Irish Air Law Advice, Please

[deanoverton]

Routing Galway to Waterford via Clonmel the other day. Shannon asked me to stay initially at 2,000' on the regional QNH (which was a strange request as I was in uncontrolled airspace). After about 10 minutes I asked to climb to 3,000' (still under the Shannon CTA base of 3,500') as higher mountains were approaching. I didn't hear anything back so climbed to 3,000' only to be given a right rocketing by Shannon Info for straying away from my instructed height. Where did I go wrong - or was Shannon Info in the wrong, as I was always well under the CTA? Do they have the right to instruct me to hold at a height in uncontrolled airspace? Should I have really returned from whence I came rather than climb beyond my instructed height? Help!

Deano

[stickandrudderman]

You are PIC. Remember that.
When you got no response from your tx did you continue to make blind calls?

[dublinpilot]

Well basically they do not have the right to insist that you do something.

So when they asked you to remain at 2000ft you had the right to say no.

But once you agreed to it, then they have the right to expect that you will stick with what you agreed to do.

You did fine until you decided to depart the agreeded level without getting a clear response from them. I think you would have been perfectly within your rights telling them that you were going to climb to 3000ft and that you could no longer comply with their request for 2000ft, but you would have had to make sure that that message had got through.

It is indeed an unusual request from Shannon. It's very rare that they've asked me to maintain an altitude in class G....in fact I'm not sure that they ever have.

dp

[deanoverton]

Yep - I told them I had levelled off at 3,000' and it was this that brought me the terse response from Shannon Info.

Deano

[dublinpilot]

You need to be sure that they knew you were climbing before commencing the climb, not afterwards.

[BackPacker]

I had an informal and lighthearted discussion with some ATC folks yesterday. We regularly fly aerobatics in a TMA which is class E. We always announce our intentions to the controlling agency and generally have very good relationships with them. But the jurisdiction is not always clear.

The discussion was along the lines of: "If ATC issues us an instruction 'descend 2500' or below' (for instance because of conflicting IFR traffic on a SID or STAR) do I have to comply or not?" And their answer was: "technically no, but if you don't you won't find us very accommodating next time".

In uncontrolled airspace, and in class E, once you start communicating with ATC and agree on an altitude, level or route, you sort-of engage in a contract and you're expected not to deviate from that contract without communications with ATC.

If you look at the CAA documentation about the new FIS classifications in the UK (Basic, Traffic etc) you'll find that that documentation actually makes this explicit.

Of course things like the low-flying rules or the requirement to maintain VMC take precedence, but you still have to announce your deviation from the "contract" at the earliest opportunity.

[deanoverton]

I did - please see my original comment: "...After about 10 minutes I asked to climb to 3,000' (still under the Shannon CTA base of 3,500') as higher mountains were approaching. I didn't hear anything back so climbed to 3,000'.


Brilliant reply, Backpacker. Very clear and concise: just the sort of guidance I needed. Thankyou.

Deano

[hum]

:)There are only 3 types of airspace in the Shannon FIR, A C and G.

for GA unpressurised traffic below F 170 you only have C and G to contend with. Its very simple, you can do what you like in G, you do as you are told in C.

Controllers are human, sometimes they forget VFR traffic in class G is not under their control... any instructions they issue can be over-ridden or modified by the pilot of an aircraft flying VFR in class 'G'.. Its good to let them know though... although not mandatory.

In my experience when Shannon issue instructions in Class G it is to protect IFR traffic nearby...

I'm surprised you were admonished for exercising your right to 'do as you please' in Class 'G' Perhaps the controller's plans to maintain some separation on IFR traffic were thwarted and he got a bit frustrated. I would not lose any sleep over it, they are by and large a very good bunch..:)

[potkettleblack]

Perhaps they gave you a bum steer with the regional QNH and you were about or did bust controlled airspace?

I remember when I did my CPL and IR out of Bournemouth an instructor reinforcing the principle that I needed to be aware of the local aerodrome QNH that I was flying near and not just the regional to ensure I didn't inadvertently bust controlled airspace. Southampton was only a few miles away and it was not unsual for it to be on a different QNH to either Bournemouth or the regional.

[dublinpilot]

I did - please see my original comment: "...After about 10 minutes I asked to climb to 3,000' (still under the Shannon CTA base of 3,500') as higher mountains were approaching. I didn't hear anything back so climbed to 3,000'.

My point was, that without a response from Shannon, you have no idea if they heard you or not. They didn't ask you to limit your altitude for nothing. If you want to do something else you must ensure that you know that. Saying something on the radio and not getting a reply would suggest that you weren't heard. Why not say it a second time, or ask if they got your message?

[Radar]

First off, I have to say I've found the ATC service to GA in Ireland second to none. You get what amounts to a blanket radar service straight off the bat.

