I asked ChatGPT to create
irf plan from kpdx to kast
It’s plan
Here is a sample flight plan from KPDX to KAST that you can use in MSFS 2020:
ICAO
Name
Lat/Long
Elevation
KPDX
Portland Int’l
N45° 35’ 08.50" W122° 36’ 25.84"
31ft
BTG
Battleground
N45° 46’ 18.75" W122° 34’ 45.39"
276ft
AST
Astoria Reg’l
N46° 09’ 30.00" W123° 52’ 47.00"
15ft
KAST
Astoria Reg’l
N46° 09’ 30.00" W123° 52’ 47.00"
15ft
To manually enter this flight plan in MSFS 2020, follow these steps:
Start MSFS 2020 and go to the main menu.
Select “World Map” to bring up the map view.
Use the search bar to find KPDX and select it.
Click on the “Flight Plan” button on the left-hand side of the screen.
Click on the “Add Waypoint” button and enter the coordinates for BTG (N45° 46’ 18.75", W122° 34’ 45.39").
Click on the “Add Waypoint” button again and enter the coordinates for AST (N46° 09’ 30.00", W123° 52’ 47.00").
Click on the “Save Flight Plan” button and give your flight plan a name (e.g. KPDX to KAST).
Close the World Map and select “Free Flight” from the main menu.
Choose your aircraft and select your saved flight plan from the “Load/Save” menu.
Set your cruising altitude to 8500 ft and fly the route as planned.
That’s it! You should now have a flight plan from KPDX to KAST that you can use in MSFS 2020.
And then ask it to
ifr plan using vor from kpdx to kas
it’s response
Here’s a sample IFR flight plan using VOR navigation from KPDX to KAST:
From KPDX, depart on runway 10R heading 101°.
Fly the heading for 8.4 nautical miles.
Intercept the 329° radial from the Vancouver VOR (113.6) and follow it to the VUZ VOR (116.4) at 24.3 nautical miles from KPDX.
Turn left to a heading of 299° and follow the 299° radial from VUZ VOR to the Astoria VOR (114.9) at 37.6 nautical miles from KPDX.
Turn left to a heading of 256° and follow the 256° radial from Astoria VOR to KAST at 22.8 nautical miles from the VOR.
Here’s the list of VORs and radials to use:
ICAO
Name
Frequency
Radial
Distance
KPDX
Portland Int’l
108.6
-
-
VUZ
Vancouver
116.4
329°
24.3 nm
AST
Astoria Reg’l
114.9
256°
22.8 nm
KAST
Astoria Reg’l
-
-
-
To program this flight plan into the MSFS 2020 flight planner:
Open the World Map in MSFS 2020.
Select KPDX as your departure airport.
Click on the “Flight Plan” button on the left-hand side of the screen.
Click on the “Add Waypoint” button and enter “VUZ” in the search bar to add the Vancouver VOR.
Click on the “Add Waypoint” button again and enter “AST” in the search bar to add the Astoria VOR.
Click on the “Save Flight Plan” button and give your flight plan a name (e.g. KPDX to KAST VOR).
Close the World Map and select “Free Flight” from the main menu.
Choose your aircraft and select your saved flight plan from the “Load/Save” menu.
Set your cruising altitude to 8500 ft and fly the route as planned.
That’s it! You should now have an IFR flight plan using VOR navigation from KPDX to KAST that you can use in MSFS 2020. Remember to tune your NAV radio to the correct frequencies for the VORs and to follow ATC instructions for your flight.
Thoughts…
It was on the right path but it made a few mistakes. The most interesting one to me was it assumed a pc version, not xbox. I asked for a xbox version but still got a pc version. And it got the vor version wrong. There is no VUZ near Vancouver Washington.
I don’t think putting it out in PC format would be a mistake. More of a you forgot to specify issue.
Here’s the real world routing:
Looks like it could be useful in a pinch if all of the other areas don’t have one. But since it doesn’t factor in weather, I’m not sure how useful it could be as there’s always a route to be found and most websites that build them do factor that stuff in. Looks promising enough.
You cab do many things. Not only about flight simulator, but you can learn new languages, if you are interested in programming languages, anything you are curious, you can do wth chatgpt.
