Filing IFR for flight outside of controlled airspace?

[englishal]

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"

[Pace]

>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]

Well, you're wrong again.

My quote comes direct from the CAA Safety Leaflet on the topic:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

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

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

[Fuji Abound]

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 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.