I am running SD 2.4 on an iPad.

When I plan a route using reporting points on the map I don't see their name in the flight plan but only their coordinates. So, e.g., the waypoint "RADLY" shows only up with coordinates. This is unusual and not very friendly for the folk at ATC. Also, it makes it difficult for me to read the flight plan.

My suggestion: use the waypoint name in the flightplan in place of the coordinates.

Thanks, -- Chris.

SkyDemon always uses the waypoint names where the waypoint is a five-letter airways reporting point.

If you believe you are seeing behaviour contrary to this, please send us the route in question and we will inspect it.

I don't seem to be able to add an attachement. Whenever I click the "Attach" button a window opens inside the browser window but the top portion of the window is off the top and cut off. No way for me to see it. I'm using Mozilla Firefox and Win 7.

Will post as soon as I've sorted this out.

-- Chris.

OK, since I can't attach a file (neither Mozilla nor IE works...how are other people doing this???) I'll post the relevant sections of the route file in gpx:

<rte>
<name>Wiener Neustadt Ost - Maribor - Orehova Vas</name>
<number>1</number>


<rtept lat="47.843333" lon="16.260333">
<name>Wiener Neustadt Ost</name>
<sym>LOAN</sym>
<extensions><skd:level type="A" value="4500" /></extensions>
</rtept>

<rtept lat="46.708764" lon="15.652375">
<name>GOLVA</name>
<sym>GOLVA</sym>
<extensions><skd:level type="A" value="2000" /></extensions>
</rtept>

<rtept lat="46.678333" lon="15.660000">
<name>Mn1 - Sentilj</name>
<extensions><skd:level type="A" value="2000" /></extensions>
</rtept>

<rtept lat="46.611667" lon="15.680000">
<name>Mn2 - Pesnica</name>
<extensions><skd:level type="A" value="1500" /></extensions>
</rtept>

<rtept lat="46.479833" lon="15.686167">
<name>Maribor - Orehova Vas</name>
<sym>LJMB</sym>
<extensions />
</rtept>
</rte>

The text in the Route field of the flightplan reads: "DCT GOLVA DCT 4641N01540E DCT 4637N015e1E DCT"

In the Remark-field I read this text: "EET/LJLA0056"

Now, since GOLVA is the border crossing point, the text in the Remark-field ought to read: "EET/GOLVA0056", which is much more readable and is expected by ATC personnel. Otherwise I have to answer questions like: "Please report border crossing point."

The second issue is that the reporting points MN1 and MN2 don't show up with their names in the Route section.

Greetings, -- Chris.

What you see is correct. The correct way of reporting an EET at an FIR boundary is the EET/LFRR0123 format. To use the name of an airways reporting point there, or a lat/lon, would be an error.

I do not know what MN1 and MN2 are, but they have no place in a flightplan. The only things that should make up a flightplan route are airways reporting points, radio navaids or lat/lons.

I've had a very similar issue this week, on a flight from LHTL to LJPZ. I've used some visual reporting points as waypoints enroute and at destination, but they didn't show up in the ATC flightplan, just the coordinates, which later raised a complaint by the AIS officer in Portoroz. The border crossing point between Hungary and Slovenia was DIMLO, a visual reporting point for the purpose of border crossing, however shown as coordinates only on the ATC flightplan.

I have the same problem. The inability to fill in plain language names renders the flightplan tool useless to me.

In the Swiss AIP it says: "Geographical location names as given on the aeronautical chart ICAO 1:500 000 2253-B Switzerland are accepted by Swiss ATS units." Skyguide/Austrocontro's Homebreefing accepts these names.

My experience after 20 years of flying in europe is that the usage of geographical names in VFR flightplans for waypoints (when lacking radionavigation aids or airport codes) is the norm and the use of coordinates the exception.

Paul

Hi Tim, you may be right in that the generated flightplan is syntactically correct. However, I can only confirm the experience of my fellow fliers that a flightplan like the one generated by SD would raise eyebrows with ATC and make them come back and ask me questions. Those border crossing points such as, e.g., GOLVA are specifically for reporting a border crossing and use in flight plans.

MN1 and MN2 are waypoints associated with the airport LJMB and expected to be used when landing at LJMB. They are part of my route and hence also part of the Route description in the flight plan. They do bear some significance because the approach controller at LJMB immediately knows that I will follow a sensible route. If I don't put these in the flight plan I will get them as part of the entry clearance in his airspace.

