New Prefile Page/Website

[Andreas Fuchs]

It looks like vPilot's flightplan form cannot parse the "Equipment"-string of the new ICAO flightplan format. I assume that this is true for all pilot clients at this time.

Could you try replacing all the equipment code letters and replace them with "L", then pre-file and then load into vPilot and see if it works?

Edited October 3, 2020 at 08:30 AM by Andreas Fuchs

[Kirk Christie]

For what purpose are you fetching the flight plan in vpilot?

[Trevor Hannant]

I always fetch the flight plan into vPilot so that if I ever have to leave the cockpit for long enough that it warrants a disconnect (or the occasionally spotty internet decides to have it's own break!), I can refile the plan at the press of a button if it's been dropped when I do get back online. 

[Ryan Parry]

I've been using the new prefile since it launched, I'm enjoying it! I use the ICAO format for the 121 airline I work for in the US, so it's nice to have somthing familiar. 

I'm flying out of China today and they use meters, VATPRC asks that pilots file in meters so my release is in meters initially with a step climb to imperial when I leave PRC. The prefile import didn't read the meters or speed in my flight plan though, could this be fixed? I pasted my ATS strip in from PFPX. Here is the first part of it, I assume this is the part that gets read by the importer for speed and cruising altitude...

(FPL-GTI8584-IN
-B744/H-SDE1E3FGHIJ3J5J6M1M2RWXYZ/LB1D1
-ZHHH1845
-K0928S1010 BIV09D BIVIP R343 PK

 

[Robert Lee]

My suggestions for the new prefile page

OPR entry longer than 3 letters

filing in meters for flight level and speed

STS option since military ops are allowed from certain groups

Ability to file a mach speed

 

[Koen Meier]

2 hours ago, Robert Lee said:

My suggestions for the new prefile page

OPR entry longer than 3 letters

filing in meters for flight level and speed

STS option since military ops are allowed from certain groups

Ability to file a mach speed

 

OPR should be ICAO code only. i believe.

[Robert Lee]

22 hours ago, Koen Meier said:

OPR should be ICAO code only. i believe.

No there are examples of filed plans from airlines using the full name like OPR/QANTAS, OPR/ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES

Edited November 20, 2020 at 11:20 AM by Robert Lee

[Ryan Parry]

The new ICAO flight plan use to let me leave my alternate blank if I wasn't filing one, today it told me that field is required. I just typed in NONE, but this field shouldn't be required. I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but in the US a domestic flight planned under domestic rules can remove the alternate based on the 1-2-3 rule (121.619). There are other rules and OPSPEC for this, but the most basic of basic 121 rules regarding alternates is that we can remove our alternate provided we have the right weather forecast. I send RW ICAO flight plans without an alternate all the time. Can we change the flight back to allowing no alternate?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.619

[Andreas Fuchs]

Correct, even under EASA/EU Air Ops Rules it is not always required to plan and file a destination alternate.

[Robert Grant]

Totally agree that the ALT field is not mandatory.  Oz only needs it for weather requirements or other circumstances but it is not mandatory.

ICAO only require it under similar circumstances and it is not mandatory.

Can we get this reverted asap please?

[Matt Bozwood-Davies]

I've removed the requirement for the alternate. I didn't add this, I've enquired why it was added as a required field as it was left blank exactly for the reasons you have detailed.

 

Matt

[Robert Grant]

Thank Matt appreciate your very quick assistance!

Stay well