Airway Routings

[sooty3694]

Would some kind soul from either ATC, IFPS, IFPU or central flow please explain something that has baffled me and many of my colleagues for years. Half of my flight plans get re-routed - presumably either because I screwed up, or their computer selected the best routing for the traffic and conditions on the day. Seeing as all flight plans are fed into some kind of central computer that selects the routing it thinks best, why on earth is it not possible for us to simply state the departure point, requested level and destination, and let the computer route us the way it would have chosen irrespective of what I had originally planned?

Surely this would save everybody time, including IFPS staff who would no longer have any need for manual intervention or checking. Am I missing something really obvious here, or should I go and study for a PhD in understanding the preffered routings section of Aerads - or perhaps pay someone to do it for me?

[bagpuss lives]

I could be very very very wrong here but I suspect such an automated routing system is very much on the way.

[chiglet]

An example or two [according to Bruxelles]
Leeds to Cambridge DIRECT no NO NO you have to go Airways . Reason "Lack of SID Distance":confused:
Gamston to Cardiff, again direct. Reroure rcvd.. TNT.R3.WAL A25. EGFF..... at 3000 feet!! :mad:
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[Lump Jockey]

That "new" system, it wouldn't happen to be WAAS by any chance would it? I actually caught this on Discovery, to my amazement. Wide Area Augmention System. It allows the ATCC basically go into the a/c's FMS and route her all the way along!! Magic, or madness?? You tell me!

[2 six 4]

IFPS is completely irrational and manned by the worst European Civil Servants you can possibly imagine. They have absolutely no idea of common sense or customer awareness.

In summary they are sh:mad: :yuk:

[2Donkeys]

WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) has nothing to do with this topic. WAAS is a supplementary signal broadcast alongside GPS signals, containing position correction information. GPS/WAAS is expected to provide the means by which Cat 1 precision approaches by GPS might be acheived.

Chiglet... I assume that your intention is to fly outside controlled airspace. In that instance your plan shouldn't really get the Brussels treatment and the software on the Eurocontrol site is not intended for use with that kind of FPL.

If you want to know which route you should file to make CFMU happy, what you need is the Route Availability Document. It has a whole website of its own :D

http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.be/rad/

Extracts of this are contained in Jepps and Aerads.

2D

[DFC]

This most happens when a flight is off airways. The system assumes that IFR flights will fly along airways. This is perfectly rational in the rest of Europe but not so in the UK. IN fact, the UK has many pilots who can legally fly IFR as long as they don't fly on the airways.

When I came across this problem, we were at an international airport up north flying to an airfield in the South intending to remain below/ outside airways except for a crossing clearance if available abeam Manchester.

When we called for start, thwe tower informed us that the flight plan was being rejected because of our route. The correct route was xyz (we knew that but given VMC for all except the start, we didn't want to get involved with slot times).

Having explained the situation to the ATCO, we requested that ATC contact IFPS or the local ACC and explain the situation so that a flight plan would be filed for us. Unfortunately, the ATCO was unable to do this for us and the ACC could not help us.

The result.....we "booked out IFR" and once clear and continued as plannned without a flight plan......got our crossing clearance (Thanks)...and arrived safely.

If the UK is going to have this off airways free flight IFR system then it is beholding on the UK to ensure that flights making use of that system are not prevented from having a flight plan active.

Perhaps, we need a note in the UK AIP that off airways flights will be treated as VFR flights when considering flight plans.

Regards,

DFC

[sooty3694]

Thanks 2 Donkeys for your help. I did look up the site you suggested and it's clear that I DO need to get a PhD in order to understand any more than 1% of it.

If they (the authors of that document) really expect any corporate pilot to wade through RAD's of such complexity, and with so many subject to's (for example except on a Wednesday, or if there is a Y in the month, etc. etc.) and then transpose all that information onto a chart in order to figure out a routing, then they really are gonna continue to have to check and re-route a great majority of all of pilot divised plans.

