1801 Handling Question

[CopyShot]

Here's a question for OSSers/Airfield Management-savvy types:

 

Once an 1801 is filed, does a record copy of that go in "the system" (I'm sure there's a better name for that, but I have no idea what it is)?  In other words, does the FAA and/or ICAO equivalents ever get the full contents of the form, or just the pertinent route/speed/altitude data to generate the strip?

More specifically, if the PIC block is ever filled in as anything other than "On File", does that go outside of military channels?

Edited August 8, 2017 by CopyShot

[ThreeHoler]

No.

They hand type it into the system and there is no block in the FPL for the pilot's name. If you look at a EUROCONTROL ACK message you will see the exact information the dude behind the desk typed in.

Here is a 73 page document to help you learn:

[brabus]

Moot point if you always put "on file." I can't think of a single good reason not to put "on file."

[MTC]

I've heard of ground handlers in Africa looking for "Capt Onfile, where is Capt Onfile?"  for a signature (or cash).  Our guys would just roll with it.  Amazing how many Capt Onfile's there are flying around.

[Majestik Møøse]

Better question: why do we employ people to input a piece of paper into a "system" rather than just doing it ourselves?

[Guest]

Better question: why do we employ people to input a piece of paper into a "system" rather than just doing it ourselves?

Do you really want to take on more queep? I'm glad somebody else deals with filing for me. I had to self file through G2 once and it's a pain in the ass.

[BFM this]

30 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said:

Do you really want to take on more queep? I'm glad somebody else deals with filing for me. I had to self file through G2 once and it's a pain in the ass.

Why deal with the baseops A1C who can't be bothered to open GP Ch4, or his NCOIC boss that makes shit up based on the day of the week.

I'd gladly file with ForeFlight if there was a scrubbed military option.

[Guest]

Why deal with the baseops A1C who can't be bothered to open GP Ch4, or his NCOIC boss that makes shit up based on the day of the week.
I'd gladly file with ForeFlight if there was a scrubbed military option.

I don't. I deal with my flight manager at Scott who takes care of all that shit for me.

[Majestik Møøse]

58 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said:

Do you really want to take on more queep? I'm glad somebody else deals with filing for me. I had to self file through G2 once and it's a pain in the ass.

So tell me exactly how you file a local or non-IFM flight plan? You write it down on a piece of paper - precisely according to GP with nary a letter out of place - and hand it to an airman who translates it into the FAA system. Usually with a few questions. Why the middle man?

[magnetfreezer]

2 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Better question: why do we employ people to input a piece of paper into a "system" rather than just doing it ourselves?

 

1 hour ago, ihtfp06 said:

Do you really want to take on more queep? I'm glad somebody else deals with filing for me. I had to self file through G2 once and it's a pain in the ass.

 

49 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

So tell me exactly how you file a local or non-IFM flight plan? You write it down on a piece of paper - precisely according to GP with nary a letter out of place - and hand it to an airman who translates it into the FAA system. Usually with a few questions. Why the middle man?

Get an account for AISR and put it in directly, it'll go straight to whatever center you put in to the address block and you get an ACK back. That's what A1C Snuffy does when you hand him the piece of paper. Unfortunately some base ops do try to play the middleman, we've had jets get denied taxi clearance by ground or even held short by tower at a TDY base because base ops didn't have a signed paper copy of the flight plan the crew e-filed (never mind they can log into AISR and see everything).

[Guest]

So tell me exactly how you file a local or non-IFM flight plan? You write it down on a piece of paper - precisely according to GP with nary a letter out of place - and hand it to an airman who translates it into the FAA system. Usually with a few questions. Why the middle man?

We were still doing 175s last local I flew. But we could fill out and file an 1801 through G2.

[Majestik Møøse]

8 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:

We were still doing 175s last local I flew. But we could fill out and file an 1801 through G2.

...ok, so you know what I'm talking about then. Why bother with filling out a 175 or 1801 just so an airman can enter it? Why not skip the 175 and enter it yourself? Or just file with Foreflight or DUATS?

