Yes and no.
Yes, because there must have a change of the wording over the years, so I stand corrected.
No, because it refers only to IFPS staff, not local AIS staff which is what next was referring to. IFPS does usually only put their hands on flightplans when there is a very minor syntax error, leading to a "MAN message"; but not in cases when your filed routing was complete bogus. Also, it still does not guarantee you that bad plan will be tweaked to make it pass. It is merely an authorisation to modify it.
So, best way is to only file plans that you made sure beforehand they were good. This has become very easy to do with RR and the likes.
IFPS staff" and "manually" point to a human doing the change, if you ask me.
I believe there are actually two different amendment options that the IFPSRA indicator triggers. There are a few limited cases where the computer itself can correct an error. There are then a class of errors that go to the manual queue (you can see this when you get a MAN rather than a REJ) and a human does then look and decide if they can reasonably fix it. I don't think the IFPS staff look at things that have received a pure REJ.
Separately, the logic in FPP definitely does do level changes and handles most mandatory route RADs, and like Tony doesn't handle EDGGADF type restrictions - which the Swiss and the German's have fallen in love with. FPP also as a general rule only uses DCTS that have been predefined as valid. One of the problems I have found is that pilots make a lot of assumptions about the output of a computer flight plan generator. Three of these assumptions are, the route is terrain safe, the route does not fly through any restricted or prohibited areas, and frequently, IFR pilots assume the route will remain in controlled airspace (i.e. they are surprised when they are dumped to FIS from Control part way through the flight). There is a fair amount of computational work needed to make sure a low DCT is terrain safe (particularly in the Alps) and similarly there is a requirement for a reasonable amount of airspace data to make sure DCTs avoid restricted areas. Hence FPP only uses the predefined list. CFMU validation doesn't check either of these risks, although, the countries that have more restricted airspace tend to have stricter rules on DCTS so that helps to minimise the risk.
FPP will typically struggle a bit in Switzerland due to their complex (and sometimes impossible RAD structure) and the relatively limited documentation on arrival and departure routes to many of the smaller airports (and to be fair my limited time to pursue that particular issue)
I took a view on FPP that if a pilot wants to take a short cut OCAS or through a danger area, they should consciously make that positive decision. I have also found that when you flight plan a set of DCTS that gets around a RAD restriction you often then get a dynamic reroute in the air that reenfoces the original restriction (although equally sometimes you plan the long route and then they give you the route that was originally forbidden !)
Did the RMK/IFPSRA thing ever work for you?
I used to use it a long time ago but don't anymore, because I prefer to fly with the actually filed route handy, and this method prevents you doing that.
That's unless you have some quick means to plot the amended route, but usually the time the amended route comes back you are on your way to the plane and not in a position to examine it in detail. EuroFPL send you an email (or an SMS if you use the paid service) with the amended route, which can be picked up with a smartphone, but you still have to have a means of plotting the route.
The re-route method also makes a mockery of the ICAO lost comms procedure. How will you revert to the filed route if you don't know what it is? I know a lot of people do have all the kit to display an airway route but equally I know some who just file and fly and let ATC tell them where to go.
As a general comment, I find a good way to get around difficult routing issues is to file a relatively high level. I always run FPP with FL140 desired and FL190 maximum. And with FL070 minimum, just in case it magically finds something useful down there 
There are many routes which work at FL140 which don't work at FL100 or so. But obviously one needs a plane which can actually to go FL190.
The re-route method also makes a mockery of the ICAO lost comms procedure. How will you revert to the filed route if you don't know what it is?
The re-route constitutes an amended clearance so you are supposed to stick to that for lost comm.
IFPS does usually only put their hands on flightplans
German users are taught to use AIS for filing IFR flight plans which is free of charge if the flight is originating from to destined to Germany. The staff there do manual processing and fix even the worst of all submissions (you can write "I want to fly from Munich to London"). They call you back in case they need more information. Tools that directly file with IFPS such as RocketRoute are different. Nobody in Brussels will spend any second on your flight plan.
