RV14 wrote:
How can anybody be punished or fined by filling a flight plan is beyond me.
Especially because in reality anybody can submit flight plan for any aircraft.
The late Dick Collins used to say that in a flight plan there are two kinds of data: facts and fiction
Facts are POB, equipment, endurance, start and destination etc
Fiction is the route to be flown
How can anybody be punished or fined by filling a flight plan is beyond me.
Absolutely right, this situation is nothing but a failure of a bureaucracy where their rules are from a bygone era that allow it to put the blame at the user and not the system which they are responsible for. A system that has evolved where as the rules are extremely static.
It’s not just flying that has this issue. The NOTAM system desperately needs an overhaul that’s for damn sure.
Yes; the system has gone the way of the notam system: full of bollox data. The internet has made this possible…
And that also makes the topic of this thread even more silly: complete pilot due diligence is impossible.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It was only when the IFPS made a basically arbitrary amount of restrictions possible that manual flight planning became unfeasible.
I’d say arbitrary amount of arbitrary rules. Why in £$%% an aircraft cannot fly over a fix near Biarritz at FL250, unless it takes off from London City Airport?!
Well that certainly makes sense @Airborne_Again
hazek wrote:
I can’t imagine how so much more work it had to have been to plan a route before these new systems and tools and how stupid it is that we still don’t have a system it seems that actually always does it for you without errors or problems.
I’ve been flying IFR since 1987 and it really wasn’t so bad before the Eurocontrol system as there were very many fewer restrictions. Not more than could be given as notes on the Jeppesen enroute charts, like “EKCH/ESMS departures only”, “Minimum TMA overflight level FL100” or CDR codes.
It was only when the IFPS made a basically arbitrary amount of restrictions possible that manual flight planning became unfeasible.
I’d say based on @gallois’ interesting anecdote
b) There is a system now called Eurocontrol that generally does that work for the PIC but not always, and when it doesn’t the regs seem to hold the PIC responsible to make sure, like they did before this system.
I have to say I learned a lot in this thread. I can’t imagine how so much more work it had to have been to plan a route before these new systems and tools and how stupid it is that we still don’t have a system it seems that actually always does it for you without errors or problems.
Ok so if I may, some preliminary summary could be found that
a) there’s more to it in the sense that it’s actually the pilots responsibility when the accepted flight plan infringes, but
b) it’s not prosecuted, so it doesn’t matter. Anyway no ATC would issue a clearance as filed in case an active restricted airspace was to be crossed.
Those of us a little older may well remember the days before Rocket Route and Autorouter. I’m not even sure there was a Eurocontrol, or certainly I don’t remember dealing with them.
We used to have Jeppesen charts on very thin paper and we would plot our routes, avoiding RAs where necessary either because they had been activated by Notam or AIP. If ATC offered us a shortcut across the RA we would happily accept without any concern of being prosecuted.
However, that means that we would not include a direct transiting an RA in a flight plan, as it would be unlikely to have been accepted (now called validated).
