R112: Are you going?

[BackPacker]

As of midnight tonight (23Z) the R112 and P111 will be active, and will stay active for the next month. Whether these restrictions are necessary and appropriate has been discussed before at many levels, so let's not discuss that again. The NOTAMs are out, the Atlas controllers have been trained, SkyDemon released the new UK maps with the Temporary CAS and other Olympic areas/restrictions yesterday, the procedures (and presumably the Tornadoes and Pumas as well) are in place, and the CAA has spent a lot of effort getting everybody up to speed.

My question: Now what? Will all that effort be wasted and will the Atlas Control frequencies stay eerie quiet, or will GA continue as normal, despite the restrictions? So for all you pilots based around London, or those planning to go near London:

Have you relocated your aircraft to a place far, far away?
Will you simply suspend flying for a month? Or limit yourself to circuits under one of those circuit squawks?
Will you sigh, follow the rules and try to consider the situation "normal"?
Will you see this as a challenge and deliberately plan a flight in/through R112 even though there would be no need?

For me personally, I originally did not think that R112 would affect me. But I have now enrolled in the aeros contest at Peterborough Conington, which runs next week Thu-Sat. If the weather (particularly visibility) is fine, I'll just do an EHRD DCT EGSF but if I have doubts about the visibility over the North Sea (I'm not instrument rated and neither is the plane), I'm going to try and route KOK DCT DVR DCT DET DCT LAM DCT BPK DCT. To be decided at least two hours in advance of course...

[Pilot.Lyons]

I live in midlands so will stay away from there... Its only for a few months im sure with our weather i wont be flying much in that time anyway. If i do, i can always go up!

[skua]

I fly from a field in the zone, and am relocating to France for 3 weeks - to get away from both air and ground borne b*****cks. Will be interesting to see how LARS services deteriorate elsewhere in UK.

[rgsaero]

"My" a/c is based within the zone; actually the factor which seems most likely to limit my activity is the weather (which, as far as I'm aware, is about the only thing which LOCOG, the Gov't and bureaucrats can't try to control!)

As I like to "travel" for a couple of days rather than just fly, a weather window needs to be open in which I can have some expectation of a return on a certain day. That doesn't look like happening in the next two weeks.

If it does, I shall try to run the gauntlet of the flight planning system.

[Another_CFI]

The staff at the airfield from which I fly, located witin the Prohibited Zone, have been briefed such that they can offer maximum assistance to pilots. I am certain that this applies to the other airfields within the Prohibited and Restricted Zones.

I must declare an interest since I used to be, but since the end of February have no longer been, the Airport Manager at the airport from which I fly. Therefore whilst I started the ball rolling the plans are the result of the efforts of the current management.

The restrictions will cause some disruption, but with a little pre-planning this should be minimal.

If pilots spent as much time pre-planning as they do I whinging about the restrictions then they could still enjoy flying this summer (if we ever get a summer!).

[lenhamlad]

I fly from a field in the zone, and am relocating to France for 3 weeks - to get away from both air and ground borne b*****cks. Will be interesting to see how LARS services deteriorate elsewhere in UK.

You could have relocated to Headcorn in Kent. We are on the edge of R112 and have been given a corridor in and out to the south so we can fly without filing a flight plan or talking to Atlas.

[Crash one]

I just think I'm lucky to be >300nm up country.
I really feel sorry for you guys.

[betterfromabove]

We operate a Jodel out of White Waltham without transponder and as a group resigned ourselves to being grounded for the R112 period. We'd need hangarage and couldn't persuade the rest of the group this was a viable option outside the restricted zone.

WLAC at WW are organising big fly-outs with their club aircraft away from London area, which seems sensible.


Lenhamlad - Out of interest, does the Headcorn dispensation count for the Tiger Club guys as well? I was thinking I might give them a call to see if could get some DH82 flying but thought they might be grounded due to being transponder-less.

[peterh337]

I am based outside the zone and can probably avoid flying through it; will go around it if I have to. I rarely fly to somewhere where I can drive to in a similar time.

The easier solution (going IFR) is likely to be clobbered by the very limited IFR slots (1 per hour, at the usually relevant time) where I am based. That also b*ggers trips abroad even if the flight goes directly out of UK airspace, though I may have found a way around that (file V on a pre-validated Eurocontrol route and ask foreign ATC to change the V to an I).

I am suprised there are people operating "normal" planes without a transponder, because the options for going abroad are now very limited.

[betterfromabove]

Peter - I agree we should have a transponder on the plane, however:
- Rest of group not keen on cost
- Have several engineers in group and they say weight is perhaps a show-stopper
- We never go abroad in her, so that's not an issue. If we were to do a special trip, I guess we would need to look at it.

This a special case of being grounded I guess.

[Curlytips]

Seemed a no-brainer. My Annual was due by August 3rd, so escaped the zone and took to CAMO on Wednesday. If it's ready before the restrictions end, I'll be outside the zone and can fly from there until I bring her back.

[peterh337]

Have several engineers in group and they say weight is perhaps a show-stopper

Have they considered eating an oatcake (http://www.nairns-oatcakes.com/sites/default/files/product-shots/organicoatcakesuk.jpg) and peanut butter (http://images.ethicalsuperstore.com/images/40385.jpg) whenever they feel peckish? It really does work; tastes great and I have lost the equiv. of a GTX330 in the last 2 months :)

The average UK pilot has the potential to save a whole IFR panel's worth in this way :)

You could also try the argument that they are invisible to anyone with one of these (http://www.avidyne.com/products/tas600/index.asp) (or similar) which is an increasing number of planes nowadays - as well as all commercial ones. A very small risk but not nice when your number (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-18751848) comes up.

[pudoc]

What am I missing? My club is in the heart of the restricted zone and the negativity down here about it all is absolutely unreal. Why? What on earth am I missing?

The way I see it, the CAA said on a really nice flying day on a weekend there are just over 300 flights within the zone. Now, add in the fact the weather isn't great and the fact a lot of people will be put off flying within the zone, I recon on a mediocre weather day during the week there will be little over 100 flights, my opinion obviously. So why is there such a massive fuss over the olympics at my flying club?

I told them yesterday I was going to fly regularly in the restricted zone and I got messages like "good luck", "ha have fun with that" and even an instructor said he's taking the month off work. Everybody thinks the world's coming to an end and they said I shouldn't fly. WHY?

