How are People Filing IFR Flight Plans?

[lostaviator]

Just don't turn my transponder on. They don't even know I'm there.







But phone... In the time it takes to sign in online, etc, I could have already talked to someone at FIC, and been on my way to get a coffee. Plus it's nice to support fellow staff in aviation in an era of jobs going to computers

[Prodriver]

The eApis part of Fltplan as stated earlier is the best part and worth every penny. The only issue I have had is accidently inputting Zulu time instead of Local. I wish they would allow you to select your preference.

[co-joe]

I really like CFPS, but there is one dumb thing. The master flight plan list I made of 10 or so flights I often fly populates Navcanada's computer with 10 master flight plans. Multiply that by the half dozen pilots at out company using it and when someone phones in a flight plan the FIC or ACC has to sort through 25 "masters" to figure out which one is accurate.

I liked having a catalogue of flight plans available so all I had to do was change the ETD, and number of pax. I deleted all but 2 of my plans after Navcan complained, now I have to change a dozen fields and already I've made a few dumb mistakes, which is a combination of medevac rush rush, and trying to look at the ICAO form on a cell phone screen.

I found this out too by doing the same thing (VFR not IFR). Even the previous owner's master flight plan is still showing up in the system.

Once (and only once) I filed a VFR online through CFPS, and when I went to close by phone it was not in their system. All other times it has worked, but it was a bit unnerving.

This brings up a good point. When I file VFR through CFPS it goes straight to the FIC and the ACC cant close flight plans for me, but when I file IFR through CFPS it only goes to the ACC. The odd time I've needed to get FSS to make changes while enroute, they don't have access to my flight plan and have to phone the ACC to make changes.

Having two separate departments that don't seem to have access to eachother's computers seems bureaucratic in nature.

[Prodriver]

Just don't turn my transponder on. They don't even know I'm there.







But phone... In the time it takes to sign in online, etc, I could have already talked to someone at FIC, and been on my way to get a coffee. Plus it's nice to support fellow staff in aviation in an era of jobs going to computers

I had a acquaintance doing that in a high performance bird at around 12-14000 feet, because he didn't want to deal with Nav Can, think about that next time you drop thru 12500 in IMC, I do! I corrected the behavior.

[Jonathan]

I really like CFPS, but there is one dumb thing. The master flight plan list I made of 10 or so flights I often fly populates Navcanada's computer with 10 master flight plans. Multiply that by the half dozen pilots at out company using it and when someone phones in a flight plan the FIC or ACC has to sort through 25 "masters" to figure out which one is accurate.

I liked having a catalogue of flight plans available so all I had to do was change the ETD, and number of pax. I deleted all but 2 of my plans after Navcan complained, now I have to change a dozen fields and already I've made a few dumb mistakes, which is a combination of medevac rush rush, and trying to look at the ICAO form on a cell phone screen.

This brings up a good point. When I file VFR through CFPS it goes straight to the FIC and the ACC cant close flight plans for me, but when I file IFR through CFPS it only goes to the ACC. The odd time I've needed to get FSS to make changes while enroute, they don't have access to my flight plan and have to phone the ACC to make changes.

Having two separate departments that don't seem to have access to eachother's computers seems bureaucratic in nature.

Problem with master flight plans in CFPS is that many pilots think it's like a "saved list" and multiple copies of flight plans are saved that way. Sometimes, master plans for the same aircraft contain different data (example: equipment, colors, etc). That forces us to confirm all the information on the phone when using a master, which almost takes as much time as starting a FP from scratch. IMO, master plans should be created and updated by the owner only, while leaving the possibility to the different pilots to save different flight plans, but locally only.

As for VFR flight plans forwarded to the FIC and the IFR ones to the ACC, it's for the purpose of alerting service. All the data is then sent to CAATS and the FIC can see all the IFR flight plans, but just some limited data in forms of flight strips (at least here in QB). Normally, ACC should be able to close your VFR flight plan though, as we are able to close IFR flight plans. However, I agree that there is still a lot of work to be done for better systems integration.

I hope one of the NavCan FIC guys/gals can jump in here and share their $0.02... But when I last spoke to one of the briefers at the FIC in Kamloops, he said that they hated the flight plans that came from Foreflight and other flight planning software because the flight plans didn't mesh well with their systems and they had to manually edit/correct each flight plan that came their way. He mentioned having to call back the odd person to confirm certain parts of the flight plan because of this issue.

This has been dramatically improved since the beginning, There has been some work to correct many problems. Still not perfect, but much better now. CFPS is still the preferred way. However, flight plans filed using any online tool sometimes contain errors caused by the lack of knowledge from the user.

[co-joe]

Problem with master flight plans in CFPS is that many pilots think it's like a "saved list" and multiple copies of flight plans are saved that way. Sometimes, master plans for the same aircraft contain different data (example: equipment, colors, etc). That forces us to confirm all the information on the phone when using a master, which almost takes as much time as starting a FP from scratch. IMO, master plans should be created and updated by the owner only, while leaving the possibility to the different pilots to save different flight plans, but locally only.

As for VFR flight plans forwarded to the FIC and the IFR ones to the ACC, it's for the purpose of alerting service. All the data is then sent to CAATS and the FIC can see all the IFR flight plans, but just some limited data in forms of flight strips (at least here in QB). Normally, ACC should be able to close your VFR flight plan though, as we are able to close IFR flight plans. However, I agree that there is still a lot of work to be done for better systems integration.

The master flight plan isssue became just too much of a problem here so the CP decided that "All pilots shall use fltplan.com hence forth". It's really too bad that Navcan's cyber peeps can't just allow users to create their own flight plan data base separate from the "master" flight plan.

Better yet, create a flight plan form with the master fields already populated like colour and markings, emergency contact etc...

Allowing pilots to file a flight plan inside the ACC computer was amazing. One day at YEG I plumb forgot to file a flight plan home. Ground/clearance (why bother even having 2 frequencies if EIA won't pay for 2 people) said he didn't have a strip on us, so out comes my phone, 10 seconds later I hit "File" and by the time I have my phone back in my pocket ground/clearance says hey the strip just popped up here's your clearance. magic.

Fltplan.com has glitches from what I've heard, as does the Ipad. CFPS was perfect.

[Posthumane]

Is flight "flight template" option in CFPS the same as a master flight plan? When I log in I only have two options - file a flight plan or create a flight template (that can later be copied, filed, or edited). I didn't see any option there for a master flight plan, and didn't think the flight templates could be seen by anyone other than myself.

[photofly]

The templates on CFPS are visible to FIC staff when you file by phone, and you can ask them to be used; there was also an option to mail a paper master flight plan to NavCanada (I recall it needed an inordinate number of signatures and waivers) but I think that has been subsumed in to CFPS.

[ragbagflyer]

Foreflight all the way. If your aircraft profiles are set up properly in foreflight it had all your equipment codes. Put in departure and destination, pick a suggested route, make adjustments for mandatory routing and it creates a navlog based on the manufactures performance specifications. Proceed to "file" and all the data from the routing, navlog, and aircraft profile are auto-filled into the flight plan. You can plan and file a flight anywhere on the continent in minutes. Too easy. Plus it'll often kick back "expected route received" notifications which are handy in places where the actual clearance received is long and convoluted (vor intersection to vor insersecton etc) so that you can send that route right back to the map screen with one tap.