GUIDE TO AVOID ERRORS IN FPLs AND ASSOCIATED ATS MESSAGES

1. EFFECTIVE FILING OF FPLs

1.1 An effective and homogeneous air traffic flow through FIR boundaries is achieved, in part, by
securing the flight plans, and transmitting, processing, and transferring the associated messages between
FIRs in a homogeneous, efficient, and consistent manner.

1.2 The methods and procedures used for filing and/or originating flight plans have a residual
effect on the quality of the air traffic services provided. The introduction of duplicated or multiple flight
plans, or of flight plans containing erroneous information has a direct impact on flight safety and efficiency
within the global airspace system.

1.3 The sources of flight plan errors that have been identified include:

 Lack of quality and consistency in the filing of flight plans

 Inappropriate management in the use of repetitive flight plans (RPLs)
 Utilization of converters to comply with the ICAO 2012 flight plan format due to non-
permanent conversion process availability
 Manual entry and processing of FPLs and associated messages

2. DIRECT DELIVERY OF FLIGHT PLAN MESSAGES

2.1. In order to reduce the risk of manual errors, the ANSP, pursuant to Doc 4444, paragraph
11.2.1.1.1, can implement local arrangements to delegate to the operators the responsibility for direct
transmission of movement messages via the Aeronautical fixed telecommunication network (AFTN) or the
air traffic service message handling system (ATS AMHS). Movement messages include FPLs,
modification (CHG), delay (DLA), and cancellation of the flight plan.

2.2. If ANSPs have delegated to the airlines the responsibility of originating flight plan messages,
then, in accordance with Doc 4444 Appendix 2, page A2-3, part 2.1, airlines will have the responsibility of
correctly transmitting the initial FPL, as well as the associated messages to all the ATS units involved, in
accordance with Doc 4444, 11.2.1.1.3.

2.3. Before delegating the responsibility for direct filing of flight plan messages, ANSPs must
consider conducting a test with new operators, using a central AFTN/AMHS address to receive the
messages for an initial manual validation.

2.4. The ANSPs must also specify in local arrangements or in the AIP the deadlines for completing
the delivery of movement messages (DLA and CHG) for individual flights, for example, using a time
parameter before the estimated off-block time (EOBT).

2.5. It is better to use a CNL and file the FPL again as an alternative to the delivery of multiple
modification messages concerning the same FPL or several modifications within the same message.
 ‐2‐

3. SIMILAR AND MULTIPLE FLIGHT PLAN ERRORS

Similar errors

3.1 Inadequate completion procedures, sending the modified plan to the originator instead of using
CHG or DLA, generate similar flight plans for the same flight. This creates confusion among the different
ATS units, which will have to select the flight plan (not necessarily the last one considered valid by the
airline) to update it with the surveillance information and/or in flight transfer processes.

Multiple errors

3.2 Multiple FPLs are a cause of error when there are 2 different originators of the FPL (whether
airlines or ANSPs).

3.3 In order to avoid multiple FPLs in the AFTN/AMHS, airlines will only originate and transmit
the FPL if the ANSP has delegated this responsibility in accordance with chapter 2 of this guide.

4. DELAY MESSAGES (DLA)

4.1. The originator will only consider sending the DLA message if the flight is expected to be
delayed by more than 30 minutes after the EOBT contained in the previous FPL (refer to Doc 4444,
11.4.2.2.3).

4.2. If the originator does not send a DLA message 30 minutes after the EOBT specified in the
FPL, then the FPL will be automatically cancelled.

5. MODIFICTION MESSAGES (CHG)

5.1. If the originator is an airline and needs to send a CHG in less time than that specified in item
2.3 of this guide, then it shall first contact the TWR or the designated ATS unit that will coordinate the
proposed changes with the TWR involved.

5.2. Modifications concerning aircraft type and wake turbulence category, cruising speed and/or
level shall be notified for each individual flight as soon as possible and no later than 30 minutes after take-
off to:

a) the air traffic services reporting office of the departure aerodrome, and

b) only if the responsibility for originating the FPL has been delegated as mentioned in
paragraph 2.1, the originator of the FPL shall also send the CHG message to the other
ATS units considered in the initial FPL.

5.3. If the originator of the FPL wishes to modify the ATS route or the flight level en route, then
the CHG message shall contain the whole portion of the route and the different FLs.

5.4. CHG messages shall include a completed field 15, containing the information of the FPL that
changes to avoid an incorrect modification.

5.5. If the CHG message has a new ATS route with FIRs that were not considered in the original
FPL, then the FPL shall be cancelled with a CNL message and a new FPL sent.
 ‐3‐

6. AFTN ADDRESSES

6.1 In order to reduce FPL filing discrepancies resulting from incorrect addressing of aeronautical
messages, ANSPs must list their AFTN addressing requirements in their aeronautical information
publication (AIP). Guidance on the addressing of AFTN messages can also be found in ICAO Annex 10,
Volume II, chapter 4, in ICAO Docs 7910 and 8585, and in ICAO regional AFTN routing directories.

7. CENTRAL FLIGHT PLAN PROCESSING UNIT

7.1 ANSPs with multiple ATS centres may consider the installation of a central flight-planning
unit for the processing and initial distribution of FPLs. An example of central flight planning is provided
in the specifications of the Initial Flight Plan of EUROCONTROL.

7.2 Studies conducted by EUROCONTROL and the European Commission determined that
inconsistencies in flight data content in hands of different parties for the processing of the same flight
have a negative impact on the efficiency of operations within the European air traffic management system.

7.3 According to the EUROCONTROL website (see the References section), the IFPL
specification defines the procedures and requirements for the provision, processing, and distribution of
flight plans in the pre-flight phase. Improved consistency in flight plan data has enabled more
homogeneous operations, enhanced safety, and has also permitted the definition of the new operational
concepts for air traffic flow management (AFTM).

8. PROCEDURES FOR MITIGATING ERRORS

8.1 Appropriate procedures are required for resolving issues derived from messages that are not
received. Part of the solution involves ensuring that duplicated or erroneous messages are not fed into the
system. For example, if a movement message is received for an unknown FPL, the receiving unit must use
the flight plan request message (RQP) to request the FPL from the sending unit instead of creating its own
FPL.

8.2 Where the ANSPs provide the possibility of filing FPLs through the Internet, a validation
process should be established to prevent the introduction of wrong data from movement messages. NAV
CANADA is an example of web-based flight plan filing, using its Collaborative Flight Planning System
(CFPA). The application permits direct filing of the flight plan by pilots and/or flight plan filing agencies,
and is in full compliance with Flight Plan 2012, verifying errors in full as required by FPL filers in order
to correct discrepancies before the flight plan is accepted for processing.

9. REVISION OF STATE REGULATIONS

9.1 The ANSPs are encouraged to cooperate with State regulators in the revision and alignment of
existing regulations with emerging technologies. In those cases in which State regulations require that the
FPL be delivered personally, together with the electronic FPL, the modification of such regulations may
reduce man-induced discrepancies in the filing process.

9.2 If after a revision, State regulations still require operators to personally deliver the filed flight
plans, the ANSPs must introduce appropriate quality control measures to reduce the possibility of disparity
between electronic and personally delivered FLPs.
 ‐4‐

10. REPETITIVE FLIGHT PLANS (RPLs)

10.1 The use of the RPL is known to be an important contributor to duplicated flight plans and may
result in the provision of less-than-optimal services and erroneous separation by the ANSP.

10.2 The flight plan information contained in the RPL may differ from the actual details
considered by the operator for a given day, for example, the type of aircraft to be flown. This type of
changes may have an impact on the services provided and on the integrity of the separation or wake
turbulence standards applied.

10.3 Consequently, the direct filing of flight plan messages through the AFTN/AMHS must be the
method of choice of the operators for filing the flight plan.

11. ALTERNATE AERODROMES

11.1 Some automated ground systems will reject flight plans that do not contain an alternate
aerodrome as destination, even if an alternate does not need to be filed for the specific destination.
Consequently, some operators file alternate aerodromes where an alternate is not required in order to avoid
the rejection of the flight plan, which results in a financial burden, since additional and unnecessary fuel
must be carried on board.

11.2 ICAO Annex 6, Operation of aircraft, Part 2 establishes exceptions to the requirement of
filing an alternate aerodrome. The ANSP should make sure that the alternate field is not a mandatory field
for automated flight plan processing, especially for flights in transit to a destination in another FIR.

12. DESIGNATION OF DEPARTURE/ARRIVAL PROCEDURES

12.1 The ANSPs should make sure that the name of any published standard instrument departure
(SID) or standard instrument arrival (STAR) procedure filed in the flight plan meets the designation
requirements of ICAO Annex 11, Air Traffic Services, Appendix 3, in order to reduce the number of rejected
flight plans.