What's the fuss? It's all straight forward! Somebody tell me what I'm missing, this is how I think it goes.

-File a flight plan 24-2hrs before
-Wait for approval
-Take off
-Remain in ATZ until contact with Atlas
-Fly a flight like you would any other day of the year

I'm filing 24 hours before so I make sure I get in early and have my slot, if I get a revised EOBT then no problem.

I'm really shocked how negative everyone is towards it, I personally think it's a great time to improve my navigation and get used to working more efficiently.

[The500man]

I had thought it would be okay for me to file a flight plan to fly out of and back into the restricted zone and base at another airfield for the day. It would need to be a good weather day obviously to keep to the plan. The Olympic Airspace website suggests fixed wing aircraft need a mode A/C or S transponder, but I've been hearing recently that it has to be C or S to fly in the restricted zone. Since my aircraft has a mode C transponder but is placarded "No Alt Data", I'm now not sure I can fly at all.

This might be a good excuse for a flying holiday though!

[Sir George Cayley]

pudoc, it seems the rejection rate is fairly high at the moment. One reason is quite minor errors and timing.

I'd say the wait for approval bit will have to be thought through especially if your plan is rejected close to the 2 hour cut off.

SGC

[chevvron]

Yesterday it was sometimes (but not always) taking up to 5 hours for the acknowledgement to come through from Atlas, so don't file for 2 hours hence and expect to get away. Also the Atlas phone number was engaged for long periods so if you haven't received your approval by your ETD you might not get through to ask about it.
One problem we've identified is air tests. What if you get airborne to test something, get 3 or 4 miles away on your planned and approved route, then find you need to land again to make an adjustment; you'll need to get airborne again asap to check if the adjustment works but you can't as you'll have to re-file and wait for approval again.

[mikehallam]

Well we're grounded at a mostly microlight strip with 10 a/c and only two with transponders. Parking such a/c for 5 weeks out in the open is not a serious option. One sub 115 kg flex owner has ferried it to a chum's strip for the duration, but has to endure open storage.

Our location is only a tantalisingly 5 miles inside the outer ring - "so near but yet so far". We tried hard for an approval for a route out, but the CAA apparently had no freedom to apply common sense to what is a well known & long established entity. Naturally we have no recourse or financial compensation, so personally the Olympics are a very expensive imposition.

We had thought of a Mallory 'Big Wing' fly out, but in practice our usual 'jollys' are mostly done when individuals pop down to the field as time & wx permit. So even if we each bought the cheapest £1500 'S' transponder & DIY installed, the rigid flight plan system would likely scupper us.

Lucky Headcorn.

mike hallam.

[lenhamlad]

Lenhamlad - Out of interest, does the Headcorn dispensation count for the Tiger Club guys as well? I was thinking I might give them a call to see if could get some DH82 flying but thought they might be grounded due to being transponder-less.

Indeed it does. In fact, the Tiger Club is organising a Balbo on Wednesday when the olympic flame passes through Maidstone. PM me with your number and we can liaise.

[dash6]

How long is it taking to get approved to file flight plans,after you submit your details to the CAA/ATLAS ?

[NigelOnDraft]

2 simple (linked) Flt Plans submitted ~1330Z today.

O/B was approved in ~25mins. The return after ~1h10mins.

A little concerned about the delay for the latter - in that they were linked I would have thought the approvals would be have been quite close? I'll eMail them and see...

Also, the 1st one also had a text message ~2mins after Afpex. Still awaiting the 2nd text message (after 15mins)...

NoD

[Cobalt]

It looks like they prioritize processing flight plans for the same day, and close to EOBT - I filed three for tomorrow, and four hours after submitting the first one I have no reply yet. Since the flight plan was submitted in almost identical form yesterday and approved, I am certain there is no formatting error and I am confident it will be approved evenyually (but hey, I have been called a hopeless optimist).

[BackPacker]

Did anybody already have a plan delayed or rejected because of capacity issues?

Both on this and on the other forum it looks like a large number of outright rejections due to formatting issues, but I have not heard of any delays or rejections because of capacity.

[dash6]

I'm more concerned about the time taken to "vet"your name before you are permitted to file a plan?

[pudoc]

Well I flew in the circuit today and I have to say I was flying the most tightest circuits ever. I was crapping myself that I had my squawk wrong (even though I heard the guy on the radio say it a multiple times) or that my circuits were too wide. Was expecting a tornado on my wing on the whole time.

Going to try and do a nav tomorrow flying to big places on an easy route.

Should be fine after a couple of flights! :ok:

[FlyingGoat]

I routinely fly Shoreham - Biggin VFR by giving Gatwick Director a call, and either get a direct clearance, with an altitude restriction, or told to route south and east of East Grinstead (or whatever). Depends on time of day, traffic, vis. etc. - I can see one could be a ******* nuisance when it's busy.

So how would this work with R112/Atlas? I intended to use SkyDemon (what else?) for straightforward flight plan submission, but if I submit a direct route, surely there's not much chance of getting it approved? Would Atlas coordinate with Gatwick? Are the exit-entry points generated by SD based on a simple as-the-crow-flies track intersecting with R112?

[Echo Romeo]

I am outside the zone and that's where I'll stay :(

[Kurt100]

RocketRoute Flight Planning made their Olympic changes on Friday 13th. They have now processed several hundred flight plan messages with ATLAS Control successfully.

Their words

"We operate a telephone support line for members.

We can confirm it is taking up to 2 hours to ACK a flight plan - so make sure you are filing well in advance (especially for commercial operators!).

If you are flying helicopters commercially into the zone during the Olympics or GA pilots flying between the rain clouds - we will keep you flying."

Try www.rocketroute.com (http://www.rocketroute.com)

Free trial for 14 days!

Also there is a handy how to guide available on the blog.

RocketRoute does all the adjustments for your VFR and Y/Z IFR plans that you need to be compliant. Give it a try.

[Contacttower]

I'm outside the zone but at one of the "co-ordinated" airfields so if I want to file IFR I need a slot; I don't really see this as a problem since there isn't much IFR traffic usually at this airfield and in terms of the London airways capacity I think they have probably overestimated the increase in aircraft...the media have convinced everyone that the Olympics will be a disaster so there probably won't be that many people coming from abroad, all the traffic will be leaving!