There is a fair amount of computational work needed to make sure a low DCT is terrain safe (particularly in the Alps) and similarly there is a requirement for a reasonable amount of airspace data to make sure DCTs avoid restricted areas.
I don't see a big issue there. If my flight plan validates with IFPS, I have a valid flight plan. If it crosses restricted areas, not my problem. I get a clearance and that includes permission to cross whatever airspace is on the way. Terrain isn't an issue either because getting a vertical terrain plot is trivial these days. Even my simple aircraft has 4 devices on board that can do it in flight (but I'd take a look before). If my filed altitude is below that level, well, then regulations don't prevent me from climbing. This all only applies to lost comm anyway in which case ATC will keep other aircrafts at long distance from you.
Regarding complex hand-crafted flight plans with lots of DCTs and VOR radials -- ATC usually don't like it. They want to work with navaids and IFR reporting points and not have to do deal with your strange construction. In my experience they will make sure such segments disappear, usually by giving you a direct beyond the weird section or trying to put you on a longer traditional route. In the latter case a "minimum fuel" hint can help them to understand they shouldn't do that 
The better integrated ATC units in Europe can give you directs of hundreds of miles. A few months ago I got a "direct LBU" (Luburg, Stuttgart's northern IAP) a bit east of Paris. I have received directs from Croatian ATC that went to the middle of Austria, crossing Slovenia. Not bad, makes be believe in the single European sky thing.
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.
Yes, that's one of my complaints about RR as well. It doesn't matter in e.g. Germany where ATC pick you up immediately and don't even expect you to fly towards your pickup point but I try to avoid it when I'm in countries where I am not sure how ATC will react. Often it is very hard to come up with a pickup point that is close because of all the wicked route restrictions and 0NM DCT limits.
If it crosses restricted areas, not my problem. I get a clearance and that includes permission to cross whatever airspace is on the way.
The clearance to depart doesn't include any permission for a specific route.
You can file a flight plan with a DCT further down, which crosses some active mil airspace, and when you reach that point, ATC will make you go around it.
The acceptance of a flight plan does not confer any clearance to fly.
And a departure clearance only gives you the right to fly the lost comms procedure, not the filed route.
But I am sure you know that
Terrain isn't an issue either because getting a vertical terrain plot is trivial these days.
For you, and for me, yes, but what mm_flynn is saying is that IFPS does not validate DCTs for obstacle clearance, and a pilot flying the successfully filed route, in IMC, could hit something on that DCT segment.
The big majority of sub-bizjet aircraft have no GPWS, no useful terrain display in the cockpit, and the pilots do not check the filed route for obstacles if flying IFR in CAS.
I have the KMD550 which has colour coded terrain but somebody I know in the USA has found huge errors in that depiction where there is an isolated peak (apparently Jepp have averaged adjacent samples, instead of taking the highest sample - as in here) and he claims he found several CFITs in KMD550-equipped aircraft which correspond to the bad data.
The staff there do manual processing and fix even the worst of all submissions (you can write "I want to fly from Munich to London"). They call you back in case they need more information.
Better enjoy that while it lasts
If Germany has to buy any more dodgy southern countries, they have have to change this.
The UK closed its FBUs a few years ago, to save the large payroll of staff who spent much of their time "decoding" handwritten/faxed flight plans, most of them from PPLs. Other countries are watching this carefully, I understand... I know it's great to have such service but it is plain silly to be spending so much money on staff when there are fairly simple technological solutions. It cannot last.
Tools that directly file with IFPS such as RocketRoute are different. Nobody in Brussels will spend any second on your flight plan.
No; IFPS will try to amend if you authorise them, within some "easy" bounds. Otherwise you get a REJ. Would the German AIS fix up a flight plan which does not have the authorisation? That would be really bizzare.
