Heathrow Fbu To Close On 28 January [Archive]

DLT1939

20th Jan 2009, 16:35

NOTAM B0084/09 issued on 19 January announces that the Flight Briefing Unit at Heathrow will close at 1200 on 28 January 2009 and its functions will be transferred to Swanwick. Thereafter all general aviation flight plans will need to be filed using the notoriously difficult to use AFPEX internet system or by fax to 01489 612793. Flight plans will need to be properly addressed. The existing helpful telephone service will be discontinued and although there will be a telephone helpline on 0845 601 0483, the use of the telephone to file plans and pass flight plan messages will be discouraged.

That's the bad news. The good news is that I understand the existing FBU team at Heathrow are looking into launching a new comprehensive service along the lines of Austrocontrol's Homebriefing. This would be menu driven offering everything from simple flight plan filing and confirmation to provision of a complete route management service including weather, notams and, possibly, obtaining overflight and PPR permissions. It would be accessible from anywhere 24/7 by telephone or internet and could be up and running in a basic form by the end of March.

Clearly this would need to be a paid service, but one would hope the basic service costs would be comparable with those of Homebriefing and others. I am sure the guys at NATS will be monitoring this thread and interested to hear what features pilots would like to see in such a service and what would be a reasonable charging basis.

Just to be clear, I'm not a NATS employee; just a pilot who would be happy to use and pay for such a service instead of using a foreign provider.

Chilli Monster

20th Jan 2009, 16:41

I wouldn't call AFPEx "notoriously difficult". However, if someone wants to pay me to file plans over it for them, then they're more than welcome :)

Tall_guy_in_a_152

20th Jan 2009, 17:01

Clearly this would need to be a paid service
Why "clearly"? The French have been providing the same service for free for several years.

Obviously someone, somewhere has to pay, but not necessarily the end user.

TheGorrilla

20th Jan 2009, 18:34

i'm sure the Poles would be glad of the work.

IO540

20th Jan 2009, 18:39

There was a thread on this here recently.

Afpex would be fine if

- they got rid of the huge java application download
- they offered incoming message transfer to email

They could improve the VFR addressing side of things, but that then needs a database of airports to work out how to address the FP. Unless they just send it to the departure ARO to deal with, which is what Homebriefing has on occassion said it does.

They could also eliminate the silly security, which is there only because Afpex allows one to mess with others' flight plans (so it appears - never tried it). The whole thing should have been done differently IF aimed at private pilots (which it wasn't); you would specify a list of tail numbers for which you can file flight plans and then no real security (beyond a simple login) is needed.

S-Works

20th Jan 2009, 18:45

IO has pretty much said everything I was thinking.

AFPEx is OK but the java downloads and security are a PITA. I would just like a simple web page with simple log on that I can use from my mac, little portable ASUS or mactop Pro or even iPhone and be useable over mobile data connections.

I just want to file a flight plan and be done.

White Hart

20th Jan 2009, 22:12

"I just want to file a flight plan and be done"

If it were possible to meet your technical needs within a new service, are you prepared to pay a nominal fee for using it, or are you saying you want it for free?

"Flight plans will need to be properly addressed."

I saw this referred to in the Notam. Looks like those of you who do not use AFPEx, but want to file a FPL by fax or phone, are going to have to do the work for the AFPEx team. Lets be clear about this - the AFPEx team are not trained to the same standards as the Heathrow FBU staff - never were, never will be. They work for the CACC - thats the Comms dept for the uninitiated - so dont expect the same level of service. Until the advent of AFPEx, the only input CACC had with your flight plans was watching them shuttle back and forth across the AFTN network after they had been dealt with by us. As for the FIR/FPRSA staff, who may potentially be asked to provide a backup service - they are great at what they do, but that's not filing flight plans.

IO540 is correct in his assumption on another thread that AFPEx is all about cutiing staff costs - its certainly not about offering you, the flying community, a better or improved service - just a different one. :hmm: Had AFPEx been allowed to run alongside the existing system, instead of replacing it, then that could well have been construed to be a step in the right direction - technical difficulties aside.

As stated in the opening post, we are looking at a number of options incorporating internet, email, fax, phone - H24, manned by those whose business it has been to provide this service day in, day out for many years. So, for those of you who don't subscribe to AFPEx, Homebriefing, whatever, but especially for all of you who want your FPLs filed using a method that suits you, and that you can trust - give us a call at the Heathrow FBU and tell us what you want and would expect from any new service - not just ours. We are open to your suggestions, and will welcome some real user input.

mad_jock

20th Jan 2009, 22:26

well as flight plans are so expensive and such a pain in the arse i won't do one or if I do it will be somewhere where i don't won't to go.

Airways get charged on your filed route not where you go. So I will file because I have to because of my aircraft weight but it will be routing outside controlled to where i am going not the 50 miles to my filght plan destination.

Jesus we really do want to play the game but if your making it that difficult I am happy enough to wing it outside and pick up a service if required (usually you guys are more scared than we are so we get the works)

BackPacker

20th Jan 2009, 22:33

What I'm still amazed at is that every JAA country is trying to find an individual solution to the same problem. Sometimes even under the same name, homebriefing.nl being a case in point - it looks like they even stole the logos from homebriefing.com.

Why can't Eurocontrol simply offer something that would apply to all JAA countries? They offer a NOTAM service already plus access to the AIP and related documents on EUROCONTROL - The European AIS Database: Introduction to EAD Basic - Home (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int). It seems to me like that's the obvious place to offer a flightplan submission service.

mad_jock

20th Jan 2009, 23:24

because as GA you tend not to fly to the standard airfields and its none standard which shags the whole system.

The other week I entered the southern FIR from ostend with the intention of flying up to inverness Brussels had decided I had to fly to Barkway up to Polehill, Talla, Foyle then up. It meant we went from east to west to east through POL which the controllers really don't want TP's at FL180 getting in the way of MAN inbounds. Thankfully the lovely crontroller on the FIR handover organised a direct SAB before we were feet dry and TAY scottish gave us direct after New. It saved us over a quarter of a ton of fuel and 45mins flight time. Which equates to 1k for the aircraft and 3 pints in the pub

The controllers were not happy we were running outside controlled airspace though at least 90% of the calls were asking if we wanted to bend it into an airway. NO I am VMC 70k viz at night on a Friday evening at FL180, flying doesn't get any better.

Personally I will continue using the Norwegien system which provides wx and notams and flight filing free of charge and none of the bollocks with cookies which all the UK systems require you to accept but unfotunately most airport computers are setup to refuse.

BackPacker

21st Jan 2009, 07:11

none of the bollocks with cookies

Unfortunately cookies are a way of life. This is entirely off-topic, so feel free to ignore me, but the HTTP protocol is stateless. This means that there is no consistent way for the server to know who you are and what you are trying to achieve from one web page to the next. Particularly if you jump back and forth a lot, using the "Back" and "Forward" buttons. That's what cookies are for: to give the server a unique identifier to recognize your session so that you are deleting your own flight plans, and not those by someone else.

The only way that you could do something complicated like that consistently and reliably, without cookies, would be to start Java applets or other things that are way more complicated and involved than cookies.

