@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.
Presumably, if it validates, it is ok to file.
That was my point. yoyo routes don‘t validate any longer.
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)
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).
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 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?
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.
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.
