I know that. RocketRoute has disp. 24/7.
So as I wrote before, any question about VFR in LZBB – you can contact the Central ARO (CARO) or me ;-)))
Anders wrote:
Good to learn something new every day. I had no idea that in some countries you could put in the names of visual reporting points in the route.Does anyone know which countries that allow/require to put in the names of visual reporting points in the route?
These are mostly not VRPs, but plain old village/town/city/other locality names that happen to appear on the 1:500000 aviation map. It’s the most common way to define VFR flight plan routes in Hungary. Actually, FIC computers in Hungary have a database of those names and they can plot such a route without human intervention.
Peter wrote:
Does Europe have any airspace E F G which is mandatory-radio for day VFR?
Yes, of course. TIZs (class F in Hungary, class G in Norway), dropzones (interesting class G airspaces in Hungary), RMZs etc.
Thanks a lot @Hunnicat for the incredibly insightful reference. Man, that was worth its weight in gold. Thanks.
I have to add that flying over Hungary, I was a bit frazzled when I was given a 15 letter village name to report at…
Was rather unnerving trying to:
a) Understand what she just told me to report at
b) Figure out what that was (VRP, Airport, Village, etc.)
Used about 3 resources and 10 seconds to find it…
Like a few of us, I just said, “report uiasfhasuifaef” (or whatever it sounded like) to try to make it seem like I understood…
Thankfully, my civilian chart (non aviation) had the village on there and it looked exactly like it sounded. Otherwise, I would have just waited about 10 minutes and called back and hoped for the best.
The Hungarian controllers are really great in my experience. I’ve never personally had a bad one, and I haven’t had any of my flight plans rejected so far (fingers crossed) even with spurious coordinate sets everywhere.
I personally prefer using VFR entry/exit points to CTRs and also published VFR points on the boundaries (if are established). In route it is also easy to use ICAO points. ARO/ATS is more familiar with that points rather then coordinates or city names. It depends on each country of course.
I also think that all ATCOs are great. But it depends on people in the shift.
In the very end, I don’t think that there is too much “new” in here. In summary:
exactly!
I agree 100% with Bosco’s approach and have been doing that for some 17 years, but if you are a VFR flight, ATC still have the right to send you to a VRP and you don’t have the right to insist on an “IFR” waypoint, even if you filed one on your flight plan. Of course most of the time this resolves itself but not always.
I only recently made a discovery in skydemon. 99% of users have IFR waypoints turned off. When they file an FP (say Shoreham to jersey) it will use coordinates.
If you turn them on, and the route KATHY-ORIST SkyDemon will then include those waypoints in the FP.
A friend and I both flew VFR back from a jersey and due to my FP having IFR waypoints I got the route I planned and exited the zone in the right place. Meanwhile he was given standard VFR routing and his coordinates were ignored.
Hunnicat wrote:
KBLIHAEX as I know is not responsible for addressing. They (only) offer/prepare some AFTN addresses. Pilot is (maybe) the responsible person. But which pilot is aware of addressing FPLs according AIP ENR 1.11? They just click “send” and causes sometimes difficulties. I have no problem with FPL from CFSPs if it is correct. I am a member of European ARO working group dealing with VFR FPLs. And I work for ARO since 1997 ;-)