View Full Version : Controlled airspace handover
A friend of mine was recently flying IFR from Jersey to Ireland. When approaching the limit of the Jersey Class A airspace he was handed over to London Information. Upon contact with London Information he was asked to remain outside controlled airspace. This threw him a bit as he was already in controlled airspace so how could he remain outside it. He eventually explained to London Information that he wanted to enter UK controlled airspace to continue his IFR flight to Ireland. London Information coordinated this as he eventually received his clearance just as he reached the limit of the Jersey Class A. As I am about to do a similar trip IFR in a few weeks time I was wondering the following:
(a) should Jersey not have handed him over to a air traffic control unit rather than London Information since he had made no request to leave controlled airspace.
(b) should London Information not have known already that he was in controlled airspace and the request to remain outside controlled airspace was meaningless.
Tolka
This is an old chestnut of the way UK airspace is managed :)
In practical terms, you have two watertight airspace compartments:
1) the "commercial" airspace, which is mostly Class A and is handled by London Control, Manchester Control, etc, and is 100% radar control airspace. These controllers provide zero service to VFR traffic, and they don't handle flights below a certain level, or more specifically outside controlled airspace. In this airspace, you get the seamless IFR enroute clearance/service which European IFR pilots are used to.
2) the "stuff below" which gets a FIS from London Information, etc, and the occassional radar service from units like Farnborough.
The two compartments don't really connect up - unlike say France where there is a lot more integration.
The bottom line is that if you enter UK airspace, on a Eurocontrol IFR flight, and you find yourself outside controlled airspace (even briefly), you will not get a handover to London Control. You will get handed to London Information, which amounts to an eviction from ontrolled airspace and if you want to get back in, you have to get LI to negotiate a new IFR clearance for you :)
This is a common issue from France to the UK which catches out a lot of pilots.
There are two ways to solve it.
One is to leave French airspace at a level which is fully in CAS and more to the point at which you are being serviced by Paris Control. From conversations with non-UK ATCOs it appears that Paris Control have a letter of agreement with London Control for a direct handover. In practice, I have found, this means you want to leave French airspace at FL120 or higher. Quite often, on a nice day, one is crusing across France at say FL100 (no oxygen needed, etc) but if you are heading for say somewhere halfway up the UK, and want the weather avoidance options which you get in IFR, you want to climb to FL120 before Paris Control hands you over.
The other is to pick a route which is 100% in CAS; this is quite restrictive because there are not many such airways.
From Jersey to Ireland, I don't know the best solution but one way would be to file a route initially up via ORTAC, which remains in CAS and then once over the UK, turn west and head to Ireland. Looking at an old VFR chart I have on the wall, N862/N864 to BCN and then to STU, FL110 rising to FL150, etc to remain in CAS. If, out of Jersey you file a more direct route over say Plymouth, or if you fly N862/864 at say FL090, this will be Class G (below FL200, I think) and you will get dumped onto London Information...
I don't see a way to get from Jersey to Ireland, with a continuous IFR clearance, unless you fly the airway routes and are capable of FL150 around STU.
ozineurope
4th May 2010, 10:43
Is there not the phrase "control service terminated contact .......information"?? This then provides informaiton and advice that the flight has left CAS and moved into Class G once crossing the border?
That's what would happen in Australia when transitioning from Class C to G or A to G.
Is there not the phrase "control service terminated contact .......information"??
No.
They expect the pilot to know that London Information doesn't do controlled airspace.
:)
It's a very bad procedure.
Fright Level
4th May 2010, 11:24
I've flown IFR many times from the Channel Islands and neighbouring France (Dinard, Deauville, La Rochelle) into the UK and never been booted out of controlled airspace, always a handover to London Control who then fret how they are going to descend me from FL100/110/120 into Fairoaks past the LHR and LGW holds but always offer full IFR control until descent and handover to Farnborough to leave controlled airspace.
Yes, that one should work via the ORTAC route, to the IOW, etc. It's CAS down to about 3500ft down that way.
Fuji Abound
4th May 2010, 15:25
R41 and R8
bookworm
4th May 2010, 17:07
When approaching the limit of the Jersey Class A airspace he was handed over to London Information.
What level and route?
IFR procedures over here are mostly "pilot community knowledge", to plug the operational gaps in the IR training... I've sent you a PM with some links.
IO540
I would be very interested in any links with the type of information you mentioned.
Tolka
should Jersey not have handed him over to a air traffic control unit rather than London Information since he had made no request to leave controlled airspace
Firstly, i've had many pilots go to another frequency other than the one suggested because it suits them better, what frequency is suggested entirely depends on what level and route the pilot has filed. Secondly, just because the pilot has filed an IFR plan does not mean that they will automatically be kept within CAS regardless of the route/level they have filed. It is the pilots responsibility to be aware of what route he has filed and the service he is likely to receive as a result. The base of airway N866 which runs from SKERY-BHD and onwards is FL85, so normally you have to be FL100 unless London are willing to accept you @ FL90. As has already been mentioned the routing and level he was using at the time would allow me to give you a better answer.
Fuji Abound and IO540
The airway is now called Q41 and the base of it is FL35 which can be lost due to pressure changes.
Also the phrase sometimes used is
G-ABCD leaving controlled airspace radar service terminated, type of service (if any) offered, report leaving the frequency.
I would expect that the 'Information' in London Information is a big enough clue that a control service isn't being given especially for a pilot who has an IR.....:ugh:
chevvron
6th May 2010, 10:44
Pilots should also bear in mind that London Info is operated by FISOs not by ATCOs, thus they cannot give 'clearances' either IFR or VFR unless they are passing one on from an ATCO.
mm_flynn
6th May 2010, 13:48
I would expect that the 'Information' in London Information is a big enough clue that a control service isn't being given especially for a pilot who has an IR.....:ugh:
This 'feature' does seem to be unique to the UK/CI airspace. Everywhere else I have ever flown seems to give a whole route clearance (even if it includes a DCT outside controlled airspace). You don't have the, 'Radar Service terminated contact XYZ' and then your first call to XYZ being 'Requesting joining clearance at ABCDE, estimating in 6 minutes' kind of exchange just a comment you are leaving/entering controlled airspace. Although to be fair many countries have extensive Class E so the frequency of leaving controlled airspace is less than it would be in the UK.
Fuji Abound
6th May 2010, 16:34
The airway is now called Q41 and the base of it is FL35 which can be lost due to pressure changes.
Yes, I was looking at my old chart - and I assume it is still FL35 or 3,014 AMSL whichever is higher.
I would agree with Mr Flynn - this really is a peculiarity of the way we do things. The airspace and services are hopelessly unintergrated - you should how this sort of thing is done in the States, whether you are VFR or IFR, inside or outside of CAS; dont tell me they have more money, less traffic, less complicated airspace or whichever other excuse we may like to pick. :)
All fair comments, but I would like to point out the Danger areas that cover most of the English channel, they are not always available for transit and therefore for us to issue DCT clearances outside CAS would require co-ordination before the flight has even taken off which would be most impractical given the changeable nature of the areas. Also given the number of different agencies within the UK (compared to the USA's 1) there is no guarantee that they would have knowledge of the flight as it depends entirely on how the pilot has filed, and in the case of AFPEX, addressed the plan. I agree that flying airways into the CICTR in a small a/c can mean going a longer routing than may be desirable, there is also the problem of radar coverage in certain areas, this is why Jersey can only give a Basic Service outside of the CICTZ in UK airspace. If the controllers aren't busy then you may be handed over to a LARS unit but the priority will always be with a/c operating within our airspace.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
6th May 2010, 17:54
<<This 'feature' does seem to be unique to the UK/CI airspace. Everywhere else I have ever flown seems to give a whole route clearance (even if it includes a DCT outside controlled airspace). >>
I was trained to ICAO standards in 1966 and that's how we did it and I employed that procedure whilst working in Africa and the UK. ATC cannot "clear" anything outside CAS so the pilot should be cleared to leave CAS at (position) and after flying through Indian Country he should then request clearance to rejoin.
derekf
6th May 2010, 18:32
Tolka,
What clearance was provided initially by Jersey?
It sounds to me like he was not on an airways route so Jersey would only clear them to the zone boundry and then hand them to London Information. If they were route planned airways (ie controlled airspace out of Jersey) they would be given a further clearance in all likelyhood and be passed over to London Information.
There's not really a disconnect. If they are IFR and are leaving the zone into class G airspace then they will get London Information as no clearance can be provided - if they are leaving and staying in controlled airspace then they will be handed over to London control.
Derek...
It is the pilots responsibility to be aware of what route he has filed and the service he is likely to receive as a result.
I think you would find that if you lined up 100 really experienced international IFR pilots, including any number of airline pilots, all flying GA planes, (but not residents of Goodwood, Shoreham, Lydd, etc) and got them all to develop (let's skip for now how exactly they are going to do the "development") a route which does not get chucked out by CFMU, from say middle of France to the middle of the UK, and then got them to fly it on a clear day, you will find that most of the unpressurised ones will settle nicely at say FL100, and about 99% of them will fall for this trick of being transferred to London Information :)
I have had this a number of times (before I sussed the simple work-around which is to force a handover from Paris Control to London Control, by leaving France not below FL120; this requires oxygen but I always have that anyway) and not once was I told anything about leaving controlled airspace. The system assumes that everybody is a local hack.
The word "information" is not really a sufficient clue that your IFR clearance has been terminated, because in France you can be flying on a Eurocontrol flight plan, at say FL080, Class E, and get a seamless radar service. Then if you want, due weather, a climb to FL150, you get a transfer to Paris Control, and the seamless service continues.
