Filing IFR for flight outside of controlled airspace?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wanting to understand on a short hop such as this IF you could fly the same route VFR why you would elect to go airways.
- automatic CAS transits (in fact CAS becomes irrelevant)
- better MPG - maybe +20% at FL100 over 2000ft
- better glide options
- "protection" from mid-airs by being in CAS under a RCS
- infinitely better options if the forecasts turn out to be totally duff (not unknown, especially the SigWx)
If you have been following the thread you might recall it all started because the view was expressed that you shouldnt "file" IFR in VMC OCAS because you perceived it would prioritise the service you would get over those "filing" VFR.
OCAS, I believe that flying under IFR (and letting radar units along the route know you are IFR) will result in a better service than flying VFR. This is very much my experience. But filing an IFR flight plan is irrelevant because none of the enroute units will see it.
There are however other ways to get a better service on a VFR flight. One is to route via a collection of navaids and airways intersection names, and firmly and confidently give the route to ATC, rather than reading out a vague route description comprising of village names and VRPs.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose I can assure you that I have not deliberately misrepresented what you said.
I have said all I need to and IO has quite clearly explained the logic behind use of the airways. There is nothing more to say.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In general, one would go IFR/airways over VFR even in perfect weather for
- automatic CAS transits (in fact CAS becomes irrelevant)
- better MPG - maybe +20% at FL100 over 2000ft
- better glide options
- "protection" from mid-airs by being in CAS under a RCS
- automatic CAS transits (in fact CAS becomes irrelevant)
- better MPG - maybe +20% at FL100 over 2000ft
- better glide options
- "protection" from mid-airs by being in CAS under a RCS
We are talking about a short hop to the CIs.
- The airway is just as likely to take you around CAS, in fact the route will almost certainly be longer than the VFR route to the same destination (even if you plan to totally avoid CAS)
- We were discussing days on which VFR was equally possible. You could well be VFR at FL100 - there no question about using the aireways to get above the weather
- See above
- Agreed. This could be one reason in the same way as declaring IFR ourside airways to "gain" a better service.
We are not discussing generally why you might wish to fly airways, but why you might wish to fly airways over a short distance on a day when you could equally fly VFR off airways.
It is a reasonable point. Bose was suggesting that you shouldnt claim to be IFR OCAS in VMC conditions to gain a better service at the expense of others. However, if you fly airways you are gaining a "better" service, but over a short distance I am wondering in what way you think the service is "better" or is there some other motive?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are talking about a short hop to the CIs.
The airways are the shortest route to Guernsey for me as they are a virtual straight line. Join in the climb to FL100 WCO R41 SAM R41 ORTAC GUR. The same route VFR is a convoluted route around CAS.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose
Where are you coming from?
Looking at that route it would seem the only CAS is Solent. Obviously you could route dct to the old CPT remaining east of the airway doing exactly the same route OCAS with no more level restriction across the water other than possibly in the zone. Moreover you could probably do the whole route without talking to anyone or with a RIS if you preferred. Outbound it would probably be quicker.
Where are you coming from?
Looking at that route it would seem the only CAS is Solent. Obviously you could route dct to the old CPT remaining east of the airway doing exactly the same route OCAS with no more level restriction across the water other than possibly in the zone. Moreover you could probably do the whole route without talking to anyone or with a RIS if you preferred. Outbound it would probably be quicker.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect Fuji, if I ever need your help flight planning I will ask for it. However I have a couple of hours under my belt to do it myself in the meantime...... 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bose-x
With all due respect Fuji, if I ever need your help flight planning I will ask for it.
Have you got 'KK in your logbook?
Originally Posted by bose-x
With all due respect Fuji, if I ever need your help flight planning I will ask for it.
Have you got 'KK in your logbook?
LMAO, indeed but I booked a handling agent......
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
There are other reasons you will not use airways. I often have a descision to make with the operation of a jet on short legs where you have a choice of filing at something like FL160 or staying away from CAS and accepting a low level.
That choice is do you file IFR and airways and take 45 minutes on the trip at FL160 or take the lower level and take 25 minutes because its far shorter.
Sometimes you take the shorter route using RIS or RAS and fly fuel flows accepting the reduced speeds and with a jet far reduced costs?
Ie on certain routes especially short ones for a jet the airways routing is far longer ie Biggin to Bournemouth.
I am sure some P**t will attempt to jump on me
Pace
There are other reasons you will not use airways. I often have a descision to make with the operation of a jet on short legs where you have a choice of filing at something like FL160 or staying away from CAS and accepting a low level.
That choice is do you file IFR and airways and take 45 minutes on the trip at FL160 or take the lower level and take 25 minutes because its far shorter.
