Does FPP work for you? If not, what actually happens?
I should add that if I am doing a long multi-leg trip I preplan all conceivable IFR routes (with FPP) before leaving home. Most of the time they still validate a week or two later, but I could not be 100% sure that FPP would have done them on the day.
Also if you file a FP with a DOF of say 4 days ahead, you can fly it even if that route will not validate on the day. I proved this spectacularly at a fly-in in Turkey, when due to a military exercise closing some airspace I was almost the only person able to get out of there. I flew a long route but was able to take off.
I tried FPP a few times last summer. It did either give up or give me a route that was much longer than great circle distance.
An extreme example was LSZK->LOWL (max FL120). Its route (and btw also the CFMU suggested route from LSZH->LOWL) was about 2 times great circle distance.
My router was able to work around a bad RAD rule with a strategic DCT, which the FPP router apparently didn't know how to do. By now, LSZK->LOWL should work with FPP too, because I had a call with the austrian RAD coordinator and could convince him to change the RAD rule.
Well, if the FP is acknowledged, they cannot just drop it.
I compared the only route from my homebase I could find on their webpage to what my router would give me, it's 375NM vs. 350NM and mostly FL110 but FL90 to FL120 vs FL90 for LSZK->LFMD.
I just planned that route on RR and it gave:
For a Z plan asking for FL100 restricted 5000ft to FL120: DCT WIL/N0120F090 IFR G5 LSE A6 MTL A3 AMFOU - 390nm
If I let it go to FL200: RIPUS/N0190F180 IFR N850 GERSA/N0190F190 N850 ODINA M727 SRN M858 GEN M859 LAGEN Q712 ENOBA Z185 BORDI - 297nm
An extreme example was LSZK->LOWL (max FL120). Its route (and btw also the CFMU suggested route from LSZH->LOWL) was about 2 times great circle distance.
RR now gives GC+2% for that route.
Thanks Jason!
Mine is BARIG/N0138F090 IFR J50 WIL G5 ARGIS DCT LAPAT DCT OSMAS DCT PINED DCT KOTIT DCT GA DCT DGN/N0141F050 DCT LUSOL DCT AMFOU
If I allow the router up to FL140 (the maximum I can reasonably do in my aircraft), I get ARTAG/N0138F090 IFR T53 GERSA/N0132F140 N850 SOSON N850 DEGAD N850 ODINA M727 SRN M858 VOG M858 GEN M859 LAGEN Q712 ENOBA/N0131F130 Z185 BORDI (approx. 294NM), pretty much the same as you got from the FL200 run.
It seems that RR is doing the pickup relatively far away from the departure. I usually try to file the pickup close to the departing aerodrome to not give ATC any ideas. They'll happily let you fly VFR through half of Switzerland if you don't push them for the pickup, westbound.
Jason, LSZK->LOWL works now because I called the austrian RAD coordinator and the offending RAD rule got changed.
Peter/what next: Did the RMK/IFPSRA thing ever work for you? It didn't for me on the few occasions I tried, and I once called the Brussels helpdesk, they told me they would fix the flight plans if they had time, but they never had the time...
Peter, this comment is spot on: "But a lot of things remain a problem, and you can bet it will hit you when you are least able to sort it."
Yes Eurocontrol has a manual which describes the error messages. But what are you going to do with an error message like this:
PROF204: RS: TRAFFIC VIA EDGGADF IS ON FORBIDDEN ROUTE REF:[ED3115A] EDGGADF
I'm not making up hypothetical examples, I'm sure everyone trying to flight plan living within easy leg distance of Frankfurt and flying below F140 has seen this message all too often.
How are you going to modify your flightplan / maze / airway graph? None of the intersections, navaids and airways in your plan are called EDGGADF, there is no hint which leg could be the problem.
If you don't know the definition of rule ED3115A, you simply have no clue what to try next.
At one point in time I used "path probing", I would repeatedly submit VFR plans with just one IFR leg of the original flight plan. This sort of worked, but it was a hack, and it wasn't guaranteed to actually work (i.e. there are situations with ED3115A that wouldn't be correctly detected with this method).
This IFPSRA thing is one of the most widespread misconceptions among IFR pilots in Europe. The truth is: it does, in theory, do nothing for you if you send an FPL with a routing that does not validate. The IFPS handbook tells the story. Though I don't have it at hand, I remember it says something to the effect that if this remark is present, the computer will try to find route improvements after a flightplan has been successfully filed. That's why it's named "IFPS route amendmends accepted". It means nothing to the effect that if the routing is invalid in the first place, some human being will work on it to make it pass.
Where does this misconception (see what next's post) come from? Well, many people file bad routings, put the remark and later find out that some human being tweaked it to pass (as often happens in Germany where IFR plans sent to the german AIS do pass through real human being's hands), and then the person who filed it attributes this to his IFPSRA remark. The truth is: if the plan is bad, the AIS dispatcher notices the error message and he has time, then he will try to tweak it, but this does not depend on whether you put the remark or not.
Still, people still praise the wonders that the IFPSRA remark can do...
Boscomantico: citing page 99 of
"The remark ‘IFPSRA’ in the sub-field RMK, of a flight plan shall be considered as written authorisation from the message originator for the IFPS staff to manually correct the message where necessary and possible, without being required to obtain further agreement to those changes from the message originator.
If the IFPSRA indicator is present in the Item 18 sub-field RMK, the route field is empty or contains only the routeing indicator ‘DCT’, and the aerodrome of departure and aerodrome of destination are inside the IFPZ, then it indicates that the message filer requests routeing assistance from the IFPS."
"IFPS staff" and "manually" point to a human doing the change, if you ask me.
