Airway Routings
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid I can't comment on the questions regarding French or Portugese airspace as I am only current in UK procedures.
With regard to addressing of IFR plans in UK, the important factor is wether the flight is considered GAT (General Air Traffic) or OAT (Operational Air Traffic). From your reference (UK AIP ENR 1.10) you will see that IFPS will only process GAT portions of the route. Both flights quoted contain no GAT portions, they are both entirely OAT, therefore submission of the plan to IFPS is not required. Furthermore, to avoid the problems quoted by DFC, submission of these plans to IFPS is (IMHO) not recommended. For the purpose of addressing flight plans, only the airways structure of UK airspace should be considered 'whithin the IFPZ'.
Regarding flights into UK Mil fields, if you care to check my profile, you will be aware that I am very familiar with the procedures, not that the fact of wether your departure or destination fields is Mil or not has any relevance. If your flight plan contains portions of both GAT & OAT flight (i.e. ADEP or ADES is outside the airways structure) you will need to follow the procedures for both. That is to say, your flight plan should be addressed to IFPS and any other agencies required by the OAT portion. (n.b. The IFPS re-addressing function should be used although I believe some planning software does not permit this)
Sorry for any confusion and to avoid any more I must reiterate that the above applies only to UK airspace, the airspace that appears to be causing the problems in this thread. I bow to your superior knowledge with regard to the rest of the IFPZ.
foot-note: Flights transitioning OAT to GAT at the FIR boundary are a different problem all together
And do they cause problems! 
With regard to addressing of IFR plans in UK, the important factor is wether the flight is considered GAT (General Air Traffic) or OAT (Operational Air Traffic). From your reference (UK AIP ENR 1.10) you will see that IFPS will only process GAT portions of the route. Both flights quoted contain no GAT portions, they are both entirely OAT, therefore submission of the plan to IFPS is not required. Furthermore, to avoid the problems quoted by DFC, submission of these plans to IFPS is (IMHO) not recommended. For the purpose of addressing flight plans, only the airways structure of UK airspace should be considered 'whithin the IFPZ'.
Regarding flights into UK Mil fields, if you care to check my profile, you will be aware that I am very familiar with the procedures, not that the fact of wether your departure or destination fields is Mil or not has any relevance. If your flight plan contains portions of both GAT & OAT flight (i.e. ADEP or ADES is outside the airways structure) you will need to follow the procedures for both. That is to say, your flight plan should be addressed to IFPS and any other agencies required by the OAT portion. (n.b. The IFPS re-addressing function should be used although I believe some planning software does not permit this)
Sorry for any confusion and to avoid any more I must reiterate that the above applies only to UK airspace, the airspace that appears to be causing the problems in this thread. I bow to your superior knowledge with regard to the rest of the IFPZ.
foot-note: Flights transitioning OAT to GAT at the FIR boundary are a different problem all together
And do they cause problems!
With regard to addressing of IFR plans in UK, the important factor is wether the flight is considered GAT (General Air Traffic) or OAT (Operational Air Traffic). From your reference (UK AIP ENR 1.10) you will see that IFPS will only process GAT portions of the route. Both flights quoted contain no GAT portions, they are both entirely OAT, therefore submission of the plan to IFPS is not required.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bookworm:
Okay, I'm getting peeved now. Routechecker's post was bordering on rude but despite his profile not giving anything away at least his handle hints at his occupation and he presented an argument, so I gave a civil respose.
You, sir, give nothing away and give no argument. If you wish to question my definition of OAT you could tell us what your definition is or, at the very least, link to an on-line definition .
raf4:
Thank you for your support and that is also the answer to your question: My abbreviation for Support Controller. For those still unsure, a Mil Area Support Controller's duties fall mid-way between those of a Civil Area ATSA and a Civil Support Controller / Planner. Additionally to ATC disciplines we are trained in matters relating to flight planning and can be expected to be employed in areas as diverse as: Airfield ATC; Area ATC; Airfield Operations; Aircraft Operations; Flight/Mission Planning, to name but a few. Jack-of-all-trades and master of none? Maybe. It all depends on the individuals career history.
