AFIL is required to be supported (SERA) but nobody wants to operate it 
Peter wrote:
AFIL is required to be supported (SERA) but nobody wants to operate it
The entire point is: It is supported – but not for people that use it as an attempt to force Eurocontrol to accept flight plans that would not have been accepted (or even have already been rejected) when filed on ground.
In addition to that, there seem to be several misconceptions about AFIL that need to be ruled out. As long as it is not an abbreviated flight plan (e.g. just for entering/crossing a single CTR), AFIL is just a different means of communication for the plan and doesn’t change the rules. Esp. this implies:
- The pilot is responsible for providing all information according to SERA.4005 (including things like equipment according to 4005.a.6).
- The pilot is responsible to define an permissible routing. As with ground filed flight plans, an AFIL can just be rejected if the routing does violate the airspace routing rules
- All rules concerning slots, CTOTs, reroutings, etc. apply for AFIL exactly the same way as they apply for ground based flight plans.
Therefore yes: AFIL is absolutely required to be supported – but “supported” by no means implies that every flight plan you attempt to File actually is accepted.
The entire point is: It is supported – but not for people that use it as an attempt to force Eurocontrol to accept flight plans that would not have been accepted (or even have already been rejected) when filed on ground.
That however means AFIL is completely unworkable because the only way to check validation when airborne is with a satellite phone internet connection. Has to be a fast one too (not the slow Iridium “cheap” one) because all publicly-accessible Eurocontrol validation gateways are bloated websites, and nowadays any connection slower than about 50kbytes/sec cannot be used for HTTP/HTTPS.
So who thought up this AFIL stuff? It cannot possibly work if validation is required.
Or is “not for people that use it as an attempt to force Eurocontrol to accept flight plans that would not have been accepted (or even have already been rejected) when filed on ground” an over-interpretation of the rules?
An AFIL FPL is very cumbersome which is why most file on the ground, especially now that we have services like RR or Autorouter.
But they do suit your bizjet etc crews.
Top executives and the very rich have a habit of changing their arrangements mid flight.
Or at least that’s what several chums who fly such people for a living tell me.
Generally, they file the route they want to follow and the ETAs at various reporting points plus aircraft info and persons on board, with the service they are talking to. In turn this information will be passed downstream and if the aircraft can be accepted by each ATC downstream the messages will simply be passed back upstream that they are prepared to accept the aircraft at that time. If not holds and/or diversions will be arranged/instructed.
I don’t know if aircraft with CPDLC systems can do it digitally or not.
Peter wrote:
That however means AFIL is completely unworkable
No, it’s not. It’s actually quite helpful for the use case it has been designed for. This is obviously not to file a plan from UK to Greece 5 minutes after departure.
If you are, however, 10 NM from a STAR-Fix and decide that you rather land IFR than try to wiggle through the clouds VFR, typically “DCT fix STAR APPROACH” is a valid plan. If you consider AFIL as a method to safely get to the ground if situation changes (and not necessarily get to your original destination) it is quite a handy tool.
That is a diversion 
AFIL is something else. Well, it basically doesn’t exist afaict.
Malibuflyer wrote:
If you are, however, 10 NM from a STAR-Fix and decide that you rather land IFR than try to wiggle through the clouds VFR, typically “DCT fix STAR APPROACH” is a valid plan. If you consider AFIL as a method to safely get to the ground if situation changes (and not necessarily get to your original destination) it is quite a handy tool.
That would not be an AFIL. An AFIL is submitting a complete ICAO flight plan into (in Europe) the Eurocontrol system. That’s not what would happen if you are VFR on top and request an instrument approach.
If you are, however, 10 NM from a STAR-Fix and decide that you rather land IFR than try to wiggle through the clouds VFR, typically “DCT fix STAR APPROACH” is a valid plan
APPROACH??? I don’t ever recall seeing ILS21 listed on my IFR flight plan (SID & STAR yes)
AFAIK, the IFR IAP or APPROACH are not part of ICAO FPL for very obvious reasons
You don’t even need an IFR FPL in system (ATC or EC) to fly an IAF+RNP or RV+ILS unless approach & tower in the aerodrome are connected by wormhole and lives on different planets !
That would not be an AFIL. An AFIL is submitting a complete ICAO flight plan into (in Europe) the Eurocontrol system
Exactly, and anybody who actually flies IFR in the Eurocontrol system, on nontrivial flights, will realise the challenges, which, ahem, is why ATC will practically never co-operate with anyone trying it
My IR instructor told me it was difficult in europe, but Actually I had once, 1 year ago when returning from Marseille or Avignon. I asked to switch IFR to preserve my “3 approaches” and asked to switch IFR. They gave me a clearance and landed I IFR. What I heard about AFIL (it’s just hear-about), is that the ATC will fill the FPL for you on your declaration. I have no idea of the routing, but if you do it too far from your destination, you cannot master routing.
