Is it me... or the UK ATC system?

[wwelvaert]

I'm just wondering if any of you guys/gals who fly more frequently in the UK have any advice... Let's say IFR, piston engine aircraft, 10,000 feet, that type of operation.

Just to set the stage, I flew quite a bit of IFR in mainland Europe and the UK many moons ago (1990s) and nowadays I occasionally ferry airplanes, typically between the US and Europe.

No offense intended to the British (outside of their ATC I really love the place), but I have to say the UK ATC gives me more grief than anyone else between Pisco and Wroclaw. Here's how my latest trip went, but it's fairly representative of most of them:

1) Filed my IFR flightplan with EuroControl accepted route from Wick to Biggin Hill.

2) Flew about 80 miles of my planned route and then no part of it for the rest of the trip. (this is fairly similar in mainland Europe)

3) Every other controller asks me "what kind of service are you requesting?" How about the "I don't want to run into any other aircraft" service. I know we are all aware of limitations of ground based infrastructure and controlled airspace, but outside of those issues, these various service levels just seem pointless.

4) I got perhaps 8 to 12 different transponder codes between Wick and Biggin Hill. That's more codes than I got on the entire trip from Quebec City to Scotland!

5) At one point near NewCastle (don't land there after 8:00 pm) a controller tells me to squawk 7000 and go to the next frequency. Like an idiot I comply, only to be told by the next controller to maintain VFR clear of controlled airspace. Took a few minutes to sort out the idea that I was on an active IFR flight plan on an assigned route.

Just to set the stage some more: the weather was severe clear from Wick to about 60 miles north of London, at which point it went to solid IFR due to a weak stationary front over the English Channel.

6) I pick up the ATIS at Biggin Hill well in advance. Weather was ceiling 600 broken with reasonable visibility. The ATIS gave me runway in use but no approach information. The ATIS stated RY03 in use but the only approach that I could find was ILS21. It's not above me to screw up an approach plate or have overlooked something in the trip kit, but I planned for ILS21.

7) I requested vectors to ILS21 and the controller said he'd pass on the request. The next several controllers gave me headings to fly for traffic purposes, but still no confirmation as to the approach.

8) About 25 miles out or so a controller tells me "fly direct Lambourne". I said "I'm sorry I thought we were being radar vectored, can you give us the identifier for Lambourne". (I did try to get familiar with the area before the flight, but couldn't immediately place Lambourne).

His response: "NEGATIVE". And then he proceeds to rattle off nonstop instructions to a handful of other aircraft, no one able to get a word in edgewise.

Now I was getting a wee bit unhappy. It took me a moment to find Lambourne and punch it in the GPS.

9) This same controller now turns me over to Thames radar who finally confirms that I'll be vectored for ILS21. If he had given me anything else I would have been in trouble trying to change my approach setup at that late of a stage. By the way, the ILS gave me a 9 knot tailwind, but I'd rather take that than circling with a 600 ft ceiling any day.

10) The Thames radar controller (who was not busy) vectored me through the final approach course and then back. He cleared me for the approach on my second intercept FROM ABOVE THE GLIDESLOPE something like 4.5 miles out! He did almost immediately thereafter offer to take me back around and vector me for a proper intercept, but as I quickly got ground contact I just made a steep approach to about 500 feet and got stabilized for a reasonable landing.

Sorry to fuss and complain, and I'm not saying any of these issues by themselves would be a problem, but put it all together and I'd have to say the extra workload is a potential safety issue.

Finally, I understand the system's priority is airliners and they do a good job at that, but GA airplanes flying IFR are comparatively few and far between, so it's not that much of a system resource.

Sorry for venting, any suggestions for an easier cruise over the UK greatly appreciated!

[Savannah Jet]

Before any I give any response, what route and level did you file? Airplane type?

[wwelvaert]

The airplane was a Seneca III, filed at F090 if I recall correctly. My filed (and initially cleared) route was via airways down to the vicinity of London and then a couple of navigation points, I don't have the exact details in front of me. After Aberdeen I was just given various points to navigate point-to-point.

[eastern wiseguy]

Flew about 80 miles of my planned route and then no part of it for the rest of the trip.

Did you leave controlled airspace of your own volition? If you did......


Every other controller asks me "what kind of service are you requesting?"

If outside CAS this is EXACTLY what the controller MUST ask you.Have a look here.

Air Space Safety: ATSOCAS 917 (http://www.airspacesafety.com/content/ATSOCAS.asp)

the only approach that I could find was ILS21

Thats the only ILS there.

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-556C3334ADFB28B12965C8974489BDCD/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/AD/EG_AD_2_EGKB_en_2010-12-16.pdf

The Thames radar controller (who was not busy)

Sorry but you have NO idea from listening to one frequency what is going on.


I did try to get familiar with the area before the flight, but couldn't immediately place Lambourne

You didn't try too hard then.If I was flying into the London TMA I sure as heck would have a good working knowledge of VOR's to which I may be sent.

Is it me... or the UK ATC system?

Seems like it's you :)

[733driver]

I can understand where the original poster is coming from.

Sometimes UK pilots have a tendency to think that their ATC system is best and should be a role-model for the rest of the world. I will say that generally speaking UK controllers are indeed very good. However, the UK system has lot's of differences to ICAO and I agree that it doesn't help to have country specific terms such as basic service, deconfliction service etc.

Imagine if we had to put of with those kind of national differences everywhere. Impossible. Same for expecting a foreign pilot to immediately recognise the name of a VOR and find it on the chart. I think the least ATC could do would be to offer the three letter code.

Also being on vectors when in the terminal area only to be told to go to a VOR (which may or may not be on the STAR you were expecting can be surprising.

Same thing for "remain outside controlled airspace" when on an IFR flightplan.

Again, Britisch ATC is generally world class but the procedures and phraseology differ considerably from ICAO standard and are nowhere near as intuitive and user-friendly as in the US.

Having said all that, flying into major airports is easy in the UK, it's those smaller places surrounded by uncontrolled airspace that I find a bit more unusual.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Incredible that this guy is let loose in Controlled Airspace!!

[Kerling-Approsh KG]

Agreed, H-D.

In fact, one of the significant aspects of his report is that it gives the impression he did not understand when he was, and was not, in controlled airspace, and what the ramifications were...

Yes, UK ATC has it's idiosyncrasies, but this is not surprising given the volume of traffic and density of aerodromes.

There is no excuse for failing to prepare for flight, and a pilot who doesn't prepare, and then posts a series of complaints such as those above, only succeeds in highlighting his own inadequacies...

[wwelvaert]

Incredible that this guy is let loose in Controlled Airspace!!


I have no desire to get into a proving contest about flying credentials, but will reiterate I haven't encountered these issues in any other ATC system.

Also, I believe I asked for suggestions, please elaborate what you would have done differently.

[clunckdriver]

HD, I find it even more incredible that Brits have the nerve to call such "service' Air Traffic control! It needs to be explained to you folks that you are down there because we are up here, not the other way around! Its interesting to note that when various UK airlines are in our airspace the contollers go to great pains to give the three leter idents of the VORs to them.Another thing you might like to consider is the incredible variations on spoken English that a non Brit is suposed to understand when flying from the North of Scotland to the South Coast of the UK, you might think you dont have bloody impossible accents, but belive me you really do, as for the multiple standard presure levels, we wont even go there.

[ksjc]

Geez. Cut the guy some slack. What if you operated in a country where place names and pronunciation are not familiar? It's not as easy as you think. Perhaps you should step outside your little world and try it.

I operate mostly in the US and believe it or not I don't have all the VOR names and idents memorized. Corporate guys flying to an unfamiliar destinations often ask for 3 letter identifiers to clarify as controllers assume everyone knows their local nav aids by name. Sounds like the difference is that our ATC guys are happy to help.

Just flew KSJC-EGLF non-stop, 9.5 hours, and the only time ATC seemed out of the ordinary was about 4 miles from destination and this business about "...say type of services requested".

It's a unique procedure. There are many others around the world.

[wwelvaert]

To "wiseguy":

I didn't leave controlled airspace on my own account, but on the other hand once the controllers near Aberdeen started to give me direct point-to-point navigation (as opposed to my original clearance via airways) I also didn't object. I understand that the service levels are regulatory requirements in the UK but it's still quircky, not something I've seen elsewhere.

You didn't try too hard then.If I was flying into the London TMA I sure as heck would have a good working knowledge of VOR's to which I may be sent.


I disagree. In a GPS equipped aircraft most of the points I was given to navigate to were not VORs but arbitrarty intersections. There are many around London. Lambourne was not on my original flightplan and if I recall correctly (I left the tripkits with my customer) it's also not a fix on the approach. To be given an arbitrary point to navigate to when you're that close to your destination instead of being told what approach to expect simply is not good practice.

I agree with your point about the Thames radar controller.

[eastern wiseguy]

I believe I asked for suggestions, please elaborate what you would have done differently.

How about stayed with the original plan as filed...or planned comprehensively what you really wanted to do.

[Kerling-Approsh KG]

I thought about making some suggestions for the OP, but really, it's impossible to know where to start...

I'd 'cut some slack' over not knowing where Lambourne was, if it seemed that he had looked at the plates for Biggin and knew there was only one precision approach, or if he had read up on the services he might get OCAS, or if he had posted asking for some help without making a criticism of it.

Clunkdriver, have you any idea how long your slot delays would be into UK airports if the ATC service wasn't the very best? Have you any idea how many incidents occur in UK airspace specifically involving N registered business jets, whose crews have not briefed properly on the procedures?

