boscomantico wrote:
Do the Netherlands really generally accept abbreviated VFR flightplans for departures from and arrivals to controlled aerodromes??
That sounds uncontroversial to me. E.g. Sweden does. Does Germany require a full flight plan?
Airborne_Again wrote:
Does Germany require a full flight plan?No, but apparently Austria does for CAS.
This is good news. I really struggled to file a flight plan at very short notice when wanting to depart internationally (not in Netherlands, this was in Slovakia), so if this attitude prevails and spreads more widely it would make it much easier and simpler to cross borders. The requirement to file 1 hour in advance is often bypassed, but I’ve fond in some countries that the processes (presumably involving some human interaction) can take 20-30 mins. This may not seem long, but can add pressure when trying to beat a deadline (sunset, weather etc.) and not having a phone number to call to check progress or a fax machine handy to send the form to.
I recall there are four controlled airports in the Netherlands for which Eurocontrol sends you a bill some weeks later for ATC charges (even if <2 tonnes).
I’ve had them from Groningen and Rotterdam in the past.
So one reason for filing a VFR flight plan to those places is that they can subsequently charge you ;)
the only (legal) reason for a FP to/from Norway is customs, when inside Schengen.
Must be incorrect for IFR.
I really struggled to file a flight plan at very short notice when wanting to depart internationally (not in Netherlands, this was in Slovakia), so if this attitude prevails and spreads more widely it would make it much easier and simpler to cross borders
AFAIK this concession is never available for IFR, and is mostly not available for flights in CAS.
Posts merged into previous thread.
DavidC wrote:
I recall there are four controlled airports in the Netherlands for which Eurocontrol sends you a bill some weeks later for ATC charges (even if <2 tonnes).
This is for the terminal charge. The exemption you refer to “<2t” is for enroute charges. The Netherlands just use Eurocontrol as a service provider to collect terminal charges, while other countries do so through another service provider or “themselves” e.g. Germany DFS sends you a bill. Bulgaria BULATSA send you a bill, Luxembourg the handling agent collects it for you (or you open an account with the state ATC provider and they bill you directly every 6 months), …
In Sweden a VFR flight plan can be filed 30 minutes before DEP. it is valid from 15’ before to 30’ after the planned time.
So even for a last minute fight, it’s the first thing you do when coming to the hangar. Then on to your preflight, pull the plane out and close the hangar again, install yourself and all non-permanent gizmos, go for fuel, engine run-up, and you’re good to go.
As Peter wrote before, it is trivial.
Airborne_Again wrote:
By SERA 4001(b)(5) a flight plan is necessary when crossing international borders, unless the countries involved have decided to waive that requirement. This is regardless of immigration (non-Schengen) or customs (non-EU) requirements. As we have seen, some countries in continental Europe have waived the requirement. I don’t know about Norway, but Sweden has not.
When I “grew up” the requirements for FP where (from memory):
The last one disappeared with JAR/EASA at some point. For VFR it was what we today would call flight following, and no such thing exists in EASA. Remnants of it still exists in how things are practiced, but it depends on the actual ATC personnel.
The first one is the obvious one, even today. However, new technology (transponders, BLBs, ELT and so on) and better SAR in general makes this a bit less important than it used to be, especially over populated areas where it has no use whatsoever.
The second one always existed AFAIK, and still do, and is obvious.
The one left is crossing international borders. What exactly is the background behind this? Why is it there? It certainly is not ATC today. ATC couldn’t care less, and “because ICAO say so” is no real reason except for EASA exclusively. In fact, whatever reasons existed back in the day, exist no more, which is the reason the requirement is slowly going away. The only thing the FP is used for that is particular for international flights, is to forward it to the customs office. For all other purposes, it has no more, or no less, significance than any other FP. Hence, this is the reason it will not go away for Norway (I don’t see Norway becoming a member of the EU anytime soon 
)
Why is it a requirement for countries inside EU and inside Schengen? The answer is, it isn’t. It’s just a remnant from begone ages that is slowly disappearing, which happened in the Netherlands just now.
LeSving wrote:
Why is it a requirement for countries inside EU and inside Schengen? The answer is, it isn’t. It’s just a remnant from begone ages that is slowly disappearing, which happened in the Netherlands just now.
For “customs border”, you are aware that FPL alone is not enough for PNR/PPR (outside narrow case of Sweden/Norway), try Norway => Breda or Norway => Antwerp on FPL alone without sending GENDEC
Some countries (e.g. Norway, Switzerland, France, Spain) did put ICAO convention requirements before SERA concession or Schengen treaty for national sovereignty and also other reasons:
On legacy reason, lot of commercial operators wanted ICAO convention before EU aviation rules: one reason to keep intra-EU flights VFR or IFR as “ICAO international flights” is JetA fuel duty taxation relief under ICAO, this is a deep rabbit hole…
Frans wrote:
Therefore, crossing borders with Belgium and Germany will become much easier, as these countries already don’t require VFR flight plans for international flights. Even a direct flight from the Netherlands to Austria, Czech Republic or Poland would be theoretically possible without an FPL.
It would be nice if we can do this in France & Switzerland as well
Without ModeS, ELT and radio contact: stealth mode !
This would be a nice concession for ULM, AnnexI…
The one left is crossing international borders. What exactly is the background behind this? Why is it there?
National security.
I don’t know which countries in Europe do this (and obviously nobody currently in ATC is going to post details openly); the idea is that you compare radar tracks with flight plans, and try to detect intruders.
The UK does it (no idea of the current implementation but years ago it was done manually here). I am pretty sure France does it, and I am sure mainland Europe has some sort of a system, at least for its external borders.
Remember that some stuff in SERA was never implemented e.g. AFIL.
Peter wrote:
I don’t know which countries in Europe do this (and obviously nobody currently in ATC is going to post details openly); the idea is that you compare radar tracks with flight plans, and try to detect intruders.
The ones that don’t mandate ELT/ModeS will require flight plans and radio contact (or discreet squawks while talking to FIS) to monitor flights for search, rescue and security. At least, the reason I was told why France will not drop FPL for VFR anytime soon
Maybe with mandatory ELT + ModeS? there is a a lot of resistance to this as most VFR GA equipment is ModeA/C, however, with removal of area FIS (SIV for VFR) and introduction of listening squawk (RAI for VFR), this may happen very soon
