Eurocontrole

[davidoz]

Hello,
I work for BIRK flight services and today i filed a flight plan to EGPC. Eurocontrole rejected my plan with the standard route and they wanted more flyover points with only 50NM between them. I filed a new plan and they accepted it but changed the rout so it had only one flyover point DCT MATIK DCT EGPC which is never accepted by the Icelandic ATC. I called Eurocontrole and I yelled :mad: at them to accept the standard rout and they did that when i filed the plan for the third time.
Has anyone else here had problems like this with eurocontrole ?

[Lauderdale]

Yelling at the boys and girls in Eurocontrol is the last thing you should have done!

As your number/company will get noted and you can forget about any cooperation in the future!

Blacklists at CFMU? You bet ya they exist!! Just ask alll the ghost file'rs outhere!

[Flight Data]

Lauderdale
Not entirely correct, no 'blacklist' exists for such things over in Eurocontrol, but otherwise you are correct in saying don't yell at the peeps there, even if it's only in as much as that kind of behaviour is unacceptable anywhere. The folk in IFPS try to help to a large extent, accepting that there are folk on both ends of the phone who can be having a bad day, or whatever.

Davidoz
Try to bear in mind that IFPS only applies the requirements of the relevant states, so the 50nm DCT limit is NOT their rule, but they are required to apply it on behalf of whichever state implemented it. Shouting at IFPS for such issues is ridiculous, even if they do give in and give you your demanded route. If, when airborne, you reach that airspace, and ATC say no chance, you must fly the required route, then you can have all sorts of fuel and flight time differences, with potentially very obvious results for you, not the folk in IFPS.
Anyway, whose standard route is it that you filed? Yours? If so, when was the last time it was fully checked for compliance with the airspace requirements through which it passes?

As an example - several years ago, I was somewhat involved with a German bizjet operator who got rather agitated and loud with IFPS about a route through Germany that had been rejected, with a message indicating that it was due to a level availability problem. He disregarded this information and tried to have his forseen route forced through IFPS by shouting that it was all according to the ZKSD, so IFPS must accept it! It was then - politely - pointed out to him that the ZKSD did not take into account level availability on the published routes, and that was the reason why his route was not acceptable, and would not be accepted. A deep silence followed, and soon after, a route following the one proposed was successfully submitted.

As a general rule, it is a good idea to try talking to the IFPS staff, as they are normally more than willing to help out. Additionally Eurocontrol provides the IFPUV in an effort to help people in the real world find more correct routes.

FD

[Lauderdale]

Flight Data, I would say I agree with about 99% of your post - and I have always had a great relationship with IFPS/CFMU as we always played by the rules and 'thought' before we called (have a look at CHMI to see if we have an average dealy, read the AIM etc etc).

However.....don't tell me all carriers get treated the same way regardless of their 'behaviour'......

Actually - as I speak the native language of most down there you would be surprised how all of a sudden a 'cant do' when speaking English changed to 'will do' when swopping to local speak.....

:ok:

[davidoz]

Well i did not yell at them i just used the word in this post as a matter of speech. In my work i have to keep CFMU and the Icelandic ATC happy and it can be very difficult in a busy hour. I spoke to the Icelandic ATC today and they are going to send CFMU a letter where they imply on following the rules of the Icelandic ATC.

[Flight Data]

Lauderdale

OK, fair call, but you show me any ATC unit of any description anywhere that doesn't have some sort of favouritism going on, whether it be the local carrier, or the company that gave the best upgrade most recently to that particular controller :p Plus, if a carrier is regularly not paying attention to what's going on, and expecting CFMU to pick up the pieces for them each time, then it's only reasonable to expect a slightly more jaded perspective of that carrier by the CFMU, however right or wrong that may be. Native language is always useful, but there are many nationalities working in the CFMU, so it depends who you get on the phone what the native language is :)

Davidoz

If there is genuinely a problem with how IFPS operates, then you're absolutely right to file a comment or complaint. My previous comment still stands though, in that IFPS is tasked to apply the airspace requirements of whichever ATC units a flight intends to pass through. Over the years this has annoyed a lot of people in the real world, but in fact it is only doing what should always have been done, in other words, making sure that a flight plan is accurate according to the local requirements. Now, in doing this, IFPS can and does get things wrong, but this may be due to poor definition of requirements by the ATC unit (for example, there was a thread somewhere about similar issues, and guys from NATS plainly stated that they do not pass all their requirements to CFMU for implementation, as they find it better to keep some things for themselves). It may also be due to poor judgement by IFPS staff, but to expect them to be able to get it right every time is a little ambitious at best - roughly 30,000 flights per day, in CFMU airspace, of which around 16% are treated manually, gives about 5,000 manual messages across the entire Eurpoean airspace and more, plus all the associated messages.....
I have a certain level of contact in CFMU, so I could perhaps get someone to look into your case before you go any further, if you like. PM me if so.

FD

[plans123]

Davidoz,

I've got to ask, did you use the eurocontrol flight plan application before filing to try and rectify the problem?
Flight Plan Assistant - Free Text Editor (http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/j_cia_public/cia_public/pages/ifpuv-free.jsf)