IFR outside CAS in the UK

[FlyingGoat]

An extract from a current Air Law textbook (Oxford Air Law, 2nd ed. 2010) states:

You should note that a pilot does not have to hold an IR in order to fly according to IFR, outside CAS. However, for UK JAR PPL holders JAR-FCL 1.175 prohibits flights under IFR, unless the pilot holds an IR.

Could anyone explain why that's so? It seems illogical. Prohibits flights in IMC, sure; but IFR?

[BackPacker]

IFR is a ruleset, just like VFR. And IFR is a ruleset that's more restrictive than VFR, with the exception of the requirement to stay VMC (and a few other things that are mainly relevant within CAS).

If you're outside CAS, and you limit yourself to VMC anyway, nobody cares what you're doing. So if you choose to use the "IFR" ruleset (fly according to quadrantal rule, above the MSA, with IFR fuel reserves, ...) instead of the "VFR" ruleset you are free to do so. Since you're outside CAS it doesn't give you any additional privileges or obligations, and the "right of way" rules don't care for IFR/VFR.

It's like driving your personal car to HGV speed limits, driving times and so forth.

So they're just making a big deal out of nothing.

[IO540]

The bit

unless the pilot holds an IR.

is wrong anyway because the IMCR is good enough too.

I think what they are trying to get at is that holders of a UK issued JAR-FCL PPL cannot fly under IFR (in VMC) whereas holders of a UK issued non-JAR-FCL PPL can. I hope I got that the right way round :)

[bookworm]

1.175 is more complex than that:

JAR–FCL 1.175
Circumstances in which an IR(A) is required
(a) The holder of a pilot licence (A) shall not act in any capacity as a pilot of an aeroplane under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), except as a pilot undergoing skill testing or dual training, unless the holder has an instrument rating (IR(A)) appropriate to the category of aircraft issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.
(b) In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances (e.g. at night), the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted. National qualifications permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A) shall be restricted to use of the airspace of the State of licence issue only.

Quite how this is going to work under EASA FCL is unknown.

[Fuji Abound]

Thinking about it and as IO540 says how exactly does it work for those with an IMCr - strictly it is not an IR, albeit it is a rating to fly in instrument conditions. Is there a conflict in the legislation?

[BillieBob]

No conflict - the IMCr falls under JAR-FCL 1.175(b) being a "National qualification permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A)" It is, under the terms of JAR-FCL, valid only in the UK but other NAAs are at liberty to authorise its use in their own airspace.

As things stand right now, the IMCr will not be valid in EASA aircraft but that could all change tomorrow, or next week, or next year, or not at all.

[mm_flynn]

Could anyone explain why that's so? It seems illogical. Prohibits flights in IMC, sure; but IFR?

It is illogical for a pilot with a UK mindset. However, just about everywhere else in the world requires one to file an IFR flight plan to fly IFR, AND they (simplistically) require the PIC to hold a current IR to file an IFR flight plan.

So the concept behind FCL 1.175 is logical for anyone who is not UK based.

[Fuji Abound]

No conflict - the IMCr falls under JAR-FCL 1.175(b) being a "National qualification permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A)" It is, under the terms of JAR-FCL, valid only in the UK but other NAAs are at liberty to authorise its use in their own airspace.


How so, many pilots have a JAR licence or have converted there CAA licence. They are attaching the national qualification but surely 1.175 should include a caveat in 1.175 that (c) these limitations shall be lifted where an IMCr is attached to the pilots licence in UK airspace or as authorised by the govenring authority in any other airspace.

That is not what it appears to say.

[FlyingGoat]

May I ask what FCL (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/FCL) stands for?

[BackPacker]

Flight Crew Licensing

[FlyingGoat]

Thanks, BP.

I just don't geddit. Someone in the UK, flying in the UK has a JAR-FCL PPL; They don't fly less than 1,000' over anything within 5nm; above transition they fly quadrantals (OK, below 19,500'); conditions VMC.

Not less than 1,000' seems sensible anyway, likewise quadrantals. Rules 33 and 34 are all they need to comply with IFR.

