OnCourse Software

Got extremely late instructions into LIMC some 10nms from runway and i was at FL310,told to descend to my ST altitude of 2500 and i was cleared to land runway 17L,which was correct due to wind conditions,

I'm out till mid/later afternoon today but will try and look at this on my return

Nothing wrong here at all Dave. You have the Filtered Flight Plan option 'on' and you loaded a FP containing a STAR, so your descent profile was not changed by PF3 and was exactly as in your FP. The last waypoint (RIXUV), which is only 17 miles from LIMC, was set to FL310. From there you had to fly the RIXU3E arrival. So the ATC instruction at RIXUV was correct

Quote:

Speedbird 1467 descend via the Sierra Tango Approach to 3 thousand 5 hundred on 1005 contact Tower on 120.9 when established. expect runway 17 left

Unfortunately flight plans generated by SimBrief do not currently take account of altitude restrictions in the arrival procedure.
If you look at the chart for the RIXU3E approach that it used you will see that at EVGIR you should be between FL090 and FL110, not FL295 in your plan.

I raised this with the SimBrief team several months ago, and they agreed to look at it - I've just asked for an update on progress as it renders their plans nearly useless. In fact, for a runway 17L approach, you should be using the RIXU3H procedure anyway, but this has a similar set of constraints.
I'm attaching both charts so that you can see what I mean.

I have to admit that at present I am handling this by downloading the NoProc version of a SimBrief plan, loading it into PF3 without the Flight Plan Filter, and then manually adjusting the waypoint altitudes - I will continue to do this until I find a better solution.

Martin C.

Hi Martin,
Thanks for the heads up with Milan.
Yeah "The Italian job" didn't go quite as planned with regards to the mountainous region,which i think confused PF3 with regards to ths simbrief plan.
I'll re do the flight and see how to avoid the issue again,maybe not with the filter on...i didn't get to "Blow The Bloody Doors Off" either...

How many use LittleNavMap to build flightplans for PF3? I abandoned simbrief and never looked back. I have more control over what is generated and it's easier to modify flightplans.

Perch8808 wrote: *

Wed Mar 13, 2024 9:43 pm

How many use LittleNavMap to build flightplans for PF3? I abandoned simbrief and never looked back. I have more control over what is generated and it's easier to modify flightplans.

Might have to have a look at this and try same flight again...

I also use Little NavMap, and quite often load a SimBrief generated plan into it for the sole purpose of applying SID/STAR constraints.
Alex Barthel has developed a great piece of software, and is very responsive to user requests for assistance and bug fixes; in the latest version he has fixed the MSFS export format to ensure that SID exit points and STAR/Approach entry points are output correctly - I requested this to better support the Flight Plan Filter option in PF3.

Anyway, here's what was generated when I loaded your SimBrief flight plan into LNM and saved it in MSFS format - you will see that the altitudes are set correctly, and this should be imported correctly by PF3 with the filter option. (I dropped the GTQ waypoint as the airways were invalid for me.)

Cheers,
Martin

Me too I would prefer to use LittleNavMap, however the problem is that I'm primarely fly the fbw a32nx and the Cessna 208B Caravan Ex with the WT G1000.
So both are loading the FP automatically from Simbrief. If there would be away to load the flight plan from LittleNavMap I would prefer that.
Does anyone has a way around that?
Cheers,
Luc

Any aircraft that loads a flight plan directly from SimBrief is most likely handling this issue - an FMC typically calculates its own climb/descent waypoints.
What we are trying to address is how to (easily) import the same FP into PF3, and unfortunately our current approach, the Flight Plan Filter, doesn't really work for a SimBrief FP.

I am exploring possible solutions, but in the meantime you can either use LNM to 'correct' the waypoint altitudes, or load the NoProc format and adjust them manually. Unfortunately, although it's clearly a bug, I don't expect Navigraph to fix it in a hurry.

Cheers,
Martin