if VFR why the hell do i file a flight plan ?

[Meatbomber]

i'm a 12.500lbs a/c on VFR across europe.. we usually file flight plan as as required with the usual time in advance.

We file IFR routings to make it easy for ATC (it's better for us too usually)

So how come anytime i switch Center i have to tell them all my details aigain??

I mean here is the added value in filing a flight plan when all the concerned ATC units ask me for my flight details becausse they haven't received the details?

happened today with Mastricht Radar who then was extremely helpful providing directs even tho he was never told about my flight which was filed 1:00 in advance..

cheers MB

[5milesbaby]

if you file VFR then most Centres will ignore the plan as they only do IFR traffic. Also, and as is the case with Maastricht, if you file a level not associated with a particular centre vertically, then the plan will not target the place.

Filing isn't just to get the details pre-passed to centre, if you happen to 'struggle' en-route, then the subsequent Search and Rescue will start with the plan to see if you are 'grounded' along where you've filed. If too late, it also is a good record of your intentions, including alternates, so starting places for searches are known.

[priscilla]

In France we only receive a VFR flight plan at the airport of departure and destination, only for search and rescue!
So each time you'll contact another ctl you'll have to give all the details again!
When we have time, or when you're not following a standard VFR route, we give a call to the next ATC and give them your details...
good flights, be patient! :)

[Timothy]

However, there is a good reason for filing VFR....I do it all the time (literally every flight.)

...and that reason is to avoid route charges being raised spuriously.

It does seem a nonsense that the only way I can effectively prevent EuroControl taking my money is by costing NATS more (in the time spent by AIS rekeying the FPL, the transmission costs, the assistants or AFISOs transcribing the details onto strips which will then be ignored etc etc) and all for the sake of getting the plan transmitted to EGTTYTYR.

Shurely shome mishtake?!?!

W

[Lon More]

Meatbomber the reason you have to pass your details is that if you are VFR, and this also means off airway for most of Europe, then your flight is not always co-ordinated from Centre to Centre.
The problem at Maastricht was indeed that we had no details: VFR flights are not accepted, so your flight plan was rejected.
Bremen had no details of the flight either so everything had to be arranged ad-hoc causing a considerable amount of work on an already busy position.

W Collins Eurocontrol (Note spelling) is not, "taking your money". It is collecting it on behalf of the various member states.
Imagine how much more expensive it would be if each state, or even ATC Unit, sent you a separate bill for their services?

Lon More, more than just an ATCO

[PPRuNe Radar]

Lon More,

the corporate site gives the spelling as EUROCONTROL.

Don't they know that it's bad netiquette to put it all in capital letters ... seen as shouting ;)

I have sympathy with WCollins. A system, whether on behalf of States or not, which cannot seem to differentiate between VFR flights and others for charge collecting purposes has room for improvement.

[Meatbomber]

Lon More don't get me wrong i'm not questioning ATCs work here but rather the system seems a little weird to me, as i used to think that filing a plan would get my fligth details into the system (isn't it just a database?) thus helping in advance to get the flight details across... but aparantly it's no help, especially if the system just rejects the plan and it's basically gone!

Sorry for the added workload, but it's just plainly extremely inefficient to operate a turboprop below all the radar sectors especially in Belgium and the Netherlands where you're forced to treetop hight (exageration).

Other than filing IFR (and thus being subjected to rout fees) what|s a better way of getting controlled VFR clearances without causing a lot of extra hassle to ATC ?

MB

[GroundBound]

MeatBomber

Maastricht airspace is FL250 and above - and its IFR only - you can't fly VFR. Relevant info is available in all AIPs - part of the route planning bit. If you were getting that high, but didn't know the requirements then best keep quiet about it.

PPRUNE
EUROCONTROL has been spelt in capitals since it was formed some 40 years ago, which preceded e-mails and electronique fora :)

[055166k]

The UK has filed a difference with ICAO....we don't do Controlled VFR. A VFR flight plan may not inspire you with confidence but it is better than nothing, and is a requirement for a wide range of flights as well as a recommendation for others.