And have you any idea how busy ATC positions like Thames can get? RTF loading is no indicator at all of workload. A controller might have fifteen aircraft on and be doing nothing, or have three on, and be shovelling like mad!

[wwelvaert]

There is no excuse for failing to prepare for flight, and a pilot who doesn't prepare, and then posts a series of complaints such as those above, only succeeds in highlighting his own inadequacies...

Again, I don't want to get into a contest. When a controller gives me a fix to navigate to that is not on my original flightplan, I'll accept it when possible. I don't see any need to be difficult about that.

But not knowing what approach to expect, getting a slew of transponder codes, being given an ILS intercept from above the glideslope, and so forth has nothing to do with my flight planning.

[Roffa]

wwelvaert,

You couldn't post the route you filed here could you? It would help clarify.

Some of the other posts, such as HD's, aren't helpful.

[wwelvaert]

if it seemed that he had looked at the plates for Biggin and knew there was only one precision approach, or if he had read up on the services he might get OCAS

Maybe my point was not well made:

I looked at the approach plates for Biggin Hill and by those I believed (correctly) that there was only an ILS approach to RY21. Once I picked up the ATIS which stated 600 foot ceilings and RY03 in use I began to second-guess myself. Maybe I overlooked something?

I can only speak for myself but with 600 ft ceilings and light (9kt) winds I find it unusual that they would state the runway in use was one without instrument approaches.

[wwelvaert]

Roffa:

I don't have the complete filed route in front of me, but my initial clearance was:

"Cleared via W4D P18 maintain F090 squawk 5434."

[eckhard]

wwelvaert

First of all, a big 'well done!' for having opted for the straight-in on RWY21 with a light tailwind instead of circling (at night?) with a 600ft cloudbase. There is some gently rising ground to the southwest, as I remember.

Second of all, I can understand why you were disappointed by the service you received that night.

I agree with 733 driver.

As a 'born and bred' UK pilot/instructor/examiner I used to think that the UK way of doing things was not only the best way, but the only way!

Then I started flying on worldwide routes and my eyes were opened. I am now still of the opinion that the UK controllers are, for the most part, equal to or better than any others. BUT, as already mentioned, it's the UK system that is hopelessly complicated and user-unfriendly.

It seems that the procedures are designed to serve the interests of the local ATC and not the intended user - the PILOT. I could probably list several examples but as I'm about to fall into bed, I'll start with one of my favourites:

1. Transition Altitude. Why does it have to differ from airport to airport? Why is it 3000ft outside CAS (unless you're beneath the LTMA of course when it's 6000ft!)

A few years ago, departing southbound from Oxford in a jet, the Trans Alt was 3000ft and the initial clearance was to join CAS north of Compton at FL50. Called London, only to be told to maintain 5000ft! Compton is just on the edge of the LTMA, so the London controller assumed a Trans Alt of 6000ft. (I understand the Trans Alt at EGTK is now 6000ft, so this particular hole in the cheese has been plugged.) After a rapid re-setting of the altimeters we adjusted by a few hundred feet and all was well, but what on earth did this achieve?

Any pilot who has flown a high-performance aircraft will tell you the dangers of a low Trans Alt. The CAA keep bleating on about level busts, yet blithely ignore the procedures such as BHX SIDs that invite just such a bust (Trans Alt 4000ft and initial SID stop-height of FL60). Try flying that at 3000fpm with a QNH of 983mb. Yes, that's mb, not hPa as adopted by everyone else outside N. America!

Here's another:

2. 'Turn onto 240 degrees, when established on the 27L localiser descend with the glidepath'. Why not 'cleared for the approach' as in every other country? Do pilots need reminding not to descend on the glidepath before being established on the localiser?

This terminology is, of course, an improvement over the old one: 'Flight 123, turn onto 240 degrees and establish on the localiser, 27L.'

'Flt 123, localiser established, 27L.'

'Roger Flt 123, descend with the glidepath'.

Ah yes, but what about that helicopter flying down the Thames? He may be in our way, so we can't be cleared for the approach just yet! In 39 years of flying, I can not recall ever NOT being cleared to descend on the glidepath. Where is the justification for these arcane procedures? Is our accident/incident record so much better in the UK than elsewhere?

The US system isn't perfect by any means, but I like the way that busy parts of the flight are generally kept simple for the pilot:

SID? Fly runway heading to 5000ft and expect vectors to filed fix.

G/A? Fly runway heading to 3000ft and expect vectors.

Keeps the workload where it belongs; on the ground!

In an ideal world, the US controllers would be trained in the UK and the UK controllers would all spend at least a year at ORD. And the UK airspace system and procedures would be designed with the pilots' needs uppermost.

Rant over; off to bed! (Standing by for some 'incoming' from Kerling-Approsh KG and HEATROW DIRECTOR!)

[JonDyer]

Hi wwelvaert,

I'm a UK based pilot and I wouldn't take issue with anything you've described. I think some of the contributers here are being slightly disingenuous when they suggest that you are in someway at fault.

1) Filed my IFR flightplan with EuroControl accepted route from Wick to Biggin Hill.

2) Flew about 80 miles of my planned route and then no part of it for the rest of the trip. (this is fairly similar in mainland Europe)This is fairly typical when transiting the UK North/South. I have flown London to Scotland all on a HDG, no airways at all - and that is in the upper flight levels. At 090 you will be off airways for some or most of your route.

3) Every other controller asks me "what kind of service are you requesting?" How about the "I don't want to run into any other aircraft" service. I know we are all aware of limitations of ground based infrastructure and controlled airspace, but outside of those issues, these various service levels just seem pointless.
It is what it is - understaffed and underfunded. To be honest you are fortunate you were offered a comprehensive service outside CAS. I have been dumped out of CAS in the NW corner of London, doing 250kts and heading towards Oxford with a "squawk 7000 and freecall..." No chance of saying, "hang on a minute, I don't want to go VFR right now..."

4) I got perhaps 8 to 12 different transponder codes between Wick and Biggin Hill. That's more codes than I got on the entire trip from Quebec City to Scotland!

5) At one point near NewCastle (don't land there after 8:00 pm) a controller tells me to squawk 7000 and go to the next frequency. Like an idiot I comply, only to be told by the next controller to maintain VFR clear of controlled airspace. Took a few minutes to sort out the idea that I was on an active IFR flight plan on an assigned route.I don't know about these - probably bad luck and a busy controller who perhaps didn't notice your IFR f/p. You evidently took it in your stride.

6) I pick up the ATIS at Biggin Hill well in advance. Weather was ceiling 600 broken with reasonable visibility. The ATIS gave me runway in use but no approach information. The ATIS stated RY03 in use but the only approach that I could find was ILS21. It's not above me to screw up an approach plate or have overlooked something in the trip kit, but I planned for ILS21.

7) I requested vectors to ILS21 and the controller said he'd pass on the request. The next several controllers gave me headings to fly for traffic purposes, but still no confirmation as to the approach.This bit is a bit confusing. I guess BQH is idiosyncratic - but there is only the one approach to RWY 21. 9kts of tail is just about within the cababilities of most commercial traffic. It is hard to see exactly who could get in on 03 since there was a 600ft cloud base - so I see your point I guess. The controllers weren't giving you vectors for the approach (as you mention) but steers for your course. You needed to cross the inbound approach to LCY and the climbout from STN. It's a busy bit of airspace.

8) About 25 miles out or so a controller tells me "fly direct Lambourne". I said "I'm sorry I thought we were being radar vectored, can you give us the identifier for Lambourne". (I did try to get familiar with the area before the flight, but couldn't immediately place Lambourne).

His response: "NEGATIVE". And then he proceeds to rattle off nonstop instructions to a handful of other aircraft, no one able to get a word in edgewise.

Now I was getting a wee bit unhappy. It took me a moment to find Lambourne and punch it in the GPS.
This is simply a grumpy, unhelpful (and possibly overworked) controller. Of course you don't have to know the names of all VORs in the UK. I've been on the receiving end of this sort of bull**** myself. Everybody's approach will be different. Me - I'd have been back on, using up airtime until he gave me the LAM that he should have provided in the first place. YMMV

9) This same controller now turns me over to Thames radar who finally confirms that I'll be vectored for ILS21. If he had given me anything else I would have been in trouble trying to change my approach setup at that late of a stage. By the way, the ILS gave me a 9 knot tailwind, but I'd rather take that than circling with a 600 ft ceiling any day.

10) The Thames radar controller (who was not busy) vectored me through the final approach course and then back. He cleared me for the approach on my second intercept FROM ABOVE THE GLIDESLOPE something like 4.5 miles out! He did almost immediately thereafter offer to take me back around and vector me for a proper intercept, but as I quickly got ground contact I just made a steep approach to about 500 feet and got stabilized for a reasonable landing.It was only Thames who can vector you for BQH - it's just the way it is. Biggin is established OCAS with no more than an overlarge ATZ to protect it. Changing approach setup at the last minute can be a feature of European aviation I'm afraid. I know of a crew that had six RWY changes inbound to Schipol one time.

Thames sometimes vector through on purpose (because they are also controlling perpendicular traffic into LCY, and sometimes they do it by accident - often not helped by crew charging around at 240kts 8 miles out of Biggin. The 4.5 miles is standard for Biggin. If I remember correctly the GS comes in at about 1800ft! There is no real procedure for BQH, it's just vectors to a low-level intercept on the ILS.

All in all it seems you picked a fine day to (leave me Lucille) do a tricky little route.

