Peter wrote:
That is bound to work in any flight plan processing system which supports ZZZZ, because ZZZZ is not checked for whether it is on land, or in the middle of the Pacific In fact I am very sure you could file the ZZZZ coordinates as the middle of the Kremlin and nobody would pick it up; it just isn’t the sort of thing programmers will be checking, and checking whether e.g. the lat/long is within a specific country is actually very hard (impossible, I’d say)
In the US, this is permitted, that is to file from and to a latitude/longitude. Canada also permits it, but for VFR flight plans a place name is required. Picking up an IFR flight plan at a waypoint or navigation facility or a fix-radial-distance is also supported. As far as determining if an IFR flight plan is contained in a particular airspace or FIR, this is accomplished using polygon’s that define each FIR. For VFR flight plans, there are country polygons. In order to route a flight plan to the appropriate authority, when a point is specified that is not defined as an airport, then polygons are used.
What is the bottom line on this?
Obviously one can file non-surface endpoints, as ZZZZ, because that remains unchecked/unnoticed. But is this of any use? ATC probably can’t see where the ZZZZ point lies. The system just isn’t set up for this.
derek wrote:
Do you have the PANS-ATM reference to hand? I would be interested to read that section.
For ZZZZ as departure it is on page A2-8 and for arrival on page A2-12. The page numbers are for the 16th edition (2016) of PANS-ATM.
Peter wrote:
In fact I am very sure you could file the ZZZZ coordinates as the middle of the Kremlin and nobody would pick it up; it just isn’t the sort of thing programmers will be checking
It’s hard to check programmatically, the Dutch ARO decided to bin AFTN and hired load of people to manually dig on that 
He filed EFHF to ZZZZ with the waypoint NOKKA (just outside the zone) as the destination in the remarks section
That is bound to work in any flight plan processing system which supports ZZZZ, because ZZZZ is not checked for whether it is on land, or in the middle of the Pacific In fact I am very sure you could file the ZZZZ coordinates as the middle of the Kremlin and nobody would pick it up; it just isn’t the sort of thing programmers will be checking, and checking whether e.g. the lat/long is within a specific country is actually very hard (impossible, I’d say).
Airborne_Again wrote:
However, it does not appear that you can have the flight plan end at a point in the route in the same way – the DEST/ remark has to refer to an airport, even with ZZZZ.
Do you have the PANS-ATM reference to hand? I would be interested to read that section.
In the days when Malmi, Finland (EFHF) was still open, I flew with a pilot who had his seaplane based at Malmi. We were going to his cottage, and Malmi required a flight plan for all flights. He filed EFHF to ZZZZ with the waypoint NOKKA (just outside the zone) as the destination in the remarks section. This was accepted, but I don’t know if this was special treatment, as he filed in person in the tower, and as a Finnair pilot, everybody in ATC seemed to know him.
Personally, I would file the routing that I want. If the flight is a) Convective and unsafe and unable to b) Fly at oxygen levels then I would cancel.
If however the opportunity presents that I can fly from A) DEP to B) ARR and land at C) ENR ALTN 1 then I will fly, safely then I’ll divert to that alternate.
If you are unable, you just tell ATC. That’s from my experience of the last year of flying IFR.
UdoR wrote:
As a spin-off from EuroGA weather Advice Group on Telegram discussion spun around how to file IFR through the Pyrenees (and other routing issues).Starting point was flight preparation for a flight where a) Biarritz was below a quite convective cold front and b) altitude restricted to non-oxygen levels for that flight. There “exist” other airways over the Pyrenees but they do not seem to validate on actual routings. In the end one seems to be doomed to routings either over Biarritz or Perpignan.
Routing via Biarritz works fine in any altitude, but regarding it’s geographical position, there’s quite some probability that it is in bad weather.
Just as the starting for this thread, the discussed options included to cancel IFR for the part over the Pyrenees and to re-join IFR thereafter. Is this reasonable? Any experience whether ATC on either side accepts rejoinder to IFR?
gallois wrote:
I can either put in the departure and destination the airfields depart LFFK and dest LFKO or I can put ZZZZ in each.
I will then put under route ( I would need to look up the exact syntax as often for this sort of flight just telephone the BRIA at Bordeaux) time hh:mm L’Absie IFR followed by the route and ending at AJO. Hh:mm
Under the remarks I would put depart ZZZZ L’Absie and dest AJO.
Thank you. That answered my question!
I checked PANS-ATM and indeed it states that the DEP/ remark need not be an airport but can be the first point of the route. I admit I didn’t know that.
However, it does not appear that you can have the flight plan end at a point in the route in the same way – the DEST/ remark has to refer to an airport, even with ZZZZ. On the other hand that seems like an odd restriction and I can certainly understand if ATC would accept a point also as a DEST/. Indeed Eurocontrol does accept that.
I’m not clear on what you mean.
Its in the ICAO annexes but I’ll try.
Remember you don’t need to file a flight plan to fly VFR in France.
So let’s say I want to go LFFK to Propriano Corsica.
I can either put in the departure and destination the airfields depart LFFK and dest LFKO or I can put ZZZZ in each.
I will then put under route ( I would need to look up the exact syntax as often for this sort of flight just telephone the BRIA at Bordeaux) time hh:mm L’Absie IFR followed by the route and ending at AJO. Hh:mm
Under the remarks I would put depart ZZZZ L’Absie and dest AJO.
Everything else is the same as any other FPL.
That’s roughly it but as I wrote often I file on the phone with the BRIA at least 1hr beforehand. One has to be aware that before take off you might get a text saying that the FPL has been turned down with the reason. This is not anything.to do with the principle of the FPL I am describing. It could happen on a flight going from major airfield to major airfield with an IFPL door to door. The BRIA go through Eurocontrol and an FPL may not validate with them and that can take time.
Nowadays, with Autorouter it is just as simple to file an IFPL through that service.
