|
giannisd
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 90,
Visits: 82
|
+xDid you mean 125 when you said Milano North? I will talk to my colleague about what we can do here. Yes the CTA base above is FL 125, only a small area on the south of that FMC Milano North near the TMA is lower, but is known to everybody. Look forward to see the results, ciao, Gianni
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Dawson
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8K,
Visits: 8.9K
|
Did you mean 125 when you said Milano North? I will talk to my colleague about what we can do here.
|
|
|
|
|
giannisd
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 90,
Visits: 82
|
+xGianni, we need a specific upper limit in SkyDemon for pieces of airspace, we cannot just write "lower vertical limit of above controlled airspace". We could potentially add a note, but we will wait and see.
We will either include the zones as they are, or remove them completely, depending on what people think of how we've done them. Consider that there is no FMC area with un upper limit of FL195. Reduce this limit for the "Automatic decluttering" as follow: Padova 5000 is an average that should work, Milano North West is under the TMA and CTA that are A class so 2500 is not exact but is acceptable, Milano North East again is under the TMA so same limits, Milano North is under CTA class D so 125 should be Ok, Roma (Sardinia) you can limit at 2500 since nobody care about FMC in that area. But write, this is important, on "What's Here" when you tap on the screen : "Surface - Upper limit: lower vertical limit of above controlled airspace" and not "Surface - FL 195" because this is totally false. Pilots will understand.....the important is to see the area on the map. Is my suggestion....better than nothing and at least pilot can have an idea of the upper limits and where the FMC lateral limits are. I leave up to you to decide the best.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Dawson
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8K,
Visits: 8.9K
|
Gianni, we need a specific upper limit in SkyDemon for pieces of airspace, we cannot just write "lower vertical limit of above controlled airspace". We could potentially add a note, but we will wait and see.
We will either include the zones as they are, or remove them completely, depending on what people think of how we've done them.
|
|
|
|
|
giannisd
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 90,
Visits: 82
|
+xOk, we're going to try something in next week's chart update. The FMC areas will appear on the chart. Depending on what people think of it, we will either keep the new way or revert to the old way. Tim, today I saw the FMC maps, but there is a mistake: Is written as information: "Surface - FL195" . Is not correct, please read that on the top of each map, are clearly indicated the vertical limits:
Maybe is not good English but meaning for upper limit is: lower vertical limit of the above controlled airspace
Please correct at your convenience,
best regards,
Gianni
|
|
|
|
|
giannisd
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 90,
Visits: 82
|
+xOk, we're going to try something in next week's chart update. The FMC areas will appear on the chart. Depending on what people think of it, we will either keep the new way or revert to the old way. From 15/07/2021 on the New AIRAC n.6 , we have new freq and new FMC area on Milano FIR..... Look foward to see the update, regards, Gianni
This is new FMC Milano .  This is new FMC Padova
|
|
|
|
|
giannisd
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 90,
Visits: 82
|
+xOk, we're going to try something in next week's chart update. The FMC areas will appear on the chart. Depending on what people think of it, we will either keep the new way or revert to the old way. I thought that since the FMC zones are from SFC down to the lower vertical limit of the overflight controlled airspace, they might be similar to SFC CTR instead of pale pink, with a different pale color.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Dawson
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8K,
Visits: 8.9K
|
Ok, we're going to try something in next week's chart update. The FMC areas will appear on the chart. Depending on what people think of it, we will either keep the new way or revert to the old way.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Dawson
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8K,
Visits: 8.9K
|
The trouble is, the Italian ones do not work the same as other ones. We have them in the UK but they overlap and are a big mess, because of the way they're designed by the authorities and the way they are typically used. They are not suitable for displaying on a map of any kind. We have them in Germany but they are clearly-defined TMZs which are designed for display on a map.
At present we don't yet have a mapping solution for them in Italy but we are thinking about it.
|
|
|
|
|
giannisd
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 90,
Visits: 82
|
+xYou say "as before" but I do not believe we have ever shown FMC areas on the map. Nor have we shown them in the What's Here menu, or do you think that is not the case?
We cannot add an option to the Mapping menu for a special kind of area that only exists in Italy, and even in Italy there are only a few of them. We will think about possible solutions. Tim, I say "as before" because BON said that on a previous message. On 6/25/2018: http://forums.skydemon.aero/FindPost26302.aspx you write: We have FMC areas for many countries, including Italy as of the last update, but they are not designed to be permanently shown on the map because they introduce clutter for no real benefit. In flight they are shown in the Radio tab, during the planning stage they're shown in your PLOG.So they do not exist only in Italy ! They are designed permanently (at least since 2018) and if I can see their boundaries on the map is really a benefit ! The FMC are much bigger areas than Parks in the mountain area, and for all pilots it is more important to see where they are during flight to respect AIP instructions. They must change the squawk and watch a special freq. in case the ATC will call them. I leave to you to find a solution as long as it will be depicted on the maps.
regards, Gianni
|
|
|
|