PDA

View Full Version : Filing IFR for flight outside of controlled airspace?


Contacttower
16th Sep 2008, 22:56
I did my FAA IR during the summer and now back in the UK I know I can file airways on N reg but I'm slightly confused about the whole business about IFR outside of controlled airspace.

Say I file a route that crosses mostly class G and through some class D zones but not in class A at all how will the file plan be treated?

Will it be as if I've filed VFR in the sense that ATC units along the way probably will not have any knowledge of my existence or will the units at say the zones that I wish to transit know I'm coming?

Is there actually any difference between filing IFR or VFR when outside controlled airspace and if not is there any point in filing at all (above the advantages of filing a normal VFR flight plan)?

Those are just a few questions that I have in my head at the moment but I'd appreciate any general advice on the subject of IFR outside CAS and perhaps people's views on whether or not it's a safe and viable way to operate an aircraft.

S-Works
17th Sep 2008, 07:33
It is treat the same as a VFR flight plan basically. So the start and the end get a copy and nothing else. You are on your own for negotiating crossing.

Generally when I fly this way I will plan the route so that I have at least one section in CAS so the plan is entered into CFMU. I find doing this means I get hand offs into and out of the airways system and experience has shown that if you have been in the airways even for a fairly short way then things go smoothly.

Although to be fair I try to do all of my flying in the airways even short trips especially passing around London. You can't bust airspace when you are under positive control!!!!

The only place a really struggle to fly airways to is the south west as it is just a barren hole but I will often fly WCO R41 SAM and then R8 DAWLEY before leaving the airways. Pretty much everywhere else in the UK you can get to on the airways and at TAS gain speeds what looks like a diversion from a direct route is often a few minutes at most and worth every second for full RADAR and separation and most importantly the ability to claim over the weather rather than fly in the soup.

Fuji Abound
17th Sep 2008, 08:09
people's views on whether or not it's a safe and viable way to operate an aircraft.

Clearly outside CAS you may not be able to receive a radar service, and even if you can, there may be aircraft the radar cannot see - gliders.

Some will tell you that the evidence suggests from the point of view of collision with other traffic it is safer to fly IFR (IMC) outside of CAS than VFR, because the historical record is significantly skewed in favour of IFR. However statistics do not tell the whole story. There are far fewer aircraft operating IFR IMC outside CAS so you would expect the number of collisions to be fewer in the first place. Taking this into account, I have idea whether the risk is greater or less, but the evidence would suggest the risk of any mid air is very small.

For those who would rather not deal in statistics it is worth remembering that there are some aircraft who are not going to be following the rules of the road in IMC. As discussed recently gliders may be in IMC at any height / level and not transponding. There may be other aircraft not transponding as there is no legal requirment to carry a transponder outside CAS. This means that you can neither rely on TAS or flying at the correct height for your heading to avoid other traffic. Moreover there is traffic below the transition level who are probably flying at whatever height they like.

In terms of other risk there is of course clear evidence that single crew IMC ops is a great deal more risky that flying in VMC. The risk is almost certainly proportional to the pilot's level of skill and currency and perhaps also in part to whether or not he has a reliable auto pilot.

mm_flynn
17th Sep 2008, 09:04
The world of IFR in the US vs. UK has a number of key differences. If you are not already a member it is def worth joining PPLIR for a ton of useful advice and information.

Although someone will tell me the following isn't true, I find it a helpful way of thinking about planning in the UK. Think of three different sets of flight rules, VFR, IFR OCAS, Airways and the following differences

VFR - as it says on the tin
IFR OCAS, you plan and fly with a VFR chart, terrain clearance, routing, NAVaid suitability, airspace clearances all your responsibility to check, understand and obtain (in this case you are never cleared to your destination as compared to the takeoff clearance you get in the US). Separation/radar service may or may not be available depending on where you are flying, who is open and their workload.
Airways - works like IFR everywhere else. You plan and fly with IFR charts, you must have a flight plan that passes CFMU validation and (in my experience) it needs to touch en-route controlled airspace (i.e. an airway). All required clearances are implicit in the process and you will get a separation service (and generally a default RAS when you drop back out of controlled airspace near your destination). However, occasionally you can suddenly be pushed out of the system and moved into type 2 with a cheery 'descend to 4000 feet out of controlled airspace, squawk 7000 free call on route'! At which point the whole job of navigating, terrain separation, airspace clearances drops back to you.

Contacttower
17th Sep 2008, 13:40
Thanks guys....helpful answers as always. :)

Fuji Abound
17th Sep 2008, 14:36
As always so nice to see someone giving thanks for the comments here.

Pace
17th Sep 2008, 15:25
Depending on what sort of machine you are flying also consider using London Military out of CAS. You need to be at or above FL100 for their service but I have found them to be equal to airways controllers and they do look after you well.

Going west to East or visa versa there are a network of military corridors you can use depending on your altitude capability.

I am not sure what you are flying whether its a mild single or more complex and capable single/twin.

Out side of CAS it is usually again the good old military who give RAS and you do not need to file IFR only to fly IFR rules and levels.

As another poster stated even airways into smaller fields you are often dropped out and left on your own for the descent and landing

Pace

easy307
17th Sep 2008, 16:36
Bose x - just out of interest, what FL are you usually at when flying between SAM and DAWLY on R8 ?

S-Works
17th Sep 2008, 17:04
Depends on what I am in. If I am in the Mirage then around FL250.

If in the Cessna I am usually around FL140 which actually drops me out of the airway en-route GIBSO but that is far enough along for me to get handed to The Mil who will then hand me to either Exeter if I am going there or St Mawgan if going to Newquay.

Contacttower
17th Sep 2008, 17:08
I am not sure what you are flying whether its a mild single or more complex and capable single/twin.

It varies - but usually I won't be flying much higher than FL080 so unfortunately the useful London Military service is just out of reach.

easy307
17th Sep 2008, 17:20
Thanks Bose, alas I can see R8 is too high for my plane west of SAM.

tdbristol
17th Sep 2008, 20:15
I have an IMC rating and file IFR quite often, even OCAS and VMC.

The reason is that (assuming there is radar coverage) I find that giving "IFR" as flight rules instead of "VFR" gets me RAS or in most cases at least RIS when all the VFR aircraft around are getting FIS.
May not help a lot in avoidance, but having a RIS/RAS seems to me that I am likely to get a bit better attention on the screen than the FIS folks (and does seem to work this way, comparing when I have a FIS with RIS/RAS).

S-Works
17th Sep 2008, 20:54
File IFR for RIS/RAS
I have an IMC rating and file IFR quite often, even OCAS and VMC.

The reason is that (assuming there is radar coverage) I find that giving "IFR" as flight rules instead of "VFR" gets me RAS or in most cases at least RIS when all the VFR aircraft around are getting FIS.
May not help a lot in avoidance, but having a RIS/RAS seems to me that I am likely to get a bit better attention on the screen than the FIS folks (and does seem to work this way, comparing when I have a FIS with RIS/RAS).

Ah yes, I can see how occupying a controllers time with an unneeded IFR clearance when the conditions are VMC would be good airmanship.....

tdbristol
17th Sep 2008, 21:14
What a facile remark. I could of course ask for FIS then 3 minutes later "I'll be IMC in a minute, could I have a RIS" then "back out of cloud now, OK with FIS".. yes that sounds a really good idea to keep asking the controller like that.
The services are there to be used; if I happen not to be in IMC for some of the time that is my good luck.

S-Works
17th Sep 2008, 21:21
Really helpful
What a facile remark. I could of course ask for FIS then 3 minutes later "I'll be IMC in a minute, could I have a RIS" then "back out of cloud now, OK with FIS".. yes that sounds a really good idea to keep asking the controller like that.
The services are there to be used; if I happen not to be in IMC for some of the time that is my good luck.

Feel free to cover up for:

The reason is that (assuming there is radar coverage) I find that giving "IFR" as flight rules instead of "VFR" gets me RAS or in most cases at least RIS when all the VFR aircraft around are getting FIS.

Or:

May not help a lot in avoidance, but having a RIS/RAS seems to me that I am likely to get a bit better attention on the screen than the FIS folks (and does seem to work this way, comparing when I have a FIS with RIS/RAS)

Facile? Really?

There is no excuse for asking for a RIS/RAS when flying VFR as you are just stretching a controller and most likely denying others a service as you become a priority.

When genuinely IFR in IMC then fair enough. You are either VFR which one would assume the conditions are as everyone around you is getting a FIS or you are IMC and IFR in which case why is everyone around you asking for a FIS?

Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

Cobalt
17th Sep 2008, 21:38
There is no excuse for asking for a RIS/RAS in when flying VFR as you are just stretching a controller and most likely denying others a service as you become a priority.

Bollox.

(1) Why on earth is a RIS superflous when flying VFR? Yes, see and avoid is the primary means of collision avoidance, but why not make use of all available help?

(2) Inconsistent. If you believe that VFR pilots do not need a RIS, who exactly is denied service if he files IFR to get one????

RAS, on the other hand (which you will only get when IFR) is a bit of a pain in some areas for both the controller and you (how on earth will he/she achieve 5NM vertical / 3000ft vertical from unknown traffic at Ockham? Do you really want to be vectored all over the place?) so RIS should normally do the trick.


Small anecdote from my CPL training: On my first sortie with the instructor I asked habitually for a RIS. The instructor told me I should only get an FIS, and used the SOP argument when I stated I considered not using an available RIS in busy airspace somewhat lacking in airmanship. Three weeks later we had a near collision (30 ft, same level) in gin-clear VMC. Over the beer we had that evening he quietly said "I see your point now".

