Well, the flight in question was a complex one, with several restrictions and fly-by waypoints I added. That produced only yoyo routings.
I have then lifted two restrictions a bit and that eventually produced a non-yoyo routing.
Yes exactly.
The process has always been iterative, and banging the validation gateway. I was involved as a beta with the earliest routing tool (Autoplan, 2008, soon followed by FlightPlanPro which became Rocketroute) and back then you had a route database (not exactly published but one could “find it” bundled with a mapping app which they did) but that was not sufficient alone (except for parts of France, curiously). So you used a maze algorithm to generate a “shortest” route and submitted that for validation. Any errors had to be parsed and the route modified, and resubmitted. Back then Eurocontrol were protecting Jeppesen and other commercial B2B interests so they went on a blocking mission, making the validation site harder and harder (HTTP then HTTPS then Flash Movie!).
Getting a valid route always involved silly level changes. FL100, then 120, then 90, etc. IME, ATC never stipulate these. In the UK they don’t even see them (due to deficient software they see only the initial level 
) Eurocontrol offered (offer) a “route suggest” feature but the whole flight was/is at a single level (useless for much GA flying) and it often failed totally.
The AR, written by Tom as a unix executable originally, is doing basically the same thing as Autoplan was doing in 2008 but they pay for a B2B validation gateway, so Eurocontrol is happy. AR has a load more stuff in it too. Lots of hacks…
In general, the need for yoyo to get a valid route gets easier if you go higher, say FL140. Down below FL100 there are many segments not-below 100 or not-above 90, which forces yoyo route generation. But if you file FL140 and want to fly FL90 (because, like most IR holders, you don’t have oxygen or can’t use it because you have small kids etc 
) then you need to know a bit, at least, about the airspace. It should still work but I would definitely not file FL140 if I didn’t have oxygen.
This could really screw up many of us.
Is the yoyo a “warning” or a validation refusal, currently? The AR should automatically insert that wording to force a validation.
boscomantico wrote:
Does this mean the AR no longer delivers usable routes? Have you raised a “support ticket” with the guy running it?
It‘s not a problem caused by autorouter, but by Eurocontrol. yoyo flightplans don‘t to validate with Eurocontrol.
If aynthing, the problem on autorouter side is that it still produces routings that trigger the yoyo warning.
@boscomantico, that might be a problem with AR. Can you give an example of a route that is not found in AR?
Does this mean the AR no longer delivers usable routes? Have you raised a “support ticket” with the guy running it?
It‘s not a problem caused by autorouter, but by Eurocontrol. yoyo flightplans don‘t to validate with Eurocontrol.
If aynthing, the problem on autorouter side is that it still produces routings that trigger the yoyo warning.
yoyo routes don‘t validate any longer.
Does this mean the AR no longer delivers usable routes? Have you raised a “support ticket” with the guy running it?
I haven’t tried it lately.
I am assuming the majority of ATC don’t care about YoY FPL restriction
ATC generally have zero interest in the filed levels being F100, then FL130, then FL100, etc. They just let you fly at whatever level you want (usually above FL090 in Europe, for other reasons).
whilst I agree with you 100% on what actually happens in France, the concern is getting a route that actually validates before take off
YoYo will validate before takeoff if you add something in RMK, the same way DCT in Paris TMA say from Toususs to Pontoise, Bourget, Melun will not validate but it does validate if you add something in RMK
For the latter, French ATC “resolve” it by calling it something like RMK/POGO, for the former, they don’t have a name other than RMK/PROFYYINT but they would call it RMK/PASDEPROBLEM if you wish?
If you ever call ATC to inquire why A to B does not work, they will simply tell you to file anything that validate (hack or not) and call us to “sort you out”
Near Paris, you have plenty of routes that has to be filed with FL120 minimum but flown FL70 using something in RMK section, or you put X (not much IFR training above FL100) or file FL120 or ask ATC for lower
The whole buisness of getting a valid IFR route in European system is catching big ATC exceptions, manage sector utilisation and guidance on what is roughly possible in the big scheme of things, actual flying gets resolved tactically (low levels in France away from the 3 busy airspace is straight lines, this is verg obvious from listening to the radio, everytime it feels like I am the only guy flying in FL70-FL190 band in that whole FIR)
PS: I am assuming the majority of ATC don’t care about YoY FPL restriction? if they do care about the restriction:well you will have a problem if you bypass it (actually if they care about some restriction that is not coded in EC/AR and you turn up with valid route, they will bin your route anyway, DCT at FL60 in Schipol or London may validate but NFW ATC will let you through, even if God is flying in your RHS)
Presumably, if it validates, it is ok to file.
That was my point. yoyo routes don‘t validate any longer.
@Ibra whilst I agree with you 100% on what actually happens in France, the concern is getting a route that actually validates before take off. It appears to me to be becoming more difficult over the last year or so, to get a decent route from A to B which validates without some sort of hack being needed. And if its not spelled out why you need the hack it can be a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack to get one. All to find out in the air that it wasn’t really necessary and you get a DCT, sometimes from the end of the SID to destination.
boscomantico wrote:
So what are pilots supposed to do? autorouter only presents yoyo routings for my planned flight. I understand that one cannot just just use one of the mentioned qualifiers, as it may cause problems down the road….
@boscomantico, either VFR or relax the extra limitations on route (higher ALT etc) or trying to hack the route manually?
While preparing for my IR theory exams and playing with AR I’ve found that sometimes it is not the most efficient system and you could find better route yourself.
What is the route you are planning?
So what are pilots supposed to do?
Fly VFR as you can’t find a way around it?
Fly IFR using those hacks and risk a follow up
I went for the latter, no one has ever complained yet (definetly not an issue for the typical ATC I am talking about, “ne t’en fait pas, tant que ça valid, c’est bon pour nous”), I post here if I ever heard something on this
I have yet to talk to an ATC who go into all up/down altitude and heading left/right in FPL? they usually ask me what level or route I wanted (reply: DCT to VOR 100nm away) and I never ever loaded the whole filed FPL in my navigator, except during test, mainly SID plus one or two points en-route and IAF…it could be useful for lost comms, it’s a very rare event though and only make more sense to do it when that actually happens
Maybe above FL140 things are way more constrained & monitored and one can get in serious troubles? but I have not flown above that to be honest..also the relaxed ATC attitude is probably specific to French Airway/LTA ATC, they only care about validation not what’s actually filed?
In any case, one can fly those YoY profiles while avoiding all restrictions but I really doubt it as “fly as filed” is unheard of, it’s rare like hens teeth !
