This is the interface I use to convert the RS232 of my stone age panel mount GPS to USB for connection to my tablet PC. It also contains an MS5534 pressure sensor I can use as backup altimeter should all 4 static port altimetry sources fail. It works surprisingly well, at FL100 it reads about 60ft too high.
And I can switch display to metric :) Although last time in the Ukraine, they gave me clearances in ft and no PAR approach, what happened to ex Soviet aviation?
Tom - reading your PDF, what does the schematic "Figure 26: MS5534 Interface" do?
IFPS does enforce airway MEA (at least unless there's a bug, and apparently a few weeks ago there was one), the W102 case is exploiting a deficiency in the implementation. W102 MEA is defined as 2000' AGL, yet the IFPS router does not have an elevation model, so it substitutes 2000' AMSL. It also does not handle the austrian peculiarity of having 2 MEAs (one AMSL and one AGL), AFAIK formats like AIXM don't allow more than one airway base level.
Ok, UK is special, of course, it always is 8-) You have some peculiar ideas, especially for IFR 8-) But I can't complain, LARS and USAF service was pretty good.
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 :)
I am too lazy to plot that route but isn't this a case of IFPS always allowing FPs with very low levels in them e.g. FL020?
No airway MEA should be below the terrain. IFPS used to enforce airway MEAs years ago (so the only way to file an airway route at say 2000ft was by fooling it by using waypoints like MID000000) but nowadays it doesn't seem to do that.
I don't know any country where you can drop out of controlled airspace when flying at least 2000ft above ground level
Most of the UK will do nicely 
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
I think one will always be vulnerable in that respect. Either the airspace owner forgets to tell IFPS, or the mil activity was unplanned until after you got airborne. The latter in particular can never be guarded against, which is why we have the ambiguity of the "implicit whole route IFR clearance" which the whole IFR world assumes (it has to) but which is really valid only in the lost comms scenario.
Austria is wierder afaik, they have airways with MEA 5000ft AMSL or 2000ft AGL, whichever is higher 8-)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