[Radar]

Meatbomber,
One solution is to file the appropriate plan and then ask. As has been stated, Maastricht is an IFR environment, so you were on a hiding to nothing from the start filing VFR. Spent the weekend at Popham and filed VFR through Belgium (within their Class B airspace) both on the way there and returning. On both occasions, had my request for climb into controlled airspace approved without hesitation. Bonus was the KOK dct LNO on the way home. Super service!! A big thanks to any of the guys working Brussels ACC who may browse this.

[Meatbomber]

not been up to 250 but 95 only for that flight.
Routing LFAC - KOK - G1 - SPI (if i recall correctly don't have the chart at hand) - Arcky

As i stated above Radar, i had filed a plan with an appropriate routing but as Lon says it just gets rejected because it's a VFR Plan and therfor is lost in the system.. i also said that i got a routing KOK - Drct Olno - Arcky afterwards but it nagged on me that it was apparently unwelcome extra work that i seeked to avoid.

[Radar]

Meatbomber,
I wouldn't worry too much about that bit of extra work. If it's a total non-runner, and we just can't accept your flight, we'll say so. Bad luck in that case. With regard to your most recent experience, did the plan go totally missing or was it just at Maastricht's end (due to the VFR angle)? There should have been no reason for Bremen not to have your plan. I'm just curious as to how you percieved the system had let you down.

All the best
Radar

[Meatbomber]

no the plan went toally missing.. Anyhow thanks for all your responses especially radar and Lon More, sometime it's difficult for us pilots to see how our actions look from the other side of the radar scope ;)

Something to learn all the time!

Cheers
MB

[Timothy]

Lon More

It is, of course, much more convenient for legitimate IFR (and even VFR charges in some countries) to be gathered centrally. That wasn't my point at all.

My point is that the only really effective way of preventing non-legitimate or spurious charges is to file a VFR flight plan. It does seem a little daft that the only useful outcome of the effort that is put into filing and handling a VFR FPL is to reduce the income of the organisation paying for that effort.

It's only a muse, not a complaint.

W

[Hippy]

MeatBomber,

You have not stated yet who you addressed your flight plan to. If you only addressed it to IFPS at EUROCONTROL and it got rejected then it is not going to be received anywhere. EUROCONTROL are only concerned with GAT flight plans and unless you use the readdressing function (recomended) they will not forward your plan to any other agencies in any case. For VFR flight you must address your plan to all who are concerned in order for them to receive it.

Ref: http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/userdocs/docs/handbook_ifps_8.pdf para 2.2 & 2.5

If you had addressed your plan to all concerned, my apologies and it is an issue with each individual agency as to why they had no details of your flight.

[Lon More]

W Collins Sorry but I seem to miss the point.
You say you are trying to avoid "spurious" charges by filing VFR - no problem with that. Or are you then trying to follow IFR through controlled airspace.

[Timothy]

Lon MoreYou say you are trying to avoid "spurious" charges by filing VFR - no problem with that. Or are you then trying to follow IFR through controlled airspace. Not a bit of it. I am talking about a straightforward VFR flight to or from an airfield whose logs are inspected by Routes Charges.

It seems that sometimes these logs are either not annotated V/I, or Route Charges ignores the annotation and assumes I, and then raises a charge, even though the flight was entirely V.

In my experience, the place where this is most likely to happen is NWC (no fingers being pointed, just my experience.)

The surefire way to avoid these charges is to file a V plan, which Route Charges allow to take precedence over tower logs.

However, your question does raise an issue in my mind. When I cross class D airspace I usually say that I am able to accept an IFR or VFR clearance to make ATC's life easier by giving them flexibility. I wonder if, technically, by giving ATC the choice I am laying myself open to charges. If I am, I will stop making the offer, another negative.

W

[vintage ATCO]

WC

Relax, there is no mechanism for checking transitters (if that's a word) of Class D airspace. In all my years at you know where I can recall only one occasion when RC rang regarding an overflight, and that was to check where it was going. I don't think TC even keep the strips! (chaps?)

VA