Robert,
Looking through the case, that “bot” like comment from the support person was after back and forth from the support team on your report where you and the team exchanged very useful information and examples. The support team is not going to be able to provide specific answers on engineering issues but tags them for engineering review and either opens an engineering case if one does not exist or associates the report with an existing engineering case. In the case of a feature request, the support team tags them for product management review. So keep your comments and reports coming as they do make a difference, but don’t expect an immediate fix or update as this takes time.
For others, it is always most helpful if issues, comments, questions and feature requests are sent via email to [email protected]. That way they are either answered or tracked, investigated, and get to the right team for resolution.
@NCYankee appreciate the post, and I may have misinterpreted the reply. Will send more examples.
Hey @Arne and @Airborne_Again,
Appreciate the insight. It’s interesting because I see what you’re saying about VRPs and filing with coordinates. What I have seen is that pilots in Germany seem to file the name of the points in combination with the associated field so it seems some countries may be accepting these points differently. My intuition is telling me that defaulting to filing VRPs with coordinates may satisfy most countries, but unclear. Sounds like this will work for Sweden which is good.
I am curious to hear from others as well on what they have seen when filing VRPs in different countries to look for differences in requirements.
Appreciate the help,
Josh
This thread is worth a look re filing lat/long. “Hunnicat” never came back but he was obviously some ATCO in Hungary and was angry about people using Skydemon with rubber-banded routes which all get filed with these waypoints, and AFAIK most ATC software cannot display these.
Thanks Peter. I’ll take a look at the thread.
Hello Josh,
As mentionned previously, it’s good to have airspace warning pop-up to help avoiding airspace infringements, but definitely, adding an ATC radio frequency to the pop-up would be great.
Hi @greg_mp,
Agreed! We have it on the list as a follow on improvement.
A really huge issue with FF is that area notams are not shown until 2hrs before EOBT.
What is the rationale for that?
Originally it was a plan to try to prevent clutter but is something we have on our list to explore further.
Josh_Tahmasebi_ForeFlight wrote:
Originally it was a plan to try to prevent clutter
Excuse me please for being direct – but this does not make sense!
Why would I not want to see areas on the map that will be active by the time I get there? Even if my planning happens a day before?