If you have a pragmatic ATC system, where everybody has radar, there is no operational need to drop traffic the moment it leaves CAS.
The UK could do the same if it wanted to, but what's happened is that the "professional pilot controllers" have nailed their flag to Class A airspace, which works OK in the UK but this system is not used anywhere else. Only Italy has so much Class A but Italy is a mess anyway.
Also, for all the rules which CFMU runs, most of which bear little relation to what ATC operates on the day, if Country X was dumping an IFR clearance on traffic leaving CAS, then CFMU should reject such routings - but it doesn't ;)
derekf
6th May 2010, 21:39
To be fair - Peter does have a point.
However, I would expect that most GA pilots with a UK / JAA IR that learnt reasonably recently in the UK would have experience taking off on an IR flight plan in controlled airspace and being given to London Information to then get a clearance into controlled airspace or airways. All training from Bournemouth as an example would see this.
I do agree that for pilots who have an FAA IR that they would not really understand this (I certainly had the same issues when I first got an FAA IR). This is in no way a 'pop' at the FAA IR, more an observation that training that FAA training in the US doesn't really sjow you so much of the 'oddities' in the UK when taking off from a controlled airspace under IFR and going to London Information to then get a clearance into controlled airspace.
The word "information" is not really a sufficient clue that your IFR clearance has been terminated, because in France you can be flying on a Eurocontrol flight plan, at say FL080, Class E, and get a seamless radar service. Then if you want, due weather, a climb to FL150, you get a transfer to Paris Control, and the seamless service continues.
At no point did I make any reference about it meaning your IFR clearance has been terminated, indeed you can still be IFR outside CAS without a clearance. Certainly the hint about the point at which the clearance terminates would be in the initial clearance given on start up. If the flight (as far as we are aware) is going to be wholly within CAS then the clearance limit will be the destination airfield. If we know the flight will be going out of CAS when leaving the CICTZ then the boundary will be the clearance limit.
I hate to be the one to point it out but Class E is still controlled airspace, hence the seamless service as IFR flights require a clearance before entry and have to comply with ATC instructions. On the other hand, aside from the airways, the UK airspace that borders the CICTR is Class G which is uncontrolled, this is mainly due to the military not wanting to give away airspace it can use freely.
If the flight (as far as we are aware) is going to be wholly within CAS then the clearance limit will be the destination airfield. If we know the flight will be going out of CAS when leaving the CICTZ then the boundary will be the clearance limit.
I think this is an idyllic description which does not relate to reality.
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...".
The departure tower has no way of knowing if any part of the filed route will be OCAS. Well, it might do if you fly IFR from Bournemouth to Goodwood, but that is a daft route :)
Coming back to my "international pilot" example... this is important. It doesn't matter whether you have a JAA IR or an FAA IR or a Mongolian IR. You will get caught by this weird practice.
The only pilots who won't get caught will be those who did their UK JAA IR on the Bournemouth / Oxford / Cambridge run ;) and who then buy their own planes, and fly for real at levels which are potentially OCAS (i.e. did not go to the airlines).
mm_flynn
7th May 2010, 17:59
IO's point is very important for the UK controllers who don't also fly.
A foreign pilot files a flightplan, receives and ack with the plan unchanged and then on starup at LKPR gets told 'Cleared to EGHH via the TANGO1, departure 124.25 squawk 2654' - He has had a pretty strong mindset that he is cleared through all of the controlled airspace in his flight plan. Yes he should know he is going to dip out of CAS. But having a transfer to London Information being the main clue to him he no longer has clearance into the next bit of CAS seems a bit risky and inviting the pilot to blunder into CAS if between him and Info they don't twig that he has his FMS programmed to plung him back into CAS in 20 miles and needs to be getting Info to get his new joining clearance.
HD
I have never flown in Africa so have no idea if it is just like the UK - or like the Wild West where everyone needs to make it up on the fly (but I have certainly heard a number of Wild West stories!)
In the US there are lots of airways all class E and the little bits between are Class G - However, if you are on an IFR plan, even if your DCT takes you through a bit of OCAS they don't cancel the remainder of your clearance and make you to call for rejoin - (From memory if it is a small bit of OCAS they don't even tell you) - AND you can't fly IFR without an ATC IFR Flight Plan and the difference between the radar service you receive in E or G is pretty marginal (either you are in coverage or not and you never get separation from VFR only advisories)
derekf
7th May 2010, 19:43
I agree that the Split controller gave an incorrect clearance and that controllers should be aware of what they are doing, however this was an example from Split.
This is different to the OPs question about leaving Jersey Zone (and in my experience is the same in UK and France). You will be given a clearance limit and that is the limit. You should know as part of the flight planning where you're going next in terms of airspace. Everybody trained in UK airspace will have come across the issues with controlled airspace (entering and leaving from class g) and for foreign pilots of pilots who got FAA IRs then they need to do some work to understandthe airspace over here before flying in it (in the same way as a UK trained pilot would need to familiarise themselves about US airspace). I make this comment not as a 'pop' at FAA IR holders as that's what I did for some years, and the biggest thing I had to do when I got back from the US was to spend some time familisarising myself with UK and French airspace issues and understanding the issues with entering / leaving controlled airspace (especially class A) into/out of class G
I agree that the Split controller gave an incorrect clearance and that controllers should be aware of what they are doingI'd say he acted fully in accordance with international practice.
It's not his job to plot the filed route on a VFR chart (all 10 of them, or so) all the way to destination, and spot any sections going OCAS, and clear you only to the first bit of Class G, some 880nm down the road :)
A German IR holder will end up doing the same thing if he comes over here.
Not suggesting there is an easy solution, because clearly this is the way the UK system has worked for many years. I would guess, from listening to this discussion ebbing and flowing on various forums over time, 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.
I am informed by a French pilot I know that all French ATCOs are automatically radar qualified and this is how even sleepy French towers can have a radar display (probably coming over ADSL :) ). And, unlike those at London Information, they are allowed to use it.
derekf
7th May 2010, 20:47
Perhaps you know better than me, however I can't see how he can give you a clearance that is outside of controlled airspace.
Edited to add I've just checked the FAA interpretation to ensure this is not a UK issue.
See "AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE" in A (http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/A.HTM)
AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE- An authorization by air traffic control for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace. <snip>
Based on this the split controller did indeed give an incorrect clearance.
Chilli Monster
7th May 2010, 21:33
And, unlike those at London Information, they are allowed to use it.
Not forgetting the most salient point- that the "ATCO's" at London Information aren't ATCO's, don't hold an ATC licence, nor have they done the ATC training that the French ATCO's you talk about have done.
Tolka - reading your post I suspect your friend may have filed IFR, but on a route outside the airways route structure. IFR or not, you fly outside that and you will get passed to London info if they are the most relevant unit.
I suggest your friend wouldn't have had this problem if he'd actually read the chart properly in the planning stage and realised that IFR flight inside class 'G' isn't subject to a clearance or an ATC instruction, therefore no need to actually work an ATC unit.
You want to file IFR and work ATC - read and understand the chart, know the limitations of the airspace types and what is or isn't required in those classes of airspace, and file a proper route if you want stay within the ATC system.
Doesn't matter what flavour IR you have - if you can't comprehend the above you shouldn't be operating an aircraft IFR in the first place.
bookworm
8th May 2010, 08:58
PANS ATM doesn't help a great deal.
4.5.2 Aircraft subject to ATC for part of flight
4.5.2.1 When a flight plan specifies that the initial
portion of a flight will be uncontrolled, and that the subsequent
portion of the flight will be subject to ATC, the aircraft shall
be advised to obtain its clearance from the ATC unit in whose
area controlled flight will be commenced.
4.5.2.2 When a flight plan specifies that the first portion
of a flight will be subject to ATC, and that the subsequent
portion will be uncontrolled, the aircraft shall normally be
cleared to the point at which the controlled flight terminates.
...
4.5.7.1.2 When prior coordination has been effected with
units under whose control the aircraft will subsequently come,
or if there is reasonable assurance that it can be effected a
reasonable time prior to their assumption of control, the
clearance limit shall be the destination aerodrome or, if not
practicable, an appropriate intermediate point, and coordination
shall be expedited so that a clearance to the destination
aerodrome may be issued as soon as possible
In principle, I guess 4.5.2.2 means a controller should be aware of a flight planned route leaving controlled airspace 6 FIRs downroute. In practice, 4.5.7.1.2 means that most controlled flights will be given a nominal clearance to destination, on the assumption that usual procedures for handing over traffic to neighbouring sectors will be used.
A foreign pilot files a flightplan, receives and ack with the plan unchanged and then on starup at LKPR gets told 'Cleared to EGHH via the TANGO1, departure 124.25 squawk 2654'
What would you say if you were told?
'Cleared to leave controlled airspace via the TANGO1, flight planned route, departure 124.25 squawk 2654'
It's technically correct!
One can debate this for ever, but nobody is going to change current international IFR practice, which is "cleared to destination".
4.5.2.2 When a flight plan specifies that the first portion
of a flight will be subject to ATC, and that the subsequent
portion will be uncontrolled, the aircraft shall normally be
cleared to the point at which the controlled flight terminates.
is obviously unworkable on any non-trivial flight.
The UK might have an excuse if it was not for its tightly compartmented ATS system with a lack of radar service in the lower bit, and if it was not for the stupid CFMU routing system which until very recently was sufficiently impenetrable to enable the likes of Jepp to charge 3 digits per month of working out the routings, and which remains impenetrable today to anybody but a small crowd of dedicated hackers :) But there is NO excuse for a transfer to London Information without informing the pilot that his IFR clearance has been terminated.
