Vintage ATCO,
If I am required by the AIP to file a flight plan proir to requesting a clearance to enter controlled airspace and I choose to do so by filing a full flight plan prior to flight (ensuring that all appropriate ATC units get a copy as per ICAO and UK AIP procedures), is it not wrong for such an ATC unit to discard that flight plan and later require me to re-file that plan over the R/T despte no changes?
Does this not unnecessarily increase R/T loading, cockpit workload and ATCO workload?
As I said, MATS 1 is clear regarding the responsibilities of ATC with regard to over due action on radio equipped aircraft who have filed a flight plan.
Remember that I am talking about ATC within controlled airspace which is where the flight will be during a zone transit. I am not talking about flights that choose to file a flight plan that will remain in class G for the whole flight.
As for MORs - feel free to MOR me if I file a flight plan and transmut a departure message but fail to turn up at your zone on time without good reason.
---
2 Donkeys,
Did I understand you to suggest that you would MOR a enroute unit that showed no particular interest in your transit request, simply because you had copied them in on a flightplan?
Absolutely not.
ATC units can quite rightly refuse a transit request because of traffic or other reasons. No problem there.
However, the flight plan required to be passed to such a unit can be passed either;
1. Abrieviated flight plan in flight direct to that unit on R/T.
2. Full airbourne flight plan filed with say London Info and with the ATC unit concerned in the list of addressees.
3. Full flight plan filed before departure.
Either of those are valid messages conveying essential information regarding the flight.
What an ATC unit is required to do is initiate overdue action when no communication has been received within 30 minutes from the time that it was expected. That is a UK and ICAO standard. Thus if you have told ATC that you will be at their zone boundary at say 1000 and have not shown up by 1030, they are required to initiate overdue action unless they know that you are safe. That is one of the most basic concepts of the alerting service.
Where I would have a problem is if ATC discarded a flight plan and were thus unable to provide the required alerting service.
As for IFR - when flying IFR and expecting to transit controlled airspace, we are required to file a flight plan in advance becauseof flow control measures which can affect airfield units as well as enroute units. We address the plan to all appropriate units and the CAA are clear as to what the extra addresses are when IFR off airways or for mixed VFR and IFR flights.
Would you not find something wrong with writing a letter to your bank manager only to be told that as a matter of policy they bin all customer letters and require them to repeat the full info verbally when the arrive at the bank.....same thing but not as serious!
---
We are legally required to file an MOR for any situation covered by the MOR system. Failure of the flight planning system would I believe be a reportable occurance.
Unless someone reports these "traditions" we don't know if they can be or need to be changed because no data exists. That is what MORs are for isn't it?
Regards,
DFC