Now that’s a nice routing! 
BTW, the direct URL for a new route is http://router.euroga.org/routerequest
It doesn’t work on my Nokia Not relevant in the grand scheme, except it doesn’t work with Opera Mobile either, but the old site did.
Yes, you need a modern browser because it uses bootstrap 3. To compensate you for that, I have used EGKA as departure aerodrome and a SOCATA airplane (although not a piston) for my sample screenshot 
To compensate you for that, I have used EGKA as departure aerodrome and a SOCATA airplane (although not a piston) for my sample screenshot
Ha.
Good morning,
I tried out the new version, but for me it doesn’t work too well. A simple IFR route from EDDS to EDVE, flight levels between 180 and 350, no other options set. After a few seconds, it comes up with a reasonable and valid route. When I click continue, I get this (this time with a change in TAS instead of the usual level change which is somewhat weird):
Route:
EDDS OKIBA3B OKIBA/N0340F230 N851 ROLSO RIMKI/N0429F230 OSBIT P605 ELNAT ELNAT2B EDVE
Validation:
(in red colour!) ROUTE43: THE STAR ELNAT2B IS NOT VALID BECAUSE THE RFL IS BELOW MIN LEVEL ON FIRST SEGMENT OF STAR.
And from here, there is no way back for editing or modification of the route (was this so before?).
Maybe I’m doing something wrong or have the wrong type of browser (I tried Safari on the iPad and Firefox on my MacBook)
Regards
Max
I tried my route yesterday EGTK to EDMA between 250 and 270. RR found: BAMBO DCT DILAX DCT KENET UL9 DVR/N0265F260 UL9 KONAN UL607 MATUG/N0265F270 UL607 AMASI UM149 BOMBI T104 WLD
Timed out again on autorouter.
Timed out again on autorouter.
Yes, given the constraints you gave it, it’s pretty much unsolvable. Setting min FL to 250 means all SID and STAR segments (or DCT’s serving as airport connections) need to be at or above FL250. I think we should get rid of the min FL setting.
If you set this to FL40, you get a pretty similar route to RR, except with a more realistic climb/descent profile.
Also, top level will be FL240. There’s currently an issue in that FL250 is pretty much forbidden throughout europe. Since we don’t know when the Eurocontrol checker allows climbing or descending through forbidden levels, we play it save and require the levels in between to be available. Finding a solution for this is on the TODO list.
I think we should get rid of the min FL setting.
I know I bang on about this but some solution needs to be found which prevents the present FL040 default minimum to be used for any route in UK airspace.
Some pilots – not familiar with the UK system – have managed to get such routes validated through Eurocontrol and then got hell from UK ATC when they tried to fly across the UK at FL040. I know the “regulars” know this is dumb but this confuses the hell out of
I think any level below FL070 should be blocked if in UK airspace – except obviously sid/star segments. London Control will toss out anything below FL060 anyway, AFAICT (and you get tossed out into the FIS or LARS network) unless you do “something cunning” like maybe an EXAM callsign. But the only way anybody finds out about this is by reading EuroGA
Whenever I use the router the first thing I do is set the minimum to FL100…
except obviously sid/star segments
Problem is, it’s far from obvious what “sid/star segments” are. Currently, we need to use DCT’s along a STAR (ALKIN3F into Biggin) because the UK standard route document wants the ALKIN3F STAR to be used outside its vertical definition.
Often, a series of DCT serve as SID/STAR replacement for the many airports that don’t have SIDs and STARs. Currently, we heavily penalize DCTs within the UK that are not mentioned in some standard route. Airway segments should be fine, even if you fly them at the bottom level, because according to my understanding they are class A and thus they can’t throw you out.
Whenever I use the router the first thing I do is set the minimum to FL100…
So you don’t want to fly to Biggin?
