Treatment of IFR flight plans (UK, outside Class A)

[IO540]

I know how IFR FPs work in the airways system; they go to Eurocontrol (you check them with CFMU, etc) and if the FP passes the CFMU check then it is accepted, and you get what amounts to an IFR clearance for the entire route. They will never suddenly say "remain outside controlled airspace".

However, what happens if somebody (say an IMC Rated pilot) files an IFR-OCAS FP like for example

EGHR MID CPT BZ SWB TNT EGSY

I made that one up, but in general there is not a hope in hell in getting something like that through CFMU. Yet, you can file it and fly it. You will get the departure clearance (if the dep field is ATC). Such flight plans are routinely filed in the UK.

Clearly the FP has gone nowhere near Eurocontrol.

Q1: what determines whether an IFR FP gets submitted to Eurocontrol? My guess is that this is triggered by a bit of the route being "obviously" in Class A. Not sure how this works abroad though, because in many places one can fly pretty high in Class C/D.

Q2: how is the FP addressed? Let's say that one of the waypoints is in Class D. Does the FP get addressed to the ATCU for that airspace? IME it doesn't; they know nothing about it. It gets treated just like a VFR flight plan (in the UK).

[2Donkeys]

Ans1: The way it is addressed by whoever submits it into the system. If the FPL is obviously not an "airways" FPL, it will be addressed in the same manner as a VFR plan, with no notification of enroute agencies.

Abroad is a different kettle of fishies. In most cases you can't file IFR without being instrument rated, so the issue never arises. All IFR plans will go via CFMU and you will be expected to follow CFMU compliant (and SRD) routings.

Ans2: See Ans1. No notification of enroute agencies unless you explicitly ask for the relevant address to be included... in which case the aforementioned agency is likely to disregard the plan in any case.

[IO540]

2D

Re Ans2. Are you saying that it goes to Eurocontrol only if some waypoints lie inside Class A? How is the interesection determined?

Let's say I route via CPT and I have filed a general level of FL060 (Class A is 4500ft+ at CPT), does somebody *really* look at the chart, and seeing that FL060 is above the base of Class A, addresses it to Eurocontrol?

I would be amazed if this actually happens, because one could route between two VORs with neither being anywhere near Class A, with the route intersecting a bit of Class A if it's high enough, and it would not be obvious unless it was plotted.

Are you saying that all IFR FPs with waypoints outside the UK FIR go to Eurocontrol automatically?

[2Donkeys]

Are you saying that it goes to Eurocontrol only if some waypoints lie inside Class A? How is the interesection determined?

I think it is possible to underestimate how much of this is down to the judgement and experience of the individual processing your flightplan.

If you file a flight plan which the person doing the processing thinks is ambiguous, you will probably be asked whether or not it was your intention to enter controlled airspace. If so, the person doing the filing will probably pull you up on your route and ask you to provide better particulars about your intended point of entry and exit from controlled airspace and the standard route you intend to take between those points.

More likely though, your plan will simply be filed as non-Eurocontrol, complete with stupid flight level and non-standard routing and if you intend to enter class A enroute, it will be up to you to negotiate a clearance enroute.

Don't forget that whether IFR or VFR, a basic non-Eurocontrol Flightplan within the UK is of very little practical value to anybody save SAR - we don't even follow ICAO practice and formally "close" flightplans in the UK.

Are you saying that all IFR FPs with waypoints outside the UK FIR go to Eurocontrol automatically?

That is not what I wrote, but in effect, this will normally be the case. In the vast majority of Eurcontrol countires, you cannot file IFR without being part of "the system", and holding an instrument rating. You will therefore be required to file along standard routings because your plan will pass through Eurocontrol's clutches. Britain is relatively unique in allowing uncontrolled IFR flights "outside the system", so it is similarly unique in requiring any judgement in interpreting pseudo-IFR flightplans.

[IO540]

This confirms what I had suspected.

I have heard from people (with an IR although of course ATC is not in the business of questioning pilot ratings) who filed an IFR FP, within the UK, with say FL070, and they got pushed about all over the place, OCAS, for the first 50-100 miles. Nobody seemed to know why the aircraft was kept out of CAS (Class A) for so long - could not have been due to traffic.

[Chilli Monster]

The reason for them being kept outside is possibly because

1) The departure aerodrome, if not full ATC, did nothing to get them an airways joining clearance.

2) The airways joining point was more than 10 minutes away from the point of departure. If this is the case then it is the pilots responsibility to obtain the airways clearance, either by requesting it from the ATC unit they're working at the time, or from the relevant FIR "info" frequency.

Much of the airways system, especially with regard to joining / leaving, is now down to standard agreed routes and levels. If you're looking to do something which isn't encompassed by that then a little bit of "thinking outside the box" is required to get inside it.

[DFC]

I have just used the Eurocontrol system to check on the flight plan proposed by IO540.

The errors created were:

1. mid dct cpt is not available.
2. SWB not recognised because it is not a civil navaid.
3. BZ in civil terms is a long way from the UK's military BZ abd thus the flight plan system thought that a the flight was going to take a lot longer than I said and that the direct leg (over 400nm) is too long for allowed UK directs.

Having changed the route to dct cpt dct tnt dct it worked with no errors.

If you really want to tell the system that you are routing via BZ and SWB then define these points as a radial and distance from CPT and TNT or HON.

All IFR flight plans are sent to Eurocontrol only unless you put another address in the plan. The Eurocontrol system knows a lot about the airspace - boundaries, base levels, allowed routes etc etc.

The best thing to do when filing an IFR flight plan be it within, outside or a combination of both inside and outside controlled airspace is to try it first at http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/chmi_public/ciahome.jsp Click on the "Structured Editor" on the left menu

That system uses the full Eurocontrol current system to check your plan and if you can get that tool to say "no errors", your plan will be accepted automatically.

Regards,

DFC

[2Donkeys]

All IFR flight plans are sent to Eurocontrol only unless you put another address in the plan.