And no, cookies do not contain viruses. Cookies are not sent to other websites. Cookies do not contain personal information. All they are is a unique identifier that's used by the server to correlate individual requests for web pages with each other.

Jodelman

21st Jan 2009, 07:35

AFPEx is OK but the java downloads and security are a PITA.

I can live with the security but NOT the java download!

IO540

21st Jan 2009, 08:13

One problem is that the over the top security prevents you accessing Afpex from an internet cafe computer.

This is OK for me - I have been carrying a small laptop, with GPRS/3G, for years - but not many pilots do that. Unfortunately far from all internet cafes offer wifi or a cable connection, to enable the laptop to be used.

Homebriefing has a simple login/password access. You can still use HB to file a flight plan for anybody else's plane but you cannot query the flight plan database like you can with Afpex, but why would any pilot want to?

If somebody ex-Heathrow is looking to set up a HB-like service, then I suggest HB is the starting point to look at. Allegedly, their software is an off the shelf product from the same company as the old ais.org.uk Notam site (Thales??). I never had a usability problem with HB.

The general thing to get right on any website is to minimise the amount of data transferred. This is vital for users on GPRS/3G especially if on PAYG. But if you pay some whizz kid to design a website, you get a megabyte here, a megabyte there, and everybody thinks they got value for money. The end result is crap, and usable only over ADSL, or over 3G if you are on an inclusive roaming tarriff (not many of those under about £40/month) or somebody else is paying. HB have a reasonably simple site which doesn't transfer much data - I guess a few hundred kbytes to get a job done; I don't use it for notams, for which I use the NATS site. But even a few hundred k is way too much; the entire user interface of HB can be done with a few k. Basically all you need is a very simple form like the Eurocontrol flight plan validation site.

As regards addressing, I think some people make this appear harder than it is. For IFR the FP just goes to the two IFPS addresses. For VFR, it goes to dep, dest, (a nearby airport if either of these is non towered) and the area FIS addresses. But if you are VFR, few people along the route care much about you anyway.

mad_jock

21st Jan 2009, 10:06

well it means that in about 50% of airport offices around europe you can't get access to the met-office or in the old days notams.

Alot of companys are using crewbriefing which runs through denmark so I would hazard a guess that 95% of aviation occurs in the UK without accessing local information sources. Its all done accessing the information through 3rd parties abroad.

White Hart

21st Jan 2009, 16:01

"Alot of companys are using crewbriefing which runs through denmark .."

I wonder if this is the service that operates from an EKBI AFTN address - the same one that we receive many calls about? Apparently operators filing from over here do not receive notification of changes to their submitted FPLs - just an ACK message. Only last week I spent a fair amount of time trying to assist two UK based operators who both had problems with this issue, and felt the need to resort to good ol' Heathrow FBU when the sh*t hit the fan. Naturally, we were only too happy to assist in whatever way we could. (It came to light that both of these operators also subscribe to AFPEx :eek: alongside this 'Danish pastry' - I'm surprised they didn't go there first for assistance.... or did they?? :})

Dan Dare

21st Jan 2009, 16:31

It seems perverse that every safety system for private pilots is being made more complex to the extent that they are no longer fit for purpose.

1. The flight planning system will be effectively unuseable once the FBU goes so that those flying from strips without extensive IT systems available will surely have to fly without the protectipon of a flight plan and alerting action in the future.

2. The NOTAM system no longer feels like a service. Third party software states that its use is not adequate preparation for a flight (or some other such caveat) and the only way to get NOTAM is from the ais website, yet the ais ommits vital information when you put in narrow route data, and if you go for information FIR by FIR you get so much that it would be practically impossible to make use of the data provided to assess implications on your route.

3. The Met-office aren't what they used to be. The 36 hour TAFs can be so long and cover so many eventualities that they start to become arse covering exercises from Exeter rather than a useful tool to allow an average GA pilot to tell whether it is prudent to fly.

What will it take to get a decent level of safety service like we used to have, or better still, a system such as the FAA provides for free. I doubt the average private pilot will be sending much money to FBU Heathrow premium rate service (although a virtual FBU/handling agent could work for some GA operators).

S-Works

21st Jan 2009, 16:34

I would be happy to subscribe to a service that allowed me to do this in a SIMPLE manner from ANY web browser without download of software.

It would have to be a reasonable fee which is something that needs careful thinking about!

However its something that has a definite market space.

"I just want to file a flight plan and be done"

If it were possible to meet your technical needs within a new service, are you prepared to pay a nominal fee for using it, or are you saying you want it for free?

"Flight plans will need to be properly addressed."

I saw this referred to in the Notam. Looks like those of you who do not use AFPEx, but want to file a FPL by fax or phone, are going to have to do the work for the AFPEx team. Lets be clear about this - the AFPEx team are not trained to the same standards as the Heathrow FBU staff - never were, never will be. They work for the CACC - thats the Comms dept for the uninitiated - so dont expect the same level of service. Until the advent of AFPEx, the only input CACC had with your flight plans was watching them shuttle back and forth across the AFTN network after they had been dealt with by us. As for the FIR/FPRSA staff, who may potentially be asked to provide a backup service - they are great at what they do, but that's not filing flight plans.

IO540 is correct in his assumption on another thread that AFPEx is all about cutiing staff costs - its certainly not about offering you, the flying community, a better or improved service - just a different one. Had AFPEx been allowed to run alongside the existing system, instead of replacing it, then that could well have been construed to be a step in the right direction - technical difficulties aside.

As stated in the opening post, we are looking at a number of options incorporating internet, email, fax, phone - H24, manned by those whose business it has been to provide this service day in, day out for many years. So, for those of you who don't subscribe to AFPEx, Homebriefing, whatever, but especially for all of you who want your FPLs filed using a method that suits you, and that you can trust - give us a call at the Heathrow FBU and tell us what you want and would expect from any new service - not just ours. We are open to your suggestions, and will welcome some real user input.

mad_jock

21st Jan 2009, 17:24

Crewbrief is an online service which you upload your route into. It then generates winded logs fuel plans etc and wx and notams for the route using performance data you have already uploaded for your fleet.

The flight plan is filed directly to Brussels.

White Hart

21st Jan 2009, 18:56

bose-x

we are very aware of the pricing issue. Its going to be difficult enough to persuade people to part with their money in the current climate, let alone for something which is already available for a modest (reasonable?) fee, or in certain circumstances (and with certain limitations) essentially for free.

This is why we are asking PPLs/GA to speak to us and tell us what they would expect to see in an 'ideal' service. We need to know this in order to ascertain whether or not a suitable end product can be developed within whatever budget constraints are placed upon us.

I cannot comment specifically about software, browsers etc - this belongs to those tasked with developing that side of the product, but all comments, ideas, requests etc from all sources (including this thread) are being fed back to the team.

The more input we receive, the better the chances of us getting it right.

S-Works

21st Jan 2009, 19:30

My requirements are pretty simple.......

I would like a website that I can sign into and enter an FPL, it will give me an ACK and I can sign in if needed to change the FPL due to time shift etc.