Almost every time I get chatting to a pilot at some airport (and outside the UK I fly almost only to international airports, because of the Customs issue) it is apparent that he hasn't got a clue how to work out CFMU routings, and usually hacks around until he gets something accepted.
I think that staying in CAS is the least of his problems....
There are other implications e.g. if one gets dumped out of the IFR service then one should carry VFR charts for the area. Almost no IFR pilot carries VFR charts; most countries in the world don't publish them anyway (one cannot regard the TPC/ONC charts as adequate, not least because they don't show CAS and have not been updated for 12+ years) and the VFR chart collection for a flight across Europe would be 10-20 charts and would cost about £200-300. Pilots routinely carry VFR charts only if on a Z/Y flight plan. But a pilot "transferred" to London Information most definitely needs the UK VFR chart.
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.
IO540,
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.
Please elaborate further...
mm_flynn
9th May 2010, 09:39
IO540,
Please elaborate further...
Is that the out of step part or the can't change part?
With regard to the out of step.
In France, Ireland, Oceanic (and the US), even if your flight plan takes you out of controlled airspace, you don't loose your clearance back in again, the controllers appear to co-ordinate this just like they co-ordinate moving from sector to sector.
It is only the UK where you can embark on an IFR flight and part way through discover your planned and acknowledge route is no longer available and you now have to make it up on the fly. I accept that a UK pilot should 'know' this is going to happen if he files an OCAS DCT or for a level below the UK airway base. However, this has never happened to me in any other country even if I have requested a level below the airway base (but above their MVA).
In the US this dipping out of CAS is really only an issue on approaches (where it would be pretty silly to not protect the missed approach just because the aircraft has descended below 1200/700 AGL) or the middle of nowhere (where it doesn't actually matter). However, the French and Irish (and I think the rest of the Europeans that allow IFR in class G and have Class G) all seem to maintain the clearance end to end.
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 http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif
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
mm_flynn,
Is that the out of step part or the can't change part?
No, it's more that part that all the ills that IO540 perceives in the ATC system are down to unionised control staff somehow causing them.
I can only assume that he's had difficulties with unions in some other respect in the past for the ATC argument blame always to be laid at the foot of trades unions.
It's just a bit of a stuck record that, in NATS at least, has very, very little basis in fact and it would be nice if just once he acknowledged this rather than routinely perpetuating such rubbish over all over the internet.
ruth0000
9th May 2010, 18:26
from a pilot that is used to have class E airspace down to lets say 2000 ft over the entire country, when i file a airways route through the UK where i stay above the MEA the whole route, should i then still be afraid to have my flight plane canceled. Look at Q41 (mea 4000), from my information controlled airspace starts at fl245. Does filing at 4000 on Q41 means i'm on my own?
Looking at UK's airspace i'm missing class E, that is available on the continent and gives a lot of flexibility to low level IFR.
Thks, Paul
Chilli Monster
9th May 2010, 18:39
It is only the UK where you can embark on an IFR flight and part way through discover your planned and acknowledge route is no longer available and you now have to make it up on the fly. I accept that a UK pilot should 'know' this is going to happen if he files an OCAS DCT or for a level below the UK airway base. However, this has never happened to me in any other country even if I have requested a level below the airway base (but above their MVA).
Actually the UK handles this situation quite well.
I regularly fly Cardiff to Manchester, which means that between BCN and WAL I will be outside CAS for approx 20-30 miles (don't have the chart in front of me at the moment, but take a look and you'll see where the base level goes above O2 levels during the day.
So - Cardiff give my details to London info, who I talk to when outside CAS, and who re-coordinate my re-entry into CAS with Scottish (Manchester as was).
I even keep the same squawk all the way through. The crux of the matter here, as 421C points out in his post above, that you're not dumped outside of CAS, but you've planned a route that doesn't involve being in any (which I suspect happened to the OP's friend, as I intimated in my original post here).
All pilots look at charts, but I sometimes wonder how many actually read them :)
Look at Q41 (mea 4000), from my information controlled airspace starts at fl245. Does filing at 4000 on Q41 means i'm on my own?
Not entirely sure what you mean by this comment but Q41 is Class A airspace from the Base FL35+ (between ORTAC and SAM)so at FL40 you would normally be speaking to London Control (Hurn Sector) on 129.425 aside from the part in the Solent CTA.
Fuji Abound
9th May 2010, 18:54
If you file a route oustide CAS then that is not "being dumped". You are dumping yourself.
I think you may have conveniently missed IO point which I think was that if British airspace was joined up with French airspace an airways clearance in France would translate to an airways clearance in the UK with the FIR boundary being an irrelevance. As it is unless you understand what is needed to continue the flight in CAS you will get dumped.
That is simply not true. What international practice is there for handling IFR flights outside controlled airspace in this way?
Again I think you may have conveniently missed the point. The way the UK mixes CAS with open FIR and co-ordinates hand overs is out line with the rest of Europe, the States and Australia, the countries in which I have flown. I dont see how it can be argued otherewise?
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.
That seems to me a totally different argument. Should we suffer a poor service in the UK because we should be lucky to be given any service? Isnt it us who are out of step with the rest of Europe and the world? We opted to privatise air traffic and we also opted to allow CAT to pull all (or at any rate) most of the strings. We conveniently ignore that GA gets little or nothing for the considerable amount of duty we pay or fuel whereas CAT pays no duty. Unlike cars where at least in theory the duty contributes to the provision of roads and other services GA gets nothing.
No, as has been said many many times before go to the States, see how it should be done surprisingly in the home of capitalism, or come to the UK and see how we have constructed a two tier service of which we should be ashamed.
I have to agree with IO - it may come across as a rant, but that would be to bury our heads in the sand and accept we are second rate.
I think you may have conveniently missed IO point which I think was that if British airspace was joined up with French airspace an airways clearance in France would translate to an airways clearance in the UK with the FIR boundary being an irrelevance. As it is unless you understand what is needed to continue the flight in CAS you will get dumped.
You are missing the point. An airways clearance in France does translate to an airways clearance in the UK with the boundary being irrelevant as long as you actually file a route within airways. But if you enter the UK FIR OCAS, then you get handed to London Info. What is so difficult about understanding that?
As it is unless you understand what is needed to continue the flight in CAS you will get dumped.
Amazing. Shock horror. A pilot who elects to file an IFR flight plan outside CAS....errrr....finds himself outside CAS, and has to operate accordingly.
"Understanding what is needed to continue the flight in CAS" is a pretty fundamental aspect of being an IFR pilot. What exactly are you saying? That the system should cope with people who don't understand how to plan an IFR flight that remains in CAS?
That seems to me a totally different argument. Should we suffer a poor service in the UK because we should be lucky to be given any service?
That's exactly what I am saying. I am further saying that the "poor" service is actually a pretty good one. What exactly is wrong with being handed over to London Info to fly IFR OCAS? But my point about the 2t exemption would be that the "complaints" on this thread about "poor service" simply reveal a lack of understanding of how the system works. Not something any user community wants. Especially one that pays nothing. My sense of the 2t exemption is that it is a precarious thing, which could easily be swept away - I believe there have been efforts in the past. Funnily enough, AOPA Europe, I believe is one of the key players who have succeeded in defending it.
So, my advice would be, understand the system and don't jangle it's chain with clueless complaints.
brgds
421C
Fuji Abound
9th May 2010, 21:01
421C
You make some excellent points as always. I dont disagree that it is the pilot's responsibility to understand the airspace but with EASA should eventually come conformity - conformity in licensing, comformity in certification, comformity in airspace. I suspect in time if we are to live with Europe we will find we are compelled to do things their way. Time will tell.
But my point about the 2t exemption would be that the "complaints" on this thread about "poor service" simply reveal a lack of understanding of how the system works. Not something any user community wants. Especially one that pays nothing. My sense of the 2t exemption is that it is a precarious thing, which could easily be swept away
We have done the rounds on this many many times and inevitably we will disagree. I have never supported NATS. I dont agree with our airspace being "run" by a private organisation and I dont agree CAT should have the influence they do.
I also dont agree that GA pays nothing for the reasons previously set out and which you have disregarded. I tell you what, all the duty that GA pays on Avgas should be directly subrogated to NATS since they are the only quasi government service provider that is able to provide a service, I suspect all of a sudden NATS might take a different view.
By the way 421C have you flown in the States? Do you think there is anything better about the service they provide to all airspace users in the US than here?
derekf
9th May 2010, 21:04
Why are NATS being targetted when we talk about the <2t exemption. I understood it was a EASA issue with NAAs deciding on whether to exempt and recoup elsewhere?
Airbus Girl
9th May 2010, 21:18
Did the pilot have a full IR? Just seems strange to me that they didn't understand the fact that you still need to be cleared into each airspace even if on a flight plan. I also trained on the FAA system before converting and to be honest doesn't make much difference.
I have been in the US on a IFR flight plan and been told to remain clear of controlled airspace (on handover and close to a big airport which was my destination).
I have been in a jet when on handover from French ATC, London ATC had problems and told us to remain clear of controlled airspace (we, along with a few others, had to take up an en-route hold....that was a busy few minutes I can tell you!!).
I wouldn't be surprised if I was in a light aircraft, flying IFR and on contact with the next frequency they told me to remain clear of their airspace - in the examples above it was just a case of taking up the hold until further clearance received.
It was all covered in my FAA and CAA IR ratings which is why I am confused that an IR pilot didn't know about it?
Or I might have got completely the wrong end of the stick here...
mm_flynn
9th May 2010, 21:29
Actually the UK handles this situation quite well.
...
I even keep the same squawk all the way through. The crux of the matter here, as 421C points out in his post above, that you're not dumped outside of CAS, but you've planned a route that doesn't involve being in any (which I suspect happened to the OP's friend, as I intimated in my original post here).
