Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What's the point of IFR route filing?

This is 10% question and 90% vent. I seriously do not understand why all the games around IFR routing in Europe. Clearly it’s not difficult these days with the Autorouter, but really every flight is:

Step 1: Get silly route from Autorouter
Step 2: File silly route
Step 3: Get clearance to first waypoint, which may or may not relate to filed route
Step 4: Before arriving at next waypoint, get clearance to new waypoint, which is unlikely to be part of filed route
Step 5: Repeat step 4 until handed off to approach at destination
Step 6: Get vectors to ILS

In the US we ditched the silliness years ago and just file “direct KABC”, knowing we may actually get steps 3-6 above, but maybe we’ll get lucky. I have no issue getting the stepwise clearances, but the whole need for valid Eurocontrol routes that are summarily discarded seems just silly.

EHRD, Netherlands

Well, then you may not have done sufficient IFR flights in Europe. Sure, sometimes, the impression might be what you describe. But sometimes, the Eurocontrol routings restrictions actually make „sense“ and are mirrored in the actual routing/altitudes flown. In the past few days alone, I have had two cases of this. One was in Poland, the other in the northwest of Germany.

The Eurocontrol system sure isn‘t perfect, but in many ways, the US system is much worse, where you can just file direct, but wil then be a given a „I have a complete new routing for you, ready to copy“ by ATC, which is terrible.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

I think I asked a similar question on SID/STAR but for route it’s probably different question?

This one is more half-empty and half-full glass
- If the system constrain you to huge dog leg IFR legs with zigzags, you will be sent straight on ATC vectors or GPS directs
- If the system allows you to file a huge direct IFR leg, ATC will route you left and right

You have to come to London, ATC may not even get or look at aircraft type in the FPL let alone the routing (“cleared to climb FL230, direct somewhere middle of channel” on first contact in C172 )

I guess FPL routes are only relevant if COM, TXP, GPS, Radar but they still incorporate some hard-code constraints…

Last Edited by Ibra at 30 Jul 20:22
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Why do you want to change the world? The Eurocontrol FPL basically works and is a good basis for ATC to know what you are wanting to do without some long winded radio transmission in different accents, and sometimes languages when they are also trying to manage in 3D a bunch of Ryan Air, Easy Jet, Air France, BA etc etc to keep them flowing in an orderly, efficient and safe manner without them demanding their money back for extra route charges because some little GA plane who filed a FPL for one route and then gets upset when not allowed to take short cuts or is asked to make a diversion from their planned route to keep traffic flowing freely.

France

boscomantico wrote:

The Eurocontrol system sure isn‘t perfect, but in many ways, the US system is much worse, where you can just file direct, but wil then be a given a „I have a complete new routing for you, ready to copy“ by ATC, which is terrible.

I can’t argue with this. In fact, on further reflection I realise the European system is actually easier to deal with than the US one for precisely this reason. It is really easier to file a silly route then get simplified stepwise instructions, compared to filing direct only to be surprised with 15 unfamiliar waypoints when receiving your clearance. You have to dutifully repeat the route, only to then have it discarded as soon as you’re in the air. So I guess that’s also silly, and arguably in a more annoying way than it is here.

gallois wrote:

Why do you want to change the world? The Eurocontrol FPL basically works and is a good basis for ATC to know what you are wanting to do

I think I’ve been convinced of this just in reading the responses and pondering the differences. The US system is only really easier at file time, and then only marginally so with the advent of Autorouter. I stand rebuked. :)

EHRD, Netherlands

The European system is a great example how deskbound control freaks create a mess a lot more complicated than needed.

First, there were some rules. They were not followed in practice. Then a system was created to enforce the rules. So people filed around the rules. So more rules were added. Then people developed workarounds to get around the rules (eg DCT along airways) So the system was strengthened to prevent that. So people developed more workarounds (DCT zig-zags or using XXX36000 waypoints). So rules were tightened and more checks were added.

All the wile, unless the system permitted a more-or-less sensible route, ATC fixed it ib the air.