I do appreciate your help, so please do not get me wrong, but why, if they have a computer that DOES figure out the route WE SHOULD be taking, do they not TELL US the best way to get from A to B on the day in question??

Surely it would save them having to check, possibly manually, all flight plans submitted, and would save us and them a great deal of time any money, and the need to produve documents that no pilot is EVER likely to study.

That was the point of my question, and if they can do it in the US, why not here in Europe?

Please, if I am really missing something SO obvious, will someone tell me!!

[refplus20]

I understand that the reason IFPS are not able to provide an acceptable route between two airports is that they are not a flight planning provider such as Jeppesen, Universal, Base Ops etc., and therefore are not allowed by competion rules to provide that sort of service. Would be good if they could though. Get rid of most of those crappy REJ messages. :ugh:

[2Donkeys]

Sooty

We are in complete agreement.

Try coming up with a sensible route from Deauville back into the London TMA without routing either via the channel islands, or back across to the East of France.

... and then you end up not flying the route you filed anyway.

It is a mess.

[Scott Voigt]

In the US we are working on our next generation of enroute computer system. It isn't going to figure out the best route for winds and weather avoidance per se. However, it will determine all of the flow restrictions as well as letters of agreement between facilities ( standing letters I think you call them.) as well as military areas that are hot for an extended period of time and then will route you around all of that taking into account what you filed... The only time that it is going to take you off what you requested is if one you didn't file a departure or arrival if there is one for your aiports, and then if there are some sort of flow restrictions in place ( usually due to weather and traffic saturization due to weather.)... Hopefully we will see the first iteration of this system by 2009 with the add on features for the system coming out in increments after that...

regards

Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety and Technology Chairman

[routechecker]

After 7 years of IFPS operations it's amazing the lack of knowledge people have about the system and all the urban legends that have been created.


Seeing as all flight plans are fed into some kind of central computer that selects the routing it thinks best, why on earth is it not possible for us to simply state the departure point, requested level and destination, and let the computer route us the way it would have chosen irrespective of what I had originally planned?

NO, the "computer" does not alocate routes as it sees fit.
All FPL's, with either sintax or route errors are sent for manual processing. The routes are corrected or created using the information provided by the States. Example; you try and file ANY direct routeing in Italy. It will not be accepted, not because we just decided so, but because the Italians have determined that ABSOLUTLY NO DCTs WHATSOEVER are plannable in their airspace.

Leeds to Cambridge DIRECT no NO NO you have to go Airways . Reason "Lack of SID Distance"

The SID/STAR and enroute DCT limits are determined by the States. If a route comes up in error in the UK airspace because of a DCT being too long, its because the brits have told it is so, and that the way they want the FPLs in their airspace.

IFPS is completely irrational and manned by the worst European Civil Servants you can possibly imagine. They have absolutely no idea of common sense or customer awareness.

:rolleyes:

If they (the authors of that document) really expect any corporate pilot to wade through RAD's of such complexity, and with so many subject to's (for example except on a Wednesday, or if there is a Y in the month, etc. etc.) and then transpose all that information onto a chart in order to figure out a routing, then they really are gonna continue to have to check and re-route a great majority of all of pilot divised plans.

Absolutly right. The complexity of the thing is huge. Almost at the same level as the complexity of the airspace you guys fly in. The RAD is there to make the enroute ATC job easier, not the pilots.

Off to bed now.

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

[bookworm]

An example or two [according to Bruxelles]
Leeds to Cambridge DIRECT no NO NO you have to go Airways . Reason "Lack of SID Distance"
Gamston to Cardiff, again direct. Reroure rcvd.. TNT.R3.WAL A25. EGFF..... at 3000 feet!!


Was this recent? Both FPLs (with DCT) are accepted with no errors by IFPUV. e.g.