All pilots look at charts, but I sometimes wonder how many actually read them :)
On some flights I have exactly the experience you have described (the airway climbs up to O2 levels and then back down and I don't particularly feel like pipes in the nose on the day - so I drop out and then back in). As an aside, sometimes there seems like a lot of pressure on Info as on occasion they have less than 10 minutes to get me my new join.
However, there have been other times when I have lost the squawk and the receiving controller seems to have the hump when I call (this tends to be picking L9 up again coming back from Ireland) and sometimes (only very rarely to be fair) have been unable to get clearance back into CAS.
The UK system is very different from most of the developed world, it does as C421 give tremendous freedom. Nowhere else allows the adhoc 'just do it' IFR of the UK Class G system. However, it also maintains a very unusual binary switch between total control and free for all.
A question this thread has brought up (and I don't have any charts to hand to answer this). My recollection is the general Class E airspace in France is from about FL115 up so any airspace below an airway MEA (not in a TMA) is going to be Class G. Is that correct?
By the way 421C have you flown in the States? Do you think there is anything better about the service they provide to all airspace users in the US than here?
Yes I have. Of course just about everything in the USA is better. I totally agree with you about aviation infrastructure and services being provided as a public good, part of the transportation network of the country. However, I tend to find that the vast differences between the US and Europe are at their narrowest when you are actually in the air. In Europe, the misery is the overall cost and regulation and access to airports etc. Once you have paid for your plane, and fuel, and found airports at either end you can use, and done whatever PPR nonsense you have to, and accounting for the fees and handling costs, and having filed an IFR FPL through IFPS and are actually flying IFR - then I think the system works rather well in Europe, and ATC services are rather good.
I also dont agree that GA pays nothing for the reasons previously set out and which you have disregarded. I tell you what, all the duty that GA pays on Avgas should be directly subrogated to NATS since they are the only quasi government service provider that is able to provide a service, I suspect all of a sudden NATS might take a different view.
The problem isn't that I've disregarded it. The problem is that the entire political system has disregarded it. Fuel taxes are not hypothecated to pay for GA services. They are levied by EU law. There is, however, an established system by which enroute ATC services are paid for - the Eurocontrol charging system (by the way, some of us pay both the fuel duty and eurocontrol charges...). The challenge we have is not to get more for free (that is a fantasy), but to avoid paying more than we currently do. The airlines are constantly exerting political pressure that charges should recover more from GA. The best argument against that is "beneficiary pays"...ie. the airlines benefit from the cost of CAS and ATC, so they should pay. Sub-2t users get a free ride on the system. I think this is right and proper. Good luck in arguing this should be extended to providing OCAS IFR coverage for all, seamless integrated with airways control to let you pop-in and pop-out to your hearts content. It's more fantasty.
But, ultimately, I don't understand what you and IO are specifically complaining about? There are "complaints" in this thread that feel to me as if they misrepresent how the system works; to portray its normal and sensible workings, that a competent user should predictably expect, as "tricks" or mystifying anomalies. That is my main point in this thread.
Look at the substance of the 'complaints':
- bloke files OCAS beyond the CI CTZ and gets handed over to London Info
- bloke get a "clearance to destination" from Split to Shoreham on a route terminating OCAS for the last 50nm
- bloke files a route leaving CAS at the UK FIR boundary and get handed over to London Info
....where exactly is the 'problem' some posters are getting worked up about?
brgds
421C
Very generally, France is E from FL065 to FL115 (on the routes relevant to Eurocontrol filed flights), D from FL115 to FL195, and A above that. I am looking at the SIA chart now and that is the general idea.
You can file seamless Eurocontrol routes in France anywhere above (generally) FL065. They will be in E below FL070-FL110, in D FL120-FL190, in A FL200+. But all this is CAS for IFR.
(One can fly, on the day, in France, in Class G, of which there is plenty, by asking for various DCTs, but then ATC warns you that you are leaving CAS and asks if will you accept that).
However, it seems that someone in France has decided that D/A (FL120+) is handled by a different authority (generally Paris Control), from the lower level traffic.
And it appears that Paris Control (not the lower level controllers, however) has a LOA with London Control.
So, take the case of a flight from Dieppe to SFD (you have to see the map for this).
If you are at FL070 at the UK boundary, you will enter the UK in Class G (Class A base is FL075). You will get handed to London Information. Your IFR clearance is gone. One could argue that the pilot should have used the VFR chart but not many foreigners flying IFR will carry VFR charts on a purely IFR flight, and a FL070 routing will pass Eurocontrol validation.
If you are at FL080 at the UK boundary, you would enter the UK in Class A, and the obvious expectation is a continuous IFR clearance i.e. a handover to London Control. Actually you will get a handover to London Information. This will happen well before you get to the boundary - presumably because the French know very well that if they leave it too long they will be "responsible" for the inevitable CAS bust ;) A UK pilot who knows the ropes will now realise he must immediately descend below FL075 and continue "UK style VFR/IFR".
The above situation will also happen up to FL110.
Only if you are at/above FL120 really soon (i.e. climbing like a rocket out of Dieppe) will Dieppe hand you over to Paris Control.
Of course, flying from Dieppe back to say Lydd is hardly relevant - a trivial flight. The tricky situation is if someone is flying from France, in VMC but above icing conditions, at FL110, and he is transferred to London Information, which then orders him back down below CAS (base FL075). Unless he is a fast worker, and gets London Info to rapidly negotiate a new IFR clearance, he will soon end up at 2400ft, hacking around the LTMA ;) If he leaves it for more than about 30 mins (so I am told by UK ATCOs) then his original IFR flight plan is binned and he will have a lot of trouble climbing back into UK CAS.
The simple solution, as I wrote way back, is to climb from FL110 to FL120 and then you are talking to Paris Control and you get a nice handover to London Control :)
Whether your filed route is on published airways is nothing to do with this; most practical routes going back to the UK in the lower airways are off the published airways anyway.
mm_flynn
10th May 2010, 06:13
So, take the case of a flight from Dieppe to SFD (you have to see the map for this).
I think this is dependant on the destination airport. The South Coast and London airports have a range of different airway rules. For example coming back from France on A34 at F090 into the UK works fine for London Group (and you stay with London control), but isn't allowed for Denham (which isn't part of London Group). Further South you track under this level and go direct to London Information which sort of makes sense as you need to drop out of controlled airspace at some point.
C421 - I don't think there is a huge 'problem', particularly if one has filed OCAS. However, this happens on routes that one would reasonably expect to be in CAS (and which if VFR would be an infringement).
On some of these routes I do think it is a reasonable error for a pilot to think he is going to be provided a control service rather than Info. Take someone who is planning LFRG to EGKA at F080 - he
1 - Reads the chart, see an airway which goes where he needs to - A34 with base of FL55 (rising to FL85 at the FIR).
2 - Further looks at the chart and establish at the FIR boundary the Worthing control area starts at FL75
3 - Attempts to plan the obvious A34 route (get a rejection but a proposal back from CFMU to file DCT SITET DCT at FL080).
4 - Files this plan and gets an ACK and later a startup clearance that says he is cleared to his destination.
At this point I am struggling to see which chart our pilot should have looked at to tell him his route is OCAS and as such he should expect to be proided an Information Service for part of the route (and certainly if he flew it without a clearance London wouldn't be very impressed with him plowing into the side of Worthing CTA at FL080).
(Clearly there is a potential question as to Shoreham Approaches ability to provide a service for a brief period of time below FL55 but above the top of their area -which I don't think is clearly defined on the approach chart - but haven't looked at it).
Certainly, with just my IR training I would have expected to be handed over to London Control and then a bit closer to EGKA handed over to Shoreham Approach. I think it would be reasonable for a pilot who is making an IFR flight to an IFR airport, with an Approach Control facility to have his IFR enroute chart out, his Star chart (if applicable) and the approach chart for the ATIS notified approach. To 40 miles out suddenly need to scramble out your VFR chart to make a series of step downs seems like just asking for a bust. In addition, being told to remain clear of controlled airspace when you are already in it generates confusion.
---------
On a related note to Airbus Girl's post, I have on occasion been in a situation where the next sector needed me to wait, however, the instruction has always been 'hold at xxx, expect further clearance at xx'. If they say 'remain clear of CAS' (when you are already in it as I understand from the post) I don't quite see how holding in CAS complies with the instruction.
IO,
I just don't understand what point you are making with this post. Take the following part
Very generally, France is E from FL065 to FL115 (on the routes relevant to Eurocontrol filed flights), D from FL115 to FL195, and A above that. I am looking at the SIA chart now and that is the general idea.
You can file seamless Eurocontrol routes in France anywhere above (generally) FL065. They will be in E below FL070-FL110, in D FL120-FL190, in A FL200+. But all this is CAS for IFR.
(One can fly, on the day, in France, in Class G, of which there is plenty, by asking for various DCTs, but then ATC warns you that you are leaving CAS and asks if will you accept that).
However, it seems that someone in France has decided that D/A (FL120+) is handled by a different authority (generally Paris Control), from the lower level traffic.
And it appears that Paris Control (not the lower level controllers, however) has a LOA with London Control.
This is a factual description of airspace and ATC arrangements in France. So what?
So, take the case of a flight from Dieppe to SFD (you have to see the map for this).
If you are at FL070 at the UK boundary, you will enter the UK in Class G (Class A base is FL075). You will get handed to London Information. Your IFR clearance is gone. One could argue that the pilot should have used the VFR chart but not many foreigners flying IFR will carry VFR charts on a purely IFR flight, and a FL070 routing will pass Eurocontrol validation.
