boscomantico wrote:
Well, if you fly to say Germany, you will also have to fly back. And for the return flight, the ARO processing the flightplan will be the German AIS, which will generally not accept a flightplan that contains airport codes or location names.
I couldn’t find any examples from Germany so I will have to experiment and see what happens. Like I said I’m a low time PPL so not a ton of experience yet. But I do have one example from Salzburg in Austria that I filled like that and I had no issues:
boscomantico wrote:
Nope. That information goes nowhere.
Even if you mention airports in field 15, in no way does this effect that the approach /TMA controllers receive your flightplan.
It was just an idea, but since these get processed by humans.. there is a chance that it could affect where the flight plan is sent but you’re probably right. I mean these flight plans are looked at. It can’t be any other way because I have received a call in the past from DFS when I filled but didn’t clearly specify my route and they called me and wanted to warn me that a restricted area was active and to avoid it. At least I think it was DFS, it a while back when this happened.
boscomantico wrote:
Nope. That information goes nowhere.
RMK in field 18 should be distributed. Field 19, on the other hand, is not distributed unless specifically requested (by a SAR action, typically).
Sure, not “nowhere”, but mentioning an airport code in field 18 will not automtically “feed” the flightplan to the ATC unit of that airport, nor will an ARO officer take that to manually copy the flightplan to the respective ATC unit.
boscomantico wrote:
but mentioning an airport code in field 18 will not automtically “feed” the flightplan to the ATC unit of that airport, nor will an ARO officer take that to manually copy the flightplan to the respective ATC unit.
Absolutely. But — depending on how you file — you could instead enter EDMOZTZX as an extra addressee of the flight plan. Whether EDMO TWR would make any use of it is another question.
CAS clearances are nearly always tactical, so sending a FP to an enroute unit is normally pointless.
In the UK they chuck them in the bin. Probably elsewhere too.
Frans wrote:
Do Swiss ATCOs ever look at flight plans for VFR traffic, when it’s not departure or destination airfield? The Swiss way of stating callsign, position, and request upon first call is a bit different from ICAO standard. As far I’ve learned, the ICAO standard is callsign only upon first contact (except when it’s a handover).
I doubt it very much. It’s pretty much pop up clearance. And yes, that is how it works on 1st contact, call sign only, then upon reply your request.
In those I overheard in the ZRH CTR they simply called up, asked if a crossing from – to was possible and were given the clearance, which mostly followed their request. I doubt that any of them even had a flight plan to start with.
