martin-esmi wrote:
In our AROWeb at the Swedish Flight Planning Center you can choose to test the IFR flight plan
Yes, that was the feature I used (with the route previously generated from autorouter). As far as I know, there are no said limitations when to use this feature.
achimha wrote:
That’s not filing, that’s just validating the plan. You said you filed it.
You are correct. Do you happen to know what (validation) differences there are between filing and validation only?
Validation only means that the system checks if it could be filed the way you planned it. Filing means, well .. :-) … filing!
Magnus wrote:
Do you happen to know what (validation) differences there are between filing and validation only?
None really besides some subtleties in the 4D profile implementation. If it validates, it can be filed (right away, not necessarily much later).
Technically it is not entirely correct. Eurocontrol allow you to file flight plans that do not validate. You could put “I want to fly to France” in the route field and file it. It will then fail IFPS validation during filing and be sent to the manual correction queue where staff in Brussels/Brétigny decide whether to correct/accept or reject the plan. Most platforms like autorouter do not allow you to file non validating plans because if too many of them arrive via our platform, we get invited for tea without biscuits… 
martin-esmi wrote:
Magnus, did you get the BRNAV approval? How about the rest of you?
I renewed my IR in 2014 and got a RNAV endorsement. There was a training session where we specifically did RNAV navigation.
Giving IR training today without including BRNAV is unreasonable of course, but since EASA does not require it for the rating and BRNAV is not mandated in Sweden at FL95 and below, I guess an ATO could offer the training a few bucks cheaper by not including RNAV – the IR would still be useable in Scandinavia in most club aircraft.
PRNAV seems impossible atm and LPV isn’t decided yet, at least BRNAV is reality for GA :)
The difficult thing with PRNAV (I am talking about Sweden now) is that you have to take a PRNAV course, and I don’t know if any ATO offers one. The CAT don’t have a problem with that because if you have an AOC you can do the training in-house.
could put “I want to fly to France” in the route field and file it. It will then fail IFPS validation during filing and be sent to the manual correction queue where staff in Brussels/Brétigny decide whether to correct/accept or reject the plan.
I didn’t know this. I thought that these all produced an immediate REJ message and that only very specific, very minor errors produced a MAN. No?
Peter wrote:
BRNAV needs a pilot endorsement?
According to AIP-Sweden every operator needs approval (AIP ENR 1.1 §4.1). For SE-reg, it is detailed in a Swedish regulation how you get this approval.
I’m pretty certain that you formally need approval for BRNAV everywhere in Europe but that some (most?) NAAs give this approval implicitly.
For SE-reg the approval is actually also implicit provided the pilot has taken documented RNAV training.
boscomantico wrote:
I didn’t know this. I thought that these all produced an immediate REJ message and that only very specific, very minor errors produced a MAN. No?
No 
Whenever item 15 (the route) does not validate, it will go to the manual queue. The other fields result in a REJ directly from our experience. In most cases they will reject it within a few minutes but there are specific cases where they accept it (to work around an IFPS bug/limitation) or even go the extra mile to fix it. As CFSP (computerized flight plan software provider, Eurocontrol speak for what autorouter does) we are obliged to reduce these cases to the bare minimum. They do happen though.
OK. That checks with what the german AIS told me… before they even send IFR flightplans (those sent to them by users via fax or email) on to Brussels, they validate them.
Airborne_Again wrote:
For SE-reg the approval is actually also implicit provided the pilot has taken documented RNAV training.
If you fly training flight in an airspace where (B)RNAV is required and that flight is documented (logged), would it then be regarded as documented RNAV training?
