Should IFR be allowed in lower airways by IMC holders?

[Yogi-Bear]

Firstly, please can someone explain what is so miraculous about the airspace south of 50º N that, instantaneously, all the flight rules should change? Semi-circular rule applies; VFR allowed on lower airways at L+500’; IMC rating not recognised (although I read that the French recognise its advantages and are starting to train and test for it in the UK!).

I appears to be common ground that the JAR is a disaster for GA. Just as we start to regain independence from our American friends and allies after nearly sixty years of neo-colonial rule ;-), we hand the initiative back by producing gobbledygook like this. Is it another manifestation of the sort of European restrictive practices and bureaucracy that hobble us commercially?

The NPPL gets around one part of the problem that JAR has created. So to overcome the now stratospheric cost of an IR, what about allowing IFR on the lower airways, up to FL115 say, by IMC rating holders after a supplementary test? Where better to start a ‘pilot’ scheme for this than on Alpha 25? Glasgow to Toulouse via points west. Introduced nationally, this one move would reduce at a stroke a lot of the off airway flogging around in IMC, which is actually the most taxing IFR regime on the pilot. It would make for a much more relaxed and safe environment for all. Might increase ATC workload a mite.......

Whaddyathink?


------------------
Yaberdaberdoo
That's OK Boo-Boo

[RVR800]

The points you make about the cost/time burdon of EC over-regulation are well made

Don't the Germans have a controlled VFR rating allowing pilots into class C airspace ?

There is no consistency

Now we have a NPPL how about an NBCPL,
NCPL and a NATPL ?

- come to think about it lets just bin
this JAA stuff for good
cos it aint doing anybody any favours

Mobility of Flight Crew in the EU -
Have you seen the Air France Pilot Advert?
JAR dont make me laugh


[This message has been edited by RVR800 (edited 05 February 2001).]

[BEagle]

Are we taliking about flight under IFR in VMC in the lower levels of Class A airspace, or flight under IFR in IMC? Are you also proposing a commensurate relaxation in the level of navaids required in Class A airspace to make such flight aaffordable?

Perhaps it would be simpler to make the lower levels (up to about FL 80) Class D?

[Code Blue]

At the risk of being irritating/appearing thick, would someone be kind enought to explain to a non-UK pilot what definitions apply to your Classes of airspace. Some of the differences may partly explain the rising temperature of the thread which generated this question ;)

In general terms (there is the usual fine print), in Canada, Class A airspace begins at 18000', is flown based on 29.92/1013, requires ATC clearance and excludes VFR traffic. Class B runs from 12500' - 17999', requires ATC clearance and allows IFR and Controlled VFR (this latter needs no extra license or rating, requires radio - obviously - and needs Mode C, but has to be flown in VMC).

Class C allows IFR and VFR with ATC clearance. Class D allows VFR with prior ATC contact. Class E provides IFR separation with no special requirements for VFR. Class F is restricted and everything else is Class G, ie uncontrolled.


------------------
-.-- --.- -..-

[rolling circle]

Airspace is classified by ICAO as Class A - Class G. Within each class of airspace certain rules apply as to, for example, which aircraft are provided with separation, the ATC service available, speed limitations, whether radio is required, minimum weather conditions for VFR flight, etc. These rules are the same throughout that part of the world that conforms to ICAO. Therefore, the rules are the same in Class B airspace in the UK, USA, France, Benin, Uruguay, etc.

For example:

Class A

VFR flight not permitted

IFR separation provided to all aircraft
ATC service is positive radar control
Radio is mandatory
ATC clearance is required for flight in Class A airspace

The difference comes in the way that different countries employ the different classes of airspace. In the UK for example, all airspace above FL245 is Class C, with the same rules that apply to Class C airspace in the US. Below FL245 most of the airspace is Class G, Class B is not used at all. Airways, and the airspace around major international airports is Class A, airspace around less busy international airports is Class D and some airspace over Scotland is Class E and Class F.

The important thing to remember is that, outside North America, Class B airspace does not always look like an inverted wedding cake and Class G airspace can exist above 1200 agl just as well as Class A airspace can exist below 18000 msl.

As to the idea of flying in Class A airspace with an IMC rating - not a hope. If you want to play with the big boys, get a proper IR.

RVR800 - It's not the EC, or even the EU. Only 15 of the 33 members of the JAA are also members of the EU

[TooHotToFly]

Code Blue - Our airspace is more complicated than it needs to be. I think we even have airspace classifications that don't exist.

[BEagle]

RC - you have your Class B and Class C transposed. There is NO Class C airspace in the UK and all airpsace above FL245 is either Class B or Class A. Not sure whether that's true above FL 660.........