If it crosses restricted areas, not my problem. I get a clearance and that includes permission to cross whatever airspace is on the way. Terrain isn't an issue either because getting a vertical terrain plot is trivial these days. Even my simple aircraft has 4 devices on board that can do it in flight (but I'd take a look before). If my filed altitude is below that level, well, then regulations don't prevent me from climbing. This all only applies to lost comm anyway in which case ATC will keep other aircrafts at long distance from you.
As Peter says, it may or may not be your problem. If your route takes you outside controlled airspace you can get the 'my service terminates, own navigation (and maybe.. be advised your current heading takes you into a danger area ... have a nice day) or your route can take you through terrain. Obviously if you have some terrain awareness on board or reviewed the vertical profile of the route you might know that, but then again you might not have.
Given the population of pilots who don't know their type code, don't know that ATC is not watching them OCAS, etc. I choose not to generate routes that need close inspection.
As an 'amusing' point, I filed a short route in Spain, carefully selecting to go via the VRP out the valley to allow me to climb in a straight line, pick up an airway and transit through a valley to Grenada. IFPS provided me a much shorter reroute via a DCT about 2000 feet below the surface of the earth. It was the only route I could get to work (obviously modified with a higher level) and a departure orbiting up to a safe crossing level.
Of course, you need to check terrain when filing DCT's. That's why my router computes terrain clearance within a +-5NM corridor before adding DCT edges to the routing graph. That's part of the reason why adding DCT edges to the routing graph takes some time. The other part is the evaluation of eRAD DCT rules.
But you need to check terrain clearance even for flight plans only using airways, IFPS doesn't do that either! For example, you can file the following flight plan: -(FPL-ABCDE-ZG -1P28R/L -SDFGLOR/S -LSPV1500 -N0137VFR BARIG/N0137F080 IFR J50 WIL W110 LEPLA/N0135F020 W102 BALIR W102 DELMO W102 LPS -LSGC0044 -RMK/IFPSRA PBN/B2) It's a good flight plan - for a tunnel drill :)
So that's why my router also computes terrain clearance for the whole route (except SID/STAR) after it is accepted by IFPS and restarts routing if needed.
I don't know any country where you can drop out of controlled airspace when flying at least 2000ft above ground level. But obviously you can get into class E. With a normally aspirated aircraft, you have to choose between separation and physics, I usually go with physics.
I haven't had any problems with flightplans having many DCTs. The germans sometimes ask whether you insist on flying your exact route or whether they can give you shortcuts - I normally don't object to shortcuts. It seems to me that the germans usually don't look at the route portion of the flight plan, they just send you direct to the destination. For Frankfurt they usually ask you well in advance whether you want to circumnavigate laterally or vertically (i.e. climb to FL140).
In fact, filing DCTs is sometimes the only realistic option. In Poland, there are almost no airways below approximately FL170, so for normally aspirated pilots, there's no other option than DCTs.
I never use VOR radials, only navaids and intersections. As far as I know, VOR radials are forbidden in flight plans in germany, for example.
BTW filing only airways doesn't mean you're not crossing an active military area. It happened to me lately in croatia, they vectored me in a narrow corridor between the border of the military area and the country border around that military area.
BTW filing only airways doesn't mean you're not crossing an active military area. It happened to me lately in croatia, they vectored me in a narrow corridor between the border of the military area and the country border around that military area.
No, but filing on the airway gives a very high probability you will trigger the RAD that forbids it if they don't want you there, or that you will be on the trajectory they have planned for if they are allowing transits.
There are a few weird airways in Europe, particularly in Switzerland, where the published MEA data is actually in Feet AGL rather than Feet MSL (and W102 is of course one of them), but fortunately in is CDR2 so most of the time you can't file it anyhow. Having thought about it, I can see why you test for MSA on all of your on airway routes as well!
Austria is wierder afaik, they have airways with MEA 5000ft AMSL or 2000ft AGL, whichever is higher 8-)
