Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

IFR Flight Plan Drama

And the reason for all this is simply that was colloquially known as “closing the flight plan” is the landing message, and ATC can take the correct but bureaucratic position that you haven’t landed, so they can’t send it. Typical example of someone sticking to the letter (send this message after landing), not the intent (we want to know if the aircraft has arrived safely at the destination, albeit in this case not the final one) of the rule

Biggin Hill

Peter wrote:

What actually happens initially in say France (I know, because I failed to close an FP twice ) is not S&R but a phone call is made to the filed destination to ask if the plane is sitting there… Only if it isn’t will they dig deeper. Otherwise, a lot of people would get a ~€1000 bill.

As a word of Caution, the other day I landed at an uncrewed airport well during the night (midnight or so), and sent an arrival message to Autorouter via Telegram. After doing all shutdowns / paperwork, I decided to call the number (as it was the first time I had used the arrival message, and wasn’t sure what it did), and the person on the other end asked pretty much immediately if I was who he thought I was, as he claims they hadn’t seen anything on the system and were starting getting worried. So better to close calling +33 1 56 30 13 01

172driver wrote:

You can, however, do this from the air, especially if you know that comms will not be available once landed.

In France, this only works for flight plans that don’t involve a border crossing.

Noe wrote:

he claims they hadn’t seen anything on the system and were starting getting worried

I made the same experience two years ago after landing in Le Touquet and sending an arrival message through the Autorouter bot, then calling a BRIA just to make sure.

Peter wrote:

As to the reason for the UK system of by default not needing to close a FP, that’s probably because the S&R services would otherwise be inundated with bogus alarms.
It seems to work in other countries, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t work in the UK. Except that UK pilots are used to not having to close flight plans.
What actually happens initially in say France (I know, because I failed to close an FP twice ) is not S&R but a phone call is made to the filed destination to ask if the plane is sitting there… Only if it isn’t will they dig deeper. Otherwise, a lot of people would get a ~€1000 bill.
That’s what’s supposed to happen! What you describe is part of SAR — it is the first (search) part.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Can’t comment on IFR, but UK has an especially belligerent attitude to closing VFR FPL’s (at all) and I was once lambasted by ATC for asking to close one in the air talking of “duty of care” and other mumbo jumbo (back in the day when it mattered). It’s my flight plan, and if I want to close it 20mi short, that’s my choice. Closing in the air is a far more certain practice than after landing, not just because of comms issues but also distractions like parking, refuelling etc., which can easily intervene. More than once I’ve been in the hotel bar before the horrible realisation dawns. OK, in the amateurish world of UK ATC chaos it doesn’t matter because they won’t do anything anyway, but not closing FPL’s is a very bad habit to get into that can have major consequences elsewhere.

The one thing I’m always sure to do is to attach my cell number to the comments section of the FPL!

EGBW / KPRC, United Kingdom

Thank you for all the responses.

I think that one area that was not covered very much was filing a flight plan for only a portion of your flight, which is explicitly mentioned in SERA 4020 as being allowed. This can be quite useful. I was a passenger on a private floatplane flight in Finland that departed from Malmi (EFHF), which requires a ‘paper’ flight plan for flight in its airspace. The pilot filed to a waypoint (NOKKA) just outside the zone and closed the flight plan with Malmi ATC a few minutes after we took-off.

I guess there is an argument that a flight plan filed to an airfield could be interpreted as being for just the initial part of the flight and that arriving overhead is therefore sufficient and no landing or touch-and-go is required.

Derek
Stapleford (EGSG), Denham (EGLD)

He should have put STAY/ at Lydd and then continue normally back to Stapleford if that was the original plan to return back home

Evo400
27 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top