I have always wondered why do VFR flight plans, and consequently flights not get into the ATC system similarly to IFR plans and flight? Obviously the possible number of turning points is much higher in case of VFR flights, but in modern systems it would not be that hard to store many more points or simply use coordinates. This would also make it much easier to provide radar service to those VFR flights that actually require it. Actually, in Hungary Budapest East/West/North Information is manned by properly trained radar controllers, they do have and use radar and see VFR flight plans. In fact, filing a VFR flight plan is encouraged and a prerequsite to get full service. I do not really understand why it does not work like this in other parts of Europe. Especially the disjoint situation in the UK, as evidenced by the other thread about radar services for an English Channel crossing, is hard to digest.
You cannot generally parse VFR flight plans and turn them into coordinate lists. VFR flight plans can (and frequently do) contain things like “farmer joe’s haystack” which is hard to understand even for a human.
Furthermore, ATC doesn’t seem very interested in VFR flight plans – they’re really only used for alerting…
Why not provide en route radar service (or even IFR) to anybody who calls up? In the US, that has replaced VFR flight plans for the most part. Almost nobody files a VFR flight plan when they can get radar Flight FollowIng with a radio call at any point along the route, and similarly end it with another radio call. Mostly that’s for student pilots or people in very remote areas with marginal radar and ATC communications coverage
My ‘broken record’ on the subject is to say that I’ve filed one flight plan in my life and don’t really have a lot of interest in filing any more. I get Flight Following if I’m flying in really complicated airspace and want to be cleared through certain airliner-dense airspace areas without hassle. Otherwise I just fly a heading or a magenta line to my destination in radio silence, minus flight plan. If you’re VFR, I think telling the world what you’re doing is mostly an imposition caused by complex airspace (warranted or not) and political boundaries, not a benefit. If you do find talking to radar equipped ATC to be a benefit at a given time and place, a VFR flight plan does not in principle provide any additional benefit, IMHO.
The disjointed UK situation does seem to be particularly odd but that’s a different ATC coverage and organization issue.
In Europe VFR flightplans are mandatory in a lot of situations, but they are treated different from IFR flightplans. IFR flightplans (as well as Z and Y flightplans) are handled by Eurocontrol, while VFR flightplans are not. Eurocontrol can “accept” your flightplan and inform you about it. They also can send you a SAM message (slot allocation message). If you delay your flightplan, they can accept your delay and inform you about their acceptance. Not so with VFR flightplans. VFR flightplans are mostly delivered to the responsible ARO office near your airport of departure for further distribution or self-distributed if you depart from e.g. the UK. In the case of an IFR/Z/Y flightplan, Eurocontrol will take care of the flightplan distribution (for the IFR portion of the flightplan).
In general, ATC is not interested in your VFR flightplan route (here in Europe) and the VFR flightplan is there for several reasons: search & rescue if you don’t show up at your destination or alternate and nowadays also for anti-terrorism stuff and customs/border force purposes. So, the route is not that important and indeed, ATC will most likely not look at it.
The VFR flightplans should be addressed according to what is specified in the ENR section of the AIP. In most cases, the flightplan will be delivered to the nearest ARO office and they will further distribute the flightplan to the stations along your route. In the case of the UK, these ARO offices are taken out of the equation and you as a pilot have to distribute your VFR flightplan along the route. We (at AeroPlus) keep track of all the flightplan distribution rules for all countries in a rules database and will distribute the flightplans correctly either to the nearest ARO office or auto-distribute if e.g. the pilot leaves from an airfield in the UK. How we address is explained here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-vK592zR06f5kvDqdFI9mNMx1q_1_lV7 and I would assume that other flightplan filing solutions like EuroFPL or RocketRoute have a similar solution (or they should have).
As for radar environment or not: if you file a VFR flightplan you will most likely talk to Information instead of Radar. That does not mean that Info will not have you on their radar screens. In the UK, this might be the case, but in large parts of Europe, ATC will have you on their radar screens even if you fly VFR with or without a flightplan.
If you have to file a flightplan: that depends. In the US probably not if you won’t cross the border into Canada. In France, you can fly from one airport to another within France without a flightplan, even if one of the airports is a “controlled” airport with a CTR. In The Netherlands, flying from Rotterdam to Lelystad would require you to file a flightplan.
So there are lots of differences but in general: crossing borders (in most cases) requires you to file a VFR flightplan and yes, VFR flightplans are addresses and treated separately (often).
JnsV wrote:
I have always wondered why do VFR flight plans, and consequently flights not get into the ATC system similarly to IFR plans and flight?
Flight plans are messages, like emails. For IFR in Europe, there is a requirement that they are sent to IFPS, which coordinates their distribution within the “ATC system”. There is no analogous central coordination of VFR flight plans.
The answer to the original Q is probably: it’s the way it’s always been, all “real” traffic flies IFR, and GA isn’t big enough (doesn’t pay enough money) to warrant a better system.
A huge amount of what we see around us is the result of funding issues. For example the whole UK system is directly the result of funding politics, which is the result of the “user pays” policy which seems to be the default position in the UK.
The lack of radar coverage is because light GA doesn’t pay route charges, and the LARS units (Farnborough etc) are funded originally for the military (who traditionally used visual nav in their smaller aircraft so were constantly getting lost, and their fuel endurance is usually so poor that if anything goes wrong it’s “got to land bloody soon”) and nowadays the LARS units are funded to keep some sort of a lid on CAS busts by GA (several hundred temporary airport shutdowns a year).