Not in the UK, they aren't. In the world of UK GA, many plans are filed IFR without ever bothering Eurocontrol; a function of the UK's rather odd approach to IFR.

[IO540]

On a slightly different tack, how does this tie in with IFR enroute charges?

Let's say you fly a >2000kg aircraft, at night, in the UK, outside a CTR (i.e. no SVFR possible). You "should" get a bill automatically.

Or, anywhere in the UK, on an IFR FP. It's common knowledge that 2T+ pilots prefer to not file flight plans and fly "UK style VFR" to avoid route charges. But if one does file an IFR FP (for search/rescue purposes), can the "flight plan filing mistakes" discussed in this thread be used to avoid charges? Perhaps 2T+ pilots simply don't file *IFR* flight plans if flying daytime; that would be simple enough and, in the UK, one could still end with an IAP if required.

If one does a flight, no FP, no radio, and terminates with an IAP (because the weather is solid IMC) what piece of the route (if any) gets charged for? And how is that determined?

Or, perhaps, there is no connection between a FP going to Eurocontrol, and getting billed?

The mind boggles how this is worked out (in the UK).

[2Donkeys]

This is much simpler than meets the eye - but not very satisfactory

First of all, a factoid. If any part of a flight conducted in the UK FIRs becomes chargeable (by virtue of being IFR and >=2t), then the entire flight within the UK FIRs becomes chargeable. In the world of Eurocontrol Flightplans, this means that Z and Y flightplans with an IFR element in the UK are billed at the same rate as I flightplans. Once a chargeable flightplan passes through a Eurocontrol address, an invoice is raised.

For IFR flights that take place outside the enroute system and/or without a flightplan, the process of billing is more haphazard. Many (but not all) Aerodromes report their movement logs to the CAA who in turn report them to Eurocontrol for billing purposes. Included in an airfield's movement log is whether or not each departure was IFR or VFR.

From personal experience, the accuracy of this log, combined with the reliability of the reporting of the log through the CAA to Brussels is very patchy with some airfields being worse offenders for mislogged flights than others. This is what lies behind the vast majority of false bills that I have received from Eurocontrol.

Quite how common this problem is varies widely in the telling. There are some around these parts who claim that they constantly need to file VFR flightplans to avoid all of their flights appearing as Eurocontrol Bills. Others like me have seen perhaps one or two errors per quarter - representing less than 1% of flights flown.

If you show up near a class D zone claiming to be "IFR" (having departed VFR) and asking for a RAS or RIS, there is no automatic mechanism whereby that will make its way back to you in the form of a charge. UK Arrivals under IFR that departed under "VFR" without a flightplan also seem to escape the invoice-machine.

[DFC]

The addressing of flight plans filed in the UK is covered in the AIP ENR 1-11-1.

All IFR flight plans within the IFPS zone are addressed to the IFPS system.

The filing of a flight plan does not generate a bill. Many flight plans are cancelled for various reasons including flow control measures. To tie billing to the filing of flight plans would create an admin nightmare. In the UK, for enroute services, the billing unit is located as West Drayton (unless it moved recently to Swanwick). At that unit, they use the ATC computer which records activated flight plans to generate the required billing and also use the paper strips from the FIR position to check on flights that were by night or declared IFR and should receive a bill.

Not talking to the FIR or any of the Airways sectors improves one's chances of avoiding a bill.

Why the system is "sketchy" in the UK is that many of the users do not operate the system properly (sometimes to their own advantage) e.g. filing a plan but not passing a departure message and the UK ATS network is so fragmented.

It is ironic that many LARS units complain about lack of funding but do not put any effort into making sure that IFR flights are properly processed and billed when appropriate. Or that non-LARS units who provide a service to transit flights do not ensure their income by making sure the flights are billed.

Of course, declaring to be VFR when actually flying IFR is breaking the law and putting other airspace users in danger for a number of reasons regardless of what class of airspace. It is also fraud if one makes a false declaration to avoid paying!

The French have reported some UK aircraft recetly for departing UK style VFR.

Regards,

DFC

[chevvron]

In the case of the aircraft kept outside for long distances, this often happens to aircraft with a cruise speed of less than about 150kts if you file from an airfield west of the Heathrow CTR to route via (say) DVR, the reason being it would be 'difficult' to get that aircraft a climb in the middle of Heathrow departures all of whom would be doing over 250kts.
What is usually done in this case is to keep the aircraft below until it gets east of BIG when the Heathrow/City deps are well above.

[2Donkeys]

DFC

You description sounds like a theoretical appreciation of what "should" happen, rather than an account of what actually happens. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of that, I believe that the fact is rather closer to my account. (Note in passing that I did not suggest that "filing" a flightplan led to a bill being generated").

Perhaps a kindly ATCO could confirm/clarify.

[chevvron]

My entry crossed with DFC's!
LARS units do not have the capacity to bill traffic for service; they have no mandate to either but are paid for LARS on an annual basis depending how many hours & days they provide it. How can a unit not having a copy of a flight plan know if one has been fled for a particular flight? If all pilots filed en-route LARS units as an additional addressee on their FPL's it would help.

[Flyin'Dutch']

They will never suddenly say "remain outside controlled airspace".

IO, back to your first post.

Having filed a FPL and having it accepted is not akin to having an automatic clearance into CAS.

Not uncommon at all to fly from an airfield without CAS to be told to remain clear until you get your clearance from an ATSU.

[vintage ATCO]

DFC

It would really help the debate if you were to publish your credentials as to why you can pontificate on route charges. Much of what you publish above is complete tosh. I was the manager of a LARS unit for many years. There is no mechanism in place for LARS units to report on the individual traffic they work. LARS funding for a particular unit is not based on the amount of traffic they work (at least, it wasn't, and I suspect still isn't.) As for non-LARS units reporting on such traffic so that they receive the 'income', that is ridiculous. It doesn't happen.

And as for going through all the FIR strips . . . Please stop, I can't stand it. :D

I think you'll find 2D is a lot closer to the mark than you.

