"Clearances" in Open FIR

[Fuji Abound]

You have declared you are IFR, but the "controlling" authority is providing you with flight information only, being the best they can do in open FIR. No radar service is on offer or indeed available. I accept it would be very sensible to inform the controller of any change in level, (and in so doing potentially other aircraft) but am interested whether you are required to do so because the controller is unable to issue a clearance. I ask the question because I seem to remember a commercial captain with some years to his name getting quite excited about the "common" practise of controllers issuing a direction to aircraft outside their ATZ. For example "XYZ take up a right hand orbit at the VRP, until time z". I would be interested to know who is technically correct, but I do totally accept that in both cases the practice may well help safety and I am not criticising it in principle.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It's very common. I can recall for example being cleared through the BDN overhead at FL45 - their ATZ only goes up to 2000, and the MATZ to 3000 !

I think some controllers forget what a FIS is on occasion. They really should in my opinion "request remain at", etc.

I may be wrong, but I think even in open FIR, a controller can require you to give information, "report passing", "report changing altitude", "report change in heading" if you have accepted a service from them. But if they don't ask, presumably they don't need or want this information?

G

[Spoonbill]

Hi Fuji,
The basic premis of an atc service outside controlled airspace under IFR is that unless the pilot informs the atco he does not require an approach control service, (even if you are transitting the area and not inbound to the airfield where the atc service is being provided from), the atco is obliged to use standard separation to seperate you from other IFR aircraft. Hence you may be routing over a beacon outside the atz, but still be asked to climb, descend to or maintain a specified level.
Many atc units with radar will give you such procedural "clearances" until they can provide a radar service.
Good airmanship dictates that you participate in this sort of service where no radar is available,(especially if you are IFR and IMC), but in the FIR it is not obligatory, just common sense really.

[bookworm]

Spoonbill hits the nail on the head, though I do think there are some rare occasions when it's prudent to decline to particpate in a procedural separation service.

It may, on balance, be safer to cross levels with another aircraft in order to get to higher altitude or perhaps VMC on top. Or perhaps 1000 ft of separation low down (say 2000 ft vs 3000 ft) may put you in busier airspace like an ATZ or the vicinity of a glider site.

[ 29 October 2001: Message edited by: bookworm ]

[Hooligan Bill]

Just to add to what Spoonbill has said.

Aerodrome and Approach/Approach Radar services outside controlled airspace are classed as Air Traffic Advisory services. An Advisory service is provided for the same purpose as an Air Traffic Control Service to participating aircraft outside controlled airspace. The service is delivered in the same way as a full air traffic control service and pilots are expected to comply, unless they state otherwise.

Several points come out of this. If you are flying IFR and you call an approach unit without radar you will get more than just a FIS. A procedural approach unit will provide you with standard separation against other participating traffic. In fact the Manual of Air Traffic Services Pt1 states that "Standard Separation shall be applied between IFR traffic receiving a servicefrom an Approach Control Unit outside controlled airspace". Note it does not even specify the type of service being provided.

The instruction to orbit outside the ATZ is similar. You are operating under an advisory aerodrome control service. You do not have to orbit if you do not want to, but do not forget, you need a clearance to enter an ATZ even in Class G airspace. It is easier to issue that clearance if you are complying with instructions issued, rather than just doing your own thing.

No matter where a controller is operating it is part of their brief to maintain and expedite an orderly flow of air traffic. Air Traffic Control units outside controlled airspace are there to assist with safety, but without the full restrictions you would get with controlled airspace.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

I share the sentiments above regarding 'procedural' control. Just one discrepancy in HBs statement that I would like to highlight.

An aircraft only requires permission to enter an ATZ if that ATZ provides an Air Traffic Control Service. In the case of FISOs or A/G services the only requirement is for the pilot to obtain sufficient information such that flight through the ATZ can be safely achieved. This obviously only applies to ATZ outside CAS.

I do not have the reference to hand but it's somewhere in the ANO!!

[Hooligan Bill]

WBS,

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was referring to ATZ's that have full ATC, not FISO or A/G. Just making the point that it is one part of Class G airspace where the controller actually has positive control .