by Keith Smith » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:12 am
I agree, that would be a useful tool. A lot can be learned by using an FAA approved flight plannnig tool (Leidos has one, I was just using it the other day).
It comes down to understanding what elements can go into a flight plan.
Ignoring international flight plans which often use lat/lons, with step climbs/speeds, you shouldn't have ANYTHING in the IFR route which is NOT:
- an airway with an appropriate entry point and exit point on either side
- a waypoint (fix, VOR or NDB)
- a DP/STAR (using the computer filing code listed on the chart)
Hilariously, many of the FAA TEC routes destroy these conventions, something we're going to look into in terms of how they are validated or how pilots are expected to file (other than the fact that there are TEC route codes which can be used in place of the route which hide the problem).
Do not put approaches in there. Do not put ->. Do not put DIR. Those are arbitrary conventions which are not going to help.
In the not too distant future, we plan on have a validation layer in the flight plan filing process to prevent users from filing flight plans with invalid route elements (we just need to resolve how TEC routes will be handled). This will be very important now that we have the route processing system in place (see the second half of the CPDLC announcement on the home page).
What happens today is that some pilots are filing outdated SIDs/STARs, or routes with typos in them. The route processing system is determining that the route doesn't meet certain requirements and is then replacing the route with a known 'good' or 'approved' route from our DB, leaving pilots (and controllers) wondering why the pilot's route wasn't accepted. In fact, the pilot route should never have been accepted to begin with because of the invalid route elements. This will be a huge win for pilots because it will allow them to correct typos or outdated AIRAC references BEFORE a route is effectively filed, which INCREASES the likelihood that they'll get what they filed (assuming they used an appropriate SID/STAR or departure/arrival waypoints for the city pair).
Right now, we don't have training material explaining what can go into a route, it's assumed that pilots will use r/w resources, or by observing the nature of the routes that are included during the I-Ratings. It would be good to have, though. But, for now, I would spend some time in a FAA flight planning tool. If your route CANNOT generate a navlog....that's likely a problem (strange TEC routes that refer to the HHR RWY 25 localizer notwithstanding, or airways an entry point...both of which I need to find out if are allowed to be filed under normal circumstances).