Crazy Drunk Pilot Guy Algorithems


Bug: Flight planning picks terrible routes. Apparently these guys do the planning :wink:

How to Recreate This Problem:

  1. Plan a route between KSAC and KMRY.
    1a) Use resonable values, altitude 000-010, type C-172 with defaults
  2. A list of flight plans is produced.
    3a) BUG: Two of the options are patently absurd.
    3b) BUG: One of the options is only ever given to aircraft above ~ 10K feet.
    3c) BUG: The only route I have ever received under 10K feet is not on the list (KSAC ECA V585 PATYY V111 SNS KMRY). … 1019/2017Z
    (Those with the full history on this plane will see numerous trips with the same routing).

Expected Behavior:
a) The “FROGO MOD SNS” is (maybe) offered, although as it’s usually a high altitude route and entered low altitude, I would put it at the bottom of the list if at all.
b) The “long path” results are not offered
c) The low altitude routes are offered.

Food for thought: … ation=KMRY


These are actual routes flown recently by actual aircraft at similar altitudes that you’re interested in. Often, odd routes will be due to weather, ADIZ issues, etc. We will be releasing mapping functionality soon so you can see each option with NEXRAD weather.


I’m really not crazy (ok, maybe, but I pretend not to be). Even if those routes have actually been flown, they are still obviously bad routes. Who knows why people file really bad routings, but look at the second one, there is no way under any circumstances that that is a good route.

Furthermore, the link at the bottom (the KSAC-KMRY analysis) has the often flown routing which was not presented to me.

All I’m saying is, just because someone has flown a route doesn’t mean its a “good” route.

~ Christopher


Here’s another observation on the routes that the flight planner gives: Some of the routes are impossible to fly based on the aircraft’s equipment and altitude flown.

For example I planned a route from KPAO to KMYF in N26WG which is a Cessna 177RG /A. I selected flight levels 070 to 110. The three proposed routings were:

This one has a 225nm leg between the SNS and LAX VORs. Continuous reception of at least one station would be pretty iffy for a flight below 18000’

A 295nm leg between SJC and SXC VORs, same problem as above.

No can do without RNAV :frowning:


The flight planner does not suggest based on your input and equipment.

The suggested routes are based on previous flights that probably had GPS for the above flight. It would be up to you to review the suggested flights and select the one most appropriate for your equipment.

That would be a nice improvement if it would be possible to compare previous flights with similar equipment codes and suggest or filter out those routes when planning.


We do try to filter out routes that haven’t been assigned to aircraft above/below 17000 feet (depending on what you put in for altitude range), but if we don’t find anything that way we’ll show you the routes all aircraft have received.

We’ve worked out and will soon implement a new scoring system to consider both the number of times a route has been used and the most recent time it was used to make the suggestions a little more sober.

We don’t consider equipment on board yet.


These would be welcome improvements :slight_smile:

One thing that seems like a useful feature would be the ability to add your own route or modify one of the suggested routes (I couldn’t figure out a way to do that currently). So right now in the event that none of the suggested routes are good then there’s no way to get any use out of the site.

I appreciate the idea of using routes that others have already filed but this seems complementary to allowing user-defined routes, not a replacement.


Agree the notion of scoring past popular routes seems plausable to offer some suggestions but much work remains.
A moment ago this system suggested either direct or **jet routes ** *below FL180 *which was also too near or over the WDC FRZ when planning a SR22 between 8,000 and 12,000 from BWI to BKW.

Update: a day later I see it has improved by suggesting several appropriate plans, including those I typically fly, and no longer the inappropriate jet routes plan for my range of altitudes lower than FL180.

I’d also like to enter my typical routes and those found in the published ATC preferred routings out of my home field and have them saved for future use.