[Angel_1_five]

pudoc you have changed your tune from your earlier post :)

[Rabbs]

I do worry that there will be low hour ppls that want to fly, get their flight plan approved, but then are so concerned about going off track that they spend the whole flight head down looking at their GPS and IPADs.

Pudocs post shows how much pressure this will add to new PPLs and those who dont fly too often - I'm sure there are going to be a lot more with this view - it will also add pressure in the cct (people not wanting to extend down wind or orbit to avoid conflict, for fear of going outside the cct boundaries).

I'm at Headcorn and am going to fly South of the Zone until I see how things progress - I really dont want to fly North only to find I can't get back because Atlas cancel my Flight Plan. Will see how things go around the cct and the South tomorrow...

[Hants Eaglet]

Just tackling filing for a couple of flights of about 8 miles each way within 112, i.e to and from Reading to exit R112 out of W Waltham. Had AFPex filed plans rejected due to minor route errors (put in ICAO designators in route field, doh), ATLAS operatives don't seem to be using any discretion to allow for rusty flight planners - there again they are probably RAF. My only advice - get it absolutely right first time otherwise you're into the ghastly scenario of sending CNL messages before you can refile. Also plan really early, unlike me who left it to the last moment due to the glorious summer weather. Looks like I may be staying in the circuit today!

Early days I suppose, we'll get the hang of it. Good job I'm off to KOSH for most of the duration of the games though.:)

[peterh337]

(put in ICAO designators in route field, doh), ATLAS operatives don't seem to be using any discretion to allow for rusty flight planners - there again they are probably RAF

ICAO airport designators have never been permitted to be used as waypoints.

It is only in the VFR flight plan system, where nobody (in the UK, anyway) looks at the route being filed, that one could use invalid waypoint names.

In the UK you could normally file a route like

EGKA DCT SFD DCT KTM DCT VNKT DCT EGMD

(where KTM is a VOR at Kathmandu, or a couple of other similarly distant places, and VNKT is Kathmandu itself)

with an estimated enroute time of 1hr, in a 100kt aircraft, and it won't be rejected :)

One has to blame the PPL training system for not covering this stuff, and thus delivering a product which doesn't enable people (who paid £10k for an ICAO compliant PPL) to fly anywhere significant.

[BackPacker]

and it won't be rejected

Actually I had plans like that rejected. I was submitting the FPLs for a series of charity flights out of Rotterdam, and together with ATC we had decided on two standard routes. The route to fly was to be decided at the last moment, and to be communicated with Clearance Delivery. So I submitted VFR FPLs EHRD-EHRD with a TAS 100 knots and EET of 30 minutes and the route "TBN" (To Be Notified). The FPL computer wouldn't have any of that as "TBN" is apparently a VOR in Turkey somewhere. EHRD-Turkey-EHRD in 30 minutes at 100 knots did ring a bell somewhere so the computer chucked out the plans. Fortunately the FIS people were really helpful and corrected them on the fly. But it shows that there is *some* checking going on for the route field in a VFR plan.

But on a more serious note: We are supposed to enter the VFR departure designator in the route field when we depart from Rotterdam. So a normal, minimal flight plan would contain nothing more than "H", to identify the Hotel departure. Works fine. But suppose I'm going to fly through R112 to EGSF later this week. My flight plan will then look like this: "H DCT COA DCT KOK DCT KONAN DCT DVR DCT DET DCT LAM DCT BPK DCT" (or something like that - I still need to identify the entry and exit points for R112).

But will that flight plan be rejected by Atlas Control because the "H" designator is not a formal allowed route element, even though that designator is required by Rotterdam?

I have seen peoples plans being rejected because they used "MK" (an NDB near Calais) as a waypoint already.

[pudoc]

pudoc you have changed your tune from your earlier post

Well, as per my first post I still don't see why everyone is so negative. But yes I was a nervous flyer yesterday.

[peterh337]

According to a post on Flyer, Rotterdam EHRD has been rejected by Atlas as a nonexistent airport.

[BackPacker]

Saw that. Looks like it has been sorted. Otherwise I would not have an airport to depart from Wednesday.

[FlyingGoat]

In answer to my own post above, filing via SkyDemon for Shoreham-Biggin VFR direct - no problem - authorised in less than an hour from Atlas.

[Hants Eaglet]

Thanks peterh337 for the lesson in flight planning! Me, 40 years flying and also working professionally in aviation, but rather rusty at filling in the forms and done in a rush this morning (big mistake). But, joy of joys, all worked out in the end far better than expected. ATLAS sent all the messages by text and internet in good time, all the controllers (about 3 per trip including Farnborough radar itself) performed well considering only the second day of operation. My advice, again get it right first time to avoid problems, do it all in good time and perhaps if you're doing multiple flight plans add your own unique for each plan reference in the RMK field to ensure you cancel the correct one if you have to. Or use Sky Demon or another handy internet tool to do it all for you the simple way.

Talked to some people who had difficulty getting into the initial contact freq due to congestion today, but no problems for me. I'm sure it will get even better as the system beds in. Seemed quiet in the air and at the airfield today considering the break in the weather, I wonder if people have been scared off by the perceived hassle.

[wsmempson]

I see from another post on the "Flyer" forum that another flightplan has bee rejected because the ICAO airfield code LFAT "is not recognised". Very unimpressive indeed.

[dash6]

I understood you had to register well in advance,before you could even file a plan.Did all you guys do that?

[LowNSlow]

As Annie the Auster has a pair of gel-cell motorcycle batteries as an electrical system purely to support VHF comms and she lives in a hangar under the approach to Luton's 26 she'll be going nowhere until the circle running, synchronised splashing and spearchucking is finished and all concerned have patted each other on their backs. @rse!

[BackPacker]

I see from another post on the "Flyer" forum that another flightplan has bee rejected because the ICAO airfield code LFAT "is not recognised". Very unimpressive indeed.

From what I understand is that the submitter forgot to add the EET to the French FIR in the remarks field (EET/LFFF0030). So the Atlas system never considered that LFAT might have been a foreign airfield.

The same happened to the chap who filed to EHRD.

International FPLs without an EET to the FIR boundary are technically invalid. You can't really blame Atlas Control for rejecting those. Although the way, and particularly the speed, with which they seem to handle things could certainly stand some improvement.

