Would it be possible to allow VFR to be filed in the altitude item; currently it appears to explicitly require a numeric entry?
It is possible to do so IRL, see here under Item 15 → (B) Cruising Level → e) and can also regularly be seen in real world flight plans.
3 Likes
Yes, I think that this is an important to be fixed. “VFR” is a valid entry for the altitude box.
This concerns me…we’re going to end up with pilots filing old flight plans that dont meet airacs and are then invalid.
Pilots are doing this right now because Simbrief gives them outdated or wrong routes that don’t make sense. When asked, they always blame Simbrief for the weird routes. They don’t question and take them anyway because Simbrief is regarded as some sort of authority. But all Simbrief is doing is suggesting the routes other pilots have filed before. Even without Simbrief, some wilder routes are being filed, i.e. to the FAP of the ILS as the last point in a series of DCTs through arrival procedures where most points are missing.
I would love to see some simple and light route validation or the possibility to add and maybe enforce preferred routes for select city pairs.
Enforced routes for citypairs is somethings that should be possible in Simbrief, but I haven’t found a way to add them.
I second this. Some suggestions that would obviously primarily or solely apply to IFR flight plans:
- mandatory first/last waypoints depending on origin/destination (e.g. only the SID endpoints); would obviously need to be able to correctly distinguish between a filed SID/STAR and the actual first waypoint where applicable
- in that sense also a check if a SID/STAR has been filed where it is required and, though a lot more advanced, maybe even a check if the filed SID/STAR or at least the respective end/start points restrictions are met by the filed route/destination/aircraft type/etc.
- comparison of filed aircraft type with various parameters of the airport (e.g. maximum wingspan) to give pilots a warning if their aircraft type is inappropriate for their origin and/or destination
- maybe some general checks to make sure the filed values are correct (e.g. check the aircraft type against the ICAO type code database) and prompt the pilot to check fields where there might be an error
And, directly relating to Franz’ suggestion: might it be possible to hook the flight plan form system up to AeroNav’s Global Route Database? Particularly for the more popular routes, there’s usually a validated route in there (at least in Europe) and it would allow anyone to put up a validated route, thus removing the need for vACC staff to actively maintain some sort of VATSIM-internal database. GRD even has level bands for their routes that could also be considered by the system.
If a pilot then files a different route than those on GRD - if it has something for that airport pair - they could be prompted to check their route against those validated ones and if necessary change it; likewise, if a pilot has filed a validated route but outside of its level band, pilots could be prompted to recheck their planned level.
For events and such, vACC staff could then still be given some direct access to put up a mandatory route to be enforced by the system.
There is a pinned message somewhere in the ECFMP Discord about how to get the necessary permissions and how to then set up validated routes. It will not enforce them, though, just display them at the top of the suggested ones (which is of course good enough 99% of the time), so pilots who go through all the options to select the shortest one or something like that would still be on an incorrect route.
Tell me something I dont know…but lets not give pilots ANOTHER facility to file incorrect flight plans.
Requests:
- Make a “refile last” button for easy reconnection after a longer AFK period.
- Make a shortened VFR form, only requiring the most basic information (Callsign, type, dep or dest).
- Remove date of flight. What does it bring that the timestamp of filing doesn’t? Filing days in advance cannot conceivably be something we need and it’s not operationally helpful to controllers. Added clutter for no reason, unless it will serve some important function in the background now or in the future.
As an added curiosity, is it expected that all the PBN and other admin stuff will be separated from the controller side’s remark box at some point in the future? Because both myself, peers, and students these days all miss significant pilot remarks all the time.
I disagree. In places/situations where a flight plan is required for VFR flights, they need to have the same information as an IFR flight plan; and where it’s not required to file a flight plan under VFR, you can simply not file one and then won’t have to bother with the entire form.
Apart from the fact that DOF is a required item in any flight plan, the VATSIM form automatically sets it to the current date, so you normally don’t have to deal with that anyway. Additionally, the new form allows to save flight plans for the future (and who knows, maybe at some point down the road it might actually be possible to also file them way ahead of time) - e.g., today I could set up a flight plan for a flight that I am planning to fly tomorrow.
A lot of controllers, especially new / low rating ones who are on Euroscope, struggle to create abbreviated flightplans. A lot of the time when I fly under these controllers, their only trick is to say “file a FP” and not clear you for anything without it. It’s a widely found VATSIMism, because obviously IRL controllers know how to manage unplanned traffic, and having a “quick form” will be a decent compromise.
Sure, which makes sense IRL where operators can file plans days ahead. It does not, currently, make any sense at all when the system deletes the plan after a fairly short period of no connection. Like we both mentioned, if it has a future use, then I can see why we have it, otherwise it’s just a mimic with no function which fills up the remark box and makes other more relevant remarks easier to overlook.
There is a use to it. And other things might be changing at different levels, so DOF might prove useful, who knows
The Abbreviated flight plan situation is mainly a training issue, not an issue of the FPL form, in Sweden this is not at all an issue at all, as new controllers are educated on how to create an APL via TopSky or in Euroscopes own flight plan window.
For VFR flight plans maybe the irellevant fields (those only relevant for IFR) could be greyed out in the form in order to make it less daunting.
Like Max says: this is a training issue. A vACC has to make sure that their controllers know things like that before letting them control without supervision. If a controller doesn’t know how to create an abbreviated flight plan within their ATC software (or is maybe even just too lazy), write feedback to the vACC because this is something they need to fix asap; changing the flight plan form to accommodate lack of controller knowledge is treating symptoms, not the cause.
Hmm, which fields would those be? At least here in Germany, VFR flight plans require the same information as IFR flight plans and all items that are optional or only required under certain conditions in IFR flight plans are optional or only required under those same conditions for VFR flight plans. Greying out these items optional or conditionally required items would only prevent pilots who want to include more information from doing so while not greying them out will not make it any more daunting than filing an IFR flight plan.
The only field not required IRL (for both IFR and VFR) that is currently required in the VATSIM form is Endurance, but if I recall the conversation on that correctly, Marcelo was already planning on removing the requirement to fill out this field.
Such as PBN, RVR. Maybe there aren’t that many.
It was just a thought as an alternative to shorten the form 
I mean, PBN you still need to file in item 18 if you file R in item 10a, even if you’re VFR, and RVR would be rather useless for VFR flight plans but technically you could still file that. The only thing that may be daunting is the equipment code, but many popular GA types have aircraft profiles on SimBrief and hopefully at some point in the future we will be able to save aircraft profiles directly within myVATSIM just like is possible with many real world applications used to create and file flight plans. And fortunately, most aircraft commonly flown under VFR don’t have incredibly complex equipment codes in any case, so it shouldn’t be too hard to quickly figure out a reasonably accurate one.
And in that regard I think it’s also important to keep in mind that Z flight plans still need to be filed as VFR on VATSIM until Y and Z become actual, separate options in the form.
1 Like
Some kind of help to have pilots actually file correct equipment codes (and PBN etc) would be nice, if not already suggested.
Something similar to this but for ICAO format!