RCV3. Part 1, "bent airway". If anyone has the L10 low ifr chart, I am flying V78 (R85 from GEP) from north suburban (of Minneapolis in Class B near 20 nm ring) Anoka County, MN (KANE) to Eau Claire, WI. (KEAU). Using NAV 3, I entered the enroute waypoints. The is no waypoint at the "bend" (indicated by an "X" on the chart). The distance from the direction change to surrounding points is the same (11nm).If I fly the route chart to stay on the airway, the controller complains that I am off. I assume that airway points then are all direct as far as NAV 3 and RC are concerned. Do I need to create a waypoint where the direction changes? Is it legal to fly off the published airway and proceed direct between the two surround waypoints? Do I need to create a waypoint?Part 2, MSA encroachment. Flying into EAU as described above for an ILS Rwy 22 (page 217, EC TERP VOL3 of 3), or other approaches for this destination, the controller has taken me down to 2400 MSL. The minimum within DME 12 of the EAU VOR which includes all approaches is 3000 MSL and the MSA EA within 25 nm is 3200/4100 depending on the quad. So, why am I taken down below published altitudes to shoot these approaches?Can anyone point me to the database where I might find and correct these parameters? Which databases does RC use for this info?

Hi there,1. RC assumes you will fly direct between two waypoints so, yes, you would need to put an 'extra' waypoint at the bend.2. RC is unaware of terrain, altitude restrictions at individual airports etc. If you wish to fly such approaches without getting into a conflict with the controllers you should enable 'notams' for the airport (details in the manual).The approach altitudes (agl) are the same for all airports. RC does not use a database for this.All the best,John

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/RCbeta.jpg

The intersection you mentioned in part 1 is called "enody" as shown on my charts. This is also the correct ID for MSFS and and all the planners. Not sure why it's not on your chart. If your flying the chart, but not named in the flight plan in the sim, I'm sure you'll get flagged for it.John

Here's a little info for Part 1 of your question.That "X" you see on the chart is called a mileage break. It's not an "official" intersection. There may or may not be a name associated with it, if there is it will most likely appear in brackets.This is what the Jeppesen chart legend says about it.Database identifiers are enclosed in brackets (ENODY). Database identifiers are officially designated by the controlling state authority or they may be derived by Jeppesen. In either case, these identifiers have no ATC function and should not be used in filing flight plans nor should they be used when communicating with ATC. They are shown only to enable the pilot to maintain orientation when using charts in concert with database navigation systems. In order to fly this route as published you'll need to create that "fix" with Nav3 or FSNav. Once it exists in your flight plan you'll be able to fly it as published on the en route chart without getting to visit with Mr. Stevens upon arrival. :7:-waveMichael CollierDispatcherSystem Operations ControlAmerica West Airlineshttp://jdtllc.com/images/RCbeta.jpg

ENODY is in the FS and NAV3 databases so I suppose it does exist. Anyway, it does allow me to fly the airway in the sim.It may be close enought to show in the TCA chart which does show some. I'll have to check.

>Flying into EAU as described above >for an ILS Rwy 22 (page 217, EC TERP VOL3 of 3), or other >approaches for this destination, the controller has taken me >down to 2400 MSL. The minimum within DME 12 of the EAU VOR >which includes all approaches is 3000 MSL and the MSA EA >within 25 nm is 3200/4100 depending on the quad. So, why am >I taken down below published altitudes to shoot these >approaches? Real-world answer: The minimum vectoring altitude can easily be lower than the MSA, so this is quite possible to happen in real ATC.See other answers for RCV3 limitations.-FDj