Thanks Peter, interesting read. That whole response can, from a tech point of view, be summarized with “huge technical debt”.
I have this response from one flight plan filing agency:
There is spam on the AFTN, but not much because the cost of AFTN gateways is significant. I don’t recall the cost of the US one above but if was of the order of tens of cents per message. So outfits which do VFR FP filing for free are subsidising this from other activities.
What an incredible source of information EuroGA is, thanks all for the replies. Interesting reads from several of you, and it fells good that at one other forumite didn’t know about this either hehe.
And given today’s technical capabilities, and threats, I believe the whole system would be significantly differently designed naturally, with much higher security requirement as well. But that’s a completely separate topic :)
NCYankee wrote:
Personally, I think it would make sense for FIR’s to get field 19 as part of a long FPL.
Given that 110 baud (or less) Telex connections are no longer used for AFTN there is never any reason not to send the full flight plan.
(Note: I remember once in the late 1980s when I filed a flight plan in person at the AIS/ARO at Malmö/Sturup ESMS airport. The staff actually typed the flight plan message on punched paper tape for later transmission to the Swedish AFTN center. And this was at a time when ATC in Sweden already had computerised communication systems.)
The general protocol is to just send the FPL (Flight Plan Request) via AFTN. It includes the flight plan fields thru field 18. Field 19 is included in the SPL (Supplementary Flight Plan) message, which is normally solicited via an RQS.(Request Supplementary) when needed. Some countries will accept a non ICAO long FPL that includes field 19. Other countries request that an FPL with a follow up unsolicited SPL be sent. In the US, IFR flight plans are sent to center with an FPL and the center is not trained to use RQS. So they call FSS. But in the current environment, FSS does not get a copy of an IFR flight plan unless it is filed thru their system, so FSS has nothing when the flight plan is filed thru a third party. So when a flight goes NORDO, FAA starts by calling FSS, then third parties. They don’t even know who filed the flight plan, so we trained them how to determine where the flight plan came from and wrote up instructions on how to send an RQS. This is still in progress and we get calls for flight plans not filed thru us. Not all third party systems will respond to an RQS.
Personally, I think it would make sense for FIR’s to get field 19 as part of a long FPL.
I have been asked my endurance by en-route FIS on occasion when I have filed a flight plan, one in Sweden this summer and once in either France or Germany. I dont know what that says about ATC accessing Flight plans, but they obviously can.
Additionally, I have called to cancel a flight plan in France and they knew who I was before I had the chance to tell them…Id love to know how that worked. I was so shocked I forgot to ask.
Regards, SD..
Yes that is correct, otherwise e.g. AFPEX would not work for IFR.
Peter wrote:
It isn’t AFTN. I remember this from early discussions when the Autorouter was being developed. The AFTN gateway (usually purchased from KBLIHAEX) was needed only for V Z Y, and unlike the Eurocontrol connectivity you had to pay money for this.It is some kind of secure access – a VPN or some such.
Ok, there may be a direct gateway into the Eurocontrol system, but you can submit flightplans to IFPS using AFTN.
IFR flight plans are sent by AFTN to Eurocontrol
It isn’t AFTN. I remember this from early discussions when the Autorouter was being developed. The AFTN gateway (usually purchased from KBLIHAEX) was needed only for V Z Y, and unlike the Eurocontrol connectivity you had to pay money for this.
It is some kind of secure access – a VPN or some such.