Sometimes you take the shorter route using RIS or RAS and fly fuel flows accepting the reduced speeds and with a jet far reduced costs?
Ie on certain routes especially short ones for a jet the airways routing is far longer ie Biggin to Bournemouth.
I am sure some P**t will attempt to jump on me
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 21st Sep 2008 at 20:50.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose
You seem so set to have a falling out. I have much respect for your views. I have no intention of falling out with you.
I know Rustle is the sole member of my fan club, which I rather like.
I will tell you the true KK story one day - be patient, Rusty.
I know full well you know how to FP. However I was simply observing based on the information you gave you could do the same route OCAS with hardly a deviation. The observation was made in case I was wrong as I dont know your starting point.
BTW if you could do it OCAS you must feel happier on VFR days doing it airways. I was simply trying to establish why, as the reasons given so far dont seem to answer the question.
I have fully got to grips with IOs explanation when the weather is a factor or you cant be bothered negotiating CAS.
You seem so set to have a falling out. I have much respect for your views. I have no intention of falling out with you.
I know Rustle is the sole member of my fan club, which I rather like.
I will tell you the true KK story one day - be patient, Rusty.
I know full well you know how to FP. However I was simply observing based on the information you gave you could do the same route OCAS with hardly a deviation. The observation was made in case I was wrong as I dont know your starting point.
BTW if you could do it OCAS you must feel happier on VFR days doing it airways. I was simply trying to establish why, as the reasons given so far dont seem to answer the question.
I have fully got to grips with IOs explanation when the weather is a factor or you cant be bothered negotiating CAS.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very much agreed Pace. I recall one flight, near Croatia, which was 150nm IFR and 70nm VFR (largely due to SIDs and STARs). Also IFR would have taken me into serious icing, whereas the VFR version was at 3000ft in CAVOK conditions.
Different tools for different jobs.
Different tools for different jobs.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know full well you know how to FP. However I was simply observing based on the information you gave you could do the same route OCAS with hardly a deviation. The observation was made in case I was wrong as I dont know your starting point.
The route OCAS is longer as I have to cross east to west before I can head south clear of CAS. At SAM I have to deviate further or accept the water crossing at low level under the airway. Flying that distance low level uses 20% more fuel and takes longer. The route on the airway is more direct. I have a JAA Instrument rating.
All of these reasons make it more sensible to conduct the flight on the airways system. When the need arises I will fly VFR, as IO quite rightly points out tools for the job. When I am flying VFR it is because the conditions are VMC and as such I am quite happy to take a FIS or even not talk to anyone.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The route OCAS is longer as I have to cross east to west before I can head south clear of CAS.
At SAM I have to deviate further or accept the water crossing at low level under the airway.
you are set on trying to make a point.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
The route OCAS is longer as I have to cross east to west before I can head south clear of CAS.
Where is your start?
Quote:
At SAM I have to deviate further or accept the water crossing at low level under the airway.
.. .. .. but as you will know, you dont, WCO, CPT, and east of the airway almost to ORTAC with a very small deviation to miss the stub of solent does exactly the same job - doesnt it, also at FL100.
Quote:
you are set on trying to make a point.
What woudl that be?
The route OCAS is longer as I have to cross east to west before I can head south clear of CAS.
Where is your start?
Quote:
At SAM I have to deviate further or accept the water crossing at low level under the airway.
.. .. .. but as you will know, you dont, WCO, CPT, and east of the airway almost to ORTAC with a very small deviation to miss the stub of solent does exactly the same job - doesnt it, also at FL100.
Quote:
you are set on trying to make a point.
What woudl that be?
When I need your help flight planning I will ask for it. I don't need to be taught to suck eggs.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well fair enough.
I certainly wasn’t trying to teach you how to FP. I dont suppose I would have very much to contribute is a given. I simply didn’t see the route you set out achieves the advantages you suggest given than both routes are flown in VMC. I couldn’t think of a more polite way of saying so.
It was you who said
I fly the airways for better routings, better fuel management and the gain in TAS not so I can get a better service than others in the same airspace.
And then
Because I choose not to fly low level across a large distance of water in a SEP.
It is a personal choice
I was simply pointing out (with which you seemed to agree) that for the route you gave it doesn’t seem to give a better route, or better fuel management or necessarily a gain in TAS and it doesn’t give you a higher crossing level.
I was simply presuming, given what you said, that there was some other reason.
Sorry if I misunderstood - just trying to understand the rationale.
[I havent come across LMAO - whats that one?]