It's not just you - but you are flying at an unusual level, at an unusual speed, in unusual airspace. Like any trip - whether it goes easy or tricky can be simply a matter of luck. You had a bit of luck against you (but nothing you couldn't handle) coupled with unfamiliar procedures where the people you were talking to expected you to be familiar. It's not a rule that you have to know - they just expected that you did.

Sounds like you should be pleased with yourself that it passed off uneventful.

[Radar]

W,

Hats off to you, mate. On two counts.

Firstly, on a successful flight southbound despite the system.

Secondly, for having the 'lef' to come on here looking for background to the system knowing the defensive, sanctimonious crap you'd get masquerading as a serious response. Or did that come as a surprise?

eckhard,

Good post.

[wwelvaert]

BTW, just for info, since I've now dug up my scribbled notes from the flight, the weather at Biggin Hill was (on the ATIS):

RY03 010/09 6000 RN 6BKN (later changed to 5BKN) 1022 (it was daytime, late afternoon)

Thanks to everyone who posted a considerate response or considerate critique and thanks for the insight from posters like JonDyer (and others).

As for those who sling mud, no it was not a surprise, but guess what I have to say to that....

In a few hours I'm going to pick up my baby, play in the park for awhile and enjoy the view over "my" mountain (Life in Peru (http://www.lifeinperu.com)). Then I might open a bottle of Peruvian wine or have me a yummie Pisco Sour when mamacita comes home...

All while you guys are busy shortening your own life expectancy by getting worked up and taking offense when none was intended.

[172_driver]

I have many hundreds of hours IFR in Los Angeles airspace and consider myself very familiar, knowing all the VOR's and airways. Despite that I occasionally encounter controllers which are neither pleasant nor helpful. They give you "impossible" clearances, sometimes treat you as VFR when, in fact, you are IFR or vector you well above the glideslope. I remember one particular instance at Van Nuys where we just couldn't get established in time (poor vector, tailwind, steep G/S), executing missed approach to be told "IFR missed approaches are not allowed"

My point is, without giving you any explanation of the UK ATS system, there are good controllers and not so good controllers.

[Vino Collapso]

The UK ATC system can be a bit idiosyncratic if you are buzzing along at the lower levels and you could end up being inside and outside of controlled airspace at regular intervals.

For those sectors outside of CAS you will get the 'what service do you require' question. It is a UK thing. As Biggin (and Farnborough for that matter) are outisde of CAS you will eventually get this sort of response, albeit for the last few miles of approach at Biggin.

As far as Biggin is concerned, yes we only have one IFR approach to Rwy 21 (working on plans for the other end). So with one published approach expect a visual manoeuvre if runway 03 is in use. Cloudbase permitting.

Sounds like Thames dropped the ball a bit if they vectored you through the ILS and back on from the other side and above the approach. At least they offered a re-vector if you required.

If you are still at Biggin I am back in the office tomorrow (8/4/11) for more formative face to face comment.

Regards

Manager ATS Biggin

Edit: Oh you are in Peru? Forget the latter comment. :O

[wwelvaert]

Vino: thanks so much for that offer, I will try to stop by on a future trip.

This trip was about 3 weeks ago, and I just had it in the back of my mind to try and get some insight/background about those various issues. Thanks for your input!

[clunckdriver]

Kerling, why would we get delays? Having retired from the heavy stuff I now fly a medium twin into some of the busy spots in the US , at these places one sees a traffic mix never seen at any of the major Brit or EU airports, so if they can do it, why not you folks? As for N numbers having a few problems, we see a bit of this but its our own fault for having two official lingos in our ATC system, seems to worry them. Having said this, with the run down of the RAF and Britains lack of snow shovels the traffic should be a lot less this winter.

[Airbus38]

This post struck a bit of a chord with me, and a couple of the earlier replies unfortunately I am sad to say weren't very helpful.

Flying single-pilot, IFR, unpressurised (and therefore limited to a maximum of 10,000 feet) is, like many other areas of aviation, a demanding job, and therefore lurking underneath the original poster's questions is a far more subtle point that you'd only really appreciate if it's the game you are in.

Let's face facts. If you're in a light twin, you are not in an easy working environment. Sure, the type of people who fly them tend to have a reasonable experience level, certainly sufficient to allow flying the aeroplane to be second nature. But I'm afraid that the workload can go sky-high in the blink of an eye just through one seemingly innocuous aircraft related problem, or seemingly innocent instruction from a controller.

One such comment might be "route direct Lambourne". Fine, you might think...but it's dark, and your cockpit lighting is poor, and you're having to hand-fly because the company Ops manual prevents use of the autopilot in any icing conditions (that's if the autopilot even works at all). So...just what is the Ident for Lambourne? Ok...so which chart do you pull out first whilst hand-flying at night? Well, it might be on the approach plate for your destination. But then again, it might not be. It's the old problem - how can you look for something when you don't know where it is? Well, it'll certainly be on your airways chart. Anybody ever seen an airways chart as viewed in a light twin at night? And who's there to keep the aircraft level while you look for it? Frankly, this little situation is what happens on a lot of flights at 'this end' of aviation. You wouldn't have to sit in the right hand seat on a sector like this for very long before you witnessed it.

Here's another classic example which the original poster experienced - happens all the time. "You're now leaving controlled airspace. Squawk 7000 and freecall London/Scottish Information". Hang on a minute...where did that come from?! I'll try to give you the background on this one, as I get it week in, week out, and it really screws everything up:

So, you've sat down and planned an airways routing, even though you were pushed for time, you managed to find the one and only route which an aircraft limited to FL100 can file for. Well, that's if you're lucky! Go on...how many people out there could pull out an airways chart and find a convincing IFR route below FL100 in the UK? It's a nightmare. Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. Sometimes you do find one, but it gets rejected as soon as you send it. OK, so your plan goes in without a hitch. You take off, start to fly the departure, and straight away get put on a radar heading. Fine, to start with everything seems great - the controller is doing your navigating for you.

Now, you punched the route into the GPS before you went, purely so it's there as a reference for you. But the longer you stay on the radar heading, the quicker you realise that you're actually a long way off the planned track. However, you realise that you're being given a far more direct routing and so you tend not to panic. And then all hell breaks loose in the cockpit. You're leaving controlled airspace... So you call up the FIR frequency. Now, I've been doing this a while, I've done a lot of VFR flying all round the British Isles too, and I know my way around. But there's a difference between IFR and VFR. You see, the FIR quite often don't know you're coming when you get 'booted out', and they ask you to 'pass your details'. What do you tell them? Just where are you? All you know is that you're on a radar heading, tracking nothing in particular, well to the East of your planned route, and with no idea how far away the next controlled airspace is ahead of you. And what's more, the FIR controller is operating non-radar, and so he can't tell you that either. This happens frequently in the UK.

The next thing that happens is (and full credit to London Info and Scottish Info, they work really hard for us guys) that the FIR controller does some ringing around, and gets back to you a few minutes later with a message from London Control. Generally something along the lines of "Remain outside controlled airspace, Squawk XXXX and for onward clearance contact......" Now this is tricky. Remain outside controlled airspace? So on what chart is class A airspace accurately depicted for those of us who don't know quite where we are, having left class A airspace on a Radar heading?

In summary, I have every sympathy with the original poster. What he has posted is a true reflection of what happens week-in, week-out for aircraft of that category trying to fly IFR routes in the UK. I suppose I am fortunate that I've found most of the 'gotchas' that lurk around in this country, I've heard of all the VORs, I know the difference between a basic service and a traffic service, I know that the FIR controllers don't have radar (unlike, say, Amsterdam), I know that you can't get from POL to DCS at FL100 in the day, but you can at night...the list goes on. I've learned most of these through bitter experience...and god know what I'd be like if every other country was the same as this - it's impossible to know all the subtleties.

I can pretty well guess from the way the poster has described the flight that he had probably taken all reasonable planning precautions prior to the flight. I know this because he is not asking unreasonable questions. I would love to see how some of the people who shot him down in the early replies cope in flight, I really would!

[eckhard]

JonDyer

Very good post and I agree with everything you say. (I seem to remember agreeing with you a lot when we were flying CJs together)

Airbus38

Another well written post. Brings back many memories; some good, some not so good.

It seems as if the responses to this thread fall into two camps:

1. Pilots who try to do the right thing but who are somewhat frustrated by the limitations of the cockpit environment in which they find themselves and who find the ATC service in the UK a little 'different' from other parts of the world; and

2. ATC professionals who have maybe forgotten the realities of single-pilot IFR flying (maybe they never knew) and who expect all flight crew, whatever their origin, to have an intimate knowledge of the UK AIP.

Now don't get me wrong: I have the highest respect for UK Air Traffic Controllers and I would be the first to admit that I know next to b*gger all about the pressures and problems of their jobs, BUT - Let's not forget that ATC is there to provide a SERVICE to pilots, not the other way around! To avoid exaggeration of the issues raised in this thread, I should add that I generally receive an excellent service in the UK. It's the responses on this thread from some of our ATC colleagues that leaves me unimpressed.

I would have thought that it shouldn't be too difficult to provide the three-letter ident and/or freqeuncy of any radio aid within the sector being controlled. Or if the pilot is clearly having problems navigating towards a desired point, why not simply provide vectors while they sort themselves out?

Airbus38 provides an excellent explanation of the problems from the pilot's perspective. Where is the explanation from an ATC professional of the poor service that ATC gave to wwelvaert that day? All we have heard so far is: "This guy shouldn't be allowed in UK airspace", and "He obviously failed to prepare thoroughly enough".

I would be genuinly interested to learn so that I can plan accordingly before my next SP HPCA flight in UK airspace.