I saw the whole deranged mindset of some people who created this mess first hand at a Eurocontrol conference. Someone presented a statistic of “route overhead” planned vs flown, giving something like 20 percent vs 10 percent then as ATC made things better. Next up, somebody from the IFPS team presented that only 30 percent of routes were flown as filed, and to him this was a problem that needed fixing by FORCING ATC TO NOT GIVE SHORTCUTS as, well, rules are rules.

I prefer a system that once in a while makes something complicated once in a while because it is over a system that makes everything complicated because they can.

Biggin Hill

Perhaps @ncyankee can comment on actual flying in the US

The Eurocontrol system is a triumph of what a bunch of unix programmers can achieve to control the “universe”. It is a “technologically pure” solution to all problems faced by mankind – both known and unknown. The basic assumption is that no matter what monster you create by writing millions of lines of code, it is always possible to fix it with more code.

The deputy head of EASA, Eric Sivel, once said that for every 1000 pages that EASA generate, Eurocontrol generates 10000 pages, and nobody can read them because you need a trolley to move them.

For many years, Eurocontrol were blocking autorouting tools. Much previously posted on the topic – e.g. here is a bit of history. A thread worth reading. The only reason we have a workable system today (for GA) is because people kept banging away at it and eventually Eurocontrol were forced to give up blocking the tools.

But even today we have a mess on top of a mess. Look at how much trouble e.g. Foreflight has generating good European IFR routes. And the Autorouter, which is probably the best tool today, cannot do many routes, and needs a lot of hacking. See e.g. here.

Any many countries still refuse to supply Eurocontrol with a complete and current list of restrictions, for various domestic political / job protection reasons.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I am not at all interested in the US ATC system moving towards the EC system. Yes pilots in the US can be lazy and file direct, but they are more likely to get a computer generated route transmitted by an EFB before the departure, so when the pilot calls for their clearance, they already have had the expected route delivered to them on their EFB or cell phone. In much of the country, direct routes will work, but not in the Northeast triangle or on the West coast in the mountainous areas and some high density areas. The EFB such as ForeFlight also provide information on route selection, either preferred routes, recently cleared routes, and in some areas TEC routes. Generally, a filed route will be accepted by the ATC system if it is syntactically correct, but then it is likely that the ATC computer will assign a route and as I indicated, most pilots now a days will get a heads up on the computer assigned route. For automated clearance systems such as PDC where one must be cleared as filed with the exception of the SID or other method of joining the route, filing direct will not work. Here in the Southeast, most low altitude routes are simple and either direct or as chosen by the pilot. I find it takes at most a few minutes to work out my own routes. I start with direct and look at the computer options. If it is a short flight, direct usually works for me . I just planned a 629 direct route between KUZA and KFLD for a trip to Oshkosh. There is a NOTAM for the area airports around Oshkosh that says the preferred route is SMUUV GAYLE FAALZ from my direction and I added two waypoints using rubber banding on the map view to avoid a MOA and route around the Cincinnati Class B, BOSTR and HEDEN which are part of a T RNAV route. That adds 24 NM to the trip and about 10 minutes. I have two direct segments that are 275 and 214 NM respectively. Based on past experience, I would not expect any in flight reroutes. Most of the 24 NM extra is in the preferred route segment over Lake Michigan.

KUZA, United States

Peter wrote:

many countries still refuse to supply Eurocontrol with a complete and current list of restrictions, for various domestic political / job protection reasons

Or pure laziness

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

It doesn’t seem much different to the way things are done here through Autorouter.
I simply put in where I am going from and my destination plus preferred altitude, press a button and hey presto several routes start to appear along with the overhead, vfr or ifr etc.
5 minutes later I file the chosen route get an acknowledge and start the taxi at EOBT.
I fly the route, however there are times when I ask for a direct to cut a corner and save some time, or I could be offered a direct or a choice of altitude or an ATC might say they have traffic and could I turn to heading xxx. When traffic has passed I will either be told to continue own navigation or I might be asked if I could take or would like a direct to somewhere further up the line.
I honestly do not see the problem. I usually arrive at the ETA on the flight plan or maybe a little earlier, but being in constant contact with ATC if I am more than 3 minutes early or late it is not necessary to make a specific report.

France
51 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top