Hi folks,
I know I have been absent for a while and I apologize for that. I wanted to let you know about a few things we have going:
We have other foundational features in the works as well to better support Hours of Operations outside the U.S., more contact support, updates to how you can report fuel prices, and so on. We also are working to make our logbook more flexible and support requirements for EASA. My goal now is to make sure I know what else we need to look for to better support Europeans and make sure those are on our roadmap.
I’ll be popping in more often, but if you have any feedback, you can always tag me or send me a message.
All the best,
Josh
Nice to hear Josh_Tahmasebi_ForeFlight wrote:
Two big items I have folks working on still are Aerodromes, Glider Fields, Hang Gliders, etc. which do not have ICAO codes and full support for VRPs (being able to route and even file with them). Both of these include showing them by name anywhere we can today (flight plan drawer, navlog, briefing, etc.).The team is working hard to finalize support for both of these and I hope to have more of an update for you all soon. I know this has taken a long time, but I want to express my gratitude for the feedback all of you have provided over the years.
Good to hear that those issues are being addressed!
What about the notice period for the display of NOTAMs? The current mechanic of them being displayed only two hours before activation is not quite satisfactory for a safe flight planning e.g. the day before the flight:
https://www.euroga.org/forums/hangar-talk/6600-foreflight-merged-thread?page=148#
Worrh a try out of flight sim!
Josh_Tahmasebi_ForeFlight wrote:
full support for VRPs (being able to route and even file with them)Filing named VRPs is not accepted in all countries, sometimes you’ll have to revert to coordinates.
Hi @Arne,
Yes, we will work on a solution for this as well. We already make adjustments to flight plans based on the countries they are being sent to as required. Are there countries in particular that come to mind so I can share with the team?
All the best,
Josh
One thing I don’t understand is why I have to use autorouter to validate IFR at puddle jumper flight levels. For example I am filing ENTO to EGTK at FL100, autorouter provides a sensible route of around 620nm on the southerly SID. FF sends me towards the Shetlands adding around 10% track miles and far from the coast. Also I would have to limit the FL as the FF route is FL160.
Presumably the algorithm that speaks to Eurocontrol is similar but in my experience you always have to go through autorouter to get a sensible suggestion.
Perhaps FF is a turbine tool happiest above FL240?
Arne wrote:
Filing named VRPs is not accepted in all countries, sometimes you’ll have to revert to coordinates.
Josh_Tahmasebi_ForeFlight wrote:
Are there countries in particular that come to mind so I can share with the team?
According to ICAO standards you can’t use named VRPs in flight plans (unless they happen to have a 5LNC). So you should rather ask what countries do accept named VRPs.
greg_mp wrote:
Worrh a try out of flight sim!The new airspace warning is a good improvement, however, they still don’t display the frequency to call for clearance. Skydemon does this already for years…
Frans wrote:
The new airspace warning is a good improvement, however, they still don’t display the frequency to call for clearance. Skydemon does this already for years…
If you don’t keep some room for improvement, dev team will get bored… :P
Well FF support team came back to me on two like for like comparisons between FF and autorouter
I got this which looks straight out of a chat bot
In my experience, it can be very small factors that change the outcome like winds aloft, aircraft load, etc. and we are happy to get your feedback.