This is considered illegal? What don't I see? Not flying quadrantals would be 'legal'? (Well, it would, but it wouldn't be IFR).

[Fuji Abound]

FlyingGoat

Well I guess the idiots that draft this stuff would say that you can comply with instrument flight rules (in terms of rule 33 and 34) but you cant declare yourself to be IFR.

In Europe you will often be asked to fly at the approriate FL even though you are VFR which of course makes sense but Europeans (and the rest of the world for that matter) have forever connected IFR with IRatings.

It is only us Brits that do things properly and recognise that IFR should have nothing to do with the qualifaction that would enable the pilot to fly in IMC but everything to do with making a statement about the rules with which we are complying.

[mm_flynn]

It is only us Brits that do things properly and recognise that IFR should have nothing to do with the qualifaction that would enable the pilot to fly in IMC but everything to do with making a statement about the rules with which we are complying.

Fuji, this only makes sense because the instrument flight rules in the UK are trivial. UK IFR in VMC and UK good practice VFR are almost exactly the same - so from a pilot perspective you can't see any real difference.

If you look at the US even at its most basic level, VFR and IFR aircraft fly in entirely different 'space', even thousands have people broadly head in flying on reference to instruments with ATC separation and +500s have people flying head out self separating. These two groups of pilots should only ever interact in the climb/descent or near an airport. (Obviously the IFR guys are looking out as well - but you get my point).

[bookworm]

This is considered illegal? What don't I see? Not flying quadrantals would be 'legal'? (Well, it would, but it wouldn't be IFR).

Of course it's not illegal, because, if conducted in VMC, it would be conducted under VFR not IFR, even if flown at levels that would also satisfy rules 33 and 34.

[IO540]

What I find is that very few people fly at the "correct" levels.

IFR traffic, OCAS, flying in IMC, flies somewhere between the MSA (one hopes ;) ) and the base of CAS, and usually this restricts the altitude to a value which doesn't fit anywhere "proper".

VFR traffic, OCAS, flying in VMC, flies as above but additionally they will usually be below the cloudbase. Moreover, a lot of people fly below the MSA, which is "OK" if you are VMC ;) And a lot of people fly at funny values like 2300ft or 4300ft because this makes it less likely you will hit somebody. OCAS, nothing is mandatory.

Traffic in CAS flies at levels or altitudes assigned by ATC.

Traffic in CAS on higher altitude (FL100+ say) Eurocontrol flights flies at levels tactically assigned by ATC and the semicircular rule is usually disregarded.

And the UK is alone is using the quadrantal levels.

The bottom line is that almost nobody cares...

[FlyingGoat]

IFR traffic, OCAS, flying in IMC, flies somewhere between the MSA......and the base of CAS

If you're IFR in IMC, would getting traffic, or preferably, deconflication service off a LARS unit be the only safe option?

The bottom line is that almost nobody cares...

er....not sure about that...

[mm_flynn]

IFR traffic, OCAS, flying in IMC, flies somewhere between the MSA......and the base of CAS

If you're IFR in IMC, would getting traffic, or preferably, deconflication service off a LARS unit be the only safe option?

Two points.

1 - Make sure you read what a controller has to do to achieve deconfliction, then ask youself, 'Do I really want to fly all over the South on vectors?' before you ask for anything more than Traffic Service.

2 - So far since WW II all the mid airs are VFR traffic in VMC, none are IFR in IMC (regardless of traffic service or not). So it is not obviously any less safe to fly IMC without a traffic service than to fly VFR on a nice day.

[IO540]

If you're IFR in IMC, would getting traffic, or preferably, deconflication service off a LARS unit be the only safe option?A DS is rarely used in the UK (by GA) because they send you all over the sky.

A TS is more usual but is often declined by the controller "due to controller workload". Also, contrary to what most think, the controller is not under any obligation to report traffic, and if you fly with somebody who has TCAS you see contacts which were close but not reported to you. Also, a radar service of any sort is meaningful only with Mode C/S contacts, and a lot of people flying at low levels are non-transponding so you get loads of meaningless "level unknown" reports.

