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

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.

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,