Hey there, my name is Jack, I am a C1 controller from CZQM FIR in the VATCAN division of the VATSIM network. We’ve seen some wrong flight plans for some of our routes that contradict our LoA with the Boston ARTCC which is taking some sweet frequency time for us to correct and also seems to confuse some new pilots when they are getting recleared. I’m wondering if it is possible to submit some preferred routing so it make our and the pilots life easier?
Best,
Jack
I have the same problem with the real FAA too, they’ll have an LoA between facilities - but unless that is published somewhere, like the Chart Supplement, how is an operator supposed to know? With the FAA, LoAs are almost a state secret.
Unless it’s published somewhere, I can’t be held responsible if I didn’t follow some secret rule…
Is there anyone I can reach out to regarding this?
Hi…,
Welcome.
We shall be back to you shortly.
Cheers
Ian
Hi Jack,
SimBrief should be proposing real-world routes for these airports. Assuming your LoA is the same as in the real world, the idea is that these routes should already match your requirements.
Can you provide some specific examples of what routes SimBrief is assigning, versus what it should assign?
Best regards,
Hi,
The LoA between CZQM and KZBW requires us to route every jet arrival to KBOS via the OOSHN# RNAV arrival with ENE, AJJAY, or EURRO as the transition, and non-jet arrivals to ALLEX Q822 ENE PEASE STEVO LWRNC. I do realize how important it is for SimBrief to replicate real-world routes, but the characteristics for real-life traffic differ from vatsim traffic and some of the rarer routes see more than normal levels of traffic, the CYHZ/KBOS routing is a good representation of that. For example, the current routings that SimBrief suggests:
SCOTS Q475 TUSKY OOSHN OOSHN5: This route overlaps with the PEGGY5 Arrival into CYHZ, which creates conflicts between aircraft climbing on course and arriving aircraft descending on the arrival.
SENVI VIGMA ALLEX AJJAY OOSHN5 would be a preferred routing from our side since the SENVI VIGMA ALLEX section solves the problem of overlapping with arrivals
SENVI VIGMA ALLEX Q822 ENE PEASE STEVO LWRNC, same as above, valid routing for non jet aircraft
SENVI VIGMA ALLEX Q822 ENE PEASE STEVO LWRNC overlaps with the FUNDY5 arrival
YHZ Q29 EBKID Q822 ALLEX AJJAY OOSHN5 verlaps with the FUNDY5 arrival
The real-life ATC cleared routes from foreflight gives us:
Thanks,
Jack
Actually, after some digging, these mandatory IFR routes for Canada could be found in the Planning section of the Canadian Flight Supplement, which west bound high or low departures out of CYHZ has to be over SENVI VIGMA ALLEX or ACADN DUVIN. Page C141 for the CFS
I guess SimBrief’s primary/default suggestions look fine except for the SCOTS Q475 TUSKY OOSHN OOSHN5 route.
This route was being proposed for jets because there are basically never any jets flying this route, and the only one to do so recently was an unscheduled diversion (DLH413 on the 20th). They filed that route for whatever reason.
I’ve removed it from the database. Now it proposes SENVI VIGMA ALLEX AJJAY OOSHN5 for jets and SENVI VIGMA ALLEX Q822 ENE PEASE STEVO LWRNC for props.
Do these work? Any other city pairs that need to be corrected?
(I do realize that there are still some other routes in the suggestions that don’t match your list, but users almost never manually select a different route than the primary one, so this should still fix the majority of issues at least)
Thanks,
Amazing! That route is the only route significant enough to do anything about it. SCOTS Q475 TUSKY etc does get cleared from time to time as long as no traffic is on the STAR in IRL Moncton ops, but again we get this conflict way more due to the nature of VATSIM ops.
Thank you for doing this!
Best,
Jack
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.