Nav Software

[wheelyman]

What are my fellow pilots' thoughts on using Flight planning Software (EG NavBox). Can it be substitute for the CRP and a ruler?

[pumper_bob]

YES Nav Box is great value for money.
It will also print out a plog and you can put in your fuel and speed to get all the figures you want. It is the best £20- or so you will spend! Very intuitive to use and large coverage,Iceland in the N.W to Crete in the S.E!! Loads of phone numbers for all the strips, quite a few of which are not on your CAA chart! Frequencies, ILS and nav aids all on there.

[IO540]

Navbox Pro is great, for VFR and UK-style IFR (on the IMC Rating) type of flying.

It should be standard issue in PPL training; the slide rule should be ditched. Think of how many pointless training hours would be saved; they could be put towards better (post-WW2) stuff.

For IFR/airways, one needs something that supports airway routes with a lot less effort; Jeppesen Flitestar IFR is the only option for Europe.

[wheelyman]

Thanks for that.

Will it plot 'that' intersection, or 'that' lake accurately enough for reference points between standard waypoints though?

I have seen a demo and you only seem to be able to place accurate reference points at towns/airfields etc. I know you can put a temporary waypoint in, but how do you relate that to your chart?

[Tall_guy_in_a_152]

The topographical features in Navbox appear to be accurate enough for en-route navigation. I've never had a problem. Temporary waypoints will be as accurate as you can read off the chart or acquire from some other source (e.g. Microsoft Autoroute) and should be easily accurate enough, but always double check for typos and do a "gross error check" that the waypoint appears where it should relative to other features.

Haven't touched the CRP for over 5 years.

[wheelyman]

Temporary waypoints will be as accurate as you can read off the chart or acquire from some other source (e.g. Microsoft Autoroute) and should be easily accurate enough,
.

Nice tip, the autoroute one ,Tall Guy.:ok: i forgot that had a 'location sensor'

Cheers

[david.g]

just had a look at the UK dealer for navbox and some options are certainly more than 20 quid, which is the best one to go for? is the subscription updates really necessary??

[IO540]

Yes, you should definitely get Navbox PRO and the updates. This program is cheap at twice the price.

If you use a flight planning program to generate the plog (and that is the #1 reason one would use one) you want it to contain the latest waypoints.

Waypoints can be VORs or NDBs (which don't move), or airways intersections (yes you can use those for VFR flight planning; very useful too) and these can disappear; the non-ICAO ones that are used to form STARs/SIDs do get changed around fairly regularly.

Of course you can also use airfields or villages/towns as waypoints but these are close to useless for putting into a real (ICAO) flight plan.

While (VFR context) you will use the printed chart as the primary reference for terrain/obstacles and controlled airspace, it's worth having the current controlled airspace data in the flight planing program, and it will then print correctly on any map sections which you print out from it. This provides a useful second check to your flight planning. CAA charts come out once a year, but your "Navbox chart" will be new every month. As well as the plog, I always print out (from Navbox) a map of the route. It's primitive but it does the job fine, for UK-style VFR/IFR (below CAS) type of flying.

Navbox is also a very good reference, as current as any publication you will find, for airfield contact details; phone/fax numbers, runway types, fuel availability, etc. It isn't 100% accurate in this respect but that is because the info comes from the national AIP for the country in question, and many airfields can't be bothered to supply the right info. Navbox has a man who spends much of his life wading through the AIPs and inserting any changes into the Navbox database; this is what you pay for in the monthly updates. You can't get this for free; well not for the entire area covered.

Navbox could be improved substantially in various little areas but for now it's the best for Europe.

The alternative is Jeppesen Flitestar VFR but not only is it substantially more expensive but also it doesn't even remotely begin to compare on the usability front. I use it for IFR/airways, which is a different planning process.

Another option is a program called PocketFMS which appears to have a dedicated following. It is a group effort, I believe, but without a formal update mechanism. I think this "group effort" thing is a great way to do it because, with imaginative use of public domain data, one can get a much better product without getting done for a breach of copyright. I have not chosen it personally because I want a "properly updated" (which to me means somebody is getting paid for it, so they have an incentive to do it) flight planning program. The data in all these programs will only ever be as good as the people that load it in, and the people that fly to the said areas and moan about mistakes, and GA activity in much of Europe is negligible, so any errors aren't likely to get discovered. I guess PocketFMS is going to be fine in practice for the UK and immediate neighbours though.

