Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

LZBB FIR - aids, recommendations etc (and Skydemon/EuroFPL VFR flight plans being faxed)

achimha wrote:

Are SkyDemon/EuroFPL generally uncooperative?

absolutely! RocketRoute – totally different story. if I write AFTN msg to RocketRoute there is disp. 24/7 and I get answer.

LZIB

Hunnicat wrote:

and I mentioned it in other topic: if you click on the map on your SkyDemon on point for example “CECEJOVCE” (VFR point LZKZ) application will change it to coordinates (11 character) = not a clever idea :-)

Example: I am attending meetings with people from AROs around the Europe. We accept in the route: city names, coordinates, bearing and distance, ICAO points, VFR points – almost everything. BUT in country “A” the system cannot read coordinates in field 15, in country “B” there is problem with city names etc. There is need to harmonise the VFR flying and rules. But if one country says they cannot do it because … it is hard.

Wouldn’t the best way to harmonise be to actually follow doc 4444 which is clear in that coordinates are accepted, while city names are not? It constantly surprises me that some countries insist on having VFR reporting points which are not 5LNC. It surprises me even more when they require these non-5LNC points to be included in the flight plan (in clear contradiction to doc 4444).

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

it would be the best way. We adapt our system to be able to handle various types of route because each country has different requirements – thats all. I would prefer to use ICAO points or navaids – reason – clearly defined and easily searchable. "problem with coordinates in ATS is that Although they are allowed, it is hard to see at first glance where the place is located. Normaly we recieve FPL with 20 coordinates for 1,5 flight. Same route can be describe with few points (VFR exit point, some points on the route, point on boundary and VFR entry point for example). I can see your point but the other problem is that no all pilots are take the preflight preparation and planning responsibly. I have to say that not all FPL are incorrect or wrong.

LZIB

It is rather arrogant to accuse pilots of not taking planning responsibly when countries insist on not applying international ICAO standards and cook their own soup instead. One of the primary objectives of ICAO is to provide standardization which encourages and supports aviation activity. National operator deviations do the contrary and it is blatantly unfair to blame the pilots for not having the resources to address all the differences across the European landscape. It is a bit of a wonder that we haven’t all thrown up our hands in despair and given up GA. The advances in technology (and the associated new tools as referenced here) are now starting to compensate some of this challenge for private pilots which at least appears to be generating more activity. Countries that can’t or won’t jump on board will just lose in the long run because pilots will go elsewhere. The world is changing.

LSZK, Switzerland

I am yet again going to get criticised for saying this but

Normaly we recieve FPL with 20 coordinates for 1,5 flight.

is simply indicative of a product which

  • has its programmer in the UK
  • has its major market in the UK
  • got the vast majority of feature input from a particular UK pilot forum which has very little “distance flying” activity, and the easy route drawing to avoid UK’s complicated CAS shapes is what creates this problem
  • gets away with it because in the UK, and probably most of N Europe, nobody looks at the route on a VFR FP unless post-crash (you could put “Jupiter” as a waypoint and nobody would notice)
  • probably doesn’t get a lot of feedback from outside the UK because most of the pilots can’t speak English so won’t go to the effort of reporting something

To change this would involve a lot of pilot re-education, to use the IFR waypoints, and would be regarded as highly undesirable in a product primarily used as a “hand holding” tool. Let me try to pre-empt the predictable reaction by saying that most SD users who post on EuroGA are not using SD in this simple way, but I am pretty sure most of its user base does exactly that. It is a very good tool but if you provide a means of quickly knocking up a route which can then be filed only as a list of coordinates, this is obviously what you will get.

However this to me raises a couple of questions:

Would the VORrrrddd notation be better than coordinates? This method is sometimes very useful for IFR – see here.

Why does Slovakia worry about the filed VFR routing? Surely all CAS is radar monitored anyway, and if somebody doesn’t bust it, why do you care? And if they bust it, you bust them, and you will do that regardless of what the FP contained or how the planning was done. That is how the UK works. You can fly in IMC in Class G, non-radio. In the UK, you get zero credit post-bust if you used the gold plated method which was instrumental in defeating the invaders in WW1 and again in WW2 (compass and stopwatch) or if you used GPS… So, I wonder if the requirement for “perfect” VFR filed routes derives from something other than traffic management?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

What a flood of responses…

Hunnicat wrote:

If you file a FPL via SkyDemon, EuroFPL or other service using AFTN address KBLIHAEX – the FPL is recieved by FAX!!!

