That feature is the #1 reason I still do everything via Autorouter and not Garmin Pilot (and since a very unpleasant experience with a lost flight plan last week, I’m even less likely to use GP for filing)
This from the German AIP :
7.2.5 For flights under visual flight rules, “VFR” shall be inserted
instead of the requested cruising level, unless the flight concerned is
subject to air traffic control, or is intended to be performed at a
specific level. In these cases, items 7.2.
1 – 4 apply accordingly
From the French AIP
i. using the word VFR, if it is not expected that the flight have a specific
cruising level,
From the Belgian AIP
• for uncontrolled VFR flights, the letters “VFR”
suggests the use of the term VFR is common and acceptable
denopa wrote:
a very unpleasant experience with a lost flight plan last week
Was that IFR? In any case, please raise a support issue with Garmin, such problems should be investigated and in my experience they take problem reports from users very seriously.
Peter_Mundy wrote:
suggests the use of the term VFR is common and acceptable
But not very meaningful or useful
Sorry, this is probably so obvious for everyone here it may sound stupid
Once you have filed it will be obvious how to delay and cancel a FPL or even bring it forward (which cancels and re-files)
The day prior to a recent flight from Calvi to Tirana I filed my flight plans which was initially accepted. The next morning I noticed that my FPL to Tirana had been suspended due to a failed “route re-validation”. I had to cancel, change an altitude and re-file.
So once you have filed, keep an eye on your e-mails up until the flight, just in case you get a slot or something else unexpected.
Thank you for your answers guys, it helps.
NAT with autorouter
Two questions concerning the north Atlantic and autorouter. I ask them here and not in an autorouter ticket because others may benefit and @achimha has to answer only once.
First one about adressing: For the leg BIRK-BGBW for example autorouter addresses the flight plan to BIKFZTZX BGGLZQZX BIRDZQZX CZQXZQZX which is Kevlavik tower and the Sondrestrom, Iceland and Gander FIR area control centers. RocketRoute uses these addresses as well, but in addition also BIRKXHAX BIRKZTZX BGGLZFZX BGGHYXYX BGBWZTZX which are the towers in Reykjavik and Narsarsuaq and some weird stuff. Is this once again a “shotgun approach” by RR or is there something missing with autorouter’s addressing?
Second is about the EET labels in field 18: Will they be updated automatically using current wind data if I prepare the flight plan a few days before I actually file it?
terbang wrote:
Is this once again a “shotgun approach” by RR or is there something missing with autorouter’s addressing?
It is correct that we refrain from what you call “shotgun approach” but have instead developed a rather complex addressing algorithm with well defined rules. We use the relevant AIPs section ENR 1.11. If something is missing, let us know. The AIPs are available on autorouter.
terbang wrote:
Second is about the EET labels in field 18: Will they be updated automatically using current wind data if I prepare the flight plan a few days before I actually file it?
Yes, every time you open a route, everything is recalculated using the current wind forecast. If you file more than 24h in advance, the filed flight plan will not use the wind forecast, if you file less than 24h in advance, the filed route will use the current wind forecast. We decided that an old wind forecast is worse than no time adjustment at all.
Thanks for the quick answer! I’ll check the relevant sections of the respective AIPs and unless they shoot us down because of a missing address I’ll let you know
We have regular NA traffic using autorouter. So far no casualties. Most of Canada is covered for flight plan filing purposes, USA not yet but will come soon. The flight plan coverage area is shown here: https://www.autorouter.aero/wiki/flight-plan-addressing/fpal-document-list/