PilotEdge Forums

Actually it pulls recent routes if you put in the departure and destination airports. Over to the right above the white box there is a Routes link. Click that and routes show up in the box. Click the route and it fills in the map.

John

BonanzaDude wrote:Actually it pulls recent routes if you put in the departure and destination airports. Over to the right above the white box there is a Routes link. Click that and routes show up in the box. Click the route and it fills in the map.

John

Saw that and it's pretty cool. I'm really waffling on this because it is definitely geared toward IFR route planning it seems. Dropping down and seeing the TEC routes on the list is great. I've also been able to successfully type in a non-standard route and get it displayed.

What's really throwing me off is the real world integration where if you type in an N-number (N6229P of the A2A Commanche fame) it will know if that person's filed a FP before, pull up the airplane's specs and already know the time/distance factors. The navlog sheet is great, but I wouldn't mind SID/STARs integration, where if you plan for LOOP7 DAG KEPEC3 then I'd like it to pull those SID/STAR charts in addition to the airport diagrams.

Most of the complaining seems to be that a "pilot" can't draw a magenta line and start dragging it around and around for fun in a sandbox. Would love to hear someone like Keith/other RW pilots talk about how they see these changes. I think if I was planning a RW flight, this would be fast, easy and probably just what I need.

On the backend, it seems pretty obvious that the restructuring of the flight planning process, integration with LM filing service and the indicator in the URL of the navlog output of an API, that this is the precursor to paid accounts for serious users.

My personal opinion is that they've replaced 1 functionality with a separate functionality.

The original system (which I prefer) was a nice flight planning tool for nearly any purpose.

They've replaced it with a flight plan filing tool with extensive real world data integration. It however breaks quite quickly once you leave the realm of actually planning a real world flight. As a result it's lost a lot of variety and reason to use.

For real world pilots I caution that the weather briefing provided would not count as an official weather briefing per 91.103 (this system is not linked into DUAT/DUATS), be careful with this type of thing.

Edit: Per skyvectors founder the briefing is logged with the FSS making it an "official briefing". No FAA document technically allows for this, but no FAA document requires an official briefing for Part 91 non K operations (91.103 simply states you have to be familiar with the weather, an "official" briefing is the simplest way to comply). See post below for more details.

I think that the old system should be how you plan a flight and then once you have a route it would take you to the new system to file it. Some of the route analysis tools could be brought into the old system.

For me personally this destroys the main reasons I use skyvector, I'll be looking for a new website for my charting/basic flight planning needs.

Peter Grey wrote:They've replaced it with a flight plan filing tool with extensive real world data integration. It however breaks quite quickly once you leave the realm of actually planning a real world flight. As a result it's lost a lot of variety and reason to use.

Would you be willing to run through an example flight? I keep getting conflicted because I start using it like a sandbox and it seems fine, then alternatively, choose a route and that seems fine too. Since it has so much integration plus the weather an NOTAMs, it gives the illusion that "if you pick what they show you, you're good to fly".

I planned a typical KSAN to KSNA flight:

1. start with a blank flight, no airplane data entered.
2. enter the departure KSAN and the arrival KSNA
3. Drop down the "route" section to see that it suggests SANN4 and the two tech route (jet/prop with waypoints) with a simple point to point magenta line
4. No waypoints are placed and the navlog result has no nav info either if you pick SANN4 with no description as to why you pick it vs. SANN3 which is not listed.
5. Pick the OCN V23 SLI route since I know that is SANN3 (thanks Ken/MFR!)
6. Magenta line changes and navlog now correct

This seems useful and helpful so where does it break for "actually planning a real world flight"? Not being sarcastic, actually seeking to understand.

Peter Grey wrote:For me personally this destroys the main reasons I use skyvector, I'll be looking for a new website for my charting/basic flight planning needs.

Speaking of new websites, has anyone been a beta tester for the ForeFlight web planner? I volunteered a long time ago but no answer other than they'd let me know... I love FF and use it extensively, having a web planner would be nice.

