R112: Are you going?

[LowNSlow]

As Annie the Auster has a pair of gel-cell motorcycle batteries as an electrical system purely to support VHF comms and she lives in a hangar under the approach to Luton's 26 she'll be going nowhere until the circle running, synchronised splashing and spearchucking is finished and all concerned have patted each other on their backs. @rse!

[BackPacker]

I see from another post on the "Flyer" forum that another flightplan has bee rejected because the ICAO airfield code LFAT "is not recognised". Very unimpressive indeed.

From what I understand is that the submitter forgot to add the EET to the French FIR in the remarks field (EET/LFFF0030). So the Atlas system never considered that LFAT might have been a foreign airfield.

The same happened to the chap who filed to EHRD.

International FPLs without an EET to the FIR boundary are technically invalid. You can't really blame Atlas Control for rejecting those. Although the way, and particularly the speed, with which they seem to handle things could certainly stand some improvement.

And from what I can see on the other forum, things are improving. Pilots are getting the hang of submitting FPLs properly, are giving each other tips on how not to do things, and FPLs are indeed getting through.

The main hurdles at the moment seem to be:
- Turnaround time for rejections and approvals. Still takes a very long time, even for rejections over trivial stuff like "DTC" instead of "DCT" in a FPL.
- Initial contact with Atlas North or South. Seems to be very overworked and on a large number of occasions is not able to find your (authorized) flight plan or authorization number. This also leads to confusion over squawk codes and frequencies to use.

But once past these two hurdles, everybody seems to get a traffic service from a controller that seems far from overworked, even if only a basic service is requested.

[peterh337]

International FPLs without an EET to the FIR boundary are technically invalid

Has the EET got to be to the boundary (eg EGTT) or can it be to a waypoint on the boundary e.g. SITET?

[BackPacker]

I understood you had to register well in advance,before you could even file a plan.Did all you guys do that?

As far as I know this only applies if you use SkyDemon Light. Which is the free flight planning tool on the internet. Tim Dawson has extended this with flight plan submission functionality specifically for the Olympics. As you don't need a SkyDemon account to use SkyDemon Light, he had to use a different method for validating you're a genuine pilot and not a spammer. That validation is done through the CAA and that takes about a two-week turnaround.

If you register for the full SkyDemon package, including a 10-pound deposit for flight plan submission credits, you can start using SkyDemon to send FPLs within an hour. (And plans submitted because of the Olympics are free, so will not use up any of your credits.)

You can also submit through AFPEx, which is the other option for UK-based pilots to submit flight plans in general, including FPLs for international flight that have nothing to do with R112. However, AFPEx apparently requires you to format your FPL message by hand and doesn't do a lot of syntax checking. This is the place where most people get it wrong (like forgetting EETs to the FIR boundary, which SkyDemon does automatically) and where most of the rejections seem to come from.

And of course you can submit flight plans through any other FPL interface. I have seen RocketRoute doing some advertisements, and I personally plan to use homebriefing.nl if the occasion arises.

So anything you are currently using to submit FPLs (e.g. for international flights) should work for Atlas too. But do make sure the message is formatted properly.

(And if you get a rejection from Atlas, it still falls on you to send the cancellation message to all recipients of the original FPL - they won't know of the Atlas rejection. And if you submit a new flight plan, use a different EOB time so that it clearly is a new FPL.)

[toptobottom]

Flying Goat: In answer to my own post above, filing via SkyDemon for Shoreham-Biggin VFR direct - no problem - authorised in less than an hour from Atlas.

So, did Atlas ask you to contact Gatwick Radar/Tower during the class D leg, or were you talking to Atlas throughout?! If you spoke to Gatwick, did you keep your squawk?

[BackPacker]

Has the EET got to be to the boundary (eg EGTT) or can it be to a waypoint on the boundary e.g. SITET?