FPL :
(FPL-GABCD-IG
-P28A/L-SR/C
-EGNE1000
-N0150F100 DCT
-EGFF0100
-0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Error list : (description)
NO ERRORS

[chiglet]

Book and Route
The Leeds-Cambridge fpl was filed EGNM UPTON GAMSTON EGSC
IFPS routed the a/c EGNM POL A47 STAFA A1 HON B3 ADMIS?? EGSC. Why was the question from Leeds ATC to Manch FPRS. The "exceeding SID limit" was the answer from IFPS.
EGNE LIC CHL EGFF A3000. IFPS rerouted said a/c EGNE TNT WHI WAL REXAM BCN EGFF. I cannot remember the MSL on A25 but it's a wee bit higher than 3000'
AFAIK, [it was last year] DCT was in the routing
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[bookworm]

(FPL-GABCD-IG
-P28A/L-SR/C
-EGNM2100
-N0120A030 DCT UPTON DCT GAM DCT
-EGSC0100
-0)

(FPL-GABCD-IG
-P28A/L-SR/C
-EGNE2100
-N0120A030 DCT LIC DCT BCN
-EGFF0100
-0)

both get accepted by IFPUV (http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/chmi_public/ciahome.jsp?serv1=ifpuvh), which usually means that the IFPU will swallow them.

I've never heard of CHL so I put in BCN above. Where do you mean?

[chiglet]

book,
The Leeds-Cambridge flight was a Beech200 [I think] at FL120+
The Gamston one was indeed a PA28
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[sooty3694]

quote:

"After 7 years of IFPS operations it's amazing the lack of knowledge people have about the system and all the urban legends that have been created."

Would that then be the fault of IFPS then for not going some way towards educating us? :confused:

Furthermore routechecker, I presume it's a computer that checks flight plans for route or syntax errors in the first place. Syntax errors excluded, presumeably any computer that can identify an incorrect routing should also be capable of determining a correct one. Add to this the fact that there are routing programmes available for purchase, why is it unrealistic to expect IFPS to route us the way they would prefer us to go once given Dep and Dest? Wouldn't that solve a lot of problems, and entail less work for those who have to manually check/ammend wrong routes?

[routechecker]

Would that then be the fault of IFPS then for not going some way towards educating us?

You are right there . We have not been as proactive as we should, in outside house training.

Furthermore routechecker, I presume it's a computer that checks flight plans for route or syntax errors in the first place. Syntax errors excluded, presumeably any computer that can identify an incorrect routing should also be capable of determining a correct one.

Nope, computers cannot interpret, for example RAD type errors. Yes they can come up with a routeing, but most of the time and for the moment, the result is usually not satisfactory because computers lack an essential quality in flight planning; common sense. A route generator is in the works, which coupled with a valid route catalogue should make life easier for the aviating people.


Add to this the fact that there are routing programmes available for purchase, why is it unrealistic to expect IFPS to route us the way they would prefer us to go once given Dep and Dest? Wouldn't that solve a lot of problems, and entail less work for those who have to manually check/ammend wrong routes??

Of couse it would. The thing is, its not about what we want, but what do you guys want and trying our damn hardest to give something the shortest most efficient and closer to your original request as we are allowed by the rules that we enforce ON BEHALF of the States. Eurocontrol is an AGENCY, we do what the member States tell us we can do.

Dreamland corner:
You guys give us your aircraft individual performance tables, we throw in an off the shelf wheather system, we hook it up with the EAD, you tell us what is the max slot delay you can accept, and we will give you the whole shabang.

-ATC FPL
-Fuel Plan
-Wheater brief
-NOTAM brief
-If applicable the best possible slot

Great stuff. Problem is, Mr. Jeppessen, Mr. SITA and their friends would be out of business in Europe. Plus, a bunch of airlines would start thinking that maybe they could do with half of all those guys and gals hanging around in Ops. Great idea.....???

