Not to change the topic but I wonder how much of this is applicable to IFR FPL in IFPS at piston levels?
Unfortunately, some people conclude that they do when people write that AROs „validate“ VFR flightplans. It‘s formal validation only.
FPL validation is not guarantee of acceptable route or airspace clearance (only exclude exceptions & restrictions), there is no set of rules that say “FPL valid = IFR service end-to-end”, it’s not how the system works: while it works like poetry with FPL = SID-Airway-STAR (or few places with airspace everywhere), it does not work that well once one start to throw s***y airspace structure & service with DCT, ZZZZ, OCAS, FIR and non-ATC AD, then the gift of “it did validate” keeps giving…
Yes, many AROs do ask you to correct obvious errors / omissions of form. But that does not mean they validate the route and call you in case of impossible routings, because your destination airport may be closed, etc.
Unfortunately, some people conclude that they do when people write that AROs „validate“ VFR flightplans. It‘s formal validation only.
lionel wrote:
Vref wrote:Who validates the VFR flight plan?Nobody.
That depends! If you submit through e.g. the Swedish or German ARO, they will definitely validate the flight plan and contact you if something is wrong. On the way to AERO Friedrichshafen this week, I made my first international VFR flight in decades. I didn’t enter the estimated times of FIR passages in the flight plan (which you don’t need for IFR in the Eurocontrol system and it had slipped my mind that you do for VFR). The ARO promptly called me and asked for this information.
Peter wrote:
A lot of ATC don’t like SD because most users use rubber banding for planning and the resulting FP contains lat/long coordinates which their software cannot plot.
The only way it would work is through validation. The problem is that a lot of VFR plans contain “n’ Importe Quoi” so hard to validate. We addressed this topic already as the routing is not processed for something useful by ATC. The syntax of VFR routing is not defined clearly by ICAO, yes you are allowed to use coordinates but how would that be useful for an ATCO? I try to reduce my VFR leg as short as possible and plan always in (Belgium to pick up IFR asap). Planning a flight with a VFR leg over the FIR boundary for sure will trigger a surprise one day when you do this…..BTW AFTN is the old school and as back up, ANSPS are using PENS which will be the backbone of European ATM.
Vref wrote:
Explain that to a US pilot with his first experience flying in Europe :-).
Explain that to EU pilot who was flying all the time in Europe !
I am still processing what @lionel has said on VFR/IFR mix, maybe this needs some ‘real world testing’ :-)
IIRC, AIUI, V flight plans have to go via AFTN. I remember this from when the AR was being developed. I was part admin for a year or so.
But the AR uses an AFTN gateway in the USA. It is an ARO. See previous threads. Also see posts by Hunnicat. He didn’t like a lot of things 
Also search for KBLIHAEX which is the AFTN address of the business which most FP filing sites seem to use (AR, EuroFPL, SD uses EuroFPL, etc).
A lot of ATC don’t like SD because most users use rubber banding for planning and the resulting FP contains lat/long coordinates which their software cannot plot.
Vref wrote:
Who validates the VFR flight plan?
Nobody.
Ibra wrote:
have flown with 2000 on my transponder over Belgium & France like UFO once with everybody asking why I am flying cross borders without flight plan
France requires a flight plan to cross its borders. E.g. Belgium and Germany don’t (intra-Schengen).
Ibra wrote:
So what Netherlands call VFR flight plan is actually V, Z, Y? I had the impression Z, Y, I are IFR flight plan and V is the only VFR flight plan…
See AIP ENR 1.1.2.3:
1.1.2.3.1 IFR or IFR/VFR flight plan
Holders of an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) shall file their GAT IFR or IFR/VFR flight plan with IFPS using their own AFTN or SITA access point. Flight plans can also be filed via the internet using the Amsterdam Integrated Briefing system (see GEN 3.1 paragraph 3.10.3).
If those means are not available, a flight plan may be communicated to the ARO serving the aerodrome of departure (see paragraph 1.1.2.4), using a phone. AFTN or SITA shall not be used by other parties for filing flight plans, these flight plans or flight plan related messages will be rejected.1.1.2.3.2 VFR flight plan
A VFR flight plan (including second stage flight plans) shall be submitted to the ARO serving the aerodrome of departure (see paragraph 1.1.2.4). Furthermore, VFR flight plans with DEST/ZZZZ shall also be adressed to EHAAZZXX. Flight plans can be filed via the internet using the Amsterdam Integrated Briefing (AIB) system (see GEN 3.1 paragraph 3.10.3). If AIB is not available, a flight plan may be communicated to the ARO serving the aerodrome of departure using a phone. AFTN or SITA shall not be used for submission of flight plans and or flight plan related messages (except messages from other AROs).
My understanding is that pure IFR flight plans to/from the Netherland “work” through autorouter because it files directly to IFPS through an IFPS/Eurocontrol-specific B2B connection, not by AFTN to a Dutch address. So my understanding is that anything that has any VFR departure or arrival in the Netherlands, not filed by an AOC holder, is “forbidden” to be submitted by AFTN (so by autorouter, which uses AFTN for VFR). I’m unsure about an enroute VFR leg on an otherwise IFR flight plan :-|
The VFR flight plan mgmt have been under discussion for years at eurocontrol, the AROs are against it due to the specific local regulations and complexities involved. Basically its best (my personal opinion) that any not pure IFR flight plan Y,Z,V, is handled directly by the ARO to acknowledge the VFR portion. I use AR for validating submitting I use my local ARO service. E.g. When I fly VFR in Hungary I use Hungarocontrol, Sky Demon works there but I always check if they got it.. I know a lot of AROs don’t like the way SD is used as the work anyway ends up with them. I think personally the whole thing should be reviewed in Europe.. Explain that to a US pilot with his first experience flying in Europe :-). Another topic is the way how VFR file plans are filled in…. :-) but that’s a thread drift…
Who validates the VFR flight plan? SD or ARO? SD only confirms that the FLPN is sent …not validated..
That is only for V-FPL? I have flown with 2000 on my transponder over Belgium & France like UFO once with everybody asking why I am flying cross borders without flight plan (I departed uncontrolled from Netherlands to France before SkyDemon fixes ‘that bug’)
So what Netherlands call VFR flight plan is actually V, Z, Y? I had the impression Z, Y, I are IFR flight plan and V is the only VFR flight plan…
Ibra wrote:
Why this is not enough?
Because the Netherlands refuses to get VFR fllght plans over the AFTN from anyone other than another ARO.
