cancellation of the flight plan without my consent

[skywalker14]

hello, I'm new in PPRuNe, and I hope I posted this thread on the good forum.

I had some trouble with an air traffic controller recently.

After having filed a flight plan, I realized that the plane on which I had to make my flight had technical problems. I decided to call the "control office " for change of registration, and calling it, a controller has expressed his anger toward me and he cancelled my flight plan without my request.

Does he has the right to do this? :ugh:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<I decided to call the "control office " for change of registration, and calling it, a controller has expressed his anger toward me and he cancelled my flight plan without my request.>>

I presume that you mean there was an aircraft change but I do not see how this should make the controller angry? I would have thought that, world-wide, only the pilot or his airline could cancel a FPLN?

[TWR]

What was the callsign in the flightplan ? If the callsign equals
the registration and you changed the aircraft then cancelling was the
right thing to do (no need to get angry, though).

If you filed on a specific callsign (BAW, BEL,UAL,...) then a
simple modification message would do to change the reg.

But this isn't normally something ATC would do. It's up to the
operator/pilot/whoever filed the flightplan...

[skywalker14]

Good evening and thank you for your replies.

To be more precise: in item 7, I put the company designator and the flight number, and in item 18, I added the reg / XX-XXX.

So , after I knew that the aircraft on which I had to make the flight had a technical problem, I decided to change the aircraft registration (XX-XXX) while keeping the same type of aircraft.

his answer was as follow: ... no I will not change your flight plan, and you know what? I'll cancel it. (end of communication)

In this case, has he committed a professional error by canceling my flight plan without my request!

[Tarq57]

So , after I knew that the aircraft on which I had to make the flight had a technical problem, I decided to change the aircraft registration (XX-XXX) while keeping the same type of aircraft.

his answer was as follow: ... no I will not change your flight plan, and you know what? I'll cancel it. (end of communication)

In this case, has he committed a professional error by canceling my flight plan without my request!
The answer to that probably depends on exactly who you were talking to. At my unit (TWR) we do not get involved with flight plans. If necessary a caller is referred to their company ops or the flight briefing office.

Something is missing, here. Why exactly did he get angry, whoever you were talking with?

[skywalker14]

All I can say is that the operator is a flight academy, so often there is a change of aircraft registration, or request for a delay ... and of course by contacting the briefing office (what i called "control office").

I think the controller must have had a difficult day and work stress, so I guess he was angry against the first person who walled (maybe it was me), and since I am a student pilot, he thought he could violate the rules and regulations without expecting any reaction from my part.

Now the questions is had he the right to cancel the flight plan without my consent ?
After all, I asked him to change the aircraft registration and not to cancel it.

[TWR]

The ARO should have filed a MOD message with the new registration.
He could cancel the FPL and immediately re-submit a new one with the
correct reg. But that would take more time...

A more professional attitude on the phone would be nice, too.

[reportyourlevel]

What's a MOD message? Do you mean a CHG?

[TWR]

:\

you're right

CHG aka modification message.

[Foxbat01]

A change message has no field 18 and so could not be used to change the a/c reg in the original plan.

As to the question of professionalism of the controller I think if you are asking such a question on a public forum there is more that you'r are not saying.

Either drop it or go and settle your difference with the controller in a professional manner.
:)

[reportyourlevel]

I'm sure you can send a CHG for field 18, in this manner:

(CHG-ABC123A-EGAA-EGBB-18/REG/GABCD)

[samotnik]

I have seen thousands of CHG messages changing aircraft registration. Common practice within airlines utilizing multiple aircraft of the same type.

[Foxbat01]

Look at Doc 4444, not part of ICAO standard therefore receiving systems not obliged to accept or process.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I think it's all getting a bit technical. Fact is, the controller had no right to behave as he did when the requirement was something he could have processed in seconds...... irrespective of ICAO this that and the other...

[TWR]

Look at Doc 4444, not part of ICAO standard therefore receiving systems not obliged to accept or process

Nowhere in Doc 4444 is written that it's forbidden to include field 18 in a CHG message (field type 22, ref. Doc 4444 A3-30).

Anyway, the ATCO could have simply told the pilot that there is no need to change the registration in the flight plan since it was not the aircraft's identification.

[Tarq57]

Anyway, the ATCO could have simply told the pilot that there is no need to change the registration in the flight plan since it was not the aircraft's identification.
We don't actually know that. Or do we?
The OS we use at work won't accept a change of callsign. The entire plan has to be re-done. Not hard if you know the trick, but not done often enough by some of in the field that it would come naturally.

[TWR]

That is what I'm saying.

The acft ID (= callsign) in this particular case was a designator + number, not the acft reg.
Therefore there is no need to notify ATC about the change of registration (except if local requirements dictate otherwise, like for ESMGR).

If the acft ID changes, then you definitely need to refile the FPL.

Don't confuse acft ID with acft reg, acft ID = callsign to be used by ATC.

[Foxbat01]

Twr you are correct in what you say and it is down to how the system design has been implemented.

I am aware of some systems that rule check the incoming data, they are more than a simple terminal or printer, and therefore the change message with a field 18 would be rejected in some manner.

Also you are correct as the reg in field 18 has no influence on what call sign being used is however, there are billing systems that use the subsequent data for aircraft charges and the wrong registarion would not assist in theta charging process, especially if a bill arrived and the aircraft was technically grounded.

FPL2012 will change this and add field 18 to the additional messages but until now the message format of the change and delay is not by ICAO documentation explicitly contain field 18 data.