Cheers

[Hippy]

The guys that are commenting on IFPS rejection or re-routing of their UK class G flights (Leeds-Cambridge, Gamston-Cardiff, etc) really are missing the whole point. It's not about what route you file but who you send the flight plan to.

Quote:
(FPL-GABCD-IG
-P28A/L-SR/C
-EGNM2100
-N0120A030 DCT UPTON DCT GAM DCT
-EGSC0100
-0)

(FPL-GABCD-IG
-P28A/L-SR/C
-EGNE2100
-N0120A030 DCT LIC DCT BCN
-EGFF0100
-0)

both get accepted by IFPUV, which usually means that the IFPU will swallow them.

These plans should not be sent to IFPS. If you're not flying the airways, don't send them the plan. Send the plan to London FIR, the LARS units that will be handling your flight and London Military if you are going to require a service from them in the middle air.

IFPS only knows airways, nothing else exists.

[routechecker]

These plans should not be sent to IFPS. If you're not flying the airways, don't send them the plan.
Sorry Hippy,
Here are some quotes;

From the IFPS Users Manual;
"Submission of Messages
Note The procedures outlined in this Section should not be considered as taking precedence over those published in National Aeronautical Information Publications (AIPs)."

From the UK AIP http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/enr/20110.PDF

The thing won't let me copy/paste, but it does says that if you are flying IFR in the IFPZ (the term has been replaced by Flight Plan Message Distribution Area) you must address your FPL to both IFPS Units

"All flight plans and associated messages for IFR/GAT flights entering, overflying or departing the IFPZ shall be addressed only to the two IFPS addresses for that portion of the flight within the IFPZ."
Send the plan to London FIR, the LARS units that will be handling your flight and London Military if you are going to require a service from them in the middle air.
And you will get an excelent service from them. That is until the day that everybody is doing it, and the forecasted traffic counts in the sectors start to look very slim when compared with the actual traffic load.
IFPS only knows airways, nothing else exists.
Sorry again, Hippy but that one is a just BS.
Tell me, what airways file the guys going, for example from LFPG to LFPO, and AFR does it all the time? One item in the route field; DCT. What about flights into most UK military airfields? The end of the route in the FPL, invariably ends with DCT either to some navaid or to the field itself. How do you plan when flying in Lisbon FIR coming from the Atlantic bellow 245? DCT.

Cheers

[Hippy]

I'm afraid I can't comment on the questions regarding French or Portugese airspace as I am only current in UK procedures.

With regard to addressing of IFR plans in UK, the important factor is wether the flight is considered GAT (General Air Traffic) or OAT (Operational Air Traffic). From your reference (UK AIP ENR 1.10) you will see that IFPS will only process GAT portions of the route. Both flights quoted contain no GAT portions, they are both entirely OAT, therefore submission of the plan to IFPS is not required. Furthermore, to avoid the problems quoted by DFC, submission of these plans to IFPS is (IMHO) not recommended. For the purpose of addressing flight plans, only the airways structure of UK airspace should be considered 'whithin the IFPZ'.

Regarding flights into UK Mil fields, if you care to check my profile, you will be aware that I am very familiar with the procedures, not that the fact of wether your departure or destination fields is Mil or not has any relevance. If your flight plan contains portions of both GAT & OAT flight (i.e. ADEP or ADES is outside the airways structure) you will need to follow the procedures for both. That is to say, your flight plan should be addressed to IFPS and any other agencies required by the OAT portion. (n.b. The IFPS re-addressing function should be used although I believe some planning software does not permit this)

Sorry for any confusion and to avoid any more I must reiterate that the above applies only to UK airspace, the airspace that appears to be causing the problems in this thread. I bow to your superior knowledge with regard to the rest of the IFPZ.:ok:

foot-note: Flights transitioning OAT to GAT at the FIR boundary are a different problem all together :uhoh: And do they cause problems! :{

[bookworm]

With regard to addressing of IFR plans in UK, the important factor is wether the flight is considered GAT (General Air Traffic) or OAT (Operational Air Traffic). From your reference (UK AIP ENR 1.10) you will see that IFPS will only process GAT portions of the route. Both flights quoted contain no GAT portions, they are both entirely OAT, therefore submission of the plan to IFPS is not required.

