VFR Flight plans and acceptable waypoints

Resurrecting this old thread to add a useful piece of information:
A few weeks ago I had the chance to visit the HungaroControl facility near LHBP, where all en-route and (civilian) approach controllers work. FIC is also housed there, in the very same room and having identical workstations to radar controllers. This fact has been known before, but what surprised me is that the system parses VFR flight plans much like IFR flight plans, even those with names of obscure villages and non-standard abbreviations. This way the planned route is plotted on the screen and the FISO can use some of the tools used by controllers to predict potential conflicts and airspace busts. The take home message of the meeting with FIC personnel was that if you were flying in Hungary VFR, please file a flight plan. It will make their work much easier and your flights more stress-free.

I flew about all of my flights in Africa last year on a VFR flightplan which I filed digitally in all but one country (South Sudan). In South-Africa I flew IFR as they do have a radar environment and it was easier. In the rest of Africa I would file VFR but have an IFR route in my flightplan route with VFR as altitude. No problem at all. They do expect position reports (as they have no radar environment) but in most cases I was off the radio after 10-30 minutes and did send some position reports here and there through a relay with a KLM or Air France guy flying up high and willing to relay my message. VFR flying is no issue at all in Africa.

In Egypt, there is VFR (like everywhere else in Africa I presume). However, it is identical to IFR, ATC are probably not aware of the differences. You get clearances, you fly on airways, you fly approaches, etc. Unfortunately there is nothing like uncontrolled flight there and even a private airstrip with 3 movements a week has to have a fully staffed tower with an ATCO on duty.

Of course they do, so would I. But that’s simply IFR. Loads of local flights (which, given the size of some countries there would be like crossing Europe) are done VFR and with a filed FP. Two different things.

Why do most/all the flights down there go IFR, in that case?

I have spoken to loads of ferry pilots and this is what they all say.

Of course RSA itself supports aviation nicely, including VFR as we know it. GA is essential in much of Africa (no roads). But pilots who fly pretty well direct from Europe to RSA, the east route, down the middle, or the west route, which is best part of 5000nm, and want to do it quickly without messing about, seem to all go IFR.

Peter wrote:

Outside Europe is a whole can of worms, and it is generally accepted that VFR is too hard because most of the 3rd World doesn’t operate it.

Peter, I’m sorry, but this is nonsense. You can and do file VFR FPs in Africa and there is no ‘underhand IFR’ whatsoever involved. In fact , southern Africa is one of the regions where you really want SAR if you need it. In these parts (as in Oz), btw, ATC do get your VFR FP and coordinate SAR if required. In some places (Namibia being one), the ETE reporting requirements are much more stringent than in Europe and for good reason – going down in many parts there makes you lunch for the local fauna PDQ.

Jan, good point. I have logic in the table checking both Belgium and Francd requirements, but for further revision I need to consider also antwerpen-auxerre-madrid-porto non-stop flight.

Very nice, Michal, and thanks for volunteering.
I confirm your data about Belgium, with one proviso, though (which ought to be self-evident): For a flight across FIR boundaries to be free of flightplan requirement, all concerned FIR’s must be “no” in your table. In my example, flying from BE to FR I do need to file because France requires it.

back to the original topic – do I need customs/imigrations/flight plan…
I prepared an overview table of EU and Schengen states. I did eliminate Liechenstein as they obviously do not have AIP ;-) I did a quick scan of section 1.10 of national AIPs to fill the third column. “It depends” is the answer for states allowing flight with no flight plan only to certain states/condition – like Denmark to Germany.

I have little xls spreadsheet looking at the data and giving clear answer -hope to able to convert it into simple web app by some clever guy.:

Long story short – can you guys have a look at your country data a provide corrections – ideally with link to official document.I was suprised to see requirement for Germany for example but failed to find NOTAM or whatever confirming no flight plan is required (which I am almost sure).
I do volunteer to keep this table updated and available.

LeSving wrote:

One might argue that a clearance is some kind of flight plan (as the wording say),

It is not and it is not what the wording in SERA says either. The information you provide to ATC when you request the clearance, is the flight plan.

Really, folks, it is not difficult. A flight plan is information about your intended flight – whole or part – which you provide to obtain some air traffic service, which means one or more of alerting, FIS or ATC (or, exceptionally, advisory service). Clearly ATS must know something about you otherwise they will be hard pressed to do something for you!

Sometimes the flight plan is needed for non-ATS purposes as well, like customs, air defense etc. but the purpose is still the same – to provide information about your flight.

What is possibly confusing is that a “flight plan” can either refer to the full set of information according to the flight plan form or to the minimum required for part of a flight. The terms “full” and “abbreviated” flight plan are typically used, even if SERA doesn’t use those terms. Even if a full flight plan is usually submitted electronically (or on paper) before the flight, it is theoretically possible (and explicitly permitted by SERA) do submit by radio in flight.