Why is this? The confirmation message they send to me (i.e. the user) says that they sent it to LZIBZPZX, which is an AFTN address, not a fax number.

lots of coordinates (even the coordinate is for the VFR exit point for example)

This is indeed true with the apps.

many mistakes in the FPL (wrong level, missing EET/, direct route without any point)

- wrong level: very obvious in SkyDemon, especially if too low, much more than in case of the traditional flight plan form
- missing EET: only possible if the user manually deletes it
- direct route: again, much more obvious(ly wrong) when you plan on a map

So – file a FPL and just make a call “…did you recieve my FPL, is my FPL OK?…”

I agree with achimha: I would not like to do this in 2017.

Peter wrote:

IME, it is mostly in the “Balkan” countries (I am using the term loosely, including former Yugoslavia) where somebody looks at the route.

VFR flight plans are looked at in countries which would only be Balkan in the loosest sense of the definition, e.g. the Czech Republic or Poland.

The problem is that nobody is going to educate VFR-only pilots to file a route via “IFR” waypoints (e.g. SAM, ORTAC, KONAN, MMD, HR) which is the only way to unambiguously do this. Especially “old” VFR pilots which is about 95% of the VFR community; there is little fresh input going in. I was using these waypoints since Day 1… because it made flight planning so much easier with the old tools like Navbox.

Believe it or not, almost all old (and I mean really old) VFR pilots I know use IFR waypoints when they are available. But since they are placed to accommodate the needs of IFR flights, many times there are no convenient IFR waypoints to use. Of course, being VFR, it’s usually possible to file one thing and fly another, but that’s not ideal.

Hunnicat wrote:

To finish this discusion – yes you can use IBAF to file FPL.

Thanks! I registered last night and received the confirmation by morning. What kind of flight plans do you accept through IBAF? Anything originating in Slovakia?

achimha wrote:

Are SkyDemon/EuroFPL generally uncooperative?

Oh yes! I mean they cooperate very well with the British users and put Red Arrows timings on their map, but don’t dive a sh*t about simple to fix problems with their app that make it much harder to use it properly in Eastern Europe (e.g. half of Hungary is currently depicted as some kind of restricted area due to a NOTAM decoding problem). And they treat their paying customers like this, so I don’t see why they would be more responsive to various ATS organizations, who are not even their clients.

Airborne_Again wrote:

Wouldn’t the best way to harmonise be to actually follow doc 4444 which is clear in that coordinates are accepted, while city names are not? It constantly surprises me that some countries insist on having VFR reporting points which are not 5LNC. It surprises me even more when they require these non-5LNC points to be included in the flight plan (in clear contradiction to doc 4444).

How are you going to communicate using coordinates over VHF voice, when you fly single pilot VFR in a plane with no autopilot? A single misheard digit could place you very far away… To put all this in context: in CZ, SK, HU and other Eastern European countries FIS and ATC actually look at your VFR flight plan and you receive IFR-like service if you file, i.e. proper handoffs, coordinated transitions of controlled airspace, rerouting around restricted airspaces etc. You simply can’t do that by coordinates if voice is your medium of communication. Of course it would be nice if DOC4444 would accommodate this as an option or these countries filed a proper difference notice (which they might have, I haven’t checked).

Last Edited by JnsV at 28 Aug 10:25
Hajdúszoboszló LHHO

JnsV wrote:

Why is this? The confirmation message they send to me (i.e. the user) says that they sent it to LZIBZPZX, which is an AFTN address, not a fax number.

so they are not telling you the truth

LZIB

JnsV wrote:

Thanks! I registered last night and received the confirmation by morning. What kind of flight plans do you accept through IBAF? Anything originating in Slovakia?

you can file also FPL from LHBS for example and we distribute the FPL to Budapest ARO (few pilots from Hungary do that)

LZIB

JnsV wrote:

I agree with achimha: I would not like to do this in 2017

will be better for you if something wrong that the ARO will contact you?

LZIB

Peter wrote:

Why does Slovakia worry about the filed VFR routing? Surely all CAS is radar monitored anyway, and if somebody doesn’t bust it, why do you care? And if they bust it, you bust them, and you will do that regardless of what the FP contained or how the planning was done. That is how the UK works. You can fly in IMC in Class G, non-radio. In the UK, you get zero credit post-bust if you used the gold plated method which was instrumental in defeating the invaders in WW1 and again in WW2 (compass and stopwatch) or if you used GPS… So, I wonder if the requirement for “perfect” VFR filed routes derives from something other than traffic management?

Peter, this is not how it works in this part of Europe. See above.
Hungarian FIC even went beyond this and they pledge to warn you about any restricted areas, danger areas, pieces of controlled airspace etc. if you file a flight plan, have a working transponder and talk to them. And for small “busts” (like yours that you posted about) of controlled airspace (usually Budapest TMA) all you get is some verbal notification (not even scolding IME) over the radio if the three above mentioned conditions are fulfilled. They won’t shut down the whole airport because they know the general direction where you are going and therefore no hard prosecution is necessary.

Hajdúszoboszló LHHO
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top