Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jarkko

CFMU validation errors and using PFPX auto routing to fix them

Recommended Posts

Jarkko    39

Hello,

As there has been some discussion on what the CFMU validation results mean and what to do about them, I decided to write a small post about how you can go from a route that does not pass validation to a route passes without errors.

This post uses the route EGCC - EDDF that was talked about on another topic here on the forum. Remember that this is just one way to solve the problem, but here we go.

---

FIRST PASS

The first thing I do, is I go to the route editor (Route manager > Route Editor...). I then input my origin and destination (EGCC/EDDF). Here is the result:

post-71988-0-35319900-1377945153_thumb.j

There are four buttons and one text field on this screen that we will be using. The buttons are Find, Validate, Build and Help. We will also use the Route text field at the bottom of the screen.

First think I do, is use the "Advanced find" feature that can be found by clicking on the small down arrow next to the Find button. Here are my initial values for the Advanced Auto Finder.

post-71988-0-33812000-1377945557_thumb.j

Now if we press the find button, PFPX automatically creates the following route:

DESI1R DESIG UL603 MAMUL UL26 OTBED UY70 BODSO L17 MOLIX UL17 PETIK UP62 PAM UZ738 COL T911 ROLIS ROLI1L

This route is now valid according to the Navdata, but let's see what happens if we validate it against the more strict CFMU rules.

---

FIRST VALIDATION RESULTS

post-71988-0-64048300-1377945906_thumb.j

From the picture above, we can see that there are things we need to fix in order to pass the validation. We can't use airway T911 between MUSUG and ROLIG, The highest allowed flight level for UL17 between MOLIX and PETIK is FL240 and so on. However...

On the first validation pass, I always look for a text "TRAFFIC VIA ... IS OFF MANDATORY ROUTE ...". In the validation results we do see a line like that. It's the one highlighted in the picture above.

So what does this mean? It means that there is a segment that we have to fly through. In this case, the error message tells us, that we have to go from SOGPO to OTSPO using airway UT149.

How can we fix this?

---

SECOND PASS

I will now try to tell PFPX, that we need to use segment SOGPO UT149 OTSPO, but automatically generate rest of the route. I input the following route into the route box:

AUTO SOGPO UT149 OTSOP AUTO

Here you can see it in the picture at the bottom of the screen:

post-71988-0-37448700-1377946670_thumb.j

Now PFPX is telling us, that we need to click the Build button so that a new route is generated. If you do not know what the AUTO command does, you can click on the Help button. There you will find other very useful commands for route building.

Here is the route that PFPX build with the mandatory segment:

DESI1R DESIG UL603 SOGPO UT149 OTSOP T149 KOREV UZ742 COL T911 ROLIS ROLI1L

You can now see that PFPX created a new route so that it goes through the mandatory segment. Nice!

Lets try and validate again.

----

SECOND VALIDATION RESULTS

post-71988-0-99292400-1377957457_thumb.j

Ok, so we are down to 2 validation errors. What they are telling us, is that we are not allowed to use T911 airway to go from MOSUG to ROLIS. Also we can't use UZ742 to go from TEBRO to COL.

How can we fix this? We can use the Advanced find restrictions field for this. If you clicked at the Help button, you might have noticed that there is a command called AUTO+. We are going to use it for our next pass.

---

THIRD PASS

As we didn't get any validation errors about the auto generated route before the mandatory segment, we can use the same setting as before. The validation results said that we have problems at the latter part of our route. Here is the new route we are going to insert into the Route text box:

AUTO SOGPO UT149 OTSOP AUTO+

If we now click the Build button, PFPX will open the Advanced find window, when it finds the AUTO+ command. Check the restrictions check box and enter the airways we want to avoid (T911 and UZ742). Here is how the Advanced find window looks like with the data entered:

post-71988-0-71397200-1377948404_thumb.j

Also notice how the From field now says OTSOP instead of EGCC as it did in the beginning. When we click find, here is the route that PFPX generated:

DESI1R DESIG UL603 SOGPO UT149 OTSOP T149 LIPMI T150 ROLIS ROLI1L

Another good route with the required segment and airways T911 and UZ742 are no longer used. Let's try to validate this one and see what happens.

---

THIRD VALIDATION RESULTS

post-71988-0-84694300-1377957588_thumb.j

As you can see from the picture above, no more validation errors! What we now have is a route that passed strict validation results. As said before, this is only one way to do route editing in PFPX, but luckily PFPX provides powerful tools for us to use.