And from what I can see on the other forum, things are improving. Pilots are getting the hang of submitting FPLs properly, are giving each other tips on how not to do things, and FPLs are indeed getting through.

The main hurdles at the moment seem to be:
- Turnaround time for rejections and approvals. Still takes a very long time, even for rejections over trivial stuff like "DTC" instead of "DCT" in a FPL.
- Initial contact with Atlas North or South. Seems to be very overworked and on a large number of occasions is not able to find your (authorized) flight plan or authorization number. This also leads to confusion over squawk codes and frequencies to use.

But once past these two hurdles, everybody seems to get a traffic service from a controller that seems far from overworked, even if only a basic service is requested.

[peterh337]

International FPLs without an EET to the FIR boundary are technically invalid

Has the EET got to be to the boundary (eg EGTT) or can it be to a waypoint on the boundary e.g. SITET?

[BackPacker]

I understood you had to register well in advance,before you could even file a plan.Did all you guys do that?

As far as I know this only applies if you use SkyDemon Light. Which is the free flight planning tool on the internet. Tim Dawson has extended this with flight plan submission functionality specifically for the Olympics. As you don't need a SkyDemon account to use SkyDemon Light, he had to use a different method for validating you're a genuine pilot and not a spammer. That validation is done through the CAA and that takes about a two-week turnaround.

If you register for the full SkyDemon package, including a 10-pound deposit for flight plan submission credits, you can start using SkyDemon to send FPLs within an hour. (And plans submitted because of the Olympics are free, so will not use up any of your credits.)

You can also submit through AFPEx, which is the other option for UK-based pilots to submit flight plans in general, including FPLs for international flight that have nothing to do with R112. However, AFPEx apparently requires you to format your FPL message by hand and doesn't do a lot of syntax checking. This is the place where most people get it wrong (like forgetting EETs to the FIR boundary, which SkyDemon does automatically) and where most of the rejections seem to come from.

And of course you can submit flight plans through any other FPL interface. I have seen RocketRoute doing some advertisements, and I personally plan to use homebriefing.nl if the occasion arises.

So anything you are currently using to submit FPLs (e.g. for international flights) should work for Atlas too. But do make sure the message is formatted properly.

(And if you get a rejection from Atlas, it still falls on you to send the cancellation message to all recipients of the original FPL - they won't know of the Atlas rejection. And if you submit a new flight plan, use a different EOB time so that it clearly is a new FPL.)

[toptobottom]

Flying Goat: In answer to my own post above, filing via SkyDemon for Shoreham-Biggin VFR direct - no problem - authorised in less than an hour from Atlas.

So, did Atlas ask you to contact Gatwick Radar/Tower during the class D leg, or were you talking to Atlas throughout?! If you spoke to Gatwick, did you keep your squawk?

[BackPacker]

Has the EET got to be to the boundary (eg EGTT) or can it be to a waypoint on the boundary e.g. SITET?

Not sure. I think the custom is to put the FIR identifier in there (EGTT, EBBU, EHAA, LFFF), but if you look at ICAO doc 4444 it looks like you can put an EET in there for anything that's a waypoint:

EET/ Significant points or FIR boundary designators and accumulated
estimated elapsed times over such points or FIR boundaries, when so
prescribed on the basis of regional air navigation agreements, or by the
appropriate ATS authority.
Examples: EET/CAP0745 XYZ0830
EET/EINN0204
EET/15W0315 20W0337 30W0420 40W0502

The Dutch AIP is also not very clear on this:

EET/: Specification of the accumulated estimated elapsed time to the Amsterdam FIR boundary is required for international VFR flights and for international IFR flights not following designated ATS routes+.

So this suggests that VFR and off-airways IFR flights need the FIR boundary in the EET/ field, but IFR airways flights can also use the intersection at the FIR boundary. Or perhaps just the route segment that crosses the FIR boundary.

I have not checked any other AIPs for requirements.

[peterh337]

I always used to file VFR FPs with an EET to a waypoint, never to the FIR boundary.

But then nobody looks at VFR flight plans anyway, in most of Europe ;) But that might change for R112...

[toptobottom]

I always used to file VFR FPs with an EET to a waypoint, never to the FIR boundary.

I regularly cross FIR boundaries and always include EET to same from the point of departure (in VFR FPLs); by definition, it's a significant point, particularly if you're crossing the channel :confused:

[peterh337]

What I was referring to was a waypoint which lies on the FIR boundary. Look up SITET for example.

It is exactly the same thing as specifying EGTT.

There are times, depending on the particular chart in use, when the name of the FIR boundary is not at all obvious. EGTT is a UK-only concept.

[piperarcher]

ICAO airport designators have never been permitted to be used as waypoints.

I have to admit I use ICAO airport designators in my filed Afpex VFR flightplans.



My reason is that if I am doing a flight for a couple of hours:
I can add them into my GPS routing.
AFAIK the CAA 1:500000 charts dont show all intersections.
Its easier and more error-free than working out VOR bearings / distances as waypoints.
If I have any issues then I am close to an airfield which I can land at so I prefer to route legs close to airfields anyhow.
This wasnt a method I was taught (because I dont recall PPL training covering much of this), but it is the process I have adopted being a PPL who does a fair bit of IMC/IFR flying mostly outside CAS/Airways (because I dont have an IR).

I must admit I didnt know ICAO airport designators were not permitted officially, so this was interesting to read. Does this illustrate the differences between the overall understanding a PPL compared to a PPL/IR who wil be given much more (and more legitimate) forms of filing flight plans?

[Johnm]

They don't teach flight planning in the IR either. In fact they teach very little of practical use, you have to learn all that from forums after you get the rating ;):ugh:

[peterh337]

I must admit I didnt know ICAO airport designators were not permitted officially, so this was interesting to read. Does this illustrate the differences between the overall understanding a PPL compared to a PPL/IR who wil be given much more (and more legitimate) forms of filing flight plans?No; the JAA IR (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/) theory is completely useless for flying anywhere. They teach you ways of developing IFR routings which ceased working at least 15 years ago.

IFR flight plans (ones wholly within Europe) are sent to just two fixed Eurocontrol addresses, and the computer then re-transmits the FP to all IFR controller stations along the route, some time before the filed EOBT (typ. 10hrs or so; each country can choose).

