it's probably not worth resurrecting the thread just for this, but I had time on my hands today, so I checked the latest AIP for that airspace and plotted it. There is no kink.
I dont have any experience of using SkyDemon outside of the UK but it does show all of the IFR intersection points (it certainly shows more than the CAA chart does), so can you not use those internationally as opposed to unofficial name places SkyDemon lists?
Ok. Just checked and I see some but not all IFR intersections in Poland. On the Norwegian chart I could see all points for those airports that I checked.
They must have added those over Poland the last six months or I must have had the settings wrong last time I was there.
I've never flown to Poland, but in general, ATC is entitled to ask VFR traffic to report at VRPs which are published in the AIP.
Similarly, ATC should not be asking anybody to report at VRPs which are not published though this practice is widespread here in the UK (it's OK with the locals).
As regards what happens if VFR traffic reports at IFR waypoints... it depends.
In the UK it should be OK, with ATC (not AFIS or A/G).
In Greece they really like it; they like everybody to fly IFR routes.
In France, Italy, Spain, my sporadic experience is that they are likely to give you a hard time if you do that. IME, they like to "work to rule" i.e. "VRPs only". But you are probably pushing their English language proficiency anyway...
The best way to deal with VRPs is to have a GPS which shows the official ones i.e. the ones in the AIP, which should be same as the ones published in the Jepp VFR airport charts.
I checked the latest Garmin handhelds for this (695 and above) in a pilot shop in May 2012 and they all showed the UK and French VRPs correctly. I have no idea what Skydemon shows for say Poland but it would be easy to check against either the AIP or the Jepp VFR approach chart for the said airport.
The old King panel mounts (KMD150, KMD550) show the official VRPs correctly too, which is why I chose that stuff in 2002, over the GNS430/530 option.
Please note this "kink" (which I think is just an artefact of the algorithm, not correctly joining up the lines of equal-base CAS)
From what I understand, the thick line is NOT meant to represent lines of equal-base CAS, but rather the point where you will bust CAS at your current altitude (4,000' in this case)....personally I think this isn't a bad feature....of course up here in the NE of Scotland we only have to worry about P600 and it only drops down to 5,500' over a very short distance....
I have a GPS that shows all available VFR points, but for some airports these are very few and it can be practical to add in IFR points instead of trying to pronounce a local name that nobody understands but you.
However, I see the challange for ATC. I guess they have no way of knowing that the IFR data is current or comes from an approved source from a VFR flight and cannot rely on the same proficiency from a VFR pilot. It could be there, but then again it could not.
cannot rely on the same proficiency from a VFR pilot. It could be there, but then again it could not.
I don't think ATC care.
They are not pilot competence policemen. They might see loads of incompetence on the average day but if a pilot says he is at X then they must assume he is at X, for procedural separation purposes.
If the ATCO has a radar then he might query it, but if the radar visibility is unofficial then he shouldn't say anything even if it's obvious the pilot is somewhere totally different.
Oddly enough I think that if you report your position using an IFR waypoint then you are far more likely to be believed, and get ATC co-operation, than if you report your position using a VRP - because it's "obvious" you are reading it straight off a GPS which, 99.9% of the time, will be exact. That certainly has been my experience flying VFR into Europe 2003-2006 (pre-IR) when I used to get amazingly relaxed clearances through busy airspace in N Europe, FL070/080 etc. ATCOs are human (mostly ) and they will always prefer an easy life, i.e. a pilot who doesn't give them any trouble.
Given a GPS, the only reason for deliberately mis-reporting one's position might be to get an early clearance to join or land, but that kind of thing (which does happen a lot in the VFR world) tends to take place near the circuit.
As regards data currency, I don't think an intersection of a given name will ever just move. It may have been deleted, but the ATCO will probably remember where it was.
The whole thing is driven by a regulative hierarchy.
It's like the difference between an IFR approved GPS and a handheld. Both display the IFR waypoints, but only one is approved as a means for IFR navigation.
When a flight is on an IFR flight plan, I can assume that the equipment from which he gets his position is approved for use under IFR and hence gives correct information. I can also assume that the pilot has received proper training in order to use it correctly. If he is on a VFR flight plan I can not legally make those assumptions.
I have in fact worked in a TWR without radar (I'm human so I jumped off some years ago ) and let me tell you that very rarely did I trust a VFR position report to the point that I based any "traffic related" decisions on the asumption that he should be over a certain fix. Especially if it was busy. Didn't matter if they reported IFR waypoints or not. You never know what skill level is on the other side. For an IFR flight, you do.
Exceptions were military traffic and ambulance helicopters.
Aren't the nav equipment presumptions implicit though?
For an Eurocontrol IFR flight (there is no other kind in Europe, outside the UK, really, is there, officially?) your route will be wholly in CAS, more or less, so you need to have BRNAV capability, which can be met only with INS or an IFR GPS. Or the KNS80 but not really practically. But how you actually navigate is not prescribed (in a non AOC operation). So you could be carrying a suitably approved KNS80 but actually using a Garmin 496 as a "DCT box", or any other handheld device.
For every other type of flight i.e. a VFR flight, no country in Europe (AFAIK) prescribes the use of any navigation method whatsoever. Among UK PPLs for sure, there is a widespread belief (encouraged by many CAA publications and statements over the years) that GPS is not approved, or not approved for "primary navigation" (whatever that is) but that is all 100% nonsense.
You do your own evaluations and take your own decisions there and then (that's what it is all about), and your are the one that have to stand for them afterwards.
However, when I started, I was chocked to find out how much it all is driven by regulations and law, and I think many pilots don't realize this.
Example: If I have one airplane overflying the rwy (e.g. low pass) I can put one airplane on the rwy if 1) the overflying airplane is at or above 1000' or 2) if the airplane entering the rwy is informed about the overflying airplane and the over flying airplane is above 500'.
One time I had an airline, holding and suddenly slowly started to roll towards the rwy with an ultra light airplane just departed but still over the rwy. I asked the captain to call me, and when he did, I told him he had crossed the holding line without a clearance. He then replied "the only advice I can give you is not to wait so long with letting us out just because you have an ultra light in the area". He then followed up with how much it cost them to wait on that UL.
When I told him I was actually not allowed to let him line up because the UL was below 500' he replied, I've been flying for xx years and this is the first time I have experienced something like this, and nobody have ever told me something like this before. I believe you are wrong.
So I guess it's different from person to person. I used to do it by the book.
One time I had an airline, holding and suddenly slowly started to roll towards the rwy with an ultra light airplane just departed but still over the rwy. I asked the captain to call me, and when he did, I told him he had crossed the holding line without a clearance. He then replied "the only advice I can give you is not to wait so long with letting us out just because you have an ultra light in the area". He then followed up with how much it cost them to wait on that UL.
I used to fly from Sola (you weren't in the Sola TWR ca 12 yrs ago we're you? :)....they routinely used make SAS hold for Sola based light aircraft! Mainly because they had a habit of lining up and then spending several minutes completing their checks.....Different story for Braathen though!