That's what Class G flight is like in the UK... on balance I think it is better to have the option to do what one likes. The other side of the equation is that if there was a radar service guarantee, it would cost money which nobody wants to cough up, so it all hangs together nicely :)

I am happy with the "zero IMC mid-airs since WW2" record in the UK and I happily fly in IMC without any service.

On past record, the place to have a mid-air is below 1500ft and near an airfield, and on a nice day.

[chevvron]

How much class G airspace is there in the USA anyway near to large 'hubs'?

[soaringhigh650]

How much class G airspace is there in the USA anyway near to large 'hubs'?

Almost none. Have a look at skyvector.com.

It is highly recommended that traffic flying near such areas should get Flight Following and/or obtain a clearance to transit.

[chevvron]

I suspected as much, so any comparisons between US and UK are irrelevant, as in class E airspace if you're IFR you have to have ATC clearance, hence you're 'known traffic' receiving an Air Traffic Control service and there's very little class E in the UK.

[callum91]

So just to confirm, if you have a PPL and a Night Qualification you must be allowed to file an IFR flight plan and fly IFR so long as you are outside controlled airspace and maintaining VMC (if I transited CAS I would have to be SVFR), otherwise there is no way for someone like me to fly at night because VFR doesn't exist.

[IO540]

I suspected as much, so any comparisons between US and UK are irrelevant

That's what I said earlier. One can't transplant just one little bit from the USA to the UK.

Just one reason why the UK doesn't have widespread Class E is because it would force the deployment of loads more controllers to provide the IFR clearance which would be required fro somebody to penetrate IMC, and nobody wants to pay their salaries. And with privatised NATS charging megabucks for a radar feed, the whole concept of a universal IFR service for GA is completely dead.

Extensive Class G, with non-radio and freely interchanged VFR/IFR allowed in it, is the only way to work the system the UK is now irreversibly saddled with.

France and the rest of Europe could adopt the US airspace and ATC model, but the UK has cut off its all options by privatising the ATC system, with minimum service levels which don't support GA.

[Fuji Abound]

with minimum service levels


Sorry, which bit of the UK where you referring to.

[IO540]

Sorry, which bit of the UK where you referring to.

I mean the guaranteed IFR controller service which would be necessary for Class E.

The radar head coverage is there - all over the UK (subject to some min altitudes). The problem is nobody will provide the controllers, and nobody will pay the radar owners for the data to give to the controllers. Some of the data is also acquired by the military.

London Info now has radar; highly unofficial, cannot be mentioned on the radio, and it took some far sighted people years to get this introduced (done to cut down CAS busts). It was done over numerous dead bodies because the people who see the data are not radar qualified ATCOs (which is why they are allowed to see it but are not allowed to say they can see it).

[ShyTorque]

otherwise there is no way for someone like me to fly at night because VFR doesn't exist.

But there is!

Below 3,000ft the requirements of IFR are deemed to be met if the pilot remains clear of cloud and has the surface in sight.

Essentially, at night in UK, pilots are allowed to fly under similar requirements for "Special VFR" (although it's not actually called that per se in Class G).

[callum91]

Quote:
otherwise there is no way for someone like me to fly at night because VFR doesn't exist.
But there is!

Below 3,000ft the requirements of IFR are deemed to be met if the pilot remains clear of cloud and has the surface in sight.

Essentially, at night in UK, pilots are allowed to fly under similar requirements for "Special VFR" (although it's not actually called that per se in Class G).

So if I want to do a night flight and file a flight plan for whatever reason, do I file VFR or IFR?

[soaringhigh650]

and nobody will pay the radar owners for the data to give to the controllers

This is very cheap to do. A dedicated DSL line and computer with the relevant software loaded onto it should suffice.

[mm_flynn]

So if I want to do a night flight and file a flight plan for whatever reason, do I file VFR or IFR?

You file IFR because that is what you are. This is a gotcha for comming back from France at night. They will reject a V plan into UK airspace at night (as righly you can not be VFR at night). But you may not be IR rated so could not fly IFR in France. In this case you file Z (VFR-IFR) and then make a transition to IFR at the FIR using something like RINTI/N0168F100 IFR

SoaringHigh,

It is not the cost of the DSL link, it is the 'licensing' of the data that costs the money.

