European IFR flight planning?

In fact, not only the AIPs have to monitored, but of course also NOTAMs, AICs, etc

OK, but that is unworkable. Nobody is going to keep track of stuff like that. If this really matters, only expensive commercial services will survive.

I don’t see why one cannot just address additional “VFR” addressing to the immediate FIR of the airport in question. That ought to work for all cases where Z or Y is used to connect to an airport where “I” is prohibited. It won’t support a long scenic VFR flight with an IFR portion, but how many people do that and actually file it?

A few years ago I posted a question in an ATC forum about what would happen if one filed a Z where you had a 700nm total distance with a 200nm VFR bit in the middle (e.g. for a scenic Alps crossing) and the response was along the lines that it has never happened if if somebody tried it it would probably not work because the system is not set up for it.

Curiously, I can think of cases in the UK e.g. a departure from Biggin EGKB to the west, where a Z with ~50nm VFR portion is quite efficient (keeps the TCAS rather busy though, with all the 2400ft traffic) but in the UK you can file “I” to any farm strip so the whole issue doesn’t exist anyway.

It was quite an experience to experience in the US over the last two weeks that many IAPs to small airstrips. Maybe some day we’ll get there with GPS IAPs in Europe as well. I do hope.

It may happen eventually (GPS approaches) in places where ATS provision is not privatised and doesn’t operate heavy cost recovery (i.e. most places outside the UK ) but the chief differences to the USA will remain for ever e.g. opening hours, and the sheer number of airports.

I don’t see why one cannot just address additional “VFR” addressing to the immediate FIR of the airport in question.

Fact is that every country’s AIP has a section on flight plan addressing. Some more, some a bit less complex. For a small dose, have a look at the german one (might require to be logged in to the EAD). Four pages of addressing rules, with a whole bunch of special addresses for special (but not totally extraordinary) circumstances.

Just like anything in the AIP, this is subject to AMDTs, NOTAMs, etc.

And VFR/IFR flight plan filing services need to keep track of that, unless they want their customers to constantly complain about flightplans not being “found” by ATC…

RR does it (to some extent) and certainly SD does it, too. I fully understand that Achim et al can’t do that as long as the service is free. It would indeed be good if only one of them did it and shared the information with the others.

Still, german based pilots don’t really need any of this (flightplan filing service), since we still have a very good, centralized AIS service, with a regular telephone number that you can call essentially for free, 24/7. One can dictate flightplans, send them flightplans via fax and e-mail, etc. Occasionally they will even fix problems for you on IFR flightplans. And they take care of all the addressing of course.

Compare that with the UK where there has been been nothing like this for several years.

Therefore, for us, something like Rocketroute is really a piece of luxury.

And don’t forget “Yes Prime Minister” Absolutely brilliant.

And VFR/IFR flight plan filing services need to keep track of that, unless they want their customers to constantly complain about flightplans not being “found” by ATC…
RR does it (to some extent) and certainly SD does it, too. I fully understand that Achim et al can’t do that as long as the service is free. It would indeed be good if only one of them did it and shared the information with the others.

I don’t want to further derail a good discussion on how to do IFR in Europe, with internal flight plan details (would rather start a new thread on it), but I don’t think the issue is too bad in this case.

Firstly, Skydemon uses EuroFPL to file flight plans. It was me who introduced Tim Dawson to Travis Holland, way back

Rocketroute and Skydemon both support purely VFR (“V”) FPs. In fact perhaps 99% of SD’s business is purely-VFR stuff. Travis Holland’s EuroFPL (who I use for FP filing) started at the other end (IFR) and only later moved to VFR.

These two firms thus need to do the whole complex job of VFR addressing. And it is horrid.

But for Z or Y FPs, which is the only “VFR” sort handled by Autorouter I don’t see why the whole lot should need supporting. There is only a short VFR segment – unless somebody is doing something weird. And the two airports will always have the flight plan – they get it straight from Eurocontrol – so the case of the tower not having the FP should never happen.

The worst that can happen is that the local FIR didn’t get a copy, but the pilot is prob99 not going to be talking to them anyway. And if they can’t find the FP, what is he going to do? Crash? On a Y FP he will just fly on, call up the destination tower, and land. On a Z FP, you depart VFR and call up the IFR controller ASAP (EDNY/AERO, with its stupid minimum VFR distances, was an exception) and he will already have a copy from Eurocontrol.

For search and rescue, they will always have a copy, because every country runs a “secret” database into which all FPs get copied. ATC can always access that, if not immediately.

One can dictate flightplans, send them flightplans via fax and e-mail, etc. Occasionally they will even fix problems for you on IFR flightplans. And they take care of all the addressing of course.

The UK had all that too, until somebody noticed the massive cost of it, and who actually used it. Commercial traffic didn’t use it – they (according to what I was told by people in the system) filed their flight plans via agencies in the USA, mostly. Private IFR pilots were filing via Homebriefing or later EuroFPL and they went direct to IFPS. So nearly all the flight plans handled by these very expensive people were VFR ones, or low level (training) IFR ones. The majority of the VFR ones were trivial ones, for flying school purposes. This system was costing many millions a year, with people sitting there, picking up about 3000 handwritten flight plans a month, mostly faxed in (most faxes from airports not on the AFTN) and many of them illegible, and some telephoned. Many had mistakes which often could be corrected meaningfully by guesswork which worked only because nobody cares what you put on a VFR flight plan. A system like that is nice for the users but it is only a matter of time before it gets shut.