Either way is OK, but there is a reason that I file them as part of my routing. And if I use them as part of my SD route they show up in the fllightplan anyway. So if they already show up it is very confusing not to have them show up with their names.

Somthing to consider...

Thanks very much for a great product and cheers, -- Chris.

Yep,

Hi,

I don't see the problem here. On the Ipad you can just erase the coordinates and type the name of the reporting point in the Flight Plan.

Regards, Asix

Well, of course you can. But must of SD's functionality is geared toward making the life of the pilot easier. So why not here?

-- Chris.

Same opinion here, it would make things easier, the syntax "[waypont name] ([coordinates])" would be awesome.

However, I filed a couple of int flight plans using coordinates, nobody ever complained (didn't try it in Italy though).

Hello,

I do not think any harm could be done by using geographical location names, Visual Reporting Points etc. to describe a routing for a VFR flight plan, especially with these waypoints showing on the Pilot's Log. As long as waypoints are specific, there should not be a problem.

If we were to put airfield ICAO codes or VFR reporting points into a flightplan, that flightplan would no longer conform to ICAO standards and would be rejected by any ATS unit with software that machine-reads flightplans.

If an individual controller wants flightplans in human-readable format including "friendly" waypoint names, that poses a considerable problem, because this will vary enormously between countries and even between airfields and controllers. Our flightplan generation code does a great job of producing machine-readable flightplans that fully conform to all ICAO requirements.

I appreciate that controllers asking you for non-conformant flightplans is causing you a problem, I just do not have a solution for you right now.

Tim, I don't know where you fly but in Germany, France, Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia what you say is not true. I have filed flight plans in each of those countries using an online briefing system such as, e.g., Olivia in France or homebriefing.com in most other countries to file flight plans. They are read by a machine, their syntax is checked by a machine. When everything checks out they are submitted into the Eurocontrol system and percolate down to the necessary stations there. If the syntax happens to be incorrect (such as, e.g., you entered a non-existant airport ID or specified wrong equipment codes or any other such thing) the flightplan is thrown right back at you.

NEVER have I had a problem with putting VFR-rep points by name in the flight plans.

I just checked instructions on how to file an ICAO flight plan and found the following:

When not on ATS routes, the route may be specified using significant points along the route using 2 to 11 characters. The coded designator assigned to the point may be used (e.g., LN, MAY, HADDY). If no coded designator has been assigned, use one of the following:

Degrees only (7 characters) or degrees and minutes (11 characters).

I also checked the official guide lines of Austro Control which were updated in 2012 to reflect some changes made in the filing format (concerning the equipment codes and other information fields). Attached is a VFR flight plan specifically given as an example in their instructions. The flight is from LOWW to LHFM. The point at which the flight exits LOWW CTR is S and the border crossing point is SOPRON. Both NEED to be given as names in the route field.

Furthermore, Austro Control states that extraneous DCT's are to be avoided. Therefore there is NO DCT anywhere in this flightplan. DCT is only to be used when joining or leaving an ATS route.

-- Chris.

Chris,

This is quite interesting what you're writting...

I understand why Tim is reluctant to change the system as the product he sells cannot create any doubts about (not)complying with the applicable rules. And whether the use of airport ICAO designators in the Route section of the ICAO flight plan is compliant or not is apparently not entirely clear.

On the other hand let me put your quote to a broader picture:

The definition you quote in your post comes from the ICAO Doc.4444 Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Air Traffic Management which governs also the flight plans. This "core" regulation seems to be transposed to the national AIPs.

The above mentioned document states that the Route (Item 15 in the ICAO flight plan), in case of Flights outside designated ATS routes (so I'd say in almost all VFR flights), can be filled in also by using so called Significant points (2 to 11 characters) - the coded designator (2 to 5 characters) assigned to the point.

In the same document, ICAO defines the Significant point as a specified geographical location used in defining an ATS route or the flight path of an aircraft and for other navigation and ATS purposes.

So the whole problem boils down to a question whether an airport defined by the four letter ICAO code is a Significant point as defined by ICAO.

To my understanding, it is - as it is a specified geographical location.

Nevertheless, I have sent an e-mail to ICAO asking them to confirm this interpretation. Now I have to wait and see if a little General Aviation VFR pilot matters to them or not

Tim: I can confirm that none of my flight plans were returned to me because of using a four letter ICAO codes of airports in the Route section. I have been filing by paper, fax, on-line formulaire of Belgocontrol, and by SkyDemon.