[IO540]

FD

I was referring to the fact that if one files an IFR FP for an airways flight (let's say Biggin to Edinburgh at FL160) then after departure (which itself will probably be vectors from Thames, not the Biggin SID, followed by handling by London Control) you will not ever get the "remain outside CAS" message. You WILL fly the route; almost certainly not the one on the FP but something like it.

Whereas filing the same IFR FP at some low level like 2400ft which "obviously" or "probably" puts the flight below Class A, this isn't the case because the FP didn't get addressed to the ATS unit(s) that look after the CAS in question (probably bits of Class D but it could be Class A).

Whereas if the same route was filed at FL150, or perhaps even FL100, it would go to Eurocontrol and be distributed properly.

It's interesting to discover the boundary.

Since the decision is made by the ATSU that gets the FP initially, I also reckon that perhaps they look for airways references etc. UK IMC Rated pilots will usually know nothing about airways names, so a VOR-VOR-NDB route could be a dead giveaway of an FP which is NOT going to Eurocontrol.

A further interesting thing would be how do foreign FP filing services like Homebriefing.com handle 100%-UK "IFR" FPs. The Austrian ATCO will probably say "IFR", send this to Eurocontrol. I will drop them a line.

I think this has been an illuminating thread. As for charges, it's academic to me since I am below 2T. En route charges increase the cost of flying 2T+ piston planes quite massively; perhaps this is why old dog twins are so cheap :O

[M609]

2. SWB not recognised because it is not a civil navaid.

And the UK claim that they don't have water tight bulkheads between the civil and mil worlds...........

Ridiculous.......... :eek:

Edit: Come to think of it, I helped a RNoAF C130 Nav plan a FPL from us to EGDL last year, and it took a while before we found out that a "OAT" was required in the mix if you wanted to plan via MIL navaids in the UK. How on earth are the ATC service gonna cope with SES over there, if this is the level of integration today?

[Topjet]

M609.

Norway Seems to be quite relaxed with OAT IFR traffic i.e i think it was 1 extra address off the top of my head to add the the other addresses, however, if you think the UK is bad, try addressing a flight plan for an OAT flight crossing a few German FIR's via the North sea,then in land for landing at an airfield in the south. :eek:

[M609]

That might be because it's the same controllers in the same control centers that control GAT and OAT traffic (When OAT is flying outside TSA's)
OAT is transparent to us controllers FPL wise, the SSR code assignment for ATO traffic is the only difference.
It's just ARR/DEP aerodrome + relevant ATCC(s) (3 in total)
The rest is transparent to the outside.

My point was more that it's impossible (correct me if I'm wrong) to file GAT IFR over a MIL owned/operated navaid via CFMU in the UK. The C130 flight I mentioned was a trash hauler GAT flight, but as soon as we tried to leave the Civ route system the CFMU reported "unknown navaid" if I recall correctly.
Problem solved when we slipped a "OAT" into field 15 at the point the route left the CIV routes. :D

In Germany MIL navaids are "CFMU compatible, as is the case in scandinavia.

[chevvron]

IO540;
If you wish to remain outside CAS then I suggest you include all en-route units you are likely to work as additional addressees. This has to be done by you; Brussels will NOT do it on your behalf.

[Chilli Monster]

IO540;
If you wish to remain outside CAS then I suggest you include all en-route units you are likely to work as additional addressees.

And those units - especially the busier LARS units, will not do anything with the data except keep the plan in the days paperwork. There isn't enough physical space to store the strips and have them sat there ready for use. So - in this respect (and many, but not all, others) individual addressing is a pointless exercise.

[IO540]

Interesting.

As "everybody" knows, a lot of 2000kg+ pilots choose to fly VFR to avoid the charges.

The drawbacks of this include:

1) No airways-style enroute clearance, need to sit up and beg for a transit at each piece of CAS (generally, less of a problem abroad than in the UK)

2) Cannot depart if cloudbase is below the minimum VFR departure figure for the airfield (if it's an ATC airfield)

3) The flight plan is addressed only to departure, destination and possibly some regional FIS units, and doesn't get looked at unless the aircraft vanishes.

4) In any airspace where night=IFR, no night flight

5) Illegal if in IMC at any time (unenforceable)

6) Cannot land if an instrument approach is obviously required to get in.

On the last one, an IR (or IMCR if UK) pilot arriving VFR can then ask for an instrument approach, with the IFR clearance which that implies. I gather from pilots who do this that this isn't a problem in practice - any feedback on this? Obviously this is fine in the UK; it's normal practice.

[2Donkeys]

IO540

All of your points above are true with the exception of (6). Arriving from the open FIR and flying an instrument approach does not "appear" to trigger the generation of an enroute nvoice for an otherwise anonymous pseudo-VFR flight in a 2t+, a least, not in my experience.

Apart from the intellectual challenge, I am curious as to why a self-confessed non-IR sub-2T flyer is so interested in this :D

[chevvron]

But the busiest LARS unit of them all does look at transit FPL's

[2Donkeys]

What does that mean Chevvron?

Are you suggesting that there is a LARS Unit that cares is some open-FIR VFR/IFR flightplan copies it in? If so, I don't think anybody has said otherwise, just that the exercise has no value over a freecall or a prenote from another agency.

Or are you talking about LARS units raising paperwork that will cause an aircraft enroute charges with Eurocontrol? If so, then I doubt it very much.

[IO540]

2D

Partly intellectual challenge, and partly because I know pilots outside Europe who wish to fly here and ask me questions like this. As you know I am under 2T. I will have the IR done next month.

However, having done some long flights into far Europe, it's obvious that even an IR pilot will choose to fly VFR sometimes. Just file a FP (homebriefing.com), jump in the plane and go. And in the UK, formal IFR is hardly worth the bother, even if one spends the whole flight sitting in IMC. With non-mandatory transponders, TCAS is close to worthless.

All the related cr*p (filling in 5 different forms in Greece, having to pay the bowser man in cash, for example) is just the same, VFR or IFR...

