PeteP

"Can you put in a low altitude to effectively negate it?"You can, indeed, Ronzie. I used to set something like 2000ft in the box to simulate airways flying in the UK where the speed restriction is often lifted on departure. As far as I can tell, all it does is stop the speed "watchdog" from yelling at you but it's an effective workaround for the time being.Pete

Hate to admit this, jd, but I don't have RC installed at the moment (new computer) so I can't check the data required or the format for the runways.csv file but this basic info should cover it. If not, let me know what's missing.36L Length(ft) 12467 Threshold (dd:mm.mm) N52:19.43 E04:42.32 Course(dddM) 004Touchdown Elevation(ft) n/aILS36CLength(ft) 10826Threshold (dd:mm.mm) N52:18.00 E04:44.25Course(dddM) 004Touchdown Elevation(ft) -12.0ILS 108.75 36RLength(ft)11154Threshold (dd:mm.mm) N52:17.00 E04:46.64Course(dddM) 004Touchdown Elevation(ft) -11.5ILS 110.3 18LLength(ft) 11154Threshold (dd:mm.mm) N52:19.00 E04:46.80Course(dddM) 184Touchdown Elevation(ft) n/aILS18RLength(ft) 12467Threshold (dd:mm.mm) N52:21.45 E04:42.40Course(dddM) 184Touchdown Elevation(ft) -13.1ILS 110.1 18CLength(ft) 10826Threshold (dd:mm.mm) N52:19.00 E04:44.40 Course(dddM) 184Touchdown Elevation(ft) -12.6ILS 109.5 Some of these runways have displaced thresholds which will give a different landing distance available but I don't think this is critical for RC (especially with these lenghts) so I haven't included them."british beta's" ??? Oh, I get it - British betas as compared to American alphas. Should we be offended? :D:D:DPete

Richard,If you're not too sure about flight planning or you don't want to go to the bother of producing 2 plans for each flight, you might like to try my collection of real-world B737NG plans where it's all done for you. The zip file (73ngfpl1.zip - available from the library at this site) contains 2 identical sets of plans - one in *.rte format for loading into the PMDG FMC and the other in *.pln format for the FS9 planner/GPS.Pete

A Howard 500, I think.Pete

Mats/SAS263,A nice try with the plan, guys but I'm afraid the route in UK airspace is some 8 months out of date - the airspace over the North Sea was completely revised at the beginning of the year and although UN866 still exists, most of the waypoints have different names.Here's the current route (starting at the UK UIR boundary):DETOP UN866 BUKUT UP7 LOGAN LAM3A EGLLThe waypoints are:DETOP TIPAN LARDI BINBO AKOKO TOLSA KUBAX BUKUT SONOG BADGA LOGAN TRIPO SABER BRASO LAM EGLLTime to get your VA's planner updated perhaps?BestPete

the record for the longest commercial route is 2,858 miles, flown by Copa Airlines, from Panama City to Buenos Aires, ArgentinaInteresting, Mike, but I would have thought Munich - New York was rather further.Pete

[i'always nice to have RL plans, whatever the a/c.[/i]Oh, that's good news, Vulcan, because I've just started on a set of A330 and A340 plans for you-know-who's Airbuses. :):)Pete

Have a good flight, Adam.Pete

You're welcome, GeorgePete

Hi John,The reason you're getting the error is because there isn't an EGSSEGPHPP (Stansted - Edinburgh) flight plan in the zip file. I think you must be misreading either Stansted - Glasgow (EGSSEGPFPP) or Stansted - Hamburg (EGSSEDDHPP) - try either of those two and see if it works.BestPete

Hi Tony,You're most welcome - and thanks for taking the trouble to post.However, trans-Atlantic, Tel Aviv from the UK etc. in a 737???Yep, I assure you these are all genuine flight plans. The Lufthansa from Munich to New York (Newark), for example, is a regular flight. I'm no expert (although I'm sure there's someone around the forum who is) but I think it's operated on Lufthansa's behalf by PrivatAir using an aircraft in an all-business class configuration. Although it shows on the plan as a B737 (Boeing 737-700), it's actually a BBJ which is a -700 with the strenghened -800 wing giving it much longer range. As for Tel Aviv - London, well at just under 5 hours that's an easy trip. ;-)BestPete