You don't specify EETs to FIRs or anything like that, on IFR FPs. Not in Europe, anyway. The way the system works, countries are immaterial.

As I said, VFR flight plans are rarely looked at, never mind checked for validity. But the scenario where a VFR pilot might get stuck is if he is getting a notam briefing for a route. The NATS website (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php.html) mostly used in the UK enforces the correct ICAO flight plan format and would object to a route containing ICAO airport designators. Which leads to the Q: how do you get notams? I suppose a site like this (http://metutil.appspot.com/static/maps/48HourWarningRestrictionMap.htm) would not enforce anything.

[toptobottom]

What I was referring to was a waypoint which lies on the FIR boundary. Look up SITET for example.

It is exactly the same thing as specifying EGTT.

Obviously, if the waypoint lies on the FIR boundary AND happens to be on your chosen route, then it's an alternative, but 99.9% of the time, your track won't take you over a waypoint that also lies on the boundary - hence why I always use EGTT/LFFF - for channel crossings, at least..

[eharding]

I suppose a site like this (http://metutil.appspot.com/static/maps/48HourWarningRestrictionMap.htm) would not enforce anything.

It merely plots an Area Brief - what is there to enforce? If you want to use the NATS notam site directly to verify the format of a route, and still get a plot you could always use this.... (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/foncpdbdcabckbbkiklmilnaomcniphb)

[peterh337]

99.9% of the time, your track won't take you over a waypoint that also lies on the boundary

Ah, there lies the difference which one encounters when going abroad more :)

Within the UK, people file all kinds of waypoints. Abroad, this gets more difficult, and one tends to use more IFR waypoints (on VFR FPs). Some countries enforce that anyway.

I would say 100% of my waypoints (on VFR flight plans) are/were navaids (VORs/NDBs) or airway intersections. Normally there are loads to choose from. These are usually not shown on VFR charts (the French SIA 1:1M show them) so I used to display them in Navbox.

[Bob Upanddown]

No; the JAA IR theory is completely useless for flying anywhere. They teach you ways of developing IFR routings which ceased working at least 15 years ago.

Which is why a very green CPL/IR I was flying with became totally confused trying to file IFR off-airways from one UK airfield to another UK airfield. He could not accept the idea of getting in and flying and asking for clearances along the way because he hadn't been taught like that.

And that's the problem here. It seems clear that the controllers have no experience of handling the VFR and off-airways IFR traffic they are handling.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it would have made sense to have set this up a year ago and tried a full dress rehearsal........ but is there anyone in Government these days with any sense?

[peterh337]

It's a huge discussion topic but basically the southern UK has a near-watertight division between the IFR controllers (who handle only traffic flying on Eurocontrol flight plans, nearly always in CAS) and other "GA" services.

It's tied into ATC funding, etc, etc.

It's never going to change.

In the UK you can file an IFR FP from one Class G airport to another Class G airport, at 2000ft, but it's pointless because it doesn't give you anything in the way of service. You may as well file VFR and drill through any IMC you come across.

A while ago I did some notes on this here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/ifr-flying/index.html).

[soaringhigh650]

It's a huge discussion topic but basically the southern UK has a near-watertight division between the IFR controllers (who handle only traffic flying on Eurocontrol flight plans, nearly always in CAS) and other "GA" services.

It's tied into ATC funding, etc, etc.



Not clever use of airspace and resource to me. Nobody else does it this way. The airspace above isn't always full of IFR traffic, and the airspace below is sometimes unsuitable - crowded at choke-points with plenty of infringers.

[piperarcher]

As I said, VFR flight plans are rarely looked at, never mind checked for validity. But the scenario where a VFR pilot might get stuck is if he is getting a notam briefing for a route. The NATS website (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php.html) mostly used in the UK enforces the correct ICAO flight plan format and would object to a route containing ICAO airport designators. Which leads to the Q: how do you get notams? I suppose a site like this (http://metutil.appspot.com/static/maps/48HourWarningRestrictionMap.htm) would not enforce anything.

Yep, I had that very problem. It took me a while to figure out it was the airfields it didnt like. I get around it by typing the airfield ICAO identifiers into the many alternate text boxes down the bottom of the page. That works for me.

[peterh337]

I am not convinced that doing that will get you a "narrow route briefing" that uses those airfield IDs as waypoints.

Another issue with that practice is that, one day, you may get caught when you go abroad and the flight plan processing agency decides to actually validate the route :)

I have always advised in favour of using wholly "IFR waypoints" on VFR flight plans. It bring a number of benefits:

- Narrow route notam briefings work

- The flight plan is ICAO-valid so should work anywhere

- The waypoints are present in all GPS databases so loading the route into a GPS is quick and error-free

- If you request some CAS transit, giving the ATC unit several IFR waypoints shows that you can navigate and you are unlikely to cause them trouble. ATC will always deny (officially) that this makes a difference, of course ;) But ATCOs are only human and in higher ATC workload situations you want to sway things in your favour. Throw in a bit of a reduced english language proficiency abroad and .... when e.g. French ATC say "Deauville" they won't mean the town, they will prob99 mean the DVL VOR.

[piperarcher]

I am not convinced that doing that will get you a "narrow route briefing" that uses those airfield IDs as waypoints.

Your probably right actually. I hadnt considered that. I guess what it is showing me is a narrow route for the bits it does like, and then all the additional aerodrome specific bits seperately. You live and learn... :-)

The other day I flew up to Walney Island (near Lake District), and because in that instance I had listed IFR waypoints and VOR's on my VFR flight plan, and because I was announcing and flying flight levels, the Doncaster contollers allowed me to transit their class D airspace. This was easier than ducking below the CAS and popping back up the other side en route. Subtle evidence that as you say, you might get a little bit more help from ATC if they think you wont interfere with other aircraft under their control.

[peterh337]

Absolutely so :ok:

Nowadays I fly mostly IFR when I go abroad, because it's so much easier to plan, but when I used to fly VFR I used to file e.g. UK to Croatia, one leg, FL075, and when I turned up at KONAN at FL075 (cough cough FL074 really, probably) and got handed to Brussels Radar (or whatever) and gave them the next few waypoints, they just let me fly straight through the whole country - just like IFR traffic. OK, transiting Belgium takes only about 3 minutes ;) but I got the same over Germany, etc.

VMC on top the whole way...

The impression I got is that ATC just love traffic like that. It really does work.

