Filing "Direct" on IFR flight plans - Domestic vs ICAO forms

[RussR]

As many will know, you're not "supposed" to file Direct on IFR Flight plans that cross ARTCC boundaries. It has been this way for a long time. AIM 5-1-8d has the particulars, but mostly it consists of filing at least one point in each ARTCC area within 200 nm of the center boundary, using degree-distance fixes from existing navigational aids.

So a flight from KAAA to KBBB should not look like "KAAA Direct KBBB". Instead, it should look more like "KAAA ABC100035 DEF290010 GHI180028 KBBB".

This is also probably the most ignored part of the AIM. And for "good" reason, at least from a pilot's perspective - thousands of flight a day just file "Direct", and it works, so why do it differently?

I don't have a good answer for that last question.

Also, especially considering the upcoming adoption of the ICAO flight plan form, it's important to note that the above requirement, AIM 5-1-8, pertains to Domestic flight plan forms - the heading of 5-1-8 is indeed Flight Plan (FAA Form 7233−1) − Domestic IFR Flights. The similar paragraph for ICAO flight plan forms is 5-1-9, International Flight Plan (FAA Form 7233−4) − IFR Flights (For Domestic or International Flights).

However, 5-1-9 does not include any of that language about center boundaries or degree-distance fixes. 5-1-9 b 6 (d)(1) only says that "Consecutive fixes, navaids and waypoints should be separated by the characters “DCT”, meaning direct." Since airports are waypoints, this allows for "KAAA DCT KBBB" and I don't see any language against doing that on the ICAO flight plan form paragraphs.

So from a strict reading of the AIM, if you use the domestic flight plan form you're supposed to add the extra routing information, but if you use the ICAO form, you don't have to.

Since the ICAO form can be used now and will (eventually) become mandatory, I see no reason to teach the domestic form any longer. So there is no reason for me to reference AIM 5-1-8.

Questions:

1) Am I missing something in the paragraphs discussing the ICAO form?
2) Is this an oversight in the AIM or are ICAO flight plans processed differently (even for domestic flights), negating the need for the extra fixes?
3) Why does it matter anyway, if everybody (yes, including me) "gets away with it"?

 

[citizen5000]

AIM states:

• Pilots of aircraft equipped with approved area navigation equipment may file for RNAV routes throughout the National Airspace System and may be filed for in accordance with the following procedures:
  • File airport-to-airport flight plans
  • File the appropriate RNAV capability certification suffix in the flight plan
  • Plan the random route portion of the flight plan to begin and end over appropriate arrival and departure transition fixes or appropriate navigation aids for the altitude stratum within which the flight will be conducted. The use of normal preferred departure and arrival routes (DP/STAR), where established, is recommended
  • File route structure transitions to and from the random route portion of the flight
  • Define the random route by waypoints. File route description waypoints by using degree-distance fixes based on navigational aids which are appropriate for the altitude stratum
  • File a minimum of one route description waypoint for each ARTCC through whose area the random route will be flown. These waypoints must be located within 200 NM of the preceding center’s boundary
  • File an additional route description waypoint for each turn-point in the route
  • Plan additional route description way-points as required to ensure accurate navigation via the filed route of flight. Navigation is the pilot’s responsibility unless ATC assistance is requested
  • Plan the route of flight so as to avoid prohibited and restricted airspace by 3 NM unless permission has been obtained to operate in that airspace and the appropriate ATC facilities are advised

 

[RussR]

Thank you for posting the full text of 5-1-8 for reference.

5-1-8 is for using the domestic flight plan form. 5-1-9 addresses the ICAO flight plan form, even if for domestic use, and does not include similar text.

That difference is one of the focuses of my post. (foci?)

 

[dtuuri]

My take on it is to file to the arrival gate, etc., if it's a domestic flight even if using the international form. My emphasis:

5−1−8. Flight Plan (FAA Form 7233−1)−
Domestic IFR Flights
NOTE−
1. Procedures outlined in this section apply to operators filing FAA Form 7233−1 (Flight Plan) and to flights that will be conducted entirely within U.S. domestic airspace.
​

dtuuri

 

[bradg33]

This is a situation similar to jaywalking. The AIM recommendation regarding RNAV filing is treated by almost everyone, ATC included, like jaywalking. It's routinely ignored by all but the most fastidious pilots, and ATC doesn't care. I don't bother with it, and I don't know anyone who does. For one, how many people are really busting out the charts with center boundaries on them to make the 200-mile boundary determination? Next to zero. As a CFII, IMHO it's worth mentioning the AIM provision to students, but I wouldn't go to any lengths to teach it. I prefer a more practical "this is how it works in the real world" approach, and that doesn't include teaching that kind of stuff.

 

[dtuuri]

This is a situation similar to jaywalking. The AIM recommendation regarding RNAV filing is treated by almost everyone, ATC included, like jaywalking. It's routinely ignored by all but the most fastidious pilots, and ATC doesn't care. I don't bother with it, and I don't know anyone who does. For one, how many people are really busting out the charts with center boundaries on them to make the 200-mile boundary determination? Next to zero. As a CFII, IMHO it's worth mentioning the AIM provision to students, but I wouldn't go to any lengths to teach it. I prefer a more practical "this is how it works in the real world" approach, and that doesn't include teaching that kind of stuff.

Jaywalking? Well, I flew in the real world nearly every day and I always did it. It wasn't hard, I had a wall chart and I "busted out charts" to see the restricted areas, etc. Did ATC care? I dunno, nor did I care. I figured there must be a good reason and I didn't feel like finding out what it was when it could cause me the most trouble when I least expected, so I just did it. I thought everybody did. Btw, I think a Parker pen is 200 nm long on a Hi chart (g-mnt, not Jepp, cause they have airports too).

dtuuri

 

[Clip4]

Usually when I file as recommended by the AIM, a controller asks if I want direct destination. Go figure.

 

[Larry in TN]

Don Brown had a good article which explains why just filing direct is a bad idea. Controllers who don't care, or don't understand the threat, don't change the good underlying reasons for the recommendation.

 

[RussR]

Don Brown had a good article which explains why just filing direct is a bad idea. Controllers who don't care, or don't understand the threat, don't change the good underlying reasons for the recommendation.

I agree. It was a good article (https://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/185690-1.html). However, it was written in 2003, which makes it an eternity ago in terms of GPS use. I would love to see a similar article written more recently, to see if ATC policy/procedures/equipment has changed and whether the AIM requirements are even still valid. (I would propose that they are, de facto, no longer necessary as evidenced by a tiny percentage of pilots actually following them and yet everybody still gets ATC clearances.)

 

[RussR]

Usually when I file as recommended by the AIM, a controller asks if I want direct destination. Go figure.

Similarly, the few times I have tried this (generally a result of filing using an online flight planner that did it automatically), the controller would start to read the clearance, get to the radial/distance parts, stumble over them, then just stop and ask "do you really want to go to these coordinates, or just go direct?" Made me think the whole thing was kind of pointless. I mean, the whole idea as I understand it is to help ATC. If they don't want or need the "help" that filing this way provides, then why do it?

 

[RussR]

My take on it is to file to the arrival gate, etc., if it's a domestic flight even if using the international form. My emphasis:

5−1−8. Flight Plan (FAA Form 7233−1)−
Domestic IFR Flights
NOTE−
1. Procedures outlined in this section apply to operators filing FAA Form 7233−1 (Flight Plan) and to flights that will be conducted entirely within U.S. domestic airspace.
​

dtuuri

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Didn't see it because the paragraph title doesn't lead you to read that paragraph if you're NOT using Form 7233-1.

 

[Larry in TN]

However, it was written in 2003, which makes it an eternity ago in terms of GPS use. I would love to see a similar article written more recently, to see if ATC policy/procedures/equipment has changed and whether the AIM requirements are even still valid. (I would propose that they are, de facto, no longer necessary as evidenced by a tiny percentage of pilots actually following them and yet everybody still gets ATC clearances.)

Do you have any actual evidence that the ATC system has been upgraded so that the issues Don points out are no longer a problem?

 

[flyingron]

In general I've found there are two kinds of airspace around.

Those who where you can go direct to your destination without batting an eye
-and-
Those who have definite ideas where the flib IFRs need to go and route you that way no matter what you file.

 

[RussR]

Do you have any actual evidence that the ATC system has been upgraded so that the issues Don points out are no longer a problem?

I didn't say I did. Which is why I wrote "I would love to see a similar article written more recently, to see if ATC policy/procedures/equipment has changed..."

 

[Palmpilot]

Don Brown had a good article which explains why just filing direct is a bad idea. Controllers who don't care, or don't understand the threat, don't change the good underlying reasons for the recommendation.

What is the "threat"? The one example I saw of a threatening situation discussed in that article was caused by the identifier of a VOR in South America having been entered by mistake. That could have happened even if the AIM recommendations had been followed.

 

[flyingron]

Actually it was an ADF, it it's the crash I think you're talking about.

90% of my IFR flights I'll be lucky if I make it to a center in the east coast megalopolis.

 

[James331]

I use FltPlan and it defaults ICAO, no biggie.

I also almost always file direct.

 

[Palmpilot]

Actually it was an ADF, it it's the crash I think you're talking about.

90% of my IFR flights I'll be lucky if I make it to a center in the east coast megalopolis.

Sounds like you're talking about the Cali, Colombia crash. The incident in Don's article that I was referring to was a case where his work load got real high because he released an IFR departure for which the flight plan mistakenly included ABL, which looks like a VOR-DME to me:

https://skyvector.com/?ll=4.783784702420103,-74.76754187883165&chart=301&zoom=1

 

[Larry in TN]

I didn't say I did. Which is why I wrote "I would love to see a similar article written more recently, to see if ATC policy/procedures/equipment has changed..."

That's why I asked. I'm not aware of any changes in the ATC IT systems that would address the problem but I'm not a controller.

What is the "threat"? The one example I saw of a threatening situation discussed in that article was caused by the identifier of a VOR in South America having been entered by mistake. That could have happened even if the AIM recommendations had been followed.

That's different, and it's still a threat today. Many two, three, and five letter identifiers are assigned to more than one station or waypoint. When we enter such a waypoint into the FMS we get a page listing the duplicate entries with their Lat/Long and have to pick which one we want. Normally, we don't know the Lat/Long of the fix we're entering so we have to go by which one looks more reasonable. None of that has anything to do with filing a route definition waypoint for each ARTTC boundary. The reasons for that were explained in Don's articles.

 

[Palmpilot]

...None of that has anything to do with filing a route definition waypoint for each ARTTC boundary. The reasons for that were explained in Don's articles.

Yes, the reasons were explained, but other than the example I discussed, I didn't see anything that explained how safety would be threatened.

 

[tsts4]

Put me down as another who files direct all the time and generally I get it. Even when I don't get as filed I get cleared direct before reaching the first fix/waypoint. This is flying mainly in the midatlantic and southeast.

 

[flyingron]

Sounds like you're talking about the Cali, Colombia crash. The incident in Don's article that I was referring to was a case where his work load got real high because he released an IFR departure for which the flight plan mistakenly included ABL, which looks like a VOR-DME to me:

https://skyvector.com/?ll=4.783784702420103,-74.76754187883165&chart=301&zoom=1

Cali as what I was thinking about, but the thing awry when he selected the wrong fix in the list while trying to select the Rozo NDB.