Silvaire wrote:
That’s 100% a you-problem.@LeSving, responding to your comment above, my preference to fly (real) VFR is not a problem, for me or anybody else who can do it and enjoys it. However it is true that I could no more imagine my VFR flying limited to a kind of preplanned and filed quasi-IFR in which ATC contact and direction is mandatory than I could imagine doing the same with a motorcycle or car.
I think you don’t really understand how flight plans work (Not unreasonable as you don’t have to use them here, and probably rarely in the US).
Just because you file a flight plan does not mean that you need to be in contact with ATC. The only contact needed is to open the flight plan and to close it, and both can be, and in the case of closing, often are, done by phone instead of over the radio. Most pilots choose to open and close their flight plan by radio for convenience, but it can be done by phone, hence avoiding all contact with ATC. No contact is required with ATC outside that, as a result of filing a VFR flight plan. You may of course need to contact ATC if you want to enter controlled airspace.
You also are not bound to follow ATC direction simply because you filed a flight plan. You can happily deviate from what’s on the flight plan as much as you like. The only requirement is to tell someone if you change your destination (which won’t even matter very much so long as you close it on arrival).
That’s a small price to pay for being able to cross international borders without difficulty.
I understand you’ve ADIZ’s to deal with in the US which are much stricter than filing a flight plan. We thankfully don’t have to bother with those at all.
Just because you file a flight plan does not mean that you need to be in contact with ATC.
I was responding to a specific comment that was trying to tie the supposed ‘necessity‘ for a Schengen zone cross border flight plan to ATC’s role in SAR. My response was to say that neither the mandatory flight plan, mandatory ATC (separately) nor the role of ATC in SAR makes sense in 2024, regardless of crossing borders or not. I did not agree that there is any linkage between them, only that all three should be unnecessary for en route VFR travel in Europe if the border crossing requirements were aligned with ground travel and if the airspace were properly constructed and managed.
You don’t need ATC contact to enter controlled airspace, just airspace Classes D and up. Most US controlled airspace is Class E, requiring no ATC contact for VFR traffic.
VFR flight plans and ATC aren’t linked in both Europe and the US, except that in Europe ATC may be aware of a VFR flight plan. As a point of interest, US ATC has zero knowledge of whether you are on a VFR flight plan or not, and if you elect to call up for Flight Following ATC has no prior knowledge of your flight. I have never filed a VFR flight plan since I was a student over 20 years ago, they are pointless if you fly in a rational 2024 technology environment.
I know nothing about ADIZ’s, they’re not anything I’ve ever had to deal with, and the DC ADIZ is substantially further from me than Moscow is from Ireland.
Silvaire wrote:
VFR flight plans and ATC aren’t linked in both Europe
Incorrect.
SERA.4001 Submission of a flight plan
(a) Information relative to an intended flight or portion of a flight, to be provided to air traffic services units, shall be in the form of a flight plan. The term ‘flight plan’ is used to mean variously, full information on all items comprised in the flight plan description, covering the whole route of a flight, or limited information required, inter alia, when the purpose is to obtain a clearance for a minor portion of a flight such as to cross an airway, to take off from, or to land at a controlled aerodrome.
(b) A flight plan shall be submitted prior to operating:
(1) any flight or portion thereof to be provided with air traffic control service;
(2) any IFR flight within advisory airspace;
(3) any flight within or into areas, or along routes designated by the competent authority, to facilitate the provision of flight information, alerting and search and rescue services;
(4) any flight within or into areas or along routes designated by the competent authority, to facilitate coordination with appropriate military units or with air traffic services units in adjacent States in order to avoid the possible need for interception for the purpose of identification;
(5) any flight across international borders, unless otherwise prescribed by the States concerned;
(6) any flight planned to operate at night, if leaving the vicinity of an aerodrome.
hazek wrote:
The term ‘flight plan’ is used to mean variously, full information on all items comprised in the flight plan description, covering the whole route of a flight, or limited information required, inter alia, when the purpose is to obtain a clearance for a minor portion of a flight such as to cross an airway, to take off from, or to land at a controlled aerodrome.
I think we should emphasise this part, otherwise Silvaire will think we have to prefile a complete flight plan form every time we use a controlled airport.
‘Flight plan’ is used the same way worldwide to provide compliance with ICAO standards when entering e.g. Class D airspace with a radio call and nothing else. This is a work-around and is not relevant to the topic, which is pre-filed flight plans.
