Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Autorouter issues and questions (merged)

boscomantico wrote:

It is merely the statement of your intended routing, which you put into the route field of the flightplan for SAR reasons only.

Some countries do use the route field to distribute a VFR flight plan details to ATC or FIS units affected by the flight.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Yes, although it might not work unless you specified a waypoint located in each region. I’ve seen that… All this was a very big thing when electronic FP filing started to move, about 10 years ago.

I am pretty sure that nowadays all this is dealt with by explicit addressing in the AFTN address block, and the requirements for that are in the national AIPs.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

autorouter’s VFR autorouting is designed to be a simple tool that can help you get started on a route. The routes it generates meet a few criteria:

  • a waypoint on each FIR crossing
  • a waypoint at least every 30 minutes
  • VFR flight levels
  • avoidance of prohibited areas as far as they are known

Currently the user interface to modify a VFR flight plan is not very practical, this is something we plan to improve in the future. Good VFR flight plans adhere to known IFR route points because that ensures that all parties involved in the process will be able to understand it. In addition to the nav database, autorouter is also able to resolve waypoint names that refer to a geography (medium and large towns). It supports waypoints it cannot resolve but will not be able to determine their position on the map.

Normally the user would do a VFR autoroute (or VFR manual plan) and then adjust the generated plan, file it and use the briefing features. Presently, it targets pilots that also fly IFR or are familiar with the IFR way of doing things.

Some countries do use the route field to distribute a VFR flight plan details to ATC or FIS units affected by the flight.

Yes, sure. But still that doesn’t really have an definitive “ATC function”. What ultimately counts the clearance requested in the air, which often is different than what was originally written in the flightplan (weather, etc.). Hence, one can argue whether copying VFR FPL routings to enroute ATC units makes much sense. German DFS found it doesn’t. Some people find this a shortcoming, but I think it makes sense. A proper VFR transit clearance request (without stating your set QNH, POB and other weird stuff) takes only 10 seconds of airtime. And after that, both sides will know exactly what is requested and there will be no confusion.

Then of course, there are countries like Croatia, where, due to the airspace structure, every VFR cross country is a controlled flight throughout. In these cases, the filed VFR flightplan of course is indispensable to ATC (as it will be the basis of the enroute clearance). But these countries are the exception. Most European VFR flights take place as uncontrolled flights (G or E) for the most of the time.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

achimha wrote:

The routes it generates meet a few criteria … VFR flight levels

My AFTM guide says always just to write “VFR” in the LEVEL field when filing VFR. That is indeed what I have always done. But then I have only flown VFR in Scandinavia. Is it different elsewhere?

huv
EKRK, Denmark

thuv wrote:

My AFTM guide says always just to write “VFR” in the LEVEL field when filing VFR. That is indeed what I have always done. But then I have only flown VFR in Scandinavia. Is it different elsewhere?
“VFR” as level only means that you don’t plan for a specific level. Nothing prevents you from entering a specific level. When I fly VFR, I variously use “VFR” or a specific level depending on the nature of the flight. (And almost all of my VFR is in Scandinavia — Sweden.)
Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 12 Aug 16:34
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

How can you do a proper planning with fuel, time, wind, etc. if you don’t know the altitude? I don’t think “VFR” as altitude indicator is particularly useful.

achimha wrote:

How can you do a proper planning with fuel, time, wind, etc. if you don’t know the altitude?
You guess based on some average wind over the likely levels you will fly at. Then you have additional fuel in your fuel plan and follow up your fuel consumption/flight time.

Seriously, you frequently don’t know the exact cloudbase enroute and even if you do, it may vary and you may need several altitude changes because of airspace. Unless you are willing to fly at the minimum altitude all the way you frequently can’t predict the level you will fly at. (Actually you can have the same situation IFR if you want to stay in VMC because of icing.)

Also, a lot of VFR flying — even on a flight plan — is not point-to-point cross-country with a fixed route.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 13 Aug 06:19
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

In order to plan, you still need exact input which means defined altitudes. Then you get a result like 1:22h and 74.8l of fuel of 120l available and you know what your flexibility is and can demonstrate proper flight planning.

Airborne_Again wrote:

Nothing prevents you from entering a specific level

Copenhagen ATC office maintains that they replace specific levels in VFR flightplans with “VFR” before submitting. But they may have had it wrong for 20+ years.

huv
EKRK, Denmark
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top