Those who enjoy using real-world flight plans might like to know that I've just uploaded 100 r-w plans for the PMDG B737 in *.rte format. I've also included an identical set in *.pln format for use with Radar Contact 3 and the FS2000/02/04 GPS.The plans cover a large number of UK and European destinations with a couple of transatlantic flights thrown in for good measure. With flight times between 27 minutes (Stansted-Amsterdam) and 8 hours 47 minutes (Munich-Newark) there should be something for everyone.They should be available from the libraries at AVSIM.com and Flightsim.com as '73ngfpl1.zip' sometime during the next 24 hours.Happy flying.Pete

Those who enjoy using real-world flight plans might like to know that I've just uploaded 100 r-w plans for the PMDG B737 in *.rte format. I've also included an identical set in *.pln format for use with programs such as Radar Contact 3.The plans cover a large number of UK and European destinations with a couple of transatlantic flights thrown in for good measure. With flight times between 27 minutes (Stansted-Amsterdam) and 8 hours 47 minutes (Munich-Newark) there should be something for everyone.They should be available from the libraries at Flightsim.com and Avsim.com as '73ngfpl1.zip' sometime during the next 24 hours.Happy flying.Pete

The KEWR after KJFK0846 shows that the main alternate airfield for the flight is KEWR. The last two lines of the flight plan (Item 18) contain the following information:EET - the estimated elapsed times to significant FIR boundary points. Here it's 4 hours 9 minutes to Gander, 5 hours 59 minutes to New York Oceanic and 8 hrs 33 min to New York ARTCC all from departure.REG - the aircraft's registration is OE-LANSEL - the SELCAL code for the aircraft is GHBQOPR - the aircraft operator is Austrian AirlinesRALT - the en-route alternate airfields for the flight are Dublin, Lajes and GanderRMK - an additional remark thet the aircraft carries AGCSDOF - the date of flight is 26 October 2003 (ICAO yymmdd format)RVR - the minimum acceptable RVR (runway visual range) for the aircraft to commence an approach is 100 metresPete

Every Major Airway in the UK will be renamed.Well, only 14, to be precise, together with their associated Upper ATS Routes - and a couple of others to give a grand total of 19 - are being renamed although the actual routes will remain the same. This process of airway designator rationalisation has been going on for years and I'm surprised that this particular set seems to have attracted attention although I suppose it is the largest tranche of changes for some while.It is, however, the end of an era for the UK as we finally loose all of our low-numbered airways - A1, R1 etc. - which we got by having the first organised airways system outside the US. At one stage we had a complete set of '1s' but from next month they'll all be gone including the UK's (and Europe's) very first airway - Green 1, later Golf 1 (G1) - which will slip into annonimity as L9.Oh well, all things must pass. Pete

my request above was only seen through my "German" glassesYes, I know exactly what you mean, Mike. I'm just as guilty of saying "Europe" when I actually mean the UK which just emphasises the point I was making about the US being one country and Europe being many.As you say, a lot to think about - I shall watch with great interest.Pete