12.2 The ANSPs should make sure that ATM systems are capable of duly processing filed flight plans
that include SIDs and STARs as part of the route.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY FLIGHT PLAN INFORMATION (FPL ITEM 19)

13.1. Supplementary flight plan information should not be considered for transmission for each FPL.

13.2. If, for SAR reasons, this information is required by any ANSP (in accordance with Annex 11,
part 5.2.2.1), the sequence for acquiring the information would be as follows:

a) via VHF, requested from the flight crew, if the event is considered by ATC as an
appropriate action; or
b) by telephone, contacting the designated 24/7 flight operation/dispatch unit of the airline
(specified in the FLP delegation agreement); or
c) via the AFTN/AMHS, from the designated 24/7 flight operation/dispatch unit of the
airline (specified in the FLP delegation agreement)
 ‐5‐

14. CONVERSIONS OF THE ICAO FPL 2012 FORMAT

14.1 During the transition to the ICAO FPL 2012 format, some ANSPs used converters to convert
the existing flight plans to the new format.

14.2 The following issues were associated to the continuous use of converters:

a) The benefits of Amendment 1 are not fully realised; especially, it reduces separation
standards associated to performance-based navigation (PBN), and the provision of ADS-B
services;

b) Interoperability in the delivery of AIDC messages would be restricted when using the
converter solution.

14.3 Other known issues related to the ICAO FPL 2012 include:

a) The RVR/ indicator in FPL Item 18. This indicator must be either accepted without
processing, or eliminated without rejection by ATM systems;

b) FPL rejects occur when RMK/unexpected information is entered in Item 18.

14.4 In order to reduce the origin of erroneous messages and maximise the benefits of the new
flight plan format, the ANSPs must fully comply with the provisions of ICAO FPL 2012 concerning
automation and support systems.

15. FEEDBACK TO THE OPERATOR

15.1 The ANSPs shall consider establishing a reporting mechanism to provide constant feedback to
the operators as to the number and causes of rejects and flight plan errors.

15.2 Furthermore, the ANSPs must consider holding periodic user/operator forums to discuss
recurrent discrepancies.

16. REFERENCES

 ICAO Annex 6, Operation of aircraft, Part 2 (paragraph 2.2.2.3.5)

 ICAO Annex 10, Aeronautical telecommunications, Volume II, Chapter 4

 ICAO Annex 11, Air traffic services, Chapter 2, Appendix 3 and Appendix 4

 ICAO location indicators (Doc 7910)

 Designators for aircraft operating agencies (Doc 8585)

 ICAO AFTN routing guide, Asia/Pacific Regions, 27th Edition, August 2007

 ICAO PANS ATM (Doc 4444) (paragraph 11.2.1.1.1)

 ‐6‐

EUROCONTROL IFPL specification:

 https://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/initial-flight-plan-ifpl-specification
 http://www.acac.org.ma/ar/Workshop%20Presentation/IFPS%20in%20Flight%20PlanningV4.pdf

17. List of acronyms

Abbreviations

ACI Airports Council International

ADS Automatic dependent surveillance
ADS-B Automatic dependent surveillance – Broadcast
ADS-C Automatic dependent surveillance – Contract
AFTN Aeronautical fixed telecommunication network
AIDC ATS interfacility data communication
AIP Aeronautical information publication
ANSP Air navigation service provider
AMHS Air traffic services (ATS) message handling system
APAC Asia/Pacific
APANPIRG Asia/Pacific air navigation planning and implementation regional group
ASBU Aviation system block upgrades
ASIOACG Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean ATS coordination group
ATFM Air traffic flow management
ATM Air traffic management
ATS Air traffic service(s)
AUSEP Australian air navigation operations
CHG Modification
CNL Flight plan cancellation message
CPDLC Controller-pilot data link communications
CPL Current flight plan
DARP Dynamic air route planning
DLA Delay message
EOBT Estimated off-block time
FAA Unites States Federal Aviation Administration
FIR Flight information region
FIRBX FIR boundary crossing
FPL Filed flight plan
GANP Global air navigation plan
IATA International Air Transport Association
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IFPL Specification for the initial flight plan (EUROCONTROL)
ISPACG Informal South Pacific Air Traffic Services Co-ordinating Group
LOA Letter of agreement
RPL Repetitive flight plan
RQP Request flight plan
SID Standard instrument departure
SMS Safety management system
STAR Standard instrument arrival
UPR User preferred route

———————————