Hello!

Hi Bernhard, this request has been made a number of times. Tim claims that using names instead of coordinates would not be ICAO conform. Others (including me) have quoted ICAO regulations showing that names are actually preferred over coordinates. As it stands, SD has not budged on this and coordinates it is going to be.

-- Chris.

Hello!

Thanks for the reply. Maybe an option would be fine, in Austria e.g. it is common to use well known places in the flightplan and all my previous flightplans have been accepted until now.

In following document (in German) there indeed is a rule where the coodinates are obligatory, will ask the local authorities if that's right for VFR flightplans too.

As said, an option would be fine.

Cheers,
Bernhard.

Hello again!

I just had a quick talk to one of Austrocontrol's employees. They prefer full names of cities and so on, they do not want to have coordinates in the route field, even if it would be possible/allowed. The rule to have coordinates or defined waypoints in the route field is obligatory for IFR flights only.

So, maybe this really could be changed (or at least an option) in future versions.

Thanks a lot,
Bernhard.

Servus Bernhard,

you better do a search of the forum to locate the thread where this has been discussed before. I have included ICAO rules and guidelines which definitely say that the published names of reporting points (regardless of VFR or IFR) are preferred over coordinates. This is like specifying coordinates for your departure airport rather than giving its ICAO identifier.

Tschüs, --Chris.

I have included ICAO rules and guidelines which definitely say that the published names of reporting points (regardless of VFR or IFR) are preferred over coordinates.

Certainly published names of significant points are preferable to coordinates. Geographical names are not allowed at all in ATS flight plans. If some ARO prefers geographical names over coordinates, then it is a local rule and used (I guess) in countries where VFR flight plans are not entered into the ATC computer systems.

There are only a limited number of things that can be used in field 15 of a flightplan to indicate a turning point. Besides coordinates, you can use radio aid identifiers and significant points (as published in AIP ENR 4.x). That's it. "Friendly" names of VRPs or towns may absolutely not be used in an ICAO flightplan, so we convert these to coordinates. Even ICAO identifiers of airfields may not be used.

You're free to modify a SkyDemon-generated flightplan to add the friendly names back for a country which allows them to be used, before filing it. Since SkyDemon is an international tool filing ICAO-compliant flightplans (which are machine-readable) we cannot do this by default.

@lhe: That maybe correct, but there are different rules in different countries. I am sure, you do not know the NOATA remark outside Austria for example, but that is is a common remark to disable search and rescue (just as an example).

@Tim: Thanks for the reply. I agree that Skydemon is an international tool and therefore, there should be an option for countries which like it "the other way". As a software developer myself I am sure that this would not be that big task, especially for a great team like yours. At least the reporting points should be definitively possible in long names, because Austria's ATC system rewrites those names to special short names (KLOSTERNEUBURG to KB for example), so that it is compatible with our ATC flightstrip system.

Maybe you can reevaluate that topic again and make it an option - that would be a big benefit for quick flightplan filing. And I am sure, every pilot will be aware enough on what to file. At the moment some of us also rewrite the coordinates to long names, so to check the option should be possible by pilots minds.

Thanks a lot,
Bernhard.

ICAO, in fact, requests the NAME of a significant point if there is one. Only if there isn't you are supposed to give coordinates or distance/bearing from another point. The names accepted are those publised in the corresponding AIP. Therefore airport IDs are perfectly fine, and you'd draw some snide remark from ATC if you gave an arcane Lat/Lon position for an airport in your route.

Nobody I know specifies routes with Lat/Lon on a VFR flight (or even IFR flight) if there exists a friendly name for the point.

-- Chris.

Therefore airport IDs are perfectly fine, and you'd draw some snide remark from ATC if you gave an arcane Lat/Lon position for an airport in your route.

No, airport IDs are not accepted in the route part according to ICAO rules. Possibly some country can have their own rules regarding VFR flight plans, but if you try to submit an IFR flight plan in Europe with an airport location indicator in the route part, it will be rejected by the IFPS. (I just tried!)