Correct. E.g. FIMLI near EGLF.
denopa wrote:
Correct. E.g. FIMLI near EGLF.
It isn’t in the vector chart, just on the Jepp IFR Low presentation. But it will obv appear if it is part of a route.
FIMLI is found in Flitestar and it isn’t on any airway
I looked at EGLF to see if it features in their sids stars etc but could not see it.
I wonder what would cause it to be suppressed. ATC often refer to fixes which are not on an airway, to get you out of the way of some mil exercise or whatever.
Thanks Jason. Indeed if I put it in the route it works. It’s visible in Garmin Pilot and Skydemon (as an option) and as Peter mention, it’s useful to see. I’ll make a suggestion to the FF team.
I have been looking at FF for the first time and am puzzled by the way it seems to handle VRPs. The Ostend VRPs are referred to by name – BOSSY, NEWPO, DUNKY for example but Le Touquet EA1 seems to be VP730 and Schiphol VICTOR seems to be VP031, Rotterdam ROMEO is VP022. Seems strange to be inconsistent like this.
My (very distint) opinion on all this: if you want a near flawless product, it is totally not worth it taking into consideration ForeFlight, since they are simply too new to the European market.
It’s just a fact that every such complex product (and ist aeronautical data in particular) simply needs a few years of debugging “in the field” before it gets to the point where it is 99% right.
SD needed those, I’d say, 4 or 5 years (which was reached a couple ofd years ago) where they finally got to that point. And these guys, as opposed to FF, are Europeans, meaning they are very close to the “pulse” of European private pilots’ problems and concerns and close to the European ANSPs and the quirks of their airspaces, “national” rules and procedures.
Garmin Pilot still hasn’t reached that point in 2018.
And it will be (at least) the same amount of time with FF. Coming from across the pond, unless they really get to together the right “team” of people who are very versed with European airspaces and European flying, they might possibly never get to the point where SD is today.
I had great expectations of FF – everybody seems to rave about it in the US – but having had a cursory play with it my first impression is “is that all there is?”.
boscomantico wrote:
My (very distint) opinion on all this: if you want a near flawless product, it is totally not worth it taking into consideration ForeFlight, since they are simply too new to the European market.
I would agree to an extent that it is a new launch in Europe and will take some time to be near “perfect”. They are however very receptive to suggestions and seem to implement them fast.
GP on the other hand had lots of promise but essentially stalled after launch.
I would suggest, as with any new complex product, that those who want to try it give it a reasonable chance. All these interfaces are different and take time to get used to.
ForeFlight is an excellent IFR product; I have FF, SD, GP and RR on my iPad and I rate FF well ahead of the rest. For VFR work, it still has some way to go.
FIMLI is a waypoint on the Heathrow TOMMO 4B & 3E STARs.
I think there is a danger of over-complication in certain products aimed at the VFR market. I have flown with a number of pilots who used SD and none of them really knew how to use it. The major issues seemed to be with the map declutter config and function, and the general depth of the config of the whole product. One example I recall is here.
For VFR, one first and foremost needs a clear and accurate airspace depiction, with sensible declutter options which can be easily configured and which work without confusing complications.
Probably the hardest thing for a new product for Europe is collecting all the data which is not properly published… e.g. in the UK the AIP doesn’t contain details of unlicensed airfields.
My impression of FF at Friedrichshafen 2018 was that is it a slick product functionally. It also has a couple of things which stand it apart from SD: autorouting, and the level of interaction with panel mounted avionics.
