Imagine two proposed flights using the same area during an exercise. Changing one departure time might resolve the overlap, but that change also needs to fit the request’s time window. A reviewer needs to understand both parts of the decision.
That’s why we keep flight planning and review close together in Aerlattice. The request, its checks and the proposed alternatives belong in the same discussion.
Start with the version being reviewed
A route includes more than a line on a map. Its timing, waypoint heights and aircraft limits affect the assessment. When one of those changes, the reviewer needs an assessment of the revised request.
Aerlattice checks saved drafts before they move through the decision workflow. Findings identify the location and timing of conflicts, helping the reviewer connect a warning to the plan that produced it.
The reviewer can also consider changes to the route, departure time or radio-channel assignment. Having an alternative available makes it easier to explain why one option was chosen.
Keep the decision and its reason together
Aerlattice allows a request to be accepted, rejected or pre-empted with a recorded review note. Accepted revisions stay fixed until an explicit replacement decision.
This matters when the plan changes later. Someone reopening the workspace should be able to distinguish the accepted version from a new draft and read the reason for the earlier decision. A replacement suggested during an exercise remains a draft for review.
Be clear about what acceptance means
Within Aerlattice, acceptance is a step in the demonstrator’s planning workflow. It does not issue flight clearance or send a command to an aircraft.
The application can organise the information available in an exercise and preserve the discussion around it. The person reviewing that information still needs to understand its limits, including which inputs are available and what the checks cover.