Now I have to pack my bags for yet another light jet trans-Atlantic flight. As always, I will look forward to the calm professional voice of the UK controller as I pass RATSU, southbound. Let's not fall out over this, but let's keep in mind who is serving whom.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Full service with happy ending....is this ICAO.....

Works here in HK...:rolleyes:

glf

[Savannah Jet]

Seems on here that that the basic issue is one that anyone with any common sense would realise. You dont know what is going on at the other end of the RT.

Whilst ATC find it easy to critisize crews an apparent lack of knowledge, I have come across frequent examples at work of controllers displaying a complete lack of appreciation of what pressures and situations crews have to cope with. But will they ask their line manager for a fam-flight to be arranged for them ? Hmmmm...

Much as I want to defend my profession, it is true that there is a a distinct variation amongst ATC controllers about empathy with the guy at the other end of the mike. And the terse response regarding the "Lamborne" incident is, sadly, not as isolated incident as we would like.

Providing a Basic Service, I have encountered a few idiots with a "5 hrs a year" PPL, but also the majority who do know what they're doing. There will always be a variation in standards as long as they exceed the required minimum. I like think when I complete a shift that I've done a good job and been as helpful as possible, and tried to enhance our ATC reputation.

i read the initial thread and my gut reaction was "hmm, does this guy know what he is doing?", but having given it some thought and read various replies, its obvious there is a lack of understanding on both sides to a certain degree, and that there are also some very blinkered replies.

I've done loads of fam-flights, especially pre 9/11, mostly off my own back, as I love airplanes and flying. Especially in the US, things can be VERY different, as well as in some of the more obscure EU destinations. To expect crews to be familiar with every piece of airspace and procedure is completely unrealistic (though no excuse for poor preparation of course). If crews need help, then it should be offered - thats ultimately what ATC is there for.

Until controllers take more interest in the jobs the people they provide a service for are doing, and until crews make the effort to come and look around a busy ATC unit, these misconceptions (and subsequent snipping) will always be there.

[Radar]

Savannah Jet,

Very well said. Ignorance of each others environment is nothing new, it has been so as long as I've been in this business, fam flights or no. Bottom line is there are only a minority on either side of the mike who have an interest in looking over the fence, so to speak. As I look around at the newer recruits, that number gets smaller and smaller by the year. Maybe I'm hanging around in the wrong circles, but I could count on one hand the number of commercial pilots who have ever shown an interest in seeing the aviation world from the other side with all its' peculiarities, pressures and limitations.

The initial replies here would confirm for me that ignorance appears to be bliss for some.

BTW Airbus38 cracking post. In relation to finding that elusive IFR routing below FL120, this one has worked well for me so far

www.eurofpl.eu

[10W]

wwelvaert

What date was your flight ? I can check the plan and see what you should have expected.

[flyingflea]

Appalling sanctimonious attitude from some (pilots?) but balanced approach from others, my sympathy to OP, welcome to the UK.

Humble 25 yr PPL

[Roffa]

wwelvaert,

Nice to see some useful replies have come in.

Regrettably for flights like yours that may drop out of the lower levels of controlled airspace the UK system is often not very joined up and first time operators find this out the hard way.

If you were taken off your flight planned route by ATC then ATC should have okayed this with you first.

Had you been able to fly your planned route and been inside CAS the whole flight you would have kept the same squawk. It's the dropping out of CAS and then the airways controllers doing their best to get rid of you that leads to the numerous squawks and the requests for what service you want once you've left CAS. As mentioned, not a joined up system.

Once you get down to LAM and the London TMA the airspace can be quite complicated. I'd guess that you were vectored from LAM and passed east abeam London City at 4,000ft. If there are any arrivals/departures from City, they will be at 3,000ft at the point you pass abeam the airport hence you likely at 4,000ft. Once you pass City it then may not leave much time or room to get down from 4,000ft onto the Biggin ILS, especially if there was a tailwind hence possibly why high and not ideally positioned.

There are few private pilots in UK ATC these days and even fewer that have ever flown in the airways system themselves in GA type aircraft. Few even go on available fam flights in the larger stuff. The end result of that is awareness of your workload and problems/issues is regrettably not that great to non-existent. Hopefully this thread and any more like it might make some some sit back and think a little rather than fire off the pointlessly obnoxious stuff seen earlier.

Do keep posting and asking questions as and when you need and hopefully they'll be answered reasonably.

[Vino Collapso]

10w

I think it must have been this one...

(FPL-******-IG
-PA34/L-SDGY/S
-EGPC1230
-N0165F090 SMOKI W4D ADN DCT SAB DCT SAB165030 DCT NATEB DCT OTR DCT
SUPEL DCT DOLAS DCT BANEM DCT CLN DCT TRIPO
-EGKB0315 EGTR
-DOF/110318 ORGN/EGPCXHAA)

[G-SPOTs Lost]

To the OP....

You've probably picked the worst corner of a very congested TMA, a lot of what you describe also applys to us Jet drivers, its just a very busy part of a small country and although unconventional you need to consider the proximity of Gatwick/London City/Heathrow.

The extended vectors and early / late turn ons are facts of life in that area, it takes a few go's to figure out what they're planning to do and even then that guarantees nothing for the next time.

Whilst it looks scrappy, you should be rest assured that theres always a plan in somebodys mind in the main......imagine an area as busy as that with lets say some of our "less" capable ATC'ers from the EU it would be carnage.

It would also be a good bet that your air miles flown were significantly less than planned

[wwelvaert]

Vino: I think that is the flight plan. No excuses for the convoluted routing, that's what we were able to get accepted by the Eurocontrol folks in Brussels (at some point in this thread I fear my true nationality will surface).

To avoid exaggeration of the issues raised in this thread, I should add that I generally receive an excellent service in the UK. It's the responses on this thread from some of our ATC colleagues that leaves me unimpressed.

I couldn't agree more. Other than the one controller at Lamboure all of the ATC controllers were very professional that day. This thread was certainly not meant as an offense to ATC controllers but as a clarification (ok, rant) about the system idiosyncrasies, or the totality thereof on that particular flight.

[wwelvaert]

its obvious there is a lack of understanding on both sides to a certain degreeIn hindsight very happy that I started this thread for the info that was posted from both ATC and pilot's sides. There's absolutely a difference between a procedural/regulatory understanding of the system and being conditioned by experience to some of it's ideosynchrasies.

[AdamFrisch]

Non IFR pilot question here: Would being on oxygen and flying higher have helped with a more direct routing and less handovers/transponder headaches?

[farmer jo]

Flying into Biggin IFR is not easy at the best of times, due to the proximity of Heathrow,CITY, Stansted Luton Gatwcik etc ++ all in the same area- it is a very busy area!! But looking at his filed flight plan, he filed IFR outside controlled airspace via SAB - OTR - CLN then his arrival via CLN(Clacton) via Tripo -this would explain his multiple transponder changes and muliple Radio changes? He would clearly have been expecting and briefed himself on SPEAR 1B star into Biggin(well that is what he filed?) ? If you look at the STAR chart you will find Lambourne (LAM) is clearly marked on the chart as Lambourne(LAM) So am a little surprised he couldn't understand and accept a direct Lambourne? It's very easy to knock the UK system but he filed and flew IFR outside controlled airspace and wanted all the perks of operating on the airway system ? :=
He didn't really understand what he had filed and was expecting ?
No system is perfect but I think UK around London is the best you can get, and to see UK based pilots saying otherwise is rather disappointing ?
I have spent 36 years(+17000 hours) flying worldwide and it still fills me with relief when I cross the UK FIR !!
Thanks ATC UK !!
ATP

[Vino Collapso]

Flying into Biggin IFR is not easy at the best of times, due to the proximity of Heathrow,CITY, Stansted Luton Gatwcik etc ++ all in the same area- it is a very busy area!

Perhaps you can qualify that statement?

We share much of our IFR arrival procedures with City airport. Are you saying that flying IFR into City is also 'not easy' also?

[wwelvaert]

So am a little surprised he couldn't understand and accept a direct Lambourne?

At risk of sounding defensive, I never said I couldn't accept direct Lambourne. I did say:

It took me a moment to find Lambourne and punch it in the GPS

As I mentioned before, I do feel like I have a reasonable understanding of the UK system. I dutifully respond "deconfliction service" when asked OCAS, I "pass my details" when asked, etc.

Nor do I want to give the impression that I was lost like a ball in the tall weeds. When I was told to "route Daventry" or "NATEB" or "Brookmans Park" or any other fixes I punched in the idents and went on my merry way.

Asking for the Lambourne identifier was the only thing I asked for that day.

As a foreign pilot it can be tough to see how any intrinsic benefit some of the unique UK procedures may have outweighs the lack of standardization, therefor I appreciate the clarifications and background that many have given in this thread.

[Martin Barnes]

This post takes me back to the days of scud running PA31s ect up and down the UK flying in cloud VFR which is a UK thing as the concept of Flight Following for VFR and low level IFR does not exist here.

So in cloud VFR (IFR flight plan filed and IR held) requires that you have a good old VFR toppo chart and look at it before you go flying, figure out where you will be OCAS and dumped by the controller who will not hand you over.
Remember its up to you who you choose to talk to when OCAS.

In general the low level ATC service in the UK is very good but differs from unit to unit most are very good, but the bad ones are total crap.

One day they will figure out that the american Centre Control system is cheaper and better which means tower controllers sit in towers and look out of the window and approach controllers all work from the centre and provide vectors to all airports and flight following with automatic hand overs.