Not sure. I think the custom is to put the FIR identifier in there (EGTT, EBBU, EHAA, LFFF), but if you look at ICAO doc 4444 it looks like you can put an EET in there for anything that's a waypoint:

EET/ Significant points or FIR boundary designators and accumulated
estimated elapsed times over such points or FIR boundaries, when so
prescribed on the basis of regional air navigation agreements, or by the
appropriate ATS authority.
Examples: EET/CAP0745 XYZ0830
EET/EINN0204
EET/15W0315 20W0337 30W0420 40W0502

The Dutch AIP is also not very clear on this:

EET/: Specification of the accumulated estimated elapsed time to the Amsterdam FIR boundary is required for international VFR flights and for international IFR flights not following designated ATS routes+.

So this suggests that VFR and off-airways IFR flights need the FIR boundary in the EET/ field, but IFR airways flights can also use the intersection at the FIR boundary. Or perhaps just the route segment that crosses the FIR boundary.

I have not checked any other AIPs for requirements.

[peterh337]

I always used to file VFR FPs with an EET to a waypoint, never to the FIR boundary.

But then nobody looks at VFR flight plans anyway, in most of Europe But that might change for R112...

[toptobottom]

I always used to file VFR FPs with an EET to a waypoint, never to the FIR boundary.

I regularly cross FIR boundaries and always include EET to same from the point of departure (in VFR FPLs); by definition, it's a significant point, particularly if you're crossing the channel

[peterh337]

What I was referring to was a waypoint which lies on the FIR boundary. Look up SITET for example.

It is exactly the same thing as specifying EGTT.

There are times, depending on the particular chart in use, when the name of the FIR boundary is not at all obvious. EGTT is a UK-only concept.

[piperarcher]

ICAO airport designators have never been permitted to be used as waypoints.

I have to admit I use ICAO airport designators in my filed Afpex VFR flightplans.



My reason is that if I am doing a flight for a couple of hours:

1. I can add them into my GPS routing.
2. AFAIK the CAA 1:500000 charts dont show all intersections.
3. Its easier and more error-free than working out VOR bearings / distances as waypoints.
4. If I have any issues then I am close to an airfield which I can land at so I prefer to route legs close to airfields anyhow.

This wasnt a method I was taught (because I dont recall PPL training covering much of this), but it is the process I have adopted being a PPL who does a fair bit of IMC/IFR flying mostly outside CAS/Airways (because I dont have an IR).

I must admit I didnt know ICAO airport designators were not permitted officially, so this was interesting to read. Does this illustrate the differences between the overall understanding a PPL compared to a PPL/IR who wil be given much more (and more legitimate) forms of filing flight plans?

[Johnm]

They don't teach flight planning in the IR either. In fact they teach very little of practical use, you have to learn all that from forums after you get the rating

[peterh337]

I must admit I didnt know ICAO airport designators were not permitted officially, so this was interesting to read. Does this illustrate the differences between the overall understanding a PPL compared to a PPL/IR who wil be given much more (and more legitimate) forms of filing flight plans?

No; the JAA IR theory is completely useless for flying anywhere. They teach you ways of developing IFR routings which ceased working at least 15 years ago.

IFR flight plans (ones wholly within Europe) are sent to just two fixed Eurocontrol addresses, and the computer then re-transmits the FP to all IFR controller stations along the route, some time before the filed EOBT (typ. 10hrs or so; each country can choose).

You don't specify EETs to FIRs or anything like that, on IFR FPs. Not in Europe, anyway. The way the system works, countries are immaterial.

As I said, VFR flight plans are rarely looked at, never mind checked for validity. But the scenario where a VFR pilot might get stuck is if he is getting a notam briefing for a route. The NATS website mostly used in the UK enforces the correct ICAO flight plan format and would object to a route containing ICAO airport designators. Which leads to the Q: how do you get notams? I suppose a site like this would not enforce anything.

[toptobottom]

What I was referring to was a waypoint which lies on the FIR boundary. Look up SITET for example.

It is exactly the same thing as specifying EGTT.