Okay, I'm getting peeved now. Routechecker's post was bordering on rude but despite his profile not giving anything away at least his handle hints at his occupation and he presented an argument, so I gave a civil respose.
You, sir, give nothing away and give no argument. If you wish to question my definition of OAT you could tell us what your definition is or, at the very least, link to an on-line definition .
raf4:
Thank you for your support and that is also the answer to your question: My abbreviation for Support Controller. For those still unsure, a Mil Area Support Controller's duties fall mid-way between those of a Civil Area ATSA and a Civil Support Controller / Planner. Additionally to ATC disciplines we are trained in matters relating to flight planning and can be expected to be employed in areas as diverse as: Airfield ATC; Area ATC; Airfield Operations; Aircraft Operations; Flight/Mission Planning, to name but a few. Jack-of-all-trades and master of none? Maybe. It all depends on the individuals career history.
Last edited by Hippy; 19th Oct 2003 at 05:15.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: herfordshire
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hippy,
Sounds like a good old TG9 AATC to me. Is it?
Have done TWR, Area, Sqn Ops and Wing/Staion Ops myself.
I also know peeps in IFPS who have done the same in their
previous life. Not your average European Civil Servant I guess.
Sounds like a good old TG9 AATC to me. Is it?
Have done TWR, Area, Sqn Ops and Wing/Staion Ops myself.
I also know peeps in IFPS who have done the same in their
previous life. Not your average European Civil Servant I guess.
If you wish to question my definition of OAT you could tell us what your definition is or, at the very least, link to an on-line definition.
General Air Traffic (GAT): All flights which are conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures of ICAO and/or the national civil aviation regulations and legislation.
Operational Air Traffic (OAT): All flights, which do not comply with the provisions, stated for GAT and for which rules and procedures have been specified by the appropriate authorities.
Broadly speaking, that means that flights that comply with civil aviation legislation are GAT. OAT is military and other state flying that is not bound by that legislation.
Are you seriously suggesting that a private civil aircraft flying from Gamston to Cardiff or Leeds to Cambridge is OAT?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, so we have some wishy-washy definitions of OAT/GAT. Let's try to get back on topic.
sooty3694 asked a non-specific question about IFPS re-routing.
Chiglet gave 2 examples of reasonable routes and the unreasonable IFPS response.
DFC then recalled a trip that sounded very similar to one of Chiglet's examples and the problems caused by filing with IFPS.
I gave my proffessional advice on how to avoid such problems in the future.
What I am seriously suggesting is that a private civil aircraft flying from Gamston to Cardiff at 3000' or Leeds DCT to Cambridge follow my advice and NOT file the plan with IFPS. What aircraft operators do with my advice is up to them.
sooty3694 asked a non-specific question about IFPS re-routing.
Chiglet gave 2 examples of reasonable routes and the unreasonable IFPS response.
DFC then recalled a trip that sounded very similar to one of Chiglet's examples and the problems caused by filing with IFPS.
I gave my proffessional advice on how to avoid such problems in the future.
Are you seriously suggesting that a private civil aircraft flying from Gamston to Cardiff or Leeds to Cambridge is OAT?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm and Hippy
It's SOP at EGCC to use the Cap550 for flight plan addressing.
EGNE LIC BRI DEST the ONLY adds is...EGZYIFPS. Nothing else. Yes, we can send said Fpl as a VFR Fpl to "all and sundry" but to what purpose? Will the pilot actually work all the LARS units on his route.[ We have heard on other threads that "Transits" are less than welcome]. The a/c was filed IFR and at the risk of being a BOF [which I am], we have to file with Brussels. Agreed, nothing to stop me adding adds, but most won't until it's in the SOPs.
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
It's SOP at EGCC to use the Cap550 for flight plan addressing.
EGNE LIC BRI DEST the ONLY adds is...EGZYIFPS. Nothing else. Yes, we can send said Fpl as a VFR Fpl to "all and sundry" but to what purpose? Will the pilot actually work all the LARS units on his route.[ We have heard on other threads that "Transits" are less than welcome]. The a/c was filed IFR and at the risk of being a BOF [which I am], we have to file with Brussels. Agreed, nothing to stop me adding adds, but most won't until it's in the SOPs.
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