[Vino Collapso]

up and down the UK flying in cloud VFR

Please explain the Visual Flight Rules to me as I have only been flying for 35 years and have yet to understand how flying in cloud can be defined as VFR.

[Savannah Jet]

wwelvaert/all

Those of you who fly OCAS at times may want to take a look at this new free on-line flightplanning tool, which has just been launched with NATS endorsement. Had a brief look myself and seems to offer more guidance and in a more comprehensible form than has been available to date.

SkyDemon Light (http://www.skydemonlight.com)

might I also suggest that OCAS if you are unsure as to who to call, give London Info a call. If they can't offer you an appropriate service, they will suggest someone who can.

Savannah Jet
AC FISO London ATC

[Martin Barnes]

My point, one will be asked for position fixes and obscure reporting points only published on a VFR chart when flying IMC on a OCA/IFR flight plan.

In cloud VFR got it !!!

35 years how impressive.

[sabenaboy]

at some point in this thread I fear my true nationality will surface.

Well, even without reading your full name on your blog, I could have guessed your true nationality! :ok:

I'm glad to see you got some useful replies to your excellent post.

I agree 100 % with Radar's reply #20 (http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/448092-me-uk-atc-system.html#post6356984)

Oh, BTW, I like the opening sentence you used when you first met your wife! :ok:

[Contacttower]

5) At one point near NewCastle (don't land there after 8:00 pm) a controller tells me to squawk 7000 and go to the next frequency. Like an idiot I comply, only to be told by the next controller to maintain VFR clear of controlled airspace. Took a few minutes to sort out the idea that I was on an active IFR flight plan on an assigned route.

Not sure exactly were you were at this point but there is a weird idiosyncrasy with the airspace over the north of England in that some of the airways actually change their MEA depending on the time of day; during the night they are lower because the base of controlled airspace drops - I have no idea why this is the case - perhaps someone from ATC could answer?

Scotland to London/the South in general is actually a flight I do quite a lot airways and when flying at c FL90/100 or whatever when one leaves controlled airspace close to Scottish/English border one contacts London Information - they will have a copy of your flight plan and will be able to co-ordinate a rejoin for you when the you meet controlled airspace further south. It can at first be very disconcerting to be told "7000, remain outside of controlled airspace" when you are not expecting it but it doesn't mean your clearance has been lost - it just means that while you are leaving controlled airspace the airways radar units don't want to be worrying about you. At FL100 or above you can call "Military" and get a service from them I think. They may also remind you to fly the correct quadrangle level which is sometimes a +500 FL depending on you level (another silly UK only procedure that differs from everywhere else!)

As for Biggin/Thames and London I'm slightly surprised to hear about your experience; I've always found them helpful. Approach info not on the ATIS is a bit annoying but it is something one has to live with - some airports like Southampton for example put it on others don't.

In general the one thing above all else that makes flying IFR in the UK a bit of a pain is the ridgy closed and class A airways system with everything else apart from airports being G. It has the advantage of protecting IFR from the riffraff I guess but for GA ops its a pain because it often leads to one either getting stuck outside the system or chucked out of it! In the US, where most airspace is E I find flying airways in a light aircraft must easier.

As for the controllers themselves having flown in the UK, Europe and the US I think the UK's are the most professional and diligent - but not necessarily the friendliest.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<sometimes a +500 FL depending on you level (another silly UK only procedure that differs from everywhere else!) >>

Funny.... that's precisely the system I worked in Africa 40 years ago!!

[Contacttower]

Funny.... that's precisely the system I worked in Africa 40 years ago!!

Interesting to note it's not just the UK...

It is not however ICAO and while in of itself its not a bad separation system I really don't see the point in having such a difference. Especially since when one is outside of controlled airspace VFR traffic rarely follows it anyway...

[christian archer]

Wow, for people that are so angry in this post it sure has gained a lot of attention!!

[Pace]

Vino

Please explain the Visual Flight Rules to me as I have only been flying for 35 years and have yet to understand how flying in cloud can be defined as VFR.

Presuming the fact that IFR and VFR are flight rules not IMC or VMC then it is a puzzle at what rules an aircraft is flying to if in cloud and not flying IFR rules? It is a puzzle to me having once nearly collided with a glider flying in clouds!
What was he flying? impossible for a glider to fly IFR in cloud unless he could fly a quadrantal level ( V unlikely)
How do you fly VFR in cloud as you are not meeting the legal requirements of VFR?
Yet gliders are legally allowed to fly in cloud with aircraft not equipt for IFR flight and their pilots not rated to do so.
When gliders fly in clouds what rules are they flying to OCAS

Pace

[christian archer]

Don't quite know how you know that you "nearly collided with a glider in cloud" since you wouldn't be able to see. But ho hum

[Pace]

Christian

Take my word for it if its that close you will see it in cloud where vis is prob 100 to 200 metres. Posted the whole incident which generated a long thread here at pprune about 18 months back! and was reported.

Pace

[christian archer]

fair enough. Must have been a bit nerve racking!:\

[Pace]

A miss is as good as a mile prob a 1 in a million but still possible OCAS but would still like to know what regs the glider fraternity are flying to in IMC OCAS?

Pace

[RAPA Pilot]

I fly into Biggin quite often, usually from the south so I kinda know what to expect and I understand that the ATCOs are very busy and I try to accommodate them in what ever request they ask me as quickly and efficiently as possible, it’s called good airmanship. UK ATC is very very good on the whole unlike some of their southern or eastern European brothers but sometime UK ATCOs have the ability to fcuk it up on a grand scale. Not a problem we all make mistakes, but the thing that gets me the most when either I make a mistake or they make a mistake is the utter arrogance I get back from them on the RT.
And I often think that they look down their noses at Aircrew as some sort of inconvenience. All to often I feel for the poor Crew who are at the end of a 12+ hour sector approaching London, English is not their first language and they don’t get it first or second time by which time the controller is becoming frustrated and sarcastic in his tone. Patience gentlemen…..is there such a thing as ‘good groundmanship’ .
And before I get shot down I have visited NATS at Swanwick and take any opportunity to visit towers and have always encouraged FAM Flights where possible.
If all the aircraft in the world were grounded tomorrow then there would be no ATC but if ATC were shut down tomorrow Aircraft would still fly in some capacity.
You are here because we are here….aren’t we both very lucky to have each other.

Descend flight level of stairs and Turn left heading for the pub!!!!!!

RARA…..

[Radar]

RAPA,

Excellent post. Methinks you have hit the nail on the head. Ignorance of each other's environment (with its' pressures and limitations) is a growing problem. Certainly the recruits to our unit over the past decade or so have less and less interest in aviation in a general sense. there isn't the appetite to acquire a 'bigger picture'. The fact that familiarization flights are a thing of the past doesn't help either.

From experience, you, as aircrew with an active interest in seeing the 'other side', are definitely in a minority. Unfortunate but true.

Radar

[Contacttower]

I relative of mine used to work at NATS Swanwick as well and I have had several visits there, one in fact before the facility was actually open - was certainly a weird experience wondering around all these radar screens which were on and running but had no one manning them.

All the controllers I met seemed very professional - sitting down and listening to the Heathrow Director frequency for example while next to the actual controller was very impressive.

In the air I've never had the feeling in the UK the ATC wasn't sympathetic to my general aim to reach my destination in a timely fashion even if crossing the London Terminal Control Area in a C182 at 140kts isn't exactly making life easy for them. That said I have overheard some exchanges similar to what RAPA Pilot mentions...a bit of patience from both sides and things are easier.

[tournesol]

To add the non standards ATC calls in the UK airspace.
1. The idea of "say aircraft type to Radar" Why ???? Doesn't the controller have this information ? We are just blocking the freq which is already busy.
2. The unique TCAS terminology calls used the UK. Why don't we all use the suggested ICAO terminology ? if each country would come up with a different set of terminology, in particular during a time of high pressure such as a TCAS maneuver, where will all this lead to ?
3. Why insisting on pilot to say SID, altitude passing, altitude cleared to ?
4. Why saying QNH.... after you have said information X received ?
5. The insisting of calling the VORs by their full names, instead the 3 letter code doesn't help, in particular if he said VOR was not part of the original route.

I am neither UK, US or Europe pilot based. In my opinion, the US ATC is much user friendlier.

Generally, I find the UK controllers to be above average. But the uniqueness of the system is what causes confusions with outsiders. :confused:

[Vortex Issues]

1. The idea of "say aircraft type to Radar" Why ???? Doesn't the controller have this information ? We are just blocking the freq which is already busy.
3. Why insisting on pilot to say SID, altitude passing, altitude cleared to ?
4. Why saying QNH.... after you have said information X received ?
1. Mistakes can be made on flight plans so we need to make sure that you are the correct type of aircraft shown on the flight strip in front of us. What we don't want is getting less than the required vortex spacing required or you being parked on a stand that you can't use
3. We need to know the passing altitude so as make sure that you Mode C data is accurate. The SID needs to be confirmed to make sure you go the right way and the cleared altitude needs to be confirmed to make sure you don't bust the clearance and end up hitting something coming the other way.
4. because the QNH can change before the new information is transmitted.

[tournesol]

Vortex,
I am sure you have your reasons, most of them I can relate to. I don't doubt that you have safety as your primary goal.

As an ICAO member state, if you you want to update or improve certain terminology, in particular English being your language, then you should present your findings to ICAO, convince them through the normal channels, and publish to the rest of world the latest recommendations. The rest of us will follow.

I don't know the numbers, but there a lot of foreign airplanes flying in your airspace. Surely you can appreciate the advantages of all the pilots and ATCs around the world using the same terminology, following and expecting the same procedures and standards.

