Jump to content


Andy Poppens

Recommended Posts

Magnus Meese

Accurately, please! :)

What's important is that you know what your route contains and that it matches your actual navigation throughout the flight. The FP is there for controllers to interpret your intentions and plan ahead what to do with you, if you put something in there that you either can't or won't do, you're only creating a mess for everyone. In other words, if your only navigational capability is to fly direct GPS (not really relevant with Pointy, but still), that's what you put in your FP, you don't put in an advanced routing to look more skilled than you are. Help us help you.

That being said, there are a few choices for routing. If you use the default FSLabs data cards and the opFPs from the Documentation folder, you file the FPs you find at Concorde FPLs (I believe they match for all the included FPs in this software, but this needs confirmation). VATSIM ATCs will still acknowledge many of these, even though they contain a few wrong fixes that have been removed or replaced sometime between 2003 and now. If you want to step it up a notch, you check out the stickies on this forum to find routes that matches the global navdatabase of today. Beyond that, using a flightplanner like PFPX and the planning tool for Concorde, CPS, is what you want. In the latter case, you'll find your ATC flightplan in your flight planner software, but you should make sure you remove/replace any enroute alt/speed change indicators. (e.g., 55N030W/M078F360 doesn't make much sense for Concorde, as she's not gonna be crossing the Atlantic at Mach 0.78, nor do it at FL360).

Your equipment code should be /W in my opinion, some argue that /Z is more appropriate as the Concorde has basic RNAV capabilitis and then some, but in my mind it's better to aim low in this regard. To claim RNAV capability in today's P-RNAV based skies just doesn't make sense to me, as the majority of RNAV procedures published are simply unavailable due to requirements that surpasses our capabilities.

Keep in mind that the FP fields for alt and speed are for your initial cruise only, so on many flights you'll file for a subsonic portion initially, and on many more you'll do that even though you can climb straight up to supercruise, due to airspace limitations (i.e. out of JFK). Typical is to file for ~F280 and 540-570KTAS, then indicate in your route your intention to initiate supercruise, for example like so: C/KESUP/N0700F280F450 DCT MERLY DCT C/LESLU/M200F450PLUS. The "C/" indicates cruise climb, and the rest means that at KESUP you intend to accelerate to 700KTAS in the altitude block FL280-FL450, then you plan to cross LESLU still in the cruise climb (C/), doing Mach 2.0, at an altitude of FL450 or higher. It's not that complicated, just write down what you intend to be doing :)

Link to post
Jonathan Fong

You file them as you'd file a regular flight plan, with a few changes. First off, obviously, your aircraft code will be Concorde :) Concorde was classed as a Heavy due to its significant wake turbulence for its size, so file that as well. I recommend filing /I as your aircraft equipment code; /W is acceptable, but /I is more accurate as /W denotes an INS aircraft with RVSM capability, which only Concorde G-BOAC had. I agree with what Meese has said - always file your initial altitude (if doing a subsonic leg) or your safety altitude (if no subsonic leg is filed). Meese has given good instructions on how to indicate your intent to initiate transonic climb and cruise-climb. Good luck flying Concorde on VATSIM!

Link to post
Magnus Meese

I would love to see the documentation on RVSM so that I can bookmark it for reference! I've been searching far and wide for it! The only thing I've found so far is an article or something (don't have it handy) where it's mentioned that when they did instrumentation tests for RVSM, it turned out that the altimeters were accurate far beyond what they expected, making the RVSM-transition easy on them. However, that piece mentions nothing about the implementation itself.

Link to post
Andrew Wilson

Only one of the BA Fleet was RVSM certified - I think it was Alpha Charlie. The problem was towards the end of a flight, the two altimeters could be up to 500ft out.

Link to post
Kyprianos Biris

How do I file a flight plan for Concorde on vatsim

The flight plans in this post


were created exactly for what you ask.

In the next couple of days there will be an update with improvements/refinements coming from fcisuperguy .

Link to post
  • 4 years later...
Ramón Cutanda
On 3/1/2016 at 6:42 AM, Magnus Meese said:

I would love to see the documentation on RVSM so that I can bookmark it for reference!

I am sorry to "wake" such an old thread, but I am flying VATSIM lately and I was having some doubts regarding how to designate Concorde, and I found this topic.

Here is what I got:


As you can see, the manual is dated 1st May 2003. It is therefore one of the latest revisions, if not the very last one. There is no specific mention to any particular aircraft, so it is my understanding that ALL the fleet was compilant with RVSM within the established limits (nose and visor UP and locked and Mach 0.95 in level cruise)


  • Like 1
Link to post
Kyprianos Biris

Good find Ramon !

Since you mentioned contemporary procedures of RVSM another one would be the RNAV and the required performance (RNP).

My only doubt regarding RNAV for if the Concorde were to fly nowadays is that BRNAV is RNAV5 basically (like RNP of 5 miles en route.)

In US airspace En Route RNAV is reduced to 2 nm (like an RNP of RNAV2) and there would need to be exemptions for Concorde if it was flying nowadays, most probably it would be all 3 INSs in full function etc. and in contact with a DME update.

Link to post
Fraser Gale

It is my understanding the whole fleet were certified for RVSM but Alpha Charlie was the only one certified for RNAV at the standard that existed then.  They were looking to roll this out across the fleet.  

The plans for upgrading to modern RNAV requirements were in the works with a team looking at upgrading to a hybrid IRS/FMC combination but for obvious reasons it was all stopped...

Link to post
  • Create New...