chflyer wrote:
Waypoints are limited to 5 chars, so any VFR waypoint names longer than that in an FPL cannot be guaranteed to be accepted by all receiving stations. This is a challenge for all flight planning software, not just ForeFlight.
The issue here is that 5-letter VRPs are filed with their name and not replaced by coordinates, while any other VRP name length works correctly. If you file a flight plan like this in Sweden, you will get a phone call from the ARO.
chflyer wrote:
A VPxxx format version is required for the longer names if the waypoint is to be included in panel unit ARINC 424 navdata provided by Jepp and others. If ForeFlight exchanges routes with a panel unit, then the data needs to be standardized between the two.
There should be a separate implementation taking care of panel integrations. E.g. the interface that transfers the flight plan could do the translation. Typing SLIMMINGE in the FPL box doesn’t find anything which is not ideal.
chflyer wrote:
DOMEN is a valid 5-char waypoint and can be used directly.
Nope, DOMEN is not a waypoint. It the name of a VRP. It literally translates to “dome” because there is a landmark there like that.
I don’t want to say it, but I will say it. Just do it like SkyDemon! It works perfectly there, both display and flight plan submission.
Dimme wrote:
Nope, DOMEN is not a waypoint. It the name of a VRP. It literally translates to “dome” because there is a landmark there like that.I don’t want to say it, but I will say it. Just do it like SkyDemon! It works perfectly there, both display and flight plan submission.
We mostly agree. EasyVFR also converts all VFR waypoints to GPS coordinates for FPL filing and yes, if the FPL message generated by ForeFlight doesn’t convert DOMEN to GPS coordinates that is wrong although from the other comments in this thread it seems that some ARO’s expect or prefer the actual VFR waypoint name to GPS coordinates. That’s what I meant about acceptable ICAO FPL format. GPS coordinates are always correct, as you indicate in the filing screenshot.
But like I said, there are two cases: FPL filing and transfer between the app and avionics that use commercially-supplied navdata. There is no way for any of the apps, ForeFlight, SkyDemon, EasyVFR, or Rocket Route, to send routes with those long names to any certified avionics unit. I’m not aware of any commercial supplier of avionics navdata that includes waypoint names longer than 5 characters, because they need to conform to ARINC 424. The Edit window on the ForeFlight Map page shows the route that is shared with other devices, and needs to be in a format that they will accept. If you enter SLIMMINGE in that window you will get an error message, but DOMEN is accepted because the avionics navdata will contain it, and it happens to be contained in avionics navdata. The avionics unit will also contain VP002, but not SLIMMINGE.
The Big Q to ask is: does anyone actually read the long VRP names in the VFR FP and, if so, for what purpose?
For example, in the UK you could file a VFR FP like
EGKA DCT SFD DCT BEACHY HEAD DCT KATHMANDU DCT LYD DCT DVR DCT EGKA
It works, because nobody ever looks at the route. And of course VFR FPs get no computer validation like IFR ones.
So who the hell is looking at the route and why? It must be some job creation / protection scheme – because there is no obligation on anybody but the pilot to fly a legal route. So he has to plan it on the map, avoiding CAS (and if planning a transit, have a Plan B OCAS), and get enroute and aerodrome notams.
I recall, from my early years, flying from Trieste to Corfu, down the Adriatic Sea, Montenegro objected to a bit of the route, and phoned Trieste to tell me I can’t fly it. It got sorted an hour later, with some phone calls. But this is 3rd World stuff. The 3rd World is full of “little men” who have nothing to do, and often they have inherited a huge affinity for paperwork from colonial administrations centuries before. In “modern Europe”, who is going to care, unless you do something illegal, and then they bust you appropriately.
Unfortunately there still are pockets of these people in “modern Europe”, where some little man looks at your route and tries to check it for some meaningfulness 
And he does not have the software to parse the coordinates (or the VOR-relative notation). I recall most ATC units cannot parse such routes, but it is really hard to get anyone in the system to confirm what ATC can see. It is probably ATC unit dependent. I wonder if @atmilatos might know more. Hunnicat has certainly disappeared
Peter wrote:
The Big Q to ask is: does anyone actually read the long VRP names in the VFR FP and, if so, for what purpose?
Most VRPs in Sweden are mandatory reporting points, and you certainly have to know what they are called for position reports to ATC. ATC also issues instructions to VRPs. I have similar experiences from Norway.
