IO,
We are friends and I agree with much of what you write much of the time, but I struggle to find anything I agree with in this thread. It just comes across as a vexatious rant.
The simple essence of this is as follows.
If you file an IFR flight plan which is not contiguously within the airways route structure, then you should expect
(i) deviations from airways into other controlled airspace to withdraw you from a contiguous airways clearance and you will require an ATSU to get you a clearance back into airways
(ii) deviations from airways into uncontrolled airspace to require you to operate accordingly - dealing with a Flight INFO service, requesting clearance back into airways or CAS etc, and carrying whatever charts are appropriate to the flight you are conducting.
It's incredibly simple and I think you are just being difficult or trying to pick an argument by making it sound like an "anomaly" out there to trap an unwitting pilot. Yes a Mongolian IR might find it confusing, but IFR is like that. The basic qualification is just that, and everyone needs some additional advice and training on using it in the real world. Unless one tries to make it sound horribly complicated, as you do, it is simple.
Either
(A) file a route contiguously within airways, and have a seamless ATC service end-end
or
(B) use whatever flexibility is available from IFPS to file a more prefered route (level-wise and/or directness) which deviates outside the airways route structure, but be prepared to do the work needed for an "ad hoc" IFR flight (in or out of CAS) outside the airways
There are other implications e.g. if one gets dumped out of the IFR service then one should carry VFR charts for the area.
If you file a route oustide CAS then that is not "being dumped".
You are dumping yourself.
The UK is simply out of line with international practice, but doesn't want to admit it because the required changes cannot be easily implemented within the current privatised-ATC / working practices structure.
That is simply not true. What international practice is there for handling IFR flights outside controlled airspace in this way?
will settle nicely at say FL100, and about 99% of them will fall for this trick of being transferred to London Information
We've had this debate before. If you file a route across the channel in which you leave controlled airspace at the boundary into the UK then you should expect handover to London INFO. How is this a trick? You are perpetuating a myth that can only confuse people that there is some "trick" in the normal, predictable and correct working of the system.
You file an IFR flight from France in airways into the UK - French ATC hand you over to London Control
You file an IFR flight from France that leaves the airways near the boundary - French ATC hand you over to London INFO
Where is the "trick"? It's ridiculous there should even be an issue surrounding this obvious and simple practice.
I could file a route from say Split in Croatia, to Goodwood, of which the last 50nm may be OCAS.
My departure clearance at Split will be "cleared to EGHR...".
What is the problem here? The controller has accurately indicated there is no clearance limit prior to your destination.
The departure tower has no way of knowing if any part of the filed route will be OCAS
Exactly. That's because the system isn't built around routes which dart in and out of CAS. If
you file such a route,
you are responsible for negotiating the enroute clearances.
that there is considerable institutional ATC resistance to changing the system. The reasons are opaque (PMs on this topic are rarely answered) but I'd guess that any change would require a French-style unified radar service which has implications on ATCO pay scales. You only have to look at the furore, occassionally vented over here by FBU staff, over the AFPEx system and the preceeding FBU closures to get a measure of emotions in this game.
You rarely impugn anything other than the most venal motives on the part of any other member of the aviation community. Flight schools, airlines, ATC, regulators - they are all on some vested-interest gravy-train.
I agree that IFR users of lower airspace could, in principle, be better served by
a) an airways network with bases lowered more consistently to "non-oxygen" levels, to make it easier to stay within the route structure in a light airplane
and
b) a better IFR ATC service outside of the airways route structure
but, and it is a colossal but
Has it occured to you that the main category of user here (which I believe you are in) pays nothing for the IFR services they do get, as a result of the 2t eurocontrol exemption? It is about the only free lunch in aviaiton in Europe.
Given this, the low level IFR system is fantastic for light aircraft in Europe. If you use the full gold-plated airways service, it's free. Plus, in the UK, you have the flexibility to fly IFR outside controlled airspace and ad-hoc IFR through non-Class A CAS. It's fantastically flexible.
Why not put your talents to explaining to people how to use this system, rather than constructing elaborate arguments to make it more mystifying in order to be able to argue against some policy or practice 'conspiracy', when, frankly, your 'arguments' have no substance behind them.
brgds
421C