ShyTorque
17th Sep 2008, 21:40
Bose-X, I can't agree with your last. A pilot is perfectly entitled to request whatever service he wishes. It's up to the ATCO to decide whether he can provide any type of service, or not. If not, all he has to do is refuse the request, or offer a different service.

S-Works
17th Sep 2008, 21:46
Bose-X, I can't agree with your last. A pilot is perfectly entitled to request whatever service he wishes. It's up to the ATCO to decide whether he can provide any type of service, or not. If not, all he has to do is refuse the request, or offer a different service.

Exactly my point. A pilot can ask for any service they wish.

Claiming to be IFR in VFR conditions as an excuse to get a 'better' service or 'more attention' is reprehensible in my humble opinion.

But hey it's just my 2 cents.

Contacttower
17th Sep 2008, 22:02
Well I suppose part of it comes down to the slightly odd definition of IFR we have in the UK. If it's CAVOK outside and someone calls up a LARS in the Open FIR claiming to be IFR at FL40 or whatever then the controller is going to know that "IFR" in this sense means that the aircraft just happens to be flying 1000ft above the nearest object within 5NM of track and is flying at the correct level for track.

What is more important to the controller outside of controlled airspace is whether one is VMC or IMC....and claiming to be IMC when one is VMC is just odd.

Fuji Abound
17th Sep 2008, 22:02
Personally if OCAS I think it is helpful to all concerned to comment why you want a RIS if the controller is obviously busy with lots of VFR traffic.

For example, I am IMC or the viz into the sun is dreadful.

This is particularly true at weekends when the airspace can be very busy and the controllers are obviously stretched. Equally, during the week at times it becomes irrelevant - hardly anyone is flying and the controller is bored to death.

As usual a healthy does of common sense helps all concerned.

But hey it's just my 2 cents.

Bose - you migrated to the other side?

ShyTorque
17th Sep 2008, 23:03
Claiming to be IFR in VFR conditions as an excuse to get a 'better' service or 'more attention' is reprehensible in my humble opinion.


I think you've fallen into the old trap of mixing up terminology - there's no such thing as 'VFR conditions' and you presumably mean VMC.

Any pilot can choose to fly IFR under VMC in Class G airspace if so wished and he/she can elect to ask for a Radar service irrespective of in flight conditions. He/she might not get one in Class G, or any service at all, but that's the luck of the draw.

However, if you put further restraints on yourself, that's your perogative. :)

Pace
17th Sep 2008, 23:57
ContactTower.

Most jets are VMC flying at FL390 but they are flying IFR in CAS.

Do not muddle VMC, IMC, VFR and IFR.

The first two are conditions the second are flight rules

Pace

Red Four
18th Sep 2008, 06:36
As others have said, if you want a RIS or RAS, request it; the controller will tell you if he is unable to provide it. At our unit FIS's are just that: very low priority and unlikely to get much apart from 'report leaving the frequency'.
Someone requesting a radar service is a higher priority and we will do our level best to provide a radar service, even if it is limited. ATC recognise it's importance in raising safety levels for all concerned, so should you.
And on weather conditions - one's persona VMC is another persons IMC, and vice versa. It is all about the perception of the pilots concerned. It is no good saying 'Pilot A said he was VFR, therefore anyone else in the area saying they are IMC is wrong, and therefore must also be VMC in that area'. However if a pilot says he is IMC it gives you the heads up that all may not be gin clear in an area.

Back to the original question, you can also address the IFR plan to units that you will talk to OCAS (as well as the IFPS). Sometimes these will be picked up at the units that you will be wanting to talk to them, but is not guaranteed to, as a strip would not be printed out automatically )not departure or destination) and the FPL may not be seen/acted on unless the ATCA is looking out for such details.

S-Works
18th Sep 2008, 07:52
I think you've fallen into the old trap of mixing up terminology - there's no such thing as 'VFR conditions' and you presumably mean VMC.

Actually no I am not, I understand perfectly the terminology. Us Instructors get to learn all about it you know.

If one is operating under VFR then one has to be operating in VMC. The fact that others are flying under VFR and asking for a FIS would indicate that the conditions are VMC as well. Unless of course our intrepid hero is accusing others of illegal flight?

So as I said, claiming to be IFR in VMC in order to get a better service is in my humble opinion reprehensible. While the controller is busy giving our friend a full radar service, the service to others asking for a FIS and a zone crossing is reduced needlessly.

Sometimes people sit and complain how they don't get zone crossings due to controller workload........

Fuji Abound
18th Sep 2008, 07:58
Us Instructors get to learn all about it you know.

Do you have to be an instructor then to get to learn this stuff. :)

S-Works
18th Sep 2008, 08:18
Quote:
Us Instructors get to learn all about it you know.
Do you have to be an instructor then to get to learn this stuff.

Good question, do you? Looking at some of the opinions....:p

Pace
18th Sep 2008, 09:09
>So as I said, claiming to be IFR in VMC in order to get a better service is in my humble opinion reprehensible. While the controller is busy giving our friend a full radar service, the service to others asking for a FIS and a zone crossing is reduced needlessly.<

Bose

Sometimes an IFR aircraft reduces the workload for the RC. ie he can slot an IFR aircraft in with his other IFR traffic and know that the aircraft will be at a set level and navigating to a set point.

he does not have such precision with VFR traffic some which may not be transponding at all and hence has to treat them with more caution.

As an example I can more easely get a crossing clearance through Birmingham IFR than if I ask for a VFR crossing. At least IFR i can be coordinated with other IFR traffic VFR i will either be told to remain clear or given a crossing only when traffic allows.

>Claiming to be IFR in VFR conditions < I do not understand how you can claim to be IFR in VFR conditions? You either are flying to IFR rules or VFR rules the VMC part is irrelevant .

And no I have never been an instructor only a 3500 hr type rated ATP so prob dont know much at all :)

Pace

S-Works
18th Sep 2008, 09:20
As an example I can more easely get a crossing clearance through Birmingham IFR than if I ask for a VFR crossing. At least IFR i can be coordinated with other IFR traffic VFR i will either be told to remain clear or given a crossing only when traffic allows.

As you wish PACE. As I have said I don't agree with changing the flight rules just to get a better service than others, in my humble opinion.

I have no desire to get into a peeing competition on licences and ratings either. I do have a type rating or 2 or my own and can match you for hours.....

Take it or leave it. ;)

Pace
18th Sep 2008, 09:39
Bose

>I have no desire to get into a peeing competition on licences and ratings either. I do have a type rating or 2 or my own and can match you for hours.....

Take it or leave it. <

I am aware from previous postings that you are an experienced pilot with a lot of hours but am equally sure you didnt quite mean what you posted and that has to be clarified for some who may not be as knowledgable or experienced. Many of my own postings have been misread or misunderstood so dont take offence.

Fuji Abound
18th Sep 2008, 10:05
As an example I can more easely get a crossing clearance through Birmingham IFR than if I ask for a VFR crossing. At least IFR i can be coordinated with other IFR traffic VFR i will either be told to remain clear or given a crossing only when traffic allows.

An interesting point - I wonder what the controllers amoung us think?

I can think of occasions when crossing CAS at height and on a long route the controllers seem much more inclined to give a clearance on the occasions they are turning other traffic away. However has this more to do with your altitude and their realisation that if you are on route from A to B it is a nice courtesy not to make you divert around CAS. Moreover because usually there is so much less "high" traffic clearing you through presents them with less problems.

I suppose my point therefore is that do you more easily get a clearance because of what you are doing rather than becasue you are IFR?

S-Works
18th Sep 2008, 10:57
I am aware from previous postings that you are an experienced pilot with a lot of hours but am equally sure you didnt quite mean what you posted and that has to be clarified for some who may not be as knowledgable or experienced. Many of my own postings have been misread or misunderstood so dont take offence.

PACE, I think we are coming at this at a different track to the same point. I don't disagree with people asking for a service for a specific reason when the conditions dictate it. What I disagree with is flying under IFR just to get a better service than others when it seems to me it is not needed and as a results erodes the service for others who have chosen (in my opinion) to show better airmanship.

As I said before, when a controller is busy providing IFR separation for a zone crossing when clearly from the comments made the conditions would dictate VFR it takes away from others and we end up with the all to often 'stay clear from CAS' or unable to accept due to controller workload.

Pace
18th Sep 2008, 12:17
Bose

I take your point especially when one guy is flying something like a Cessna 150 IFR in VMC because he can do.

But increase the complexity and speed range of the aircraft and it becomes a safety factor to Fly IFR ! ie seperating the slow and faster stuff.

Aircraft which requires the captain to have his eyes inside more because the aircraft is more complex or where his view is restricted by engines will also be safer in an IFR invironment whether in IMC or VMC.

So maybe we should be categorising aircraft as VMC machines or IMC machines. A VMC machine which has IFR capability should not fly IFR in VMC while maybe an IMC machine should fly IFR in VMC if you get my gist.

Pace

S-Works
18th Sep 2008, 12:31
Bose

I take your point especially when one guy is flying something like a Cessna 150 IFR in VMC because he can do.

But increase the complexity and speed range of the aircraft and it becomes a safety factor to Fly IFR ! ie seperating the slow and faster stuff.

Aircraft which requires the captain to have his eyes inside more because the aircraft is more complex or where his view is restricted by engines will also be safer in an IFR invironment whether in IMC or VMC.

So maybe we should be categorising aircraft as VMC machines or IMC machines. A VMC machine which has IFR capability should not fly IFR in VMC while maybe an IMC machine should fly IFR in VMC if you get my gist.

Pace

Agreed. However we have side tracked from the original point that got me on my soap box which was about calling himself IFR in order to get a better service......