[chevvron]

Plus for the Safety Case to be acceptable to the UK CAA, the link must be 'fail safe' ie have a standby.
IO540- I thnk NATS would like its FISO (Area) staff to be able to do things like warn someone they're about to infringe, but unless the CAA have a change of policy I'm afraid it won't happen. At Farnborough, I was often phoning FIR to warn them of an actual or potential infringer on their squawk but they then have to decide which one of maybe 30 aircraft this might be before warning the pilot.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

IO540 said: "I am happy with the "zero IMC mid-airs since WW2" record in the UK and I happily fly in IMC without any service."

Do you mean you are happy to fly IMC without talking to ATC? If so, that long record you mention might soon be broken!

[Roffa]

Although IO540 says London FIS has radar, they don't really.

Last time I stuck my head in, and I assume it hasn't radically changed, what they have is a display that essentially only shows traffic squawking the FIS conspicuity code and CAS boundaries.

Useful to the AFISOs for situational awareness inc guarding against infringements etc. Not useful for the passing of traffic info as the traffic on the 1177 squawk is not identified, the display shows an incomplete aerial picture and, of course, under current procedures AFISOs could not use the information anyway.

[IO540]

Do you mean you are happy to fly IMC without talking to ATC?

Yes.

If so, that long record you mention might soon be broken!

Emotionally that must be true :)

I normally talk to ATC if they can provide a radar service. It's better than nothing. But anybody who thinks a RS is going to get them reports of all conflicting traffic better get a flight in a TCAS equipped plane, for a bit of an awakening...

Although IO540 says London FIS has radar, they don't really.

Last time I stuck my head in, and I assume it hasn't radically changed, what they have is a display that essentially only shows traffic squawking the FIS conspicuity code and CAS boundaries.

Useful to the AFISOs for situational awareness inc guarding against infringements etc. Not useful for the passing of traffic info as the traffic on the 1177 squawk is not identified, the display shows an incomplete aerial picture and, of course, under current procedures AFISOs could not use the information anyway.

That's not what the ATCO doing the presentation at Swanwick a few month ago told me and a load of others. He said they can see all squawks.

They are just not allowed to say anything on the radio which indicates they can see you.

It's a bizzare compromise. If you are about to bust, and LI are not allowed to call you (they can jolly well see you, usually, because you told them where you are when you first called them up... there is usually a pause at that point while they find you on the screen, but they are not allowed to say so) who do they call?

If they cannot call the pilot, how can they "guard against infringements"? They may as well be on Mars on the end of a one way phone line in that case.

IMHO they will call up the busting pilot (who is still on a "chocolate teapot" Basic Service) and, trying hard to not reveal they can see him, they perhaps get him to change frequency to Farnborough and then Farnborough can jump on him.

[Roffa]

That's not what the ATCO doing the presentation at Swanwick a few month ago told me and a load of others. He said they can see all squawks.

They are just not allowed to say anything on the radio which indicates they can see you.

When I get the time I'll stick my head in again and have another look, things may have changed. There may be a filter over ride available but, at the end of the day, the value of the AFISO being able to see all the traffic is limited as they can't make use of the info (for traffic information) anyway. I would be surprised if the routine setting for the display shows anything more than the FIS conspicuity code and possibly any special purpose codes e.g. 7700.

It's a bizzare compromise. If you are about to bust, and LI are not allowed to call you (they can jolly well see you, usually, because you told them where you are when you first called them up... there is usually a pause at that point while they find you on the screen, but they are not allowed to say so) who do they call?


Ghostbusters?

The radar controllers at any unit can obviously see if traffic infringing CAS is wearing 1177 and can initiate the conversation with the AFISOs. We have direct lines. That (along with electronic alerting) is one of the major advantages of the FIS conspicuity squawk from an infringement point of view.

I don't know their procedures but it seems daft to me to give them the equipment and then not to allow them to use it to warn of potential infringements in a general sense, bearing in mind that traffic on the 1177 squawk is not formally identified. I don't see why generic info couldn't be passed. What makes you so sure they can't?

