Hi,
yesterday I had the case, that when flying to EDDF the radar controler gave me a STAR (DEBHI1B) other than filed and when I tryed to change the STAR in the flight plan in my FENIX a320 MCDU it did not offer DEBHI-arrivals and when I tried to enter a Direct it said “waypoint not in database”.
So I disconnected to resume the flight without confusing the VATSIM traffic.
I planned the flight using SimBrief (free account without Navigraph subscription). When I select an community flightplan using DEBHI arrival Simbrief says “Airway “T161” uses invalid endpoints. STAR or fix “DEBHI” not found.”.
So I am very confused…
My questions:
What to do in such a situation during a VATSIM flight?
Could the “not in database” or “ not found” be an issue coming alone from old data, because I don’t have a paid Navigraph subscription?
Does anyone know, if the “not in database” message in the Fenix a320 could be solved using a Navigraph subscription or if this is a second independend problem?
are there othe recommended planning tools, that are usable without paid subscriptions?
Kind regards and any advices would be very appreciated.
Johannes
For today and tomorrow: just tell ATC you don’t have that arrival and they will find an alternative solution. From October 1st onward, however, you would be in violation of the CoC and should not fly if you can’t follow the latest published procedures.
Yesn’t. MSFS2020’s internal nav data should have the DEBHI arrivals, but the Fenix (and various other third party payware aircraft) don’t use the sim’s internal nav data and instead have their own nav database, which you can only update with Navigraph (you might also be able to do it with NavDataPro, but that product will be removed from the market at the end of the year).
Yes, that would solve the issue.
There are various planning tools that you can use without a subscription, but there is currently no option to always get the latest nav data for free (with one exception: as far as I understand, the nav data just for the US is freely available from the FAA and can be integrated into the simulator, but that obviously only helps you if you fly solely in US airspace) and using the latest nav data is the basis for being able to create a flight plan that is valid for the current AIRAC.
MSFS2020 updates their nav data every so often, but if you fly third party payware aircraft that use their own nav database, this doesn’t help you; MSFS2024 has been confirmed to always use the latest nav data, but it’s not yet known if third party payware aircraft that have thus far used their own nav database will continue to do so or if they will use the sim’s internal nav database now.
As for your SimBrief planning: if you don’t have a Navigraph subscription, SimBrief will not plan with the latest nav data (I forget what they use, but I think it was around one year out of date?), so it will check if the waypoints/airways/procedures exist with reference to this outdated nav data.
If you are unsure, you could try to use LittleNavmap to visually compare the latest procedural and enroute charts to the nav data from your sim to see if there are any discrepancies.
Thank you for your detailed answer. This sounds such that I can’t fly VATSIM anymore without Navigraph supscription which sounds very sad.
If anyone has any other solution please let me know.
Well, in your specific case the major problem appears to be that you are using the Fenix A320 as it uses its own nav database which can only be updated with a payware service like Navigraph. If you flew an aircraft that uses the sim’s internal nav database, such as the freeware FlyByWire A20N (to pick a similar aircraft), you’d have most of the latest procedures (as I said above, MSFS2020 regularly updates its internal nav database - not for every AIRAC (MSFS2024 will do so, though, and who knows, maybe that feature will also come to MSFS2020 down the road), but unless there was a major change in procedures/airspace design/etc. in the last 2-3 months, you’ll usually be fine).
EDIT: Navigraph also offers a nav data only subscription (i.e. you just get the nav data for the sim, any third party aircraft with its own nav database, SimBrief, etc. but without all the Charts app pizzazz), although it’s very well hidden. I can’t look up the current prices because the nav data only subscription is only shown to people who don’t have the Ultimate subscription, but I had a quick look into my emails and when they raised their prices at the end of 2022, their email said that the new price for the nav data only subscription was 29.79€/year - maybe that is a more affordable solution for you?
You can use option 4 above if you want to fly only in the US. Doesn’t really help though, doss it? Maybe the BoG haven’t clarified their revision of the CoC sufficiently, because I’m certain that it is surely not their intentiin fo force all members to subscribe to Navigraph.
I’m still a new pilot and flying mainly in Germany where I live, so option 4 does not help so much. I will consider to subscribe navdata only which is not such expensive as the full package. As I only have time for one or two flights on the weekend a full subscription for me is very expensive per flight.
You do not have to have a subscription to e.g. Navigraph. But you then need to know, how to insert the waypoint for the SID/STAR into the MCDU/FMC. This is a skill, you’ll need to know anyhow, as a controller can request you to fly to a waypoint not in your flightplan for tactical reasons. But a subsription to Navigraph’s navdata costs less than many scenery addons, and while you probably only fly to an airport occationally, you use the database on EVERY flight. So this is money well spent.
This can be problematic if the waypoint doesn’t exist in your nav database, though, as is the case for OP (DEBHI was a new waypoint specifically added for the DEBHI STARs, so if you don’t have the DEBHI STARs, you won’t have the waypoint DEBHI either). Particularly with RNAV procedures, many waypoints are often created specifically for the procedure, so this is not going to be an isolated problem.
Also worth pointing out that there is an increasing amount of procedures with leg types that can’t be programmed into the FMS manually (RF legs, overfly waypoints, etc.).
