Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Autorouter issues and questions (merged)

huv wrote:

Copenhagen ATC office maintains that they replace specific levels in VFR flightplans with “VFR” before submitting. But they may have had it wrong for 20+ years.

Swedish AIS most definitely doesn’t.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Closing a flight plan with autorouter

I had the same issue with both Autorouter and Eurofpl
Each time I close my FPL with the app (instead of calling +331 56 301 301) after landing at an unattended airfield, I receive a call on my mobile reproaching me to have forgotten to close my FPL.
I once wrote a ticket with autorouter support, the answer was the issue was not with them.
It only happened to me on arrival at Sainte Foy La Grande (once) and Royan (several times) both airfields being in the Bordeaux FIR.
Am I the only one who had that issue?
Is there a workaround such as adding another AFTN address in the recipient list?

Last Edited by Piotr_Szut at 13 Aug 11:59

The close message goes to the same recipients as the original flight plan (addressing for the IFR parts determined by Eurocontrol, addressing for the VFR parts determined by autorouter + user input).

If they call you, they are too lazy to look at the flight plan status on the Eurocontrol page to which they have access. They seem to assume that arrival messages originate by them exclusively and are not sent by 3rd parties.

I would tell them that the flight plan was closed and they should verify that on the Eurocontrol page. Maybe after some time they learn the trick…

German AIS used to have similar thinking but they seem to check for external arrival messages now before picking up the phone. Calling a phone number after landing and communicating pure technical and digital information to a human operator is not something I want to bother with in 2017…

achimha wrote:

If they call you, they are too lazy to look at the flight plan status on the Eurocontrol page to which they have access. They seem to assume that arrival messages originate by them exclusively and are not sent by 3rd parties.
How would they handle a diversion? Then the arrival message should come from the diversion airport.
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Yes, indeed. The autorouter interface currently does not allow you to send an arrival message after diversion. Could be added of course.

achimha wrote:

How can you do a proper planning with fuel, time, wind, etc. if you don’t know the altitude? I don’t think “VFR” as altitude indicator is particularly useful.

Well, I know the altitude I plan for. It is just that I have been told (and re-told, and reminded many times) never to tell ATS what that altitude is, as long as I plan for a VFR flight. In Denmark.

From other post (specifically Airborne_Again’s, thank you for that) it seems that most countries prescribe levels for the route in the ATS flight plan, even for VFR.
I just checked Part-SERA and it could be that Denmark is just not compliant:

SERA.4005 Contents of a flight plan____
(a) A flight plan shall comprise information regarding such of the following items as are considered relevant by the competent authority:____
(1) Aircraft identification____
(2) Flight rules and type of flight____
(3) Number and type(s) of aircraft and wake turbulence category____
(4) Equipment____
(5) Departure aerodrome or operating site____
(6) Estimated off-block time____
(7) Cruising speed(s)____
(8) Cruising level(s)
(9) Route to be followed____
(10) Destination aerodrome or operating site and total estimated elapsed time____
(11) Alternate aerodrome(s) or operating site(s)____
(12) Fuel endurance____
(13) Total number of persons on board____
(14) Emergency and survival equipment____
(15) Other information.

Last Edited by huv at 13 Aug 21:56
huv
EKRK, Denmark

Item 8 in The Netherlands would be “VFR” – I have never been corrected on this when. I phone in a plan – including international flights

EHLE / Lelystad, Netherlands, Netherlands

huv wrote:

From other post (specifically Airborne_Again’s, thank you for that) it seems that most countries prescribe levels for the route in the ATS flight plan, even for VFR.

“Prescribe” is too strong a word. You can use “VFR” as a level if you want to.,

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I guess the question is, if you nominate a level and then can’t fly it because of the weather, what happens? I assume that the answer is that you change altitude and nobody cares.

If nobody cares, then who cares?

And if the answer is that nobody cares that nobody cares, why not put VFR?

In answer to achima’s point about how you plan heading, time and fuel without knowing the level, this happens all the time. You get there and the wind is different from forecast. You cope with that, adjust heading and possibly level to suit the wind you find.

This is especially true if you put the plan in a couple of days in advance (for example, it is often convenient to plan there and back before you set off, because you are not sure of the Internet connection, or are only taking a phone, not a PC, or your time is fully occupied when you are there etc) and then the wind and the cloudbase is likely to be very different to your expectations.

So my vote is strongly in favour of writing VFR and being done with it. You then fly tactically on the day. If, for your own planning purposes, you want a level in your head, that’s fine, but there is no advantage in publishing that.

I suppose that achima’s preference to know a level is for the convenience of autorouter, as it won’t be able to calculate timings without. There are three ways to tackle that:

  1. If you enter VFR it just assumes TAS. Nobody will care.
  2. It just uses the 5000’ wind. It won’t be far wrong.
  3. It permits you to enter a planning altitude, so that you ask for the wind for a certain level to be used, but VFR entered in the FPL.
EGKB Biggin Hill

Timothy wrote:

And if the answer is that nobody cares that nobody cares, why not put VFR?

You want to plan your flight, that means calculate time and fuel. You cannot calculate anything with an unspecified altitude. Therefore VFR as altitude really doesn’t make much sense. Put in what you expect to fly and change it as you see fit. You will have some idea about the altitude before takeoff.

Timothy wrote:

to know a level is for the convenience of autorouter, as it won’t be able to calculate timings without.

Your convenience, not the software’s. Also for SAR purposes, your filed ETA should in some way correspond to your actual flight, shouldn’t it?

PS: If you put in “VFR”, autorouter calculates everything based on the lowest available altitude, considering terrain.

Timothy wrote:

This is especially true if you put the plan in a couple of days in advance (for example, it is often convenient to plan there and back before you set off, because you are not sure of the Internet connection, or are only taking a phone, not a PC,

That sounds like a statement I could have some understanding for 10-15 years ago I don’t think that is a sensible approach. Get a headwind on the day of 30kt in a C172 and SAR will be all over you. I’ve had that once myself… Also the chance of a VFR flight plan being found by all involved authorities days after it was filed is pretty slim. autorouter explicitly warns about filing VFR flight plans more than a day in advance.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top