yes, there will be a version 4what would you like to see added? (in order of importance!)Hi jd,You've probably heard most of this from me before but as others are now raising these points perhaps I could add a few comments to their thoughts.Variable TA/TL - If you're going to continue with this option, I'd like to see it working correctly. The input on the controller page needs to be changed to allow the direct input of the published Transition Altitude. Surely it's more logical to allow the entry of the TA as published rather than force the user to calculate a pseudo-Transition Level before entering it? RC, of course, will still need to know the Transition Level but it should get this in the same way it's done for real - by applying the Transition Altitude and current QNH to a look-up table. I know I've sent you several copies of this table over the past 18 months or so but I'll happilly send another if you need it.Transition Altitude Database - I doubt if it would be possible for the RC team to produce one that covered the entire world (!) but to do this for some of the most-used areas/airports would not be impossible. I helped Ernie Alston produce a very basic one for FSBuild2 which used the ICAO code to check for a variation from a default setting. A UK entry, for example, might look something like this:EG=3000EGBB,EGBE=4000EGCC,EGGP=5000EGLL,EGKK,EGSS,EGGW,EGPH,EGPF=6000A lot of work would be needed for not a very great result but worth bearing in mind maybe. I suppose an alternative might be to see if Richard Stefan could provide this info as part of his navdata.Standard European Phraseology and Procedures - I saw somebody offer to provide you with information on "European procedures and phraseology" a few days ago. I'd be intrigued to see what he comes up with as, imho, there ain't no such thing! You have to remember that whereas the US has a Federal authority controlling aviation across the entire area, Europe does not. Although organisations such as Eurocontrol, the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) and the proposed European Aviation Safety Agency do/will bring some uniformity of practice, Europe is still a loose collection of many different countries each with its own ideas, traditions and laws. It's this that makes it almost impossible to produce a "standard" European version.I think we should also bear in mind that there is a lot more to the world than the US and Europe - I'm sure there are users in many other countries who'd like their ATC procedures included. So, if you are seriously thinking about making RC truly international, then I suggest you use ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices as your yardstick. Even this would not be perfect as individual countries are free to file "differences" - the UK is particularly good (or should that be bad?) at this - but as ICAO SARPs provide the basis of ATC in the vast majority of countries outside North America I think this would be the way to go.Airspace and procedures differences will be very complex (and time-consuming) to implement but phraseology might be a possibility. It wouldn't be to difficult to "translate" many of RC's controller/pilot .wavs to their ICAO equivalents but I think it might end up giving poor Scott a heart attack. He did a brilliant job organising the recording of wav files files for the current version of RC but I wonder if even he might baulk at having to produce two different versions of many of the files!Just a few thoughts for the pot.Pete

I remember reading in another post here, a user was told to enter 100 in the options sheet. This was for Europe. Are you now saying that this figure varies with every flight?Ok, let's go back to basics. First, there is no such thing as a standard European Transition Altitude of 10,000ft or any other altitude for that matter. Each country has it's own system designed to meet local requirements and there are often variations within a country. Take the UK, for example. Here, the Transition Altitude is 3,000ft but airfields in the London and Scottish TMAs use 6000ft, Manchester TMA airfields use 5000ft and Birmingham uses 4000ft. Airfields in other countries have similar variations to account for local conditions - for example, Amsterdam, as I mentioned in my previous post, has a TA of just 3,000ft but Innsbruck (LOWI) has a TA of 11,000ft, the difference being explained by in the surrounding terrain!Well, you seem to be saying that there are a whole lot of new figures which I should be taking into consideration for each flightYes, I am but what you do about it depends on how realistic you want to be. There's nothing to stop you using 10,000ft or any other altitude as a TA in RC but, if you want to get close to real-world procedures, you'll need to set the controller page in the way I explained in my earlier post. The only thing you need to know is the TA for your departure and arrival airfields. These Transition Altitudes are published on SID, STAR and instrument approach charts. These charts for European airports are now widely available from several sources. You could try the Eurocontrol EAD site at http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/ for real-world charts. Also, I find the various VATSIM sites a mine of information as far as charts and local procedures go. Try the VATSIM Europe site at www.vatsim-eur.org which will give you access to all the European VATSIM country sites which have chart downloads.As I've mentioned, RC will work quite happily with any TA but, if you want to try a bit of "real as it gets", then have a go at setting the correct TA using the workaround I explained earlier.Pete

They`re set for 100 which I believe translates as 10000.crashproof,No, I'm afraid it doesn't - entering 100 actually gives you a Transition Altitude of 9000ft! The confusion is caused by the incorrect way in which the non-US system of Transition Altitudes has been implemented in RC. To get the correct changeover from altitudes to Flight Levels a small workaround is required.To get the correct input for the controller page, look up the published Transition Altitude(s) of the airfield(s) required, add 1000ft then convert this figure to FL format. For example, if you flew from Manchester (EGCC) which has a Transition Altitude of 5000ft to Amsterdam (EHAM) which has a TA of 3000ft, you would input 60 for departure and 40 for arrival. Doing this will give you the real-world procedure of altitudes (QNH) up to 5000ft and FLs from FL60 upwards on departure and FLs down to FL40 on approach with altitudes (QNH) at 3000ft and below.In your original example, if you wanted to use altitudes up to and including 10,000ft, you need to input '110' on the controller page. Pete

the call would be "Speedbird 555, climb flight level seven zero, no speed restriction"Almost, Tim. The correct phrase is, "no ATC speed restriction. The "ATC" part is included to ensure the pilot is not mislead into believing he is released from the responsibility of flying speeds which will still allow him to comply with noise preferential route track-keeping etc, as in para 3.3.3 above.Pete