I hope you enjoyed :)

- Jarkko

Added by moderation to the excellent original post to keep all the interesting stuff toghether and in top of the thread. Credits for every author in the proper post

I'll add my bit. Hopefully some of you can use the information.

The errors are typically followed by a country code eg. ED for Germany and a number. You can look these up in the route availability page at Eurocontrol: http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/RAD/

The current airac is here: http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/RAD/1309/index.html.

Let's say you get the error EHYY1028a. This points to the Netherlands (EH country code) and the specific ID number (1028).
So from the above page you click on the link to the Netherlands RAD: http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/RAD/1309/docs/E1_RAD_3_RADAN_EH_en.pdf

In this document you search for 1028 (or the route segment) and you will get the following description:

Traffic ARR EDDF/FE/FH, ETAR, ETOU above FL245 shall file via UT149. Below FL245 this traffic shall file via Z/UZ738

So find the appropriate connection points for UZ738 in the map display in PFPX and insert the route UZ738 into the route scratch pad in PFPX


Anyway, you will find many usefull informations at the above RAD pages, e.g. country specific rules for using DCTs. This could become handy if you get strange routings or have problems finding a valid route.

The city pair capping is useful for figuring out the appropriate flight level between cities.


Best regards,
Mikkel

Another add by Mikkel. Think is valid for any airport without a published SID...

@Torben: For Danish airports without SID entry points you plan to the appropriate holding point. For EKBI that would be either LO (or LOKSA) or GE (or GELBA) depending on which runway you intend to land on.
For airport-specific information on arrivals (and departures for that matter) you can look in the Danish Aeroservice Information Package (AIP) part 3, AD2.

Look for the text documents, direct link is HERE for EKBI. In chapter/section 22 (page 7), you find Flight Procedures, which describes procedures for arrival and depature from EKBI.
The structure in the text documents follows a standard (as far as I'm aware), which is followed by all European countries. So once you get the hang of it, it becomes quite easy to read for other airports in both Denmark and other European countries.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask :-).


Best regards,
Mikkel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisM    3

Jarkko,

thank you so much for your support. Now I'm able to fix the routes on my own, without searching for valid routes on the internet. Thank you.

Maybe you can add another important thing to your original post:

"Errors referring to invalid flightlevels can be ignored until you computed your flight. Only if they exist after flight computation, you need to pay attention to them."

Best regards,

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MaG    0

Thanks for the Help. I'm trying to find a route from LTAI to EDDS but the Validator is still finding incorrect parts in the corrected routes. Could anyone check it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alpha117    37

Thanks for the Help. I'm trying to find a route from LTAI to EDDS but the Validator is still finding incorrect parts in the corrected routes. Could anyone check it?

Well I tried to find a route that would validate, but struggled.

Only been able to understand CFMU validating for less than a day.

Someone more able should be able to help out and also could show us how it's done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BAW25    0

Thanks for the Help. I'm trying to find a route from LTAI to EDDS but the Validator is still finding incorrect parts in the corrected routes. Could anyone check it?

This route I created passed the validation check: EKSEN UA16 KFK UL610 VADEN L610 UTEKA UL610 TONDO UP870 RASTA UL173 MUN L173 DODIL T127 TEKSI

Let me know if it works for you, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mikkelgh    5

EDITED BY MIKKELGH TO CLEAR UP A BIT OF CONFUSION

EDITED TEXT MARKED WITH RED

I'll add my bit. Hopefully some of you can use the information.

The errors are typically followed by a country code eg. ED for Germany and a number. You can look these up in the route availability page at Eurocontrol: http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/RAD/

The current airac is here: http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/RAD/1309/index.html.

Let's say you get the error EHYY1028a. This points to the Netherlands (EH country code) and the specific ID number (1028).

So from the above page you click on the link to the Netherlands RAD: http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/RAD/1309/docs/E1_RAD_3_RADAN_EH_en.pdf

In this document you search for 1028 (or the route segment) and you will get the following description:

Traffic ARR EDDF/FE/FH, ETAR, ETOU above FL245 shall file via UT149. Below FL245 this traffic shall file via Z/UZ738

Jarrko's example is filed with a cruise level above FL245. In that case follow Jarrko's example.