[denhamflyer]

Does navbox do the terrain and altitude planning like flightstar?

Have just got FlightStar VFR and find the alititude profiles are great for routing around busy airspace - but the rest of the program is very irritating to use (too many clicks and popup boxes! and ALL flight plans output co-ords incompatible with notam briefings!!! - has anyone actually filled any of these? I am not conviced they would be accepted)

Also what about Notam en-route integration? The web site seem to imply it has some - is this full en-route?

Cheers

df.

[IO540]

No flight planning program can be relied on for obstacle clearance - unless you are flying at airway MEAs.

Flitestar (which I am familiar with) should not be used that way either, despite showing a pretty picture of the profile.

I think Navbox does offer some sort of notam briefing which comes from a connection to Avbrief. I have not used this since the early days, when it wasn't working.

Not sure what you mean about incompatible coordinates in Flitestar?

[denhamflyer]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to do some planning with the profile (I am not suggested for exact terrain clearance - epsecially obstacle!) but it gives a good visual of airspace above the tarrain so when planning around complex airspace, you can move the waypoints and "see" what kind and height of airspace you need to deal with and then optimise the route. This is especially useful for the Restricted airspace avoidance in some parts of s/e france bordering lux/germany. I would always do final planning on a real chart! Just wish it also had a "dont show me airspace above xxxx" on the charts trying to click around and avoid higher airspace is a pain.

The co-ordinates I refer to are the ICAO Plan GPS in NddmmmEdddmmm
and very strange WP2/N0146F050 (not sure WP2 is know outside my plan!) and it ommits the actual location of WP2 just giving them waypoints either side. So they know I am changing levels but not where! The AIS system does not accept these you need to move the N and E and truncate the number of

Does this not happen for you? (ver 9.160 (build 10021))

[IO540]

This sounds like you have created a route in Flitestar which has varying levels within it. If you then generate an ICAO flight plan from that, it will have the level (or speed) changes within the route.

This is acceptable as an IFR (Eurocontrol) flight plan; indeed, it can be essential to do that in order to get the route accepted because different airways are open at different levels.

If however you are flying VFR, nobody cares what (plausible) level you put on the flight plan. VFR flight plans are not checked for any validity - except in some places like Montenegro or Albania where somebody might actually look at it and chuck it out of they don't like it.

Are you saying that if you copy/paste such a multi-level route into ais.org.uk it doesn't like it? That would be pretty bad. Still, for notam purposes, it doesn't usually matter. The narrow route briefing works ok if done at one single low level (say 2000ft) for the whole route; one just ignores the warnings of low flying kites :)

Or are you using some built-in notam feature in Flitestar? I have never used anything like that.

The vertical airspace depiction feature of FS is nice but I find it of limited use. There is so much restricted airspace in France that picking one's way through it is very hard. One needs to get the SIA 1:1M charts; these come with a handbook which lists every one of the areas and the levels and opening times. A lot of them are closed at weekends, for example. An even better way to fly in France is to follow the airway routes; typically at FL065 and above. French ATC really like them. They avoid the restricted bits.

[Choxolate]

Have a look at Pocket FMS - it is FREEWARE based on collaborative users(google for it) - absolutely excellent piece of software with on-line update of Navpoints, Airports etc. I use it all the time and made the donation (50 euros|) to get the more detailed maps.

Well worth a look.

[denhamflyer]

IO540 yes i do mean that you cannot cut and paste :{ beacuse AIS does not accept GPS co-ords in that format they want DDMMNDDDMME etc.

Also the problem with the flight change is that the program forgets to output the actual waypoint! :ugh:

I was hoping this is a current bug - have you had experience of using the ICAO flight plan for VFR?

Does the navbox do this better? (I prefer the RNAV co-ords since AIS accept these and are quick to enter into my GPS and backup VOR nav systems can also be used )

Having done about 16 hours of european planning with flighstar, whilst superficially very nice, I have many frustrations - I have decided to buy navbox anyway and have ordered it online!

PS. Can navbox be given a notam co-ordinate and radius/bounding box to see where the NOTAM is and then print it? or do people no of a a NotamPlot for Europe?

[drauk]

do people no of a a NotamPlot for Europe?

If you want a graphical plot of Notams and you're interested in one of the available FIR (EGPX EGTT EISN LECB LECM LFBB LFEE LFMM LFRR LIBB LIMM LPPC LSAS) then try:

http://fly.dsc.net/u/Notams

[IO540]

IO540 yes i do mean that you cannot cut and paste :{ beacuse AIS does not accept GPS co-ords in that format they want DDMMNDDDMME etc.