Of course, that is the case once airborne. In the FP there should be coordinates of radial/distances as per ICAO.
Isn’t Europe marvellous? Since there are around 30 countries (depending upon considered scope) vs a single USA, everyone wants to do their own thing in spite of all attempts with the EU, EASA, etc to find common ground. This thinking also appears within countries, such as Switzerland where it is called “Kantonligeist”. Try giving Corona lockdown responsibility to 26 different Kantons with populations varying from 35’000 to over 1’000’000 (thread drift, I know) 
The Italy ATC has become much more pragmatic over the past few years and if they give you instructions to route via LIGNANO (PQSW1) or CAORLE (PHE2) or heaven forbid SAN DONA’ DI PIAVE (PHE4), for example, and you come back with “huh?” or “SAN Duh Da Piwhat?” they’ll revert to the 5-letter code without skipping a beat.
Peter wrote:
So who the hell is looking at the route and why?
According to one ATCO in western Sweden they do see the routes we put and it can be displayed on their… displays. I was also told they find it useful to know where our school flights are going since they fly a lot of EASA “cross country” flights.
Cttime wrote:
According to one ATCO in western Sweden they do see the routes we put and it can be displayed on their… displays. I was also told they find it useful to know where our school flights are going since they fly a lot of EASA “cross country” flights.
Different countries have different policies for VFR flight plans. All should distribute them to the departure and destination airports but not all distribute them to enroute units.
According to one ATCO in western Sweden they do see the routes we put and it can be displayed on their… displays. I was also told they find it useful to know where our school flights are going since they fly a lot of EASA “cross country” flights.
That sounds like a totally legitimate reason to deviate from standard ICAO flight plan procedures
I am still looking for a genuine reason why any country wants to be checking the route on a VFR FP… especially OCAS!
not all distribute them to enroute units.
That’s actually quite complicated. I recall a thread on this, years ago. All sorts of special cases to handle, and a huge effort for basically VFR traffic. Good for job creation, especially if the programmer is paid €x per line of cobol66 java
Peter wrote:
That sounds like a totally legitimate reason to deviate from standard ICAO flight plan procedures
What procedure are they deviating from? IME Swedish AIS is almost anal in strict adherence to ICAO FP rules.
That’s actually quite complicated. I recall a thread on this, years ago. All sorts of special cases to handle, and a huge effort for basically VFR traffic. Good for job creation, especially if the programmer is paid €x per line of cobol66 java
You think everything is a job creation scheme if you don’t immediately see the reason for it. :-)
You reduce the amount of R/T if ATC/FIS already have all the flight details. The otherwise very good FIS system in Germany drives me crazy with the need to tell my life’s story again on every frequency change.
Hi all,
Hope everyone is having a great 2021 so far. Apologies that I haven’t checked in recently so this message may be a mix of answers.
Dimme wrote:
Actually they will be submitted, but only if they have a name made out of 5 characters, e.g. DOMEN. But longer names, e.g. SLIMMINGE, will be replaced with something like VP002 in the FPL box and with coordinates in the flight plan. I have reported this bug to Foreflight twice since a year ago, it has been acknowledged, but no actions have been taken. @Josh_Tahmasebi_ForeFlight perhaps you can escalate it?
Hi @Dimme, Yes we are aware and are working on a solution for this as we speak. They will have the full name in the FPL box and will be able to touch plan with them. We will also look at how to get these ready to file. The fun part as discussed is every country approaches handling these differently so we will try our best to get something that works for most and then resolve as able. We will review points like DOMEN though as we make this change.
I’m hoping to have this and smaller fields missing resolved in the first half of this year.
Emir wrote:
In Croatia the majority of VRPs are in form S1, N2 and similar although there are longer ones like “PULA LIGHTHOUSE”. AFAIK when FF submits FP, these are replaced with GPS coordinates.
Hi @Emir. Correct. That is how we are handling it now unless the waypoint has a 5 character name like DOMEN as above. We will review this though to as we make this change.
Arne wrote:
Thank you @Josh_Tahmasebi_ForeFlight and the FF team for sponsoring this lucky winner of the first EuroGA quiz.
Let’s hope for many flight hours this year!
Hi @Arne. Absolutely! Happy to do so!
I missed who mentioned VFR filing in the Netherlands, but yes we are aware and have several conversations with the Netherlands about this – they do want a fax which is a bit complicated. We will look into this though in the future.
I will keep checking in to see if I missed anything, but will be back soon.
All the best,
Josh