[IO540]

it seems daft to me to give them the equipment and then not to allow them to use it to warn of potential infringements in a general sense, bearing in mind that traffic on the 1177 squawk is not formally identified. I don't see why generic info couldn't be passed.

You better brace yourself because I agree with you :)

What makes you so sure they can't?

It's what I was told. I have ever done only one quite minor CAS bust (cut a corner) and I was talking to Farnborough who were onto me fast, so I have no experience with LI. I rarely call them since I tend to call units only if they can provide a TS.

It would amaze me that one could fly straight into CAS and the AFISO could not say anything. If they do say something, the phraseology would be interesting to say the least...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

normally talk to ATC if they can provide a radar service. It's better than nothing.
Only slightly:

"G-AB contract crossing ahead of you two miles no height information."

Er ... so what?

[IO540]

Indeed.... 99% of such (non-transponding) traffic is quite low however - well below 2000ft.

The emotional attachment some attach to a traffic service is largely misplaced. The large number of non-transponding contacts, and the reading out of contacts at 5-7 miles (you would spot a 737 at that distance but not something small) makes it worth a lot less.

[Droopystop]

I am happy with the "zero IMC mid-airs since WW2" record in the UK and I happily fly in IMC without any service.

Whilst this may be true, there have been plenty of near misses. Most of my flying is IFR OCAS and it never ceases to amaze me how often in the big sky two aircraft are at the same place at the same time, separated vertically by only 500 or 1000 feet (thanks in main to GPS). There are many perils with flying OCAS IMC, not least the fact that there is no formal separation. We receive the whole gamut of ATC services depending on when and where we are flying. When only a Basic service is available we all rely on each other to provide position reports so that we can build up our own picture of where everyone is. If I was aware of someone flying IMC without talking to anyone, I wouldn't hesitate to cancel the flight.

TCAS is not as great a panacea as may be presumed. Even TCAS II doesn't claim to accurately plot the position of traffic - it is only when you get a RA that you can trust it, which is why TCAS I is VFR only - you have to get a visual of the contact before manoeuvring to avoid. I have heard on occasion TCAS fail to pick up traffic.

[IO540]

separated vertically by only 500 or 1000 feet

That's loads.

[chevvron]

Droopystop: too many pilots put total reliance on TCAS in class G airspace, forgetting the fact that many aircraft are not detected because they don't carry a transponder.
I remember several occasions when an IFR flight said 'TCAS RA climb/descend' to which I had to reply with traffic info on non squawking traffic which would have been safely separated without the RA, thus showing that reliance on TCAS COULD be dangerous.

[IO540]

I mentioned TCAS only to make the point that if you fly with it, you will realise there is traffic "around" which a radar controller (providing a Traffic Service) has not reported to you.

Why not, I don't know. Can always be due to controller workload.

I don't have TCAS myself. Two reasons: As already stated above, a lot of people are non-transponding, but since they appear to be mostly at low levels, say below 2000ft, flying "high" is a pretty effective tactic which I have found to work over the 10 years I have been flying (looking at how many or how few VMC airproxes I get). And the installation involves a huge amount of downtime - around 4 weeks and that is starting from when the shop actually starts on it, and it assumes they work on it solidly. Cost is about £15k, in the UK.

[ShyTorque]

Droopystop: too many pilots put total reliance on TCAS in class G airspace, forgetting the fact that many aircraft are not detected because they don't carry a transponder.

That's a glib statement to make.

I've been flying with TCAS for well over a decade and well over two decades prior to that without it.

I've never met one pilot who flies with TCAS who doesn't understand the limitations of the equipment and fails to look out. If anything, TCAS reminds the pilot to keep a good lookout.

But I've met (!) many pilots of aircraft not fitted with TCAS who don't see and avoid other aircraft when the rules of the air mean they are required to give way. Some of these pilots perhaps don't realise how many aircraft are really around them and unwittingly assume the skies are not so busy.

Flying with TCAS is quite literally an eye opener.