Of course your IFR clearance "is gone" - you have entered uncontrolled airspace. What do you expect? It's fair enough not to carry VFR charts on a normal (SID-Airway-STAR) IFR flight. But this isn't. You are flying off-airways and low-level. Of course you need a chart which depicts controlled airspace in full. You would need it anywhere you chose to fly IFR OCAS, not just in the UK.
If you are at FL080 at the UK boundary, you would enter the UK in Class A, and the obvious expectation is a continuous IFR clearance i.e. a handover to London Control. Actually you will get a handover to London Information. This will happen well before you get to the boundary - presumably because the French know very well that if they leave it too long they will be "responsible" for the inevitable CAS bust http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif A UK pilot who knows the ropes will now realise he must immediately descend below FL075 and continue "UK style VFR/IFR".
You have, in this scenario, filed an 'ad hoc' route into the the Class A around London, off any published ATS route. You presumably are expecting to leave CAS, because all the IAFs for your destination are OCAS. So what exactly is the problem with leaving CAS. If you "know the ropes" then isn't it good airmanship not to try and bother London Control with this nonsense? If you don't, then you should hardly be shocked. You know you will be leaving CAS in the descent on track to a Lydd IAF. You know you are proposing to enter Class A which, without any great insight, your hypothetical Mongolian IR might guess was associated with airports like Heathrow and Gatwick. Your destination is below the base of the Class A. So ATC want you to fly a profile which keeps you just below rather than just within the 'inverted wedding cake'. Big deal.
Aviation has many things to complain about. You really don't have to get as convoluted as this. And, I repeat, why not help people understand how to work with the system, rather than invent convoluted examples to illustrate....to illustrate what exactly? I am still not sure.
Of course, flying from Dieppe back to say Lydd is hardly relevant - a trivial flight. The tricky situation is if someone is flying from France, in VMC but above icing conditions, at FL110, and he is transferred to London Information, which then orders him back down below CAS (base FL075). Unless he is a fast worker, and gets London Info to rapidly negotiate a new IFR clearance, he will soon end up at 2400ft, hacking around the LTMA http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif If he leaves it for more than about 30 mins (so I am told by UK ATCOs) then his original IFR flight plan is binned and he will have a lot of trouble climbing back into UK CAS
Now that you shift from an arrival into Lydd to an arrival presumably within the London TMA (or beyond it), you shift to an entirely different issue. It is nothing to do with handover at the boundary and everything to do with the fact that you can not expect ad-hoc off-route IFR clearance low level through the London TMA. This is not exactly news to anyone, is it? Have you tried the same thing around Paris or Palma or any other big, comparable zone? Why should your mythical foreign pilot be surprised by this? Say he was going into Biggin. Well, he could try the published arrival - the rather convoluted ALKIN one. In many European countries, IFPS might only accept such an arrival. But in the UK, he can file a shorter DCT one - however, it might involve descent below CAS. He takes his choice.
The upshot of your long post is: if you want clearance through London Class A, file a published ATS route. If you want the convenience of DCTs, accept the consequences. Conspiracy theory but no cigar IO.
brgds
421C
mm
I find your example more clear than IO's, but I still have the same reply and find it a bit convoluted. Deauville to Shoreham in airways and Class A. Come on...
I agree it's not totally obvious, but it's a simple enough "trick" to UK IFR. If you want convenient DCT routes, fine - but don't expect them through Southern UK Class A and carry a VFR chart. If you don't want to carry VFR charts, file ATS routes only.
brgds
421C
mm_flynn
10th May 2010, 10:28
mm
I find your example more clear than IO's, but I still have the same reply and find it a bit convoluted. Deauville to Shoreham in airways and Class A. Come on...
Fair enough. The same thing happens no matter where you fly from if you are at FL080 on that segment.
For me its not a problem as I am part of the London Group. Hence am allowed to use the airway at that level (rather than be following the centre line on a DCT but not 'on' the airway). This seems to result in a handover to London Control and then a descent over the coast with Farnborough. Perfectly good and coordinated service from London and EGLF.
We have also moved off the original post, which in all likelihood was someone on a clearly OCAS routing, rather than some of the more convoluted issues in recent posts.
I think the key point in this whole conversation is -
Within the UK, if you are not filed solidly end to end on airways you are likely to be talking to Information for part of your flight with no Radar Service (and this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with an IR), AND, once you are talking to Information you don't have clearance to be in any of the remaining controlled airspace - that needs to be renegotiated (and this point I believe is a 'surprise' to many non-UK IR rated pilots ... and even some from the UK)
I'm sorry, but I don't think this is an acceptable consequence.
If the expectation is for a flight or parts thereof contained within controlled airspace, it is not acceptable for a pilot to be dumped out of the bits where he is expecting it to be controlled
errrr....then don't file off-route, use only airways and published procedures.
Within the UK, if you are not filed solidly end to end on airways you are likely to be talking to Information for part of your flight with no Radar Service (and this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with an IR), AND, once you are talking to Information you don't have clearance to be in any of the remaining controlled airspace - that needs to be renegotiated (and this point I believe is a 'surprise' to many non-UK IR rated pilots ... and even some from the UK)
mm: I agree. You have summarised it well in a single para. But I am no longer sure what we are debating. The only question may be the degree of "surprise". IFR is like that. This "surprise" strikes me as well within the scope of what an IFR pilot should be able to cope with. The phrase "Unable" and, ultimately, declaring an emergency, are there for when he can't.
brgds
421C
IO540
10th May 2010, 12:46
Reason people file off the published airways is because half the lower airways between the southern UK and Europe are in the wrong place, and the other half go in the wrong direction :)
Consequently, a totally pukka route pulled straight out of the standard route documents is often torturous, with overheads of anything up to 40% over great circle, and almost nobody flies it.
It's OK if one is based at Bournemouth in which case there is never an issue... It is generally also OK with the other coastal airports - because one has to descend eventually, and it is fairly normal (if not exactly great risk management) to descend to say 1000ft above the sea and cross the Channel like that, underneath the bad weather.
But it's not OK if going further up into the UK. Or if one was going into say Lydd but due to hazardous conditions below has to divert to somewhere further up north, in which case one needs a continuous IFR clearance so one can stay VMC on top.
Plus, on the day, ATC don't operate the published airways network anyway (outside of Greek/Turkish airspace ;) ). You get DCTs all over the place.
Hence, over the years, an urban culture has developed among IFR pilots which is to file some kind of route that gets accepted and then see what ATC gives you on the day.
I don't go that far myself (I always fly with real routes which are validated and which look right and which I can fly with the fuel I have even if I don't get a single shortcut) but the issues highlighted remain and will be catching out pilots not familiar with the local practices.
I don't know why these France - > UK handover issues exist, because London Control is evidently perfectly capable of handling traffic on any route whatever, so long as it is in CAS (Class A).
Jesus, just noticed, this is my post #10,000. Better crawl back into a hole until I can write something that contributes positively to general aviation.
Fuji Abound
10th May 2010, 14:13
Jesus, just noticed, this is my post #10,000. Better crawl back into a hole until I can write something that contributes positively to general aviation.
IO - I was going to congratulate you, but you seem to have been stuck on 10,000 for a long time. :)
421C
Me thinks even if you accepted there werent any short comings things are not about to change. Leaving aside whether or not things could change do you in fact think there are any shortcomings with the present arrangements? It is useful in debates such as this at least to establish what common ground there maybe.
In terms of whether things could change on that I suspect we do agree. The lobby of private IR pilots flying at lower levels is so small they almost have no influence what so ever. (unlike in the States). NATS doesnt care what they want or what would make life easier for them (and theirs a fact) and as you have rightly said since GA pilots are not paying for a service from NATS, they care even less if that were possible. This rather nicely contrasts with the IMCr where there is a sufficient ground swell of support that I suspect pilots may yet have their way in spite of many vested interests that would rather they did not.
I wonder whether we agree that for pilots crossing the channel at these lower levels bound for the south coast (and not transitting the London TMA) in reality were they accomodated within the system in fact they would not cause any conflicts simply because there is no commercial traffic at the same levels.
coolbeans
11th May 2010, 19:33
The problem still arises with 'excessive' fees that appear profit driven rather than cost covering. Biggin Hill's £50.00 practice instrument approach fees for a C-152 is a clear example of this.
A private company operating for profit? perish the thought:rolleyes:
Ted D Bear
13th May 2010, 06:14
Loathe to make comparisons with Australia - and usually loathe to say the Australian ATC system works well (!) - but in Australia in the situation the original poster refers to the pilot would've been told "Leaving Class C airspace in 5 miles, control service terminated, contact <service> on <frequency>" and therefore know he was leaving controlled airspace.
The onus would then be on the pilot not to enter controlled airspace again without another clearance, although the next frequency will almost always provide it (without being asked) on first contact - because s/he knows you're coming and where you're going because your flight details are in the system. In fact, most pilots don't even bother asking for the clearance in this situation because the service is seamless and it will be offered anyway - possibly because ATC provides a flight information service (as opposed to a control service) to IFR flights in Class G.
BTW - in Australia you will always be cleared initially to your destination even though most of your route may be out of controlled airspace. This doesn't take away from your responsibility to get a fresh clearance before re-entering controlled airspace if you've left it - as leaving controlled airspace is deemed to cancel the previous clearance.
I could be wrong, but I think notifying the pilot that the control service is terminated is IAW ICAO recommended practice ...
