[BETA] New Flight Plan form on myVATSIM

Would it be possible to allow VFR to be filed in the altitude item; currently it appears to explicitly require a numeric entry?
It is possible to do so IRL, see here under Item 15 → (B) Cruising Level → e) and can also regularly be seen in real world flight plans.

3 Likes

Yes, I think that this is an important to be fixed. “VFR” is a valid entry for the altitude box.

This concerns me…we’re going to end up with pilots filing old flight plans that dont meet airacs and are then invalid.

Pilots are doing this right now because Simbrief gives them outdated or wrong routes that don’t make sense. When asked, they always blame Simbrief for the weird routes. They don’t question and take them anyway because Simbrief is regarded as some sort of authority. But all Simbrief is doing is suggesting the routes other pilots have filed before. Even without Simbrief, some wilder routes are being filed, i.e. to the FAP of the ILS as the last point in a series of DCTs through arrival procedures where most points are missing.

I would love to see some simple and light route validation or the possibility to add and maybe enforce preferred routes for select city pairs.

Enforced routes for citypairs is somethings that should be possible in Simbrief, but I haven’t found a way to add them.

I second this. Some suggestions that would obviously primarily or solely apply to IFR flight plans:

  • mandatory first/last waypoints depending on origin/destination (e.g. only the SID endpoints); would obviously need to be able to correctly distinguish between a filed SID/STAR and the actual first waypoint where applicable
  • in that sense also a check if a SID/STAR has been filed where it is required and, though a lot more advanced, maybe even a check if the filed SID/STAR or at least the respective end/start points restrictions are met by the filed route/destination/aircraft type/etc.
  • comparison of filed aircraft type with various parameters of the airport (e.g. maximum wingspan) to give pilots a warning if their aircraft type is inappropriate for their origin and/or destination
  • maybe some general checks to make sure the filed values are correct (e.g. check the aircraft type against the ICAO type code database) and prompt the pilot to check fields where there might be an error

And, directly relating to Franz’ suggestion: might it be possible to hook the flight plan form system up to AeroNav’s Global Route Database? Particularly for the more popular routes, there’s usually a validated route in there (at least in Europe) and it would allow anyone to put up a validated route, thus removing the need for vACC staff to actively maintain some sort of VATSIM-internal database. GRD even has level bands for their routes that could also be considered by the system.
If a pilot then files a different route than those on GRD - if it has something for that airport pair - they could be prompted to check their route against those validated ones and if necessary change it; likewise, if a pilot has filed a validated route but outside of its level band, pilots could be prompted to recheck their planned level.
For events and such, vACC staff could then still be given some direct access to put up a mandatory route to be enforced by the system.

There is a pinned message somewhere in the ECFMP Discord about how to get the necessary permissions and how to then set up validated routes. It will not enforce them, though, just display them at the top of the suggested ones (which is of course good enough 99% of the time), so pilots who go through all the options to select the shortest one or something like that would still be on an incorrect route.

Tell me something I dont know…but lets not give pilots ANOTHER facility to file incorrect flight plans.