It’s crazy that one should have to do this, in 2016.
In 2005 I wrote up this which lists various hacks. It used to list a load more (e.g. the GAT hack which would allow almost any FP to be filed without checking) but I gradually stripped them out.
I wonder if filing the above route as a series of VOR-relative waypoints would have done the same job? It would be tidyer than cancelling IFR, which carries the hazard that somebody anal in the system might actually force you to do it. Does the CTOT allocation get triggered by such a route segment?
I had a similar thing when stuck in Schwäbisch Hall a couple of years ago when the Swanwick ATC computer failed. 6 hour slot delay entirely caused by an automatic Eurocontrol adjustment to volumes into the UK. Filed to Lille and asked in the air if London would accept me which they did. These are automated delays not actual ones and can usually be resolved if you can get airborne to fix them.
Jason, if you have a CTOT and you depart ahead of time, you are asking for trouble. Eurocontrol create a report every time this happens and every year there are statistics of the airfields with the most CTOT misses. There is a mandate to reduce these deviations to zero. If your departure airport is towered, you should not receive a startup clearance.
This means you have to file something different from what you plan to fly — like Lille in your case of the VFR segment in Peter’s case. Still one should be cautious to not be seen as abusing the system. autorouter neither generates nor encourages such routings as we don’t want to be identified as the source of too much creativity 
Peter wrote:
I wonder if filing the above route as a series of VOR-relative waypoints would have done the same job?
The DCT limit will be 0 in most cases and traffic rules can no longer be tricked like this. The system will force you onto the airway if it’s at the same place and then evaluate against the rules.
Sure but I filed Lille and was prepared to land there. There was no CTOT on that flight. I merely asked when airborne if london could accept me. And they could.
Don’t worry I didn’t file using Autorouter.
The DCT limit will be 0 in most cases and traffic rules can no longer be tricked like this.
Which European airspaces have a MAXDCT=0?
The system will force you onto the airway if it’s at the same place and then evaluate against the rules.
But it usually won’t be at the same place. The airway will be a Great Circle between two waypoints. If you drop in a series of VORrrrddd waypoints, they are unlikely to line up exactly and, if they did, just shift the rrr by a degree or so.
There is also the lat/long option.
can usually be resolved if you can get airborne to fix them
I did wonder about that at LDLO. The tower was empty and I departed with blind calls on the frequency. Then I called up Pula for the IFR clearance. However I wonder whether Pula would have given me that clearance, because they may be aware of the 1.5hr delay I got.
I keep EuroFPL as a backup, and if I have my laptop I can also file with AFPEX.
achimha wrote:
Obviously one shouldn’t play dirty tricks with the Eurocontrol system and expect them to work. In general, declaring a leg VFR with the intention of flying it IFR can be considered a nasty trick.
Indeed the Flight Planning Regulation has a very general provision:
3(6) The operator shall ensure prior to operation of the flight that the content of the initial flight plan correctly reflects the operational intentions.
Nothing wrong with agreeing a change of plan with ATC, provided you are prepared to fly the original plan by default.
Peter wrote:
…
When I entered Switzerland, they asked me if I was cancelling IFR. I replied “negative”. This was also accepted without any question
This is one of the (many) tricks one can use in order to get rid of a CTOT.
I don’t know Skyguide’s position on this subject but I know that DSNA is now actively monitoring “Intruders” (a flight in a controlled sector where it is not expected).
Indeed, in the past few years, there has been few sector capacity bust due to “intruders” which led to safety issue.
Most of these capacity bust are due to poor FPL adherence. See here some example of poor FPL adherence (from page 4 to 7).
Suprisingly, most capacity bust are caused by ATC themself by allowing aircraft to depart outsided of acceptable CTOT range, giving inapropriate shortcut (DCT) or changing cruise flight level…
This is why, as ATC, we are now checking carefully if a shortcut (DCT) or Flight level change is not going to create an intruder in a regulated sector.
In some other cases, “intruders” are caused by aircraft operator themself by filling irrealistic FPL or deviating intentionally from the FPL initially filed.
When a capacity bust is considered as significant an investigation is triggered in order to find the cause (ATC and/or Aircraft operator).
The investigation part is clearly outside of my range so I don’t know if this can lead to prosecution toward the aircraft operator.
This is another interesting document (from 2015) which sums-up with illustrated example what I explained above. On page 10, you can find a significant capacity bust caused by “intruders”.
Peter wrote:
Which European airspaces have a MAXDCT=0?
Reims (LFEE) FIR.
Peter wrote:
Which European airspaces have a MAXDCT=0?
It’s not straightforward to come up with statistics but I would say the vast majority of airspace in European IFR flight plans has a DCT limit of 0. Almost all countries have controlled airspace everywhere starting at a certain altitude (i.e. not like in the UK where a few miles off the airway you’re in airspace G) and while in some of them, DCTs are permissible in CAS, it tends to get less with higher altitude. Using VOR radials in the route is the same as DCTs. What we see more often is that specific DCTs (between fixed points) become whitelisted.
Peter wrote:
I did wonder about that at LDLO. The tower was empty and I departed with blind calls on the frequency. Then I called up Pula for the IFR clearance. However I wonder whether Pula would have given me that clearance, because they may be aware of the 1.5hr delay I got.
You probably would not have gotten a clearance, most likely also a letter with a complaint about your infraction. There is a program at Eurocontrol focused on CTOT violations.
Peter wrote:
I keep EuroFPL as a backup, and if I have my laptop I can also file with AFPEX.
You can file whatever hacked up version of a flight plan you like with autorouter, I was only trying to give a reason why we don’t propose such solutions ourselves even though I personally would have filed exactly the way you have.
Guillaume wrote:
Suprisingly, most capacity bust are caused by ATC themself by allowing aircraft to depart outsided of acceptable CTOT range, giving inapropriate shortcut (DCT) or changing cruise flight level…
This is why, as ATC, we are now checking carefully if a shortcut (DCT) or Flight level change is not going to create an intruder in a regulated sector.
The reason why I think Peter’s action was justified and why I personally would have done the same thing is that the IFPS rules required filing via Zurich where the CTOT originated (as shown in the CTOT message which I saw) but I knew before the flight that Skyguide would not route this flight via Zurich, therefore the CTOT was unrealistic.
In addition to that the worst possible reaction 1) you have to switch to VFR 2) you are not cleared through this airspace was extremely unlikely but still perfectly manageable.
If the system requires you to file a route that you know you will not fly and issues a long CTOT just because of that detour, some creativity on the pilot’s side is more than justified. If on the other hand you want to fly through the overloaded (should I saw over-strike-plagued?) Paris airspace and think you can do that by declaring the leg as VFR, then you’re stretching it too far and should expect pushback.
Operational intention – fly shortest possible route.
ATC intention – let the aircraft fly the shortest possible route.
IFPS computer intention – force people to fly according to the rules.
Hence pilots and ATC often collude in getting the job done.
I once was at a Eurocontrol meeting, where statistics about route overheads were presented, with great circle rout < flown route <<< planned route. The controllers thought “good job”, including the Eurocontrol representatives.