ShyTorque
18th Sep 2008, 12:38
I understand perfectly the terminology. Us Instructors get to learn all about it you know.
Yes, I do know; I was instructing before you could legally have gone solo and "we instructors" should ensure that we don't use incorrect terminology. My point was that there is no such thing as VFR conditions, which is what you wrote here:

Claiming to be IFR in VFR conditions as an excuse to get a 'better' service or 'more attention' is reprehensible in my humble opinion.


For those reading this that have forgotten, or are uncertain:

VFR = visual flight rules.
VMC = visual meteorological conditions.

The two terms often cause confusion amongst students, we should be careful not to mix them up.

In VMC outside CAS a pilot is quite free to choose to fly under VFR or IFR as he sees fit; there is nothing reprehensible about choosing IFR.

That's my two cents. :)

Pace
18th Sep 2008, 13:19
>The two terms often cause confusion amongst students, we should be careful not to mix them up.<

That was the point I was trying to make to Bose! If we use loose terms some of us might understand what the poster is trying to say but others who may be students or less experienced pilots may be mislead.

So it is important to correct loose terms for their sake not as a case of I know better than you :)

Pace

bookworm
18th Sep 2008, 14:12
Hmm.

Generally when I fly this way I will plan the route so that I have at least one section in CAS so the plan is entered into CFMU. I find doing this means I get hand offs into and out of the airways system and experience has shown that if you have been in the airways even for a fairly short way then things go smoothly.

Although to be fair I try to do all of my flying in the airways even short trips especially passing around London. You can't bust airspace when you are under positive control!!!!

So as I said, claiming to be IFR in VMC in order to get a better service is in my humble opinion reprehensible. While the controller is busy giving our friend a full radar service, the service to others asking for a FIS and a zone crossing is reduced needlessly.

So, let me get this straight...

Filing part of your route in airways so that you can benefit from the services of London Control to do all your coordination and planning while you cruise in VMC in class A, that's fine? The folks in TC have hardly anything to do anyway and so you might as well force them to soak up a bit of their workload crossing the TMA at 120 kt in your Cessna.

However, IFR in VMC outside controlled airspace to allow a controller, workload permitting, to offer a better service and coordinate you as an IFR flight, that's "reprehensible".

Was that the gist of it?

Pace
18th Sep 2008, 15:25
>Agreed. However we have side tracked from the original point that got me on my soap box which was about calling himself IFR in order to get a better service......<

Bose I think I know what you are getting at but not sure? I really am not trying to shoot you down!

How can someone call themselves IFR ? do you mean they are flying VFR but say they are flying IFR to get a RAS?

I can fly S/W at 3400 feet VFR and on a FIS. The weather ahead might deteriorate or I might come into an area of denser traffic and elect to fly IFR.
I might ask to change my level to FL55 ask the RAC to upgrade me to a RIS or RAS. Once past the weather or heavier traffic I might cancel IFR drop to 3400 feet VFR in VMC and down grade myself to a FIS again ? all out of CAS.

Am I calling myself IFR? No I am flying a portion of my trip IFR and to those rules.

Again I may fly towards Birmingham VFR and then ask for an IFR crossing. If successful I will be assigned a level or altitude/height on a given pressure setting will fly IFR and again cancel after clearing their zone. Am I calling myself IFR?

I think you mean that somepeople load the system by asking for an IFR clearance to get a RAS or RIS when they are in perfect weather and have no real need to fly IFR?

But "calling yourself" again is a loose and confusing term you either are or are not

Pace

S-Works
18th Sep 2008, 17:16
I think you mean that somepeople load the system by asking for an IFR clearance to get a RAS or RIS when they are in perfect weather and have no real need to fly IFR?

Yes.

So, let me get this straight...

Filing part of your route in airways so that you can benefit from the services of London Control to do all your coordination and planning while you cruise in VMC in class A, that's fine? The folks in TC have hardly anything to do anyway and so you might as well force them to soak up a bit of their workload crossing the TMA at 120 kt in your Cessna.

However, IFR in VMC outside controlled airspace to allow a controller, workload permitting, to offer a better service and coordinate you as an IFR flight, that's "reprehensible".

Was that the gist of it?


When I am IFR, I am IFR. I don't tell them I something different in order to get a 'better' service than others. Last time I looked I was required to be IFR in Class A. I use the airways under the same rules as everyone else using them and do not ask for anything different.

ShyTorque
18th Sep 2008, 17:45
Bose-X, you're still totally missing the point. :)

If you (or any other pilot) say you're flying IFR, then you are, provided you comply with the requirements. It's not dishonest or bad airmanship to do it, just personal choice.

S-Works
18th Sep 2008, 17:50
If you (or any other pilot) say you're flying IFR, then you are, provided you comply with the requirements. It's not dishonest or bad airmanship to do it, just personal choice.

I am not denying that. Go back and read the original post. I merely stated that in my humble opinion using IFR as a way of 'getting a better service than others' could be construed as bad airmanship. Taking up the resources of controllers that could be better distributed amongst a broader audience when the conditions would suggest a different approach.

It's my opinion. You don't have to agree with it, but you are wasting your energy trying to convince me too your way of thinking just because you don't agree with mine.

Whirlygig
18th Sep 2008, 18:59
I merely stated that in my humble opinion using IFR as a way of 'getting a better service than others' could be construed as bad airmanship.Only in your eyes.

And there we have it.

There is none so blind as he who will not see. ;) :}

Cheers

Whirls

ShyTorque
18th Sep 2008, 19:04
I know its your opinion; the reason I persisted with my point is that you are an instructor and therefore are in a position to influence others. Your opinion really needs balancing by another, because your opinion isn't what the ANO mandates.

In UK, any pilot is perfectly within his/her rights to fly under IFR in good VMC outside CAS. If a pilot wishes to request a RIS or RAS under VMC, he/she is also perfectly within his/her rights to do so, without fear of any penalty whatsoever. The worst thing that can happpen is that the ATC unit cannot provide the requested service.

The ops manual of a well known aviation operator I previously flew with requires their pilots to obtain a radar service outside CAS, wherever possible, irrespective of flight rules or met conditions.

It's surely not:

reprehensible
adjective blameworthy, bad, disgraceful, shameful, delinquent, errant, unworthy, objectionable, culpable, ignoble, discreditable, remiss, erring, opprobrious, condemnable, censurable << OPPOSITE praiseworthy
Collins Essential Thesaurus 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2005, 2006


Fly safe :)

S-Works
18th Sep 2008, 21:35
Oh for gods sake.....
:ugh:

Covers ears and starts singing, lah, lah, lah, lah, lah.

I am not arguing against people using a RIS/RAS. My point merely reflects the point of people using IFR as a basis for getting a better service than others in the same circumstances.

Beat your drum as much as you like, I don't give a ****.....

ShyTorque
18th Sep 2008, 23:01
Thankyou for that response, which was surely thought out to the best of your ability.

bookworm
19th Sep 2008, 08:09
When I am IFR, I am IFR. I don't tell them I something different in order to get a 'better' service than others. Last time I looked I was required to be IFR in Class A. I use the airways under the same rules as everyone else using them and do not ask for anything different.

Oh I see. So on a gin clear day you need to fly in the airways, perhaps to get a better fuel consumption, take advantage of headwinds, ... oh no hang on, here's why you say you do it:

I find doing this means I get hand offs into and out of the airways system and experience has shown that if you have been in the airways even for a fairly short way then things go smoothly

In other words you fly in the airways to get a better service than is provided to the plebs below. A clearer case of double standards I haven't seen!

S-Works
19th Sep 2008, 08:12
In other words you fly in the airways to get a better service than is provided to the plebs below. A clearer case of double standards I haven't seen!

As you wish.

BEagle
19th Sep 2008, 08:16
Surely the issue is unnecessary declaration of IFR?
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

If you wish to fly IFR in VMC, then you should only expect a level of service commensurate with the airspace category. Try asking for a RAS in Class G on a busy day and you are your own worst enemy - you will be vectored around every 'unknown' contact.

If you don't want to be so inconvenienced, then either fly VFR and lookout of the window rather than at Garmin eye-candy - or play airliners in your spamcan by flying airways if you hold a valid IR.

RIS/RAS are great for short term use such as cloud penetration to VMC-on-top - or for descending below cloud to safety altitude or limits of radar cover.

But those "Err, Golf Alfa Blah Blah, I'm a turbo-super Piper something Romeo form Somewhere to Nowhere, routing via the ABC to the DEF to the GHI, Flight Level 50 request Radar Advisory" types who bumble about in 50 km viz in Class G airspace merely annoy everyone - fellow pilots and ATCOs alike!

I have a few thousand hours of airways time but now avoid IFR like the plague - I don't need my IR anymore; the IMCR is just fine for the limited IMC time I need. I'd far sooner fly without having to yakk on the wireless to anyone every few minutes, just pottering along enjoying the VFR view out of the window!

Unfortunately the soon-to-be 'Deconfliction' service will allow the equivalent of RAS under VFR. A sneaky ruse to force mandatory Mode S on everyone, a cynic might think.....:rolleyes:

S-Works
19th Sep 2008, 08:27
Surely the issue is unnecessary declaration of IFR?

Indeed Beagle and was the point I was trying to make before it sunk to the usual personal attacks.

Oh I see. So on a gin clear day you need to fly in the airways, perhaps to get a better fuel consumption, take advantage of headwinds, ... oh no hang on, here's why you say you do it:

Yes I do. (actually I prefer to take advantage of tail winds, not found much advantage from a head wind yet...)


But I bet the same people who think that is acceptable to make an unnecessary declaration of IFR are still amongst those screaming the loudest about not needing a mode S transponder........