Just talked with David at his booth. He is aware of some of the issues caused by the new interface and is already addressing them. He has already addressed the inability to use an airport as a waypoint.

The briefing IS logged with Lockheed Martin so it does (according to David) count as an official briefing.

I have not used the new interface yet but I was happy to see the ability to enter airways.

I did review some problems with the TEC route database and he will be looking into that.

This seems useful and helpful so where does it break for "actually planning a real world flight"? Not being sarcastic, actually seeking to understand.

It doesn't my quote was "once you leave the realm of actually planning a real world flight." It's fine for real world planning, not for sim planning (which is what I use it for today).

He has already addressed the inability to use an airport as a waypoint.

That's good, that was one of the main reasons I was leaving skyvector. I'll give it a few days to settle before I make a final decision.

The briefing IS logged with Lockheed Martin so it does (according to David) count as an official briefing.

Hmm ok, I'll have to take his word on that. The rules on weather briefings change pretty regularly (the AC I was about to pull out to say he can't do that was recently cancelled). The help portion of his webpage talks about how it integrates with FSS and it all makes sense to me, but without a definitive FAA statement the best I will go with is "maybe".

The closest thing to an FAA statement on the topic comes from AC00-45G which states the following:

Prior to every flight, pilots should gather all information vital to the nature of the flight. This
includes a weather briefing obtained by the pilot from an approved weather source via the
Internet (see paragraph 1.3.2) and/or from a FSS specialist.

Paragraph 1.3.2 lists DUATS, DUAT, FSS, and ADDS as internet sources of weather. David is saying his weather comes from the FSS so you can read that either way (the paragraph does list a specific FSS URL however and it's not the one David refers to in his help).

Me personally I always go to DUATS after I self brief to log an official briefing, this new tool won't change that process for me.

However, for those following along 91.103 doesn't require an "official" briefing, but in the event of an accident/violation/reason for the FAA to look at you a logged briefing with FSS (or DUAT/DUATS) "proves" to the FAA that you've met the 91.103 requirement. Otherwise you may have to "prove" you met the requirement on your own. According to David skyvector does this now, honestly he's most likely correct (as he had to talk to them to get the access he now has), I can't give a 100% answer however.

There hasn't been any sort of NTSB case law on this (that I have access to, I don't purchase any databases for legal decisions so I may have missed something, I'm also not a lawyer) so it's really a gray area in my mind. And realistically the odds of this being an "issue" to the FAA are low at best.

So my final answer is yes skyvector most likely has properly integrated with FSS to process "official" briefings. The briefings look identical to a DUATS briefing and I have no reason to believe he would lie to us about something that critical. For me personally however, I'm super paranoid and as a result will still go to DUATS to get my "official" weather briefings.

I'll edit out my post that says that they weren't.

Peter Grey wrote:

This seems useful and helpful so where does it break for "actually planning a real world flight"? Not being sarcastic, actually seeking to understand.

It doesn't my quote was "once you leave the realm of actually planning a real world flight." It's fine for real world planning, not for sim planning (which is what I use it for today).

I think it's going to cut off the casual simmer (who likely doesn't under the implications of route planning) or the IFR student who is self-teaching. One of the best parts of the SkyVector sandbox method was being able to easily visualize routes and their implications. Once I learned about FlightAware's IFR route analyzer page, it made a powerful pairing.

1. Decide to fly from KSGF to KDEN.
2. Pull up SkyVector and sandbox around.
3. Pull up real world routes in FlightAware and compare what I did to what was filed and flown real world.
4. Learn from the differences, then plan a route and fly online.

What I see as a bigger benefit is that there appears to be new logic in place to help pick routes for a low flying GA plane vs a high flying corporate jet or commercial flight.

stealthbob wrote:
I am surprised that there is not an obvious warning about this?

...unless I missed the obvious which would not surprise me

The warning was added 3 hours after he went live with the new interface.

Once I learned about FlightAware's IFR route analyzer page, it made a powerful pairing.

This is all "built in" to Skyvector as he is pulling preferred and recently cleared routes. Some bugs still being worked out.