[chevvron]

LARS units, as has been said before, have no interest in en-route charging.
The unit I'm talking about has such a large turnover of traffic that it often refuses prenotes/handovers due controller workload, but having FPL details available reduces workload when the pilot calls. Sometimes, even people who don't file FPL's phone beforehand and pass brief details (to an assistant) which is also very useful.
Additionally this unit is often asked to open/close FPL's, which it does workload permitting; in these circumstances it's also useful to have a copy of the original FPL.
What they can't do 'cos they're so busy is action AFIL's (see separate thread in ATC section)

[2Donkeys]

So who is this unit, Brize? Will the o/c be delighted if we all start copying his AFTN on flights that might pass close to the Brize CTR and/or might request a service?

:)


BTW: FPLs are not "closed" in the UK.

[vintage ATCO]

Must be a Mil unit. Only they would have enough assistants to handle the FPLs! :) :) :)

[chevvron]

You're both wrong!!

[2Donkeys]

Not sure what reason you would have for not revealing the name of this LARS unit Chevvron.

[IO540]

I wrote to Austrocontrol (the excellent www-based flight plan filing service homebriefing.com) and their reply was:

"Our homebriefing system is addressing all ifr flightplans to the two addresses "EBBDZMFP" as well as "LFPYZMFP" according to IFPS regulations for ifr flights. VFR flights departing in the UK are to be addressed to the ARO of the departure aerodrome. The ARO of the departure ad is reponsibe to address the fpl to all addresses of the flt concerned."

It's an "interesting" way of handling VFR flight plans :O

[2Donkeys]

All it means is that your provider is passing the buck! :D

[IO540]

How does the VFR departure airfield know that it is supposed to re-address the FP to the destination?

If one faxes an FP to the departure a/f then it's obvious, because the fax obviously didn't come via the AFTN. So, faxing an FP to Heathrow works OK. Except that they (like every other similar service to date) don't guarantee to handle FPs for flights wholly outside the UK, whereas Austrocontrol does.

[2Donkeys]

In what sense is Austrocontrol handling UK VFR flights, if it deals with their FPLs in the way you describe? It is merely shifting the problem to the Aerodrome of Departure, by the sound of things.

Its handling of IFR flights outside controlled airspace is similarly out of keeping with normal practice in the UK - as described above. The implication is that any IFR flightplan you file outside controlled airspace in the UK will still have to go needlessly through the IFPU Flightplan checker. In this case, the "fault" is clearly the UK's for having an approach to IFR flight that is out of keeping with much of the rest of the planet.

[vintage ATCO]

I've been out of FPL addressing for over 10 yrs but I suggest Austrocontrol is doing things correctly. ALL IFR FPLs should be sent only to the IFPS addresses - Haren and Bretigny (within the IFPS boundaries); it's just in the UK for flights outside of CAS, for expediency, they have, I suspect, become treated as VFR FPLs and sent to all appropriate addresses. Austrocontrol sending a VFR FPL to the departure ARO is fair do's I reckon. They are not going to know all the addresses for VFR UK FPLs.

[IO540]

vintage ATCO

The reason I raised this VFR FP addressing query is that Austrocontrol told me last year that VFR flight plan addressing is done using a database which cross-references airports with FP addresses to which the FP is meant to go to.

(Actually they didn't say this in so many words because their English is limited, but that was the equivalent)

I did a VFR flight from one Spanish airport X to another Y. X was a little one, with the only activity being in the bar. Y was a big one. FPs for an X departure were meant to be addressed to Z (a nearby big one) but Austrocontrol's database didn't have this piece of info, and the FP had never arrived at Z.

This is just a little useless piece of info, but it illustrates how a VFR FP can vanish. Presumably conventional ATC units have an addressing directory, rather than a database, but the problem is the same.

As regards IFR FPs, I don't see why Austrocontrol should do things differently for "within UK" FPs, just because we can fly IFR in Class G, etc.

Incidentally, I have just got info from a friend in a far corner of Europe, whose national ATS does almost exactly what the UK does (FPs are mandatory, but it treats little local IFR FPs as VFR, for addressing purposes).

[vintage ATCO]

Hmmm, I would doubt there is any form of 'database' for VFR addresses as it is so variable.

Many years ago, in a former life, I wrote the FPL addressing book for Luton. I then ended up in touch with the NATS person doing this at Heathrow. Eventually a doc appeared CAP550 which I contributed to in a small way. IFR FPLs were easy (even pre IFPS), VFR FPLs more tricky because of the variables.

CAP550 is no longer published in paper form but it is available on the NATS intranet.

Personally, I wouldn't trust a third party country/organisation filing a VFR FPL in another country. You really need the AIP from that country. Unless, of course, I am doing them a complete disservice and someone has genuinely compiled such a database. I would love to know they have but keeping it updated must be a nightmare! :D

[DFC]

Vintage ATCO,

Ring up the route charges office AT LTCC or LACC wherever it is now and ask them. You could also ask someone who has been doing the FIR for some years about the SI sent out reminding all FIR ATSAs to ensure that the flight rules were recorded correctly whenever it was provided by a flight (no requirement to tell the FIR what rules your are operating under). There was an operator some years back that queried bills for VFR flights and successfully argued that the FIR controller (as it was at the time) incorrectly recorded the flight rules on the strip.

As far as I am aware all the strips are collected and sent to the Route Charges office at the end of each day.

I never said that LARS units processed route charges for services provided. I said that it was ironic that they did not.

------

Flight plan addressing:

IFR flight plans are only addressed to IFPS. If anyone can find a reference that says otherwise then please shout.

Now for addressing of VFR flights or IFR flights in the pre-IFPS days;

Flight from A to B to C and back to A. Thus 3 flights and 3 flight plans.

A-B is transmitted by A to everyone who should get it (dep, dest, enroute FIR etc).

B-C is transmitted to B who is responsible for addressing the plan as required.

C-A is transmitted to C who is responsible for addressing the plan as required.

Looking at the C to A flight, C will address the plan to dep, dest and enroute. Thus A will get another copy from C because it is the destination.