IO540
19th Sep 2008, 08:29
Responding to the first post only:

Is there actually any difference between filing IFR or VFR when outside controlled airspace and if not is there any point in filing at all (above the advantages of filing a normal VFR flight plan)?It's a very good question, and firstly it depends on why/whether you actually file a flight plan.

An IFR flight plan should be sent to Eurocontrol, and is distributed to the IFR sector controllers enroute e.g. London Control. But if you file it for some low level which is "obviously" OCAS then you are not going to get a service from LC. I don't know what exactly happens here but I believe the way it breaks is this:

When you file a FP to Eurocontrol you get an airways squawk allocated. When you get airborne with this squawk, and it is picked up by one of the radars, the IFR FP pops up on their screens, and then when you call them up they know about you and send you off into CAS, to your filed level/route etc. This is what happens when you fly from say Bournemouth to Berlin at FL150. Very smooth and simple.

But if you never go up with that squawk (because you filed an IFR FP but you never picked up the airways departure clearance) that squawk will never be seen, and after 30 mins past EOBT the FP gets dumped.

If you depart on an IFR FP from an airport capable of airways departures e.g. Bournemouth and the FP says 2000ft then Bournemouth tower will look at this FP and will realise you are just an amateur playing low level (probably an IMCR training flight where the instructor got you to file an IFR FP for fun) and is not going to pass you the airways squawk because they can "obviously" see that you are not heading for any airspace run by LC. If incidentally you did later try to get that flight elevated to airways it won't work because it got dumped...

So what is the point of filing an IFR FP OCAS?

None really. No enroute unit is going to see it, and because it went to Eurocontrol it is likely (??) that even the destination ARO will not get it (because it gets dumped 30 mins past EOBT if the allocate squawk is never seen).

An airport operating the IFR rules properly (typically, one in Class D) will not let you depart VFR into sub-VFR conditions, so there you have to do an IFR departure, and the existence of an IFR FP will be irrelevant.

It's all a bit of a muddle and this is why people go to the huge hassle of getting the IR. Then one gets the whole-route clearance, everybody knows about you, etc.

The only advantage of filing a FP (VFR or IFR) OCAS is that somebody can dig it out if you crash somewhere, and go looking for you in hopefully roughly the right area. But, in the UK, somebody still has to raise the alarm - a FP is automatically closed even if you never arrive!!

Therefore, I never file flight plans for flights within the UK - cannot see the point.

Most instrument-capable UK pilots just depart VFR, and in Class G the transition to IFR is purely inside your mind, so no need to tell anybody. Just disappear in some cloud... If you are receiving a service then you need to advise them though, but in Class G ATC has no power to stop you anyway.

Going abroad, one has to file an IFR FP to enter any IMC or to fly IFR, but the IFR rules are different there anyway. You need the full IR, and an Eurocontrol flight plan, for any IFR flight.

C/Tower I have sent you a PM.

bookworm
19th Sep 2008, 12:51
As you wish.

I have a feeling I'm gonna pay for that... ;)

(actually I prefer to take advantage of tail winds, not found much advantage from a head wind yet...)

Oops. I just did. :blush:

ShyTorque
19th Sep 2008, 14:25
An airport operating the IFR rules properly (typically, one in Class D) will not let you depart VFR into sub-VFR conditions, so there you have to do an IFR departure, and the existence of an IFR FP will be irrelevant.


Don't forget Special VFR. Some aircraft, such as helicopters, routinely operate SVFR departure / climb to IFR outside CAS / IFR or VFR transit & letdown (or an SVFR arrival). Quite routinely, departing from airfields in an out of Class A or D airspace. No requirement for a flightplan, only an ATC clearance for CAS.

Pace
19th Sep 2008, 14:50
>If you are receiving a service then you need to advise them though, but in Class G ATC has no power to stop you anyway.<

No one has the power to stop anyone anywhere other than shooting you down :-)

Flying a jet I may be assigned FL330 but could fly through that on up. I may get the book thrown at me but no one can Physically stop you.

Not quite true regarding a RAS as you then become the RAC responsibility and have to comply with his instructions when flying IFR in class G with a RAS.

Bose

no one doubted what they thought you meant but questioned your innacurate terminology and references to IFR VFR VMC IMC which could confuse students or low time pilots. Hence its important that stuff we post is accurate or corrected clarified by others. None of us know everything me included so we should be only too happy to be corrected.

Pace

IO540
19th Sep 2008, 15:45
Don't be daft Pace you know exactly what I mean - assuming you have a PPL :)

In Class G nobody has the power to issue an IFR clearance, is what I obviously meant. And the UK permits IFR in Class G, and all flight in G does not need radio contact.

So, no need to tell anybody when you are about to drill a hole in a cloud.

It is the UK's water-tight separation between the CAS/airways traffic (the "professionals") and all the dross below that, that confuses the hell out of so many people.

Mind you, I am sure 99% of European "dross" would swap their yokes for UK's free for all :)

BEagle
19th Sep 2008, 15:53
Not quite true regarding a RAS as you then become the RAC responsibility and have to comply with his instructions when flying IFR in class G with a RAS.

Not so! That's why it's termed Radar Advisory Service. You are expected to follow the ATCO's advisory headings whether VMC or IMC - and are expected to be able to accept headings which will take you into IMC.

The only time you are obliged to follow ATCOs' headings is when under Radar Control.

And yes, those of a suicidal mind who trust in the Big Sky theory may indeed quite legally fly IMC in Class G airspace without speaking to anyone.

ShyTorque
19th Sep 2008, 18:24
Beag's last comment brings us back to this thread: http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/340564-improve-light-c-separation.html

Which I take no further part in, to the relief of some :ok:

Contacttower
19th Sep 2008, 18:55
C/Tower I have sent you a PM.

Thanks very much IO540 your write ups are very good. I believe I also read a number of your pieces in the PPL/IR Europe book as well; all excellent. :ok:

Pace
20th Sep 2008, 08:28
Beagle

As you said you are "expected" to follow instructions from the RAC which is different from doing what you want failure to do so would mean that the service would be terminated.
The subtle reason is that in a FIS you are responsible for you own seperation In RAS the controller takes on that responsibility. Failure to follow his instructions would mean that he would be unable to be responsible for you.

The only difference is that in CAS failure to comply with an instruction could lead to a prosecution failure to comply with a RAS would mean termination of that service. But realistically you are expected to follow both so not quite the do as you want in class G and that was what I was trying to clarify. You can but dont expect a RAS if you do.

Pace

Pace
20th Sep 2008, 08:30
10540

>Don't be daft Pace you know exactly what I mean - assuming you have a PPL<

I am being pedantic :) and hold an ATP with jet ratings as a captain

Pace

BEagle
20th Sep 2008, 08:53
The subtle reason is that in a FIS you are responsible for you own seperation In RAS the controller takes on that responsibility. Failure to follow his instructions would mean that he would be unable to be responsible for you.

Again, you need to remember that the controller cannot provide 'instructions' under a RAS, merely information and the advisory avoiding action necessary to maintain separation from other aircraft.

RIS is often a lot more appropriate for brief IMC excursions in Class G - provided that you have the necessary level of mental skill, you can then make your own decisions on avoidance action based on the controller's information, whereas under a RAS the controller will try to ensure a 5nm/3000ft separation against other traffic and provide advice accordingly.

Those who rely upon RAS under IFR in Class G even when in VMC, particularly airline pilots flying to aerodromes outside CAS, might find themselves having to work quite hard if the controller is unable to provide more than a RIS due to traffic density. Although it is possible, of course, that the controller may ask other traffic to fly as requested for co-ordination purposes.

ShyTorque
20th Sep 2008, 09:10
I agree, I think in thirty odd years I've only ever requested RAS once and that was because it was offered as an upgrade from RIS by a military controller. A pilot who asks for RAS in Class G may regret it shortly afterwards. However, he may well not get that type of service because that really does push up a controller's workload. He may also be under no remit to provide it in any case, outside CAS.

englishal
20th Sep 2008, 09:16
When I am IFR, I am IFR. I don't tell them I something different in order to get a 'better' service than others.

Bose old chap, when you have a go at someone, please make sure you are consistent in your argument! ;) You like to post how you fly Airways to make your life easier (numerous posts) , then have a go at someone else for trying to make THEIR life easier. Be consistent at least! How many of your trips to Jersey have been in VMC at FL100 because you don't want to fly at 3000' in VMC....not because you can't go VFR.

I for one have no qualms about filing IFR for any reason - I have earned the right. I have done it on occasion simply to make transiting complicated airspace easy on a 100 mile vis day. I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about it either; the controller will let me know if they are too busy. One time I asked for IFR, and the controller asked me to hold - "time now is 15, expect further clearance at 47"...."Umm, ok, cancel IFR" :O

Pace
20th Sep 2008, 11:03
>Again, you need to remember that the controller cannot provide 'instructions' under a RAS, merely information and the advisory avoiding action necessary to maintain separation from other aircraft.<

BEagle

Again NOT quite true and maybe I am being nit pickie. This line of thought was instigated by someone who said you can do what you want in G airspace.

A RAS can only be given to an aircraft flying under IFR. That itself is an indication that you cannot do as you want as Flying IFR you are flying to a set of rules.
A couple of days ago I heard an elderly pilot asking for a RAS while flying VFR. It took the controller some time to make him understand that he could not have that service under VFR.

So a RAS is a service offered under a controlled set of rules. It is a fact that the controller becomes responsible for you under a RAS.
He does indeed give "instructions" " turn immediately onto 030 for avoiding action". Hardly not an instruction.
I have never heard a controller say" traffic 12 o clock my advice is you may like to turn to 030 or you may not its up to you" ;)

As stated under an RAS you are expected to comply with instructions given. If you failed to do so the RAC would have to terminate the service to absolve himself from any liability from a collision.