I am sure it helps in the UK too but it is less obvious because the Class D system is a lot more "stuck up", and ATC generally is much less joined-up.

[fulham fan]

Hi - an update from Atlas Control re some improved capability around flight plan resource and also some general guidance Update from Atlas Control after first operational weekend (http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/news/update-from-atlas-control-after-first-operational-weekend)

[toptobottom]

So, for the benefit of all those VFR pilots who may have been confused by your earlier comment:


Peter337: I always used to file VFR FPs with an EET to a waypoint, never to the FIR boundary.


You would, in fact, use EET to the FIR boundary when crossing an international boundary, except on the 0.01% of occasions when a recognised waypoint happens to be on your route AND on the FIR boundary. In which case, why not just use the FIR boundary like everyone else?!!

[Sir Niall Dementia]

I used Rocket Route for two flightplans for today, I kept making the same mistake which i just couldn't see and the plans kept getting rejected, I got an unexpected call from Rocket Route and the problems were solved on the spot.

When I become Pope the two guys from Rocket Route will be my first saints:E:ok:

[peterh337]

except on the 0.01% of occasions

I cannot think of any foreign trip on which there wasn't a waypoint right on the FIR boundary.

FIR boundaries are peppered with airway intersections. One just uses one of those.

Maybe you are planning your routes completely differently, but I plan them using the charts, and using flight planning software.

[Cusco]

My new CAA Northern Half Mil chart arrived today: I'm not going anywhere near R112 for the duration of its activity.

thankfully my strip is outside the zone.

Cusco

[toptobottom]

Peterh337

I'm not attacking you; I'm trying to explain that VFR pilots don't have to use waypoints on a FIR boundary, of which there are surprisingly few. I'm a rotary pilot and frequently cross the channel from private sites all over the South East. My routes touch a waypoint that happens to be on the FIR boundary so rarely, I don't even bother looking - why should I? I cross the FIR boundary at any one of a thousand different points, as I'm sure fixed wing pilots will do from their private strips (and airfields for that matter).

My point is that the vast majority of VFR pilots crossing the channel will use the point they cross the FIR boundary as the reference point for the EET details. You indicated that you never use this, but always a waypoint instead. I still don't understand why, but wanted to clear up the confusion you may have caused.

Oh, and I use Sky Demon for flight planning. Mostly.

[Go Smoke]

Another vote for Rocketroute from me. Used them for the past year now for airways IFR routings in the line of my work. Always found them to be helpful and proactive. Filed with them into R112...........they straightened out my cack handedness with good humour and enabled my flight. All round good eggs.

[peterh337]

I still don't understand why, but wanted to clear up the confusion you may have caused.Let me give an example.

Shoreham to Le Touquet.
EGKA SFD ALESO LFAT
ALESO is your FIR boundary.

Shoreham to Caen
EGKA SITET LFRK
SITET is your FIR boundary.

I am not saying everybody has to do it that way, obviously, but these waypoints are in abundance. Just looking at the 1:500k southern chart, you have

BIGNO SKERRY ORTAC BORLO GARMI KOTEM NEVIL SITET XAMAB XIDIL KUNAV ALESO SOVAT DEVAL RINTI VABIK KONAN RAPIX GILTI SUMUM XAMAM

and that is just for the south coast! Fill your boots....

Not let's look at another reason for using these. Let's say you are doing Shoreham-Caen. You cannot go direct, due to D040. Here, SITET gives you a handy waypoint.

I guess helicopter pilots fly differently (they certainly seem to fly much lower down) but if you extend this to flying abroad generally, there are very good reasons for using IFR waypoints for the entire route - as I have explained elsewhere.

[Cobalt]

Guys,

Think of a VFR flight plan as an e-mail sent to a lot of addresses via AFTN. You can put into the route and remaks fields whatever you want, as long as it does not invalidate the syntax (for example special characters with meaning) you can specify all your waypoints using the Welsh name of the Navaid.

Somebody (a human) figures out where to send it to; sometimes a system provides assistance such as AFPEX, but that is not mandatory.

Hence a lot of bad habits were quietly corrected by professional flight-plan-senders, and the ones that remained where never picked on later because nobody cared enough.

That includes inconsistencies in rules and guidance. For example, is it EET/LFFF.... or EET/SITET.... if you have SITET in the route? Can you have SITET in EET even if you do not have it in the route? You can find backup for any answer from an official source.

It would be great if someone published the rules ATLAS is working to, so we can stop speculating what they are and stop arguing what they should be.

[BackPacker]

FWIW I use IFR intersections as FIR boundary crossing points too, when flying VFR. It makes dealing with ATC a lot easier ("estimate REDFA at 02" vs. "estimate the FIR boundary at 52 degrees 07 minutes North at 02") and it rarely adds more than a mile to the overall route.

[rans6andrew]

no transponder so no R112. Luckily my aircraft lives just outside the sportsday play area so I can still come and go. It is going to be a bit of a pain when we want to go to France next month, can't just slip through between LHR and LGW to Headcorn as we usually do, got to go the scenic route, take in the south coast. Ho hum.

If my AFPEX login doesn't come soon I will be glad that Headcorn can file a flight plan for me.................

Rans6...

[peterh337]

Hence a lot of bad habits were quietly corrected by professional flight-plan-sendersUntil a few years ago almost every flight plan was simply faxed to the Heathrow FBU, or one of the others up north.

The staff there were handling ~3000 flight plans per month, nearly all VFR, and they either ignored obvious enroute specification c0ckups, or reinforced their workload by laboriously correcting them.

The funny side of all this is that all flight plans involving the UK get CCd into some secret database, for search/rescue and national security reasons. The latter purpose is done by a load of people sitting in some big room, collating radar returns crossing the national frontier with filed flight plans. They must have a lot of fun with it :) It's obviously not a rigorous process because so many people have flown to/from say N French airports with a flight plan which was simply lost.

Now, Afpex allows you to file absolute garbage which nobody will correct.

Cobalt's "email" analogy is an apt one. It also helps to explain why the DOF/ parameter tends to work poorly on VFR flight plans.

The whole flight plan system is a mess - a legacy of the past 50-60 years.

