IFR Flight Plans

[Don Smith]

I need someone, please, to tell me what is wrong with filing a flight Plan different than FlightAware, vroute, RouteFinder, etc. have to offer? What if one wants to fly and file a flight plan that would take them over a point of interest and not strictly over "Published and Established Routes"?

I would say that 99% of my flights and flight plans are found in the aforementioned formats, but sometimes I like to color outside the lines!

Thank you for your time!

Don Smith

ASO455

[Thimo Koolen]

If you have an example of such flightplan, we might be able to offer some better insight. We have no idea what you're filing, where (what country) etc.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Don,

 

yes, show us an example. And who says that your plan is wrong? Maybe it is a misunderstanding where a air traffic controller is trying to help you find a more realistic route between A and B, although you are perfectly aware that you would like to fly a detour? As a vATC at VATSIM I often see pilots filing "interesting" routings in their flightplans which in 99,99% of cases is a result of lack of knowledge which can be helped.

[1275389]

Because your route might conflict with a major arrival/departure flow. Different altitudes for eastbound/westbound work, except when people are climbing/descending into you.

I suggest that you fly VFR if you want to take a route that looks like it might take you completely off any standard routes.

[Don Smith]

From:

VATSIM/Pilot Resource Centre/IFR-Specific Lessons/Basic IFR Flight Planning/Route

“…These are created to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist the Air Traffic Controller in remaining organized. Our Flight Plan for our flight to BWI-ATL will look like this: TERPZ1 FLUKY DCA246 PAUKI MOL WHINZ1”

What if flying above FL180 - not withstanding the SIDs/Stars - and file this low level and much straighter route: KBWI GVE V476 LYH V222 ODF KATL

Thanks for help!

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Víctor airways are low level. Flying above 18000 you wouldnt use them

[Jim Hurst 1353723]

A few thoughts to mull over:

 

Typically, IFR plans are for routing between two points, where, you expect to fly under ATC control, and/or you're engaged in commercial p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]enger carrying operations, and/or weather conditions do not meet the minimums for VFR flight. What you'd file would depend on what navigation equipment you have, what your cruising altitude is intended to be, what procedures the origin and destination airports have, and considering what kinds of weather conditions you expect enroute.

 

To make those sorts of things consistent, efficient, and easier on all, FAA, pilots, and ATC have various published routes that use designated airways, navaids and various procedures for departing and arriving at airports (esp. large & busy ones). There are rules pertaining to those things (hence Ernesto's point that you wouldn't use a Victor Airway above FL180, for instance).

 

VFR flightplans are for clear weather flying only. To be sure, you may still be going from point A to B, but you're (mostly) on your own, and you are expected to determine your own route (taking into account any airspace limitations), and keep your flight within certain weather condition minimums the entire way.

 

While there's (some) leeway in those things, typically, if you were on a sightseeing flight, VFR would probably be the way to go. Now, back to your IFR plan -- there's more than one way to go, and the various sites will offer you some ideas -- but you can also make up your own...

 

So, for instance when I punch KBWI and KATL into skyvector.com, here are a couple routes it shows:

 

* TERPZ6 FLASK WINNG1 -- (this is an RNAV preferred route with a SID & STAR)

* CONLE3 - COLIN - J61 - HUBBS - J193 - HCM - ISO - J121 - BARTL - J4 - CAE-TRAYE - SMOOV1 - KATL (here's a much more convoluted RNAV route)

 

* KBWI - CSN - J48 - ODF - ATL - KATL -- (Here's a simple non-RNAV route - without a SID or STAR that I picked out myself)

 

All of those would be high level routes ( FL180 and above -- hence the use of Jet Routes)

Here's one you might use if you were on a low level flight (below FL180) using Victor airways.

 

* KBWI - CSN - V140 - BLF - V519 - VXV - V97 - ATL - KATL

 

In both of the routes without SIDs & STARs, you'd anticipate radar vectors from ATC to cover departure and arrival. So, there's more than one way to choose a route, and you have discretion to pick one that works for your particular flight.

 

Again, keep in mind that with IFR, you'd be expected (as much as practicable) to stay on published airways, using published navaids, intersections, and stick to the filed route (or cleared route, if ATC amends your flight plan).