I am a fan of using Baseops to file stereo routes though. Which I think is something that the MAF will never figure out.

[SurelySerious]

AISR would be a good way to work it. 

[Homestar]

On 8/9/2017 at 10:12 AM, magnetfreezer said:

 we've had jets get denied taxi clearance by ground or even held short by tower at a TDY base because base ops didn't have a signed paper copy of the flight plan the crew e-filed (never mind they can log into AISR and see everything).

I was always confused why this happens. 

Baseops: "Sir, we need a copy of your flight plan."

Me: "Why? I already filed through ______."

Baseops: "We need it in case of emergency."

Me: "In 10 minutes I'm going to call clearance delivery and they're going to give me a clearance. Because I filed already with _____. Can't you get it from them?"

Baseops: "Um. Yeah. I guess."

[Azimuth]

I saw a Baseops SSgt once tell a pilot that he couldn't file to a point, then refile his flight plan in the air because "that was illegal."

[BFM this]

BaseOps, like so many functions within the Air Force, has become its own rice-bowl economy, run by self-licking ice cream cones.

[dream big]

While we are on the topic, Mobility Guardian just ended (thank god.)  Seattle Center almost shut the entire exercise down because they didn't like how flight plans were being filed.  There were about 60-70 sorties out of TCM a day.  We literally had to turn in those freaking 175s 3 times: once to white cell, once to center, and once as the crews stepped.  We are screwed as a fighting force when 6-7 hours of a 12 hour MPC shift are spent on flight plans.  

[snoopyeast]

One time at everyones favorites flag location, over a billion dollars worth of airplanes with engines running were prevented from taking off because the fax machine at baseops was down. 

Edited August 12, 2017 by snoopyeast

[Majestik Møøse]

Why didn't you all just depart VFR? Surely we're not planning on filing flight plans during nuclear war or a contested airdrop.

[ThreeHoler]

1 hour ago, dream big said:

While we are on the topic, Mobility Guardian just ended (thank god.)  Seattle Center almost shut the entire exercise down because they didn't like how flight plans were being filed.  There were about 60-70 sorties out of TCM a day.  We literally had to turn in those freaking 175s 3 times: once to white cell, once to center, and once as the crews stepped.  We are screwed as a fighting force when 6-7 hours of a 12 hour MPC shift are spent on flight plans.  

This is where long range planners should be working with ATC to figure out a canned route that doesn't cause problems. Probably should have filed 1801s as well if using RNAV or departing the ADIZ.

[snoopyeast]

Tower said no.  

I'm sure there is some AFI that says no war without proper flight plans and CBT completion.

[the g-man]

5 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Why didn't you all just depart VFR? Surely we're not planning on filing flight plans during nuclear war or a contested airdrop.

ATC at KWRI wants a flight plan filed to transit to KNEL, 5 miles away...

[Spinner]

10 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

This is where long range planners should be working with ATC to figure out a canned route that doesn't cause problems. Probably should have filed 1801s as well if using RNAV or departing the ADIZ.

They did. However, the long range planners failed to secure (didn't do one) a LoA with SeaTac, and that reflected 6-9 months later whenever the masses arrived and started doing something different out of KTCM. 

There was one overly obnoxious controller who was trying to violate everyone he could, especially the internationals.

[dream big]

3 hours ago, Spinner said:

They did. However, the long range planners failed to secure (didn't do one) a LoA with SeaTac, and that reflected 6-9 months later whenever the masses arrived and started doing something different out of KTCM. 

There was one overly obnoxious controller who was trying to violate everyone he could, especially the internationals.

Well that wasn't hard, after the Pakistani C-130s violated every airspace in Washington and dropped off DZ and were subsequently restricted to airland missions only :).  

 

[ThreeHoler]

4 hours ago, Spinner said:

They did. However, the long range planners failed to secure (didn't do one) a LoA with SeaTac, and that reflected 6-9 months later whenever the masses arrived and started doing something different out of KTCM. 

There was one overly obnoxious controller who was trying to violate everyone he could, especially the internationals.

That sucks. 

Was the AFREP any help?