The issue under discussion here is the necessity to file a pre-filed VFR flight plan (nothing to do with ATC communication) for crossing many or most national borders in Europe, when the same borders are completely unmonitored on the ground.
Having said that @Airborne_Again, on my last flight in Europe we were required to file a flight plan for a 30 minute-ish VFR flight from Zell am See to Innsbruck, when Innsbruck was completely deserted and no national borders were crossed.
Silvaire wrote:
The issue under discussion here is the necessity to file a formal flight for crossing (many or most) national borders in Europe.
Which is for example exactly what my home airport mandates is done, unless the flight is ELLX – ELLX and doesn’t cross borders, i.e. a local xc.
5 VFR FLIGHTS
5.1 General
A flight plan is compulsory for all VFR flights to and from ELLX (see ENR 1.10, § 1.1).
ENR 1.10 FLIGHT PLANNING
1 CIVIL
1.1 Requirement to Submit a Flight Plan (SERA.4001)
Information relative to an intended flight or portion of a flight, to be provided to ATS units, shall be in the form of a flight plan. A flight plan shall be submitted prior to operating:
any IFR flight;
any flight or portion thereof to be provided with ATC service;
any flight above FL 660;
any flight at night, if leaving the vicinity of an aerodrome;
any flight across international borders. VFR flights remaining within the Schengen Area do not need a flight plan as far as the Brussels FIR is concerned (for requirements applicable in other Schengen States, please consult the relevant AIP).
It is advisable to file a flight plan:
when flying over sparsely populated areas, where SAR operations would be difficult;
if the aircraft is not equipped with radio.
A flight plan may be filed for any flight in order to facilitate the provision of SAR services.
Note: A pilot who has submitted a flight plan for a flight departing from a private aerodrome is responsible for the forwarding of the associated messages either by TEL or by radio to the ATS unit to which the flight plan was sent.
1.2 Categories of Flight Plan
A distinction is made between three different categories of flight plan:
Full flight plan submitted prior departure
A flight plan in line with the formatting requirements of § 1.4 below, submitted prior departure in accordance with the procedures specified in § 1.3.4 below.
Full flight plan submitted during flight (AFIL)
A flight plan in line with the formatting requirements of § 1.4 below, submitted to an ATS unit during flight in accordance with the procedures specified in § 1.3.5 below.
Abbreviated flight plan
Limited information provided to an ATS unit with the purpose to obtain a clearance for a minor portion of a VFR flight, such as to cross a CTR, to take-off from or land at a controlled aerodrome.
1.2.2 In Luxembourg
An abbreviated flight plan transmitted in the air by radiotelephony for the crossing of controlled airspace contains, as a minimum:
call sign;
type of aircraft;
point of entry;
point of exit;
level.
For domestic VFR flights (no border crossing), an abbreviated flight plan may be submitted at least 30 MIN prior departure. It comprises the following information:
aircraft identification;
departure aerodrome and estimated off-block time;
destination aerodrome or operating site and total estimated flight time;
mandatory reporting point for CTR exit;
fuel endurance;
total number of persons on board;
name of the pilot in command.
Which is for example exactly what my home airport mandates is done, unless the flight is ELLX – ELLX and doesn’t cross borders, i.e. a local xc.
Again, calling a radio call a flight plan for the purposes of entering controlled airspace is normal practice worldwide.
Anything beyond that as a mandatory requirement for VFR in Europe (as per my Innsbruck example) is as dumb as the requirement for pre-submitted VFR cross border flight plans, because in both cases nothing similar is required when making the same trip on the ground. It’s theatre serving no genuine purpose.
I mean we can argue this up and down but if you read the above or, hey be my guest, come to ELLX, and try departing and leaving Luxembourg and see what happens if you don’t file prior to your “request startup”. You have to file, formally. It’s mandatory.
(b) A flight plan shall be submitted prior to operating:
Hazek, can you stop posting these long extracts from the regs. In the context of this thread they are disingenuous. Some (very few) airports require a FP for all movements. For the rest, you can use filing over the radio. AFIL is supposed to be implemented but it doesn’t work.
These long quotes, which also sometimes don’t correspond to actual practice, are completely useless to anyone asking the original question.
Ah yes Hazek, please don’t post excerpts from regs that prove I’m wrong.
Got it chief!
