Funny how VFR flight planning is so different….
I have always been told that because these don’t go into the CFMU they are basically DCTs with free text in between 
GPS coordinates should be perfectly acceptable.
otherwise you can use VOR Radials, but it’s a pain… (like DIK18515 which – i think – would be QDR 185 from DIK VOR fro 15NM)
But personally in your case i would have filed (by fax to the ARO)
DCT LPVR
EET 0110
and given the first outbound VRP upon first contact with the tower.
Given the purpose and usefuleness of VFR FPLs… But sometimes (like in EBBU) they are mandatory.
Peter wrote:
I always used airway intersections and navaids.
I do this too. I get them displayed on SD. However in this case there were simply none that would take me over the scenic river…
172driver wrote:
why do you (have to) file a route at all?
If I don’t file a route, the controller would simply ask for my turning points on the radio (this is what happened) and I would have to spell every turning point out.
172driver wrote:
Also, why the DCT?
I don’t know really… this is the way I was shown during my ppl and this is what kept on doing… In my defence the AIP does mention:
INSERT DCT between successive points unless both points are defined by geographical co-ordinates or by bearing and distance.
http://www.nav.pt/ais/cd/2015-05-28-AIRAC/html/index.html
section 1.10
Anyways, next time I’m gonna put “INKIT” and will request to stay over the river…
BTW, if anyone gets the chance to fly this route… the views are amazing. It’s unfortunate I was alone without a camera.
(and I can’t help finding it funny to see all and sundry talking of “GPS” coordinates, just as if these were any different from “Jepp” coordinates or “AIP” coordinates or whatever…)
As for VFR flight plans being mandatory in EBBU FIR: only if one intends to access controlled airspace, and don’t I remember that is an ICAO requirement? I fly in Belgian airspace all the while, always VFR, and very rarely file flight plans. Controlled airspace is closed to me anyway (we have no class E , here) it is only when flying into France that I need to file.
INSERT DCT between successive points
Yes, that is what I learned, too, and always did, and never had any trouble with.
As usual, this all depends, and is changing all the time.
The controller ultimately will get the route on a control strip, which these days mat be handwritten on paper, printed on paper from the flight plan, electronic on a screen but 1:1 from paper with all the errors, or fully electronic with plotting on the screen on request (I believe the latter exists).
The more advanced the “downstream” processing is, the more specific the requirements on what is acceptable are, and they are not the same depending on country and equipment.
In practice, I don’t really bother with too much detail. Long distance, I put in a few VORs/NDBs along the route and FIR crossing EETs. Recently I wanted to fly along the Norway coast, so I just put in DCT as both airfields were close enough to the coast. That was for a 350 NM flight.
back to Germany issue – why the hell are not geographic names acceptable ? if the pilot flying with no GPS to sit down at the map and read all coordinates? Looks such a paper was produced by someone with no knowledge of GA at all. As many other similar paper in Europe…
Again: check ICAO Annex 2 – geographic names are generally not allowed. As to why, you have to ask ICAO….
Probably because by 1945 already it had been proven extensively that pilots are not good for identifying stuff from high up…
My town was pretty well identified… even without flight plans.
boscomantico wrote:
Again: check ICAO Annex 2 – geographic names are generally not allowed
I can’t find anything about this in ICAO Annex 2. It simply say the route is a part of the flight plan with no closer description.
boscomantico wrote:
Again: check ICAO Annex 2
can you point us in the ICAO Annex for this? I am just browsing it and can´t find it….
