Flight planner

[KellyB]

just created a flight plan using low alt airways from KSLK to KBVT.

There are no waypoints between, and the flight plan does not display the enroute cruising altitude between those two points.

Just the way it is?

[srgalahad]

just created a flight plan using low alt airways from KSLK to KBVT. I don't have a "KBVT" in my FS9 install, but I'll guess you intended to go to Burlington VT (KBTV) and not Skagit County in WA (KBVS)
There are no waypoints between, and the flight plan does not display the enroute cruising altitude between those two points. Here's my result from MSFS Flight Planner (basic choices) and with the manual addition of the BVT VOR. Both show the waypoints, freq. and altitude. Now, if you mean what gets output to the flightplan listing in the GPS, no.. there is no altitude. 1st and 2nd generation GPS generally weren't that sophisticated and did not have VNAV capability so altitude was redundant ( you'd have the printed FP anyway).

[KellyB]

Yes, indeed, KBTV. Pardon my typing....

You're getting different results, I think. If I use low airways only, I don't get the SLK VOR, nor any of the other intersections. Are these added by you, or is my flight planner failing?



615556155661557

[Sunny9850]

With two airports so close together the flight planner looks for an airway that is pretty much a direct route I think. Looking at the US Low IFR route chart there is no such airway to fly on.

For a non RNAV equipped aircraft you would likely join V196 outbound to RIGID intersection then join V141 to BTV VOR and from there fly an approach.

Cheers
Stefan

[srgalahad]

Yes, indeed, KBTV. Pardon my typing.... You're getting different results, I think. If I use low airways only, I don't get the SLK VOR, nor any of the other intersections. Are these added by you, or is my flight planner failing? Little typos can make for large navigation errors... I simply went to the flight planner, input the two airports, specified ( in the first posted attachment) Low Alt Airways and got what you see. For the second attachment I manually added the BTV VOR by dragging as I was always taught that a route should go to a primary navaid before terminating. I retried it using the IFR selection and got this (attached). As your map shows the LL airways it doesn't seem to be a corrupt database, but ... thinking... As an experiment you could try to do it again, and if you get the same result, before closing or saving, try to drag the route line out to either of the intersections to see if they will be recognized and the same for the BTV VOR

[KellyB]

My typo occurred in the post, not in the flight plan, so what I'm getting by letting the flight planner find my routing is what you see in the three images in my previous post.

Flight Planner does not pick up SLK vor, nor does it send me to any other intersections without intervention by me.

I'm not sure what the difference between your planner and mine is, but there apparently is one.

Perhaps in my case, it's trying to tell me that the pilot is responsible for his airplane and where it goes, and that he (me) should not rely on a computer.

I can replicate your results, but must do so myself.

[Sunny9850]

One difference I see between you two is the altitude that the plan is to be flown...7000 vs 9000.
Could this be the difference you end up with ??

Stefan

[srgalahad]

Did a bit of experimenting:
Loaded FS9, at the opening screen I tried to build the KSLK-KBTV plan and got the same direct route as Kelly.. cancelled it and hit Fly Now
Tried to build the same plan after FS loaded ... same result... cancelled it.
Loaded my previous KSLK-KBTV plan... then at random picked two other airports and asked to build a plan via low level airways and it worked fine - WITH airways.
Closed FS9.

Opened FS9 again, hit Fly Now, waited til it loaded and picked a random airport to go to. Once there tried to build a LLA plan to somewhere (xxxx-zzzz) else.. no joy so I cancelled the planner. Loaded an existing LLA plan (without moving the a/c) then went back to the planner and asked to build xxxx-zzzz via LLA and presto - nice wiggly route!

So the planner seems to need a kick in the butt to give it an idea of what it should try. (I won't get into some of the quirky routing bits I saw). By default it seems to look for a straight line and only if it finds an airway or navaid very close by does it start to think about airways.

Then again, it's a small, and to MS probably inconsequential, part of the sim (how many customers actually know/think about 'airways' anyhow?) so it never became a world-class route planner. I've used FSNav so long I forgot how kludgy the built-in planner was.

Stefan, the default planner tries to find a semblance of a MEA/MSA for a route but I have no idea what rule it follows. I believe it also takes into account the aircraft in some way, so these may have accounted for the altitude difference .

Kelly, you found the essential ingredient tho' ... building your own is the way it should be done. You can often choose scenic detours or smarter routes and along the way you get familiar with the waypoints and navaids as you plan. There are external real-world flight planning programs you can access (and some have been known to build 'odd' routes too) but you can be sure that they are running software that cost more than $49 and are carefully crafted. The FS addon ones are better than the default - because they are dedicated planning tools.

[KellyB]

Thanks for pursuing this for me. It confirms my suspicions that the flight planner in FS9 is nearly the equivalent of using GPS plot a course between two waypoints on the water. GPS will happily route you through an island! So, ultimately, the Captain/Navigator is responsible for the float plan, and in FS9 for the flight plan.

Maybe M$oft was trying to tell us to -- Do your homework!

Nah.:icon_lol: