Flying Dogs

Fair enough – the RMK section is the way to go then!

I can imagine question marks when ATC read this RMK

To give you the clue, even RMK is usually the least important part of the flight plan, it’s expected to contain relevant information.

BTW Zorro usually prefers to remain silent when ATC is in the question.

Emir wrote:

To give you the clue, even RMK is usually the least important part of the flight plan, it’s expected to contain relevant information.

The information about the dog is indeed a remark, but it should not be put as a RMK/ in item 18 of the flight plan. It should be put after N/ in item 19 (Supplementary information).

Item 18 includes operationally relevant remarks, which this is not, while item 19 includes SAR relevant remarks.

When I had small children I used to include remarks such as “ONE PAX INFANT” in item 19.

There’s an new US ‘canine airline’ called Bark Air, running G-Vs from NY (KHPN) to LA (KVNY) and London (EGKB). The radio programme said it was $6k for the transcontinental flight, so basically a charter operation aiming for a niche market through a USP.