An ATC facility is a service provider. As such you should listen to your customers, local and foreign. I get the impression some ATCs, in particular the ones who have never left their turf, seem so adamant that their ways are the best, and as long as you are in my airspace you must do what I say. This may be an exaggeration, but I have actually come across ppl like that, not necessarily in the UK though.

Short to medium operators in Europe can fly to a number of countries in a day.
You can not expect them to study the differences of each country.

By the way some other countries do opt to vary from the ICAO recommendations. It is just causing to the confusion and non standard phraseology used by different nationalities & various accents in English.

I am not arguing your comments, I am just presenting my opinion.
Have a nice day.

[sccutler]

Apologizing in advance for my ignorance of the nuances of British practices, I have a couple of questions secondary to this hoary old thread.

1. Assuming one has filed and accepted an IFR clearance, and initiated flight, how is it that it ceases to be an IFR flight without the pilot canceling IFR? Surely the controllers cannot unilaterally cancel IFR for the pilot?

2. My interpretation of the OP's story was not that he exited controlled airspace by choice, but rather, that he was vectored out of the controlled airspace by the controllers; am I missing something?

3. Is radar coverage that poor over the UK?

4. Why so many squawk codes? I can fly across the country here on one code, two at most.

---

Perhaps I have been spoiled (spoilt) by US ATC, but in my jaunts about the country (mostly in my Bonanza), I have been treated with complete professionalism by both approach and Center controllers, and from the discussion in this thread, I have the impression that the UK controllers seem to regard non-turbojet traffic as needless irritants. Educate me, as I intend to fly to and around Europe some time soon.

Thanks in advance.

[Tinstaafl]

The UK doesn't have blanket Class E, unlike the US. Except for around some controlled airports it's mostly either Class A, or Class G. Class A isn't a blanket overlying Class E - a fair bit of it consists of corridors along air routes down to the lower altitudes.

In class G you can be IFR to your heart's content. There is no regulatory requirement to talk to anyone. Not being controlled airspace, there isn't a controller, only a Flight Information Service available. Think along the lines of 'Inside CTA' or 'Outside CTA' and never the twain shall meet. Once you hit Class G airspace while enroute you are no longer 'in' CTA therefore no longer have an IFR clearance 'in' CTA. A new clearance must be obtained for the next bit of CTA you wish to fly in.

Doesn't mean you are no longer IFR though. You're IFR in Class G as long as you adhere to IFR. Conversely, you're VFR in Class G as long as you adhere to VFR. Curiously, you could yo-yo IFR-VFR-IFR-VFR as frequently as you like as long as at each change you adjust your mindset and follow the appropriate set of rules.

[chevvron]

On the subject of multiple transponder codes; units operating services outside controlled airspace are assigned a block of codes each; they will issue you with one of these to A) identify you and B) indicate to other units who it is you are talking to.
As regards being asked your full details when transferring to the next unit; your flight plan will only go to the relevant ATCC(s) and your destination, it will not be passed to en-route units outside CAS unless you specifically ask for it to be addressed to them.

[darkroomsource]

Is this island really that big that the entire thing can't be one big controlled airspace above a reasonable altitude, so that once you've entered the IFR system you're in it until you leave the island?

[10W]

It is Class C above FL195, if that's classed as a reasonable altitude ? ;)

[peterh337]

Just spotted the original thread for the first time...

What happened to that pilot is not unusual, for the UK system.

It can happen to anybody, and continues to happen.

The simplest way to guard against it is by filing a flight level which is totally obviously decisively in controlled airspace. Hard to give guidelines on what this means (I was told by one ATCO that the rules are in a confidential ATC document) but FL120+ ought to do the job. If you file at lower levels (e.g. FL090 like the OP) then there is a possibility of getting dropped out of CAS, or even the flight plan getting dumped on sight by e.g. London Control.

In Europe, ATC will normally clearly advise traffic asking for shortcuts that one is about to leave CAS. In the UK this often doesn't happen; one can get transferred to "London 124.6" and a foreigner will think nothing of it. A local will know that 124.6 is an FIS service which, in the UK, cannot support an IFR clearance, so actually your IFR clearance has been cancelled without anybody telling you.

It's also an old chestnut when flying from France to the UK where you might be in CAS across France and then transferred to "London 124.6" with the same result. The solution to that one used to be to fly at FL120+ because one is then handled by Paris Control which has the authority to transfer you to London Control and your IFR flight continues. In recent years I have seen this work down to FL100, which is an improvement...

I suspect the powers to be decided to do something about it, because having to carry and use oxygen solely to maintain an IFR clearance from France to UK is nuts :ugh:

Huge amounts of discussion have been done on this on pilot forums. Normally, ATC are less than keen to discuss it, but it continues to catch out foreign piston pilots (or UK ones who have not yet discovered the quirks) filing for non-oxygen altitudes and expecting it to "just work" because the flight plan was accepted by Eurocontrol.

Personally I file for FL120+ and that deals with the issue. One can ask for a "stop climb" if the wx is nice. But there are still parts of the UK (Scotland etc) where the base of CAS is above that, but I have found that Scottish ATC are very much better at managing the situation, whereas in the south if you drop out of CAS (in level flight) they tend to wash their hands of you and won't let you back in. US-style "pop-up" IFR clearances are almost impossible to get in the UK.

[mad2fly]

I spent 22 years flying in the US and have been based in the British Isles for the last 4 years. My observation is that because UK pilots have been flying the system their entire careers their feeling is, of course it works like that.

When I first moved here I tried to get advice from my colleagues but their assumption of my knowledge of how things worked got in the way.

In the US if you are cleared to a point, you are cleared to that point via the route in that clearance. If that route is direct then you are cleared through whatever airspace lies directly between you and that point. If you are about to enter restricted airspace it is the controllers job to give you vectors around that airspace.

On the rare occasions that you might leave controlled airspace the controllers will provide flight following or tell you when or where to contact the next controller and the frequency but your clearance through that airspace still applies.

I've had to flush that idea from my mind and realise that you need a much better understanding of the limits of a clearance. I know when I receive my clearance out of Farnborough to Guernsey that I'm not really cleared through all the airspace along the route I've filed.

Sometimes it's hard to learn about the idiosyncrasies of a counties airspace when you don't know the questions to ask.

How many people who only fly in the US occasionally know what you can do with a clearance to operate VFR on top or what it means to cruise an altitude? Would you know you could ask for and receive a clearance for a contact approach and what that means?

[peterh337]

I know when I receive my clearance out of Farnborough to Guernsey that I'm not really cleared through all the airspace along the route I've filed.

That's the case in all of Europe, IME.

Picking up a departure clearance which says "cleared to EGXX" doesn't mean anything; it's just a standard phrase used at airports which are located inside controlled airspace. The expectation by the ATCO passing it is that the flight will be in CAS all the way. He has no practical way of realising that e.g. at the other end of the flight is an airport which lies in Class G and/or which has no STAR and to which you are connecting with a DCT, or that the end of the flight will be de facto VFR etc etc.

The USA has a uniform airspace structure with Class E (which is CAS for IFR) from ~1200ft to 17999ft and with Class A above that, which makes it easy to work clearances. The only European country which kind of gets near that is France which tends to have Class E from FL065 to FL115 and Class D FL120-FL195, and Class A FL200+ (in very general terms). On top of that, France has a superb ATC system which is joined-up in terms of data sharing so they know about you all the way, which results in a very relaxed experience.

However, while I have never flown in the USA (except when doing the FAA IR in Arizona) I doubt that an ATC clearance from one end of the USA to the other is actually more "absolutely guaranteed" than a clearance anywhere outside the USA. ATC has a universal power to deny you progress. For IFR traffic in CAS (high altitude) such a thing is unheard of in the civilised world but I suppose the bottom line is that a RA could suddenly pop up... More likely ATC will vector you around things, and that wasn't in the departure clearance either :)

[Tinstaafl]

Not quite Peter. When you receive an IFR clearance in the US it will be the route to, and including, your destination - even if that's the other side of the country. It may be abbreviated with the statement 'as filed' as part of the route. If the clearance will be a major modification of the filed route then they'll forewarn you with the statement 'full route clearance'. A clearance with vectors will include a point on the route where the vectors stop and normal navigation starts.

ATC may subsequently modify things in flight, but unless that happens you have a clearance all the way to your destination. Even a modification will get you to your destination, either via a whole new route, or the modification joins the old route.

[His dudeness]

Picking up a departure clearance which says "cleared to EGXX" doesn't mean anything; it's just a standard phrase used at airports which are located inside controlled airspace.

Are you sure?

[421C]

Picking up a departure clearance which says "cleared to EGXX" doesn't mean anything; it's just a standard phrase used at airports which are located inside controlled airspace It has an important meaning - that you have an initial airways clearance. If your airways join was further enroute, you'd simply get an IFR departure clearance to a direction or waypoint, without the "cleared to EGXX" wording.

[Denti]

The only European country which kind of gets near that is France

Dunno, in germany (http://www.dfs.de/dfs/internet_2008/module/grundkurs_flugsicherung/englisch/atc_basics/air_navigation_services/airspace_info_and_structure/luftraumplakat.pdf) everything above 2500ft AGL (lower around controlled airports) is class E and everything above FL100 is C, FL130 at the alps. Class A or B isn't used though. That's still enough to enable IFR services outside of any kind of airways. The old corridor system was used within eastern germany of course, but that was over 20 years ago. Anyway, the airway structure is so dense that one is always around some airway, but usually not on it since one flies on some kind of direct clearance.

