If some Eurocontrol validation gurus are here… can you try to help me understand why this flight plan doesn’t validate?
LIMB – LIMZ on a Z flight plan
Routing: SRN/N0122F110 IFR M858 VOG VOG1R
Response: EUROCONTROL INVALID: (R)ROUTE130 – UNKNOWN DESIGNATOR VOG1R
The STAR VOG1R exists on the AIP, there are charts for it and it’s even in the G1000 database. But I don’t understand why it seems to be unknown to the Eurocontrol validation system…
The general format of the routing should be correct, as if I try a different STAR on the same chart: SRN/N0122F110 IFR M858 GEN GEN1Z
it validates properly.
I am sure there must be a reason for the VOR1R error, but cannot find it. Can anyone easily spot the reason for that? Thanks
And the mystery thickens…
If I create a Z flight plan LIMB-LIMB for the same route to LIMZ, but I add in the routing also the leg back to LIMB in the same plan (the scenario is an IFR flight from LIMB to LIMZ for an instrument approach, as specified by STAY1, followed by a missed approach and back to LIMB), Eurocontrol validates it!
SRN/N0123F110 IFR M858 VOG VOG1R LIMZ STAY1/0020 TOP1Q TOP M135 DIXER VFR
So the VOG1R STAR in this case gets recognized by Eurocontrol, while it doesn’t if the routing is a one way flight LIMB-LIMZ, which would be a much more logic route…
I am a bit lost…
Is it a/the new STAR mentioned as the Nov 23 change on the Jepp chart?
It happens occasionally that Eurocontrol isn‘t immediately aware of changes. I think someone here knows how countries communicate changes to Eurocontrol… could be the cause is on either end… notification or routing system update.
Upd: msgs crossed… sounds like coding issue at Eurocontrol.
Do you actually add SIDs and STARS to your IFR FPL?
We never did we just added the IAF.
If you add the STAR what do you do when there is a change of runway in use?
gallois wrote:
Do you actually add SIDs and STARS to your IFR FPL?
According to Autorouter, Eurocontrol requests that one does.
gallois wrote:
If you add the STAR what do you do when there is a change of runway in use?
The same than if there is no change; fly the clearance one gets from ATC.
I was always taught only to file to the IAF on arrival and to file your departure from your first en route intersection.
Isn’t the arrival ETA for IFR the time at the IAF whereas it’s overhead the airfield for VFR.
When did Eurocontrol request STARs and SIDs going into an FPL? It doesn’t make much sense because in my experience I have rarely been given the SID or STAR I would have filed an hour or so before requesting clearance.
lionel wrote:
gallois wrote:Do you actually add SIDs and STARS to your IFR FPL?According to Autorouter, Eurocontrol requests that one does.
Indeed Eurocontrol prefers that, but not everyone does. Before Eurocontrol Sweden even rejected flight plans with SIDs/STARs and still prefers not to have them. Autorouter will generate flight plans with SIDs/STARs toi Swedish airports, but Eurocontrol does accept the flight plan without them.
I think it depends by country. In the Netherlands, for example, you can file a lot of DCT’s and easily skip SID’s and STAR’s, and it will work.
In Italy you can hardly file any DCT, only airways, and you almost always have to add SID and STAR and not the IAF only or the route won’t validate saying DCT segments are too long.
gallois wrote:
I was always taught only to file to the IAF
You mean IAF (end of STAR/transition and beginning of approach “proper”) or beginning point of the STAR? If to the IAF, I can return your own question to you: what do you do then when there is a change of runway?
gallois wrote:
It doesn’t make much sense because in my experience I have rarely been given the SID or STAR I would have filed an hour or so before requesting clearance.
It does lead to a better overall estimate by “the computer”, even if it is not the STAR that is flown in the end. The same difference as between (theoretically) filing “DCT” (but flying a more convoluted route) and filing an actual route :-)
Now, all this “good estimate” business is a bit of a claptrap in our case (non-pressurised GA), we rarely fly the filed route, we get all kinds of shortcuts (or detours), vectors instead of SID and STAR, etc. However, I must admin that when then flying the “high IFR” routes, the route is often very direct anyway, so I technically get “DCT XXX”, but that is (very close) to my current track anyway. (Sometimes I still get a “real direct” when there is a corner in my filed route, it happens) I can believe that could be more typical for scheduled CAT, and in their case the “good estimate” is actually good? I’m not sure.
Let’s say I was flying into La Rochelle LFBH from the North I have a choice of IAFs and which one I choose will depend on the approach I want to fly ( Note the approach I want to fly) .
In filing the FPL I would file Luson as my last intersection and of course under destination would be LFBH.
In this case I wouldn’t even file an IAF for the simple reason that there are several approaches and on contact with the approach controller or even before will be given the runway in use etc but I have a choice of several approaches to that runway and it is for me to decide.
If runway in use is eg 27 I could do the ILS to 27 the NDB to 27 an RNP and LPV to 27 or the RNP and LPV to 09 followed by a circle to land or perhaps a visual approach.
All rrequire different IAFs and some have a STAR and other approaches no STAR. So why am I going to complicate things at the FPL stage if I want to leave my options open.
Now if I was to fly IFR Brest LFRB to Quimper LFRQ. At Brest there are a number of SIDs. Many follow the same SID as well as omnidirectional and which one depends on military activity and other traffic. So whichever one I file I am unlikely to fly, And the first inkling I will get of which SID I will get will be from ATIS and even then it is likely to change,so why file it.. Much easier just to file to the IAF at RQ404 if the runway in use is likely to be the 27. This means that somewhere during the ie ROSPO 6 departure it is more than likely I will get a convenient direct to the IAF.
If 09 is in use I would file IAF to RQ401 and I would expect another DCT from a convenient spot along the ROSPO 6 departure SID which would take me well out of my way if I was to follow it in its totality.
For 09 I might also get a DCT to the IAF at RQ 403. Admittedly IIRC there are no STARs at LFRQ.
The case for adding STARS and SIDS to your flight plan gets even more complex when flying POGOs around Paris.
I think we can all agree that ATS will often give you DCTs or Vectors or different STARs in order to do their job of safe and efficient traffic flow management. So why complicate a FPL. What are you trying to prove.
Returning to La Rochelle, although I tend not to choose an IAF it possibly would be a good reason to do so.
In case of radio failure, the regulations show good reason to name an IAF as your arrival and the ETA for arrival.
But it might well be country dependent and I had no idea that Eurocontrol are wanting STARs and SIds on an FPL. I have flown them on ATS instruction bet never filed one.
And I wont now as I’ve let my SEIR and MEIR lapse.
