EASA policy with IFR arrival procedure. CTR needed?

[franc3sco]

Hello everyone,

I am currently working as an ATC trainee in France, and I have a question.

Is there any EASA requirement in terms of airspace in the context of an IFR arrival procedure?

In particular, do we need to have a CTR?

I know some airfields in France without CTR and with IFR arrival procedure, but what is the current EASA policy?

I only found this paragraph so far (from Part-ATS AMC/GM) :

Article 3a(1) Determination of the need for air traffic services ELEMENTS TO DETERMINE THE NEED FOR ATS PROVISION The determination of the need for air traffic services (ATS) provision in a given area and/or aerodrome may be subject to consideration and evaluation of a great number and typology of elements, such as:

(a) a mixture of different types of air traffic with aircraft of varying speeds (conventional, jet, etc.) might necessitate the ATS provision, whereas a relatively greater density of traffic where only one type of operation is involved would not;

(b) meteorological conditions might have considerable effect in areas where there is a constant flow of air traffic (e.g. scheduled traffic), whereas similar or worse meteorological conditions might be relatively unimportant in an area where air traffic would be discontinued in such conditions (e.g. local visual flight rules (VFR) flights);

(c) open stretches of water, mountainous, uninhabited or desert areas might necessitate the ATS provision even though the frequency of operations is extremely low;

(d) the complexity of the airspace concerned; and (e) the language(s) to be used in air-ground communications, in the case of aerodrome flight information service (AFIS).

But there is no clear position...

If you have any document which may help,

Have a good day,

Francis

[whowhenwhy]

Hi Francis,

Part-ATS, like the ICAO materials that it's based on are very light on detail on this point. Essentially though, in ICAO terms, you can fly IFR on an instrument approach procedure in class G airspace and not need an ATC service. I vaguely recall that Annex 11 says that IFR flight in class G cannot be undertaken without being in receipt of an ATS but SERA does not include this requirement.

It's down to the State to determine whether ATS should be provided in a given volume of airspace and what level of ATS is provided. If the State decides that it wishes to provide an ATC service to flights, then Annex 11 requires the establishment of controlled airspace around the flight paths of IFR flights following published instrument procedures. The ATS planning manual has some useful text on the provision of ATC service to VFR flights and the need for controlled airspace.

​​

[jmmoric]

We have a lot of airfields in Greenland, and in Iceland as well, where IFR procedures are established at uncontrolled airfields.

In Greenland they all have aerodrome flight information service, AFIS, established with associated traffic information zones, TIZ, classified as G where contact with the unit is mandatory. Outside below CTA, FL195, flight information service is provided by a designated unit and two way communication is mandatory for IFR flights.

This is outside EU though, but I do not believe that there is a EASA requirement for ATC to be established for IFR procedures. Only the ones you've already found.

[franc3sco]

Thank you for both of your answers.

According to the information shared above, I understand that there is no strict requirements ICAO.

I checked the national regulation too, and no clear requirements either.

[Gonzo]

The intention behind this area of Part.ATS is that air traffic CONTROL will only exist within controlled airspace. Flight information services where traffic information is passed are ok, but anything where an ATS unit can instruct aircraft to fly headings will not be permitted outside CAS.

Edit......and I should add that includes ATC aerodrome control. So any ‘Tower’ed aerodrome would require CAS, whereas AFISOed aerodromes don’t.

[whowhenwhy]

It kind of makes sense when you think about it. It's called "uncontrolled" for a reason.

[alfaman]

The intention behind this area of Part.ATS is that air traffic CONTROL will only exist within controlled airspace. Flight information services where traffic information is passed are ok, but anything where an ATS unit can instruct aircraft to fly headings will not be permitted outside CAS.

Edit......and I should add that includes ATC aerodrome control. So any ‘Tower’ed aerodrome would require CAS, whereas AFISOed aerodrome don’t.
Having spent most of my operational life paddling in the murky world of class D & G, providing variously RIS/RAS, DS/TS/FIS & what my colleagues figured was named just for me, BS, it sounds as the least common of all the senses is finally kicking in :)

[Equivocal]

The intention behind this area of Part.ATS is that air traffic CONTROL will only exist within controlled airspace.This concept is not new or an invention of Part ATS, it is - and as far as I am aware, always has been - embedded within ICAO SARPs.