Remember too that under a RAS you are already flying to IFR (RULES)

I am sure flying under a meagre RIS and descending below the MSA you will hear the controller tell you that you are responsible for your own terrain clearance. An indication of the controller absolving himself from you hitting a mountain.

Pace

BEagle
20th Sep 2008, 12:27
Well, you're wrong again.

My quote comes direct from the CAA Safety Leaflet on the topic:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

b) Radar Advisory Service (RAS):

This service is only available to flights operating
under IFR irrespective of meteorological
conditions and aims to provide you with the
information and the advisory avoiding action
necessary to maintain separation from other
aircraft. It is the radar service used by many
pilots, particularly when flying in IMC. But
remember, if you are:

• not qualified to fly in IMC, or
• qualified but out-of-practice,

you must NOT accept an advisory turn or
level change which will put you into IMC.

However, if you do not take the controller’s
advice, or if for any other reason you cannot
accept heading or level changes, you must
tell the controller, who may be able to offer
alternative avoiding action. You must also
inform the controller before making any other
changes in heading or level, because it may
affect your separation from other aircraft. If
you request RAS, but the controller is unable
to provide that service, you may be offered
RIS instead.

Flight under IFR only has to comply with certain rules; it does not prevent the Commander from making his own decisions where relevant.

The ATCO cannot issue 'instructions' such as 'turn immediately' under a RAS. The fact that some do is being addressed in the revised ATSOCAS proposals.

You are correct in stating that a RAS cannot be offered to traffic flying under VFR - as no-one has denied.

Pace
20th Sep 2008, 14:43
BEagle

Big words wrong again as I cannot see where I have been wrong at all point it out !

First read what you placed here chew the words over and see what it really says and how it does not fit one word I have posted before making stupid comments

>if you do not take the controller’s
advice, or if for any other reason you cannot
accept heading or level changes, you must
tell the controller, who may be able to offer
alternative avoiding action. You must also
inform the controller before making any other
changes in heading or level, because it may
affect your separation from other aircraft.<

>Again, you need to remember that the controller cannot provide 'instructions' under a RAS, merely information and the advisory avoiding action necessary to maintain separation from other aircraft.<

Your own words which do not appear to fit the piece above it. A RAS is most certainly "instructions" YOU WILL BE GIVEN HEADINGS AND LEVELS and expected to comply with those

"if for any other reason you cannot
accept heading or level changes, you must
tell the controller, who may be able to offer
alternative avoiding action. You must also
inform the controller before making any other
changes in heading or level, because it may
affect your separation from other aircraft".<

I stress the Must tell the controller if you cannot comply with his instructions none of the above implies that you are anything less than under his direction


Pace

BEagle
20th Sep 2008, 15:23
Sorry, but if you cannot understand the difference between 'advice' and 'instruction', there is little point in attempting to explain the limitations of RAS to you.

Now read again the CAA's words - they're clear and unambiguous!

Fuji Abound
20th Sep 2008, 16:07
How many of your trips to Jersey have been in VMC at FL100 because you don't want to fly at 3000' in VMC....not because you can't go VFR.

Sorry, I dont understand why you would want to do that?

Pace
20th Sep 2008, 17:06
BEagle

>Now read again the CAA's words - they're clear and unambiguous!<

Yes they are so I suggest you read them too

Pace

S-Works
20th Sep 2008, 17:30
How many of your trips to Jersey have been in VMC at FL100 because you don't want to fly at 3000' in VMC....not because you can't go VFR.

Urm, maybe because the point of flying at FL100 is to get VMC on top and so I don't have to fly across a large expanse of water in a SEP at low level.....

Still has nothing to do with just making yourself 'IFR' so you can get a better service than others. You can reword what I have said as many times as you want, but it does not change that what I have issue with is using 'IFR' to get a better service than others flying in exactly the same conditions.

Comparing that to me flying in the airways under IFR where I am required to fly IFR is comparing apples and oranges I am afraid.

I fly the airways for better routings, better fuel management and the gain in TAS not so I can get a better service than others in the same airspace.

PPRuNe Radar
20th Sep 2008, 17:46
IO540

A few misconceptions in your piece, but nothing major.

When you file a FP to Eurocontrol you get an airways squawk allocated.

If you are saying Eurocontrol issue a squawk as part of some global system, then no, you don't. The squawk will be issued by an ATC agency when the IFR plan is 'activated' with them. This could be carried out either as a pending flight (when it is issued by the flight data processing system, along with the flight details, to the ATC unit 40 minutes before departure), or it could be a flight coming from a non ATC airfield and allocated when the IFR ATC unit ask the system for a code.

When you get airborne with this squawk, and it is picked up by one of the radars, the IFR FP pops up on their screens, and then when you call them up they know about you and send you off into CAS, to your filed level/route etc. This is what happens when you fly from say Bournemouth to Berlin at FL150. Very smooth and simple.

It's not quite how it happens in the UK en route IFR system. For IFR departures from airfields with ATC of any sort, a departure warning will be given and an IFR clearance issued, either as an individual co-ordination with the Area Control centre, or as a 'freeflow' departure following a standard route and level with no prior co-ordination required. The Flight Plan will already be in the Flight Data Processing system (along with the allocated SSR code) but will not yet be active. Once the aircraft gets airborne, the flight is activated in the system, either automatically or manually, and all controllers downstream are then passed electronic flight data on the live flight with appropriate levels and times for waypoints calculated. No 'IFR FP' pops up on the screen, and all that will happen is that any aircraft displaying the allocated squawk will show on the radar screen with the allocated flight callsign and route data. For aircraft departing from a non ATC airfield, then the SSR code will be allocated to the flight over the RT and the plan activated manually in the FDP system. Setting the SSR code allocated will not do this automatically in the UK system.

But if you never go up with that squawk (because you filed an IFR FP but you never picked up the airways departure clearance) that squawk will never be seen, and after 30 mins past EOBT the FP gets dumped.

Not true. The FPL is not automatically cancelled, although the assigned SSR code will be dropped after a time parameter (around 4 hours I think) and a new one will have to be requested. The Eurocontrol IFPS system will also assume that the flight has departed unless it is told otherwise, but this is for air traffic management purposes rather than ATC purposes. No live data will be transmitted for the flight by Eurocontrol and it will remain within the ATC FDP system until the end of the day, or until manually removed.

If you depart on an IFR FP from an airport capable of airways departures e.g. Bournemouth and the FP says 2000ft then Bournemouth tower will look at this FP and will realise you are just an amateur playing low level (probably an IMCR training flight where the instructor got you to file an IFR FP for fun) and is not going to pass you the airways squawk because they can "obviously" see that you are not heading for any airspace run by LC.

There will be no Airways squawk ever allocated automatically by the FDP system unless the flight is planned to enter airspace under the control of one of the UK Area Control Centres (ACC). Such flights will automatically be inserted in to the FDP system when the FPL is received from IFPS, with manual correction being applied as required. If you are an 'amateur' IFR pilot (very harsh to generalise people with that I think ... some professional GA pilots and airline guys I have experienced could also be described as amateur), on a flight planned to stay outside the Airways system, then the ACC will have a copy of your plan in their domain, but it won't have been input to the FDP and therefore the sector ATC staff won't be able to directly access your details, nor will any processing on your flight take place.

If incidentally you did later try to get that flight elevated to airways it won't work because it got dumped...

It won't have been dumped, but it takes time for the sector to get support staff to find the plan and input it in to the FDP, along with any changes you have asked for in terms of routeing and level. The priority will not be a high one.

So what is the point of filing an IFR FP OCAS?

None really. No enroute unit is going to see it, and because it went to Eurocontrol it is likely (??) that even the destination ARO will not get it (because it gets dumped 30 mins past EOBT if the allocate squawk is never seen).

If it is filed IFR, then the ACC will get it if it is within airspace or on routes that they have notified Eurocontrol as being interested in. On receipt of a FPL in IFPS, it normally takes only a minute or so for the distribution to take place and this is not dependent on a flight being activated, so there is no 'dumping' issue. The FPL will be sitting at the destination airfield with your planned EOBT and elapsed time en route, but is not live. Local procedures will then dictate what they do with that plan and whether any action is taken if you don't arrive at the planned ETA. If it is relevant, then the FPL will also be input to the UK en route FDP system and will sit as a pending plan awaiting activation. For a UK departure, the pending plan will (generally) be distributed to the first ACC sector 40 minutes prior to the planned departure, along with the allocated squawk. If your plan has not been activated by the end of the day, your details will be discarded by the sector staff and the FDP system will drop your pending plan out of the system.

An airport operating the IFR rules properly (typically, one in Class D) will not let you depart VFR into sub-VFR conditions, so there you have to do an IFR departure, and the existence of an IFR FP will be irrelevant.

They might let you depart Special VFR though.

The only advantage of filing a FP (VFR or IFR) OCAS is that somebody can dig it out if you crash somewhere, and go looking for you in hopefully roughly the right area. But, in the UK, somebody still has to raise the alarm - a FP is automatically closed even if you never arrive!!

The UK has the 'responsible person' method. I think this is far better than depending on parameter times and flight plans, as someone will be actively looking out for you, and will know who to contact if you don't turn up. You can of course ask the parent ATC unit to be this person on your behalf.

Fuji Abound
20th Sep 2008, 17:50
I fly the airways for better routings, better fuel management and the gain in TAS not so I can get a better service than others in the same airspace.

and

How many of your trips to Jersey have been in VMC at FL100 because you don't want to fly at 3000' in VMC

.. but if you could go in VMC at 3,000 feet why go airways? I cant see how you will get a better routing or necessarily why you will use less fuel. I can understand in a SEP why a higher route might have some safety advantageous, but you can just as easily go high VFR outside the zone. In the zone you may well be at relatively low level anyway.