Ted
IO540
Reason people file off the published airways is because half the lower airways between the southern UK and Europe are in the wrong place, and the other half go in the wrong direction http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif
Consequently, a totally pukka route pulled straight out of the standard route documents is often torturous, with overheads of anything up to 40% over great circle, and almost nobody flies it
OK. But there are some countries that will not allow DCT routes. At least in the UK one has this flexibility in most airspace. But the point remains...you file off-route and you accept the consequences...which are hardly onerous or unpredictable
- if outside CAS, you will not get a radar service in most places and you will have to get a fresh clearance back into CAS
- if inside CAS but off-route, you may not be accepted in some busy Class A TMAs (London, but also I think others in Europe).
It's OK if one is based at Bournemouth in which case there is never an issueI wasn't talking about Bournemouth, I was using your example of Lydd.
... It is generally also OK with the other coastal airports - because one has to descend eventually, and it is fairly normal (if not exactly great risk management) to descend to say 1000ft above the sea and cross the Channel like that, underneath the bad weather.
There are no circumstances that ATC or airspace force you to cross the channel at 1000' IFR, since the lowest base of Class A under Q41 still lets you go OCAS at 3000'. Why would you be at 1000' on an IFR flight? When did it last happen to you?
But it's not OK if going further up into the UK. Where further up in the UK? You have been talking about a mid-channel handover and a coastal airport in which a Dieppe-Lydd airways route would be ridiculous. But the inland airports generally have some ATS routes to get to them sensibly (eg. the London Group) or my example of Biggin where you either choose the published route or go 2400' DCT.
Or if one was going into say Lydd but due to hazardous conditions below has to divert to somewhere further up north, in which case one needs a continuous IFR clearance so one can stay VMC on top
IMC is not a hazardous condition for the purposes of IFR and IFR does not recognise "needing to stay VMC on top". If you need VMC then you need a VFR flight. If it's thunderstorms, you ask for avoidance. If it's ice and you are not deiced, you should have a back-up plan. If you haven't or it's anything else, it's Mayday time and you do what you need to and I have no doubt ATC would give you all the help they can. OTOH, perhaps I've misunderstood your example.
Plus, on the day, ATC don't operate the published airways network anyway (outside of Greek/Turkish airspace http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif ). You get DCTs all over the place. But if you have filed an airways route, whilst you will get DCTs, you will not get "dumped". Either the DCTs will shorten your route, or they are for tactical traffic management. Either way, what's the problem?
I don't know why these France - > UK handover issues exist, (Class A).Several long posts exhanges, I still don't understand what these "issues" are. To me an "issue" is a systemic problem or an unforseen or incorrect working of a system. The system works in an entirely predictable way, which I believe is consistent with its published nature and accepted practices.
because London Control is evidently perfectly capable of handling traffic on any route whatever, so long as it is in CAS
So you think London Control should in effect permit IFR "free flight" in the London TMA and associated CTAs? I don't know anywhere that does that - even in the USA. The IFR system is predicated on published routes - how can this be an "issue" for anyone?
Me thinks even if you accepted there werent any short comings things are not about to change. Leaving aside whether or not things could change do you in fact think there are any shortcomings with the present arrangements? It is useful in debates such as this at least to establish what common ground there maybe.
Fuji,
You are shifting the debate. I was replying to IO's comments and specifically on the operation of the system. The tenor of IO's comments is that there are "tricks"/"issues"/"old chestnuts"/whatever about how low-level IFR is treated. The mythical Mongolian pilot he is concerned about I believe would be more mystified than helped by his comments, because I think IO's portrayal of the system's operation is unnecessarily convoluted and complicated. I still think our Mongolian would be best advised by 3 simple points
1. If you want to stay in CAS contiguously, file a contiguous airways route
2. If you file DCTs outside CAS, you will need to get a clearance back in to CAS
3. If you file off-route DCTs into London Class A, you may not get accepted
Now, there is your shift in debate. Yes, it would be wonderful if we had a totally different system in the UK - with ATC services for low-level IFR and free-flight everywhere.
I wonder whether we agree that for pilots crossing the channel at these lower levels bound for the south coast (and not transitting the London TMA) in reality were they accomodated within the system in fact they would not cause any conflicts simply because there is no commercial traffic at the same levels.
IO himself just said "It is generally also OK with the other coastal airports ". So is there a problem for lower level IFR going to coastal airports or not? If so, what exactly is it and what "accomodating in the system" does it need?
brgds
421C
It's fine that a route may not be accepted, but I think IO540 says that a route (with intent for that part to be flown within CAS) was indeed accepted, but instead the flight can be unexpectedly thrown out of CAS on handover between sectors
But that is my very point. You should understand that whilst IFPS may accept a filght plan off a published route in busy Class A, that does not mean ATC will let you fly it. Hence my words "if inside CAS but off-route, you may not be accepted in some busy Class A TMAs". By off-route I meant "off a published route".
While there isn't a need to stay VMC on top, weather conditions permitting, I think one would like to stay VMC on top because it's much more comfortable and less stressful to fly in.
Agreed. Of course we all like to be VMC on top, but I was replying to IO's point "... one needs a continuous IFR clearance so one can stay VMC on top". You can't expect IFR clearances specifically to let you stay VMC on top. If you want or need to stay VMC, you fly VFR.
Perhaps because, as IO540 says, half the lower airways are in the wrong place, and the other half go in the wrong direction
That is a completely different point to the point by IO I am responding to. I am responding to the point that there are unreasonable anomalies in how ATC handles low level IFR, out there to trap all but the sharpest pilots familiar with UK airspace and methods. I am saying there aren't if you have the entirely reasonable expectation that IFR is predicated on published routes. Maybe the published routes are not useful. Fine. But that doesn't mean your expectation of IFR operations, when you are actually flying an airplane, should be anything other than the conventional ones based on published routes, and the consequences of not flying on published routes.
Maybe you want to change the airway route system. Fine again. But the point is there is nothing to "act surprised" about in the operation of the system as it is.
You and Fuji are posting as if I had said "low level airways are wonderful and perfect". I have not. But given they are what they are, I am saying that it is normal, reasonable and to be expected that when you cross over from France at, say FL80, off-airways inbound Lydd or Shoreham, you get asked to descend OCAS. Of course, as IO points out, if you fly high enough, it won't be practical for ATC to ask you to make that descent prior to the boundary. So then they clear you into it. This rather banal and obvious distinction seems to be presented as a failing in handover between Paris and London FIRs. It isn't. You can try and deconstruct this into a ATC union conspiracy intended to marginalise you, or you can interpret this as a sensible working of the system around London as it is. My only point on this thread is the latter point. I wish you and Fuji all the best in a campaign to get the airlines or the public to fund a low level IFR free-flight regime over Southern England, so light aircraft never have to be bothered with London Info for clearances, or that the odd Mongolian doesn't get surprised by being asked to start an OCAS descent a bit earlier than he expected.
are we, as Fuji Abound says, just being ignored and marginalised?
I don't think we are being ignored and marginalised. I think some of this thread's points are a vexatious whinge. The best bit about flying IFR in Europe is actually being in the air - forgetting the costs and administration and planning needed to get there in the first place. Far from being marginalised, I think we are well treated (and that's coming from a eurocontrol fee payer). The current mix of UK low level routes and off-route DCTs strikes me as reasonable and workable. Not perfect, but it's about at the bottom of my list of headaches in flying IFR - compared to the cost, training, planning, airport access and all the other stuff.
brgds
421C
IO540
14th May 2010, 05:19
If you want or need to stay VMC, you fly VFR.
If it wasn't for me knowing that 421C does fly for real, I would regard the above as a grossly disingenuous statement.
In this case, however, I don't know what to make of it.
Flying VMC enroute is a standard method for avoiding icing conditions, turbulence and potentially an in-flight break-up of the aircraft due to embedded CBs.
A 421C (this one, anyway) has full de-ice and radar, and subject to its lower operating ceiling, has more or less the mission capability of a 737.
Most other people are not flying such a "tank", and remaining VMC on top during the enroute section of a flight is a standard and very effective strategy. It keeps all one's options open, which is the name of the game in safe flight.
One therefore negotiates with ATC, to the maximum extent possible (and in my experience there is never a problem with this because ATC are familiar with icing conditions etc) to remain VMC enroute.
This, in turn, requires a continuous IFR clearance, because only then can one ask for a climb in an unrestricted manner. If the continuity of the clearance is lost, then one has to either take avoiding action to avoid the hazardous weather (which might be a 180) or face a wait while ATC obtains a new IFR clearance.
I have no personal experience of anybody successfully obtaining a new IFR clearance into Class A in the UK - beyond the obvious case of getting one from say London Info following a non-towered departure. I've tried it a few times and it was always rebuffed. Abroad, one can do it; in France it can range for the casual and instant case where one cannot arrive VFR at the planned destination and flies the ILS instead, or (for an enroute IFR clearance for which ATC presumably have to quickly knock-up some kind of flight plan in the system) it can take 5-10 mins.
Anyway, this is probably digressing but reading my own posts I don't see conspiracy theories and the other garbage which has been suggested.
One therefore negotiates with ATC, to the maximum extent possible (and in my experience there is never a problem with this because ATC are familiar with icing conditions etc) to remain VMC enroute
Your statement is fair enough if it means "I use the flexibility available within the system to try and stay VMC on top". My point is that if you have the expectation that the system should be designed around permitting you VMC on top, then this is an unrealistic expectation. When you can get VMC on top, great. When you can't, that's flying IFR for you. Plain and simple. Please don't personalise it referring to what anyone may or may not fly with what equipment etc.
Please also do not drag this out of context. The specific point about VMC on top occurred as follows.
