In a plan from SBBR to SBSP, on the UZ2 airway, the simbrief allocated me an even flight level, however, according to AIP Brasil, the UZ2 route has a minimum even flight level, and an rmk specifying that even levels should only be adopted on the mentioned excerpt (ISOPI-ENTIT). The simbrief appears to simply use the East-even rule. Is it a bug from simbrief?
In a plan from SBBR to SBSP, on the UZ2 airway, the simbrief allocated me an even flight level, however, according to AIP Brasil, the UZ2 route has a minimum even flight level, and an rmk specifying that even levels should only be adopted on the mentioned excerpt (ISOPI-ENTIT). The simbrief appears to simply use the East-even rule. Is it a bug from simbrief?
Hi, the “Plan Stepclimbs” option must be enabled for SimBrief to respect non-standard airway levels. With this option enabled, it will plan an odd altitude for this flight:
Best regards,
1 Like
Hi! In some cases this worked, like UZ2, but on a route whose airway also has an unconventional level it didn’t work: uz25, SBSP to SBBR.
eg)
The UZ25 requires an even flight level in this sense and the simbrief gives us 29000 initially and then 31000. In real flights, an even level of flight can also be observed on this airway.
In this image the UZ25 have a even level ( AIP Brasil)
In the simbrief High airways map the same UZ25 have a odd flight level!
Hi, the Brazil AIP shows UZ25 as being odd levels when flying in the direction of GERTU-PABIN:
UZ25.pdf (501.0 KB)
The AIRAC data also shows this, so in any case this isn’t a bug with SimBrief. But based on the AIP, I don’t think the AIRAC is incorrect either.
Best regards,
1 Like
I understand. However, there is an rmk on this same airway, which is not followed by the simbrief, and is used in real life:USE ONLY EVEN FLIGHT LEVELS IN
SEGMENT GERTU/ PIRES
I don’t think I’m interpreting it wrong, I found this strange when I took this route and then compared it with a real aircraft and found that I flew at an odd level and it flew at an even number.
Hi, yes I saw that remark too. But the arrows under the “Odd” column are quite a standard notation across many AIPs. So when our real-world supplier is coding the AIRAC data, it makes sense for them to follow the arrow notation rather than the remark I think.
I am not saying you’re wrong of course, but at the very least, I think we can say that the AIP is inconsistent and there is conflicting information here. Since this is a one-way airway, I don’t see why they would intentionally indicate odd altitudes with the arrows and then override this with a remark (i.e. why not just put the arrows under the even column to begin with)? But I’m not an AIP expert, so maybe there is a reason I’m not aware of.
Maybe we can report this to Jeppesen, but they will probably need to contact the authority directly for clarification, which will take some time I imagine.
In any case, this isn’t a SimBrief issue so it’s kind of out of my area of expertise. I’ll forward this to Richard @NAVData to see if he has any better ideas.
Cheers,
1 Like
Unlike UZ2 the cruise table entry for UZ25 is incorrect hence the incorrect level been applied. The change of entry would appear to have occurred 30 NOV 2023, as noted an AIRAC issue.
1 Like
@srcooke Thanks, it does sound like the levels should be even. We will be reaching out to our provider.
Am I misinterpreting the AIP cruise level arrows? Or is there indeed an inconsistency in the Brazil AIP itself in your view?
Cheers,
It seems somewhat odd that the levels are reversed in remarks, why not update the direction arrows also. For UZ2 the change is only for a segment of the airway, for UZ25 the entire length is remarked as reversed.
The changes appear to be related to the Network Restructuring notification AIC A22/23, maybe these haven’t fully made their way into the AIP.
2 Likes
Thanks for the info, much appreciated!
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.