For IFR flight plans, Europe has implemented a proper database-based system, only to have Eurocontrol screw it up with an impenetrable route validation system :ugh:

[toptobottom]

...these waypoints are in abundance

Not really - there are quite a few, but not conveniently positioned, so why not just cross at the most convenient point :confused: You don't have to mention the Lat/Long of the point you cross to the controller, just your estimate for the boundary at whatever point that happens to be.

What about Manston to Calais? Or Lydd - Calais? Or Lydd - Le Touquet? Or indeed, Wycombe, Redhill, White Waltham, Clacton, Lashendon, Stapleford, Elstree, Biggin Hill, Rochester, Southend, Blackbushe and almost any airfield or private strip (or HLS) in the South East to Le Touquet?!! There aren't any IFR waypoints convenient for your route.

With flight planning tools such as Sky Demon, there's no effort in plotting a course that takes you directly to your destination without worrying about hitting IFR waypoints on the boundary. So, if you're reading this as a VFR pilot, don't bother with IFR waypoints. Waste of time, particularly if you use a modern FP tool.

PS Peter - I don't think LFRK is on the FIR boundary :E

[peterh337]

Yes; I have edited the original post :ok:

[stevelup]

Or Lydd - Calais?MOTOX?
Or Lydd - Le Touquet?TUKVI?
Or indeed, Wycombe, Redhill, White Waltham, Clacton, Lashendon, Stapleford, Elstree, Biggin Hill, Rochester, Southend, Blackbushe and almost any airfield or private strip (or HLS) in the South East to Le Touquet?!! There aren't any IFR waypoints convenient for your route.ALESO, TUKVI or SOVAT?

[charlesrwright]

Flew out of Waltham this morning to Dunkeswell - was a dipstick and forgot Zulu/BST difference so took off an hour earlier than filed plan said.

They were friendly and helpful, made me circle for 5 minutes while they located my plan which hadn't come up on their list yet, then approved me and sent me on my way, handing me to Benson.

Nae drama.

Returning tomorrow -just filed plan, waiting for approval number.

I used rocketroute to file my plans and it was a doddle.

[toptobottom]

Stevelup
I couldn't see those waypoints on the 1/2 mill CAA charts, although they appear in search results in Sky Demon. How would a VFR pilot normally find and use these waypoints and others that aren't shown?

[stevelup]

On SkyDemon, you can switch them on by setting 'IFR Reporting Points' to Yes.

They are also shown on the lower level airways chart which you can download freely from NATS AIS.

I think they are much easier to use than arbitrary waypoints.

1) They are almost all in logical places
2) It is easy to 'say' them on the radio if you are asked
3) They are unambiguous and will definitely be accepted in your flight plan

[toptobottom]

Well, I've learned something new today.

However, I'll still stick with my 'direct' approach as the Airways Reporting points on the FIR boundary are up to 18 miles apart and precious few are on the routes I regularly fly.

For me, it's easier to create a user waypoint at an arbitrary point on the boundary (just touch it!); I've never been asked for lat/long details or name of a specific point on the boundary, just ETA. With Products like Sky Demon, one doesn't even need to know the lat/long as it populates the FPL automatically.

Onwards and upwards... :ok:

[peterh337]

I couldn't see those waypoints on the 1/2 mill CAA charts, although they appear in search results in Sky Demon. How would a VFR pilot normally find and use these waypoints and others that aren't shown?

They have always been on the 1:500k CAA VFR charts.

Look along the FIR boundary.

These waypoints is also one reason I like the French 1:1M SIA charts, which show them all over France. Makes route planning easy. The other French charts (Cartabossy and IGN) don't show them, and neither IIRC do the Jepps.

[ALEXA]

Just filed FPLs for tomorrow via SkyDemon for a flight from Elstree and return.

My first FPLs for ten years.

Both approved by text message within 30 minutes. No complaints there.

Even if the weather forecast for tomorrow probably means that there have been few filings today (and a very likely cancellation of my own FPLs in the morning) it is encouraging to get such a quick response, especially after the concerns raised elsewhere.

Alexa

[John R81]

Based at Redhill, today was my first flight out of R112 to a private site near Dover AM and return PM. Helicopter G-**MY if anyone from Atlas is reading.

FP filed 2hr 7min prior to departure, accepted and text received in 30 minutes without any issues.

OUTBOUND
Tried to activate the FP with EGKR tower 20 minutes prior to the stated departure time, to leave closer to our desired departure time; this was accepted without a problem.

Leaving EGKR east, we were passed on to to Atlas for Basic service. The FP plan called for North of Lash - offered South if it would help, and accepted gratefully.

Nothing more until reaching the boundary, wished a safe flight and signed-off. No drama, no issues.

RETURN
Lifted from private site on time, called up N of Ashford with authorisation code; it was accepted and we were passed on to Atlas controller for basic service. Cloud was lowering as we progressed, and we never reached the maximum altitude that we had agreed (not above 1500 ft). We routed N of Lash then following the railway towards EGKR.

Approaching Tonbridge we were aware (through radio calls) of another helicopter leaving EGKR on a reciprical course approaching Tonbridge. Altitudes were going to be similar due to lowering cloud base so we made a position call. Controller asked why we were telling him our position, and we responded it was really to aid the other H. Controller confirmed 8 mile separation, reciprical course and within 100ft vertically then left the 2 machines to coordinate. The other H called overhead Tonbridge. We called North of railway line and they called "South". Shortly after both were visual. 1.5 mile separation, same height; no fuss and no worries.

We were passed on to EGKR for approach.

VERDICT
Given the need to control airspace in this way the disruption to our day was negligible. If we could have earlier clearance I would have preferred to leave an hour earlier, but I understand why this is not possible.

The service was "spot on", sensible, and I can't fault it. Particular appreciation for the controller letting the two machines coordinate on the return leg. Cloudbase was low and heights were going to be the same hence at <8 miles with a closing speed to 220 knt it was good to know where the other machine was going to be and that he knew where we would be.

Great job, thank you

[I Love Flying]

A very useful and informative post, thank you.:ok:

[maule-m7-260]

Hi,
I used Atlas control for the first time Tuesday and again Wednesday this week from Beccles EGSM to Shoreham EGKA and back the following day. Routed DCT CLN DCT CLN230018 DCT SND (southend) DCT DET DCT MAY DCT MAY240008 DCT
The radials from MAY and CLN are the entry points into and out of R112. All went well VFR there and IFR return the Atlas Controllers are all helpful (Farnborough radio really) simply give your authorisation code and request the type of service you want. I filed using AFPEX.
Maule man

[toptobottom]

Peterh337: They have always been on the 1:500k CAA VFR charts.