S-Works
20th Sep 2008, 20:42
.. but if you could go in VMC at 3,000 feet why go airways? I cant see how you will get a better routing or necessarily why you will use less fuel. I can understand in a SEP why a higher route might have some safety advantageous, but you can just as easily go high VFR outside the zone. In the zone you may well be at relatively low level anyway.

Because I choose not to fly low level across a large distance of water in a SEP. An engine failure at airways heights will give me a greater glide distance, longer for the ELT to lock a GPS signal. Time to make sure life jackets and life raft are level, make any necessary radio calls (with the likelihood that after a 20 minute glide the chopper is waiting for me) and be better prepared for a ditching.

When I enter the zone IFR on my way to Guernsey I am descended at my discretion as a rule and stay as high as possible for as long as possible.

It is a personal choice and still has nothing to do with claiming to be IFR to get a better service than others......

Fuji Abound
20th Sep 2008, 21:47
Because I choose not to fly low level across a large distance of water in a SEP.

It is a personal choice

but as you suggest you are in fact making this choice purely on grounds of safety. In fact the choice you make gains you a better service than those beneath you (because they are not qualified to climb into the airways).

The guy beneath you chooses to declare IFR because he believes in consequence he is more likely to get a RIS, than those on VisualFlightRules, and he makes this choice because he considers he is less likely to have a collision when IFR with a RIS.

The chances of a collision and an engine failure for this sake are not very different.

IFollowRoads
20th Sep 2008, 22:08
Pprune Radar:

Thanks very much for that most informatitive detail. I've often wondered what happens to that thing I dump with AIS/Homebriefing/Olivia or whoever, and this sort of behind the scenes view of what happens helps to explain the various things that seem to go wrong. (probably made worse for me by normally having a VFR/Non ATC field uk destination/departure)

Is there anywhere this is (publicly) documented to learn more, or is there somewhere you can recommend to go into it in more detail? I've visited a couple of radar units, but no-one yet has explained as much as you have above - many thanks

IO540
21st Sep 2008, 06:41
Pprune Radar

Thank you for the explanation. I now need to dig out the ATCO(s) who told me what I based my posting on, because I sure as hell did not make it up :)

It is however worth relating your undoubtedly accurate explanation with reality - e.g.

It won't have been dumped, but it takes time for the sector to get support staff to find the plan and input it in to the FDP, along with any changes you have asked for in terms of routeing and level. The priority will not be a high one.IOW, they cannot find or won't look for it, so the end result is still that you are summarily stuffed.

If it is filed IFR, then the ACC will get it if it is within airspace or on routes that they have notified Eurocontrol as being interested in.IOW, if you file IFR OCAS, the end result is that you have wasted your time because Eurocontrol will, I assume, not be interested in Class G.

If you are saying Eurocontrol issue a squawk as part of some global system, then no, you don't. The squawk will be issued by an ATC agency when the IFR plan is 'activated' with them. This could be carried out either as a pending flight (when it is issued by the flight data processing system, along with the flight details, to the ATC unit 40 minutes before departure), or it could be a flight coming from a non ATC airfield and allocated when the IFR ATC unit ask the system for a code.OK, so the code is not generated by Eurocontrol but is generated when requested by somebody. AIUI, this still means that if the departure tower gives you a squawk which is different from what would have been generated, your flight does not get matched to the filed flight plan.

My "amateur" comment was mostly tongue in cheek; I am an "amateur" too ;) But it is not wholly tongue in cheek because ATC are only human and despite their professionalism (which one must say is higher in some countries than in others) they have human attitudes too. The way a pilot goes about things does affect the kind of service he gets (again, more in some countries than others) and this is why I like to find out how the system works.

I did actually file an IFR FP OCAS (via AFPEx) some time ago and due to bad weather spent about an hour trying to get it elevated to airways (so I could climb to VMC) and got politely fobbed off at every step. This is why I think filing IFR FPs OCAS is a waste of time.

Other than the S&R reason, and that will be equally satisfied with a VFR FP. And an VFR FP has the advantage that it cannot get chucked out because CFMU thinks some of the route is invalid. This used to be a huge problem - a route like GWC-MID-CPT at 2400ft would simply not file at all and one would have to use tricks like

GWC000000 DCT MID000000 DCT CPT000000

to fool the system into accepting it. However it seems that CFMU have fixed their software to largely abandon route checking on FPs which contain an OCAS section... I've seen some bizzare stuff go through. BTW I've sent you a PM.

S-Works
21st Sep 2008, 09:08
but as you suggest you are in fact making this choice purely on grounds of safety. In fact the choice you make gains you a better service than those beneath you (because they are not qualified to climb into the airways).

It is a side effect not an intention.

Fuji Abound
21st Sep 2008, 10:50
It is a side effect not an intention.

Bose

So I am completely confused now.

If it is not the intention, what is? Why file airways at all if the enroute conditions are VFR? You must feel you are getting something more from the service than the guy who has filed VFR. (who might well be at the same level as you as you cross the water).

I am just trying to understand what it is.

IO540
21st Sep 2008, 13:32
The reason one does the full IR is to get the predictability of IFR (airways) flight, namely

- implicit IFR clearance for the whole route (ATC sometimes sound as if they give you a shorter clearance but you can make a fuss if they do that and not get back to you, whereas under VFR you can just pee in the ocean for all the good it might do)

- operating ceiling limited only by aircraft performance (again, ATC sometimes take time to let you climb, but if you say it urgently enough "due weather" they let you go eventually)

- predictable procedures enroute

- ability to land on an IAP if the Wx is not VFR

- ability to depart in sub-VFR conditions from a towered airport

Otherwise, you can just go VFR, and indeed a pilot with balls made of solid brass, a de-iced plane, and willingness to be illegal at times, can go "everywhere" VFR.

But, referring to the topic of this thread, filing IFR OCAS does not give you a single one of these privileges. No enroute clearance, no predictability, nothing.

However, flying under IFR and telling ATC about that does give some privileges e.g. they treat you more seriously and a CAS transit is more likely. But filing an IFR FP does not bring additional advantages because they would not have seen it anyway - unless one is talking about the destination airfield in which case they might like the notice of the IFR arrival.

Fuji Abound
21st Sep 2008, 14:50
IO540 - yes I agree. However, that was not the point being debated. The question was if you could do the same flight to the CIs VFR or IFR airways which would you choose and why?

Bose orginally was saying he flew airways for better fuel management and better routing. He then said it was for a higher routing to extend the glide distance over the channel, but this was a side effect not an intention.

I was wanting to understand on a short hop such as this IF you could fly the same route VFR why you would elect to go airways.

If you have been following the thread you might recall it all started because the view was expressed that you shouldnt "file" IFR in VMC OCAS because you perceived it would prioritise the service you would get over those "filing" VFR.

rustle
21st Sep 2008, 15:35
Bose orginally was saying he flew airways for better fuel management and better routing. He then said it was for a higher routing to extend the glide distance over the channel, but this was a side effect not an intention.

First read of this thread and immediately it is obvious you are deliberately misrepresenting what bose wrote :yuk:

The "side effect" was the increased level of service IFR, not the increased glide range; which was obviously the intention.

Fuji Abound
21st Sep 2008, 16:20
Rustle

I have a feeling Bose is more than capable of clarrifying what he said if I have misunderstood.

Now there is a good chap, close your eyes now :zzz: and dont read the next line because I know you wont believe me:

Bose I can assure you that I have not deliberately misrepresented what you said.

IO540
21st Sep 2008, 17:41
I was wanting to understand on a short hop such as this IF you could fly the same route VFR why you would elect to go airways.

In general, one would go IFR/airways over VFR even in perfect weather for

- automatic CAS transits (in fact CAS becomes irrelevant)

- better MPG - maybe +20% at FL100 over 2000ft

- better glide options

- "protection" from mid-airs by being in CAS under a RCS

- infinitely better options if the forecasts turn out to be totally duff (not unknown, especially the SigWx)

If you have been following the thread you might recall it all started because the view was expressed that you shouldnt "file" IFR in VMC OCAS because you perceived it would prioritise the service you would get over those "filing" VFR.

I ignored the aggressive bits :)

OCAS, I believe that flying under IFR (and letting radar units along the route know you are IFR) will result in a better service than flying VFR. This is very much my experience. But filing an IFR flight plan is irrelevant because none of the enroute units will see it.

There are however other ways to get a better service on a VFR flight. One is to route via a collection of navaids and airways intersection names, and firmly and confidently give the route to ATC, rather than reading out a vague route description comprising of village names and VRPs.

S-Works
21st Sep 2008, 18:24
Bose I can assure you that I have not deliberately misrepresented what you said.

Yes you have. You are looking at perpetuating an argument.

I have said all I need to and IO has quite clearly explained the logic behind use of the airways. There is nothing more to say.

Fuji Abound
21st Sep 2008, 18:28
In general, one would go IFR/airways over VFR even in perfect weather for

- automatic CAS transits (in fact CAS becomes irrelevant)

- better MPG - maybe +20% at FL100 over 2000ft

- better glide options

- "protection" from mid-airs by being in CAS under a RCS

Not necessarily so:

We are talking about a short hop to the CIs.

- The airway is just as likely to take you around CAS, in fact the route will almost certainly be longer than the VFR route to the same destination (even if you plan to totally avoid CAS)

- We were discussing days on which VFR was equally possible. You could well be VFR at FL100 - there no question about using the aireways to get above the weather

- See above

- Agreed. This could be one reason in the same way as declaring IFR ourside airways to "gain" a better service.