 

Hope that helps,

Regards,

Jim

[Trent Hopkinson]

A few thoughts to mull over:

 

Typically, IFR plans are for routing between two points, where, you expect to fly under ATC control, and/or you're engaged in commercial p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]enger carrying operations, and/or weather conditions do not meet the minimums for VFR flight. What you'd file would depend on what navigation equipment you have, what your cruising altitude is intended to be, what procedures the origin and destination airports have, and considering what kinds of weather conditions you expect enroute.

 

To make those sorts of things consistent, efficient, and easier on all, FAA, pilots, and ATC have various published routes that use designated airways, navaids and various procedures for departing and arriving at airports (esp. large & busy ones). There are rules pertaining to those things (hence Ernesto's point that you wouldn't use a Victor Airway above FL180, for instance).

 

VFR flightplans are for clear weather flying only. To be sure, you may still be going from point A to B, but you're (mostly) on your own, and you are expected to determine your own route (taking into account any airspace limitations), and keep your flight within certain weather condition minimums the entire way.

 

While there's (some) leeway in those things, typically, if you were on a sightseeing flight, VFR would probably be the way to go. Now, back to your IFR plan -- there's more than one way to go, and the various sites will offer you some ideas -- but you can also make up your own...

 

So, for instance when I punch KBWI and KATL into skyvector.com, here are a couple routes it shows:

 

* TERPZ6 FLASK WINNG1 -- (this is an RNAV preferred route with a SID & STAR)

* CONLE3 - COLIN - J61 - HUBBS - J193 - HCM - ISO - J121 - BARTL - J4 - CAE-TRAYE - SMOOV1 - KATL (here's a much more convoluted RNAV route)

 

* KBWI - CSN - J48 - ODF - ATL - KATL -- (Here's a simple non-RNAV route - without a SID or STAR that I picked out myself)

 

All of those would be high level routes ( FL180 and above -- hence the use of Jet Routes)

Here's one you might use if you were on a low level flight (below FL180) using Victor airways.

 

* KBWI - CSN - V140 - BLF - V519 - VXV - V97 - ATL - KATL

 

In both of the routes without SIDs & STARs, you'd anticipate radar vectors from ATC to cover departure and arrival. So, there's more than one way to choose a route, and you have discretion to pick one that works for your particular flight.

 

Again, keep in mind that with IFR, you'd be expected (as much as practicable) to stay on published airways, using published navaids, intersections, and stick to the filed route (or cleared route, if ATC amends your flight plan).

 

Hope that helps,

Regards,

Jim

 

And then Boeing files this IFR flight plan....

[Kirk Christie]

There are two types of routes you can file for an IFR flight plan.

 

ATS perfered, published city pair routes offered by the ATS provider.

 

User Perfered, a route created by the user, this route may favour winds and other factors like avoiding certian airspace they may also adopt published flex tracks like AUSOTS/NATS/PACOTS

 

Neither is wrong and neither should be denied on VATSIM.

 

There is no requirement to follow airways. Its is perfectly accecptable to file DCT fix to fix. A fix can be a named waypoint or coordinates.

 

Here is todays flex track from Brisbane to Perth

 

UNVAT NIKIL ALIDL POLEV GOMUL ISMOR PINAV 30S125E KG

 

There are no airways.

[Don Smith]

WOW - I am blown away with the response!

Thank you very much for the help and clarification.

Thanks to ALL!

[David Zhong]

ATC are there to facilitate flights. They should not reject a flight plan purely because it is non-standard or conflicts with a major route. If you file something crazy, (provided that ATC can understand what it is - i.e., use of fixes, navaids and routes that are valid) ATC should endeavour to find a way to make it work. Only as a last resort should ATC say "no".

[Andreas Fuchs]

Especially as we rarely get to the levels of real world traffic, we can disregard conflicts with departure and arrival flows or airspaces in most cases.

 

Still, I try to motivate pilots to file more realistic routes. In the US it is pretty easy, you got Skyvector, Flightaware and other free services. In Europe and other parts of the world our customers (pilots!) need to use their flightplanning tools or use resources like VROUTE. If I have a pilot under my control and he has filed something "creative" or just "DEP DCT DEST", then I will make him aware of databases like VROUTE and ask him if he could re-plan and re-file. If yes, perfect. If not, fine, I will let him fly, but ask him to check all the info in the Pilot Resource Center and use a better flightplan route next time. 99% of pilots with "creative routes" understand that this is kind of important to ATC and other members: realism!