Therein lies a potential gotcha. There is a fine line between that level of service and the control service offered within positive control airspace (A and C in this case). In both of those, you do as you're told, as hum put it. In G you are never under positive control, you can broadcast your intentions and carry on. The insrtruction to maintain 2000' can never be to ensure sep with traffic in class G, the controller has no responsibility in this regard. So long as you remain clear of the CTA, your actions are your responsibility.

For your climb to 3000' to be an issue with the CTA at 3500' would mean a regional QNH some 16 hPa lower than the local variety, highly unlikely I would have thought. If it was a bumsteer, as potkettleblack suggests, then again it's up to ATC to catch their mistake.

From the details given, it sounds to me like the guy / gal involved hadn't changed hats since working the approach or area radar earlier in the day. The bottom line is, in class G, ATC offer a service, not clearances.

[BackPacker]

You also need to look at this from a controllers point of view. You may not have been the only one out there, and the other traffic may, for some reason, be under positive control from ATC.

If ATC has no "contract" with you they don't know what you're going to do next and will apply a large separation between you and the other traffic. But if you are in radio contact, and have agreed to maintain 2000', ATC has every right to expect that you will hold your end of the agreement. So they might send an IFR flight overhead at 3000'.

Not funny if all of a sudden you happen to be there at that altitude.

And I agree with dublinpilot. In your average spamcan a cruise climb from 2000' to 3000' will take a minute or more. I find it hard to believe you had no opportunity whatsoever to announce that you were climbing. "G-ABCD climbing 3000' due to terrain" takes all of three seconds.

[Radar]

No backpacker this is not correct.

Within class G airspace the controller has no obligation to provide seperation between IFR an VFR traffic. Radio contact and the provision of flight information service does nothing to change this basic premise.

Class G airspace does not require ATC clearances for entry or operation and the controller has no responsibility above and beyond the provision of flight information if workload permits. Granted the controller had some reason for making the request not to climb above 2000'. But that's all it was. A request. Unless the Republic of Ireland has filed a difference with ICAO, there is no legal basis for the controller to require compliance. If he / she were using this request to ensure some sort of separation (though I'm at a loss to come up with one that would be required in class G), then they were hanging themselves out to dry big time.

According to the initial post, a transmission was made looking for 3000' but with no reply. The controller could have been busy on a landline, the coverage might have been crap, the transmission might have been stepped on. Regardless, the subsequent climb never required authorization.

Deano, you sure you were in class G???

[7AC]

Dean'
If that was you in the Tecnam on Wednesday or Thursday afternoon then perhaps I can shed some light on the subject.
The track from Galway to CML takes you very close to the Shannon TMA whose base
just to your right is 2500 feet AMSL. The base over your head is 3500 feet.
If you were just a little to right of track you would have been in controlled airspace at
3000 feet and on the extended centerline of runway 24 at Shannon.
If you were on track exactly you would have had 500 feet to spare and perhaps when
you announced your presence at 3000 feet you "surprised" the controller who perhaps
had something coming over your head.
If the above is correct perhaps you should just be thankful you weren't asked to "call the
tower after landing".

[Radar]

7AC,

The fuller picture emerges. I'm with the explanation up to the point where you say dean should bethankful you weren't asked to "call the
tower after landing". . Was he in class G at all times or did he bust controlled airspace? If it were the latter, then there should be more than 'call the tower'. If however he remained outside CAS then there's little case to answer.

Don't get me wrong, 7AC, I'm not having a pop at ATC or the service you provide, but level changes in open FIR do not require an ATC clearance regrdless of how close to, but remaining outside, CAS the manoeuvre takes place.

[7AC]

I wasn't with Dean' but I can see from looking at the map that it would be very easy
to be in controlled airspace on this route at 3000 feet.
There is high ground on this route and I can understand the need to climb, however until
we hear from the controller in question we will not know the full story.
I am not an air traffic controller but as I saw a Tecnam type aircraft flying on that leg as
I said during the week I am surmising it was the same aeroplane and offering my opinion.
You are quite correct in Class G airspace you may twist and turn climb and dive as you wish.

[Radar]

My mistake 7AC,

I mis-read you as one of the Shannon guys.

[NorthSouth]

I'm slightly hesitant to get involved in this discussion because I don't fly in Irish airspace, but it has lots of parallels with the UK where I fly. The key parallel is what CAP 774 calls "agreements". I've never really worked out how these are different from what existed before March this year, but I've always assumed that this term "agreements" applies to controller statements such as "report if you wish to climb above 2000 feet" when you've just told them you're leaving controlled airspace. These are strange requests because (in the case I'm particularly considering) you've just left a CTR on a "not above 2000" clearance and the base of CAS above is 3500; IFR traffic is never going to be lower than 4000. It seems to me it's a very fine line between courtesy and legal sanction if you don't comply with that request. Yet another case of pilots having to guess what's going through controllers' minds - and I don't mean any criticism of controllers there. It's just that I've always taken the view that there's much more scope for being explicit i.e. saying why you're doing something (if time allows).
NS