P2ATC requesting to pass point "at FL" why not "at or above"

[Steku 158]

Recently I've been flying ROPO 1B STAR in Aerosoft CRJ:

 

 

I was requested by ATC to pass ROPOX at FL160, while CRJ descent profile predicted much higher altitude at this point (FL305)

 

Why ATC is asking me to pass at fixed FL and not "at or above"? There is no altitude restriction at this point (ROPOX).

This happens for most of my approaches in the CRJ.

My plans are imported to P2ATC from Navigraph (based on Simbrief)  and to CRJ FMS from Simbrief.

How should I overcome this, to avoid steep descent, not in line with the descent profile optimal for the CRJ? Should I play with the Descent Rate in P2ATC? To have the FL305 at ROPOX I would need to set crazy Descent Rate in P2ATC (ca. 5000 FPM).

I fly in VR, so I setup my plan in P2ATC, file it and from this point on I'm 100% in VR, interacting with P2ATC by voice only. So I would rather avoid manually editing in P2ATC the planned altitude at ROPOX based on the FL provided by the CRJ FMS.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Steku

[Dave-Pilot2ATC 870]

The main value to experiment with is the Descent rate.  Find out what that should be for your aircraft and set it in the flight plan.  That should move the TOD to a good position to start the descent.  The Planned GS is the other variable that affects TOD, so be sure it's about right for the aircraft and the Winds.

That said, I don't see a TOD in the plan.  Did you Validate the plan?  That would likely change the altitude at ROPOX.  

Adjusting the Descent rate in the plan after a few flights should get it right and it can be left alone.

 

Dave

[Steku 158]

The plan was validated before the flight, the screen from P2ATC above is for illustration only, screenshot taken just for this point.

Why P2ATC asked me to be AT certain FL over ROPOX if there is no restriction for ROPOX in the STAR?

[Dave-Pilot2ATC 870]

It's not uncommon to get an initial descent altitude target when the first waypoint of an arrival procedure is after the TOD.  This might be for traffic spacing as you approach the terminal area.

However, in looking closer at this specific case, it does seem that it's too low.  There may be something amiss in the descent calculation logic. 

I'll have al look and include any fixes in the next beta update.

Dave

[Steku 158]

Thank you