European ATC Clearances

[hawk37]

Have recently flown domestically in Europe, and also a leg from the UK to Iceland and return. Seems our initial clearance is always to "destination" via some domestic routing, eg ABC vor UG 99 to DEF vor. However in the USA we are always given "as filed" or "flight plan route" after the initial routing. In Europe this phrase never seems to be included.
So...in the event of no further clearance from atc, are we expected to continue flight plan route?

The UK to Iceland portion actually enters oceanic airspace, and this we did without a clearance from Scottish (?) if I remember correctly, the jepp chart indicates that this is appropriate. Yet the absence of "as filed" still leaves me apprehensive. Should I be quering the controllers each and every time?

[Henry VIII]

So...in the event of no further clearance from atc, are we expected to continue flight plan route?
If due to comm failure it is suggested by ICAO unless VMC to an altn apt.The UK to Iceland portion actually enters oceanic airspace, and this we did without a clearance from Scottish (?)Shanwick is the only NAT OCA where it's mandatory to hold before entering when without clearance.
Unless, again, it's due to comm fail.
In this case, according to MNPS Manual, depending if received a clearence or not you may continue according to the last clearence or to your FPL.

[hawk37]

Henry,

1. We did not have a com failure

2. Don't have the current jepp atlantic with me, but we didn't actually enter Shanwick. My old chart says

"Flights routing via RATSU shall not call Shanwick for the oceanic clearance. Scottish shall issue a clearance...." RATSU is on the border of Reykjavik and Shanwick oceanic, and immediately after crossing RATSU you are in Reykajavik oceanic.

So....is ATC expecting "as filed", even though they do not ever say it, nor do they give further routing? Seems logical, yet I've never seen it in print. A difference from the US.

[Henry VIII]

Hi hawk37, sorry but understood you entered inside Shanwick OCA.

Anyway in case of no further clearance I'll continue as per FPL.
Don't have written reference.

[hawk37]

thanks Henry.

Well, to the other ppruners out there, is this normal? I'm in Europe very infrequently, but it does seem that "flight plan route" or "as filed" is not the terminology I recall. Can those based over there comment on the format of a clearance one usually receives?

Is in normal to just get a clearance to a nearby enroute waypoint, and for the crew to then just proceed flight plan route without further instruction?

[Check Airman]

Private pilot speaking...

In the US, the terminology will be:

"Cleared to Reynolds Airport; David Two RNAV Departure, Kingham Transition; then, as filed. Maintain niner thousand. Expect flight level four one zero, one zero minutes after departure."

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/Atc/Chp4/atc0403.html#atc0403.html.1

You will find that most often, the transition fix will be a point on the airway you will be joining.

In other countries, the clearance is usually delivered as:

"Cleared to Milian via the AR1..."

Like you, I've never heard the "as filed", but would assume that it is implied since you presumably have filed the AR1 as your first airway. I'm sure if you check the ICAO documents it will say that you may proceed as filed.

[InSoMnIaC]

Yeah what check airman said..

and considering they say cleared to destination it is implied that via fpl unless they give you some amendment. how else will u get to the destination?

[hawk37]

Insomniac, quite often the next atc section gives me the next 2, or even 3, waypoints to proceed to. And sometimes they are not flight plan route. So....that's how else I proceed to my destination.

But, without that, I guess Check Airman is probably right. FPR must be implied, whereas in the US it is specifically given.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Have recently flown domestically in Europe, and also a leg from the UK to Iceland and return. Seems our initial clearance is always to "destination" via some domestic routing, eg ABC vor UG 99 to DEF vor. However in the USA we are always given "as filed" or "flight plan route" after the initial routing. In Europe this phrase never seems to be included.
So...in the event of no further clearance from atc, are we expected to continue flight plan route?

In the UK at least, the use of 'as filed' or 'flight planned route' is not used since there have been many instances where the plan held by ATC is different from that held by the pilot. So in order to provide a safety backup, a route name or waypoints will be issued ... which may just be the SID. After the SID, which will place you on the route ATC expect you to follow, then you'll follow your flight plan. For overflying or landing traffic in the UK, you'll normally be given waypoints to route to, or a STAR to follow.

The whole idea is to pick up discrepancies so that ATC and flight crews are not caught out by something unexpected happening.



"Flights routing via RATSU shall not call Shanwick for the oceanic clearance. Scottish shall issue a clearance...."

Scottish don't. You have to call Reykjavik Clearance Delivery (CDO) for your clearance prior to entry.

[InSoMnIaC]

Hawk37 Insomniac, quite often the next atc section gives me the next 2, or even 3, waypoints to proceed to. And sometimes they are not flight plan route. So....that's how else I proceed to my destination.


If you read my post you would see I said unless they give you some amendment

anyway if the next atcu gives u other waypoints then thats good and well and as long as you acknowledge the clearance then you would follow it but in case of a radio failure even the next atcu will expect you to follow what u have filed unless you acknowledge any other clearance enroute.