I certainly wasn’t trying to teach you how to FP. I dont suppose I would have very much to contribute is a given. I simply didn’t see the route you set out achieves the advantages you suggest given than both routes are flown in VMC. I couldn’t think of a more polite way of saying so.
It was you who said
I fly the airways for better routings, better fuel management and the gain in TAS not so I can get a better service than others in the same airspace.
And then
Because I choose not to fly low level across a large distance of water in a SEP.
It is a personal choice
I was simply pointing out (with which you seemed to agree) that for the route you gave it doesn’t seem to give a better route, or better fuel management or necessarily a gain in TAS and it doesn’t give you a higher crossing level.
I was simply presuming, given what you said, that there was some other reason.
Sorry if I misunderstood - just trying to understand the rationale.
[I havent come across LMAO - whats that one?]
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
I've checked with our even more experienced experts and here's what they tell me. All IFR plans will be received at the Area Control Centre (ACC) and are stored in both hard copy (on a printed back roll for backup purposes) and electronically within the Flight Plan Reception Suite Automation (FPRSA) computer system. If the flight plan is one which any of the UK ACC's have an interest in (i.e. flying on Airways or TMA's, or flying outside Controlled Airspace where a service is provided - usually on the handful of Advisory Routes, or in airspace where Scottish provide ATSOCAS), then the plan is automatically input in to the National Airspace System (NAS) Flight Data Processing (FDP) computer - or, if it has errors or things NAS does not like, then it is referred to a human for amendment. If the plan is IFR, but not of interest to a UK ACC, then the plan will still be within the FPRSA system, but will not be populated in the NAS FDP. It will be a very rare occasion where they can't find a plan and do something with it, the more likely thing to prevent a plan being 'elevated' is one of ATC staff being too busy to spend the time doing so. It's just down to circumstance at the time.
The Flow Management guys at each ACC can also access the IFPS database and pull up plans which have been filed in the system, so there is another alternative for sector staff if they can't find anything in the FPRSA kit.
IFPS will process any plan flying through airspace where the environment has been specified by the ATC authority of the State, including any routes or segments they are not interested in. Eurocontrol only operate the system on behalf of the Eurocontrol member States, and have no say on what these States can and cannot receive. The State will specify what they wish to receive in the airspace environment details they provide to Eurocontrol. In the UK, IFR plans for flights outside CAS will be received reagardless of route or airspace type and are then processed accordingly.
As I said, at Scottish ACC all IFR plans outside of CAS will be automatically processed and will sit in the NAS FDP as 'proposed' plans. This is because they provide a service under ATSOCAS in their FIR, as well as in areas of the London FIR over the North Sea and the Irish Sea. Manchester also have a more limited service provision outside CAS and will process plans appropriate to the service they provide (their FPRSA is carried out at the Scottish ACC in any case). London ACC and Terminal Control are at the other extreme and don't generally carry out ATSOCAS, so probably just leave the plans in FPRSA and don't input them in to NAS FDP, hence your problems you have outlined.
Eurocontrol provides only 2 services when it receives a flight plan. It distributes it (through IFPS) and it provides a Central Flow Management Unit service (Flow Control).
I think you are getting too hung up on the squawk and its relationship with the Flight Plan. In the UK NAS system, flight plans have 2 states. They are either dormant and awaiting activation (the state is called 'proposed'), or they have been 'activated' and the FDP computer will be processing them and passing updated data along the flights route on elapsed times, flight levels, co-ordinations, etc. There are 3 ways a flight can be activated, only one of which involves the squawk.
Firstly, a flight can be manually notified as airborne or passing a waypoint and then activated by the sector staff within the system using an appropriate message code. This is the method used (generally) outwith the London TMA airfields and Manchester TMA. Note that it doesn't matter what squawk the flight is wearing at the time of activation, nor does it have to be talking to the ACC. The flight has been manually activated and the initial processing will be carried out using system elapsed times based on the filed TAS and the winds held in the system. Once the aircraft is in contact with the ACC (or it could be before if the squawk is passed to another agency) and begins squawking the NAS FDP assigned squawk, then other radar data processing begins and is used to update the NAS FDP with more accurate data on the flights progress, amending ETAs, etc, as the flight is tracked along its route.
Secondly, a flight can be activated by receipt of an electronic data transfer message (known as Co-ordination Point [COP] estimate) from an adjacent ACC. The NAS FDP now processes the flight exactly as in the first case.
Lastly, the flight might depart from an airfield which has 'Auto Departure Message' status, whereby the radar picks up the expected squawk in the expected place (within a certain distance from the departure airfield) and within a parameter window of the expected ETD, and then automatically activates the flight within the FDP. The flight is now processed and uses radar updates as per the end state of the examples above. As these airfields are all within CAS, it is not really a relevant method of activation for IFR flights commencing in, or wholly operating within Class G airspace.