We are not discussing generally why you might wish to fly airways, but why you might wish to fly airways over a short distance on a day when you could equally fly VFR off airways.

It is a reasonable point. Bose was suggesting that you shouldnt claim to be IFR OCAS in VMC conditions to gain a better service at the expense of others. However, if you fly airways you are gaining a "better" service, but over a short distance I am wondering in what way you think the service is "better" or is there some other motive?

rustle
21st Sep 2008, 19:06
FA, were you born in '52?

Just asking ;)

S-Works
21st Sep 2008, 19:34
We are talking about a short hop to the CIs.

It might be a short hop for you from Shoreham. It is 220nm for me, so hardly a short distance.

The airways are the shortest route to Guernsey for me as they are a virtual straight line. Join in the climb to FL100 WCO R41 SAM R41 ORTAC GUR. The same route VFR is a convoluted route around CAS.

Fuji Abound
21st Sep 2008, 19:54
Bose

Where are you coming from?

Looking at that route it would seem the only CAS is Solent. Obviously you could route dct to the old CPT remaining east of the airway doing exactly the same route OCAS with no more level restriction across the water other than possibly in the zone. Moreover you could probably do the whole route without talking to anyone or with a RIS if you preferred. Outbound it would probably be quicker.

S-Works
21st Sep 2008, 20:15
With all due respect Fuji, if I ever need your help flight planning I will ask for it. However I have a couple of hours under my belt to do it myself in the meantime...... ;)

rustle
21st Sep 2008, 20:19
With all due respect Fuji, if I ever need your help flight planning I will ask for it.

Have you got 'KK in your logbook? :8

S-Works
21st Sep 2008, 20:22
Quote:
Originally Posted by bose-x
With all due respect Fuji, if I ever need your help flight planning I will ask for it.
Have you got 'KK in your logbook?


LMAO, indeed but I booked a handling agent......
:p;)

BRL
21st Sep 2008, 20:24
Come on now Bose, you are sounding like a teenager with all this text speak!!! :}

Pace
21st Sep 2008, 20:29
Fuji

There are other reasons you will not use airways. I often have a descision to make with the operation of a jet on short legs where you have a choice of filing at something like FL160 or staying away from CAS and accepting a low level.

That choice is do you file IFR and airways and take 45 minutes on the trip at FL160 or take the lower level and take 25 minutes because its far shorter.

Sometimes you take the shorter route using RIS or RAS and fly fuel flows accepting the reduced speeds and with a jet far reduced costs?

Ie on certain routes especially short ones for a jet the airways routing is far longer ie Biggin to Bournemouth.

I am sure some P**t will attempt to jump on me ;)

Pace

Fuji Abound
21st Sep 2008, 20:33
Bose

You seem so set to have a falling out. I have much respect for your views. I have no intention of falling out with you.

I know Rustle is the sole member of my fan club, which I rather like.

I will tell you the true KK story one day - be patient, Rusty.

I know full well you know how to FP. However I was simply observing based on the information you gave you could do the same route OCAS with hardly a deviation. The observation was made in case I was wrong as I dont know your starting point.

BTW if you could do it OCAS you must feel happier on VFR days doing it airways. I was simply trying to establish why, as the reasons given so far dont seem to answer the question.

I have fully got to grips with IOs explanation when the weather is a factor or you cant be bothered negotiating CAS.

IO540
21st Sep 2008, 20:35
Very much agreed Pace. I recall one flight, near Croatia, which was 150nm IFR and 70nm VFR (largely due to SIDs and STARs). Also IFR would have taken me into serious icing, whereas the VFR version was at 3000ft in CAVOK conditions.

Different tools for different jobs.

S-Works
21st Sep 2008, 20:49
I know full well you know how to FP. However I was simply observing based on the information you gave you could do the same route OCAS with hardly a deviation. The observation was made in case I was wrong as I dont know your starting point.

I am not set on falling out with you, you are set on trying to make a point.

The route OCAS is longer as I have to cross east to west before I can head south clear of CAS. At SAM I have to deviate further or accept the water crossing at low level under the airway. Flying that distance low level uses 20% more fuel and takes longer. The route on the airway is more direct. I have a JAA Instrument rating.

All of these reasons make it more sensible to conduct the flight on the airways system. When the need arises I will fly VFR, as IO quite rightly points out tools for the job. When I am flying VFR it is because the conditions are VMC and as such I am quite happy to take a FIS or even not talk to anyone.

Fuji Abound
21st Sep 2008, 21:00
The route OCAS is longer as I have to cross east to west before I can head south clear of CAS.

Where is your start?

At SAM I have to deviate further or accept the water crossing at low level under the airway.

.. .. .. but as you will know, you dont, WCO, CPT, and east of the airway almost to ORTAC with a very small deviation to miss the stub of solent does exactly the same job - doesnt it, also at FL100.

you are set on trying to make a point.

What woudl that be?

S-Works
21st Sep 2008, 21:11
Quote:
The route OCAS is longer as I have to cross east to west before I can head south clear of CAS.
Where is your start?

Quote:
At SAM I have to deviate further or accept the water crossing at low level under the airway.
.. .. .. but as you will know, you dont, WCO, CPT, and east of the airway almost to ORTAC with a very small deviation to miss the stub of solent does exactly the same job - doesnt it, also at FL100.

Quote:
you are set on trying to make a point.
What woudl that be?

The point you are attempting to make seems to be known only to you.

When I need your help flight planning I will ask for it. I don't need to be taught to suck eggs.

Fuji Abound
21st Sep 2008, 21:41
Well fair enough.

I certainly wasn’t trying to teach you how to FP. I dont suppose I would have very much to contribute is a given. I simply didn’t see the route you set out achieves the advantages you suggest given than both routes are flown in VMC. I couldn’t think of a more polite way of saying so.

It was you who said

I fly the airways for better routings, better fuel management and the gain in TAS not so I can get a better service than others in the same airspace.

And then

Because I choose not to fly low level across a large distance of water in a SEP.

It is a personal choice

I was simply pointing out (with which you seemed to agree) that for the route you gave it doesn’t seem to give a better route, or better fuel management or necessarily a gain in TAS and it doesn’t give you a higher crossing level.

I was simply presuming, given what you said, that there was some other reason.

Sorry if I misunderstood - just trying to understand the rationale.

[I havent come across LMAO - whats that one?]

PPRuNe Radar
22nd Sep 2008, 00:09
IO540

IOW, they cannot find or won't look for it, so the end result is still that you are summarily stuffed.

I've checked with our even more experienced experts and here's what they tell me. All IFR plans will be received at the Area Control Centre (ACC) and are stored in both hard copy (on a printed back roll for backup purposes) and electronically within the Flight Plan Reception Suite Automation (FPRSA) computer system. If the flight plan is one which any of the UK ACC's have an interest in (i.e. flying on Airways or TMA's, or flying outside Controlled Airspace where a service is provided - usually on the handful of Advisory Routes, or in airspace where Scottish provide ATSOCAS), then the plan is automatically input in to the National Airspace System (NAS) Flight Data Processing (FDP) computer - or, if it has errors or things NAS does not like, then it is referred to a human for amendment. If the plan is IFR, but not of interest to a UK ACC, then the plan will still be within the FPRSA system, but will not be populated in the NAS FDP. It will be a very rare occasion where they can't find a plan and do something with it, the more likely thing to prevent a plan being 'elevated' is one of ATC staff being too busy to spend the time doing so. It's just down to circumstance at the time.

The Flow Management guys at each ACC can also access the IFPS database and pull up plans which have been filed in the system, so there is another alternative for sector staff if they can't find anything in the FPRSA kit.

IOW, if you file IFR OCAS, the end result is that you have wasted your time because Eurocontrol will, I assume, not be interested in Class G.

IFPS will process any plan flying through airspace where the environment has been specified by the ATC authority of the State, including any routes or segments they are not interested in. Eurocontrol only operate the system on behalf of the Eurocontrol member States, and have no say on what these States can and cannot receive. The State will specify what they wish to receive in the airspace environment details they provide to Eurocontrol. In the UK, IFR plans for flights outside CAS will be received reagardless of route or airspace type and are then processed accordingly.

As I said, at Scottish ACC all IFR plans outside of CAS will be automatically processed and will sit in the NAS FDP as 'proposed' plans. This is because they provide a service under ATSOCAS in their FIR, as well as in areas of the London FIR over the North Sea and the Irish Sea. Manchester also have a more limited service provision outside CAS and will process plans appropriate to the service they provide (their FPRSA is carried out at the Scottish ACC in any case). London ACC and Terminal Control are at the other extreme and don't generally carry out ATSOCAS, so probably just leave the plans in FPRSA and don't input them in to NAS FDP, hence your problems you have outlined.

OK, so the code is not generated by Eurocontrol but is generated when requested by somebody. AIUI, this still means that if the departure tower gives you a squawk which is different from what would have been generated, your flight does not get matched to the filed flight plan.

Eurocontrol provides only 2 services when it receives a flight plan. It distributes it (through IFPS) and it provides a Central Flow Management Unit service (Flow Control).

I think you are getting too hung up on the squawk and its relationship with the Flight Plan. In the UK NAS system, flight plans have 2 states. They are either dormant and awaiting activation (the state is called 'proposed'), or they have been 'activated' and the FDP computer will be processing them and passing updated data along the flights route on elapsed times, flight levels, co-ordinations, etc. There are 3 ways a flight can be activated, only one of which involves the squawk.

