To build such an interface with the associated software changes to both systems to activate and deactivate SARTIMEs would clearly cost money, and who would pay - us - the industry. And for what? The pilot is responsible for his/her SARTIME. To build in a system where SARTIMEs are automatically activated and cancelled could bring in its own risks.
It’s easy to spot the people who are part of the ‘machine’, CM!
The cost would be equivalent to the interest on the rounding errors on the travel and accommodation costs of the consultants involved in Project OneSky.
Did he inform the ATC that his plan had a SARTIME for arrival at Black Duck Creek i.e. "Cancel my plan and SARTIME for arrival at Black Duck Creek".
If he had said that, the ATC would have notified CENSAR. If the pilot just said to cancel his plan, the ATC most likely would not have been aware a SARTIME was involved, only holding flight details to exit CTA.
This is important information.
You see, the reason the system is counter-intuitive is that having submitted a flight plan and SARTIME to Airservices, the pilot naturally assumed that telling Airservices that the flight was not going to happen would logically result in the SARTIME not becoming ‘active’. The pilot doesn’t know that “there is no interface between CENSAR (which operates on a standalone PC) [in Airservices] and Eurocat (the ATC system) [in Airservices].
What you are saying is that all a pilot needed to say to ATC was: “Cancel my plan
and SARTIME” and ATC would have done that. Is that correct?
It seems to follow, then, that if I complete a planned flight that ends at a controlled aerodrome, I can cancel my SARTIME by saying to ATC: “Cancel my SARTIME”. Is that correct?
The flight could have been NOSAR NO DETAILS for all the ATC knew.
How does one conduct a flight out of a controlled aerodrome “NO DETAILS”?