Important: These forums are for discussions between SkyDemon users. They are not routinely monitored by SkyDemon staff so any urgent issues should be sent directly to our Customer Support.

WP names in ICAO flight plans


Author
Message
Asix
Asix
Too Much Forum (478 reputation)Too Much Forum (478 reputation)Too Much Forum (478 reputation)Too Much Forum (478 reputation)Too Much Forum (478 reputation)Too Much Forum (478 reputation)Too Much Forum (478 reputation)Too Much Forum (478 reputation)Too Much Forum (478 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3, Visits: 25
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
ckurz7000
ckurz7000
Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 538, Visits: 2.2K
Asix (27/08/2012)
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.
Beni
Beni
Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 18, Visits: 232

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?


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).
milansmid
milansmid
Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 68, Visits: 565
Hello,

I just want to express my full agreement with the opinion that the auto-generated flight plan should specify also the airports (used as waypoints) and VFR reporting points associated with the airports with their ICAO codes and full names instead of coordinates.

I am re-writing the coordinates in the flight plan to their ICAO equivalents and full names everytime I file a flight plan with SkyDemon and it was always accepted by the controlers with no questions (Luxembourg / Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and Czech Republic).

Thanks for considering this, Tim.

Milan
Tim Dawson
Tim Dawson
SkyDemon Team (568K reputation)SkyDemon Team (568K reputation)SkyDemon Team (568K reputation)SkyDemon Team (568K reputation)SkyDemon Team (568K reputation)SkyDemon Team (568K reputation)SkyDemon Team (568K reputation)SkyDemon Team (568K reputation)SkyDemon Team (568K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K, Visits: 6.1K
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.
ckurz7000
ckurz7000
Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 538, Visits: 2.2K
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.
Attachments
VFR Flight Plan.JPG (838 views, 91.00 KB)
Edited 8/29/2012 3:55:59 PM by ckurz7000
milansmid
milansmid
Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (6.5K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 68, Visits: 565
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 Smile

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
0fficer
0fficer
Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6, Visits: 94
ckurz7000 (29/08/2012)
... 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.
...

VFR flight plans have nothing to do with Eurocontrol. Only a IFR FPL goes through the system of Eurocontrol. I believe most national authorities require the VFR FPL filing going through some authorised system (Holland, Belgium, France) and are checked by them. UK has a more relaxed attitude to that, that's why Rocketroute, SD, EuroFPL have their origin there.

VFR plans are send to their destinations directly. SD (or their filing partner EuroFPL) checks the content and they just send the FPL according to the VFR addressing guide to their intended destinations. VFR plans are actually just a notification. If anything along the route is not allowed, you will hear it on the radio or you receive a call from the complaining authority.

Have you ever wondered why you always have to tell the ATC FIS everything about your VFR flight about route/type/altitude/dep/dest, and not when flying IFR? For a national flight that is explainable, but for an FIR crossing flight there should be a FPL right?

As said before, VFR plans are just notifications, and mostly nobody cares about them when you are up in the air.
ckurz7000
ckurz7000
Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)Too Much Forum (59K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 538, Visits: 2.2K
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.
0fficer
0fficer
Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)Too Much Forum (834 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6, Visits: 94
That is probably the previous ATC unit giving your details to the next.
GO

Merge Selected

Merge into selected topic...



Merge into merge target...



Merge into a specific topic ID...




Reading This Topic

Login

Explore
Messages
Mentions
Search