So let me get this straight... You think that chiglet's flights in a PA28 and a Beech 200 were OAT because they were outside the airways structure? I think you might need to brush up on your definitions.

[raf4]

Hippy,

I'm with you re who the plan goes to in the first place. :ok:

By the way, what's a Spt Controller? :confused:

[Hippy]

bookworm:

Okay, I'm getting peeved now. Routechecker's post was bordering on rude but despite his profile not giving anything away at least his handle hints at his occupation and he presented an argument, so I gave a civil respose.
You, sir, give nothing away and give no argument. If you wish to question my definition of OAT you could tell us what your definition is or, at the very least, link to an on-line definition (http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatmp/glossary/) .

raf4:

Thank you for your support and that is also the answer to your question: My abbreviation for Support Controller. For those still unsure, a Mil Area Support Controller's duties fall mid-way between those of a Civil Area ATSA and a Civil Support Controller / Planner. Additionally to ATC disciplines we are trained in matters relating to flight planning and can be expected to be employed in areas as diverse as: Airfield ATC; Area ATC; Airfield Operations; Aircraft Operations; Flight/Mission Planning, to name but a few. Jack-of-all-trades and master of none? Maybe. It all depends on the individuals career history.

[raf4]

Hippy,
Sounds like a good old TG9 AATC to me. Is it?
Have done TWR, Area, Sqn Ops and Wing/Staion Ops myself.
I also know peeps in IFPS who have done the same in their
previous life. Not your average European Civil Servant I guess.

[bookworm]

If you wish to question my definition of OAT you could tell us what your definition is or, at the very least, link to an on-line definition.

OK. Here (http://www.eurocontrol.int/frap/concept.html) it is:

General Air Traffic (GAT): All flights which are conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures of ICAO and/or the national civil aviation regulations and legislation.

Operational Air Traffic (OAT): All flights, which do not comply with the provisions, stated for GAT and for which rules and procedures have been specified by the appropriate authorities.

Broadly speaking, that means that flights that comply with civil aviation legislation are GAT. OAT is military and other state flying that is not bound by that legislation.

Are you seriously suggesting that a private civil aircraft flying from Gamston to Cardiff or Leeds to Cambridge is OAT?

[Hippy]

Okay, so we have some wishy-washy definitions of OAT/GAT. Let's try to get back on topic.

sooty3694 asked a non-specific question about IFPS re-routing.
Chiglet gave 2 examples of reasonable routes and the unreasonable IFPS response.
DFC then recalled a trip that sounded very similar to one of Chiglet's examples and the problems caused by filing with IFPS.
I gave my proffessional advice on how to avoid such problems in the future.
Are you seriously suggesting that a private civil aircraft flying from Gamston to Cardiff or Leeds to Cambridge is OAT?
What I am seriously suggesting is that a private civil aircraft flying from Gamston to Cardiff at 3000' or Leeds DCT to Cambridge follow my advice and NOT file the plan with IFPS. What aircraft operators do with my advice is up to them.

[chiglet]

Bookworm and Hippy
It's SOP at EGCC to use the Cap550 for flight plan addressing.
EGNE LIC BRI DEST the ONLY adds is...EGZYIFPS. Nothing else. Yes, we can send said Fpl as a VFR Fpl to "all and sundry" but to what purpose? Will the pilot actually work all the LARS units on his route.[ We have heard on other threads that "Transits" are less than welcome]. The a/c was filed IFR and at the risk of being a BOF [which I am], we have to file with Brussels. Agreed, nothing to stop me adding adds, but most won't until it's in the SOPs.
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy