Feedback from me is it works pretty darn good, but I’d make the input field length longer for OPR (might not be real to do so, but VSOA might be able to use it for tracking purposes in the future), and add an RTF input field as well somewhere! cheerz
I agree it’s a training issue, 100%. And in my experience, it’s on the mend. But I don’t see why we wouldn’t want the option, as I still phase this issue fairly often, even in NOR/SWE/DEN up there on our high horses.
Additionally, it would be a good tool for UK ops where we don’t generally file flightplans because IRL units only the ACCs have the full flightplan database, other units only have parts relevant to them or nothing at all (also, a flightplan alone does not constitute grounds for alerting service in the UK). “Booking out” by calling the tower or filling in a short online form (reg/callsign, type, dep/dest, POB, email+phone) is the more common option for the UK IRL, and the UK covers a significant number VATSIM members.
I got my PPL almost two years ago in the UK, and I’ve yet to even look at a real flightplan form. I’ve been working ATC here for 5 years, and we do not have access to any FP database, only e-strips for aircraft who’ve filed to/from us. 99% of our VFR traffic does not file.
As you’ve mentioned elsewhere, there are two types of flightplans: The normal one, and “abbreviated flightplan”, ref SERA 4001. The latter is generally in the form of a progress strip with callsign, type, reported route and any other relevant info we might want. On VATSIM this is the one ATC creates on the spot for freecallers. IRL, at least in the UK, it’s very very common for this info to be phoned in, as per above. That is essentially the functionality I want. A little help to a busy controller/unit, so that they don’t have to do all the dirty work but I don’t have to break out my flow chart for the billion things the full form requires.
If we choose to have such a function in the new flightplan system, obviously we need to make it very obvious that this form is for those types of operations only, not for regular airliner ops and IFR in general. Hopefully this would alleviate any fears of daunting pilots or of receiving tons of erroneous flight plans.
Edit: Couple small corrections, used the wrong quote for the second part. Added last paragraph.
1 Like
Additional minor issue with the required DOF: If you disconnect in cruise for longer than the flightplan time out and then reconnect after zulu midnight, refiling will force you to put the “wrong” today’s date, i.e. you’ll be unable to refile the flightplan for your actual departure date and time.
Request: Empty/clear flight plan option.
I’ve just done an IFR flight, and am going to continue on a VFR flight without any ATC which I’m not going to file anything for. I’m flying on the aircraft’s reg, so a new callsign isn’t an option, and so I’ll be flying around the area on a flight plan that is contradicting my intentions. There should be a way to close flight plans.
1 Like
That’s a great idea!
Perhaps something that at some point in the future could also evolve into an option for ATC to close flight plans on their end (and perhaps even open them), similar to IRL.
1 Like
Would it be possible to make a separate field for STS/? Would be nice for VSOAs to make our RMK more clean.
1 Like
Any ETA when this new flight plan form will be declared final? I mean, the beta phase has been going on for a good while now…
Not much longer. I’ve been really busy with other stuff for the past couple months, so development on this slowed down a lot.
I’ve pushed a couple changes to myVATSIM last night, and I have a few more especifically on the new flight plan form before it becomes the default
5 Likes
Many thanks for this information, highly appreciated!
There is probably some universal law which states something like, “if you want a job done, and you want it done really well, ask a really busy person to do it.” So folks like you, who are highly knowledeable, and intelligent too, will be bombarded with requests for action. These requests don’t come with any timescale apart from “immediately,” or in some relaxed cases, “as soon as possible” in the belief that the recipient of all these disparate demands will immediately spring into action and conjure up the perfect solution out of their wizardly hat.
Questions like “when will this be ready” (no disrespect to the member asking that question: it’s an obvious one) seem to indicate the real need for beleaguered wizards like you to produce the final answer. I just wanted to say that I feel your pain and applaud your steadfastness. Vatsim does not have enough members of your calibre. Or maybe Vatsim already does, and has not yet been able, or inclined, to identify tbem. Because surely they exist, given the huge membership.
4 Likes
Nicely written message, to which I take the opportunity, already apologizing for the double posting, to thank the effort of every developer, either inside Vatsim staff or not, to dedicate their time and creativity into creating very useful tools in support of our humble hobby. You all make a huge difference!
2 Likes
I’m not sure how accurate that AeroNav website is with the routes. I checked KJFK-KBOS just for giggles, and it was giving me JFK DCT ORW and JUDDS V167 PVD. Typically, one would fly MERIT ROBUC3 for that one.
It checks against the IFPS at least, so for routes or portions of routes within Europe, it will only show routes that are actually valid (with some caveats - it always checks at 0000z, so it may accept routes that are not fine during the day or vice versa prohibit routes that are only problematic during the night, it always validates using a jet, so prop-specific routes will always be rejected, etc., but for the largest part it does a good enough job). I’m not sure if it checks against other validation services or similar systems, so that’s maybe an area where GRD could be improved to ensure better routes in other parts of the world; on the other hand, just because a route seems nonsensical or isn’t the one typically filed for a given connection doesn’t mean it is wrong or invalid.
Sure, but on a short flight like that one, as far as IFR traffic is concerned, you’d typically have a set route for traffic management. If you check on FlightAware for that particular route, you can check what airlines are operating that route, and the route is the same for all of them.
Not necessarily - here in Europe, you usually have multiple possible options for the routing, even on relatively short flights, the availability of which also heavily depends on the AUP and planned levels (which is great IRL as it allows airlines and other users of the airspace to find the safest and most economic route for each individual flight - on VATSIM however, it can mean that it becomes harder for pilots to find appropriate routings as the RAD is quite complicated to work with, especially if you’re not used to it, hence why GRD is such a good tool for flying here as many popular airport pairs have at least one validated route published there).
Routes within Europe are typically not shown on FlightAware (unless they originated from or flew to an airport outside of Europe; e.g., you will see the route for KATL-EDDS, but you won’t see the route for EGLL-EDDS) as they are not publicly available here. And the same is true for other areas - I just checked a YSSY-YPPH and a SBGL-SUMU flight, e.g., both of which also don’t show the filed route (in general, it seems that if a flight plan is shown on FlightAware, it’s typically a flight within, from, or to the US).
I’ve not checked a European route on the AeroNav website, nor am I familiar with them, so I can’t comment on the accuracy of the routes there. I do wonder if there’s a way to check European routes much like FlightAware.
Yes, I am aware that FlightAware only works for routes that originate from the United States, but my main point was regarding the one specific route I had checked from KJFK to KBOS. If you check that on FlightAware, you get MERIT ROBUC3. If you check the same on that AeroNav website, you get JFK DCT ORW or JUDDS V167 PVD. MERIT ROBUC3 doesn’t come up at all.
Route finding/checking is just too complex a problem for our flight plan filing form to solve IMHO.
We could link to resources for different parts of the world but then somebody would have to keep those up-to date.
I would much rather see the better defined things that can be a hassle, for example a wizard for the equipment codes. autorouter.aero has a nice example:
And please, revive Y- and Z- flightplans 
2 Likes
Something like the picture above would be a godsend.
Hi. When I file my flight plan, whether by using the old form or the new form, my equipment code for my transponder always shows up incorrectly. If I leave it blank on the old form, it shows up as “V” on the network. But if I enter in “L” which is the standard code, it shows up as “I” on the network. It never properly sets it to L. Could someone please help me with this
“L” would be the outdated and not used FAA-format. You will have to use ICAO equipment codes from now on. The easiest way is to open aircraft profiles on Simbrief and have a look at their equipment codes and adapt it for your airplane, as necessary.