95% of my FPL are IFR airways so I would like to be able to verify the FPL but I guess that is a tall order!

Other than that I am flexible!

White Hart

21st Jan 2009, 19:40

bose-x

thank you - your 'wish list' will be passed to the Tech Rep first thing tomorrow morning.

any more for any more??

cvlux

21st Jan 2009, 20:02

I would like to have a web based where I can fill VFR and IFR flight plans without taking care of the addressing. Such as a web form to fill than the system decide where to send the flight plan. May be with some sort of thing that can cope with ZZZZ as ADES or ADEP or alternate.

Johnm

21st Jan 2009, 20:18

My only issues with the AFpex facility are the silly download arrangements, it's not rocket science to modify the script to check whether it's already there, and addressing. I really could do with some better guidance on the addressing, though the on line user guidance is there, it is a bit harder to follow than it should be.

The security I can live with, but they've fallen into the trap of forcing password changes instead of strong passwords, so of course I write mine down!!

I've used it a fair few times now and, apart from the foregoing, no probs.

LH2

21st Jan 2009, 22:00

White Hart,

If it were possible to meet your technical needs within a new service, are you prepared to pay a nominal fee for using it, or are you saying you want it for free?

As stated in the opening post, we are looking at a number of options incorporating internet, email, fax, phone - H24

Let me refer you to this post of mine (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/351628-night-vfr-filing-flight-plans-uk-europe-3.html#post4653264) from only a few days ago on a different thread.

That is the reality today here in the continent. You can phone any ARO/ATS office whatsoever and ask for whatever you need (not just flight plans, or weather, but information on other airports, advice on a routing, etc.)

As long as you speak the local language, anyway.

For years you have been able to log into Olivia (http://olivia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/) from any computer, and get your flight plans filed and a complete and automatic route briefing with NOTAMs and weather (in fact, it has been possible to access NOTAMs and Wx electronically in France since the 1980s via Minitel).

I file a flight plan on every single flight I do (Ok, except circuits OCAS), purely because it is so simple to do so (and free).

So really, I think this is the minimum you want to aim for:

* Stick to the KISS design principle (Keep it simple, stupid) in every single facet of your project.

* Provide a comprehensive flight assistance service available anytime, anywhere for not more than the cost of a normal telephone call (no premium charges, no silly "press one for... press two for...")

* A freely accessible, lightweight, simple web application which allows you to enter a time and a route and does the flight plan and prints the whole briefing for you (a la Olivia or homebriefing). No login, no complications.

* Install one of the above on each airfield of any notice so people can do their thing even if they don't have a laptop and there is no staff available (again, a la Olivia).

* Do not screw around with trying to handle PPRs and things like that. Here in the continent, often PPRs are there because they want you to talk to someone local before you go so you can get briefed on something important (e.g., arrival routes, local hazards, "quiet" times, etc.)

* Do not reinvent the wheel. Talk to the Olivia and Homebriefing teams. Consider licensing their technology: tried, tested, already familiar to many (but this will hit a political wall of Judean proportions, I know).

* Do not charge the end user for any of this. With the way flying costs in the UK compare to those elsewhere, you should already be receiving all this, and a glass of champagne on arrival too.

Anyhow, I hope the above comments are useful to you.

LH2

21st Jan 2009, 22:38

Backpacker,

just to take up your digression about cookies for a few moments...

the HTTP protocol is stateless

Correct, and cookies are attempt to provide state at the HTTP level.

However, the aim in this case is to maintain state at the application level ("application" in the business logic sense, not in the OSI sense.) For this cookies are just one of many possible options at different abstraction levels, each with advantages and disadvantages.

You have mentioned "Java applets or other things [....]". Amongst those other things and by way of example, two common alternatives are hidden form variables and URL parameters, and their implementation is not more complex than using cookies (in fact some frameworks manage session state transparently using whichever mechanism works best, e.g., switching to URL params if cookies are not available).

But, last not least, for a flight plan filing / flight briefing application, maintaining persistent session state is not necessary at all! Think about it for five minutes--think of it as a client assignment where it is a requirement that you must not maintain persistent state in the code itself. I'm sure you can come up with at least three different solutions to that problem in the space of a few minutes.

I realise that I'm probably teaching you to suck eggs here, but I thought I would comment briefly anyway. :ok:

White Hart

21st Jan 2009, 23:26

cvlux and johnm

thank you for your input - as with bose-x's reply, I will definitely pass on your comments to the development team - as I will with anybody else who would care to offer their input, positive or otherwise :ok: (PM's are OK, too)

LH2

re your 'Night VFR' post

In our opinion, the continued provision of the 'voice' element in the proposed service is vital. We are constantly being advised by our current customers that this single aspect - the ability for a pilot or operator to just pick up the phone, H24, and speak to somebody is, at worst, helpful, and at best, a potential lifeline. We fully intend to keep it as a prime resource, so that wherever you are, and whatever your requirement, you can call and receive person-to-person assistance.

Re the overseas systems - we are currently looking at all of the European services as part of our Market Research, both for what services they can provide, and for what price they want for doing it. Any eventual pricing strategy must be guided to a certain degree by them - and we would aim to ensure that our pricing is competitive. No point doing it otherwise.

Re your advisory comments - it is already becoming clear from those with whom we have discussed our project that the key objective must be to keep it simple to use. I personally cannot see why a service such as we are trying to create cannot be based on a straightforward, easily navigable website with links from a homepage to all the various options on offer, and communication between customer and ourselves be achieved via email. I would also like to see back-up in the form of fax, phone, text messaging - thereby following the 'keep it simple' mandate. The services currently offered by Heathrow FBU will undoubtedly be enhanced and expanded beyond current constraints.

This is just my own opinion - how the project team wish to develop the idea will no doubt be strongly influenced by the feedback to our research enquiries.

Thanks for taking the time to respond with your ideas.

BTW, - private pilots, small operators, flying clubs, airfields, farm strips, everybody - you are all welcome to call the FBU if you want to be kept informed of how we're doing, or if you would like to put your own requirements, ideas and suggestions to us. The number remains the same for now (0208 750 2615), but will change after 28Jan.

IO540

22nd Jan 2009, 07:38

LH2 - the "local language" is indeed the #1 differentiator between pilots who somehow always manage to hack it, and people like me :) In much of southern Europe, getting through to somebody in English (at an "international" airport) is often impossible,

White Hart - if you are looking for tips on how to set it up, there is plenty of good feedback in this thread. I will also send you an email or PM shortly.

I think you will find that IFR/airways piston GA is a fairly small % of IFR FP usage, and most of the light jet operators are using premium-price flight support services (Jeppesen., Executive, etc) and those certainly file electronically, probably from the USA.

I have not heard of a Danish outfit but there are bound to be a number of pay-per-filing services around.

Homebriefing charges about Euro 4 per flight plan (unless, IIRC, one end is in Switzerland or Austria in which case it is done free, within the annual charge) which is completely reasonable. I know UK PPLs are known for being stingy but the vast majority never fly anywhere and won't be filing flight plans, and the rest would IMHO be happy with this kind of pricing level.