I agree.
AFPEx will (I presume .. never having had to do one) cope with the submission of a Change message (CHG), but that assumes you had it available. NATS also publishes the contact details for their FPRSA positions, so a call to them can often get your change input quickly if needed.
Regards
PR
PS My experts also tell me that if a flight is not activated in the NAS FDP at the expected ETD, then the flight drops its SSR assignment after a few hours (another can be requested manually if the flight subsequently appears), and drops the plan out of NAS after 5 hours. Other countries ATC units may drop it much quicker of course !!
IOW, they cannot find or won't look for it, so the end result is still that you are summarily stuffed.
The Flow Management guys at each ACC can also access the IFPS database and pull up plans which have been filed in the system, so there is another alternative for sector staff if they can't find anything in the FPRSA kit.
IOW, if you file IFR OCAS, the end result is that you have wasted your time because Eurocontrol will, I assume, not be interested in Class G.
As I said, at Scottish ACC all IFR plans outside of CAS will be automatically processed and will sit in the NAS FDP as 'proposed' plans. This is because they provide a service under ATSOCAS in their FIR, as well as in areas of the London FIR over the North Sea and the Irish Sea. Manchester also have a more limited service provision outside CAS and will process plans appropriate to the service they provide (their FPRSA is carried out at the Scottish ACC in any case). London ACC and Terminal Control are at the other extreme and don't generally carry out ATSOCAS, so probably just leave the plans in FPRSA and don't input them in to NAS FDP, hence your problems you have outlined.
OK, so the code is not generated by Eurocontrol but is generated when requested by somebody. AIUI, this still means that if the departure tower gives you a squawk which is different from what would have been generated, your flight does not get matched to the filed flight plan.
I think you are getting too hung up on the squawk and its relationship with the Flight Plan. In the UK NAS system, flight plans have 2 states. They are either dormant and awaiting activation (the state is called 'proposed'), or they have been 'activated' and the FDP computer will be processing them and passing updated data along the flights route on elapsed times, flight levels, co-ordinations, etc. There are 3 ways a flight can be activated, only one of which involves the squawk.
Firstly, a flight can be manually notified as airborne or passing a waypoint and then activated by the sector staff within the system using an appropriate message code. This is the method used (generally) outwith the London TMA airfields and Manchester TMA. Note that it doesn't matter what squawk the flight is wearing at the time of activation, nor does it have to be talking to the ACC. The flight has been manually activated and the initial processing will be carried out using system elapsed times based on the filed TAS and the winds held in the system. Once the aircraft is in contact with the ACC (or it could be before if the squawk is passed to another agency) and begins squawking the NAS FDP assigned squawk, then other radar data processing begins and is used to update the NAS FDP with more accurate data on the flights progress, amending ETAs, etc, as the flight is tracked along its route.
Secondly, a flight can be activated by receipt of an electronic data transfer message (known as Co-ordination Point [COP] estimate) from an adjacent ACC. The NAS FDP now processes the flight exactly as in the first case.
Lastly, the flight might depart from an airfield which has 'Auto Departure Message' status, whereby the radar picks up the expected squawk in the expected place (within a certain distance from the departure airfield) and within a parameter window of the expected ETD, and then automatically activates the flight within the FDP. The flight is now processed and uses radar updates as per the end state of the examples above. As these airfields are all within CAS, it is not really a relevant method of activation for IFR flights commencing in, or wholly operating within Class G airspace.
My "amateur" comment was mostly tongue in cheek; I am an "amateur" too But it is not wholly tongue in cheek because ATC are only human and despite their professionalism (which one must say is higher in some countries than in others) they have human attitudes too. The way a pilot goes about things does affect the kind of service he gets (again, more in some countries than others) and this is why I like to find out how the system works.
I agree.
I did actually file an IFR FP OCAS (via AFPEx) some time ago and due to bad weather spent about an hour trying to get it elevated to airways (so I could climb to VMC) and got politely fobbed off at every step. This is why I think filing IFR FPs OCAS is a waste of time.
Regards
PR
PS My experts also tell me that if a flight is not activated in the NAS FDP at the expected ETD, then the flight drops its SSR assignment after a few hours (another can be requested manually if the flight subsequently appears), and drops the plan out of NAS after 5 hours. Other countries ATC units may drop it much quicker of course !!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was simply pointing out (with which you seemed to agree) that for the route you gave it doesn’t seem to give a better route, or better fuel management or necessarily a gain in TAS and it doesn’t give you a higher crossing level.
Therefore I suggest you stop speculating before you make a fool of yourself.