheck "ATC assigns approaches" in the FLT PLN page of the settings menu and you will get what you filed. (as long as it's still the active runway) 

[the_korben]

Thanks, RobW05, that will do the trick! Don't know how I missed this (even checked the manual before creating the thread). Still, it would be neat if somehow ATC knew which types of approaches make sense for the which plane, but maybe that is a feature for another future release ...