UL975 from LISBO to LESRA

I keep hetting an AWY/WPT MISMATCH error when trying to use this airway.

Same for L975 to GOLUM

Hi Daniel.

Can you please post the entire route string here so that we can help you look at it?

Thanks!

Hi Max,

Sure thing, here it is:

EGCC DCT DESIG L603 LAMIX UT29 LIBSO UL975 LESRA L975 GOLUM N866 AAL N607 MAKUR MAKU3S ESGG

Hi again Daniel.

Where are you seeing these errors? When I enter this route string into Navigraph Charts it parses just fine.

Cheers,

Magnus

When inputting the flight plan into the Neo MCDU…

Ok and which cycle do you have installed? 2012 or 2013? Is this a route you have used before and now it has become invaild as you have updated from one cycle to the next?

I haven’t used this route before. I have 2012 rev1 installed currently but also tried 2013 rev1 this morning until it was pulled. Both had the same issue

Ok, the data you have installed (assuming that it was installed correctly) is based on the same data which powers the route calculator/validator in Charts, so MCDU and Charts should both be able to validate the route. That leads me to think that we should have a closer look at the airplane…

It would have helped if we had an observation on this very route with this airplane in a previous and consecutive cycle because then the data would have been the variable. Not sure how to continue here. Maybe it never worked, or rather - doesn’t work yet? I will have to consult with my colleagues.

1 Like

Thanks Max, let me know if theres any more info or help i can provide

Hi Daniel.

We did some preliminary tests here and we think we might have something for you to get this working. Just give us a day or so.

image

Cheers,

Magnus

That’s great, thank you for looking into it

Any update on this? I just tried the route again with Airac 2013 Rev 3 and I still get the same error

Hi Daniel,
I have tried it now again … and it works. I can enter LIBSO UL975 LESRA without any issue:
Using also AIRAC 2013 revision 3:
image
image
image
image

How do you enter the airways?
Cheers
Richard

Hi Richard,

Here is what I am plugging intot the MCDU:

Thought i’d try in the default 787 and I get a similar error when trying to input LESRA

Hi Daniel,
thanks for your details and the screenshots. I can reproduce it now but only, when I enter your flightplan from the screenshots. When I enter LIBSO UL975 LESRA only, it works. After a first analyze I think this has something todo with the airway directions.
In the default data there are no airway-directions - all airways go into both directions, no direction restrictions. Possible, that the sim doesn´t support such restrictions - we must go deeper into this issue but it looks like, that there are some limitations …

Will come back to you - thank you for your time Daniel (and of course your patience)
Richard

1 Like

Hi Richard,

Thanks again for looking into it, hopefully there is something you can do. :muscle: :+1:

Hello everyone,

I’m having the same problem as OP and just wanted to give you two more routes for testing purposes. Both were generated via SimBrief using the latest AIRAC cycle from Navigraph and I am trying to enter them into the FWB A32NX (dev version) FMC.

EDDP DRN1E DRN LASIS L986 LUXAR L984 DIBED DIBE2H UKLL

and

LGAV KEA2T KEA UL995 RIPLI UR32 IMR UG80 KONEN KONE1Q LTBA

The parts in bold give me the “AWY/WPT MISMATCH” error. The rest of the route works fine if I skip the airway via DCT. Before updating the FMS data I was able to enter the first route without problems.

Hope this helps.

Cheers
Robert

1 Like

Thanks Robert, much appreciated … I have identified the issue and it should be fixed with the next upcoming revision 4. The problem is, that I have thought that the new sim can handle airway-directions but that´s not the case. All airways (in the default data) are gone into both directions - there is no possibility to say, if a segment goes forward only, backwards only or in both ways. All airway segments go into both ways …

We have changed to logic now to be equal with the default dataset. Currently we are testing such examples now, therefore many thanks for that! As soon revision 4 is only, I will inform you here and of course in the “Release notes”.

Thanks,
Richard

Awesome to hear. Got a rough ETA on rev 4?