If the C to A flight diverts into B, it must on arrival tell B that it had a flight plan filed and that the original destination was A so that B can send an arrival message to B so that overdue action will not be started.

For certain airfields within an FIR, a central office can handle the reception, addressing and distribution of flight plans. eg Heathrow for it's designated area.

What Austro control are doing with IFR flights is totally correct even if the flight is within the UK and outside controlled airspace. Just because the flight is outside controlled airspace does not mean that a flight plan can be filed ignoring the national regulations or flow or other restrictions that may be in place.

Also Austro control are treating the VFR FPLs IO540 sends them correctly i.e. when the dep is not in their area of responsibility, they follow ICAO rules and send one copy of the flight plan to the ARO at the DEP airfield. In effect, the service they provide is that you can file your VFR FPL from Bristol to Cardiff over the internet and they give the FPL to Bristol just like you could yourself (if you were there).

As vintage ATCO says, the people to talk to about flight plan addressing are those that work at Heathrow. For many flights, they have what are called collective addresses (some are published in the reference I gave from the UK AIP). These ensure that say a VFR flight plan from UK to Italy goes to all the required addresses enroute by simply putting in 1 address.

Those people at Heathrow can tell you where to address a flight plan for a flight from Heathrow to Singapore. Ask them about the address for the return flight and they will simply say - we sent it to Singapore and it is up to them to address it.

That is it when it comes to flight plans.

For a better idea of how professionals integrate aircraft operations, IFPS, CFMU, Flight PLans etc, as for a visit to BA operations!

Regards,

DFC

[Chilli Monster]

Chilli,

Ring up the route charges office AT LTCC or LACC wherever it is now and ask them.

Sorry? This has got what exactly to do with my posts?

If you're going to address it to someone - do it to the right person for chrissake!

[DFC]

Sorry Chilli.

I have made an amendment.

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

DFC

As has already been suggested, it is hard to work out how much of what you write is total fiction and how much might just be good inside knowledge.

Take your example of 3 flights A-B B-C C-A and your suggestion that these are addressed differently. Let's say I do a taxi-around ONLY at B (what would be the point??), and a 5 hour park at C? At what ground time threshold is it decided that these are "connected" flights?

My own experience also suggests this is bull, because I have done consecutive flights, with stops as short as two hours or as long as days, with each flight spanning several countries (say 800nm), and every FIS along the way knew all about me in advance.

Whatever Austrocontrol are doing works fine in practice. I am just curious how the departure airfield determines that the *VFR* FP that has just arrived over the AFTN has not been addressed to anybody else and that this needs to be done.

I have just remembered that Austrocontrol told me, on an earlier occassion, that they address a VFR FP to each country's FIS service but for this to work I must specify at least one waypoint within each of these. Now, THAT makes sense! I suspect their earlier-reported reply is bull.

[DFC]

DFC

I am just curious how the departure airfield determines that the *VFR* FP that has just arrived over the AFTN has not been addressed to anybody else and that this needs to be done.

They will know because they have been trained to handle flight plans and know the rules.

DOC 4444:

Except when other arrangements have been
made for submission of repetitive flight plans, a flight plan
submitted prior to departure should be submitted to the air
traffic services reporting office at the departure aerodrome. If
no such unit exists at the departure aerodrome, the flight plan
should be submitted to the unit serving or designated to serve
the departure aerodrome.

If an airfield receives a flight plan for a flight departing from that airfield then they know that they as the departure aerodrome are responsible for ensuring that the flight plan is distributed properly.

How the ARO gets the plan - by hand, by telephone, by fax, by email, by AFTN does not matter.

To save you the bother of reading the relevant documents here are the full details of the requirements;

[I]11.4.2.2.2.3 In the case of a flight through intermediate
stops, where flight plans for each stage of the flight are filed
at the first departure aerodrome, the following procedure shall
be applied:
a) the air traffic services reporting office at the first
departure aerodrome shall:
1) transmit an FPL message for the first stage of
flight in accordance with 11.4.2.2.2.2;
2) transmit a separate FPL message for each
subsequent stage of flight, addressed to the air
traffic services reporting office at the appropriate
subsequent departure aerodrome;
b) the air traffic services reporting office at each
subsequent departure aerodrome shall take action on
receipt of the FPL message as if the flight plan has
been filed locally.

Regards,

DFC

[FullyFlapped]

DFC,

At the risk of seeming to be picking on you - and I'm really not, I promise, I'm not sufficiently interested - are you willing to answer the question you've been asked several times within this thread, and reveal your credentials ?

Regards,

FF :ok:

[DFC]

FullyFlapped,

If you have something to add to the dabate please do so. Otherwise spend the time taking your own advice and put something in your own profile!

Professionals who have been arround for a long time know many of the rules because most of the rules were created during their career. Many professionals prefer to simply debate the issues on an equal basis with everyone else and avoid the situation where people with relatively little experience feel inhibited or feel that they can not shout bo:mad:ox when someone says something because of the experience gradient.

This forum is all about debate. I don't feel the need to beat my chest and say what a vastly experienced person I am just to try and get a point across. Similarly, when you or others disagree with something I say then feel free to be adults and say so.

Regards,

DFC

PS Half of the profiles here are fiction anyway so what difference would it make on an anonymous forum?

[2Donkeys]

DFC

I think that the question arises (and has arisen before) because you so frequently quote ICAO references - the way things should work in a perfect world, rather than the way in which things actually work in the real world. It would be possible to conclude that your undoubted knowledge is theoretical rather than practical.

You could, I suppose, be a sad young man stuck behind a computer with a large number of ICAO Annexes in PDF form... :D

Happy New Year to you in any event.

2D

[vintage ATCO]

DFC

As I asked the original question on here (although you have been asked before on other threads) I'll ask it again. Some of the stuff you publish is quite accurate, some is utter tosh (or shall we say, theoretical). The trouble is, people may be acting on the things you say. I am not asking you to update your profile, just say on here what your experience is of UK ATC. You may be a professional who has been around for some time, but it is difficult to debate the issues on an equal basis (your words) if we don't know what that basis is.