Imagine you fly in a turbo prop below FL245: In this case you must file via Z/UZ738. Find the proper connection points for Z/UZ738 and give it another try with the validator.

Anyway, you will find many usefull informations at the above RAD pages, e.g. country specific rules for using DCTs. This could become handy if you get strange routings or have problems finding a valid route.

The city pair capping is useful for figuring out the appropriate flight level between cities.

Best regards,

Mikkel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SamyJay    1

Was just wondering about the 'country codes!

They are the first 2 of the ICAO code. So the UK would be EG, hope that's correct

Correct!

LF is France

ED is Germany

LS is Switzerland

and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mikkelgh    5

My original post may lead you to believe that you should use Z/UZ738. This would be misleading if you follow Jarrko's example. I didn't think of this when I wrote the example, since my purpose was only to explain how to interpret the error codes.

Now that my post has been added to Jarrko's I should probably clarify what the error message EHYY1028a actually states:

1. If you fly ABOVE FL245 and are flying to EDDF/FE/FH, ETAR, ETOU you must file via UT149 (as in the example posted by Jarrko).

2. If you fly BELOW FL245 you must file via Z/UZ738.

In Jarrko's example the route is flown above FL245. Therefore solution 1 would be the correct choice when flying to EDDF.

Suppose you fly in some turbo prop aircraft below FL245 you would have to follow solution 2.

I apologize if my first post may have caused some confusion. To rectify this I have edited my post to hopefully clear up the confusion.

Best regards,

Mikkel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On problem I've found is when flying to an airport with no published star. EGSS-EKBI returns eg.

CLN1E CLN UL620 ARTOV UP44 SOMVA UP155 OKOKO UZ303 NIRDU UN873 TUSKA N873 MIKRO, but validation fails:

Route 134:The Star limit is exceededfor aerodrome EKBI [EKBI50882B] connecting to MIKRO

Suggestions?

Torben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mikkelgh    5

@Torben: For Danish airports without SID entry points you plan to the appropriate holding point. For EKBI that would be either LO (or LOKSA) or GE (or GELBA) depending on which runway you intend to land on.

For airport-specific information on arrivals (and departures for that matter) you can look in the Danish Aeroservice Information Package (AIP) part 3, AD2.

Look for the text documents, direct link is HERE for EKBI. In chapter/section 22 (page 7), you find Flight Procedures, which describes procedures for arrival and depature from EKBI.

The structure in the text documents follows a standard (as far as I'm aware), which is followed by all European countries. So once you get the hang of it, it becomes quite easy to read for other airports in both Denmark and other European countries.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask :-).

Best regards,

Mikkel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Mikkel

What I found was that you need to choose a runway and appropriate fix and not "just" plan the enroute section - a bit different from what I'm used to. Even after choosing an intersectio very close to the airport (<5nm) the program didn't accept a dct to the airport (EKBI). I can live with that - but I think I'll plan for worst case scenario (longest SID/STAR) in order to be sure that I have sufficient fuel for my trip.

Torben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mikkelgh    5

The reason you cannot choose an intersection close to the airport is that it is mandatory to file direct to one of the aerodrome holding points (LO/LOKSA, GE/GELBA). In EKYT it would be AAL-vor and so on. Good luck on your planning :).

Thanks, Mikkel

What I found was that you need to choose a runway and appropriate fix and not "just" plan the enroute section - a bit different from what I'm used to. Even after choosing an intersectio very close to the airport (<5nm) the program didn't accept a dct to the airport (EKBI). I can live with that - but I think I'll plan for worst case scenario (longest SID/STAR) in order to be sure that I have sufficient fuel for my trip.

Torben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tigh    1

Stuff like this should have been in the manual, I've been searching around for this sort of thing for days, thanks Jarkko (and others).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Franz008    4

I must say that despite the good explanations, i have difficulties to corrigate the errors. Often, after trying to corrigate an error- message i get even more of them...

An error-message that i really don't understand is:

"NOSTO UL612 KUMBI DOES NOT EXIST IN FL RANGE F000...F245"

Iif i make a mousover the UL612-track it says "min alt 250 / max 600". And since my cruise altitude is FL 350, this error really doesn't make sense. Is this perhaps a bug?

Cheers

François

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mikkelgh    5

Hi François

Could you post your complete route (including departure and arrival airport)? Then we can try an replicate it and find an answer.
Best regards,
Mikkel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.