Peter wrote:
VFR FPs have certain functions in Europe:
In some countries, the VFR FPs are actually sent to the ATC and FIS units, so they have your details and know what you want when you call them.
they keep a lot of people in jobs, working out the addressing, picking holes in the details and making phone calls
“Job creation” is not the explanation to everything in aviation.
Airborne_Again wrote:
“Job creation” is not the explanation to everything in aviation.
Although I tend to agree with that statement, I once had a discussion with a flight briefer at Le Bourget BRIA once I had a problem finding a route that would be validated by Eurocontrol. He sermoned me for using “unofficial” tools (EuroFPL at that time) for filing flight plans, and said that if everybody would do that he would be out of a job and there would no longer be anyone to support private pilots.
So although it might not be a job creation scheme, there could be some job preservation involved..
NCYankee wrote:
I am curious as to why ATC would care about a VFR flightplan. In the US, it is merely information used for SAR.
And as a result, when you want to or have to talk to an ATC unit as a VFR flight, you will have to tell ATC all the details of your flight many times. Would they see the flight plan, a lot of radio time (and controller work, since they have to type in / write down what you say) could be saved. So the US system is very good, possibly second to none, but it would still be improved by making VFR plans visible to controllers.
The route in the flightplan does not need to be followed, there is no concept of a clearance for the route.
That is of course correct, but there are still many VFR flights that follow a planned route quite closely.
Peter wrote:
VFR FPs have certain functions in Europe:
You left out one of the most important functions IMO: in countries that actually route flight plans to their respective ATC / information units responsible for low-level airspace, it helps tremendously by giving them a general idea about your intentions, so that only deviations have to be communicated.
Peter wrote:
they keep a lot of people in jobs, working out the addressing, picking holes in the details and making phone calls
This “function” could still be preserved when at the same time providing much more utility.
I of course now understand that main reason behind the current situation is that it is the way it has been for decades, and originally it would not have been technically possible to provide a better system. And the interest in making any improvements is very low, since it would only benefit light GA, which is not a top political priority in Europe.
Aviathor wrote:
He sermoned me for using “unofficial” tools (EuroFPL at that time) for filing flight plans, and said that if everybody would do that he would be out of a job and there would no longer be anyone to support private pilots.So although it might not be a job creation scheme, there could be some job preservation involved..
Well, he has a point, hasn’t he? If you want to have a service available, you’ll better use it or it will go away.
Well, the more basic point is that you don’t need a “service” nowadays, for most stuff. The need for a service is mostly artificial. You have a GPS, you can fly A to B.
Most of the stuff to do with needing ATC services is self driven e.g. CAS transits are there only because CAS was set up and …
I remember when I took my PPL. A flight plan was to be filed for one or several of following reasons
I have never got an answer to what this “to get a controlled flight” actually meant for VFR, but a clearance seems to do the trick in controlled airspace. They DO get into the ATC, how else would the arrival airport be able to close the plan?
LeSving wrote:
They DO get into the ATC, how else would the arrival airport be able to close the plan?
Yes, they do get to the departure and destination towers (or should), but not always to enroute ATC units.
Very good point; there is no automatic distribution to anybody enroute who might own a bit of CAS you want to fly through.
Even if you explicitly addressed the FP to enroute CAS owners, it won’t do anything. In the UK they will see you aren’t landing there and will toss it in the bin.
I think that’s true everywhere, although France seems to have a system where any ATCO can get the filed route for any aircraft he sees on his radar. One French pilot told me that all French ATCOs are radar qualified (=higher salary), which obviously facilitates such access.
A further point, not taught in the PPL, is that filing a FP doesn’t give you PNR or PPR, normally. If you file a FP to some airport which is closed because it has 1m of snow, they will just toss it in the bin. They won’t (usually) send a message back to the filing agency, saying they are closed. Aviation is a funny old world 
Airborne_Again wrote:
Well, he has a point, hasn’t he?
He does, the problem being that I way prefer to have an automated online flight planning tool providing me autonomy, for which I only very occasionally need support, rather than something like Olivia where I depend on a grumpy human to get my flight plan through 100% of the time.
Peter wrote:
Very good point; there is no automatic distribution to anybody enroute who might own a bit of CAS you want to fly through.Even if you explicitly addressed the FP to enroute CAS owners, it won’t do anything. In the UK they will see you aren’t landing there and will toss it in the bin.
I think that’s true everywhere, although France seems to have a system where any ATCO can get the filed route for any aircraft he sees on his radar. One French pilot told me that all French ATCOs are radar qualified (=higher salary), which obviously facilitates such access.
FWIW, it has been like this in Sweden since around 1980 or so when Swedish CAA introduced its first computerised flight plan processing system. Another novelty at the time was that civil and military ATC were integrated into a single ATC system. The same controller handles both civil and military flights in his/her airspace. I suppose that’s commonplace today, but at the time it was unusal. The effect was better airspace utilisation by greatly reducing the need for restricted areas for military training.
