I am running SD 2.4 on an iPad.

When I plan a route using reporting points on the map I don't see their name in the flight plan but only their coordinates. So, e.g., the waypoint "RADLY" shows only up with coordinates. This is unusual and not very friendly for the folk at ATC. Also, it makes it difficult for me to read the flight plan.

My suggestion: use the waypoint name in the flightplan in place of the coordinates.

Thanks, -- Chris.

What you see is correct. The correct way of reporting an EET at an FIR boundary is the EET/LFRR0123 format. To use the name of an airways reporting point there, or a lat/lon, would be an error.

I do not know what MN1 and MN2 are, but they have no place in a flightplan. The only things that should make up a flightplan route are airways reporting points, radio navaids or lat/lons.

I've had a very similar issue this week, on a flight from LHTL to LJPZ. I've used some visual reporting points as waypoints enroute and at destination, but they didn't show up in the ATC flightplan, just the coordinates, which later raised a complaint by the AIS officer in Portoroz. The border crossing point between Hungary and Slovenia was DIMLO, a visual reporting point for the purpose of border crossing, however shown as coordinates only on the ATC flightplan.

I have the same problem. The inability to fill in plain language names renders the flightplan tool useless to me.

In the Swiss AIP it says: "Geographical location names as given on the aeronautical chart ICAO 1:500 000 2253-B Switzerland are accepted by Swiss ATS units." Skyguide/Austrocontro's Homebreefing accepts these names.

My experience after 20 years of flying in europe is that the usage of geographical names in VFR flightplans for waypoints (when lacking radionavigation aids or airport codes) is the norm and the use of coordinates the exception.

Paul

Hi Tim, you may be right in that the generated flightplan is syntactically correct. However, I can only confirm the experience of my fellow fliers that a flightplan like the one generated by SD would raise eyebrows with ATC and make them come back and ask me questions. Those border crossing points such as, e.g., GOLVA are specifically for reporting a border crossing and use in flight plans.

MN1 and MN2 are waypoints associated with the airport LJMB and expected to be used when landing at LJMB. They are part of my route and hence also part of the Route description in the flight plan. They do bear some significance because the approach controller at LJMB immediately knows that I will follow a sensible route. If I don't put these in the flight plan I will get them as part of the entry clearance in his airspace.

Either way is OK, but there is a reason that I file them as part of my routing. And if I use them as part of my SD route they show up in the fllightplan anyway. So if they already show up it is very confusing not to have them show up with their names.

Somthing to consider...

Thanks very much for a great product and cheers, -- Chris.

Yep,

Hi,

I don't see the problem here. On the Ipad you can just erase the coordinates and type the name of the reporting point in the Flight Plan.

Regards, Asix

Well, of course you can. But must of SD's functionality is geared toward making the life of the pilot easier. So why not here?

-- Chris.

Same opinion here, it would make things easier, the syntax "[waypont name] ([coordinates])" would be awesome.

However, I filed a couple of int flight plans using coordinates, nobody ever complained (didn't try it in Italy though).

Hello,