Gaps in FPL between STAR and approach

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   On recent flights, I have often noticed there was a gap in the flight plan between the same two waypoints, one the termination point of an arrival, and the other the IAF of the connecting departure. Moreover these could not be manually deleted or 'connected' with a softkey press as is often the case.
Some trial and error showed me the way to remove the gap, is to set the same altitude restriction on both waypoints. As soon as there is any difference, this gap is introduced.

In Europe, there are quite a lot of examples where the published altitude restriction on the same waypoint, when in the START and when in the approach, is different. I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, but there you go. As a result of that, a gap is always introduced and can only be removed by tweaking the restrictions manually.

Although I understand the logic behind this heuristic, I believe this is non optimal behaviour, as an unconnectable gap means you need to remember to manually sequence to the second instance of that waypoint when on the leg to the first instance, without any warning or prompt to say this is required.

A better choice would be not to introduce this gap in the first place, or at least have some logic that forced the pilot to acknowledge or act on the gap.

Can this be considered for an upcoming release?

Edited by jhbehrens - 12 Aug 2024 at 8:39am

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
jhbehrens Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 15 Dec 2012 Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 128	Post Options Post Reply Quote jhbehrens Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: Gaps in FPL between STAR and approach Posted: 12 Aug 2024 at 8:38am
	On recent flights, I have often noticed there was a gap in the flight plan between the same two waypoints, one the termination point of an arrival, and the other the IAF of the connecting departure. Moreover these could not be manually deleted or 'connected' with a softkey press as is often the case. Some trial and error showed me the way to remove the gap, is to set the same altitude restriction on both waypoints. As soon as there is any difference, this gap is introduced. In Europe, there are quite a lot of examples where the published altitude restriction on the same waypoint, when in the START and when in the approach, is different. I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, but there you go. As a result of that, a gap is always introduced and can only be removed by tweaking the restrictions manually. Although I understand the logic behind this heuristic, I believe this is non optimal behaviour, as an unconnectable gap means you need to remember to manually sequence to the second instance of that waypoint when on the leg to the first instance, without any warning or prompt to say this is required. A better choice would be not to introduce this gap in the first place, or at least have some logic that forced the pilot to acknowledge or act on the gap. Can this be considered for an upcoming release? Edited by jhbehrens - 12 Aug 2024 at 8:39am

AviSteve Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 12 Feb 2018 Location: Melbourne, FL Status: Offline Points: 2209	Post Options Post Reply Quote AviSteve Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 12 Aug 2024 at 12:02pm
	The IFD generates an alert when approaching a Gap In Route, which acts a a prompt to remind you that something needs to be done.
	Steve Lindsley Avidyne Engineering

jhbehrens Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 15 Dec 2012 Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 128	Post Options Post Reply Quote jhbehrens Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 15 Aug 2024 at 10:25am
	I understand, I still think you can do better. The IFD doesn't seem to ever do 'at altitude', it's always 'at or above' even if the procedure says 'at'. So if the end of the STAR the IFD says 'Not below FL050' and at the beginning of the Approach the IFD says 'Not below 3800ft' (a real example I had last week landing at EDQM), why introduce the gap? These two values don't conflict. Edited by jhbehrens - 15 Aug 2024 at 10:42am

AviSteve Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 12 Feb 2018 Location: Melbourne, FL Status: Offline Points: 2209	Post Options Post Reply Quote AviSteve Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 15 Aug 2024 at 10:02pm
	There are underlying software design reasons for introducing that rule, but I understand what you're saying. Best I can offer is to say that we'll take it under advisement and see if there's some way we can tweak the design to support it.
	Steve Lindsley Avidyne Engineering