The IMC Rating’s inability to go into “proper CAS” (Class A) fits nicely with the lack of route charges for most of the traffic and the inability of London Control (NATS) to provide a service to non-paying traffic (IFR GA below 2T is still serviced by them, on Eurocontrol flight plans, but the numbers are extremely low due to the historical difficulty of getting the gold plated Euro IR).
Flight plans are messages, like emails. For IFR in Europe, there is a requirement that they are sent to IFPS, which coordinates their distribution within the “ATC system”. There is no analogous central coordination of VFR flight plans.
Funnily enough the Eurocontrol system is unique in the world, apart from the USA which has a computer system for FP management (both VFR and IFR – unlike Europe) but elsewhere IFR flight plans are like VFR ones i.e. just pure A to B messages. If you fly from say Brazil to Chile, IFR, the FP is just a message going to the two airports, the alternate(s), and the FIS regions… just like VFR ones here!
tomjnx wrote:
Furthermore, ATC doesn’t seem very interested in VFR flight plans – they’re really only used for alerting…
and since some relate how it works in the US…
In the US ATC are not interested in your VFR flight plan at all. VFR flight plans are handled by Flight Watch (Flight Service Stations) and you have to open and close by contacting them on a dedicated frequency. If you are delayed, you better let them know (by calling the FSS in flight) because if you are more than 30 minutes late closing your flight plan, they will launch a search. It is somewhat of a pain because you have to talk to ATC on one frequency and to FSS on another.
tomjnx wrote:
You cannot generally parse VFR flight plans and turn them into coordinate lists. VFR flight plans can (and frequently do) contain things like “farmer joe’s haystack” which is hard to understand even for a human.
A “proper” ICAO VFR flight plan can’t have such things — they are no different from IFR flight plans in what you can put in the route description. Some countries allow geographical descriptions, but not all, and those that do allow different things…
tomjnx wrote:
You cannot generally parse VFR flight plans and turn them into coordinate lists. VFR flight plans can (and frequently do) contain things like “farmer joe’s haystack” which is hard to understand even for a human.
Silvaire wrote:
Why not provide en route radar service (or even IFR) to anybody who calls up? In the US, that has replaced VFR flight plans for the most part. Almost nobody files a VFR flight plan when they can get radar Flight FollowIng with a radio call at any point along the route, and similarly end it with another radio call.
If you’re VFR, I think telling the world what you’re doing is mostly an imposition caused by complex airspace (warranted or not) and political boundaries, not a benefit.
I (mostly) agree.
If you do find talking to radar equipped ATC to be a benefit at a given time and place, a VFR flight plan does not in principle provide any additional benefit, IMHO.
It could prevent most of the radio traffic with the initial call. Actually, even when I was handed off from one sector to the other in California (i.e. kept sqawk and was to the new frequency directly), I still had to repeat some details time from time that could have been in a VFR flight plan.
Peter wrote:
The answer to the original Q is probably: it’s the way it’s always been, all “real” traffic flies IFR, and GA isn’t big enough (doesn’t pay enough money) to warrant a better system.
A huge amount of what we see around us is the result of funding issues.
That’s why I find it strange that in Hungary, which is a country with much less financial resources than any of the Western European ones, can nicely fit in a few controllers (working from the same unit that is the ACC for the whole country and the APP for LHBP) providing proper radar service for VFR flights that require it. If you want to talk to the, you can do it like in the US, i.e. without a flight plan, but in that case they cannot anticipate your route so they do not take responsibility for warning you about any prohibited/restricted areas that you would bust. If you file a flight plan and are in radio contact with them, they officially stated that they will warn you before any bust.
they are no different from IFR flight plans in what you can put in the route description. Some countries allow geographical descriptions, but not all, and those that do allow different things…
The UK allows anything – because nobody looks at it unless you go missing.
This is closely tied in with job creation / job protection. The more weird stuff is allowed in flight plans, the more secure the jobs of the people who sit there transcribing the stuff into some computer system.
The UK had dozens of staff doing exactly that. A few thousand flight plans per month (not a lot actually) and nearly all were PPL training VFR ones. The salary bill plus fixed costs was of the order of 1-2M. The facility was shut about 5-10 years ago and electronic filing was introduced (very badly implemented – the AFPEX system).
That’s why I find it strange that in Hungary, which is a country with much less financial resources than any of the Western European ones, can nicely fit in a few controllers (working from the same unit that is the ACC for the whole country and the APP for LHBP) providing proper radar service for VFR flights that require it. If you want to talk to the, you can do it like in the US, i.e. without a flight plan, but in that case they cannot anticipate your route so they do not take responsibility for warning you about any prohibited/restricted areas that you would bust. If you file a flight plan and are in radio contact with them, they officially stated that they will warn you before any bust.
That is logical, and it’s what you would do if starting from nothing / having no legacy / political considerations.
It also ties in with having a known traffic environment, which is highly relevant to national security. France has implemented that – they are a relatively (in Europe) tightly militarised country. National security is not a politically correct thing in the European “Union” today but you bet that things are now changing. If I was running a country’s air traffic I would have 100% radar coverage (which actually most European countries do have, down to some height AGL like say 1000ft) and it would be merged into one data feed (which does not happen in most European countries, due to funding/politics/demarcation).