So, come on.

[DFC]

2Donkeys,

I would have to be a very rich sad old man in that case. Have you ever seen how much those things cost! :D

----

vintage ATCO,

The answer is to debate the issue not the person! Feel free to say bull%hit when you want.

This is an anonymous forum. I could have simply replied to the requests that I have xx,xxx hours flying this and that and worked here there and everywhere and have done this and that in ATC since before the CAA even existed and have so much experience that I must be further past retiring age than I am. Would you believe it?

I would not even if you posted it because unless I know you personally, it could well rubbish.

Everything posted on this forum as with any other comes with a big health warning. It is important that everyone remembers that. I would not operate on advice from anyone here including you (don't take offence) without checking it out personally first.

Having said that I don't think that anyone intentionally posts false information.

The reason why I always back up my point with quotes from the official documents where possible is so that others can verify what I have said or go to the same or other official sources and show that I am wrong.

Please feel free to check the AIP and DOC 4444 to see if flight plans are handled in a way different to that I described.

There ends my replies to personal attacks. Back to the issue being debated.

Regards,

DFC

[vintage ATCO]

DFC

The way you describe the handling of FPLs is spot on. ;)

But you need to understand sometimes there can be a difference to the theoretical, what-the-book-says, often ICAO, answer and what happens in real life and arguing the former to the nth degree whilst the rest of us are doing the latter doesn't help.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

Until the next time . . . . . ;) :D

[DFC]

Vintage ATCO,

I agree.

My position has always been and continues to be that things should be done as per the AIP / ICAO / ANO or whatever the book says as appropriate.

If the practical situation requires practices different from those prescribed or simply that the normal situation is not oin keeping with the written rules then the book needs to be changed (or it could be argued that the practices are illegal/unsafe/ leave the organisation open to litigation).

We all have our own personal ways or operating practices that suit certain situations but it would be unwise to encourage others to follow such practices for legal reasons. As a non-aviation example - I at times drive at 90mph on the motorway. I would at no time state that it is safe to drive in excess of the prescribed speed limit or encourage anyone else to do so. Get the idea?

As a good aviation example, I have argued for years that PJE NOTAMS should not be classified as "M" (Miscelaneous) because they are not included in the standard ICAO briefing bulletin. I continue to hold the view that persons falling at 200mph vertically through the level at which my aircraft is operating in the open FIR is far from a miscelaneous situation. That is an ICAO failing but one where local agencies stick exactly to what the book says despite the safety implications.

One can only try. :D

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

Despite all of what you say, DFC, there is still no way to tell whether you speak from experience or from reading a lot of documents. There is no evidence that you actually do anything outside the house.

Incidentally, ICAO documents can be found here: http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/

[slim_slag]

Excellent find IO540, been looking for those docs on line for ages. I think DFC works for a regulator, I don't think he flies anything with a reciprocating engine.

[White Hart]

There's more than a few comments directed at the Heathrow FBU and its staff on this thread, So, a few questions from one of them..

for you all...

What do you think about the FPL filing service (VFR or IFR) you receive from Heathrow Flight Briefing Unit? Good, bad, indifferent - could be better? If so, how? Have you ever had issue with us over the filing of your IFR flight plans?

and one for DFC..

just where DO you get your info from about Heathrow FBU ? I love the remarks about 1 address for VFR UK-Italy (:rolleyes: really? - how DO you know that?!!), and the 'simply file the return FPL to WSSS' comment - priceless! :p You make it all sound so.. so... simple!

If only, matey, if only........:hmm:

and one for BA Ops/Flight Planning..

can we organise a liason visit, so that we can see how DFC's 'professionals' do it? ;)

[DFC]

White Hart,

Italy was probably a bad example because you have to also enter the zones transited. How about Czech Republic using the collective EGZYVFRL? You probably don't get many of those but since you know the system, can you tell us the addresses included in the EGZYVFRL collective?

If I give you a flight plan from Singapore to Heathrow, who do you address it to?

As for the FBU. Always found them helpful and never had any serious problems with flight plans filed with them.

Regards,

DFC

[vintage ATCO]

Very good, DFC. EGZYVFRL - EBBUZFZX EGTTYTYR EGTTZFZX EHAAZFZX EHMCZFZX ETJCYVYX LFEEZFZX LFFFZFZX LFQQZFZX LKAAZFZX - but as I have told you before, there is no requirement to send FPLs to en-route aerodromes (aka zones) unless there is a specific requirement in the AIP. Theoretical knowledge again, or an assumption?

[IO540]

White Hart

My understanding, which may not be current, is that the Heathrow flight plan filing facility doesn't guarantee to file a flight plan (for example, one sent to them by fax) for a flight wholly outside the UK.

They do it out of courtesy but they are not obliged to.

In this respect Heathrow is the same as all of the recently appearing websites that offer flight plan filing - except homebriefing.com who have confirmed to me that they will do a flight plan for anywhere. They charge a bit, but it's peanuts on the scale of flying costs.

If Heathrow set up a similar unrestricted website for GA flight plan filing, for say 20 quid a year, they would do very well. And probably with the bonus that a wholly-UK IFR flight plan OCAS would be handled appropriately for "UK IFR rules" i.e. not sent to CFMU.

[FullyFlapped]

DFC,

FullyFlapped,
If you have something to add to the dabate please do so. Otherwise spend the time taking your own advice and put something in your own profile!
and
This forum is all about debate. I don't feel the need to beat my chest and say what a vastly experienced person I am just to try and get a point across. Similarly, when you or others disagree with something I say then feel free to be adults and say so.


Well, firstly, by asking you to reveal whether you actually have any experience of the realities of the subjects upon which you choose to pontificate, I am contributing to the debate. As for being "adult", well, "adults" shouldn't feel the need to try and score cheap points like that !

There are contributors to this thread who very obviously do have real, actual experience of the subject matter, and who equally obviously disagree with your viewpoint. You present your opinions as being authoritive and - chest-beating or no - even your "handle" seeks to present your background as vastly experienced.