The UK had all that too, until somebody noticed the massive cost of it, and who actually used it.

You mean that you can’t submit a flightplan in the UK through the CAA?

Sweden has a web-based flight plan (IFR and VFR) service run by our CAA. It is not quite as smooth as RR and other commercial services, but it’s free and good enough. IFR fIight plans are sent directly to the IFPS while VFR flight plans are handled manually by a briefing officer. As the flight plan is already in the computer, the effort required is minimal. You can also submit a flight plan by fax och phone, if need be.

You can’t do it via the “CAA”.

The system which was introduced after the FBUs were closed is AFPEX. See notes on it here

It is free, and is a totally unrestricted AFTN gateway so you can file flight plans from anywhere to anywhere while sitting in a cafe in Kathmandu… You need a UK address (not necessarily any UK license though) to get the account, which takes some weeks to sort out. It has certain drawbacks which are issues mainly for travelling pilots – see the above link – and less IT capable people find it challenging, but on the whole it works very well. One can even use it to query others’ flight plans, apparently.

I have used AFPEX as a backup, and on several occasions, when some website refused to work, it saved the day. It is a java app which runs totally outside any browser (a fact that not many people know). The login reportedly expires if not used for 6 months.

Obviously a foreign pilot cannot get access to AFPEX, short of borrowing somebody’s login

However, what the UK did was not thought through very well. Under ICAO, every “ARO” is required to provide a flight plan filing facility. I discussed this with someone in NATS and apparently the situation is not trivial, because not every airport has an ARO! It seems that most smaller GA airfields can claim they don’t have an ARO and are thus not obliged to handle flight plans.

What actually happens is that every airfield got an AFPEX account (a special login which doesn’t close the session after 15 mins or whatever) and that is how they would file it for you if you turn up at the tower. But they will need to do it while doing the radio etc so they don’t like doing it very much… ATC airfields are better because the rules require an assistant to be present.

Also the AFPEX office can accept faxes or even phone calls, but they really don’t like to advertise this. I don’t have a fax number for them but their helpdesk phone number is (or was) +448456010483.

There are other issues in all this e.g. every commercial flight plan filing facility has its own database and these are not connected, so they can’t amend each other’s flight plans until the flight plan has been filed onto the AFTN and is live, and then the best way to change it is either the original filing agency, or the departure airport tower. AFPEX doesn’t have a database which you could access – it is just an AFTN gateway – but they have access to all flight plans filed via them.

The bottom line is that a travelling pilot really needs to have his/her own internet filing facility. And a backup one!

UK is always on the very forefront as far as rationalizing labour-intensive processes and abolishing “free” services is concerned.
Since about (IIRC) 6 years or so ago, one can’t regularly hand in flightplans to their AIS anymore. Instead, every UK pilot was given access to AFPEX, a clunky AFTN gateway that forces their pilots to type it in themselves and do all the addressing manually (the process is now somewhat automated). That’s why services like Skydemon are so popular for flightplan filing over there.

Since foreigners can’t normally get access to that system (and also for contingency purposes) there is still a fax number for these people to use though: 0044 (0)1489 612793. I recommend to write something like “foreign pilot – no access to AFPEX” on top, otherwise they might not even touch it.

Another alternative (if you don’t use SD, RR or similar) is to file via your home country’s AIS. They are supposed to deal not only with flightplans originating in their own country, but also with subsequent flight plans on a round trip (even if they originate from a third country). At least that’s how it works in Germany. So, since for a german based pilot practically any flight somehow once started in Germany, he can actually always use the german AIS for his flightplan filing.

P.S. Nicely timed with Peter.

Yes – I can now confirm I have the same fax #.

via your home country’s AIS

That one has done the rounds for years and remains variable. For example France’s Olivia has, variously

• accepted flight plans wholly outside France, and they worked
• accepted flight plans wholly outside France, and they vanished
• rejected flight plans wholly outside France

and I have read the same comments on probably every national agency.

AFPEX got viciously slagged off on the UK sites (which have a tendency to rip apart everything, as a default debating position) but actually it has always worked for me. In IFR, the only thing which causes a REJ of a validated FP is if there is one already in the Eurocontrol computer for the same time span. For VFR, nothing will reject the FP. I think the slagging was mostly unfair, and driven largely by people who want to scribble some unreadable crap (with village names and airport names as waypoints, etc – all non ICAO) onto a piece of paper and hand it in at the tower on their way out to LFAT.

AFPEX is a stupid implementation for the modern age (the java app – should be just a website) but there is something in the way they validate the fields that helps. For example I have had 2 occasions, both time-critical, when I could not paste an IFR route into the EuroFPL website box, possibly due to some invisible invalid character (the issue was never solved). OK; that is just a web programming issue, but maybe some browsers cannot be “fixed”, when all you are doing is a straight SUBMIT method.

AFPEX has always worked straight off for IFR but only recently have they added automatic VFR addressing, which seems to be implemented locally, in the java app. There is a gotcha: if you use the “validate only” feature, with a Z or Y FP, the FP is delivered to any extra-addressed airports I think that is a Eurocontrol “feature”.

IFR is much easier than VFR