[CJ Driver]

Broadly speaking the US policy of always preparing for the possible lost-comm scenario is completely ignored in Europe. I have often filed a flight plan and then been re-routed so far away from it that it would be foolish to try to pick it back up again in the event of lost comm. In addition, you should not expect ATC to read you a new clearance after they have tactically vectored you around half of Europe. It's not even worth asking - in reply to the call "What should we expect after PAM?", I have had the answer "You should expect further routing from the next sector"! :ooh:

[InSoMnIaC]

cj driver- what do you then say the purpose of giving you a clearance to destination is in europe. i mean if they didn't consider lost com u would only recieve your SID clearance and then any further onward clearance as you proceed.

there are set procedures laid out for dealing with lost com and if u are being radar vectored you should rejoin your fpl after 7 mins in europe.

I have never been vectored around half of europe as you put it. what often does happen in the absence of traffic is the controller would clear you direct to a point at the boundary of his airspace (to make it more direct). they however clear you direct to a point that is on you Filed flight plan so that you would rejoin you flight plan after the point.

when ever you get radar vectors like you mentioned it is usually about 10deg right/left due traffic this would hardly constitue "around half of europe"

[bookworm]

i mean if they didn't consider lost com u would only recieve your SID clearance and then any further onward clearance as you proceed.

That happens to me often enough too!

Like CJ driver, I think UK ATC (and it does seem to be UK in particular) largely ignores the ATC clearance as a plan for comm failure purposes. Mostly, air traffic management seems to be a tactical exercise with an implicit assumption that tactical instructions can continue to be issued when necessary, i.e. ignoring the comms failure scenario. It's not what ICAO had in mind when ATC was invented, but it seems to work without major incidents.

[Spitoon]

It's not what ICAO had in mind when ATC was invented, but it seems to work without major incidents.I think the problem is that the high traffic density that we find in some parts of Europe these days is not what ICAO had in mind either.

I'm a great believer in the concept of standardisation through SARPs - fundamentally it's worked well for 60+ years - but the ICAO framework is showing weaknesses for what we have in Europe today. Even the Regional Supplementary Procedures are slow to reflect today's environment (largely because of the administrative processes required, I suspect).

However, the Communication Failure Procedures used in Europe were amended about 5 years ago to address some of the concerns raised in this thread. I'm not saying these are right or good - just that they are there!

[hawk37]

Interesting reading from all the posters. As the Original Poster, may I graciously suggest the lost comm issue not be the main topic addressed in this thread, perhaps someone could start another if that is of interest? Thanks.

Insomniac, reference our posts 7, 8 & 10, I thought when you said “amendment” you meant on the initial clearance from the ground controller. You mean amendment in the air, OK.

And Insomniac, I have to agree with the intent of CJ’s post. While I don’t recall being vectored over half of the flight, I know an enroute controller has often given a further 2 waypoints to proceed to, neither of which are on my flight plan route.

Pprune Radar,
I understand what you mean but am not sure I’ve ever seen it in practice. The only time we’re given points to fly to are when they are not on the filed route, or we are bypassing some filed waypoints. The other times, with no atc directions given, we elect to fly the filed route, in which case the plan route held by atc may in fact be different from that held by the pilot.
As for the Scottish/Reykjavik question, I’ll check the latest jepp chart.

So….Ppruners, would the following points be considered an appropriate answer to the original questions?

1. Don’t expect “as filed” or “flight plan route” to be given in the initial or amended enroute clearance. But, once airborne, if given direct to a point on the filed route, and no further instructions from atc, then rejoin the route at that point. No queries from the pilot required.

2. If given direct to a point not on the filed route, ask for further routing as you approach.

3. Then, if unable to get a word in, proceed to the next appropriate point in your route, and continue to attempt clarification. But take into account the general direction of your flight. By appropriate I mean a point requiring a turn of say greater than 40 degrees may not be preferred, if the bearing to the following point is more or less straight ahead.


All Yea’s and Nay’s appreciated

[DiCampo]

2. If given direct to a point not on the filed route, ask for further routing as you approach.


I think it's better to ask ATC what you can expect after the point that's not on your route before actually going there.
As stated earlier, we might have a different flight plan than you have, taking you a totally different way. So when we then give you the best direct according to the plan we have, it might actually be quite a way off of your plan.

[hawk37]

Sure, DiCampo, I understand.

As CJ said in post 11, and I've found too, that query is usually met with "you can expect further with the next sector"

[10W]

I'd say 'yay' to your 1, 2, & 3.

As for the Scottish/Reykjavik question, I’ll check the latest jepp chart.

I work the airspace so if Jepp is saying you get a clearance from Scottish, their document is wrong :)

I've found too, that query is usually met with "you can expect further with the next sector"

This will usually be given when you are going to another Control Centre's airspace. The initial controller will be able to clear you to a waypoint which is either within his airspace or one which is in the next Centre's airspace but is known or is routinely used for procedures between the ATC units. What the transferring controller may not have knowledge of is the routeing required further down the line, in airspace which he has no detailed knowledge of (and is not required to).