Obviously, if the waypoint lies on the FIR boundary AND happens to be on your chosen route, then it's an alternative, but 99.9% of the time, your track won't take you over a waypoint that also lies on the boundary - hence why I always use EGTT/LFFF - for channel crossings, at least..

[eharding]

Originally Posted by peterh337

I suppose a site like this would not enforce anything.

It merely plots an Area Brief - what is there to enforce? If you want to use the NATS notam site directly to verify the format of a route, and still get a plot you could always use this....

[peterh337]

99.9% of the time, your track won't take you over a waypoint that also lies on the boundary

Ah, there lies the difference which one encounters when going abroad more

Within the UK, people file all kinds of waypoints. Abroad, this gets more difficult, and one tends to use more IFR waypoints (on VFR FPs). Some countries enforce that anyway.

I would say 100% of my waypoints (on VFR flight plans) are/were navaids (VORs/NDBs) or airway intersections. Normally there are loads to choose from. These are usually not shown on VFR charts (the French SIA 1:1M show them) so I used to display them in Navbox.

[Bob Upanddown]

No; the JAA IR theory is completely useless for flying anywhere. They teach you ways of developing IFR routings which ceased working at least 15 years ago.

Which is why a very green CPL/IR I was flying with became totally confused trying to file IFR off-airways from one UK airfield to another UK airfield. He could not accept the idea of getting in and flying and asking for clearances along the way because he hadn't been taught like that.

And that's the problem here. It seems clear that the controllers have no experience of handling the VFR and off-airways IFR traffic they are handling.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it would have made sense to have set this up a year ago and tried a full dress rehearsal........ but is there anyone in Government these days with any sense?

[peterh337]

It's a huge discussion topic but basically the southern UK has a near-watertight division between the IFR controllers (who handle only traffic flying on Eurocontrol flight plans, nearly always in CAS) and other "GA" services.

It's tied into ATC funding, etc, etc.

It's never going to change.

In the UK you can file an IFR FP from one Class G airport to another Class G airport, at 2000ft, but it's pointless because it doesn't give you anything in the way of service. You may as well file VFR and drill through any IMC you come across.

A while ago I did some notes on this here.

[soaringhigh650]

It's a huge discussion topic but basically the southern UK has a near-watertight division between the IFR controllers (who handle only traffic flying on Eurocontrol flight plans, nearly always in CAS) and other "GA" services.

It's tied into ATC funding, etc, etc.

Not clever use of airspace and resource to me. Nobody else does it this way. The airspace above isn't always full of IFR traffic, and the airspace below is sometimes unsuitable - crowded at choke-points with plenty of infringers.

[piperarcher]

As I said, VFR flight plans are rarely looked at, never mind checked for validity. But the scenario where a VFR pilot might get stuck is if he is getting a notam briefing for a route. The NATS website mostly used in the UK enforces the correct ICAO flight plan format and would object to a route containing ICAO airport designators. Which leads to the Q: how do you get notams? I suppose a site like this would not enforce anything.

Yep, I had that very problem. It took me a while to figure out it was the airfields it didnt like. I get around it by typing the airfield ICAO identifiers into the many alternate text boxes down the bottom of the page. That works for me.

[peterh337]

I am not convinced that doing that will get you a "narrow route briefing" that uses those airfield IDs as waypoints.

Another issue with that practice is that, one day, you may get caught when you go abroad and the flight plan processing agency decides to actually validate the route

I have always advised in favour of using wholly "IFR waypoints" on VFR flight plans. It bring a number of benefits:

- Narrow route notam briefings work

- The flight plan is ICAO-valid so should work anywhere

- The waypoints are present in all GPS databases so loading the route into a GPS is quick and error-free

- If you request some CAS transit, giving the ATC unit several IFR waypoints shows that you can navigate and you are unlikely to cause them trouble. ATC will always deny (officially) that this makes a difference, of course But ATCOs are only human and in higher ATC workload situations you want to sway things in your favour. Throw in a bit of a reduced english language proficiency abroad and .... when e.g. French ATC say "Deauville" they won't mean the town, they will prob99 mean the DVL VOR.