From here
LeSving wrote:
Something slightly different, but related. I have heard, not often, but more and more, VFR pilots using IFR wayponts as reporting point and for planning. Is this more common on the continent/UK?
Seems natural, with the advent of electronic maps and nice displays where you can present more information with the same legibility.
I was giving a talk to a TRUCE meeting at a large UK unit and the controllers were totally bemused at why VFR traffic would route between and report at IFR waypoints.
Their understanding and belief was that all VFR flying was by surface crawling.
I say again, this was a very large unit, and there were many ATCOs in the room.
A bit depressing, really.
I regularly use IFR waypoints in planning, but not at IFR altitudes. In terminal areas I stick to VFR reporting points.
Well, anyone who wants to use a GNS430 or similar on a VFR flight has not much of a choice then to use IFR waypoints. That is one thing I like about Easy VFR that it does have all those readily available.
A main question is if a VFR flight plan with IFR waypoints would be accepted. AFAIR, somebody mentioned that a flight plan in Switzerland was rejected because it used IFR waypoints. @Mooney_Driver, do you have any experience with this?
A bit depressing, really.
It is many years since a PPL was required in the UK to become an ATCO and in those days VFR traffic didn’t use radio nav. But yes I am amazed…
In terminal areas I stick to VFR reporting points.
ATC is entitled to require reporting at VRPs (not IFR waypoints), for VFR flights, and occassionally they absolutely demand this, to make the point. I have had this in France and Italy.
A main question is if a VFR flight plan with IFR waypoints would be accepted
Yes – I used to do this all the time, all the way to Greece.
But there is no Eurocontrol-style validation on VFR FPs anyway, so who would object?
I don’t know what’s new about this? Since always, IFR waypoints in the form for VORs and NDBs have been used for VFR flight planning and reporting. The only difference is that the length of the waypoint identifier has changed from three to five letters!
Peter wrote:
for VFR flights, and occassionally they absolutely demand this, to make the point. I have had this in France and Italy.
Is that in the vincinity of an airfield?
At an airfield, you can conceive how if you have a VFP (say, point Sierra at Toussus LFPN) that is on the plates, the ATC request you use that and not something else, for integration of traffic into the join.
If en route, that makes little to no sense.
Yes – airfield VRPs. Typically, on mainland Europe (not UK), a point called Sierra would be thus named because it is south i.e. “S”. A northern VRP would be N – November.
Enroute, I agree. Never had a problem. But some airfield VRPs can be some distance from the airport – maybe 10-20nm.
what_next wrote:
I don’t know what’s new about this?
You cannot see a IFR way point other than on a map. But, then again, you cannot see names of towns and lakes other than on a map either. I don’t know, it seems to be one additional level of “virtuality” when using IFR way points, one additional step away from tangible things on the ground. They are all over the place though, and can be pronounced, and ATC know where they are, or can look it up in a second. They seem to be practical when planning, and when flying high above the terrain.
