Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1852729
Flight Plans should be filed for all flights ...


That should include abbreviated flight plans over RT?
If not, then "should" should not be confused with "shall".
Last edited by James Chan on Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rob L liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1852730
skydriller wrote:And I still cant see how filing a flightplan is less admin...

Must say, I agree. For me, on a typical flight, it would considerably enhance the admin burden.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1852732
If the ability to file an optional flight plan presented a centralised way to completely replace the different ways of booking in, booking out, freecalling, changing squawk codes multiple times, and also enable alerting for overdue action, via a simple few clicks of a button in SkyDemon etc.. then I'm all for that.

Those who don't or can't do that for whatever reason would continue to use current methods (e.g. freecalling) which have their place and should not be taken away.
rdfb liked this
User avatar
By bilko2
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1852952
IMHO "optional" but encouraged flight plans are the start of a slippery slope. Soon flight plans will be "expected" for any airspace transit, then they will be compulsory like Spain, Russia etc. Please no thanks.

I can see that things will have to change due ATC people being very expensive, the rise of drones etc. I strongly suggest authorities try to be more open and work with us.

Why not more EC, listening squawks etc .... or even one listening squawk for large areas.
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1852965
It is a valid concern, but I don't agree with the logic that something shouldn't be brought in because of a fear that one thing wouldnecessarily lead to another.

Of course - one should definitely stand up to mandatory filing - not everyone wants their route defined and prescribed upfront as it doesn't suit those with a flexible/bimbling agenda.

But how much better could ATS provision be, if the number of freecallers and squawk code changers were reduced? The initial check-in would only be to verify the altitude as they can open up your flight information/strip electronically.
By rdfb
#1852986
bilko2 wrote:IMHO "optional" but encouraged flight plans are the start of a slippery slope. Soon flight plans will be "expected" for any airspace transit, then they will be compulsory like Spain, Russia etc. Please no thanks.


I think this goes both ways. The other week I was effectively refused a transit because the controller took more than ten minutes to get back to my freecall and then, when I was on top of the CTA and had to turn to avoid infringing and hold, wanted to negotiate the details (asking for a very low altitude restriction to avoid conflict with another VFR aircraft, which I thought very strange because it's a class D, but anyway). I gave up, cancelled my request, and went round. Had the controller had a strip ready, they'd have known what I wanted in advance and might have been able to arrange it. So perhaps I'm actually getting fewer transits because class D controllers throw away VFR flight plans.

I agree that compulsory flight plans would be bad, but I don't think that's a reason not to lobby for less admin the rest of the time while maintaining the status quo of freecalling always being acceptable subject to controller workload.
User avatar
By Rob L
#1853001
So is there a consensus about VFR "flight plans"? I flew 6.5 hours this last weekend in four flights without any formal "Flight Plan" (apart from my own personal flight planning) and spoke to no formal service (not even A/G).

Is this thread a storm in the proverbial tea cup?

Rob
By ozplane
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853005
I think I'm in your camp Rob. Went up to the strip yesterday evening, nobody else there and I had a very pleasant 40 minutes bimble. Nobody to talk to on the air, not that I wanted to, and neither I nor Sky Echo "saw" anything else about so i wonder what possible use filing a flight plan would be. As I started this thread I wonder if anybody who has the ear of Martin Robinson could ask him what the context of his comments in the AOPA mag actually is?
Rob L liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853011
Rob L wrote:Is this thread a storm in the proverbial tea cup?

Depends if there is any basis in the interpretation of a comment from AOPA UK.

ozplane wrote:Just noticed a comment in Martin Robinson's notes in the latest AOPA mag to the effect "there is even talk of a future need for VFR flights to file flight plans".


ozplane wrote:...the way it was written in the AOPA mag is that if you go for a half hour "bimble" from your unmanned farm strip, you will need to file a flight plan. Surely this can't be correct?
By rdfb
#1853055
xtophe wrote:
rdfb wrote: The other week I was effectively refused a transit because the controller took more than ten minutes to get back to my freecall


Did you fill an FCS1522 ?


Normally I would have, but on this occasion, I explicitly cancelled my request rather than attempt to negotiate. Part of this was workload, and partly because I didn't want to hold because of an anxious passenger but I didn't want a transit from "further round" (ie. a later shortcut) due to high and unfamiliar ground. So I don't think it'd quite be fair to call it a denial, even if was a problem created by the CAA's disjoint airspace policy.
User avatar
By bilko2
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853118
My impression of what has happened is this (feel free to correct me where I am wrong):

In the old days ATC was quite flexible, there were rules but the ATC controller had some options. If an aircraft transgressed in a minor way and there was no possibility of any conflict he/she could ignore it and get on with his job. AIUI this flexibility did not cause any significant accident rate.

Sometime recentlyish this all changed and some people in an office somewhere decided that this was unsatisfactory and everything had to be defined by a rigid set of rules. Now if an unknown aircraft dips a wing into CAS or even looks like it might then chaos ensues even if there is no real problem. Cue lots of shouting, MORs, possible prosecutions etc.

Some unintended consequences of this new complex rule bound system (again my impression):
We are told to be 2 miles outside CAS in case we dig a wing in or inaccurate ATC radar thinks we are inside. This is damn silly and makes class G choke points more dangerous.
Being an ATC person is less attractive so there is a shortage.
Airfields get infected with rule bound culture and want PPR. An airfield's reason for existence is to have aircraft coming and going. If they need an hours warning in order to fill out a flight strip and gird their loins then something is wrong.
Many owners/pilots turn off or do not install transponders/EC due to fear of being noticed by the aggressive rulebound system.
Lots of other things I can't think of right now .....

Now in order to make all the rules work VFR flight plans are being suggested. Please think again.
Dave W, Rob P, TopCat and 3 others liked this