This might be interesting to know what operational issues do show up when planning and performing long distance flights in Europe.
I had filed the following route from Sabadell LELL to Egelsbach EDFE:
LELL N0180F180 GIR/N0180F180 IFR H110 BGR A27 KANIG/N0181F190 A27 MOU G21 GIVOR V36 AKELU N852 SUTAL/N0176F160 N852 LIMGO Z110 BETEX/N0173F140 Z110 BITBU DCT SIPVU/N0156F040 DCT FW VFR EDFE
This results in a huge dogleg:
From experience I know that I will not fly this detour. When I get closer to the EPL VOR (southwest of Strasbourg) that sector will coordinate with German ATC and I will likely be given “direct RID” which happens to be right on track a few miles before the destination.
However, this time I did file in such a way that, as filed, I will arrive about 15 minutes after the closing time of Egelsbach. One can request PPR and for about 90 EUR one can land there until 21:00 LT.
Egelsbach did notice my flight plan and the fact that I have not requested PPR for a late landing and they called DFS (German ATC). That triggered a call from DFS AIS to tell me about the issue. We discussed it and they wanted to try to find a route that avoids the dogleg. When they called me back the message was “sorry, cannot find a better route”. They also remarked that by using autorouter I’m already doing the best one can do 
So in the end they suggested to simply go ahead with the plan. As I had filed with Mannheim EDFM as alternate there isn’t really an issue. I might have to fly the filed route and in that case I’m well within the opening hours of the alternate airport which also has an instrument approach.
We did discuss to file with Mannheim EDFM as destination and Egelsbach EDFE as alternate. That does produces a completely different route:
N0180F180 GIR/N0180F180 IFR H110 BGR A27 KANIG/N0181F190 A27 MOU G21 KASON/N0180F180 G21 GTQ/N0175F150 G21 MAKOT/N0173F140 Z818 SBN/N0162F070 DCT XIDOD
On my way to XIDOD (last point before Mannheim) I could tell ATC that I want to change to VFR and land at Egelsbach. That solution would look good for French ATC as they will send me over the FIR boundary at a sensible point. But then it becomes a diversion and given the current socio-political climate I’m not entirely sure whether that diversion might trigger something. It should not and I can probably put a remark about the pre-planned diversion in field 18. But who knows.
Achim from autorouter suggested in a support ticket to switch to VFR at the FIR boundary.
What I found is that from GTQ via G21 the route will only be valid when the destination is Mannheim EDFM. So I now have a change to VFR after GTQ to get around this:
LELL N0180F180 GIR/N0180F180 IFR H110 BGR A27 KANIG/N0181F190 A27 MOU G21 KASON/N0180F180 G21 EPL/N0181F190 G21 GTQ VFR MAKOT RID EDFE
I’m not entirely sure what that means to German ATC. I expect they will not receive the IFR flight plan as the change to VFR is planned to happen within the French FIR. As a hint I added the next two waypoints for the VFR segment and I hope that will trigger a call from French ATC to the Germans and/or some conversation about that will happen during the flight with me.
As a precaution I’ve moved my flight a bit forward so that in any case I will arrive with some time to spare before Egelsbach closes.
The Germans seem to be unbelievably diligent in checking flight plans in this way. It’s almost like the ATC at Friedrichshafen suspending a flight plan whose ETA falls outside the booked slot (the solution I would use for that is to use a flight plan filing service which allows you to enter a (hacked) EET e.g. EuroFPL).
The last thing I would do is cancel IFR. It may be OK in Germany but anywhere else ATC are likely (or certain) to wash their hands of you and in e.g. the UK your clearance is instantly dumped and there may be no chance of getting another one should you need it due to e.g. IMC enroute.
Peter wrote:
The last thing I would do is cancel IFR. It may be OK in Germany but anywhere else ATC are likely (or certain) to wash their hands of you and in e.g. the UK your clearance is instantly dumped and there may be no chance of getting another one should you need it due to e.g. IMC enroute.
I can see that. But then what will happen during the flight? As I approach GTQ I will probably get the question “ready to cancel IFR?” and to that I might answer “negative”. Then what? French ATC will need to come up with a solution. If at that point I happen to be IMC or there are clouds below me (per the plan I will be at FL190), they might try to get me lower so that they can get me out of the IFR system. Or they might simply call German ATC and there is no question about continuing IFR which also happens to be the solution with less work involved.
I feel that we are seeing the limits of the Eurocontrol system getting exposed here. Plus there seem to be artificial constraints that probably could be removed, if there were a request to do so.
Am I violating any rule? Probably not. The change to VFR is not mandatory and per SERA I am also entitled to do AFIL and I can also change back to IFR after I did the switch to VFR. With the “GTQ VFR MAKOT …” I’m merely giving a heads up – am I not?
Peter wrote:
The Germans seem to be unbelievably diligent in checking flight plans in this way.
Yes. It did surprise me this morning. It was all triggered by the AFIS at Egelsbach EDFE. I’m pretty sure that anywhere else nobody would have cared. In order to resolve this several people from Egelsbach, DFS AIS got involved over about one hour.
DFS AIS got involved over about one hour.
Massive work creation/protection – just like in the UK FBUs before they got shut some years ago.
How about using 300 Knots in your planning? Surely they won’t check that as well, or am I underestimating the Deutsche Gruendlichkeit?
In this example I would file Mannheim as primary and EDFE as alternate as that way you get a better routing. Once close to Mannheim if you think you will get to Egelsbach in time just tell them you are diverting. and cancel IFR when you are happy to.
I wouldn’t see it so much as a “policing act” by EDFE (it may be, we don’t know). But it may just have been an act of service and courtesy, trying to avoid any inconvenience for the pilot. They can’t know that your airway routing is duff…
I rather subscribe to the glass-half-full attitude.
Of course, in that case, a short message like “thanks for the heads-up, but I expect to be on time” should have resolved and concluded it all very quickly. Looks like it did not?
I don’t think Achim’s router allows you to change the speed. It is determined by the performance model you created.
I asked for such a feature a long time ago; not sure if he ever did it. It was the Friedrichshafen “ATC” debacle which triggered it.
boscomantico wrote:
Of course, in that case, a short message like “thanks for the heads-up, but I expect to be on time” should have resolved and concluded it all very quickly. Looks like it did not?
The DFS AIS person who called me did express the importance of not filing with an arrival time outside the opening hours. When I explained that I expect to be on time based on prior experience that was accepted but the reminder to do something about it did stay.
In a later call they themselves went back to “ok, you have Mannheim as an alternate and they will be open so that’s fine then”.
There was an element of courtesy but also a notion of not doing stuff that may get one in trouble. Everybody was polite and trying to help. So that is perfectly fine.
All I can critique is the system that creates those situations in the first place. The people involved just try to work within its limits. We should move on to a free route airspace. :-)