You have lost me now :) Where are these coordinates coming from? Are you creating user waypoints, and thus ending up with lat/long coordinates in your ICAO flight plan?

If so, may I make a radical suggestion: plan your flights as if you did them IFR, i.e. use waypoints which are VORs, NDBs, airway intersections (e.g. ALKIN) etc. Most of my UK flying is VFR and I almost never have to invent a waypoint. Planning for radio navigation has many navigational advantages but if I say any more somebody will jump on me... but, reading the next bit of your post you obviously know all this, so I am even more puzzled.

Also the problem with the flight change is that the program forgets to output the actual waypoint! :ugh:

That sounds like a bug. Flitestar has a fair few of those.

Navbox has a bug in that if you use an airfield ident (e.g. EGKB) as a waypoint (which is not legal on a flight plan) it quietly drops it when it generates the flight plan. I have told them about this years ago; the reply was that you should not be doing it in the first place :)

I was hoping this is a current bug - have you had experience of using the ICAO flight plan for VFR?

I have never used the Flitestar flight plan as it is. I use FS as a route drawing tool and a plog generator, and mainly for IFR. One could use the built-in flight plan generator; print to say Winfax and fax the FP straight to the airport of departure, etc. But I file flight plans using homebriefing.com and one just enters the route. The aircraft data tends to be predefined for the user profile.

If you are ending up with lat/long coordinates then I can understand why you don't want to do this...

Does the navbox do this better? (I prefer the RNAV co-ords since AIS accept these and are quick to enter into my GPS and backup VOR nav systems can also be used )

I've never used Navbox to generate RNAV data, but yes a VOR reference is another way for you to file a VFR FP with a random waypoint on it.

Having done about 16 hours of european planning with flighstar, whilst superficially very nice, I have many frustrations - I have decided to buy navbox anyway and have ordered it online!

PS. Can navbox be given a notam co-ordinate and radius/bounding box to see where the NOTAM is and then print it? or do people no of a a NotamPlot for Europe?

No idea - I always copy/paste the route into ais.org.uk.

As I mention, try to use airways intersections where there isn't a handy navaid. That avoids all the problems which I think you are finding.

Plus ATC gives you less hassle if you use intersections; it tells them you are navigating with a (half decent) GPS so they are much less likely to have problem with you than a 100%-VFR pilot navigating from one village to the next. VFR flight abroad is generally easier than in the UK; you get long clearances through Class C/D at FL065 etc but you need to sound like you know what you are doing.

[denhamflyer]

Drauk: great site - could it be updated to take the GPS co-ords from flight star (HDDMMMHDDDMMM e.g. N51422E01120)

IO540: thanks for all that IO540 - yes I am creating the co-ordinates by drag and drop around very awkward airspace (last one for example around paris to get into Longes LFPL (Disneyland!)) - it is very good at doing this (with some frustration) - but obviously is not so good at outputing the flight plan! It uses the previously mentioned GPS co-ords that cannot be used by simple cut and paste.

I try a do planning as you suggest for my own sanity, but when cuting into fine airspace and PLANNING VFR I must assume lack of clearance and it is a pain. I agree that the French are much better at transits - wish the UK were not so "get off my land" - but I frequently fly with low-ish cloud bases and without IMC it is a pain.

Anyway - it is still a lot better than charts and millions of lines in the early planning stages! And I'll give Navbox a go soon.

(Side Note: I am beginning to regret putting my plane on G-reg - it still doesnt have a certified DME/ADF for the CAA yet! - told real soon now...but that leads to a whole new CAA/FAA IR discussion)

[IO540]

Yes, you have to plan a VFR flight on the basis of not getting a CAS transit, but there is no conflict between that, and planning via navaids and airways intersections.

Unless of course you can't find any of the above where you need to go... then you have to stick in a user waypoint, and for that I use the VOR notation. I have never used lat/long, in 6 years of flying. Much too error-prone, for a start.

Personally, once outside the UK (but not Italy which can be as anally retentive as the UK), I tend to plan a navaid-based route that I actually want to fly, and the fallback (no CAS transit) plan can be quite messy and I don't mind flying the resulting doglegs with the GPS. A bit tacky but OK if you have good clear maps on the GPS.

That was before the IR; now I don't bother with any of that VFR stuff when going abroad, and just fly on at FL150... Navbox isn't good for IFR/airways; one needs something into which one can stuff the airways route and it generates the plog with all the waypoints that can be loaded into the GPS.