Phone support is vital for the times that something goes wrong. I have had to make maybe 3 calls to HB, 2 of which were totally successful and the 3rd was a total disaster where the man was simply unwilling to help. It was a very subtle notam / closed airway issue. My guess is that I need telephone help less than 2-3% of the time.

I don't think UK pilots file many VFR flight plans, other than a) to le Touquet etc or b) during PPL training. My guess is that most of the VFR flight plans which were handled by Heathrow were indeed PPL training cases. But most of these will involve simple addressing. OTOH it sounds like the service you propose will contain the VFR addressing database anyway?

S-Works

22nd Jan 2009, 08:11

The reason I don't use HB is the €4 per plan. Which is basically £4 per plan these days. On some days when in Europe I can file as many as 4 flight plans in a single day and it starts to get very expensive when you build it up over a month then a year.

BackPacker

22nd Jan 2009, 08:15

Amongst those other things and by way of example, two common alternatives are hidden form variables and URL parameters, and their implementation is not more complex than using cookies

True, but this totally breaks down once you start using your "back" and "forward" buttons, or bookmarks to jump straight into a specific page.

But, last not least, for a flight plan filing / flight briefing application, maintaining persistent session state is not necessary at all!

Once again true but only if you want to file a flight plan or get a briefing for a route you have already figured out. But if you start using the app as a flight planning tool where you input a departure/destination with a direct route, then see what the consequences of that route are (NOTAMs, CAS), then drop in a few waypoints, change cruising levels, try again and eventually use this to generate a plog, a narrow route NOTAM briefing and an FPL it's not going to work anymore.

Anyway, we're drifting well off topic here but it does lead me to make a suggestion.

White Hart, would it be an idea to split your site in two parts somehow?

One part which has all the bells and whistles, Java downloads, cookies, the works, and allows you to setup flight plan templates and NOTAM briefings, submit and retrieve flight plans, view the ACK/REJ/MAN messages, interact with the support team via a live chat and so on and so forth.

Maybe even, like I suggested above, based around the principle of planning a flight, where you start with a departure and destination, one cruising level and a DCT route. It shows you the consequences of that route wrt. CAS and then allows you to drop in waypoints, level changes and so forth. Once you have the route sorted it drops in the upper winds and generates a plog. It generates a narrow route NOTAM briefing. It generates & submits an FPL including EET/ remarks. It generates TAF and METARs for the route. And it might even contact the EAD site to retrieve the VFR charts for the relevant airfields, combine them in to one PDF for printing.

And then a second part which is essentially 1990s HTTP/HTML only. No graphics, no cookies, no Java, no JavaScript, no Flash, nothing. Just a pure HTTP login after which you get an HTTP form to submit a flight plan or another HTTP form to retrieve a NOTAM briefing of some kind. With the aim of that site being that it has to be for experienced users on a trip, who want to transfer the least amount of KB possible. Feedback on submitted FPLs by text message please, with the FPL included in its final format in the text message, if message size allows for that.

You could even drop in the requirement that that second part of the site should be tested over a 19.2 Kbps or slower modem, or even over a GSM data connection. If you can make it work in a text-mode browser such as links or lynx, even better.

bigboots

22nd Jan 2009, 09:34

hmm. I've been a bench viewer of this website for some time now, I have been prompted to register because of the banter going on here and what seem to be wild assumptions about things we don't all really know anything about. I have spoken to the AFPEX helpdesk guys on many occations and their help has been faultless. In fact recently I asked them about the very issues you raise in here. They are all messaging experts, they all know a lot about flight plans, in fact a lot than I even know and I have been planning, filing and flying for many more years than I care to remember. The CACC, as they are called, are all Assistant Air Traffic Controllers, they man the place 24H, can be called and will assist you with anything exactly as the FBU has done with me so far (some of them even worked in the FBU). The help includes addressing by the way.

I asked about email and SMS and they said they are working on it, and all of the feedback they have got has not been ignored. When I mentioned how Java kills my laptop 3G bandwidth, they were also aware of this and had a solution up their sleeve being tested which should be released soon. The guy stressed to me that these were early days for AFPEX and there are a hell of a lot of people working hard to make it better. Ring them, speak to them, they don't bite and certainly are not inexperienced. I get the impression NATS politics are making this thread a bit biased, keep it out of here NATS boys/girls and in your meeting rooms.

IO540

22nd Jan 2009, 10:24

I very much agree that a dual website (a normal one, plus a simple flight plan filing form which works on a 640x480 PDA screen) would be the best way.

Paradoxically, it is for IFR flight plans that one is more likely to need the PDA option, since VFR FPs are almost never declined at a substantial time after being filed i.e. when the pilot is no longer near his PC - because in most of Europe nobody ever looks at the route.

But the PDA option should do both VFR and IFR FPs.

And IFR FPs don't need any fancy addressing... what they do need is a valid Eurocontrol route but nobody will generate that for you. Eurocontrol have refused to give access to their in-house routing tools. You have to use the special tools 1 (http://www.autoplan.aero/) 2 (http://www.flightplanpro.eu/), or a certain well worn sim pilot website (http://rfinder.asalink.net/free/) (the latter has been the only option to private pilots for years but often fails to deliver a valid route no matter how many times you have iterated it) and all these need a laptop with internet access.

I am curious how a proposed paid-for Homebriefing-like service would deal with VFR flight plan addressing. As I said before, HB have never properly answered my questions on this, and anyway I stopped caring. It would be quite funny if the filing service simply sent the FP to the departure ARO, leaving some poor bu**er there to type it all back in, into ..... guess what ? ........... in the UK.....AFPEX!! :)

IMHO, Euro 4 per FP is a very reasonable price. It is absolutely zilch in the context of actually flying somewhere where a FP is required. It is about 1% of the likely direct cost of the flight. But obviously there is HB, which already has hundreds and possibly thousands of users, so a new service would need to undercut the price to get business.

BackPacker

22nd Jan 2009, 14:05

The other thing that would be *really* nice would be if there were an API, in addition to a web interface. This would enable organizations like PocketFMS (Home of the PocketFMS Foundation. (http://www.pocketfms.com)) to submit a flight plan based on the data that the user put into PocketFMS to plan a flight.

Jim59

22nd Jan 2009, 16:18

White Hart wrote
thank you for your input - as with bose-x's reply, I will definitely pass on your comments to the development team - as I will with anybody else who would care to offer their input,

It would be good to be able to play with AFPEX in a training mode so that you could prepare and submit a flight plan without it actually being sent to the real destinations. Validate Yes.

IO540

22nd Jan 2009, 20:12

You can submit a FP with a "validate only" box ticked, IIRC.

