Spitoon,
As I mentioned before, you have to understand the distinction between a filed FPL and the limited info needed by an ATC unit to give clearance (or not) through a particular piece of airspace that is along your route
I am well aware of the difference.
Let me say again. It is not mandatory to file a flight plan prior to departure on a national VFR flight in class G which will transit a zone. One can choose to make a radio enroute call and file an abreviated plan. Sometimes that is actually better than pre-filing - flexibility of route.
The whole point I have been making is that a pilot requesting a clearance to cross a zone must pass flight plan details to the appropriate ATS unit.
Using the FPL message addressed to that unit is internationally and within the UK AIP accepted as having communicated the required details to that unit.
An alternative is to pass the details by telephone in advance.
How can anyone deny knowledge of a flight after receiving a flight safety message?
--------
PPRuNe Radar,
You confuse me;
The case I am thinking of was the one that brought about the establishment of the 'responsible person' as I recall, after the aircraft crashed on Jura and lay there for a few days before it was noticed it had not returned home
The responsible person was brought in to remove the requirement to close a flight plan with ATS on or just before arrival at an airfield with no ATS.
If there was no flight plan then there would be no requirement for a responsible person even today.
If there was a flight plan and this was prior to the "responsible person" then ATS were seriously at fault for missing the fact that a flight had not arrived.
The consensus seems to be that many UK ATC units simply can't be bothered with flight safety mesages and UK pilots have no problem with that.
How many countries have ATC who are proud to announce that they ignore Flight Safety Messages?
Regards,
DFC