The problem is that, for whatever reason originally, the UK 'bent' the rules and made providing air traffic control outside controlled airspace a thing. The rulebook got amended to allow it.....but then another part of the rules didn't really work, so that bit got amended too....and then another rule didn't work....and so on. Rather like a lie, you start with a little white fib, but if you're not careful you end up having to tell bigger and bigger porkies just to maintain the first one. This has been compounded, certainly at one time. by some, a few at very senior level, in the UK CAA who just didn't get it - perhaps, if I'm generous, because they grew up with the UK way and didn't see the problem, and rarely, if ever, read and understood the source for the rules in the SARPs. And then there's the requirement (in the UK) for approach control if there's an IAP, and IAPs being published for aerodromes which are not protected by CAS, which adds further pressure to provide ATC outside CAS. All of this is muddied still more because some people did not understand the different purpose of and function of instrument flight procedures and air traffic control services. One final complicating factor is the total mess that is FIS in the UK - again, misunderstanding the purpose of the service and how it complements ATC and a range of strange ideas from people whose operational experience was limited to Class A airspace certainly contributed to this at one time.

Given that background, there was the opportunity a few years ago, when the UK's FIS was reviewed yet again, to go back to basics and do it according to the SARPs. Sadly, this failed badly and ended up describing a control service outside CAS but calling it FIS.

Maybe this is one bit of EC/EASA legislation that might actually be a good idea for the UK to implement!

[Gonzo]

Well, that all depends on your point of view.

I’m not sure many GA pilots will appreciate all those extra CTRs around the country.

The CAP1616 consultation burden alone is astronomical, especially given we’re generally talking smaller airfields (apart from the military)

[whowhenwhy]

Equivocal. Absolutely spot on.

In terms of new CTRs, you only need them if you need to provide ATC service. If the UK were to apply ICAO, how many of the units with ATCOs in class G airspace would actually need to provide ATC service in the ATZ and the pseudo ATC service (i.e. DS and TS) outside? Maybe if the UK actually determined the need for ATS and whether that should be ATC service or FIS, you might find that a significant number of those units could be just FIS. Now if the UK could then train and licence their FISOs as they do in the majority of mainland Europe, we could have a balanced system.

[Equivocal]

whowhenwhy, we could be in danger of creating a mutual admiration society!

On the matter of determining the need for different levels of ATS, I can recall a time when the CAA had a sort of policy to determine when ATC was needed but never really applied it. There was also a policy at that time which was intended to determine when CAS should be established, it was applied rigorously when some facilities reached the defined criteria (set by number of flights and bums on seats), but quietly ignored when some other facilities clearly met those same criteria.

[chevvron]

whowhenwhy, we could be in danger of creating a mutual admiration society!

On the matter of determining the need for different levels of ATS, I can recall a time when the CAA had a sort of policy to determine when ATC was needed but never really applied it.
It WAS enshrined in CAP 670 rather than just being 'a sort of policy' but it's probably in some other CAP nowadays.
I know of 2 airfields in the UK where the CAA applied it, both of them VFR with no iap's.

[whowhenwhy]

It WAS enshrined in CAP 670 rather than just being 'a sort of policy' but it's probably in some other CAP nowadays.

Nope. Do you know when it was in CAP 670 Chevvron?

[Equivocal]

It WAS enshrined in CAP 670 rather than just being 'a sort of policy'...No it wasn't, in part because of differences in philosophy applied between two parts of the CAA. Whatever might have gone into CAP670, and there may well have been references to the level of service from what I recall, it was only a small part of what I have in mind as the 'sort of policy'.

I suspect what you are referring to is the drive at one point to 'upgrade' a number of busy aerodromes which offered an A/G communication service to an Aerodrome FIS. And that opens another can of worms because at one point there was little apparent difference between A/G and AFIS (especially from the pilot's point of view) compounded by the CAA starting to make the UK AFIS service much like aerodrome control from the apron to the holding point; yet another source of confusion to many! And, if I'm not mistaken, chevvron, you had some input to the discussions which led to those decisions.