Its the flightplan validation which is the key point – With a purely VFR flightplan its either filed and done, or not filed, due to some illegal character being present, for example. No validation required. We don’t do auto-routing either, so the user would have to be absolutely cognizant of what routes are likely to be validated when planning the route, in order to avoid spending flightplan credits trying to file for routes which are unlikely to be accepted.
I tend to suggest guys look at Autorouter or go to EuroFPL directly when they need to file pure IFR or mixed flightplans, since they already have the additional systems in place to handle the whole process relatively smoothly. On our side, its hard for us to justify doing the development work on it when a) we are mainly VFR focused anyway and b) we aren’t convinced we could do it better than the other existing products that are in play already. Of course, I never say never!
Rob – thank you for posting here, but I am not sure you quite get the point.
SD uses EuroFPL. You could easily support IFR as a filing option. No development work. In UK Class G, nearly every route validates. There is a separate and very valid debate of whether filing “I” but OCAS is worth anything in the UK, or other places, and it isn’t worth anything except in specific situations e.g.
Also it is not correct that a VFR FP is always “done”. In the UK, yes, because you could file EGKA – VNKT – EGMD, C152, EET 1hr. (VNKT is Kathmandu). Nobody will say anything, because – since the FBUs got shut in 2009 – nobody looks at the route. But this isn’t the case in other places, especially “quite south” in Europe. Try some routes past former Yugoslavia. So SD either already implements a “message back to the pilot” channel, or doesn’t and in that case somebody will one day get burnt and will post nasty stuff about SD on their domestic forum (but you will never find out because he/she probably doesn’t speak English so won’t post it on your support forum) 
Actually any FP filing agency (and that includes SD, even if you subcontract it) is required to have a capability to pass a message back to the pilot…
I think there are valid points on both sides here.
SkyDemon positions itself as a VFR product (even if also useful for ad-hoc IFR) so it’s totally understandable that they’d limit their flight plan filing facility to VFR.
That said, there is a need. Sometimes I want to have a flight plan in the system (to facilitate a transit or an arrival) and while I can just put in a VFR one and declare IFR on arrival (my usual tactic for the channel islands) it would make more sense if I could put in an IFR one. I don’t mind London Control binning it because I would manually add the necessary ZPZX and ZTZX addresses.
Peter wrote:
You could easily support IFR as a filing option.
I don’t understand how you can “easily” support that as all IFR flight plans should be sent to IFPS. That’s easy enough using AFTN but then you have to be prepared for various replies that you must handle in a sensible way. Nothing of the sort happens with VFR flight plans.
Graham wrote:
That said, there is a need. Sometimes I want to have a flight plan in the system (to facilitate a transit or an arrival) and while I can just put in a VFR one and declare IFR on arrival (my usual tactic for the channel islands) it would make more sense if I could put in an IFR one. I don’t mind London Control binning it because I would manually add the necessary ZPZX and ZTZX addresses.
You mean filing same I-FPL that you send to AFTN with EGMCZPZX/ZTZX and IFPS with EUCB/EUCHZMFP?
Nothing of the sort happens with VFR flight plans.
See my post above; a means of sending route refusals etc back to the pilot has to be supported. There is no such thing allowed as a blind “throw in a FP” service.
Practically the entire complication of “IFR” is with route development. I know this, from well before any (usable) routing tools existed. And it is only in Europe that IFPS exists; elsewhere the FP does get sent via the AFTN.
Do a search for “hunnicat” for some fun reading He was never seen again, which was a pity (he was an ATCO in Hungary who got p1ssed off with SD flight plans containing all kinds of garbage).
Peter wrote:
See my post above; a means of sending route refusals etc back to the pilot has to be supported
Well, AFAIU for a VFR flightplan the only universal means of doing so would be for someone to call the PIC on the phone number provided on the FPL.
Not too long ago, the common method to file a flightplan was to phone (or visit) the local AIS, dictate the flightplan to the agent on duty who then typed it into AFTN after having determined the required adresses for the planned flight. By the time some agency down the route could object to the plan, the pilot would long be off the phonecall with AIS (or have left the office if he has filed in person).
So what AIS does with a VFR FPL is basically just what you call “throw in a FP”.
The advent of online-filing or SD and similar tools has created a digital “false face” for this process – but the backend is still the same as it was 60+ years ago.
Well, AFAIU for a VFR flightplan the only universal means of doing so would be for someone to call the PIC on the phone number provided on the FPL.
Indeed
So what AIS does with a VFR FPL is basically just what you call “throw in a FP”.
Indeed
So how does this all hang together?
Same way as so much in aviation hangs together. In this case
It’s same as how does the PPL hang together (most graduates can’t fly Shoreham to Le Touquet, which is ok because most give up fast), or how does the useless CPL/IR syllabus hang together (every graduate gets a training captain in the LHS so limited opportunity to crash… well except on Spanish AOCs). Or how come you can leave a Lyco sitting for a year, and you don’t find half the camshaft in the oil filter (almost nobody does oil analysis, many or most oil filters are not “actually” cut open, and then the plane is sold, and the next owner then posts on a forum “hey guys I found half the camshaft in the oil filter but this is impossible because I fly every week, so Lycoming camshafts must be crap – help me!”). Etc…
BTW, SD is a paid app and they should have the pilot’s full details, including a phone #.
Peter wrote:
BTW, SD is a paid app and they should have the pilot’s full details, including a phone #
SD does nothing else to your FPL than sending it to the local AIS through an AFTN gateway – just like phoning in the plan without a phone.
I just created a dummy FPL in SD from EDNY to LDLO, and the only address this FPL is being sent to is the German central AIS service (EDDZZPZX). Any further distribution to the FIR’s along the route and the destiantion is done by AIS, not by SD.
And yes, I have received calls for inconsistencies in a plan filed through SD (not routing-related, though), but these were from AIS, not from SD. So I doubt SD has the “backchannel” that you suggest – simply because it is not necessary, as any unit can just pick your phone number from field 18 and call you.
Skydemon has the “backchannel” implemented.
When I fly in Ukraine, I receive an e-mail with the answer if my VFR flightplan is accepted or not in the Ukrainian Airspace Use plan from UKRAEROCENTER.
This “backchannel” works very well!
