When a check finds a conflict, redrawing the route isn’t always the only option. A later departure may avoid the overlap. A channel change may address a radio conflict without changing the flight path at all.
Aerlattice lets a planner consider those kinds of alternatives together. The aim is to understand what a change solves and what it affects elsewhere in the request.
Compare the whole request
Distance is easy to see on a map. Timing takes more attention. Two routes can pass through the same place without conflicting if the aircraft use it at different times; moving a departure can change that relationship.
A comparison therefore needs to include the route’s heights and timing, the mission window and the aircraft’s limits. Required waypoints and locked times remain constraints when Aerlattice generates alternatives.
Consider an exercise where one route crosses a restricted area during its active period. A detour changes the geometry. Waiting changes the schedule. Either option needs a fresh check against the rest of the exercise before it can be considered feasible.
Show what the change resolves
A useful comparison connects the proposed change to the original finding. The reviewer should be able to see which conflict it addresses and whether the revised request introduces another one.
Aerlattice reports findings in space and time, and checks saved drafts before review. This gives the discussion a specific reference: the version being considered and the results of checking it.
Keep alternatives open during review
Exploring a new option should leave the accepted plan clear. In the demonstrator, accepted revisions stay fixed until an explicit replacement decision. A proposed replacement can be examined without quietly becoming the accepted version.
That separation gives the reviewer room to compare options and record why a change was accepted or rejected. The result remains a planning decision within the application, rather than a command sent to an aircraft.
