I posted this on some other forum (apologies for double post)
But in case some on this forum find it useful, here is a custom pack for Foreflight.
It adds an overlay to highlight Point of Entry and airport with instrument approaches, which I personally find nice for planning, at least for those of us who don’t yet know all the airports…
It was build somewhat automatically by parsing AIP pdf, so it may contains inaccuracies, please always double check, and let me know if you find errors, I can try to fix/update.
https://ro-z.net/blog/foreflight-europe-entry-point-and-approaches-content-pack/
Very nice. Thanks.
I’m guessing visualizing a few more XLS files would be too much to ask.
https://www.nm.eurocontrol.int/RAD/2404/index.html
https://www.nm.eurocontrol.int/RAD/index.html
These restrictions are difficult to understand by looking them up in the sheets and they pop up during flight planning a lot.
Or maybe there is a tool for that already?
These restrictions are difficult to understand by looking them up in the sheets
I would not know how to interpret these nor how to visualise them on the map.
For a content pack I think all you can do is provide gps coordinate and either draw line/shapes or highlight points.
Sorry
My understanding is that available tools like Foreflight or Autorouter plan using the published airways but don’t plan according to RAD restrictions. They validate their routes against Eurocontrol to see if an error appears or not. It is inefficient and sometimes they can’t come up with a valid route at all.
What I do then, is dig into these RAD files to understand the reason and try to find a way around it. Many of the restrictions could be visualized because they apply to a point or a part of an airway between two points like here, screenshot from Foreflight:
loco wrote:
My understanding is that available tools like Foreflight or Autorouter plan using the published airways but don’t plan according to RAD restrictions.
Autorouter uses the RAD restrictions and it does not used published airways if it can get away with DCTs.
I can see it brute force against Eurocontrol validation and get rejected time and again. That is now what I meany by using. I mean parsing all restrictions in order to generate only valid routes.
loco wrote:
That is now what I meany by using. I mean parsing all restrictions in order to generate only valid routes.
That’s what I mean, too. This is what the AR FAQ says:
“The Eurocontrol system comes with a database containing route restrictions (ADR) but unfortunately this document is not always complete or correct in every detail. Therefore we have to validate our routes with the Eurocontrol server and sometimes get back errors which we then have to correct and validate again until we have a valid routing.”
I have yet to find an Eurocontrol rejection that was not listed in the RAD files. This excuse does not convince me.
The absolute need to iteratively develop routes came in about 20 years ago.
I was involved with the earliest tools including the AR.
The RAD is a useful reference for route fragments and IIRC the AR has an option to use that. But the use is limited.
There are about 30k daily restrictions in the database.
The problem with DCTs is that ATC often just ignore them. Sure you can file the FP but ATC tend to just ignore it.
The ADR is incomplete out of laziness and to protect ATC jobs by maintaining their workload.
There is no perfect solution. The early AR would route OCAS and produced routes which blew up the system. A friend flew one of the 4000ft ones across the N UK and ATC went crazy. Today he would be sent to redo his PPL. He was an FI. The route was of course valid.
The AR dev was on EuroGA but left once a year, eventually buying a TBM and disappearing permanently, so good luck getting to the bottom of this 😁
loco wrote:
I have yet to find an Eurocontrol rejection that was not listed in the RAD files. This excuse does not convince me.
Seen a few times, for exmple in regards to routes closed due to new software training or some weird restrictions in Spain/France, nothing in RAD or increment file. The routes were not validating, and after contacting the NM they’ve admitted that there were new restrictions not listed in RAD, but they will update RAD now.
Some restrictions were too generic in RAD and there was a specific subset that validates etc.
Sorry, RAD actually IS a mess…