That's good news, jd. Just in case you find a way to do it, here are the rules for the UK:CAP 493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 13 Speed Limit3.1 Airspace Speed Limits and Procedure Speed Limits are two types of speedrestrictions which may apply to certain flights.3.2 Airspace Speed Limit3.2.1 The Rules of the Air Regulations require aircraft flying below FL100 to observe, withexceptions, a speed limit of 250 kt IAS. Such a limit is an essential component of the'see and avoid' principle when separation is not established by ATC. This is in additionto other speed limits, see below, which may be notified for a specific airspace.The 250 kt speed limit does not apply to:a) flights in Class A and B airspace;:( IFR flights in Class C airspace;c) flights in Class C and D airspace when authorised by an air traffic control unit;d) test flights in accordance with specified conditions;e) aircraft taking part in flying displays when authorised by the CAA;f) aircraft subject to a written permission granted by the CAA;g) aircraft not subject to the Air Navigation Order (e.g. Military aircraft).3.2.2 Controllers may only exercise the authority granted in paragraph c) above when theyare satisfied that they are in contact with all aircraft in the relevant part of the airspace.VFR flights in the vicinity are to be warned about aircraft flying at a higher speed.3.2.3 An airspace speed limit must not be relaxed by ATC for flights which will be transitingfrom a known traffic environment, Class A airspace for example, into airspace wherethe 'see and avoid' principle operates as the primary means of separation.3.2.4 In Class E, F and G airspace, conflicting traffic may not be known to ATC and so it isnecessary for all flights to make use of the see and avoid principle. In order for this tooperate effectively, controllers shall not authorise a relaxation of the airspace speedlimit.3.3 Procedure speed limits3.3.1 In certain cases, speed limits are published for specific ATC procedures for a numberof reasons. For example:a) A speed limit of 250 kt is applied to published Standard Instrument DepartureProcedures to assist in the initial provision of separation between successivedeparting aircraft;:( A speed limit of 250 kt is applied to some Standard Arrival Route procedures toassist ATC in the integration of traffic flows;c) Some holding patterns have non-standard maximum holding speeds forcontainment within controlled airspace or separation from adjacent routes orprocedures;d) Some instrument approach procedures have non-standard maximum speeds forobstacle avoidance or controlled airspace containment.3.3.2 When an aircraft is in receipt of a radar service, except for instrument approachprocedures, controllers may relax procedure speed limits. However, extreme cautionshould be exercised as the controller then becomes responsible for the provision ofseparation, controlled airspace containment and obstacle clearance which wouldotherwise have been provided within the speed limited procedure design.3.3.3 Controllers should also be aware that even if there is no tactical ATC requirement tosustain a speed limit, particularly for departing aircraft, the pilot remains responsiblefor operating his aircraft in such a manner as to adhere to other requirements such asnoise preferential route track-keeping.Good luck! :-):-):-)Pete

Yep, must be. Thanks for the reply.Pete

Neil,You don't play the French Horn by any chance do you?Pete

"On a side note, I am looking at Manchester and I can't see a sid that looks remotely like that, what sid is it?"It's a HON SID (either 1Y or 1R) which is the correct SID for jet aircraft departing EGCC 24L or R for an airfield in the LTMA. What's not correct is the showing of a constraint of at 3000ft at the various waypoints before SANBA. There is only one "restriction" before SANBA at 5000ft and that is HON D58 at 3000ft or above which I presume is the point SANBA-5.As you've already pointed out the FMC does not understand "3000ft or above" so the best way for Ray to fly this SID automatically would be to remove all the false 3000ft constraints and just leave the correct SANBA at 5000ft - any reasonable climb rate will ensure that SANBA-5 (HON D58)is crossed well above 3000ft . Then his setting of 5000ft in the MCP will be the correct one and VNAV will have no trouble understanding what is required.PeteP

Aaaarrrrggggghhhhhhhhh..... and I tried so hard! I think I'll have to tell DShutt about this. :-lol:-lol:-lolP.