[peterh337]

Yes; I thought I forgot Germany. It's a long time since I flew there VFR...

ATC may subsequently modify things in flight, but unless that happens you have a clearance all the way to your destination

I still think that works primarily because in the USA you are assured of being in CAS all the way.

But there must be a difference because from what you say ATC would not clear you for a route on which you didn't have obstacle clearance, whereas here in Europe it is perfectly possible to file a Eurocontrol flight plan (using hacks like a series of DCTs, etc) which passes through terrain, and the departure clearance will still "clear you to destination".

Does the ATC in the USA have a means of checking the MSA/MOCA etc for your filed route, at a glance?

There is also an interesting ambiguity there. Here in Europe, once you are "cleared to", if you subsequently suffer a comms failure, you are entitled to fly the filed route and land (at the filed ETA etc etc). But if you don't suffer a comms failure, you can't necessarily do that :)

[His dudeness]

That's still enough to enable IFR services outside of any kind of airways.

Apart from an IFR departure from an uncontrolled or no F -airspace airfield - and no IFR in uncontrolled airspace altogether.

Here in Europe, once you are "cleared to", if you subsequently suffer a comms failure, you are entitled to fly the filed route and land (at the filed ETA etc etc). But if you don't suffer a comms failure, you can't necessarily do that

I don't see the ambiguity to be honest... if ATC can`t reach you, then they can`t alter the clearance....

[peterh337]

The amusing bit is that the only way the departure clearance is valid all the way to destination is if you have lost comms :)

Speaking of Germany, where IFR OCAS is banned, I wonder how pilots work departures from VFR-only airports when the cloudbase is a bit low... and Germany has AFAIK prosecuted some people for various versions of illegal VFR.

[His dudeness]

I wonder how pilots work departures from VFR-only airports when the cloudbase is a bit low...

me too...the procedure is called VIFR and is quite unofficial... ;)

and Germany has AFAIK prosecuted some people for various versions of illegal VFR.

Well, the question is always WHO determines VFR or visibility and cloud height... if there is not a meteorologist or the equivalent, then the proof is hard to find (of departing IFR).

However this issue is a pretty annoying one and just why the German ATC is so against it (and has been against it for man, many years -> my dad was a german ATCO) I don´t know. IFR in uncontrolled airspace is not a magical thing...

[Tinstaafl]

Peter, an IFR clearance in the US will always include 'expect {insert final altitude here} in one zero minutes'. If contact is lost then 10 mins after airborne everyone expects you to climb to that level. If terrain is an issue at some point enroute then you are expected to climb to an appropriate cruising level above the LSALT before the relevent route segment if the LSALT is higher than the cleared altitude.

Departing into IMC from a non-controlled field that's OCTA ie outside 'E', then you can get a clearance with a 'clearance void' time from a controller. The clearance usually specifies a heading and initial altitude. Many places without VHF ATC comms have an on the ground Radio-to-phone frequency that is activated with a few transmissions. It direct-dials to the local ATC (or possibly Flight Service if an ATC phone isn't possible) so you can obtain a clearance. You can also phone for a clearance if need be although, weather permitting, I usually prefer to depart VFR and get my IFR clearance once airborne.

IFR OCTA isn't a big deal - it's common in Oz, for example.

[FoxRomeo]

I'm aware that I'm hijacking this threat across the channel, but I feel a few things need to be clarified.

This side of the channel "cleared to XYZ, route, level" means just that. You are cleared on the given routing regardless of the airspace. Outside CAS it's advisory or information only, but your clearance is valid to reenter CAS - eg. Poland, Sweden, Hungary, and also Germany. In theory you could have a Comm-Failure after receiving the take-off clearance and still continue in and out of CAS.

Germany does not permit IFR in airspace G. It has nothing to do with ATC. It's a political thing from over 60 years back, we are all used to it and nobody bothers changing it. Hence the dreaded airspace F, which is not CAS, btw. In return the VMC minima for airspace G are ridiculously low (1500m and clear of clouds).

With an acknowledged IFR clearance those minima may be applied to airspace E until reaching the minimum IFR level. Even though it's seldomly done you could call ACC by phone, get your clearance, and depart a VFR airfield clear of clouds and be IFR somewhere between 2000 and 3000ft AGL depending on the airspace. May not be nice but works and is legal for most conditions. (Works in a similar manner the other way around)

Ok, now back to the island. I'm eager to learn more about the system there.

Regards,
FR

[peterh337]

My understanding (from German bizjet pilots) is that they depart into IMC from VFR-only airports, with IFR in Class G banned, but have to be careful to not enter IMC too near the airport because somebody might see them ;)

Apparently the procedure is called "IVFR" :)

What was the reasoning for no IFR in Class G?

[His dudeness]

What was the reasoning for no IFR in Class G?

It was forbidden under Hitler and we don´t change things lighthearted and without pressure.

Seriously, nobody really knows. Some guy in an office decided that you can`t fly IFR below the MRVA (Minimum Radar Vectoring Altitude), an altitude you as a pilot usually don´t know btw... go figure.

At least we have airspace F, which in some case allow a relatively cheap IFR departure/approach possibility. Now EASA wants to take that away.

I for one think the Belgian Example should lead the way: no Government for more than a year and everything worked at least as good or bad as before....

[FoxRomeo]

We can blame Adolf for everything, except for airspace G.

Right after WWII with Germany not being a sovereign state aviation and flying was forbidden for Germans and German companies. Military Aviation prevailed and only air carriers of allied counties were flying. In 1951 glider flying was permitted (initially with restrictions), in 1953 Lufthansa could form again and only after 1955 private aviation could reestablish.

Airspace structure reflected this development. FL 245 and above was initially reserved for the military, private aviation was limited to uncontrolled airspace (IFR was out of the question anyhow) and the in-between was left for commercial aviation.

As a concession the VMC-minima in uncontrolled airspace was set to this ridiculously low level.

Later private aviation was permitted up to FL 100 (ED-R 9, for those, who remember). Somewhere in the 80s (my memory leaves me there) the ICAO airspace classes were established and the original VMC-minima transfered.
Everything remained the same, just the name changed.

Being the masters of doubt, nothing gets changed lightly, as inappropriate it now may be.

I have a little hope in EASA. If they forbid airspace F, we have to get something in return. Maybe it's IFR in G.

Regards,
FR

[mutt]

The simplest way to guard against it is by filing a flight level which is totally obviously decisively in controlled airspace Doesn't always work :) We cruised at FL410, but during descent into Farnborough, we were cleared direct to a point, descend to FLx, Contact Farnborough Radar, You are clear of controlled airspace, radar service terminated :)

Then Farnborough Radar asked what kind of service did we require, without giving any options to choose from:) There was nothing shown in the Jeppesen high / Low level charts that cautioned us about this.

It was the same on departure, we were given radar heading and altitudes, but not advised that we were outside controlled airspace and required permission to enter controlled airspace.

This thread was the only thing that i had read that prepared me for flying in UK airspace...... Thanks..:ok::ok:

Mutt

[His dudeness]

Mutt, do you know this leaflet:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20110930SSL08.pdf

(too lazy to go through the whole thread to check wether it was mentioned already...)

[mutt]

No I didn't know of its existence..... but should I? During the last month i have flown in 4 different continents, and 8 different countries. Am I really supposed to review the website of each countries CAA to find these little gems of wisdom.

His Dudeness, thanks for posting the link, my gripe isnt aimed at you, but at a system that is almost as annoying as flying into LeBourget when everyone, even Air Canada are speaking French :E:E

Mutt

[chevvron]

Be careful Mutt, you're admitting you didn't self brief that Farnborough is situated in class G airspace (well at the time of writing it's actually Temporary Restricted Airspace or RA(T), becoming temporary class D controlled airspace or CAS(T) tomorrow until 15 Aug) nor did you self brief on UK Air Traffic Services Outside Controlled Airspace (ATSOCA).
By relying on Jeppesen, you and your company are not alone in making a fundamental mistake as Jeppesen are NOT regulated either by ICAO or by any national aviation authority thus you are placing total reliance on a company which claims to regulate itself as regards aeronautical information.
The UK AIP which Jeppesen are supposed to replicate for you guys is freely available on the internet (UMCC (http://www.ais.org)) and I would recommend all crews paying a first visit to the UK cross - check their Jeppesen info with this; you'll find some amazing omissions by Jeppesen plus the software supplied by them for your FMS may not tell you the 'whole story'. The arrival fix for Farnborough called ODIMI for instance (now replaced by ROVUS) was not present in many versions of FMS software supplied by Jeppesen and I spent many hours when I worked in ATC at Farnborough trying to get them to include it; they would blame Honeywell and Honeywell simply said they didn't know what was wrong.

[mad_jock]

To be honest Chevvron this is the whole reason why the UK ATSOCAS falls on its backside all of the time from a pilots point of view. I am sure its a cracking thing for covering the controllers arse.

A brit going other places is pretty well set up.

A none UK trained pilot inside CAS again not really a problem.

None UK trained pilot/ or one that hasn't been home since it came in operating into a Class G field its a mess.

If you then throw in a none native english speaker double the mess.

Then you have all the rules about entering into contracts with the controller and controllers actively controlling aircraft under a basic service.

Then there is people who just say "basic" service then don't realise they have no protection flying in both IMC and VMC.

You get basic service mixing with procedural service going into none radar fields all shooting IFR approaches.

Mutt isn't alone not having the brief, I doud't very much if even 5% of none UK visitors will have even heard of ATSOCAS. Out of that 5% I doudt alot of them even understand what the different services even mean. And even when you do tell them its so alien compared to the way the rest of the world does it, it really doesn't compute.