DC10RealMan

22nd Jan 2009, 21:29

I have just retired from the ATC world and I also fly and I think that we are all missing one very important point. The Heathrow FBU is the focal point for many enquiries from neighbouring ATC Centres and foreign airfields about overdue aircraft, the personnel in the FBU have the experience and ATC knowledge to know where to "chase up" these details and hopefully bring the enquiry to a successful conclusion. I worked on the FIR at Swanwick prior to my recent retirement and when I asked various managers who was going to take on these responsibilites I was met with either a shrug of the shoulders or they did not understand the question as many of nats managers and project people have little knowledge or sympathy with General Aviation as they deem it "non revenue generating". The ONLY reason for the closure of the Heathrow FBU is to reduce the staff and save money, this compounded by the ignorance of the mangement is going to present problems in the next few months. The reason the LHR FBU is closing in January is because when the s**t hits the fan in the spring and summer when the better weather comes there will be no alternative and pilots will be quite unable to file flight plans for international flights (LFAT) for example. I as an insider have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the new system initiating overdue action in time to save me in the event of a ditching or accident. In fact I have arranged with an ex-colleague who also flies to notify him as to my route and elapsed times so that he can alert the authorities if I am overdue. I would suggest that the technical aspects of APFEX and/or computer "stuff" is secondary to the essential function of a flight plan which is to alert the authorities should overdue action become necessary. It should also be interesting when foreign pilots coming to the UK for the day try to file their return legs with APFEX as presumably they have no account with them. There is a Chinese curse which says "May you live in interesting times" I think that the closure and loss of the LHR FBU and their expertise could well be the start of it.

BackPacker

22nd Jan 2009, 22:29

DC10RealMan, I share your concerns but these concerns are valid right now already. As far as I know, the UK is the *only* (civilized) country that doesn't initiate overdue action if a (VFR) flightplan is not 'closed' in time. In fact, the whole concept of 'closing' a flightplan is alien to the UK. That's why you already have to nominate a "responsible person" right now, if you want somebody to come looking. I know the Heathrow FBU is nominated as RP a lot, but this is totally independent of any flight plan.

It should also be interesting when foreign pilots coming to the UK for the day try to file their return legs with APFEX as presumably they have no account with them.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of pilots will file the FPL for the return leg via the exact same way as for the outbound leg. In my particular case, I would submit both plans via homebriefing.nl or phone up the Amsterdam FIO.

mad_jock

23rd Jan 2009, 00:53

I think most folk have missed the point which is ATC want to know what traffic is.

They make it expensive and hard as hell to provide what they want. You will note its not what you want.

Then they moan when Pilots don't file. If your outside the airways route it is refused and your back at stage 1. It is a service if its crap don't use it go flying the GA scene causes problems with there high piroity traffic (which is everything else) Unless you max them out they can't call for resources its a catch 22

Personally I wouldn't file anything just call up then they could file for being overloaded any if you get refused MOR it that you were refused.

Its not the controllers fault its this fecked up commercial bollocks.

Controllers and pilots are a team against the money saving arses who are civil servants. More paper work that gets submited crying safety the better

DC10RealMan

23rd Jan 2009, 07:54

Backpacker.

You can close a flight plan in the UK by telephoning the Heathrow FBU once you have safely landed and they will send out a signal on AFTN giving your actual landing time to all the addresses on your original flight plan. The London FIS cannot do it until the aeroplane has landed safely however once on the ground you may be unable to receive them.
Once the aircraft is notified as overdue by a responsible person, ATC at the destination aerodrome etc it is the LHR FBU who makes enquiries with the London FIS, UK and other European airfields, and other agencies based on their ATC knowledge as to whether the subject aircraft has diverted, cancelled the flight or is actually missing. What will happen after its closure is anyones guess, the military are not staffed to do this and neither are the London FIS or the Swanwick flight plannning section.
I am in agreement with "Mad Jock" if for whatever reason I am unable to file a flight plan either for a domestic or international flight via APFEX I will call the London FIR and if they are too busy I will call a London Control frequency as I am quite within my rights to do so. Any refusal will be met with a formal complaint to the UK CAA and a letter to my MP.
The thing to remember that the closure of the LHR FBU is financially driven by managers within nats who have no understanding of or empathy with the GA community.

IO540

23rd Jan 2009, 07:59

But surely that is only because the powers to be have decided against publishing a phone # for London Info....

The ATC system is full of "top secret" phone numbers.

For years, the two IFPS numbers were widely believed to be top secret, and were passed around in hushed "don't pass this on" emails. Until late 2007 when somebody there told me they are public :ugh:and pilots are encouraged to phone them if they have IFR routing issues.

White Hart

23rd Jan 2009, 21:51

I can feel my cage being rattled :mad:

Bigboots

"..what seem to be wild assumptions about things we don't all really know anything about.."

and you do, I suppose? :hmm:

"They are all messaging experts"

and pray enlighten us all on what basis you make that statement :rolleyes: .. maybe you meant 'massaging"?

"The CACC, as they are called, are all Assistant Air Traffic Controllers,"

WTF is an "Assistant Air Traffic Controller" when its at home?? Do you mean "failed Cadet", or maybe "ATSA3"?

"some of them even worked in the FBU"

erm, ONE of them worked in the FBU, (that I know of) and not for very long, either.

"I get the impression NATS politics are making this thread a bit biased, keep it out of here NATS boys/girls and in your meeting rooms."

I'm getting the impression that I'm now getting some good replies and responses about a flight planning project which might just be of some help to a percentage of the flying fraternity, irrespective of anything else.

I also get the feeling that, bearing in mind you claim to be a first-time posting "bench viewer", NATS politics, whether on here or anywhere else, have absolutely nothing to do with you. You're commenting on my career and my livelihood, and its got SFA to do with you! So, long walk, short pier, :mad:

"will assist you with anything exactly as the FBU has done with me so far"

Any one of us at EGLL FBU - even me!- will be happy to take your next FPL over the phone if you care to call in before 28Jan - and don't forget to tell the Assistant who answers that you're known as bigboots - you might even be talking to me!!

AAARGHH!! calm down, calm down, deeeeep breaths... aahhh, that's better!

BTW, thanks to the rest of you who have taken the trouble to comment/advise on our plan, whichever way you see it - much appreciated.

cvlux

23rd Jan 2009, 22:01

DC10,
I agree with you that FPL for VFR is very important for overdue actions.
But that's why we are talking of something electronic for the future. My dream (as VFR pilot and manager of helicopter operations) is to keep FBU open, but as it is a dream we have to look for something else.
As an helicopter operator we fly frequently from and to ZZZZ airfields. Now when we fly to ZZZZ we ask the FBU to be our responsible person, when we fly from normaly is the arrival TWR. I the future without FBU who will be the responsible person?
As you say FP is useful for overdue actions. Know I send a fax or phone the FBU and the fill the flight plan for me. Without FBU I have to send a fax with all the addresses in. I'm sure that to avoid this kind of troubles many pilot will quit to fill FPs.
Is for this reasons that we need some IT that can at least fill the flight plan for us.

LH2

24th Jan 2009, 02:11

cvlux,

be careful there.

I agree with you that FPL for VFR is very important for overdue actions.
But that's why we are talking of something electronic for the future.

There is an almost ritual obsession with technology for the sake of technology in this part of the world today.

Think about your statement again. It is the very replacement of human operators with an automated system that brings about the problem you are describing.

The only IT solution you require to satisfy your needs is a telephone, to put you in touch with a competent person at the other end.