You could have a DFC, 30,000 hours and be a blood relative to the Wright brothers for all I care. All I wish to know is if you have any actual experience of the subject matter, and that is all I asked you for.

As to my profile, I am a PPL who uses these forums to glean advice and information from those who know more and have more experience. I am also a highly qualified and very experienced professional in my own field - which is not aviation. And in my career, I have met countless w*nkers who can "talk the talk", but whose experience comes directly from the manuals. These people can be dangerous.

Finally, I refer you to this :

Everything posted on this forum as with any other comes with a big health warning. It is important that everyone remembers that. I would not operate on advice from anyone here including you (don't take offence) without checking it out personally first.


That's exactly what I was seeking to do ...

FF :ok:

[White Hart]

IO540

Quote "My understanding, which may not be current, is that the Heathrow flight plan filing facility doesn't guarantee to file a flight plan (for example, one sent to them by fax) for a flight wholly outside the UK.
They do it out of courtesy but they are not obliged to."

Virtually all of our received GA FPLs are sent to us by fax, or are dictated to us over the phone. Our local instruction does not specify within the written text whether we are 'obliged' to file FPLs or not. What we are all taught from Day 1 is - "if you receive a flight plan - you file it!" I've been at LL FBU for 16 years, and I cannot recall seeing a received FPL being returned to the originator because we weren't 'obliged' to file it, or because we couldn't 'guarantee' to file it, except maybe in isolated cases of AFTN system failure. I could be wrong - I'm just saying I've never seen it personally.

FPLs are only referred back to the originator if further input or clarification is required, or if we are ourselves responding to subsequent enquiries/replies after filing. Every received FPL gets filed - we check/prepare it into AFTN format, address it in accordance with our laid-down procedures (LL Mats pt2 gives the details) - and we send it off to what we identify as the appropriate recipients. So, if you send me a VFR FPL for Italy to Denmark, I will forward it to the FBU at the departure airfield/Parent ATSU for correct addressing and onward transmission - that is what the local instruction tells me to do. As an example, I can recall seeing a series of FPLs connected with an Antartic survey being faxed to us for filing over an extended period - which we did. You can't get much further away from UK airspace than that!

BTW, I am not familiar with homebriefing.com's operation, but what may restrict us from operating a similar service to them is our limited manpower, and with that, the specific requirement to prioritise our workload. Heathrow work always comes first, airfields within our Parental remit come next, then everybody else. (and of course, we now have the Met/SAMOS to deal with too - but we won't go into that!)

If we were to be inundated with GA FPLs for VFR or IFR flights completely outside of UK Airspace, they would have to take their place in the 'priority' queue, and as such, they may be subject to delay in processing. This could be where your use of the term 'guarantee' may come into play. It's not that we won't do the filing, whether that involved full addressing or just forwarding to another ATSU or FBU - it's a simple (there's that DFC term again!:rolleyes: ) fact that we may just not have sufficient time or manpower to complete the task in time for the proposed flight, due to prioritisation of our workload.

I think it would be safe to say that not a single member of the Heathrow FBU staff would deliberately turn away a request to file a FPL without a very, very good reason - I'm sure we'd get a severe a*se kicking if we did!

Hope that explains things a bit.

VintageAtco - a nice response there! So, can you help me with the answer to the WSSS/EGLL question please? I'm not very qualified to do this - I've only been in the job for 16 years! :{

DFC

I have no desire or need to play "20 questions" with you. People reading this thread, and looking at my profile and posts on various forums will hopefully have been satisfied that I am what I state I am - a Heathrow Tower/Flight Briefing Unit ATSA2. My "credentials" should hopefully speak for themselves.

How about you......?

And where's my liason visit to BA Ops??:*

[DFC]

Vintage ATCO,

Thanks for that. The reason why I made the comment about addressing zones transited is because the Italy and as another example Ireland examples require all zones transited to be addressed as well as the collective etc. It is in the AIP ENR section - Addressing Flight Plans.

------

White Hart,

You answered the WSSS question in your reply to IO540. Thanks.

-------

Fully Flapped,

All I wish to know is if you have any actual experience of the subject matter, and that is all I asked you for.

Answer - Yes.

Do not follow anything I say on here regardless. You must not use "but DFC said this or that" as a reason for doing anything. End of disclaimer! :)

--------

IO540,

Why do you have a problem with IFPS handling your IFR flight OCAS in the UK? As I said previously, the system wil not present you with any problems provided that the flight plan is correctly compiled. I can confirm that from experience. Yes in the past (5+ years ago), there were some issues and I can remember us having problems with flights that were OCAS, crossers or leavers where the IFPS/CFMU were insisting on a route within the SRS. Those problems have been sorted thanks to operators like me who put some effort into getting the system to work for flights like the one you propose. White Hart correctly states that Heathrow FBU will call you when there is a problem with your flight plan or you can simply use the flight plan checker provided by IFPS for that very reason. Home Briefing will either text you or send you an email. If you study the IFPS/CFMU user's guide you will see that there is atleast 1 clever way of ensuring that your plan will not even be checked by the system.

When you get your IR and start flying outside the UK, you will come to love the flight plan checker because you can use it to confirm that your chosen airways route will work. Essential unless you want to spend hours reading the RAD / SRS / flow briefings!

------------

Overall from a pilot / operator's point of view, many think that what they do day to day wrt flight plans is correct because they do not have any problems and everything seems to work. As an example that White Hart and Vintage ATCO will be aware of is flight plans filed by foreign operators not keeping to the UK SRS. When Flight Plans at LATCC (as it was) or the Heathrow or Manchester FBUs receive flight plans from as an example US operators with weird routes through the UK, they put them into the HCS with the correct UK route and a note. Now to that operator, the flight plan worked perfectly because unless they ask why the route is different -don't ATC always vector the flight all over the place ;) - they never know that they are doing something wrong.

