By James Nixon 1347161
#499572 Basically, I tried filing a flight plan via vPilot but it just wouldn't work I kept trying but it didn't file (no error message). So I tried the vatsim manual one and I get the error 'An unrecognized response was received from the server. It said:'. Just that, nothing which helps in anyway. I really hope you can help me out, thanks.
By James Nixon 1347161
#499578
Bradley Grafelman 1242018 wrote:Can you show a screenshot of the vPilot flight plan window and/or the pre-file page with all of the data filled in?


http://prntscr.com/atorsg
As you can see everything is filled in.

EDIT:
This is the error with the normal VATSIM flight planner, which makes me assume this is not an issue with vpilot but an issue with my account.

http://prnt.sc/atp0tb
By James Nixon 1347161
#499582
Norman Blackburn 870575 wrote:I'm going with your fplan is simply too long.


That did it, thanks.
I wish VATSIM would incorporate a validation check to make sure people understand if it's too long. Instead of wasting several hours finding out the issue.
By Joshua Black 988581
#499592 Looking at what you have in your route, there's a lot of unnecessary information. Any "DCT" in a route is redundant. Unless you have an airway to connect two points, how else would one get there besides going direct? Also, all of those stepclimbs throughout your flightplan are also pretty useless on the network. But honestly, I use them too. However, when your flightplan is already that long, you can get rid of most/all of those level changes. You have the FL310 stepclimb in your flightplan 3 times. And then later on, are you seriously going to go from FL350 to FL360 to FL350 back to FL360? Also, considering the last three lines of your flightplan all occur on one airway, you can free up tons of space by making it simply "ABERI B934 UNDAT" instead of having all that junk in there. It makes it easier for controllers to read as well instead of having to filter through what they care about and what they don't.
By David Zhong 1027224
#499644 Whether or not you think it's redundant, "DCT" is required under the rules for formatting the route field. Sure it makes no difference, but then neither does using spot on phraseology.

The changes between FL350 and FL360 are most likely due to direction of flight. Again, it's something you're suppose to do. And since VATUSA are controllers are taught to enforce the table of cruising levels, were the route segment in the US, I wouldn't be surprised if that was actually flown :D
By Joshua Black 988581
#499648 But when you have the issue that he did with it being too long, there are plenty of options to make it shorter. I don't think there's ever been a controller online that adds "DCT" to flightplans. If anything, controllers remove them. Something like AAA DCT DJF DCT TTOOD DCT GHF DCT DRT simply looks amateurish but that's my opinion.
By Jonathan Fong 1308253
#500500 Sometimes many DCTs are necessary. Don't assume every route is just a straight line - there may be reasons for strange-looking or large amounts of DCTs. Here's a personal example from a route I fly often - BIKF to EGLL in Concorde.

You may look at this:
58N015W DCT SOVED DCT DOLIP DCT UNLID DCT LULOX
and think it to be a bit excessive.

However, this is a graphical representation of the above segment:

Image

As you can see, the above routing maintains separation from land during supersonic cruise. Remove any of the points (except for SOVED, but that's required due to it being the border of Shannon Control) and you stray too close to land and lay a 110dB sonic boom on Ireland's coast. Also note that there are no high-altitude airways in Irish airspace (as with several other European countries), therefore DCTs are necessary in any case.
By Ross Carlson 887155
#500502
Jonathan Fong 1308253 wrote:Remove any of the points (except for SOVED, but that's required due to it being the border of Shannon Control) and you stray too close to land and lay a 110dB sonic boom on Ireland's coast.


The point being made in this thread is that if you need to reduce the length of your route in order to stay within the maximum length, removing DCT is fine because it is not strictly necessary. You can remove all the DCTs from your example plan and not change the route of flight one bit. DCT is implied when no airway is given to connect two waypoints.
By Jonathan Fong 1308253
#500530
Ross Carlson 887155 wrote:The point being made in this thread is that if you need to reduce the length of your route in order to stay within the maximum length, removing DCT is fine because it is not strictly necessary. You can remove all the DCTs from your example plan and not change the route of flight one bit. DCT is implied when no airway is given to connect two waypoints.


I know that. I was responding to the comment made that many DCTs
Joshua Black 988581 wrote:simply looks amateurish.


Also, if you read my post, you'd know that the example route I gave was meant for SUPERSONIC flight and therefore all of the points were necessary. Yes, if you removed the points, the route would still lead to EGLL from BIKF; however, the route would then stray over land during the cruise phase. As you know, supersonic flight over land is frowned upon on VATSIM and strictly prohibited in real life; therefore, every DCT shown in the example plan is required to be there to ensure that the aircraft does not 'boom' Ireland (once again, with the exception of point SOVED, but that point is required due to it being on the border of Shannon Control and Shanwick Radio, as stated in the Irish AIP.
By Ross Carlson 887155
#500532
Jonathan Fong 1308253 wrote:Yes, if you removed the points, the route would still lead to EGLL from BIKF; however, the route would then stray over land during the cruise phase. As you know, supersonic flight over land is frowned upon on VATSIM and strictly prohibited in real life; therefore, every DCT shown in the example plan is required to be there to ensure that the aircraft does not 'boom' Ireland


You're conflating two different things. Removing "DCT" is not the same as removing the actual waypoints. You can remove every "DCT" and the route is exactly the same:

58N015W DCT SOVED DCT DOLIP DCT UNLID DCT LULOX

will result in the same flight track as:

58N015W SOVED DOLIP UNLID LULOX
By Ross Carlson 887155
#500550
Jonathan Fong 1308253 wrote:Ah, I misunderstood you then. However, from what I know, the DCTs are part of ICAO flight plan policy and shouldn't be removed.


Right, but if you need to shorten your route in order to meet the VATSIM length maximum, removing the DCTs is low-hanging fruit since it doesn't affect anything operationally at all.