@WarleyAir: what altitude (s) or flight level(s) do you plan? For Belgium I would recommend higher than 4500 so as to be in controlled airspace. Our FIS generally do a good job, indeed; but in the weekend they are much in demand, while on weekdays you might be plagued by active military airspace – at the least around Beauvechain.
boscomatics @ #120
Yes, I straight line then ‘rubber band’.
and then include a few GPS waypoints to comply with each of the countries’ rules on VFR flightplan routings?
I’ll put some GPS waypoints in to avoid this and that, but not sure what you mean “each countries’ rules on VFR flight routings”.
In the old days the VFR Flight Plan System was very fussy as to what way point you put in (syntax’s errors it would keep saying) e.g. it would not take ICAO airfield designators (say EBBE)
I’m guess if I just ‘click’ enter a ‘keep clear’ route into SkyDemon and file the Flight Plan direct from SD I will not have any of the old fashion syntax errors.
Out of interest, are VFR FPs checked at all by anybody nowadays, for syntax errors?
The one thing which was not possible if one used ICAO airfield names as waypoints was getting the NATS narrow route briefing. But nobody looked at the flight plan itself.
are VFR FPs checked at all by anybody nowadays
More than once I got a phone call from “Brussels Dispatch” after filing a VFR flight plan online, to make sure about some detail, or to correct an obvious typo. Excellent service, always courteous, always to the point.
I can imagine somebody would be doing a typo check on handwritten flight plans (because somebody has to type them into the AFTN, and if you do that all day long, typos will be mostly obvious) but I wondered if anybody was enforcing the incorrect use of ICAO airfield names, or checking the route for validity relative to CAS i.e. actually plotting it on a map and seeing if the VFR FP enters Class A or whatever.
Out of interest, are VFR FPs checked at all by anybody nowadays, for syntax errors?
If you submit a VFR flight plan to the Swedish ARO (using their internet system, fax or even phone) it will be processed by an actual live briefing officer. If you submit the flight plan by AFTN it should be addressed to ES..ZPZX, which is again the ARO so I guess it will be processed manually in this case too.
There certainly are many systems still remaining where the data entry is done manually. I believe Olivia FPs still pass through a person although I doubt they re-type in data which was submitted via the website!
But that isn’t the same question as whether somebody checks it for strict ICAO validity and checks the routing for being sensible, all waypoints valid, etc.
In the UK, before they closed the FBUs and introduced AFPEX, you could have put “Upper Warlingham” as a waypoint. Still, that may be ICAO compliant, for all I know 
I believe you could enter UPPER WARLINGHAM into AFPEX (or any other web filing service) and it would send it to the AFTN.
It’s funny how so many people speculate about what is “ICAO-compliant” with reference to routings in VFR flightplans without ever taking a moment to see what is actually laid down by the ICAO…
So I’ll bite (ICAO Doc4444, Appendix 2, chapter 2.2):
First of all, it says about
Flights outside designated ATS routes
(which is what we often do when VFR):
INSERT points normally not more than 30 minutes flying time or 370 km (200 NM) apart, including each point at which a change of speed or level, a change of track, or a change of flight rules is planned.
Then, it says:
USE ONLY the conventions in (1) to (5) below and SEPARATE each sub-item by a space.
And then, finally, it says:
2) Significant point (2 to 11 characters)
The coded designator (2 to 5 characters) assigned to the point (e.g. LN, MAY, HADDY),
or, if no coded designator has been assigned, one of the following ways:
— Degrees only (7 characters):
2 figures describing latitude in degrees, followed by “N” (North) or “S” (South), followed by 3 figures describing longitude in degrees, followed by “E” (East) or “W” (West). Make up the correct number of figures, where necessary, by insertion of zeros, e.g. 46N078W
— Degrees and minutes (11 characters):
4 figures describing latitude in degrees and tens and units of minutes followed by “N” (North) or “S” (South), followed by 5 figures describing longitude in degrees and tens and units of minutes, followed by “E” (East) or “W” (West). Make up the correct number of figures, where necessary, by insertion of zeros, e.g. 4620N07805W.
— Bearing and distance from a navigation aid:
The identification of the navigation aid (normally a VOR), in the form of 2 or 3 characters, THEN the bearing from the aid in the form of 3 figures giving degrees magnetic, THEN the distance from the aid in the form of 3 figures expressing nautical miles. Make up the correct number of figures, where necessary, by insertion of zeros — e.g. a point 180° magnetic at a distance of 40 nautical miles from VOR “DUB” should be expressed as DUB180040.
So: only navaids (or points defined with reference to navaids), other points with coded designators or coordinates.
Now, obviously several countries have adopted differing rules. But this should (again: in theory) have widely come to an end with SERA (which say the same things as the above ICAO guidelines).
Doesn’t that mean that 99% of VFR FPs are not ICAO complaint?
The lat/long notation can and is used but also I have been told by people within ATC that they have no capability to plot such waypoints.
Some years ago I asked whether they could plot the VORrrrddd notation and the answer was No, too.
Doesn’t that mean that 99% of VFR FPs are not ICAO complaint?
Could be, but that’s irrelevant. ICAO does not make law. It’s each country’s air law that is decisive.
Switzerland for example specifically allows and encourages the use of geographical names in item 15 of VFR flightplans.
In order to really make your VFR FPLs totally “compliant” you would have to study the prescriptions of each and every country overflown. Of course, no private pilot can do that all the time, so what we get is a lot of formal “mistakes”. But rarely anybody cares.