For example, you may originally have planned to be routeing via XYZ in my airspace, but are given a different routeing when airborne (e.g. coming in from Oceanic airspace) which now takes you to ABC in my airspace. If I can't get you back to XYZ, or perhaps think that getting you back to XYZ may be a less logical or efficient route from your position than that to ABC (which of course was not on your original plan) then I'll clear you as far as I can to either the boundary of my airspace on a new route, or more usually to a waypoint within the next Centre's airspace which accords with your new track.

What I probably don't know, without a bit of time consuming detective work, is where your original route was and how it would be best to rejoin it in the next Centre's airspace. I also have no knowledge of the various procedures and conditions which apply in that next piece of airspace. If I make a best guess and pass you a route I think might be alright, I might be setting someone up for an incident once you leave my airspace. So, if I can, I'll ask the next Centre where they want you to route after my last waypoint, but this may not always be possible if the traffic is busy or my workload is high. The same things might also be happening to the next Centre controller and he'll want to save time (RT and telephone) by passing it to you on contact, rather than relay it to me, have me read it back to him, and then rely on me to relay it to you. So that's why sometimes you'll get a message that the next sector will give you onward clearance. :ok:

[hawk37]

10W, thanks for the explanation, easier to understand the system now.

The lastest jepp chart I can currently find no longer says that Scottish will issue a clearance to aircraft filing over RATSU, as PPrune Radar and 10W have clarified. I seem to remember that on our UK to Iceland leg we received a departure to a filed waypoint from clearance delivery. However, assuming we were then cleared flight planned route, and that Scottish would issue a revised clearance if necessary, we did not call Reykjavik oceanic prior to RATSU, the entry point. At this point (RATSU) we were asked by Scottish to contact Reykjavik, which we did and were given a slightly revised route, but no assigned mach/flight level (not too surprising, I guess). Everyone seemed happy....

Question then for PPrune Radar or 10W, (or others with knowledge) based on this scenario, the next time we do such a route;

Should we have called Reykjavik prior to RATSU then, passed ETA, and requested mach/flight level?

And that we didn't is a big NO NO?

[10W]

UK AIP Entry

8.3 Flights Routeing via 6100N

8.3.1 All aircraft entering the Reykjavik OCA at or above FL 55 via 6100N at or East of 01000W from Scottish Domestic Airspace are required to obtain an Oceanic Clearance from Reykjavik OACC, as detailed in AIP Iceland.

Note: Flights routeing via RATSU (6100N 01000W) do not require OCA clearance from Shanwick OAC. Therefore, aircraft intending to route via RATSU (6100N 01000W) must not contact Shanwick Clearance Delivery.

Iceland AIP Entry

1.8.8.6 Requests for Oceanic Clearance

1.8.8.6.1 Aircraft entering Reykjavik Control Area shall contact Iceland Radio with their oceanic clearance request prior entering Reykjavik OCA:

1. From Edmonton/Murmansk Control Areas on HF frequencies.

2. Aircrews approaching Reykjavik airspace from the Scottish and Stavanger areas shall contact Iceland Radio on VHF 127.85 or HF frequencies to obtain their Oceanic Clearance. The Oceanic Clearance is transmitted from Reykjavik OACC to Iceland Radio once Scottish or Stavanger have coordinated the flight with Reykjavik, therefore the clearance should be available within the timeframe of 10 to 30 minutes prior to entry into the Reykjavik FIR/CTA.

AIrcrew that are unable to obtain their Oceanic Clearance prior to entry should seek confirmation of their authorization to enter Reykjavik airspace from their current ATS unit (Scottish or Stavanger). Having received such a confirmation the aircrew should enter Reykjavik airspace at the level cleared by that unit and continue attempts to obtain the Oceanic Clearance from Iceland Radio.

Independent of the above procedure for obtaining Oceanic Clearance, aircrews are reminded to maintain listening watch on the Scottish or Stavanger frequency until instructed to contact Reykjavik Control.

HF Frequencies and operational hours are listed in ENR 1.6.2.3.2

Hope that helps.

[hawk37]

Thanks 10W that claries it for me, as does the most recent Jepp chart which says the same.
Do you ever see the Scottish - Faroe - Iceland corridor ever becoming part of domestic airspace, ie enough radar coverage/control/communication that airspace may be re-designed, and flights will not enter any oceanic airspace?

Re passing those voice/HF met reports in the N Atlantic that another thread discussed. Have you heard any possible changes to that requirement, seeing as so many aircraft can do it automatically? Any pointers you can give to us pilots, other than what's written, on the passing of those reports to you?

[MrApproach]

It seems logical to me, and is the procedure where I live, to include "via flight planned route" when you start using the "cleared to (insert destination)..." type of clearance. I would not think cleared as filed (the logical conclusion when nothing is to change) is safe, because A) The aircraft might have two or more flight plans; and B) terminal area departure instructions need to be very precise because of airborne turns, maintains etc.

I do like the advice given in the US about when to expect climb to cruise level as that could be reassuring to a non-native English speaker when he/she was setting off on a 12 hour flight. We don't do it and no-one ever seems to query the low maintains airborne, I guess they know that we know a 747 won't reach LAX traveling for 14 hours at 5000 feet.