Doing a briefing my only success has been with.

BAsic = f@ck all service
Traffic = next to F@ck all service.
Deconfliction = be prepared to get vectored all round the shop above FL100 for low level traffic. But if you can get it off an approach controller is useful.

Procedural = OK if everyone is using it and speaks english but if anyone is on a basic or wx is ****e keep an eye on your TCAS and pray to a god of your choice and if you want to pray to more than one thats good airmanship. Better to just go Basic and look out the window if the wx is good.

The standard question is "why is this so complicated? It doesn't make sense"

I still can't think of any decent reply.

Also doesn't help that different Units have different methods of dealing with the different services.

Its also a huge pain that deconfliction service traffic have to be seperated from basic traffic which is visual with them. You wouldn't have to do that if you were flying in CAS.

[His dudeness]

His Dudeness, thanks for posting the link, my gripe isnt aimed at you

Thanks, just started sweating cause I didn´t know what wrong I did... ;)

We fly relatively often to FAB (company office close by) and that is why I`m 'sort of familiar'....

Mad Jock: +1, good post! Plus: one more often than not does not get more than basic out of FAB. We always request deconfliction and often the controller is to busy...

The arrival fix for Farnborough called ODIMI for instance (now replaced by ROVUS) was not present in many versions of FMS software supplied by Jeppesen and I spent many hours when I worked in ATC at Farnborough trying to get them to include it; they would blame Honeywell and Honeywell simply said they didn't know what was wrong.

I was in FAB the day ROVUS was invented and our database (updated!) didn´t have it then (Honeywell -> 'powered by Jeppesen') After landing I wrote an email to the FAB ATC explaining 'Honeywell' would not have it. Maybe thats were this particular blame came from.

To me, the exchange with Honeywell I had then revealed how the DB maker choose the waypoints to integrate...ROVUS just sits there on the map and has no connection to the procedures (its not on the arrival, nor used in the approach, at least as Jeppesen shows it)... so they just omitted it. The DB maker have no way of knowing what waypoints are used regurlarly by ATC.

OTOH why they think a waypoint of no use is put on a map I don´t know...

I guess the communication could be improved there...

[mad_jock]

At least tell him the pit falls of departing then getting refused entry into CAS and then having to try and avoid CAS while watching the fuel guages and working out how much you can burn before you have to do a tech stop.

[chevvron]

His Dudeness: with me all this happened before I retired from Farnborough, must've been about 2005 or 6 'cos I retired in 2008. So after all my efforts then, the arrival fix most used (traffic rarely goes to PEPIS even now) is still not appearing on some software updates!
When I designed the procedure, I originally wanted to use the ODH TACAN, but the UK CAA said very firmly NO as it was a military aid (even though it appears on some FMS' ) which is why we defined ODIMI as a VOR offset. Why my successor changed it to ROVUS I don't know because if a pilot asked where ODIMI was, we could always tell him ODH or Odiham Airfield, now there's nothing to refer to.

[mutt]

We knew that the airport itself was in Class G, but look at how we planned to get there, look at the class of airspace associated with this route...

[img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8020/7574341904_1f19d1abe3_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pprunemutt/7574341904/)

We most likely will be going back to pick up the person, so how would you suggest that we arrive to FAB? Once we leave GWC, what can we expect?

Mutt

[fisbangwollop]

Mad Jock....BAsic = f@ck all service
Traffic = next to F@ck all service.

Now you cannot say that...I did feel soory for you as your balls froze in the Cub that day......a careing service I would call it!

[mad_jock]

I do apologise FIS

I will change my brief next time I give it. :ok:

[421C]

By relying on Jeppesen, you and your company are not alone in making a fundamental mistake as Jeppesen are NOT regulated either by ICAO or by any national aviation authority thus you are placing total reliance on a company which claims to regulate itself as regards aeronautical information.
What absolute nonsense. Jeppesen databases are highly regulated by aviation authorities. The database supplier is validated by the (E)TSO approval of the FMS or GPS, from an airworthiness point of view. From an Ops point of view, Jeppesen hold the Type 2 LoA for their database products from EASA and the FAA. From an Operational approval point of view, AOC holders' operations are approved by the NAA including reliance on Jeppesen databases and paper manauls.

It is utterly unrealistic to expect international operators to examine the minutae of every countries AIPs, AICs, Safety Sense leaflets etc etc. The normal practice in aviation is to use standard products like Jeppesen.

Having said that, I agree that the UK has a sort of quirkiness and non-standardisation (sometimes defended in an indignant way that implies the rest of the world is a nusiance for being out of step with the UK) which means an operator does need to self brief the big picture of IFR OCAS.

[Denti]

Really depends what kind of operation. Any route manual in a europen AOC operation is part of the authority approved and accepted OM-C. In many cases that is the jeppesen manual, in others its a LIDO route manual or even navtech if you are really really out of luck. All of them approved by the authority governing the AOC of the airline/operator in question.

[chevvron]

Mutt: Don't expect to fly via PEPIS, it's only used as a last resort due to congestion or if you arrive before Farnborough opens in the morning or if you have comms failure when inbound.
After GWC, you will normally be told by London Control to resume your own navigation to ROVUS, then transferred to Farnborough Approach, who operate a mini TRACON for IFR traffic covering themselves, Blackbushe, Fairoaks, Lasham and Dunsfold, plus theoretically RAF Odiham. I say 'theoretically' because both Farnborough and Odiham have their own RAPCON facilities and co-ordinate traffic between themselves.
When in 2-way with Farnborough, you will be vectored for a visual or ILS approach as there are no pilot interpreted procedures to enable you to fly an ILS approach. If Farnborough experience radar failure, you may well wish to divert unless you are prepared to continue for a visual approach.

[chevvron]

421C: I got that info from the secretary of the UK Flight Safety Committee.

[His dudeness]

421C, I´m not sure whether Type I approval for database products is what the whole discussion is about. D facto we have two discussions in this one...a) bout flightprep and b) about DBs

If we say 'the Jeppesen', we talk about the charts and maps, with the general or text part (Entry requ., ATC, MET, etcetc.) that a lot of us use for flight prep... And these are not covered by that approval...and from what I read in the disclaimer, Jeppesen does not guarantee anything.

Further, the approval is restricted:

Type 1 LOA
Letter of acceptance granted where a Navigation Database supplier complies with EUROCAE ED-76 / RTCA DO-200A documents with no identified compatibility with an aircraft system. A Type 1 LOA confirms that the processes for producing navigation data comply with these Conditions and the documented Data Quality Requirements. A Type 1 LOA may not release navigation databases directly to end users.

We use Jeppesen charts and maps, and the database for our FMS comes from a company called INDS, which in turn is a joint venture of Jeppesen and Honeywell.... I haven`t bothered to check if they are approved.

[mutt]

It is utterly unrealistic to expect international operators to examine the minutae of every countries AIPs, AICs, Safety Sense leaflets etc etc. The normal practice in aviation is to use standard products like Jeppesen.

which means an operator does need to self brief the big picture of IFR OCAS. I see these two statements as a contradiction to each other :)

Chevvron, thanks, we filed PEPIS as it was the only point that Eurocontrol would accept, and it also gave us a defined arrival route, albeit a loss of communications route. Lets see what happens the next time :)

Mutt

[peterh337]

I don't think there is any problem with Jepp data.

The main issue with the UK system is that many airports (especially ones frequented by GA, incluidng light jets) are in Class G (which is the only form on non controlled airspace in the UK, in general).

And the UK provides only a very fragmented ATC service in Class G.

If you stick to UK airports in controlled airspace (in most cases they are in Class D; a couple are in Class A) then you get the "classical IFR" ATC procedures which IFR pilots all over the world expect.

Once you drop into Class G then lots of things start to break down :)

One problem is that a non UK pilot can quite easily drop into Class G accidentally, because in "classical IFR" you don't carry VFR charts (which would clearly show the airspace classes) and the IFR charts show them very poorly, as weakly printed legends which few people look at.

Why the UK has this system I don't know; I've been flying only 12 years (1500hrs). It is probably to do with the way ATC is funded; it is not a "nationalised resource" like it is in nearly all countries. It has always been heavily into cost recovery, "user pays", and the extensive Class G airspace provides for easy VFR flying in which IFR (i.e. IMC flight) is permitted even non-radio. It is a quid pro quo on many fronts; the freedom of Class G means that very little in the way of ATC services needs to be provided; after all, you cannot "control" traffic in Class G and you cannot issue it with any form of a clearance (close airport proximity excepted).

The dissemination of aeronautical information is very variable. The AIPs are produced to fulfil ICAO obligations, not to deliver cockpit-usable documents, and for example the UK CAA is totally open about this when you ask their officials face to face. In southern Europe, the AIPs (as so much else) are full of out of date crap, and any airport op details ought to be verified with the airport directly. So Jeppesen step in with nice clear airport charts :)

Sometimes the pilot needs to be more pro-active, perhaps. For example ATC might give you an early descent, 100nm before the destination, pushing you into Class G and thus effectively cancelling your existing enroute clearance (which enabled you to penetrate all airspace classes, in accordance with standard IFR). You can refuse this, due to hazardous weather below. Actually this "early dumping" has been a hot topic in light IFR GA (sometimes pushing one into a flight at 2400ft, dodging traffic and low level convective wx) and it seems to be getting better.

Perhaps the best single thing is to be aware of which airports are in Class G. I notice some Jepp plates now say stuff like "procedure established outside controlled airspace".