DC10RealMan

24th Jan 2009, 07:44

I have to agree with LH2. I would often sit on the London FIS and get a telephone call from the London FBU asking if I had worked a particular aircraft which was overdue at the destination airfield or strip. If I had not then together we could work out a possible scenario as to where the aeroplane might be given the weather, military activity, and other factors before formal overdue action was initiated via D and D and the search and rescue services alerted. I somehow doubt whether an automated system would have that flexibility.

IO540

24th Jan 2009, 08:04

As an aside, just how useful VFR flight plans really are for locating a wreckage with some corpses in it?

Most people flying VFR are probably nowhere near the filed route.

And those flying VFR accurately (i.e. treating it as an IFR flight, a GPS-programmed route) will know when a FP is not really needed (practically anytime within the UK) and won't have filed one to start with.

I would bet that locating wreckage involves some radar tape lookups, pretty early in the process.

DC10RealMan

24th Jan 2009, 09:42

I5040

You are absolutely right. I would suggest however it is a good start. I have crossed the North Sea, Irish Sea, and the Western Approaches and the primary record of my flight was the VFR flight plan which I updated as necessary via Amsterdam, London FIS, or other agencies. In the event of overdue action it was the primary record of my flight hence my diligence in keeping it updated. I would point out that there are large tracts of the UK FIR in which radio communication is patchy (Cardigan Bay for example)

IO540

24th Jan 2009, 09:50

However, DC10, the cases you flew were mandatory flight plan cases anyway (foreign flights, presumably).

Secondary radar returns work (AIUI) much more reliably than primary returns, in terms of terrain getting in the way, so somebody with a Mode C/S transponder will be trackable in most of the UK whether they can receive an official radar service or not.

DC10RealMan

24th Jan 2009, 10:22

IO540,

Yes you are right some were international and as you say a flight plan is mandatory, however the majority were not for example low level photography and survey flights along the coast of mid and north Wales, flights over Sutherland and northern Scotland, low level flights around Orkney and Shetland where they is no radio contact due to the low level. The international flights across the North Sea where you lose contact with London and Amsterdam FIS once you get a few miles offshore and you truly are "on your own" and my progress could monitored (approx) with the reports and elapsed times of my filed flight plan.

mad_jock

24th Jan 2009, 11:50

White Hart you are quite right to throw the teddy out a wee bit.

Personally I think your method and intent posting this thread is the way foward in the intial phases of redifining the service.

I know we will never get a Xbrief service in the UK.

The problem I think you will get is that if you charge for the service it will be under used. If you don't charge you will get your resources stretched as no doudt a heap of commercial operators will start taking the piss using you as there ops dept.

For vfr if you could have a internet front end which allows you to file and spits out graphical notam brief for the route and wx. The security on this front end should be such that it doesn't matter what security setup the client computer is it won't boot you out, the met office is an example of how not to do it.

IFR same security,2 levels of service airways and none airways. You are basically stuffed if you want to file a flight plan outside and it causes tons of agro to all concerned if you file airways then try and jump out enroute. How you sort this out i don't know.

IFR airways just a front end to allow the pilot to file with route checking, usual wx and notams. A method to edit after the please bog off return email from brussels arrives. This will need to be forwarded to an email address or sms text.

For all services a text number to shut flight plans down or cancel. Don't believe the IT boys that its hard or expensive to set this up you can do it with a 386 with linux on it. It is a pain if you don't have any sys admins who have done it before. But once they sus it out you will be getting text messages off the coffee machine telling you its running out of coffee, and you can txt back and it will make you one.

And for all services an automatic option to print out plates for fields included in the AIP.

As for charging

VFR per aircraft 250 quid a year. Up to 100 plans 50 quid for another 100.

IFR single engine under 5700kg 300 quid for 100 plans 50 quid for another 100.

IFR twin the same under 5700kg

IFR twin above 5700kg 600 quid up to 10 tonnes 1200 above that. 100 quid for another 100.

Text service 50 quid PA up to 100 texts 50 for another 100.

And you can use a points system if its to be an individual pilot system instead of an aircraft but do allow both. And have it so you can only have one active at one time ie aircraft in the air.

You might find if you get the charging right for a reasonable service you maybe able to break even.

Anyway its only an idea and open to be shot down in flames.

IO540

24th Jan 2009, 12:06

I think your pricing is too high, MJ.

Not so much per-flight but one needs a much smaller quantum of charge.

The vast majority of VFR flights have no FP filed. Of the rest, most pilots can file them via their tower. And these are the UK's most stingy pilots!

Only airway/IFR FPs need filing properly but private pilots don't do that many IFR flights. I know some claim to do hundreds but you must not believe those postings (nobody else I know, who knows the individuals and the planes they fly, does). The average UK IR owner-pilot doing say 150hrs/year probably files 10-30 IFR flight plans per year, and the outgoing one can always be filed easily via Afpex from one's home PC.

Those sitting at home with their PC on ADSL already have everything at their fingertips, fast and free and convenient.

IMHO, the best service would be one similar to Homebriefing but further optimised for pilots who are "out and about" as already discussed. There is much that could be done, fairly easily.

The excellent suggestion of closing an FP with SMS... this just needs a GSM modem (or any data-capable GSM phone) plugged into a PC running a totally trivial application.

For example I recently spoke to the Falmouth ELT registry and asked them if they have a mobile number, to which I could text the GPS position from my Thuraya satellite phone (every sat phone has GPS and has this super emergency feature). They said they haven't got a published one, but why not? I think almost every "turboprop and above" plane nowadays carries a sat phone; at this level it is a "fashion must have". All they need is a GSM modem (Siemens TC35 or some other sub-£100 one) and a PC. If I had to make a phone call with the sat phone, there is no way to do that while seeing the GPS position on the screen.

This incoming-SMS capability costs nothing. You just get a PAYG SIM card, and send out one text message every 6 months to keep it alive.

TALLOWAY

24th Jan 2009, 12:22

DC10RealMan

[I am in agreement with "Mad Jock" if for whatever reason I am unable to file a flight plan either for a domestic or international flight via APFEX I will call the London FIR and if they are too busy I will call a London Control frequency as I am quite within my rights to do so. Any refusal will be met with a formal complaint to the UK CAA and a letter to my MP.

Are the flights you are considering VFR or IFR ?? Are you entering en route Controlled Airspace on these flights ??

If you are VFR, then the en route controllers won't be operating airspace where you can enter, unless you're above FL195 in the Class C. So what gives you the 'right' to call someone who has no responsibility for the airspace you will be flying in ?? I'm sure as a busy en route sector controller, they will tell you to politely 'bugger off', as is their right, and will be quaking in their boots at your threats to report them to the CAA and your MP for not giving a service to someone who is not within their airspace. NOT !!

If you are IFR, then why are you not complying with the laid down criteria which is to file your IFR flight plan a minimum of 60 minutes BEFORE estimated off blocks time ? Are you one of those pilots who likes to do it on the hoof to try and get around Air Traffic Flow Management procedures ? One of those pilots who could end up causing an overload because they didn't try hard enough to get something in the system and comply with their obligations and responsibilities ? If you are, then you'll find that the en route controllers have the right to refuse your flight entry in to en route Controlled Airspace if you haven't complied with the requirement to file a Flight Plan, until such time as they have the workload to accomodate you and your airborne filing, especially if they are already operating at capacity with aircraft who have filed, or another sector down the line has ATFM regulations in place. You might have a long wait.

