Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Expect vectors without getting any vector

I agree with bookworm.

NAV mode is the equivalent of pointers in C Great if you know exactly what the overall picture is and all the repercussions, otherwise it’s a total disaster.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I guess it’s a case of there being more than one way to skin a cat, but FWIW here, I do disagree that a STAR shouldn’t be loaded until it is given by ATC.

The expected STAR should normally be in the FPL and I find loading it easier because even with places that you never get given the STAR, you will probably be given directs to points within it. I find Poland a good example of this practice. The must important thing IMO is knowing where your clearance ends and having some situational awareness to make sure you don’t end up somewhere your brain hasn’t been 5 minutes before (to use that old one).


So it likely replaced your RUMER DCT EHBK with RUMER RUMER2M EHBK. Problem is, they don’t tell you, you’d have to become an airline to get CHMI access…

For those in the UK (or those with AFPEX access), when you file a flightplan you should get an ACK in return which will have any amended routing in it.

United Kingdom

Yes although flying into Glasgow, you can file direct EGPF from an enroute waypoint (RIBEL) and get an ACK on that route but the AIP requires the LANAK2A STAR from the south.

EGTK Oxford

For those in the UK (or those with AFPEX access), when you file a flightplan you should get an ACK in return which will have any amended routing in it.

It’s more complicated than that. There are additional rules depending on the country the airport is in; some countries do not want SIDs and STARs in the flight plan, so Eurocontrol removes them again for those countries after validation. So the flight plan distributed to different addresses might actually be different, some addresses might get the plan without STAR and some with. The format may also be different. For one of my last flights, CFMUTACT got the flight plan in ADEXP format with STAR, LSAZZQZX got it in ICAO format without STAR, and LSAZZQZG got it in ADEXP format without STAR.

LSZK, Switzerland

Yes although flying into Glasgow, you can file direct EGPF from an enroute waypoint (RIBEL) and get an ACK on that route but the AIP requires the LANAK2A STAR from the south.

Seems like NATS isn’t all that keen on enforcing the use of STARs for Glasgow, as the arrival rule has a DCT limit of 50, i.e. any point not more than 50 mile from EGPW will do as last enroute point

LSZK, Switzerland

when you file a flightplan you should get an ACK in return which will have any amended routing in it

Should that be a MAN instead of an ACK?

I always try to work out which SID or STAR I am likely to get beforehand. Most of the time it saves a bit of messing around.

You don’t need AFPEX to see the ACK. One gets the same sort of message back with e.g. the EuroGA autorouter

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I haven’t used it in a while now and I am struggling to remember, but yes I think we used to get a MAN and ACK almost at the same time, so probably.

tomjnx, I didn’t realise that different addresses could/would receive different versions. Thanks!

United Kingdom

Instead of solely clearing you for the approach, which clearly would might have come as a surprise to me too, he should have given you an intercept vector, followed by an approach clearance.

“After OSGOS continue present heading, intercept LLZ RWY 21. Cleared for ILS RWY 21 approach.”

If I remember my IR TK correctly, a FPL should end at the IAF of a procedure, shouldn’t it? (At least in the US). In Europe I file the last point of my route according to the RAD list of intersections from which a direct can be filed to the given airport.. When I get confirmation the FPL was accepted, it contains a waypoint list that includes intersections between the last en-route point I originally filed, and the IAF, and that list has so far always corresponded to a STAR. Therefore I assume those intersections (STAR) are part of my FPL and I would be expected to fly the STAR unless instructed otherwise.

EDIT 1: Ref: RAD Appendix 5: Aerodrome DCT Limits for the list of waypoints that can appear as first or last intersection to or from an A/D

Last Edited by Aviathor at 07 Jan 14:10
LFPT, LFPN

1) SIDs and STARs are special. Actually, that flight plan is technically invalid, and it only went through because Eurocontrol is nice. EHBK has an arrival DCT limit of 0, i.e. it completely disallows DCT EHBK, with the exception of NW DCT EHBK and GUL DCT EHBK. However, the Eurocontrol checker tries to replace invalid DCT’s with suitable airways or procedures if available. So it likely replaced your RUMER DCT EHBK with RUMER RUMER2M EHBK. Problem is, they don’t tell you, you’d have to become an airline to get CHMI access…

According to RAD Appendix 5: Aerodrome Connectivity GUL or NW (training flights) are allowable as the the last points in your filed planned route to EHBK. Or you can submit a route to to the first waypoint of a STAR.

However, if your FPL is modified by Eurocontrol, you should be told no matter what method/tool used to submit the FPL. Contrary to practice in the US where Clearance/Delivery will provide with your complete route (unless using “then as filed”), AFAIU in Europe your approved FPL will contain the full list of waypoints including any amendments made by Eurocontrol, and you are supposed to be familiar with it. Using EuroFPL I do receive the full list of waypoints by e-mail, including STAR waypoints.

Connecting points for ARR. to airfields:
EHBK: GUL/NW (for local training flights only)
EHGG: SO/VZ (for local training flights only)
EHTW: ARNEM

The same document also says SID/STAR are mandatory in EH.

LFPT, LFPN

According to RAD Appendix 5: Aerodrome Connectivity GUL or NW (training flights) are allowable as the the last points in your filed planned route to EHBK.

Isn’t that what I wrote (“… with the exception of NW DCT EHBK and GUL DCT EHBK”) ?

However, if your FPL is modified by Eurocontrol, you should be told no matter what method/tool used to submit the FPL.

In an ideal world…

AFAIU in Europe your approved FPL

What is an approved FPL? What Eurocontrol has? What your favourite ANSP gets? It’s not as clear cut as you think it is.

will contain the full list of waypoints including any amendments made by Eurocontrol

only if you’re one of the recepients of an ADEXP version of the flight plan

and you are supposed to be familiar with it

Most definitely not. None of the ANSP tools allow you to do anything like that. I haven’t seen any “state mandated” briefing facility (whether by computer or by paper form) that gave you the ADEXP plan in return.

Using EuroFPL I do receive the full list of waypoints by e-mail, including STAR waypoints.

Yes, but that’s the only service I know that does this.

Of course, with autorouter, it’s not necessary, as it files the plans in a way that the checker doesn’t modify the plan, and you get the list of waypoints in the briefing pack

The same document also says SID/STAR are mandatory in EH.

Well, the RAD pdf’s are so often in contradiction to what is actually coded in the database, I stopped looking at them…

Bottom line is, by all means do ask the ATCO whenever something is unclear and preferably before getting there, legalistic arguments about who should have known what invariably lead to problems

LSZK, Switzerland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top