Firstly, a flight can be manually notified as airborne or passing a waypoint and then activated by the sector staff within the system using an appropriate message code. This is the method used (generally) outwith the London TMA airfields and Manchester TMA. Note that it doesn't matter what squawk the flight is wearing at the time of activation, nor does it have to be talking to the ACC. The flight has been manually activated and the initial processing will be carried out using system elapsed times based on the filed TAS and the winds held in the system. Once the aircraft is in contact with the ACC (or it could be before if the squawk is passed to another agency) and begins squawking the NAS FDP assigned squawk, then other radar data processing begins and is used to update the NAS FDP with more accurate data on the flights progress, amending ETAs, etc, as the flight is tracked along its route.

Secondly, a flight can be activated by receipt of an electronic data transfer message (known as Co-ordination Point [COP] estimate) from an adjacent ACC. The NAS FDP now processes the flight exactly as in the first case.

Lastly, the flight might depart from an airfield which has 'Auto Departure Message' status, whereby the radar picks up the expected squawk in the expected place (within a certain distance from the departure airfield) and within a parameter window of the expected ETD, and then automatically activates the flight within the FDP. The flight is now processed and uses radar updates as per the end state of the examples above. As these airfields are all within CAS, it is not really a relevant method of activation for IFR flights commencing in, or wholly operating within Class G airspace.

My "amateur" comment was mostly tongue in cheek; I am an "amateur" too But it is not wholly tongue in cheek because ATC are only human and despite their professionalism (which one must say is higher in some countries than in others) they have human attitudes too. The way a pilot goes about things does affect the kind of service he gets (again, more in some countries than others) and this is why I like to find out how the system works.

:ok: I agree.

I did actually file an IFR FP OCAS (via AFPEx) some time ago and due to bad weather spent about an hour trying to get it elevated to airways (so I could climb to VMC) and got politely fobbed off at every step. This is why I think filing IFR FPs OCAS is a waste of time.

AFPEx will (I presume .. never having had to do one) cope with the submission of a Change message (CHG), but that assumes you had it available. NATS also publishes the contact details for their FPRSA positions, so a call to them can often get your change input quickly if needed.


Regards

PR

PS My experts also tell me that if a flight is not activated in the NAS FDP at the expected ETD, then the flight drops its SSR assignment after a few hours (another can be requested manually if the flight subsequently appears), and drops the plan out of NAS after 5 hours. Other countries ATC units may drop it much quicker of course !!

S-Works
22nd Sep 2008, 07:21
I was simply pointing out (with which you seemed to agree) that for the route you gave it doesn’t seem to give a better route, or better fuel management or necessarily a gain in TAS and it doesn’t give you a higher crossing level.

Then you have a very poor understanding of my route planning, the performance of my aircraft and the significant gains from flying high that I gain. As pilot in command I choose to fly a route in the most expeditious and efficient way. As I am not limited to VFR only I have a wider range of options available to me and use the most appropriate tools for the job on each flight.

Therefore I suggest you stop speculating before you make a fool of yourself.

Fuji Abound
22nd Sep 2008, 07:59
OK, thanks, I think I understand now why you would take the airways option as opposed to the same OCAS VFR route.

IO540
22nd Sep 2008, 11:05
Thank you for the time you took to type up that great explanation, pprune Radar :ok:

I think perhaps the two greatest issues facing IFR/airways pilots are

1) Ensuring that their flight is elevated to the airways ASAP - I have tended to think that filing for FL100+ does this but it looks like it is more complex.

2) If going to an airport OCAS, getting dropped out of CAS too early. AIUI, there is no solution to this.

AFPEx will (I presume .. never having had to do one) cope with the submission of a Change message (CHG), but that assumes you had it available. NATS also publishes the contact details for their FPRSA positions, so a call to them can often get your change input quickly if needed.Sure it will - AFPEx does everything including making the tea - but there is no practical way to access it from the cockpit while airborne. I do have a primitive internet access via a satellite phone (for weather data, mainly) but the AFPEx terminal application is a 5MB download every time it is started up, and this is completely infeasible over anything short of a massively expensive "bizjet-level" DSL satellite data connection.

One bizzare solution would be to use the satellite phone to phone up somebody and get them to log onto the system and send out the message.

By "FPRSA positions" do you mean the two public IFPS desk numbers in Brussels? I do have those. A lot of people thought they were confidential but they are not.

PPRuNe Radar
22nd Sep 2008, 14:56
By "FPRSA positions" do you mean the two public IFPS desk numbers in Brussels? I do have those. A lot of people thought they were confidential but they are not.

No, I meant the UK ones. You can contact them through the Parent ATSU using the following:

London Heathrow
Tel +44-(0)20-8750 2615 / 2616
Fax +44-(0)20-8750 2617 / 2618

Manchester
Tel +44-(0)161-499 5502 / 5500
Fax +44-(0)161-499 5504

Scottish ACC
Tel+44-(0)1292-692679
Fax +44-(0)1292-671048

Pace
22nd Sep 2008, 19:36
PPruneradar

I think you will find that Manchester are no more as called them a couple of weeks back and was told it was all through London now.

Pace

Fright Level
23rd Sep 2008, 14:00
I've always had problems filing /Y or /Z. When flying VFR first to join controlled airspace, London have failed to find my plan in the system every time and when wishing to leave controlled airspace (shortcut from DVR to Fairoaks via BIG without having to route via the whole south coast IFR), London have been quite short and dumped me out of controlled airspace over the Kent coast rather than handle me IFR toward Biggin then a radar info service from Farnborough (which is what I wanted).

Last Sunday I filed IFR from Plymouth to Fairoaks, mainly to stay on top in 100km viz rather than 2400 feet in bumpy CU and <10km below the TMA. Without radar, Plymouth suggested a VFR departure to "pick up a joining clearance from Exeter". Despite having a print out of my "OK" flight plan, Exeter, London, Solent nor Bournemouth could find me in the system so approaching SAM, I gave up and stayed clear of CAS.

The system works with controlled airspace and/or SIDs/STARs at both ends but trying to cobble together an IFR clearance without it seems to be a big hassle.

I've got the rating and Class A airspace is safer. My tax money pays for it, my AUW <2000kgs means there is no extra cost, so I'd rather use it. My experience of making it work is somewhat different.

IO540
23rd Sep 2008, 14:32
One should never file Y or Z in the UK.

IMHO, one should never file Y or Z in any other country either, unless CFMU actually chucks out the flight plan (which it does for some countries) with the "airport not having IFR procedures" message.

The problem with filing an IFR flight with any VFR section in it is that ATC are entitled (during the VFR section) to treat you as VFR traffic, and just tell you to report at such and such VRP, or wash their hands of you totally. So you need to be prepared, with current VFR charts and airport VFR plates, a VFR GPS, etc. And of course the length of the VFR segment is up to them - regardless of which VFR-IFR transition you filed on the flight plan.

Fright Level
23rd Sep 2008, 14:40
One should never file Y or Z in the UK

The problem with Fairoaks is it shares Farnborough's standard routings. To get to near France via DVR these are a right pain routing GWC, SFD, LYD then DVR whereas I'm happy with a short VFR hop to BIG where I can join their standard route to DET-DVR and vv. IFR out of Fairoaks to Le Touquet etc adds 80nm to the route for no reason whatsoever if I'm happy with a VFR service through the "alley" to BIG.

/Y or /Z is the proper way for me to offer that flexibility yet it doesn't seem to work!

Pace
23rd Sep 2008, 14:47
Frightlevel

I think you mean your weight is 1999KG? ;) Yes prepared to be dumped out of airways as you put it but plan to control the descent so that you stay in CAS as long as possible and pref until you can get a RAS or two way with your destination field.

Never had a problem joining CAS at some point ahead and being turned away because there was no plan accepted and in the system.

I usually just file it IFR DCT XYZ with an estimated time for XYZ then pick up the clearance through a military controller or failing that with London info Exit point is usually DCT too ;)

Remember you can fly IFR rules outside of controlled airspace even if you are climbing or descending for the whole portion so just file IFR for the whole route. Maybe they dont know what YZ means ;) or the computers are having a brain storm dealing with such complicated stuff so just IFR keep it simple

Pace

S-Works
23rd Sep 2008, 20:47
I agree with Pace, I never file anything but I on my plans and never have a problem getting them accepted and I fly out of a private strip.

I have been dumped out of the bottom of CAS a few times but recently have started to refuse the descent until I am ready and not had problems with that. If it is a nice VFR day then I don't mind but when it's like soup I need to be close enough to home to know if a VFR approach is possible or a diversion is needed and that is much easier when still in the IFR system.

PPRuNe Radar
24th Sep 2008, 00:00
I've got the rating and Class A airspace is safer. My tax money pays for it,

Actually, not one iota of your tax payer money goes towards it ... user pays, as decreed by the Economic Regulation Group of the CAA.

Fright Level
24th Sep 2008, 06:50
Actually, not one iota of your tax payer money goes towards it

Not true.

Apart from the billions of pounds worth of infrastructure inherited by NATS when it was privatised. They didn't build the ATC system from scratch, my tax pounds gave them a huge leg up ;-)

The government still owns 49% of NATS and was given £65 million of my money after Sept 11th. What of the current £1bn investment programme, isn't some of that funded from the government purse?

JIMBO01
12th Aug 2017, 18:02
Honestly, can anyone just answer this question. What do you file if flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace? If departing a class D airfield IFR but OCAS, what on earth do you file? VFR or IFR? Simple!!

Johnm
12th Aug 2017, 18:09
If departing IFR from a class d aerodrome file IFR

Talkdownman
14th Aug 2017, 07:24
What do you file if flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace? If departing a class D airfield IFR but OCAS, what on earth do you file? VFR or IFR? Simple!!
Yes, simple. VFR does not equal IFR. IFR = IFR.
If this is UK airspace I suggest that whilst you are 'on earth' that you have a read of ENR 1.10 FLIGHT PLANNING.