Free route airspace

[becas 53]

Hello,

When building a route within LPPC FIR, above FL245, I get a route via airways, which is incorrect, above FL245, LPPC as well as EISN and others, have FRA. Is this possible to implement?

[Torben Andersen 15]

I simply remove the airway designator and replace it with DCT. Build the route and validates - no errors.

Torben

[becas 53]

When i do it and build the route again, the airway designator appeara again because it is only 2 wayppints

[srcooke 422]

I guess there must be an entry in the 'directs' listings as the same problem arose planning a flight out of LPPT to GCLP. Replacing the airway with DCT simply gets replaced by the original airway on build.

The way I have got around this is to EDIT the route and APPLY the change, the DCT then remains.

[becas 53]

Ah ok, but it would be cool if a simply DCT enter solved the problem

[Filipe Fonseca 0]

Ah ok, but it would be cool if a simply DCT enter solved the problem

Actually, the correct directs are already on the database.

Note that the LPPC FRA Airspace has points of entry, points of exit or points or entry or exit. If you make a using wrong points, it'll not be interpreted.

[srcooke 422]

Try this Filipe,

I have a saved route in the database LPPT NAKOS DCT BAROK UN873 SAMAR GCLP which can be validated at FL370 through EuroControl.

When I select PLAN the route becomes NAKOS UZ4 BAROK UN873 SAMAR which gives a FL restriction of 230 to BAROK.

[becas 53]

Exactly, try LPPT LPPD. If it is above FL245, it all should be directs

[srcooke 422]

Actually, the correct directs are already on the database.

Note that the LPPC FRA Airspace has points of entry, points of exit or points or entry or exit. If you make a using wrong points, it'll not be interpreted.

I don't think there are designated Entry/Exit points in Portugal FRA as there are in other areas, other than the cross border requirements

5 GENERAL PROCEDURES

5.1 Within FRAL airspace users will be able to plan user-preferred trajectories through the used of 5 letters waypoints

name code included in the ENR 4.3 of AIP Portugal, and the radio navigation aids (ENR 4.1). Route portions between

waypoints will be indicated by means of “DCT” instruction.

5.2 Traffic will be subject to rules, procedures and Letters of Agreement.

5.3 Within the FRAL area there will be no limitations on the use of “DCT”.

5.4 Overflight traffic should plan directly from Lisboa FIR/UIR entry point to Lisboa FIR/UIR exit point.

5.5 Entry traffic should plan directly from Lisboa FIR/UIR entry point to the STAR initial waypoint. Exceptions, if

required, will be notified in the AIP.

2.

5.6 Exit traffic should plan directly from the SID final waypoint to the Lisboa FIR/UIR exit point. Exceptions, if required, will

be notified in the AIP.

5.7 Cross-Border -DCT- NOT Allowed. Following IFPS procedures, DCT segment which ends in the FIR but starts in

another FIR which is not part of the same NAS is NOT permitted. Airspace users will have to plan their trajectory inside

FRAL through the use of intermediate waypoints according to 5.1.

5.8 AO’s will plan their trajectory inside FRAL disregarding all segregated airspace. In case there is no availability to cross

segregated areas, it is expected that the average route extension to be considered by aircraft operators is

approximately 5NM, however, in most cases, radar vectors shall be provided by ATC.

5.9 In case of contingency, as defined in AIC 010-2008 – CONTINGENCY PLANNING IN LISBON ACC (CONFLICT

FREE FL ALLOCATION SCHEME) – a reduced ATS route structure above FL 245 will apply.

[lonewulf47 83]

Never heard of this and i don't think such a thing exists.

Also, creating a simple LPPR - LPFR flight plan will give me MANIK UP600 SOTEX which is also wrong. Should be MANIK DCT SOTEX as this flight is made above FL245.

Same happens from Lisboa to Madeira (LPPT - LPMA) LIGRA UN872 BEXAL UN866 GURKA UN729 BIMBO should be GANSU DCT NARTA DCT LIDRO.

I miss one important consideration within this discussion: has anybody ever checked what altitude will be reached at the waypoints in question? I haven't done so in detail but I see in a few cases that it might be critical to reach FRA (> = FL250) taking in account a conventional climb profile. In this case my guess is that PFPX is considering an altitude below FL250 and thus simply uses airways instead of DCT routes. As an example reaching MANIK below FL250 does not automatically include the clearance to continue FRA-like although it is a declared FRA DCT WYP. There is no other possibility than using an AWY routing after MANIK whis is indeed UP600. There is NO DCT routing possible below FL250! IMHO the only question is: what altitude does PFPX calculate at the waypoints in question?

Entering FRA at the correct minimum altitude/level is a requirement which has to be considered in RW during climb out. It's not just "go there and look what happens..."

Oskar

[becas 53]

Oskar, of course we took that into account. And i also can say that rw flight flughts who might not rech fro example, gansu at fl245, the route will be gansu dct xxxxx even though they know it

[srcooke 422]

I miss one important consideration within this discussion: has anybody ever checked what altitude will be reached at the waypoints in question? I haven't done so in detail but I see in a few cases that it might be critical to reach FRA (> = FL250) taking in account a conventional climb profile. In this case my guess is that PFPX is considering an altitude below FL250 and thus simply uses airways instead of DCT routes. As an example reaching MANIK below FL250 does not automatically include the clearance to continue FRA-like although it is a declared FRA DCT WYP. There is no other possibility than using an AWY routing after MANIK whis is indeed UP600. There is NO DCT routing possible below FL250! IMHO the only question is: what altitude does PFPX calculate at the waypoints in question?

Entering FRA at the correct minimum altitude/level is a requirement which has to be considered in RW during climb out. It's not just "go there and look what happens..."

Oskar

Route LPPT NAKOS DCT BAROK UN873 SAMAR GCLP was flown yesterday reaching initial CRZ of FL370 between NAKOS and BAROK with a B738.

The route is validated.

PFPX route build will restrict the initial altitude as it insists on using UZ4 with the associated max FL245

[lonewulf47 83]

Oskar, of course we took that into account. And i also can say that rw flight flughts who might not rech fro example, gansu at fl245, the route will be gansu dct xxxxx even though they know it

Yes, of course, I agree that under ATC almost everything is possible. My concern was solely about HOW PFPX MIGHT HANDLE lower than FRA levels at the exit points and therefore will always issue an AWY routing - nothing else!! After a few decades in the airline business I'm also aware of Flight Levels used. And btw: in the 80'ies we flew across half of Europe on a single heading during Night Freighter Ops (and even through various FIR's...). FRA is nothing new then...

Oskar