The NATS licence lays down obligations for its Area Control Centres to provide Flight Information Services, including Flight Planning aspects. The provision of this is acheived through the FIS sectors and appropriate Flight Plan processing sections. No where does it say that an en route controller, with responsibility for a defined piece of airspace (which is contained within the UK AIP), is suddenly responsibile for providing such services to pilots who are not operating within, or intending to operate within, their area of responsibility. I find it hard to believe that someone who used to work the FIS sectors would not be aware of this and is advocating everyone to call on busy control frequencies which have nothing whatsoever to do with your flight. You may wish to write to your MP and the CAA, but I'll be MOR'ing you if you call on my frequency and take umbrage at my refusal to action your airborne flight plan and telling you to call the proper agency. You will be attempting to use an unauthorised frequency and agency for that transaction and it is clear that the CAA might wish to take appropriate licencing action to ensure you are aware of the airspace divisions, ATS unit responsibilities, and your own airmanship and responsibility to know the rules and regulations pertaining to your flight.

I have to agree with LH2. I would often sit on the London FIS and get a telephone call from the London FBU asking if I had worked a particular aircraft which was overdue at the destination airfield or strip. If I had not then together we could work out a possible scenario as to where the aeroplane might be given the weather, military activity, and other factors before formal overdue action was initiated via D and D and the search and rescue services alerted. I somehow doubt whether an automated system would have that flexibility.

Does the responsibility for initiating and co-ordinating this action not lie with the parent Area Control Supervisor ?? It might be that the FIS and a Flight Planning agency end up doing most of the actual legwork, but the overall task should lie with someone who has instant access to a multitude of agencies and can keep everyone that needs to know informed. They are also paid to make the decisions to elevate things if they believe it is necessary. Did you or the FBU have to contact aircraft owners or operators, police forces, airfield operators (which could be a flying club), etc, etc ? If you did, did this detract from your prime task of providing a service to all airspace users ?? I'm guessing that potentially it could.

flights over Sutherland and northern Scotland, low level flights around Orkney and Shetland where they is no radio contact due to the low level.

If you had never made contact with FIS at Scottish, then no one at Scottish ACC would see your VFR plan, or have any interest in it, unless someone reported you missing and it would then be dug out of the archive or teleprinter roll as part of the SAR process. Mandatory VFR plans for crossing international boundaries are also not processed and put out on sectors, but are available should there be any query by agencies such as Air Defence or SAR.

It's exactly as IO540 says:

As an aside, just how useful VFR flight plans really are for locating a wreckage with some corpses in it?

Most people flying VFR are probably nowhere near the filed route.

And those flying VFR accurately (i.e. treating it as an IFR flight, a GPS-programmed route) will know when a FP is not really needed (practically anytime within the UK) and won't have filed one to start with.

I would bet that locating wreckage involves some radar tape lookups, pretty early in the process.

On another tack;

But surely that is only because the powers to be have decided against publishing a phone # for London Info....

The ATC system is full of "top secret" phone numbers.

For years, the two IFPS numbers were widely believed to be top secret, and were passed around in hushed "don't pass this on" emails. Until late 2007 when somebody there told me they are public :ugh:and pilots are encouraged to phone them if they have IFR routing issues.

It is absolutely right that telephone numbers for operational controlling positions are not published. There needs to be a filtering system so that someone who is not plugged in and talking to traffic can ascertain if the controller/FISO has the capacity to take a call from a non ATC party. That filter is the Supervisor, numbers for all ACCs being available in the UK AIP I believe.

There should be no difficulty in publishing numbers for operational sections, such as Flight Planning, who users have a need to contact by telephone as a normal procedure. These are available in the AIP as well I think. Or call up the FIS frequency and ask them for a number as part of the information you require for your flight.

On the general topic of this thread, clearly the change to more online and automated systems means that things have to change, including sorting out software and education for users to ensure that the system is robust and good enough for the job it is intended to do. I'd fully support that, along with pressure from users to ensure that it happens.

mad_jock

24th Jan 2009, 12:48

Good post Talloway.

THe 60min rule has really gone out the window due to how fast the system runs these days. Ops refile for me please the old one has dropped out. Turn phone off.

TWR slowburd xxxx clear start. while the phone is shutting down. If you started the system actually putting a delay in so it was at least 30mins it would stop pilots assuming they are going to get a plan 5 mins after submitting it.

The biggest problem I find is not getting into controlled airspace but getting out. And as you well know come hell and high water you won't let anyone route from talla up to grice to leave there because of the loads in the Tay sector. So we take the hit for fuel and engine time flying an extra 15mins to foyle. And thats even if we file a plan for a grice routing.

The level of costs I proposed could have another method of on the fly one off switch payment. But just for the investment of the service they need to have a on going lump sum or they could never plan ahead. 250 quid for a group aircraft is resonable.

If you make the service a one stop people would use it. And if they had payed a fee for the year they would use it alot more than they do just now.

And no sat phones are as common as rocking horse poo in domestic european service. The bigger machines have a GSM connection to send the previous flights data back to ops/engineering.

Yet again you think we are far better equiped than you. I run with 25 year old nav gear with an old first generation trimble GPS. Clonking analog selector radios. The newest bit of kit is the TCAS and EGWS unit and its there only because it was mandated that we had to have them fitted. Does it stop us going anywhere? Not really, is it a pain not really. Even if we had all the fancy kit it still wouldn't change the fact that we are flying a 25year old, noisy slow turbo prop which is a pain in the arse to ATC area getting in the way of high FL departures and arrivals. And a pain for approach controllers because we are quite happy to run in at VMO to 4 miles.

IO540

24th Jan 2009, 16:23

You need to upgrade your hardware, MJ, else you are going to end up on the back of the curve ;)

You are right though about IFR flight plan filing - the FP gets distributed to all units in minutes and usually seconds. One can file it from the cockpit, with a laptop on GPRS/3G, and I've done that a few times when I got shafted by somebody...

Talloway - did you know VFR is banned FL195+ in Class C in Europe? I wonder if anybody in Eurocontrol remembered to file an exception to ICAO on that one - OOPS :mad: Oh while on that one, it is also banned in most of French Class D FL115+. But the French don't need to file variations; they just do it.

cvlux

24th Jan 2009, 19:49

Sorry I messed up a bit (on english speacking).
My point is: without a simple way to fill a VFR flight plans, that means that a lot of pilots will stop to fill VFR flight plans.
Last but not least does this new unit work even as a responsible person on request as FBU did in the past?

p.s. still waiting since 2 week for our afpex activation.

DC10RealMan

24th Jan 2009, 21:08

Talloway.