I tend to agree with your Class A IR statement, but perhaps the lower levels of certain airways should be re-designated as Class D in the UK FIR? Perhaps if we had the generally-recommended nationwide 6000ft TA and made certain airways Class D up to 5000ft? Perhaps some of the Class F routes should also be re-classified Class D rather than any move to achieve Class A status for them?



[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 06 February 2001).]

[rolling circle]

OK BEagle - it's a fair cop, I'll concede a draw. All airspace between FL245 and FL660 is Class B. There is no Class A up there and, above FL660, it's unclassified.
(Ref UK AIP ENR 2.2.1)

[GulfStreamV]

Is Special VFR (SVFR) a UK only caveat, or is it an ICAO one as well? Just curious...

GV

[WeeWillyWinky]

Interesting question that started this thread. Moving on slightly is the IMC rating a good rating? I would say no if it is treated as a rating to fly IFR in IMC. The standards are lower and the training less than an IR but it is a useful rating for getting home in deteriorating weather or if caught out by same.

Also, if flying a single give a thought to engine failure - it happened to me in IMC!

[BEagle]

RC - Oops, yes, you're right. Upper ATS routes in the UK UIR are indeed Class B, not Class A. Above FL 660 it's unclassified, so presumably Concordes, U2s, SR71s, Grob Stratos and A***** aircraft just work on the see-and-avoid principle?

[Yogi-Bear]

This thread should be read in the context of the controversy on the thread “IMC in uncontrolled airspace”.

BE: I’m thinking perhaps of alignment with France; class E up to FL115 and D to FL195. That’s probably too much for their Lordships to stomach in one go. I’d settle for class D up to FL115 for now; a practical limit for un-pressurised singles, both VFR and IFR. I’m not suggesting a degradation of class A but does it need to be so all encompassing? I though most of the big boys had already taken their toys into the wild blue yonder. Perhaps the quadrantal rule has served its purpose. Not everyone complies and clearly there is anxiety over non-radar IMC flying. Perhaps the IMC rating was originally intended just to get you out of the ****. But now there are more capable aircraft about and we ought to move on. When I bought an Arrow in ’91 it came equipped with more avionic capability than half the aloominum tubes operating out of the nearby International Airport. Nowadays, people are beginning to fit dual Garmin GNS 430/530s and similar boxes. So defining a suitable minimum equipment standard shouldn’t be the problem. I’m not familiar but it’s probably there already. The two VORs/ADF/xponder of the typical Warrior isn’t good enough though.

Just as improving equipment brings something within reach, the JAA moves the rating further out of reach. So there are two motives to this suggestion. Improving safety and accessibility, physical and financial, for the pilot and also overcoming the costly JAR pickle. The latter looks like the result of bureaucratic trade-off in the corridors. Alignment with acceptable practice elsewhere might create sufficient momentum to avoid a repetition.

“Can do” requires capability without loading us with un-competitive costs. I know a few self-improvers who cut their teeth flogging around on an IMC rating. It was the skills they learnt then that enabled them to do an affordable un-approved IR course which then got them their flight deck tickets.
Y-B

[A and C]

If and i only say IF IMC holders are to use the lower class A airspace the first thing that must happen is holding must be included as part of the IMC trainning.

The second thing is that all aircraft used in class A airspace must have a class 1 radio fit.....just because an aircraft has "full airways kit" it dont mean that it is class 1 as a lot of people cheapskate on the indicators and render the TSO of the radio invalid.

[Noggin]

IMC rating in airways, definately not. VFR airways, that is a different matter, but probably not a viable option due to UK weather.

Why Quadrantals? well the Brits and Indians like to be more precise than anyone else so we generate extra levels, extra pressure settings, and controlled airspace like jig-saw puzzle pieces. Oh yes, we drive on the other side of the road as well.

[Code Blue]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">A and C:
holding must be included as part of the IMC trainning</font>

I actually enjoy flying holds - it's excellent practice. However I can't recall the last time I was asked to fly one for 'real'. How common are holds in the UK?

------------------
-.-- --.- -..-

[BEagle]

When I fly Lufthansa to London Airport, sorry, 'Heathrow', every bl**dy time I seem to look out of the window and see Stapleford Tawney and the M25 re-appearing every 4 minutes for about 15-20 minutes at the end of the first FRA-LHR of the day!! But, of course, the aircraft is probably doing its own holding patterns very nicely. Yes, holds are still needed, but rarely hand-flown under single pilot conditions.

Funnily enough, the first FRA-STN buzz flight of the day never seems to need to hold! Why on earth do people bother with LHR for European short-haul flights??

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 07 February 2001).]