Differences bx flying US IFR and UK IFR

[jason_beall]

Hi all,

I am an American and FAA licensed pilot with an FAA IR living and flying VFR only at the moment out of Aberdeen. Can someone who has extensive experience flying in both the UK and US enlighten me on the major differences between flying IFR here and in the States? Specifically RT differences and procedural differences? Nothing too in depth, just the highlights.

Thanks,

-Jason

[The Greaser]

Major difference if you are flying light aircraft for pleasure in IFR then you will not be in controlled airspace most of the time in the UK, whereaas in most parts of the US you are always in at least class E airspace.

Hence you are not under positive radar control and it is up to you to request radar services if they are available in the area.

If you require to enter airways then you need both a filed flight plan and an airborne clearance with details such as place and time of airway entry.

As you already fly VFR here then you will be familiar with most of the RT - there is not much more to learn under IFR here.

Good Luck

[QNH 1013]

I don't know much about flying in the USA so its hard to list differences. I assume you are familiar with the UK quadrantal rule for IFR flight off airways above 3000' (airways use the semicircular rule, with exceptions).
The main difference as far as I can see when watching USA training videos is that the UK is much more formal and accurate about reading back clearances and instructions. Publication CAP413, which I believe is now available to read on the internet,
lists the items which must be read back in full.
For an airways flight, you will rarely fly the flight planned route. Expect to suddenly get "route direct XXXXX, contact London on 123.45" where XXXXX is a reporting point you weren't planning to use and can't quickly find on the map. If this happens and you don't know the reporting point you should request track to XXXXX from present position. This gets you heading in the right direction quickly, and makes locating the new reporting point easier.
If you have any specific IFR questions I will be happy to tell you what I do, and if any of it is wrong, no doubt others will come out of the woodwork to point out my errors !

[buttline]

I'm flying in Florida right now out of a Class D airport (Space Coast).

It's pretty informal. Visiting pilots often ask the tower (on tower freq) about where to eat, where to stay etc.. I don't think that would go down too well in the UK...

Some other differences - they have this thing called "Cleared for the option" which means you can do a full stop landing or a touch and go at your discression. They also do ILS backcourses and circling to land approaches which I don't think the UK permits either.

Also, when you are doing circuits (or patterns as they call them here), when requesting departure you call "xxxx is on the go."

Altimeter settings are in inches of mercury, not millibars and they never use QFE. QNH is just called "Altimeter setting".

They probably come over as more friendly, less intimidating than UK ATC but it is sometimes frustrating when people are 'chatting' to the tower and you are trying to get a clearance.

[englishal]

UK is much more formal and accurate about reading back clearances and instructions

In the US if you do not read back clearances exactly, you are not going anywhere, same as the UK. You also get routed around, sent to intersections you were not planning on going to, but thats IFR, and you should be prepared for it.

Class D airspace in the US is effectively the ATZ, not the same as Class D in the UK which is equivilent to class C in the US (towered airports which are not associated with class B or C are class D).

When requesting departure in the US the correct phrasology is 'XXXX ready for departure', and although some of the smaller airports may be a bit more lax in their ATC speak, you generally find it is comparable to over in the UK. Also as the UK doesn't have a 'Cleared for the option', you still have the option to touch and go or to land. If you intend a touch and go, yet things don't pan out quite right, then you land...simple! As PIC you are responsible for the safety of you aircraft and all that.

In my opinion QFE is a waste of time. As PIC you should know your altitude above ground at all times, and using QFE just adds to the complications. I have never used QFE in the UK. Besides most of the time flying IFR with an IR you'll be flying above the transition altitude and will be on 1013mb (29.92")...

Cheers
EA:)

[eyeinthesky]

Another point about the 'Route direct XXXXX' from both sides of the fence.

Remember that most of the traffic we handle is airliners with RNAV capacity and an FMS where you can input any point and they will go there. Whilst GPS is a help in light aircraft, many controllers forget that some do not have it and send you to a reporting point in space which may be out of range of the relevant VOR/DME etc that you are using.

As already said, you can either request to continue on your flight planned route or go to a place you DO recognise or ask for an approximate track. Don't worry about looking an idiot; it is far better than setting off on what you guess will be the right track and then getting a telling off!!:D

[foghorn]

A/C "Request the option"

TWR "Cleared for the option"

is occasionally heard before a touch and go at Biggin Hill - it is used by instructors to surreptitiously ask for permission to do an EFATO drill after the T&G.

Non-standard, however it is technically a local agreeement.

As for QFE, is there another country that still uses it? Do any airline still use it? (I know that BA/BEA/BOAC and some US airlines used to, but it's been long since phased out).

[QNH 1013]

EITS, we do have RNAV for airways flights in all aircraft in the UK but as you realised the kit is often simple and doesn't necessarily have a database. We therefore have to find the waypoint and then manually enter the frequency, radial and distance. Often, the defined VOR is out of range, particulary now filters have been fitted to make the equipment fm immune. All adds to the workload for single pilot IFR.
Regarding QFE, I was taught to set QFE when landing and departing when I learnt to fly, but stopped using it when I started instrument training. I never use it now, always use one of the QNHs or 1013 and can't say I've ever missed it.
Would anyone like to have a go at justifying the use of QFE?

[eyeinthesky]

QNH 1013: Thanks for that. That was what I was trying to say but didn't put it very well.

Ref QFE: Funnily enough, I use both depending upon what I'm doing:

If I'm instructing VFR in the circuit or local area I will set QFE in the circuit or when approaching it, and QNH outside (like most people, I imagine).

If I'm IFR I fly by reference to QNH or 1013, even when approaching. I suppose it is because approach charts (or the ones I use do) highlight ALTITUDES better than HEIGHTS and therefore provide you know the threshold elevation you have no problem. Even on a visual approach from an IFR flight I will use QNH since that is how I have briefed myself.

I suppose it all comes down to the way you were taught. I notice that practically NO airlines use QFE now, but that it is always offered to puddle jumpers.

[QNH 1013]

EITS, Could you comment as an instructor... Does using QFE make it easier for people in early circuit work when they are learning to land? If so, then it could still be useful for students.

[eyeinthesky]

Yes I do think they find it easier. On departure when they may well be close to maxed out just with flying the aircraft they can see straight away when they are approaching circuit height without having to subtract 287 feet or whatever it is. Downwind it is the same, and when descending on base or final they have a ready reference to how they are getting on to compare with the sight picture.

In addition, once they start going to other airfields and they are used to being, say, 700ft at about 1.5 mile final then they will be able to use that at the new airfield easier than they would to do an unfamiliar conversion of 'altitude less airfield elevation'.

Anything which reduces the workload in those early stages is good news in my book. It is also a good method to reinforce basic altimetry teaching in setting QNH when departing the circuit and considering airspace etc (i.e. not climbing to the base of CAS only to find you're still on QFE and are 200ft+ inside CAS).

[TheFox]

Foghorn as a small aside Ryanair still use QFE, which is annoying :)