But I agree, a Navigraph subscription, even if it’s “just” the nav data only one, is a much more economically and logically sound decision for someone wanting to engage in the hobby than buying some scenery or even - considering how default aircraft and also freeware aircraft fidelity has risen with MSFS2020 - aircraft addons.
We will see whether that is the case with MSFS2024 as well or if their integrated nav data makes Navigraph at least partially unnecessary.
Yes, I know how to insert waypoints but when I’m routed by ATC to a STAR that I don’t have in database nor the waypoints and I do not have the GPS coordinates of these points I’m not able to enter it in time and even if I would have a written list of waypoints not in database but with GPS coordinates I still never could enter these points in time during the flight in approach…
And even for a good scenery addon I pay only once and 2/3rd of the navigation data price but not any year again for the “same”. But it doesn’t help to complain and I’ve already understood that I have to make a subscription anyway.
I’m still considering if to subscribe for navdata only or for the full package with charts. Currently I’m using the free chartfox charts. Can someone recommend me if a subscription with charts would be a big advantage for me as a beginner reducing the workload in the cockpit compared to often switching to a browser with chartfox?
Anyway many thanks to all of you for your kind support and great advices,
kind regards,
Johannes
If you can afford it, it is very convinient to use the Navigraph Charts. They can be displayed on an external tablet or in some cases it is integrated in the addon plane’s cockpit. You then do not have to search for charts in different places in case they are not in Chartfox. But if it best you check it out for yourself - many videos are found in youtube.
Indeed, it always was a significant principle of Vatsim that it was free to join and join in. With this apparent requirement they have enforced an ongoing cost of membership which just doesn’t seem right.
I made the suggestion in the PTD discord channel that maybe Vatsim could produce its own, fairly static, airac with charts, possibly taken from an early version to avoid the huge workload involved, so that the whole of the membership were on the same page at all times. It wasn’t well received because going back to old procedures was unacceptable.
To be fair, that really would have been a bit much, especially when you consider how procedures fit into the world of aviation - what would you do about a decommissioned runway that was replaced by a new one, for instance?
I still think what I suggested in the announcement post would be a more equitable solution - after all, it very often is possible to find some workaround, the problem of outdated nav data only really becomes a problem during high traffic or in procedural airspace, but if I have three or four aircraft in surveillance airspace, e.g., I don’t need everybody to fly the STAR and can instead use vectors (and likely be significantly more efficient in the process).
You can’t have it both ways on the one hand worrying about what happens when a new runway appears, and on the other hand saying that outdated data is rarely a problem.
I’ll ask this question here as well, as it is to the pilots.
How can we as ATC on the network be expected to use Real World Procedures, but not have the pilots also use or have the ability to use those same real world procedures?
Additionally, How can pilots expect ATC to hold onto old and outdated procedures because the pilot isn’t willing to update their navigational data to use the current procedures? We as ATC can not be expected to find and hold onto procedures that are outdated, and no longer available or published. That basically is asking ATC to do what is proverbially impossible.
But you can. My proposal would have the intended effect (or at least what I presume to be the intended effect) of preventing situations in which outdated nav data causes issues for controllers, but would still keep the possibility for pilots to fly despite not having the latest nav data; instead of outright prohibiting the use of outdated nav data, you’d leave it up to the controller to judge whether they can accommodate the outdated nav data in the given situation or not (hence also the comparison to B6: instead of prohibiting the simulation of emergencies altogether, it is up to the controller to decide whether they are willing and able to accommodate that).
That’s how we currently have it. If the pilot can’t or isn’t able to (for whatever means) to update their navdata), we as ATC can vector them along a given route that is comparable to the routes used with current data. But that can only happen for so long before even those routes are gone.
Take for example, someone files the CRESO5 arrival into KLAS:
From HEC all the way up to BLD, the routing is on the BLD R-213. The problem with that, especially from not having anything updated in their Navdata, is that it prevents them from filing something newer like LARRK1 or RNDRZ2 arrivals into KLAS:
Because of them filing CRESO5, that entire route conflicts with the RADYR2 SID out of KLAS:
Why? The segment from RADYR to HEC on the SID is on the same radial as HEC to BLD on the STAR, making the pilot on the arrival descend on the same segment the pilot on the SID could be climbing through. That would be resolved by using the other SIDs that require that updated data.
But once again, we as controllers are for some reason expected to have the most up to date procedures where the pilot does not? That is a cause for concern because if we were to not have up to date procedures, we would not be as real as we say that we get, which is the premise of the network:
VATSIM also simulates air traffic control in this virtual world, creating the ultimate as-real-as-it-gets experience for you, the virtual aviation enthusiast.
It would be hard to do that, especially if placing more burden on the controller because the pilot is lax to keep things updated on their end.
Sometimes I feel that fora like these tend to blow an issue from the size of a moskito to an elephant. An year update subscription cost is comparable to a Saturday evening trip to the cinema with a pitstop at McD.
Take most other hobbies - do not tell me they cost less than $40/year.
Yes, in an ideal World these data should be free. And it is free if you fly VFR, btw.
and I’ve already understood that I have to make a subscription anyway.
on the one hand worrying about what happens when a new runway appears, and on the other hand saying that outdated data is rarely a problem.