The jury is still out on the N-reg issues I am afraid; the DfT minister is supposedly going to make a decision on it this year sometime. God knows what they are going to do... the mind boggles. Whatever they do, it will be as logical as the CAA simply invoicing every N-reg owner with £23.45 every year :)

[drauk]

great site - could it be updated to take the GPS co-ords from flight star (HDDMMMHDDDMMM e.g. N51422E01120)

It could, I suppose, but I wouldn't hold your breath to be honest! It has quite a few users now and nobody else has asked for it.

If you really want to you could add a custom waypoint and then use that. Otherwise if you know any place in the vicinity just use the place name.

[beerdrinker]

Have a look at the newly released Jeppesen Internet Flight Planner (JIFP). It is now available for Europe.

There is an on line tutorial on the Jeppesen Website www.jeppesen.com

I have used Navbox Pro for several years but am going to migrate to the JIFP. It is only a few Euros more expensive but has a lot more features.

[IO540]

The JIFP is a nice product (I have checked it out myself) but it a major issue when using it away from home.

The typical data transfer between your PC (on which the Jepp JIFP client software is installed, so this isn't an internet cafe option) is a lot of megabytes per flight planning session, so broadband is essential. If you are travelling, you have to bring your laptop, with wifi or you have to find some place (an internet cafe, perhaps) that will let you plug an ethernet cable into it.

The actual user interface is virtually identical to Flitestar, which while being a lot more powerful than Navbox (and indeed I use Flitestar IFR myself for airways flight planning) doesn't even begin to compare with Navbox on the usability front.

It's readily apparent what Jepp did - the JIFP client is a virtually unmodified Flitestar and the internet connection accesses the remote database (instead of accessing the ex-CD database which the standard Flitestar product does). That's why there is so much data being transferred for each user operation.

Jepp are going the right way though. What they need to do is offer approach plates (i.e. Jeppview) in this way. The entry cost of JV3 is far too high for private pilots.

Navbox Pro is cheap - around £60 and that includes the updates for the year.

[denhamflyer]

I now have my Navbox Pro. It is quite obviously NOT of the same calibre as FliteStar.

In summary if you have done all of the keywork on your charts first, then Navbox can be a cheap plog generator and is relatively easy to use. The screen is much less cluttered than flitestar because it doesnot show all the airspace at the higher levels :) .

However if you want to do serious VFR planning (e.g spanning more than one chart, complex airspace, multiple stops) then flitestar wins hands down. Especially if you invest in the raster charts to overlay your routes (thus showing glider sites etc.etc.). Although I have expressed some frustration, it is much more powerfull than NavBox, the plog is more customisable, and can have notes added (which I do to give pre-organsed radio list that I determine).

Niether package does a good NOTAM narrow route brief, but flightstar does a much better job of airfield NOTAM/METAR/TAF integration.

At about £80 I would recommend FliteStar from planning, but if you want an quick inexpensive tool then have a go with NavBox. BUT try drauk's website first for simple planning it excellent. - especially the notam stuff.

just my opinion :}

[IO540]

I'd be careful with Flitestar VFR if using it as a chart substitute. I've just heard that the VFR version doesn't show Class A airways (can't verify this as I have access to an IFR version only) so planning an OCAS route with it alone is a great way to get done.

Navbox has configuration for various things to display on the map, but yes the map is simple.

[denhamflyer]

I agree. You still need the real charts but when planning. The facility in FliteStar to overaly the REAL charts (scanned in by Jeppesen) is really powerful.

The big issue with simplistic planning on these programs is the lack of coverage for gliding and parachute sites. Thus the use of the scanned charts.

You MUST then plot it onto a real paper chart for verification (it is easier to miss something on a computer screen than a real chart).

If find this is much faster when crossing over multiple charts or navigating complex airspace.

One benefit of these programs is the airspace is updated much more frequently than the paper charts! So using both should be safer.

You point about the class A airways seems to be true :( - but the scanned charts do show them.

[IO540]

All true; however the price of Flitestar VFR starts to go up very rapidly once you factor in a year's update for the standard database and a year's update for the Raster Charts for Europe.

The comparison with Navbox, which does the same job provided you have the printed charts, gets more remote.

All this stuff is so far removed from standard PPL-taught flight planning with the silly circular slide rule... I think most people reading this wonder what the hell this discussion is about :)