It isn only when one looks closer at the system for reasons of training or getting round problems that one can find out what one did for years was actually not correct! - Thanks to you White Hart for correcting our plans for 16 years! :D

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

DFC

"there is atleast 1 clever way of ensuring that your plan will not even be checked by the system"

Can you please tell me what that is?

"When you get your IR and start flying outside the UK, you will come to love the flight plan checker "

I've done plenty of flights outside the UK, both VFR and IFR (not logging PIC in the latter case, but doing all the planning and all the flying) and have spent enough time plugging routes into the CFMU checker to realise it's not an exact science.

As an incidental comment, once outside the UK, there isn't the watertight division between airways / non-airways which (as a result of London Control absolutely not offering a service to outsiders, and airways being Class A) exists in the UK. By the time you get to say Greece, ATS really really like to see an FP that lies on IFR routes; it's navigated IFR, flown under radar control; the difference is that it is called "VFR", you don't need an IR, and you don't have to wait hours before departure. Even flying through Belgium and seeing the ease with which Brussels Departures clears you through extremely busy Class C at say FL055 makes one realise what an unnecessary meal the Brits make of all this.

[DFC]

IO540,

"there is atleast 1 clever way of ensuring that your plan will not even be checked by the system"

Can you please tell me what that is?

Well since you don't believe I fly anything more than models, why not either spend a few hours trawling through the books or as a better option ask White Hart or anyone else that you would believe if they told you. :D :D :D

Regards,

DFC

PS Agree totally about flights abroad. The UK's service is good but far too fragmented.

[bookworm]

Why do you have a problem with IFPS handling your IFR flight OCAS in the UK? As I said previously, the system wil not present you with any problems provided that the flight plan is correctly compiled. I can confirm that from experience. Yes in the past (5+ years ago), there were some issues and I can remember us having problems with flights that were OCAS, crossers or leavers where the IFPS/CFMU were insisting on a route within the SRS.

As you pointed out at the beginning of this thread, DFC, MID DCT CPT is rejected at a level below MEA of the airway. If that's what I want to fly, don't you see that as a problem?

[routechecker]

bookworm,
the segment you refer, MID DCT CPT is unavailable not due to Airway MEA (theres no route between the two points), but because the UK says you cannot plan it on an IFR FPL.
RAD Appendix 4 DCTMIDCPT Min altitude 000 Max altitude 999 Available NO.

rgds

[DFC]

If you are routing from Goodwood via CPT on an IFR plan OCAS. Why would you want to route via MID?

To me that route takes you closer to the LTMA lower base levels and on the MID-CPT leg takes you closer to Farnborough (more chance of a conflict with departing/arriving traffic and thus vectors or restrictions).

I would probably route out towards the Popham Area to pass south of Lasham and then direct to CPT. That route enables height to be gained sooner because of the higher base levels.

However if you really want to go via MID then by defining the position as a radial and bearing from GWC eg GWC030012 (I have not checked this is actually MID) will get round the computer checking the MID CPT leg against the SRS. You can use the same system to define places like SWB which are not in the system.

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

A while ago somebody suggested that a clever use of "DCT" solves a lot of CFMU routing problems.

The poster did not give details but I wonder if this is how it's done. Let's say you have a straight airway which runs from X to Y to Z, and the routes X-Y and Y-Z are ruled out in the SRD, then

X DCT Z

might work - if Y happens to lie on or close to a straight line between X and Z.

DFC's suggestion is similar; defining Y as a waypoint off some VOR (say "V") and using

X DCT V DCT Z

might work with the advantage that V can be off the X-Z track.

So an IFR FP made up of DCTs between waypoints defined as VORrrrddd is not checked by CFMU?

The real question is whether one is going to get ATC routing on the actual flight, if the SRD rules it out. My experience, far from extensive in this area, is that ATC give you whatever DCT routing they feel like, so long as they can maintain separation.

[DFC]

If you are going to fly on the airways then unless you have spoken to the appropriate ACC / the Help desk, you have to stick to the RAD / SRS.

While you may fool the computer into processing your plan, the Sector(s) or ACCs affected may not be happy at all and could file an MOR. You could by fooling the computer for example end up departing without a CTOT when one was required. O you could end up being (not the first by a long shot) turned back at the FIR boundary.

Thus within the airways, fooling the computer into accepting your plan can result in;

a) No problem, ATC accomodate your unusual request.

b) ATC simply re-route you via the correct route and that is that

c) ATC report you for failing to comply with the requirements for operating IFR in controlled airspace.

No one can tell what will happen exactly but added to the above, how do you plan your fuel, diversions, weather and notam briefings if are not sure where you will end up?

There can be a big difference between the standard route and one you would like to fly eg entering the UK via Drake might suit you butit is against the SRS in general and you could be diverted by French ATC east of the Paris TMA to enter the UK via Traca. Quite a big diversion in a light single aircraft.

Far better to file standard routes and ask for short-cuts enroute.

Of course in France for example one can go VFR if VMC at the lower levels can be maintained and go as direct as one likes. :)

If I was flying from say Exeter to Lille, I would not follw the SRS unless I had to. Far better to get VMC on top and go more direct under VFR and if necessary back to IFR for the descent and landing. Making sure that the IFR/VFR and VFR/IFR change points are specified in the FPL.

Regards,

DFC

[DFC]

In the absence of other contributors comming up with a way to ensure that IFPS does not check an IFR out side controlled airspace within the UK flight plan when submitted is.........

The original question asked;
EGHR MID CPT BZ SWB TNT EGSY

Flight Plan route DCT MID DCT CPT DCT BZ DCT SWB DCT TNT DCT brings up a host of errors.

Put in DCT MID DCT CPT DCT BZ DCT SWB DCT TNT GAT DCT and there will be no errors because the route up to TNT is not checked.

This is not a recomendation to use any form of flight plan just pointing out something known to every professional in the business who files flight plans that work. End of Disclaimer. ;)

If you were joining airways at TNT then this would also work and if White Hart was entering it into the HCS he would put in EGHR./.TNT. Isn't that correct eh? :D

Regards,

DFC