1. You raised your Dieppe-Lydd example
2. I replied that I couldn't see the problem, since Lydd IAFs are all OCAS, whether you descend below the CTA from the boundary or fly a bit within it before your OCAS descent
3. You then countered with the following point:
"if one was going into say Lydd but due to hazardous conditions below has to divert to somewhere further up north, in which case one needs a continuous IFR clearance so one can stay VMC on top"
My reply said, quite clearly I think, that if you find yourself in this scenario of IFR to Lydd and diverting to an alternate, you should not expect the London TMA and ATC practices to be aligned around letting you stay VMC on top - unless, of course, you declare an emergency, in which case I am sure the system will give you whatever you need.
I have no personal experience of anybody successfully obtaining a new IFR clearance into Class A in the UK......I've tried it a few times and it was always rebuffed
Were you rebuffed having filed a published route through Class A, or rebuffed having filed a DCT through Class A? I suspect the latter, in which case, what is your point? I have endlessy tried to make the distinction on this thread between Class A penetration "on published route" vs "on DCTs", because that is the essential distinction. But you don't acknowledge it. You are concerned for foreign pilots being tricked and mystified by the system. Doesn't the distinction make an important difference? If you file a published route, you should expect to be able to negotiate a clearance from OCAS into Class A. If not, expect to be rebuffed. Why just write how you are always rebuffed without making the distinction? In your super articles, you go to great pains to be as clear and detailed as possible to help other pilots. Yet in this thread I sense you are avoiding that clarity in order to "score points" against the "system" and ATC.
reading my own posts I don't see conspiracy theories and the other garbage which has been suggested.
I was using a figure of speech relating to your posts....
"If you have a pragmatic ATC system, where everybody has radar, there is no operational need to drop traffic the moment it leaves CAS...The UK could do the same if it wanted to, but what's happened is that the "professional pilot controllers" have nailed their flag to Class A airspace.."
I would guess.... 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
....which combined with the (to use your word) 'disengenuous' way you try and characterise normal operating practices as "tricks" that could mystify people. Aircraft leaving CAS are "dumped". You are "rebuffed" trying to get an ad-hoc DCT route through Class A. It all sounds a bit conspiratorial to me.
However, this thread has drifted too for me to understand what we are discussing. It is a potentially interesting discussion, so please make a point we can have a more fresh-start discussion from.
What exactly is there which might catch-out the unwary pilot beyond the three points I have made?
1. If you want to stay in CAS contiguously, file a contiguous airways route
2. If you file DCTs outside CAS, you will need to get a clearance back in to CAS
3. If you file off-published-route DCTs into Class A, you are likely to not get accepted
Is there a specific way, within these simple prinicples, in which ATCs treatment of low-level traffic is unreasonably "tricky"?
If the answer to the above is nothing and no, then what remains is a gripe that the lower level airways aren't as useful as they could be, that radar services aren't always provided OCAS, that Class A doesn't allow ad-hoc transits. Fair enough. But these are not surprises that should surprise anyone: experienced, not experienced, Mongolian etc.
brgds
421C
CapCon
14th May 2010, 09:35
The ongoing debate in this thread has produced some fantastic tips and information on Lower IFR ops. I'm doing my first IFR flight into France tomorrow and some of the points raised have helped me in the planning stages. Decided to fly the airways down (Biggin - LYD - G27 - NEVIL - Caen) and then fly back DCT - SFD to get experience of CAS and OCAS ops.
Just wanted to say thanks for the help :ok:
Will let you carry on with your debate in 3...2...1... :E
mm_flynn
14th May 2010, 10:52
Recently I flew IFR to Scotland FL100 Egtf Egpg and thought about this three. For those not familiar with the route, North of POL the airway base is time dependant so it is Fl090 but during the day the base rises to Fl130. So you file a route on published airways, which validates. However, a look at an IFR chart clearly shows the airway base is time variable s one should anticipate part of the route is ocas.
On my way North I was advised of leaving CAS, asked if I wanted traffic info or deconfliction, maintained my squawk. A period of time later was advised i was cleared back into CAS and handed to the next frequence. This is the process I believe most foreign IFR pilots would expect (and is my experience in France and Ireland). Now I don't know if my clearance was cancelled and recreated in the background but I certainly had a mental model that ATC would coordinate the rentry without any input from me (which they did)
On the way South as the airway rose above me I was handed to Information and greater with remain clear of CAS, a new squawk, and pass your message. Now I have a clear mental model I no longer have a clearance back into Cas and that I will need to have info get it organised (I have never failed at getting cleared back in but would have a view it is not guaranteed equally having thought about it I am not sure what the expectation would be with a radio failure - assuming A VFR diversion was not practical).
I believe, mostly by comments from non-UK pilots that the second case comes as a surprise to them. On a related theme I often hear biz jets talking with Farnborough who clearly don't understand that they have departed IFR without a clearance (into CAS) and who don't have a VFR chart out - I am assuming these are 'surprised' non-UK pilots.
Fuji Abound
14th May 2010, 11:06
IFR is all about weather and traffic avoidance.
No one ideally wants to be bumping along in freezing clouds.
Every one likes to feel they are being separated from other traffic.
So far as traffic is concerned do we really care if we are in CAS or OCAS as long as we are getting a traffic service? Will yes I suppose we might. In the example of Paris to Shoreham via LYD or SFD once outside CAS the best we can hope for is a service from Farnborough. You might be lucky and get an advisory service or you might find they are closed, only a basic service is available due to controller workload or for nearly all of the crossing you are out of range – you get the idea.
So far as weather is concerned cruising along at FL75 in VMC across the channel is a whole lot more attractive than in the soup at or below FL55. How often are the tops somewhere in that range?
It still seems to me that IO has a very valid point. Why should we come out of France in CAS at FL75 and get dumped unless we initiate a climb when 40 miles later we would rather commence a descent?
I think the conspiracy theory comments are just daft. For me it is a straight forward discussion about the way in which the system should be improved to accommodate all categories of air space user rather than just predicated to the needs of CAT. It is very easy to forget if you don’t fly or only fly CAT that the performance, weather tolerance and avoidance equipment of a 172 is very different from a TB20 is very different from a King Air and is very different from large commercial air transport and yet in my view at least each should have the right to use the air space that belongs to us.
It is interesting that as soon as a loco opens up a new hub in the UK “mysteriously” a class D veil is suddenly possible as well as a drop from CAS directly into the new class D and while I am not suggesting that we should start throwing class D veils around every little airport in the UK we could at least make an effort to accommodate the needs of light aviation – frankly as I said earlier this is just a “I wish for” debate.
mm
The distinction in the Scottish example is that Nortbound your sequence is
Class A Airways > OCAS > Class D TMA, so the CAS "re-entry" is into Class D. In the Southbound, it is a Class A airways join, which is a different co-ordination issue.
I absolutely see that a non-UK pilot might have different expectations. Isn't the message therefore
1. In the UK, IFR is permitted OCAS, and operationally you may find yourself operating IFR OCAS in many circumstances
2. OCAS there is no "clearance"
3. Therefore, you need a clearance to rejoin CAS
4. Sometimes, this will be provided for you by ATC without prompting, but your baseline expectation will be once OCAS remain OCAS until you have negotiated a joining clearance (typically via an INFO freq)
5. Points 1-4 also apply departing IFR where a departure route segment takes you OCAS (eg. Farnborough)
I agree these points may help non-UK pilots. I have only been commenting on "noise" around this topic which drowns out the useful "signal".
brgds
421C
It is very easy to forget if you don’t fly or only fly CAT that the performance, weather tolerance and avoidance equipment of a 172 is very different from a TB20 is very different from a King Air and is very different from large commercial air transport.It's not easy to forget. It's obvious. My only point is that it's easy to forget that Instrument Flight Rules apply to Instrument conditions. If you are not de-iced, or you don't want to fly in cloud, you have to accept the limitation that imposes under IFR. Go back to IO's example. A non-deiced light aircraft has to divert from Lydd and the diversion takes him through the London TMA because he needs to stay high because of icing layers he can not cope with. Is that ATC's problem or perhaps he has forgetten, to your point, that the performance/weather tolerance/avoidance equipment of light aircraft is very different? What is he doing in this situation? If he inadvertanly found himself trapped like this, and it could happen, I have no doubt he would get help from ATC. But does this scenario mean there is something wrong with how the London TMA is managed?
and yet in my view at least each should have the right to use the air space that belongs to usThere is no distinction between the rights of a 172 vs TB20 vs King Air vs Transport Jet to use CAS or OCAS. One could argue that the 172 and TB20 have better treatment - because they have the right to use it and not pay the eurocontrol fees. I imagine a low-level DCT through the London TMA would have the same difficulty in a Jet as a SEP. I imagine a bigger airplane would get the same handover to London Info when going OCAS.
So if you want to use your right to CAS in the London TMA, file a publshed route - this is what the CAT users do. If you want to use your right to airspace OCAS, then you are free to do so. What airspace do you not have the right to use on the same terms as CAT? Unless what you are actually asking for is something different - the "right" to have the eurocontrol-paying users fund more services (like traffic OCAS or more capacity in the London TMA to accept DCT traffic) or an extension of CAS for people who, generally, don't pay the fees?
Don't get my point on the 2t exemption from eurocontrol fees wrong. I believe it is the right thing. The costs of collecting the fees would be disproportional, and the fees are levied on the basis of a service level the airlines need, not a service level light aircraft need. So there is a reasonable argument for the 2t exemption. But it is 'just daft' (to use your words) to expect the airlines to pay for services they don't need (all the stuff complained about on this thread) that you want.
mm_flynn
14th May 2010, 15:22
mm
The distinction in the Scottish example is that Nortbound your sequence is
Class A Airways > OCAS > Class D TMA, so the CAS "re-entry" is into Class D. In the Southbound, it is a Class A airways join, which is a different co-ordination issue.
