IFR waypoints on VFR flights

But there is no Eurocontrol-style validation on VFR FPs anyway, so who would object?

Done here many times. No, there is no automated validation, but VFR FPLs are generally received and reviewed by an ARO person before being addressed and distributed accordingly. If there is something seriously amiss with the FPL, the ARO will get back to the pilot (or whoever filed the flightplan).

The exception this is the UK (as always…), where VFR flightplans are injected straight into the AFTN, directly by the pilot, i.e. without any checking mechanism. When departing from the UK, one could, theoretically, not put a route into field 15, but write a political message, or something else, and nothing would stop it from going into the AFTN.

However, AROs would usually not reject a flightplan routing using 5-letter waypoints anyway, since ICAO (and also SERA) expolicitly allow 5-letter waypoints in flightplans (both VFR and IFR), so in theory at least, a country wishing otherwise would have to file a difference.

The practical “problem” in flight is that controllers and FISOs are able to remember the locations of 15 VORs in their sector, but not the locations of 200 waypoints.

Not quite. Today, very few UK pilots use the horrible AFPEX tool and send VFR FPs direct into the AFTN. Most use some FP filing service, which does the VFR addressing and probably little else. For example SD uses EuroFPL.

I don’t know about today but in my VFR days the only time there was any evidence that anybody looked at the route was one time, going past Montenegro, and they wanted to move it a bit. They sent a message back to the dep ARO (Trieste) which reached me as I was starting up… All other times I used to file with IFR waypoints but – because there aren’t enough of them – would often have the route going through a bit of CAS or some R or P area, so if somebody actually plotted the filed route they might object. Apart from the above case I never saw evidence that anybody actually plotted the filed route, and it would be a hell of a job given that many pilots file via place names which, historically, are a bastard to find (today you find places with google maps but AROs aren’t going to be doing that when error checking VFR FPs ).

The other problem is that controllers who do only VFR traffic (in terms of providing a service to it – e.g. area FIS) tend to not know where IFR waypoints are…

I regularly file using a mix of VFR and IFR reporting points. I’ve never had a plan rejected for this. Sometimes, prior to departure, I get some amendments but not because of the reporting points. It seems common sense to use VRPs on approach to land and so I do.

Peter wrote:

The other problem is that controllers who do only VFR traffic (in terms of providing a service to it – e.g. area FIS) tend to not know where IFR waypoints are…

Last time I visited the “control tower” of a small airfield without control zone (but with a radio operator) he had a large screen in front of him connected to some ADS-B-box and an internet connection. This displayed a map with airspaces and airways and waypoints and aircraft very similar to the screens in the large control centers. I even happen to know the guy who markets these boxes (or one kind of them). Within the last year he has sold them by the dozens all over Europe. So I guess that most controllers looking after VFR traffic have some means to see five-letter waypoints in the year 2017.

Anyway: Why route VFR via waypoints in the first place? I never understood that. Just draw a straight line from where you depart to your destination…

Not quite. Today, very few UK pilots use the horrible AFPEX tool and send VFR FPs direct into the AFTN. Most use some FP filing service, which does the VFR addressing and probably little else. For example SD uses EuroFPL.

What you write is not contrary to what I wrote. Even if the pilot uses say Skydemon, the same applies for flights departing the UK: flightplans get their final and full addressing not from an ARO person, but from the pilot himself (or the software used by him. Believe me, I know a bit about VFR flightplans.

Why route VFR via waypoints in the first place? I never understood that. Just draw a straight line from where you depart to your destination…

So you Have A Plan

Why plan something you know you can’t actually fly? That’s a recipe for trouble if you lose concentration / the Ipad battery runs out, etc.

One should always have a route plan which is viable, and it should be loaded into the GPS before departure.

Last time I visited the “control tower” of a small airfield without control zone (but with a radio operator) he had a large screen in front of him connected to some ADS-B-box and an internet connection

Yes, illegal in the UK for ATC to see traffic like that Even for “situational awareness” they have to remove it when the CAA comes round. But yes it is great to have this aid. Except a lot of people are not Mode S (and almost nobody is radiating ADS-B) so they can’t see those.

I regularly use IFR waypoints. There are two reasons for this.

1. When over the sea, they are the only realistic reporting points available.
2. When flying in a foreign country, they are often easier to pronunce than some local time name (Even English speaking countries have towns that aren’t prounced like you might expect). Welsh towns are impossible to pronounce for a foreigner!

Peter wrote:

That’s a recipe for trouble if you lose concentration / the Ipad battery runs out, etc.

One should always have a route plan which is viable, and it should be loaded into the GPS before departure.

I don’t know. When I teach CPL flying this is mostly about precision visual/dead reckoning navigation. No GPS or radio navigation. Just draw that straight line on your map, factor the wind in, turn to that heading and start your clock. After every 10 minutes or so try to recognise something on your map that confirms your position and make adjustments to heading and timing. The students are even supposed to show that ability on their checkride or otherwise no Boeing or Airbus for them.

And if you really lose your way, there are still VORs, the iPad, the spare iPad, your mobile phone or the PTT-switch as last resort to turn you back towards that magic magenta line.

When I teach CPL flying this is mostly about precision visual/dead reckoning navigation

Yes but that’s just the silly JAR CPL – a meaningless bit of WW1 VFR training followed by a meaningless WW1 VFR checkride (meaningless for the next job which for 99% of the customers will be IFR work).

The FAA CPL is much more flying-oriented. Chandelles, lazy eights – lots of aircraft control and understanding of flight principles.

And if you really lose your way, there are still VORs, the iPad, the spare iPad, your mobile phone or the PTT-switch as last resort to turn you back towards that magic magenta line.

Sure, but you can still do all your homework and not put anything in the route (or just DCT) (possibly adding stuff like FIR crossing points if you thing they’ll be required).

Sure, but what about cockpit workload? Preparation reduces that greatly. Nearly all cockups I have made (plenty, including a few CAS busts) were done by doing ad-hoc stuff.

But… we all do stuff in different ways.