Once (if) I receive an answer from ICAO I will post it here.

Milan

That my very well be the case but on vfr flights crossing FIR boundaries ATC did know about my flightplan and greeted my in the air with all the details already in front of them, just like when flying ifr.

-- Chris.

That is probably the previous ATC unit giving your details to the next.

Just a bump up post, really. It would be great to get a yes or no from Tim. Right now this seems to be in limbo...

- Chris.

I said in page 2 that there is not a solution to this that we can give you. We are not willing to produce flightplans in a format that we know is not ICAO-compliant, as various organisations would instantly reject such flightplans. Airfield ICAO codes, towns and VRPs are things which absolutely are not allowed in the route section of a flightplan.

We don't plan on adding an option which would generate such plans because even if we did, there would be disagreement about the format of VRP names. Instead we will generate an ICAO-compliant machine-readable flightplan and you are free to manipulate it as you wish before it is filed.

Well, that's a clear message at least. Tim, can you point me to the source from where you determine what is or isn't ICAO compatible, please? I (and others) seem to have differeing information on this.

The reason I ask is because I just checked ICAO document PANS-ATM, 4444 which defines the standard format of an ICAO flight plan. (If you want to check, a simple Google search will get you there.) The assertion of yours, that route points have to be specified as coordinates, is simply not supported by ICAO standard. It clearly says (and I quoted from it before) that for flights not following prescribed ATS routes, significant points along the route should be added as

The coded designator (2 to 5 characters) assigned to the point (e.g. LN, MAY, HADDY), or, if no coded designator has been assigned, one of the following ways:

-- Degrees only (7 characters)

-- Degrees and minutes (11 characters)

-- Bearing and distance from a significant point

Specifically, regarding the specification of border crossing points, so called "boundary points" the ICAO standard document says:



So, clearly, if I choose a point for my route for which a coded designator has been assigned then I am REQUIRED to use that designator in the route definition. Strictly speaking, the flight plan SD generates by substituting coordinates in cases where a coded designator exists are not ICAO compliant.

Also, the use of GOLVA as border crossing point in the example I gave near the beginning of the thread is fully compliant with the ICAO standard.

You wrote:

Airfield ICAO codes, towns and VRPs are things which absolutely are not allowed in the route section of a flightplan.

I hope I was able to convince you that airfield codes and VRPs are REQUIRED to be used as such in an ICAO flight plan. About towns I fully agree with you. The rule is that you have to use the CODED DESIGNATOR if one exists. If there's none then you use one of the other methods (geographical coordinates, abbreviated geographical coordinates or distance/bearing from a significant point).

Regarding the use of "DCT" in the route description the standard document has this to say:

Insert DCT between successive points unless both points are defined by geographical coordinates or by bearing and distance.

In this respect we were both wrong. Since SD gives all points as geographical coordinates there shouldn't be a DCT interspersed between them. And as I, in my own flight plans, give those points as coded designators I should have DCT between successive points.

I realize, of course, that you are the "Game Master" in as far as you can evolve SD in any direction you like. No qualms about that. And, by the way, I do love SD and think it is currently the best flight planning software out there for European VFR pilots.

But if you point to ICAO requirements as justification for only allowing route points as coordinates then that is something that is not supported by ICAO standard.

-- Chris.

Hello Tim,

I got an answer from ICAO regarding this issue. As a reminder - I asked whether I can use 4 letter ICAO codes of airports in the Route section. The ICAO officer confirm that I can.

---------------------------------

Dear Mr. Smid.

Thanks for your consultation.

Your interpretation on how to fill Item 15 (route) of the FPL form is correct.

Regarding the interpretation of “Significant point” I’d like to highlight that you also have the definition of “Reporting point” and in your case, the airport 4 letters designator is considered a reporting point instead of a significant point due to the definition of both.

Reporting point is a ”Specified geographical location in relation to which the position of an aircraft can be reported.”

Significant point , although has the same use, is defined as a ground-based navigation aid, an intersection and/or waypoint. And in this context, intersection is a significant point expressed as radials, bearings and/or distances from ground-based navigation aids.

As you can see there is a slight difference, in terms of definition, between the two, but again, your interpretation on the way to fill Item 15 is correct.

Best regards,

Saulo

Saulo Silva

Technical Officer

International Civil Aviation Organization

Air Traffic Management Section