Where would one read the flight level for the ICAO flight plan?
Normally this is the initial climb level, but currently one gets an initial figure like FL040 which is far too low for flight plan filing because ATC tends to use that figure as the desired cruise level.
I have only just got home so haven’t tried the new router yet but what is needed is some sort of “hard minimum” setting.
In the Eurocontrol Wonderland, where their software imposes all sorts of rules which ATC ignores, when it comes to VNAV nobody cares about the relationship between the filed level and stuff like sid/star requirements or aircraft performance because these are all managed tactically by ATC.
OK, yes, that’s possible. But I have never seen a flightplan like that.
It’s how it’s printed in the AFTN message, the good old “item 15” on the paper form. The first waypoint on the route is DKB, therefore the filed level applies to this waypoint.
Where would one read the flight level for the ICAO flight plan?
The first word in item 15 on the flight plan. We now present “ADEP ITEM15 ADES” in the abbreviated flight plan display.
Do you crate the PLOG from that information?
The PLOG can be downloaded from the “Briefing information” section when you click “Continue” after routing or “View route” from the home screen on one of your previous routes. The same information is used for the PLOG. Internally we also do the whole lot of runway distance, weight & balance including graphical envelope etc. but it’s currently not presented because we lack a user interface to enter distances and W&B.
what is needed is some sort of “hard minimum” setting.
The preferred altitude range is a very strong optimization criterion. The hard altitude limit was bad because it returned “no route found” even though there might have been one without that limit. It’s better to penalize certain altitudes rather than exclude them altogether. In the (near) future we want to experiment with generally penalizing low altitudes, for example we could say that <FL070 in the UK is something we don’t like.
Giving the router requirements is often like saying “I want a cheap flat in London, freshly renovated, next to the tube and with a garage”. 0 hits returned 
Just tried it. It works well.
I noticed that if you want to cross the Alps you have to make the Alps MEA within your preferred range i.e. it won’t go up to the max permitted level for that crossing. So the penalty for going outside that is pretty strong. It might be better to have a high penalty for going below the min pref than the penalty for going above the max pref. I can see somebody disagreeing with that but I have always been prepared to climb right up to the declared ceiling if needed. And in general airspace restrictions are present much more if you go too low than if you go too high – well below FL200 anyway.
We now present “ADEP ITEM15 ADES” in the abbreviated flight plan display.
Can’t see that one…
I have to say I admire the pace of development and attitude towards feedback on this engine.
my RocketRoute IFR account has just expired and I’m curious to know if there are cheaper alternatives out there (Rocket Route costs now 240 pounds for 1 year!). I tried the EuroGA Autorouter but sometimes doesn’t come back with any result when RocketRoute does. Also, I believe EuroGA Autorouter doesn’t allow for filing, while I need a one stop shop like RocketRoute (route optimization algorithm + filing portal).
I tried the EuroGA Autorouter but sometimes doesn’t come back with any result when RocketRoute does.
Do you have any examples? It shouldn’t happen.
I believe EuroGA Autorouter doesn’t allow for filing
Correct. However, it is very simple to take a route and paste it into EuroFPL which is also free of charge for a limited number of flight plans. There will be other options in the future, both by applications that integrate with the autorouter and by autorouter itself.
I too, am totally disgusted by the continuous price increases and the slow and crappy engine and UI of Rocketroute. Yesterday, they at least announced a new engine with much quicker route development. Some of you might have seen that.
Still, I hope that users will run away from RR in big numbers, now that alternatives seem to mature. That might make them reconsider.
I agree the UI is challenging but I am afraid it still has the best routing engine (for now). And it is a complete product with good service. I think the EuroGA routing engine is a great beta product but it is still very much in development.
RR found EGBT DCT ADMIS UM183 REDFA UL620 ARNEM UP147 RKN UL980 OSN OSN7P EDDV for me today at FL270. EuroGA didn’t. I am running them in parallel to compare.
found EGBT DCT ADMIS UM183 REDFA UL620 ARNEM UP147 RKN UL980 OSN OSN7P EDDV for me today at FL270
There are still problems with upper airways. In many cases it is due to incorrect data in the Eurocontrol restriction database. Airways have different names in upper and lower airspace even though they are 2D equivalent. Unfortunately, the restrictions sometimes refer to them incorrectly. We are working with Eurocontrol to have this corrected. There are other issues as well, we’ll work through them over time.
I am pleased to report that the router now works on my Nokia 808, with the Opera Mobile browser (the least crappy browser available for Symbian, AFAIK).
One can paste the FPL route e.g.
(FPL-N113XX-IG
-TRIN/L-SLODFGRY/S
-EDTY1634
-N0152F100 DKB4X DKB T104 ANORA DCT BESNI L603 OLETU Z106 BAVAX M867
MUN/N0148F130 M867 VAVOR/N0146F150 M867 NOKDA Q100 ARNOS P125 URAVA
L607 OGODI/N0152F110 L607 ILB Y560 ARMIX/N0152F100 Y560 RJK
-LDLO0233
-PBN/D2 DOF/140509 RMK/CREW CONTACT 0044XXXXXXXX
-E/0352 P/1 R/VE S/M J/LF D/01 004 C YELLOW A/WHITE BLUE STRIPES
C/NAME)
straight into the EuroFPL “FPL” box (EuroFPL works on the Nokia, just about).