You are absolutely right of course. I would hope that I would able to file any flight plan via the appropriate method either via APFEX or the FIR and my concern is not so much with the filing of the flight plan whether it be VFR or IFR but the consequences of the initiation of overdue action and the roles and responsibilities of the personnel concerned. My recent (post-privisation) experiences are of the Swanwick centre and therefore my posts are coloured by that enviroment. It is my impression that the supervisory grades there have little knowledge and experience of aviation and general aviation in particular and should these issues arise then they will be found wanting. My concern is that overdue and rescue action will be delayed due to there being no one person taking the initative for tracing action, a role that is presently filled by the Heathrow FBU.
I think that you will find that in the Air Pilot it says that in the absence of the London/Scottish FIS such as closure due to staff shortages for example I am actually entitled to call London/Scottish Control for a flight information service. I would certainly agree that it would be a unwelcome distraction for you however crossing large tracts of sea or mountains without communication with anyone is a greater dereliction of airmanship.
In conclusion and in my opinion all these issues, real and imagined are a result of Nats management and their obsession with budgets, shares, cost indices, Standard and Poors credit rating etc etc to the detriment of its staff and providing a service to the airlines and their passengers.

scooter boy

24th Jan 2009, 21:33

Where the heck has this idea come from?

I've never paid to file one, ever, period.
I begrudge paying a penny more for a service which has been free up to this point.

Heathrow flight clearance have been a fantastic resource for me in the past and 90% of the plans I have filed have been on the hoof, sometimes walking, sometimes in the car, sometimes in the cockpit, sometimes abroad but almost always away from the luxury of a PC and fax machine. Loss of this unit will be a major problem for me.

So what happens if the airways routing is not accepted by the eurocontrol computer, will we just get a flight plan rejected message? will it be encumbent on us to check the route through some validation software? perhaps at another cost?

How will the alternate routing be communicated to us? Through ATC over the frequency? With all 40 items on the route having to be spelt out phonetically?

Maybe Blitzplan has something to recommend it!

Dear dear....

SB

White Hart

24th Jan 2009, 22:34

Mad Jock

thanks for the input - will be passing your comments on to the project. Pricing is going to be a difficult and critical part of any new service. It will be interesting to see how the 'backroom boys' come up with a pricing structure (assuming we're ever allowed to develop this project that far!:rolleyes:)

ScooterBoy

thanks for the thanks! glad we have been of some assistance :ok:

DC10RealMan

24th Jan 2009, 22:49

Scooterboy.

I refer you to my previous post. Nats is no longer a service and a very good service at that but a business run by accountants and we all know what that means!
I am also still awaiting an Apfex registration as well.

White Hart

25th Jan 2009, 15:47

For those who are interested (:rolleyes:) I've just seen another thread going on the Flyer website about the FBU closure/Afpex etc. Much the same comments as on here, but looking at both forums, one thing is beginning to become very clear (for me, at least), and that is the requirement for our project to get the opinions and input of those flyers/airfields/clubs who are not techno-geeks or Afpex/HB registered, and who will find the flight planning service changed to their decided disadvantage come 28Jan. (I shall certainly be speaking to the people at work about this over the coming days)

I wonder how they intend to address (no pun intended!) this problem? It was suggested on the other forum that we may well see an increase in the number of non-FPL-filed flights taking place, when maybe the filing of a FPL is still a requirement.

Safe or not?

DC10RealMan

25th Jan 2009, 16:20

White Hart,

The filing of a flight plan for an international flight even one to Le Touquet is a mandatory requirement. I could be interesting come the first decent flying day in the spring.

cvlux

26th Jan 2009, 12:20

Last but not least. Today NATS should publish the AIP SUP for all this mess. But till now there are nothing both on AIS website and on the EAD.

Good job

bigboots

27th Jan 2009, 16:34

I can feel my cage being rattled

Bigboots

"..what seem to be wild assumptions about things we don't all really
know anything about.."

and you do, I suppose?

I'm not rattling any cages, just suggesting you allow the CACC guys a fair chance before deciding that they are not up to the job and
putting them down on a public forum. If you want to run down the guys who have been nothing but helpful to me, even allowing me to visit them and see how they work, how about you do so where they can reply to you.

"They are all messaging experts"

and pray enlighten us all on what basis you make that statement ..maybe you meant 'massaging"?

Actually, the way I understand, CACC are the central hub for ANY message passing through the AFTN system in the UK, so if anything they
probably handled your messages from the FBU. They have direct links to all international comms centres and are located next to D&D (sorry if I
don't know their new fancy name, but my memory isn't what it used to be).

"The CACC, as they are called, are all Assistant Air Traffic Controllers,"

WTF is an "Assistant Air Traffic Controller" when its at home?? Do you
mean "failed Cadet", or maybe "ATSA3"?

"some of them even worked in the FBU"

erm, ONE of them worked in the FBU, (that I know of) and not for very
long, either.

Again, my sincerest apologies for not knowing the essential terminology. I used to be an AATC in the RAF, that's what we were
called in the 80s. I called them over the weekend, they are ATSA3s and ATSA4s. Glad to be of service. I was in the office when two of
the three staff there had FBU experience. I'm not really interested in fuelling a grudge match, suffice to say I was very impressed with what
they knew.

"I get the impression NATS politics are making this thread a bit biased, keep it out of here NATS boys/girls and in your meeting
rooms."

I'm getting the impression that I'm now getting some good replies and responses about a flight planning project which might just be of some
help to a percentage of the flying fraternity, irrespective of anything else.

I also get the feeling that, bearing in mind you claim to be a first-time posting "bench viewer", NATS politics, whether on here or
anywhere else, have absolutely nothing to do with you. You're commenting on my career and my livelihood, and its got SFA to do with
you! So, long walk, short pier,

Don't get me wrong, I have used the FBU. I am not saying that closing down what has been useful so far to me is not going to different.
That's the word though, different. It will take a while to get used to, but we all will. If what they provide isn't good enough, I'm sure
necessity will force provision of improvements. Best of luck with your project though, hell, if it provides me with something I can't
already do on AFPEX I'll use it myself. From speaking to people in the crewrooms though, nobody likes to pay for anything they can get free
already so you will probably have to concentrate on services not already available (including Olivia, Homebrief, Met Office, AIS,
AFPEX).

"will assist you with anything exactly as the FBU has done with me so far"

Any one of us at EGLL FBU - even me!- will be happy to take your next FPL over the phone if you care to call in before 28Jan - and don't
forget to tell the Assistant who answers that you're known as bigboots - you might even be talking to me!!

I file my own plans on AFPEX actually. I prefer the instant reply from Eurocontrol and the history in my mailbox, means I can just
retrieve an old message, change the details and file again in future. Also I can save templates for the routes I use often.

AAARGHH!! calm down, calm down, deeeeep breaths... aahhh, that's better!

Sorry if this came across as trolling, but I feel quite strongly about the issue. I took time out to go meet them and talk to them about
what was a concern for me. They seem genuine, have a lot of knowledge and were happy to answer any questions. It remains to be seen if it is
all smoke and mirrors, but only time will tell.

Have you spoken to them or visited them White Hart, or do you dislike them that much for something they probably didn't even choose to take over from you? Cost cutting is something that all companies have to look at in the current climate, but if you have the skills you say you have I'm sure it wouldn't be in NATS' interest to lose you.