Heh, its got you filing a leg from Portland to Birmingham, Alabama to get to Astoria. I don’t think you’ll have the fuel. This is also ignoring everything else that goes into flight planning, especially on the VFR side.
Once again, ChatGPT demonstrates how scary it is - it confidently sounds like it knows what it’s talking about, but has no idea. Do ChatGPT sessions have any sort of indication of the confidence or accuracy? If not, they should. With humans you can usually tell their accuracy by the confidence or other “tells” in their language. ChatGPT doesn’t have that.
Until it’s right all the time, I have no use for it because it’s simply more work for me to verify. It’d be like doing a Google search and instead of the user picking from sources that are trustworthy, just having it confidently read off of whatever it feels like… without telling you.
I should probably say “get off my lawn,” or something like that.
I’ve been using Chat GPT to give me scenarios for my passengers. (I only fly GA and business jets)
I’ll tell it where the flight is going from and to, the type of aircraft, and I’ll have it tell me the names, ages, weights, and occupations of each passenger, along with the reason for the charter flight.
Writing semi-believable fiction is a valid use for ChatGPT and I don’t knock anybody for using it that way. It’s where it’s used to present fact that I take issue.
Right, that’s why I brought it up. I’ve had it write me code for a full program, and it worked for the most part. It’s really cool, and has a lot of potential, but I wouldn’t trust it to give me facts. It’s great for creating immersion via story telling, but not so much at giving accurate information.
As one Luke LaFreniere of the WAN Show said; “Chat GPT will be very confidentiality wrong.”
Don’t forget that it gets constantly improved. It already amazed me in so many ways. I asked it to write me an algorithm, which was still true, but didn’t like the performance and asked it again can you make it better in terms of performance. For sure, there are things that it still can’t do, but no one was actually expecting AI would come this fast.
I am not talking about flight sim world, cuz I don’t know the complexity of the code etc. but it’s an awesome AI to learn something, and beyond.
Agree. And the worst part is that humanity will have a tough time being able to finally declare when it does start being accurate. We don’t have the normal human evaluation/feedback fundamentals of instruction loop. I mean, we’re basically going to have to come up with a cottage industry of experts fact-checking ChatGPT and other AI that come along and teaching them… hang on, gotta go file a trademark.
I do find it’s use as Bing Chat to be extremely useful. I’ll be searching for something, and despite using every logical keyword, I rarely get a relevant return. But I can ask Bing Chat a question in plain English, and it’ll give me a direct answer with all it’s sources.
Things like that are how most people will end up interacting with it. It’s much more accurate with it’s responses as Bing Chat, but it’s also not designed to hold a long conversation there as the normal Chat GPT will.
ChatGPT and, in fact, all AI is just a large fast synthesizer of the corpus of human knowledge. That makes it very good at putting very interesting pre-created human actions and reactions. Computers at their basic function is nothing both logic/math - deterministic in a word. Humans are biological - analog in a word. Also, we can be unpredictable.
I see two lessons here.
Only animals can create.
We humans may have to be more humble about what we are.
Again, the problem is that to the uneducated, the output of ChatGPT and other AI sounds too believable and there aren’t the normal human cues that tip us off that it’s full of nonsense and initiate a feedback loop to vet and correct it.
We have to be very careful (and ethical) as to how we implement these things.
My gut feel is it’s going to make a lot more work for teachers, fact-checkers, and subject-matter experts.
Yup, sometimes it’s just straight up wrong and unless you double check or already know the answer then you could easily be fooled into thinking it is correct when it is not.
Leaning on ChatGPT to answer tough questions or do complex tasks is hit or miss, but it will reply with 100% confidence. So getting ChatGPT to help you out with something you already know how to do is fine. Getting answers when you don’t know about the subject you’re asking about can be rather problematic.
ChatGPT (all AI in fact) is as good as the information it has found on the “Internet”. If you feel the ‘Internet’ is the last word in ‘Information’ then you’ll get the ‘Facts’ but if you feel that ALL information must be curated for ‘fact’ then you’ll be safe in your personal worldview.
As my mother always said nothing is self-validated – nothing.