Looking at the AIP I am pretty sure at FL100 the northbound N601 POL to TLA exits class A and then reenters Class A airways (a bit south of ESKDO - also a hassle that the variable base varies at lat/lons rather than at waypoints!) and the Southbound N615 NGY DCS N57 SETEL exits Class A 20 miles South of NGY and enters Class A about 6 North of SETEL - So I am struggling to see the intrinsic difference. I put the difference in approach (i.e staying with the controller and squawk vs. Info and an OCAS squawk then back to Control) down to 'luck' or controller workload rather than differences based on the specific class of CAS.
Also on my charts (Jepp IFR/VFR and Garmin 530 GPS) it is not at all clear exactly where the variable base transitions happen - I wound up looking it up in the AIP.
Fuji Abound
14th May 2010, 15:55
It's not easy to forget. It's obvious
This was a little tongue in cheek, as I suspect you realise. However are you sure it was so obvious to the designers of the air space. How is it that there is an airway from CP to ORTAC with a base of 3,500 whereas there is no airway across the channel with an operational base below FL80? I suspect there are more light aircraft crossing the channel between FL45 and FL55 than CAT using an airway designed for three or four daily trilanders. If trilanders "need" an airway why is it that light aircraft dont equally need a practical airway that they can use? In reality they have no choice but to cross without radar cover and below FL55 whatever the weather is doing.
I agree that IFR planning should of course be conducted on the basis of the aircrafts capability - I doubt anyone would dispute that. However as I said at the outset no one wants by choice to be bumping around in the tops of wet clouds for any longer than necessary, even if it might be safe, it can be bl**dy unpleasant. So what is some 2,500 feet of airspace actually being used for between FL55 and FL80 so as to practically exclude all north bound traffic?
There is no distinction between the rights of a 172 vs TB20 vs King Air vs Transport Jet to use CAS or OCAS
How so? There is every distinction if operationally the airspace is not useable? What is wrong with the airspace between FL55 and FL80 which would be more useable to most light aircraft.
It is interesting watching the stream of traffic north and south bound over SFD - have a look at the volume and the heights and even include the scheduled out of Gatwick. There is a great deal of not used and effectively unuseable airspace.
Fuji, Fuzzy
There is a distinction between
(i) rights to use the airspace as it is currently configured
and
(ii) the "right" to have the airspace confgured to your needs
I think you are missing this distinction in your replies. I was replying to Fuji's point
at least each should have the right to use the air space that belongs to us
with the point that Jets and C172s have the same rights to airspace as it is currently configured, except the C172s don't pay fees.
I have endlessly already agreed with both of you that lower airspace could be better configured to serve light aircraft traffic. Our only disagreement is that I think you are utterly unrealistic that anyone is going to pay for this - either the Treasury or the users who do pay eurocontrol fees.
funding needs to come from the Treasury, through funds raised from AVGAS tax+VAT, to develop aviation infrastructure
The UK GA community has achieved precisely zero in persuading the Treasury to hypothecate fuel and VAT towards aviation infrastructure in even the most deserving causes that impact the greatest part of the GA fleet. This is a relatively specialised cause, and, despite your best efforts to present it as a big problem, I simply don't think it is a systematic problem. Just look at how convoluted the examples have to be to "prove" what a problem there is. You want to redesign airspace and have more CAS served by ATC so the bottom bit of the Worthing CTA can be transited in some special case where there is icing below it? As I said, if this ever actually arose, I suspect London Control could be persuaded to give you a transit. You want more ATC capacity in the London TMA so you don't get 'rebuffed' when you ask for an ad-hoc route? You want more ATC capacity so you don't have to bother asking London Info to negotiate clearances? You want more lower level airways across the Channel? And you expect the Treasury to pay for this? Given that GA has never had any priotity for government funding, and given that this is an obscure and specialised need, and given public finances are in an appalling mess? As I said, good luck.....
brgds
421C
IO540
14th May 2010, 18:36
which is why it is legitimate to discuss flight planning / enroute strategies, and it is not helpful to interpret such discussions as allegations of conspiracies, or a desire to get something for nothing, when the issues (specifically French/UK handovers) are more to do with airspace/airway design and ATC organisation/practices which might have been set up many years ago (and which London Control tends to ignore anyway most of the time, so long as you are high enough to be serviced by them in the first place, which brings me back to how to ensure a service by London Control in the first place, etc etc etc). The strategies are not exactly complicated, once you know what they are.
Also nobody likes to have their working practices dissected. UK ATC are about as happy to have people dissecting their system as I would be to have somebody dissecting how I run my business, etc. The only ATCOs willing to discuss some of the nooks and crannies of the UK ATC system (even in private email) are foreign ones... This is quite normal - no conspiracy allegations implied. I am sure Eurocontrol are not particularly happy to have people dissecting their "routing algorithms" (that's a rather charitable expression) and developing tools to generate efficient routes by various means, but they should not be suprised given the non-transparency of the system. And so it goes on.
which is why it is legitimate to discuss flight planning / enroute strategiesAgreed.
...and it is not helpful to interpret such discussions as allegations of conspiracies I wasn't. I was interpreting only the elements of your posts such as "controllers have nailed their flag to Class A airspace", "considerable institutional ATC resistance to changing the system. The reasons are opaque ..", "any change would require a French-style unified radar service which has implications on ATCO pay scales " as a conspiracy theory, using that as idiom, I guess, for "it sounds a bit silly to me".
Otherwise, I hope I too have tried to bring clarity to flight planning and enroute strategies....
Time to drop this entertaining thread under wifely pressure....have a good weekend all.
brgds
421C
mm_flynn
15th May 2010, 06:14
Fuzzy,
The US has a long history of hypothecation in many areas. It would be very typical to impose a tax/fee to fund some activity and then ring fence the money to only that activity. The Americans have a view governments will spend their user fees/taxes on all sorts of other rubbish - unlike European governments ;) !
The UK government has a long history of flowing most income straight into the general fund. So a move to uniquely hypothecate Avgas tax is a very fundamental challenge to the Exchequer.
The number of instrument rated (not IMCr) pilots flying relatively low level is pretty limited (probably similar in scale to the number of moat owners) so the issue of providing low level airways is as C421 says pretty specialist.
In addition, I am not sure how many PPLs and IMCr holders are going to thank you for pulling CAS much lower thus eliminating their ability to fly at all for PPLs and without full control for IMCr holders in sub VFR (ie. with less than 1500m from cloud 1000ft above 500ft below and 5km vis when above 3000 ft) in all of this new class D or E.
Finally, to what the lower level airspace in the channel is used for, I don't know -- But the ATCOs do say it is busy. I have never seen any commercial traffic on any of the virtual radars at this level, nor have I seen it visiting Swanwick, and haven't seen anything on traffic systems while flying in the areas - but I only look at 0.1% or less of the total time it could be used.
To understand that the issue exists is worthwhile. For the non-flying ATCOs to understand the UK maybe ICAO compliant - but is different from what our near neighbours do - and therefore is more likely to be a 'surprise' for foreign pilots - is worthwhile.
However, in the list of priorities worth fighting for changing this part of the system doesn't even make the list to consider.
mm_flynn
17th May 2010, 08:43
Look carefully at what constitutes VMC in Class E or above. In the UK many many PPLs routinely fly in less than legal VMC with no material risk.
On the rest of it - good luck, there is a lot of money to be spent if you want full ATC over the whole of the UK FIR (say above 3000 ft) and ad hoc popup clearances.
On hypothecation - while the avgas revenue trivial - success for Avgas would mean success for petrol - and the potential ring fencing of x 10's of billions of pounds to roads (or even transport) would be a 'die in the ditch' line for the Treasury.
There are many other issues in GA that we can potential win and should be a focus of effort. Other than being aware of this particular issue there is nothing that actually needs to 'be done' (IMHO of course)
IO540
17th May 2010, 12:54
I doubt anybody seriously suggests the powers to be should spend a single penny supporting GA - because they very obviously won't.
The only reason why LARS still exists is because of the hundreds of serious CAS busts each year.
The only reason we have the excellent AFPEx flight plan filing tool, and the helpdesk backup behind it, is because of substantial cost savings which were made by closing the FBUs and making a lot of people (there are no "low paid" people in the ATC business) redundant. In the end the FBU staff was processing c. 3k flight plans per month, nearly all of them VFR GA, most of them faxed or phoned-in. Notwithstanding ICAO obligations ;) this medieval system was ripe for cost cutting in this day and age, but they had to provide a flight plan filing facility of some kind afterwards.
London Information, with its ("officially") lack of radar, is there only because of ICAO obligations. If the UK did not have to provide a basic FIS service, they would shut this down as well and set up a website for picking up your IFR clearances :) Actually, I think LI is getting a bit more support now, with its listening squawk etc, but again this is only because of the concern over a possible CAT-GA mid-air. It has been structured so that GA does not receive any kind of improved service OCAS. That would need radar qualified ATCOs who are on a higher pay scale, and nobody will fund that. Even if all IFR GA was paying fees, still nobody would fund it because the enroute fees from 2T+ GA in UK airspace are most likely miniscule and would never support the ATCO salaries and overheads involved in a pan-UK radar service in all Class G, above say 2000ft. This works in France only because the system is nationalised - like everywhere else.
I just wish there was a joined-up system for IFR clearances. IFR GA represents a very small traffic density anyway (which is overwhelmingly obvious to anybody flying in the FL100-200 airspace) so there cannot be controller workload issues. It is some obscure quirk in the way the system here has been set up. On various occassions I have tried to find out how it really works but an explanation appears elusive.