Not true, I'm afraid. I don't use 1/2 mill charts anymore; the latest I have is Ed. 29, but TUKVI, MOTAX, SOVAT, SUBIP, KUNAV and maybe others aren't marked. Interestingly, GURLU (and maybe others) appears on the chart but doesn't appear in Sky Demon :confused:

[toptobottom]

JohnR81

Nice report (and when is your aircraft going to be gracing the skies again?!). I've done a few flights to and from EGLM and various private sites within R112. All VFR and most included class D crossings. Very competent and pragmatic controllers, particularly as the patchy viz over the last few days required some flexibility in routing.

The only cock-up was one of my FPLs wasn't acknowledged with an approval number (filed using Sky Demon), so after 10 hours and with my scheduled departure slot looming, I put in a quick phone call to Atlas which apologised and fixed it in seconds. All other FPLs have been approved and I've received my confirmation within 30 mins.

We don't want to be too generous with the applause though; the powers that be might decide to keep it after the Olympics... :uhoh:

[peterh337]

I don't use 1/2 mill charts anymore; the latest I have is Ed. 29That may explain it. Ed 29 must be quite some years old; I would guess 10 years. Current is Ed 38.

The intersection names change from time to time. I got my PPL 11 years ago and have always been using those points on flight plans.

I got those names straight off the chart hanging on the wall above my desk, so they exist for sure.

What Skydemon shows or not is up to them, but showing intersections, particularly on FIR boundaries, is pretty useful.

[BackPacker]

I don't know if this has been reported or not. I was flying EHRD-EGSF yesterday. Essentially DCT, so not anywhere near the R112. But I was in contact with London Info and heard a lot of conversations between them and various aircraft headed that way.

London Info asked these aircraft, as they were coasting in over DVR, for their authorization code, and came back a few minutes later with the Atlas squawk and contact frequency. So they had already coordinated things over the landline, which really smoothed things out for the aircraft concerned. Which was particularly nice given the weather conditions. So thumbs up for London Info.:ok:

Didn't help the pilots of the Dutch aircraft headed to Biggin Hill without authorization though. But London Info, with its usual infinite patience, explained them that, no, they could not continue and had to divert to their designated alternate (Lydd) who sure would be able to sort out their onwards route to Biggin for them. How many NOTAMs do you have to miss before you can set off for Biggin, blissfully unaware of anything happening in the London area?:ugh:

[peterh337]

My estimate is that 50% of UK pilots never get notams (from e.g. how many turn up at Shoreham not knowing the ATIS has changed) and I don't see why this should be very different abroad :)

There are whole sub-communities out there :) Non-radio, non-notams, non-weather. I know a 2k hr pilot who cannot work out tafs and metars. He's a very competent pilot though.

The only opportunity to reach these people is on the 2-yearly revalidation flight, but that doesn't happen, evidently. I guess the pilot only has to say he never goes outside the local circuit, and that deals with that...

[John R81]

TTB

EC120 is about a week away from ground runs and will be back after that. I'm holding off on the respray for now as there is still charter work to be had. Until then I am driving the R44 (slumming it, one might say).

Unfortunately, the charter work I am losing for the 120 is not heading for the 44, but for the 130 parked next to me. I suppose most people hope to have just one set of weding photos, though!

[toptobottom]

A quick heads up for those that use the Airway points for FPLs during the Olympics. I saw the below in here (http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/news/atlas-control-faq)(Q4):

The system being used by Atlas does not accept all the options for flight planning detailed in CAP694 (The UK Flight planning Guide) and will generally only accept an 11 character lat/long or a range and bearing from a three letter beacon. So, in many circumstances, for example where a five character boundary point is not in the system database, it cannot be used.

[John - good to hear; will call you next week...]

TTB

[toptobottom]

Q15, from the same FAQ (I'm a slow reader ;)):

Q15. How should I file a plan for a flight landing outside the UK FIR – do I need an EET for the FIR boundary? And will the system recognise an ICAO airport code outside the UK FIR?

A15. Yes, you need to use an EET for the FIR boundary otherwise the system will not recognise that the airfield you wish to fly to is outside the UK and will therefore reject your flight plan for an unknown location.
For example, the route field must contain an FIR crossing point ie 5127N00038W and field 18 must contain the EET to that point ie EET/5127N00038W0026

The system being used by Atlas does not accept all the options for flight planning detailed in CAP694 (The UK Flight planning Guide) and will only accept an 11 character lat/long or a range and bearing from a three letter beacon. So, a five character boundary point for example cannot be used.

[fulham fan]

Hi latest update from Atlas - including details of extra capacity that is now in place to improve the flight planning approval process and that an additional Initial Contact Frequency (ICF) has been added to increase capacity during the busiest periods. Full details here Atlas Control announces improvements in flight plan handling and initial contact frequencies (http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/news/atlas-control-announces-improvements-in-flight-plan-handling-and-initial-contact-frequencies)

[Ellemeet]

responding to some of the earlier remarks about vfr flightplanning. I often just file direct. this works absolutely briliant.

for example
guernsey - rotterdam .. direct
rotterdam - pula ... direct..

i will specify an estimated time to the boundaries offcourse.

very often flying vfr i will just literaly fly direct and circumnavigate any obstacle i encounter .. then again .. i fly vfr with a gps and not with a stopwatch and .... (the old way) which is to say that i can imagine that also being a nice experience, i am like to use all modern electronics and tools.. And I fly distances.. not just messing about in a close area.

for example if i fly to pula from rotterdam i know i will have to be slightly north near the belgium border.. and that frankfurt and stuttgart airspace neads to be avoided (at altitude they rarely allow crossings)
and at the alps you will need to climb to fl150-170 which is not a problem for my aircraft.

I am much more interested in the weather.. the top of clouds.. wether the alps are clear and if there are embedded cb's and thunderstorms..

also I am interested in all the traffic surrounding me.. there for I am getting a TAS605. Often I have had an aircraft on the radio very closeby and never saw him. (and they are actually transmitting).. what about those who do not even do that.!


filing vfr flightplans is a minor issue.. only when you get involved with atlas control ...ll:ugh::ugh: