En-route instrument rating - how's it supposed to work?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The South
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
En-route instrument rating - how's it supposed to work?
Reading the discussions about the latest twists in the sad story of the IMC rating, I've been trying to work out how the proposed new EIR is supposed to work in practice.
Apparently, it will be valid for the lower levels of airways. Does this include our Class A airways?
If you can't make an approach at the end, what does a typical flight using the EIR look like?
Do you take of VFR and then join airways IFR en-route? What happens at the other end? Do you have to leave controlled airspace, become VFR and sort yourself out? Or do you continue IFR but with a VMC requirement and make a visual approach?
Can anyone give an example or two of flights using the EIR?
Mark
Apparently, it will be valid for the lower levels of airways. Does this include our Class A airways?
If you can't make an approach at the end, what does a typical flight using the EIR look like?
Do you take of VFR and then join airways IFR en-route? What happens at the other end? Do you have to leave controlled airspace, become VFR and sort yourself out? Or do you continue IFR but with a VMC requirement and make a visual approach?
Can anyone give an example or two of flights using the EIR?
Mark
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the way it is intended to work is something like this:
You must depart in VMC on a VFR flight plan. You may not enter cloud until having reached whatever height is specified in the rating. If for example this ends up as being lets say 1,500 feet you will proceed outbound from the airport on a VFR clearance and if lets say the cloudbase is between 1,300 and 1,700 feet in the vicinity you will arrange you route with the controllers so that you can find an area where you can climb to your en route height without entering cloud until you are at least at 1,500 feet.
You will presumably have declared in your flight plan the point at which you expect your flight to become IFR and also the point at which you would like to join a lower airway. If you have been displaced by the cloud base during the climb presumably you will now ask to join somewhere else on the route or will head back to your planned join point and tell the controller that due to the cloudbase unfortunately you will be joining at a later time than planned.
The Controller may or may not now give you the clearance you requested. If he doesnt you will continue in solid IMC rather than achieving the expected VMC on top and generally increase both your work load and cause a satisfying amount of chaos in the system generally as you seek to renegotiate your join. Your departure planning will have long since gone out of the window and you will be working hard potentially in IMC repositioning the aircraft and replanning the flight.
If you are lucky you might eventually secure a join, if you are not, its enroute for you remaining outside of CAS negotiating every clearance and if you are very unlucky IMC the whole way. Enjoy.
Of course when you arrive you will have to explain to the Controller that you need to negotiate a VFR arrival and will need a descent somewhere suitable in order to achieve this. Its down into the soup again for you. Where? Where indeed, who knows, because the Controller sure doesnt want you making up a descent in his backyard. Down you go somewhere, but as long as it is not in my patch. Of course you dont really know when, or should I say, if you are going to become visual within the limits of your rating. I can hear you curse as you dodge between clouds and gliders that someone should have told the clouds they must form up into a uniform base. If you are very unlucky the base will have changed since your departure three hours ago from the South of France - someone should have told those pesky clouds that they really should read and abide by the forecast. I know you are an astute pilot so you got the forecast before crossing the channel so you would be ready to divert into northern France - what a shame the base is a few hundred feet lower over the north of France - so its a diversion for you my boy. Of course you are getting pretty good at this replanning lark now, so its out with the map, on with the radio and some fun and games with the Contollers getting them doing some work to find the weather at your alternates - ah well they havent got anything better to do have they?
Easy stuff this IR flying I remember the days I flew on an EIR - now that was hard work.
You must depart in VMC on a VFR flight plan. You may not enter cloud until having reached whatever height is specified in the rating. If for example this ends up as being lets say 1,500 feet you will proceed outbound from the airport on a VFR clearance and if lets say the cloudbase is between 1,300 and 1,700 feet in the vicinity you will arrange you route with the controllers so that you can find an area where you can climb to your en route height without entering cloud until you are at least at 1,500 feet.
You will presumably have declared in your flight plan the point at which you expect your flight to become IFR and also the point at which you would like to join a lower airway. If you have been displaced by the cloud base during the climb presumably you will now ask to join somewhere else on the route or will head back to your planned join point and tell the controller that due to the cloudbase unfortunately you will be joining at a later time than planned.
The Controller may or may not now give you the clearance you requested. If he doesnt you will continue in solid IMC rather than achieving the expected VMC on top and generally increase both your work load and cause a satisfying amount of chaos in the system generally as you seek to renegotiate your join. Your departure planning will have long since gone out of the window and you will be working hard potentially in IMC repositioning the aircraft and replanning the flight.
If you are lucky you might eventually secure a join, if you are not, its enroute for you remaining outside of CAS negotiating every clearance and if you are very unlucky IMC the whole way. Enjoy.
Of course when you arrive you will have to explain to the Controller that you need to negotiate a VFR arrival and will need a descent somewhere suitable in order to achieve this. Its down into the soup again for you. Where? Where indeed, who knows, because the Controller sure doesnt want you making up a descent in his backyard. Down you go somewhere, but as long as it is not in my patch. Of course you dont really know when, or should I say, if you are going to become visual within the limits of your rating. I can hear you curse as you dodge between clouds and gliders that someone should have told the clouds they must form up into a uniform base. If you are very unlucky the base will have changed since your departure three hours ago from the South of France - someone should have told those pesky clouds that they really should read and abide by the forecast. I know you are an astute pilot so you got the forecast before crossing the channel so you would be ready to divert into northern France - what a shame the base is a few hundred feet lower over the north of France - so its a diversion for you my boy. Of course you are getting pretty good at this replanning lark now, so its out with the map, on with the radio and some fun and games with the Contollers getting them doing some work to find the weather at your alternates - ah well they havent got anything better to do have they?
Easy stuff this IR flying I remember the days I flew on an EIR - now that was hard work.
If you can't make an approach at the end, what does a typical flight using the EIR look like?
As far as I can recall, my last 10 or so IFR legs would have been perfectly flyable under such requirements -- I would have thought that 80-90% of flights would be.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A slightly more optimistic example could be, for instance, today - you decide today to go to Prague and look at the weather
METAR for EGLC 9.4NM from EGTF
EGLC 301420Z AUTO 35012KT 9999 SCT020/// 07/03 Q1001
EGLC 301350Z AUTO 35010KT 310V030 9999 BKN022/// BKN040/// 07/03 Q1001
EGLC 301320Z AUTO 35012KT 320V030 9999 SCT018/// BKN024/// BKN030/// 07/03 Q1000
TAF AMD TAF AMD EGLC 301213Z 3012/3021 36014KT 9999 SCT015 TEMPO 3012/3015 36015G28KT 7000 RA BKN012
And see you can get a VFR departure in and can safely climb to 1300 feet above EGTF (so you can be enroute IFR compliant before entering clouds)
METAR for LKPR
LKPR 301400Z 33006KT CAVOK 07/05 Q0995 NOSIG RMK REG QNH 0991
LKPR 301300Z 34006KT CAVOK 07/06 Q0995 NOSIG RMK REG QNH 0991
LKPR 301200Z 36005KT CAVOK 08/05 Q0995 NOSIG RMK REG QNH 0991
TAF LKPR 301100Z 3012/0118 04004KT 9999 SCT036 BECMG 3013/3016 18010KT BECMG 3022/0101 31010KT 9000 -RA SCT014 BKN020 TEMPO 0101/0118 4500 RA BR BKN014 PROB30 TEMPO 0101/0108 2500 RA BR BKN009
And see that as long as you plan to get to Prague before 01Z tomorrow you are OK (using the FAA rules for determining 'guaranteed VFR')
You then file
(FPL-DFLT-ZG
-BE36/L-SGRY/S
-EGTF1000
-N0182VFR GWC/N0360F100 IFR DCT SFD R803 DVR L9 KONAN L607 RUDUS L984 SULUS/n0175f060 Z650 TONSU Z35 LOMKI VFR
-LKPR0319
-DOF/091201
)
On departure you are handed to Farnborough, they co-ordinate your airways join and you sail smoothly across the channel, France and most of Germany above a range of scattered to broken clouds, at SULUS you duck under these clouds to avoid the OVC from about 6000-12000 all below 0 (assuming you are not deiced) and are vectored onto a visual approach.
No need for a bouncy windy channel crossing and dodging/blagging transits for various pieces of controlled airspace.
No need to try and maintain proper VMC.
If the forecast is totally blown, ATC know by the VFR transition there is going to be a problem and you either coordinate a diversion to your alternate (which can happen to anyone) or as often happens when you are on top you can see a hole off route and descend, or in the worst case you are in the same boat as a PPL from any country in the world other than the UK who has been caught on top and you need to declare an emergency - however, you have quite a lot of practice in attitude control and keeping the needles centred in IMC, have done a number of 'emergency ILSs' in training so it is a bit of extra work for ATC but not particularly life threatening.
It is totally different from an IMCr, may not be what the European community wants or needs from a sub-ICAO Instrument Qualification but does offer considerable safety and utility beyond a basic PPL.
As bookworm says - we need to wait for the NPR before this is anything more than speculation at the detail level - but you can see a version that is quite practical or the potential for a dog's breakfast - depending on the detail.
More relevant in the short run - Is this capability at all interesting to the tens of thousands of European pilots, who to date, have chosen not to advance beyond PPL level? (It may even be of interest to IMCr holders - but as I said earlier is a very different mix of privileges)
METAR for EGLC 9.4NM from EGTF
EGLC 301420Z AUTO 35012KT 9999 SCT020/// 07/03 Q1001
EGLC 301350Z AUTO 35010KT 310V030 9999 BKN022/// BKN040/// 07/03 Q1001
EGLC 301320Z AUTO 35012KT 320V030 9999 SCT018/// BKN024/// BKN030/// 07/03 Q1000
TAF AMD TAF AMD EGLC 301213Z 3012/3021 36014KT 9999 SCT015 TEMPO 3012/3015 36015G28KT 7000 RA BKN012
And see you can get a VFR departure in and can safely climb to 1300 feet above EGTF (so you can be enroute IFR compliant before entering clouds)
METAR for LKPR
LKPR 301400Z 33006KT CAVOK 07/05 Q0995 NOSIG RMK REG QNH 0991
LKPR 301300Z 34006KT CAVOK 07/06 Q0995 NOSIG RMK REG QNH 0991
LKPR 301200Z 36005KT CAVOK 08/05 Q0995 NOSIG RMK REG QNH 0991
TAF LKPR 301100Z 3012/0118 04004KT 9999 SCT036 BECMG 3013/3016 18010KT BECMG 3022/0101 31010KT 9000 -RA SCT014 BKN020 TEMPO 0101/0118 4500 RA BR BKN014 PROB30 TEMPO 0101/0108 2500 RA BR BKN009
And see that as long as you plan to get to Prague before 01Z tomorrow you are OK (using the FAA rules for determining 'guaranteed VFR')
You then file
(FPL-DFLT-ZG
-BE36/L-SGRY/S
-EGTF1000
-N0182VFR GWC/N0360F100 IFR DCT SFD R803 DVR L9 KONAN L607 RUDUS L984 SULUS/n0175f060 Z650 TONSU Z35 LOMKI VFR
-LKPR0319
-DOF/091201
)
On departure you are handed to Farnborough, they co-ordinate your airways join and you sail smoothly across the channel, France and most of Germany above a range of scattered to broken clouds, at SULUS you duck under these clouds to avoid the OVC from about 6000-12000 all below 0 (assuming you are not deiced) and are vectored onto a visual approach.
No need for a bouncy windy channel crossing and dodging/blagging transits for various pieces of controlled airspace.
No need to try and maintain proper VMC.
If the forecast is totally blown, ATC know by the VFR transition there is going to be a problem and you either coordinate a diversion to your alternate (which can happen to anyone) or as often happens when you are on top you can see a hole off route and descend, or in the worst case you are in the same boat as a PPL from any country in the world other than the UK who has been caught on top and you need to declare an emergency - however, you have quite a lot of practice in attitude control and keeping the needles centred in IMC, have done a number of 'emergency ILSs' in training so it is a bit of extra work for ATC but not particularly life threatening.
It is totally different from an IMCr, may not be what the European community wants or needs from a sub-ICAO Instrument Qualification but does offer considerable safety and utility beyond a basic PPL.
As bookworm says - we need to wait for the NPR before this is anything more than speculation at the detail level - but you can see a version that is quite practical or the potential for a dog's breakfast - depending on the detail.
More relevant in the short run - Is this capability at all interesting to the tens of thousands of European pilots, who to date, have chosen not to advance beyond PPL level? (It may even be of interest to IMCr holders - but as I said earlier is a very different mix of privileges)
Last edited by mm_flynn; 30th Nov 2009 at 14:35.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll have to wait for FCL.008's report and NPA for a definitive answer, but my impression is that the flight would be an IFR flight like any other
Seriously my flippant earlier post aside how do you think that will work?
As you suggest you file IFR in France. Presumably the Contoller may still give you a SID and presumably you may enter cloud on the SID at a lower altitude to which you are entitled. Does that mean that you ensure the cloudbase for the whole of the SID is above the minimium cloud base and if it isnt stay put on the gorund? Alternatively do you build in a degree of common sense and accept you may enter IMC at a lower altitude and if so how much common sense do you build in? What do you do if you are in an out of cloud on the SID because the cloud is broken with elements below your minimium IMC altitude? Do you base your go dont go decision on the base of the very lowest cloud anywhere in the area of the airport from which you are departing?
I fully accept that on most occasiosn the cloud will either simply be too low or too high to be of concern. However is there a danger with limits such as these that the rules simply get bent when it suites in which case why have the rules in the first place. Moreover on marginal days does it encourage pilots to go because they know / think the base will lift en route and therefore they set off VFR with the intention of staying below the base in the hope of a pop up clearance en route.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As stated, the detail proposals have not been published (and won't be for a long time) but there are lots of different scenarios here.
1) UK departures OCAS
You "just fly". Nobody cares if you enter IMC almost immediately.
2) UK departures INCAS
Each airport has its own VFR minima; typically ~ 1500ft cloudbase. Below this, you won't be going. Above this, you are good to go.
3) Foreign departures OCAS - countries which allow IFR to be filed to any airport
You file IFR and just fly, probably.
4) Foreign departures OCAS - countries which don't allow IFR onto to IFR airports
You probably file a Z flight plan, and just go.
5) Foreign departures INCAS
Each airport has its own VFR minima; typically ~ 1500ft cloudbase. Below this, you won't be going. Above this, you are good to go.
So much for departures. Presumably the rules will require a minimum cloudbase/vis for a departure, as a baseline, for any airport.
For arrivals, the pilot will have to request a visual approach, but he can't do that until he is in VMC, obviously. This will obviously be fine if the weather is good.
What concerns me is what happens if the wx is not so good. The final resort (a mayday and flying the IAP) is not realistic because if any significant # of people do it, it will give IFR GA a really lousy reputation and cause the privilege to be terminated (or worse).
So this bit has to be worked out carefully.
The other way to handle arrivals is to always file a Y flight plan. That will almost always work in the regulatory sense, but it leaves the pilot to do his own cloudbreak - just like VFR pilots flying VMC on top have been doing. There are various hacks for this, which are safe with coastal airports but not so great where there is terrain. I've done plenty of this stuff and it is OK if you have perfect situational/terrain awareness...
One could also handle departures by always filing a Z flight plan. This might get you in trouble if the departure leg is OCAS and you are spotted entering IMC, in a country where IMC (IFR) OCAS is not allowed, or requires an IFR clearance.
One might expect the regulatory planning minima for this privilege to require the forecast cloudbase to be above the platform altitude for any approach at the destination airport, otherwise obviously the pilot will be flying the IAP (which he is not allowed to) before he gets visual....
A comparison with VFR pilots is not applicable here because a VFR pilot has no clearance and the approach controller can tell him to s*d off at any time, leaving him high and dry. That is how VFR works!! That is why VFR/sports flying does not face significant challenges on deregulation - because ATC always have the "remain OCAS" magic words at their disposal. Whereas on an IFR flight, you have filed a Eurocontrol flight plan and you have an implied clearance all the way, and they have to handle you.
Anyway, one could speculate endlessly, and it will be pointless to do so.
The great bonus of this rating would obviously be the enroute section, which would be flyable at any level and on any Eurocontrol acceptable routing, limited only by aircraft performance, and without having to beg for transits which a lot of the time are denied. Much better than hacking along under "VFR".
The downside will be the need to file a Eurocontrol flight plan, and this means having to be able to fly at high altitudes. Anywhere near London this is FL100 plus, anywhere in Europe it is FL070, and realistic levels for the routings are FL100-FL180. So this is really a full IR in terms of aircraft capability, and pilot knowledge and equipment (oxygen, etc). It involves planning to deal with icing (which I do by flying VMC on top enroute, up to FL200 if necessary) etc. Only in the UK, and a very few (none?) other places, will the EIR be usable at low levels like the IMCR is.
As I've said before, I think the IMCR will remain because the CAA knows full well everybody with it will continue to fly in IMC. They just won't be able to overtly fly an IAP, so they will be doing DIY letdowns, in close proximity to the IAP-equipped airfields...
For European pilots, who currently have zilch, the EIR will be a totally added bonus, so that's a good thing.
However, IMHO, any new IR will be a marketing failure unless one can do it at one's local school. Having to do it at a professional pilot FTO means that the flight training will be a residential project for most people.
1) UK departures OCAS
You "just fly". Nobody cares if you enter IMC almost immediately.
2) UK departures INCAS
Each airport has its own VFR minima; typically ~ 1500ft cloudbase. Below this, you won't be going. Above this, you are good to go.
3) Foreign departures OCAS - countries which allow IFR to be filed to any airport
You file IFR and just fly, probably.
4) Foreign departures OCAS - countries which don't allow IFR onto to IFR airports
You probably file a Z flight plan, and just go.
5) Foreign departures INCAS
Each airport has its own VFR minima; typically ~ 1500ft cloudbase. Below this, you won't be going. Above this, you are good to go.
So much for departures. Presumably the rules will require a minimum cloudbase/vis for a departure, as a baseline, for any airport.
For arrivals, the pilot will have to request a visual approach, but he can't do that until he is in VMC, obviously. This will obviously be fine if the weather is good.
What concerns me is what happens if the wx is not so good. The final resort (a mayday and flying the IAP) is not realistic because if any significant # of people do it, it will give IFR GA a really lousy reputation and cause the privilege to be terminated (or worse).
So this bit has to be worked out carefully.
The other way to handle arrivals is to always file a Y flight plan. That will almost always work in the regulatory sense, but it leaves the pilot to do his own cloudbreak - just like VFR pilots flying VMC on top have been doing. There are various hacks for this, which are safe with coastal airports but not so great where there is terrain. I've done plenty of this stuff and it is OK if you have perfect situational/terrain awareness...
One could also handle departures by always filing a Z flight plan. This might get you in trouble if the departure leg is OCAS and you are spotted entering IMC, in a country where IMC (IFR) OCAS is not allowed, or requires an IFR clearance.
One might expect the regulatory planning minima for this privilege to require the forecast cloudbase to be above the platform altitude for any approach at the destination airport, otherwise obviously the pilot will be flying the IAP (which he is not allowed to) before he gets visual....
A comparison with VFR pilots is not applicable here because a VFR pilot has no clearance and the approach controller can tell him to s*d off at any time, leaving him high and dry. That is how VFR works!! That is why VFR/sports flying does not face significant challenges on deregulation - because ATC always have the "remain OCAS" magic words at their disposal. Whereas on an IFR flight, you have filed a Eurocontrol flight plan and you have an implied clearance all the way, and they have to handle you.
Anyway, one could speculate endlessly, and it will be pointless to do so.
The great bonus of this rating would obviously be the enroute section, which would be flyable at any level and on any Eurocontrol acceptable routing, limited only by aircraft performance, and without having to beg for transits which a lot of the time are denied. Much better than hacking along under "VFR".
The downside will be the need to file a Eurocontrol flight plan, and this means having to be able to fly at high altitudes. Anywhere near London this is FL100 plus, anywhere in Europe it is FL070, and realistic levels for the routings are FL100-FL180. So this is really a full IR in terms of aircraft capability, and pilot knowledge and equipment (oxygen, etc). It involves planning to deal with icing (which I do by flying VMC on top enroute, up to FL200 if necessary) etc. Only in the UK, and a very few (none?) other places, will the EIR be usable at low levels like the IMCR is.
As I've said before, I think the IMCR will remain because the CAA knows full well everybody with it will continue to fly in IMC. They just won't be able to overtly fly an IAP, so they will be doing DIY letdowns, in close proximity to the IAP-equipped airfields...
For European pilots, who currently have zilch, the EIR will be a totally added bonus, so that's a good thing.
However, IMHO, any new IR will be a marketing failure unless one can do it at one's local school. Having to do it at a professional pilot FTO means that the flight training will be a residential project for most people.
Last edited by IO540; 30th Nov 2009 at 15:25.
Seriously my flippant earlier post aside how do you think that will work?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm - your input above suggests that the regulatory requirement for the EIR will be to always file a Z or Y flight plan.
IOW, the departure and arrival will always be formally and overtly VFR.
Is this right?
Otherwise, I can't see how it will fit in with ATC procedures. Coming off a Eurocontrol flight plan, ATC expects you to drop off the enroute section (as directed), and fly the approach (as directed). And a departure will be on a SID (as directed), etc...
IOW, the departure and arrival will always be formally and overtly VFR.
Is this right?
Otherwise, I can't see how it will fit in with ATC procedures. Coming off a Eurocontrol flight plan, ATC expects you to drop off the enroute section (as directed), and fly the approach (as directed). And a departure will be on a SID (as directed), etc...
Otherwise, I can't see how it will fit in with ATC procedures. Coming off a Eurocontrol flight plan, ATC expects you to drop off the enroute section (as directed), and fly the approach (as directed).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If not arriving on a Y flight plan:
When about to commence the approach, the pilot would have to ask for a Visual Approach (if visual at/above the platform altitude) or declare a Mayday and in the same breath ask to fly the approach which ATC expected him to fly anyway (if not).
That's why I think arrivals would need to be on a Y FP.
What also puzzles me is that one is not allowed to fly an instrument approach under any conditions, including CAVOK, and instead fly the published VFR circuit.
While (it appears) one would be expected to fly a SID as published.
If however the arrival and departure were under Y and Z flight plans, then it makes sense.
When about to commence the approach, the pilot would have to ask for a Visual Approach (if visual at/above the platform altitude) or declare a Mayday and in the same breath ask to fly the approach which ATC expected him to fly anyway (if not).
That's why I think arrivals would need to be on a Y FP.
What also puzzles me is that one is not allowed to fly an instrument approach under any conditions, including CAVOK, and instead fly the published VFR circuit.
While (it appears) one would be expected to fly a SID as published.
If however the arrival and departure were under Y and Z flight plans, then it makes sense.
You're right IO540. It makes much more sense to allow the EIR holder to fly the IAP in visual conditions. The hard bit is not following a profile in visual conditions, but flying it in cloud or low vis. Looking out of the window and seeing the obstacles is the safety net.
That would avoid the necessity for a visual approach. I wouldn't use "VMC" though -- the flight remains separated from other aircraft by ATC, hence issues like cloud separation are not relevant.
That would avoid the necessity for a visual approach. I wouldn't use "VMC" though -- the flight remains separated from other aircraft by ATC, hence issues like cloud separation are not relevant.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can swap back and forth between VFR and IFR several times. I think Y means you depart IFR planning to switch to VFR (and possibly back and forth several times), Z means you departed VFR and are going to switch to IFR(possibly having switched back and forth several times).
leaving a German VFR only field and then arriving in Lido (Italian VFR arrival required) with an IFR enroute seems to need to be filed as Z (and CFMU doesn't choke on this).
leaving a German VFR only field and then arriving in Lido (Italian VFR arrival required) with an IFR enroute seems to need to be filed as Z (and CFMU doesn't choke on this).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is digressing, but is such switching really possible, mm_flynn?
There are many cases in airways routings where being able to fly a VFR section within an IFR route would be a useful way to do a shortcut - where there are no airway routes for example. The gotcha is that upon completion of the VFR segment one would have to get a fresh IFR clearance from ATC, also hoping that they have not in the meantime binned the IFR flight plan.
One can understand going VFR - IFR - VFR (on a Z FP) because ATC don't have to do anything special; all they see is the contiguous IFR section which is all that enroute ATC care about.
There are many cases in airways routings where being able to fly a VFR section within an IFR route would be a useful way to do a shortcut - where there are no airway routes for example. The gotcha is that upon completion of the VFR segment one would have to get a fresh IFR clearance from ATC, also hoping that they have not in the meantime binned the IFR flight plan.
One can understand going VFR - IFR - VFR (on a Z FP) because ATC don't have to do anything special; all they see is the contiguous IFR section which is all that enroute ATC care about.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does seem odd that dear old Jim didnt think of having an expert from ATC on FCL008 to thrash out what issues this may cause them.
I suppose this has always been one of my huge misgivings with the EIR. If Jim gets his way effectively a new way of flying will be introduced into a very wide and diverse system which has not been tested and it would seem without almost any proper study whilst a very well tested and proven mechanism will be abolished.
I hope Jim will accept responsibility if it fails to work and if more than a few pilots get themselves into difficulty.
I suppose this has always been one of my huge misgivings with the EIR. If Jim gets his way effectively a new way of flying will be introduced into a very wide and diverse system which has not been tested and it would seem without almost any proper study whilst a very well tested and proven mechanism will be abolished.
I hope Jim will accept responsibility if it fails to work and if more than a few pilots get themselves into difficulty.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden, Canada, Japan
Age: 57
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 - if you're at a towered airport in CAVOK conditions, can't you
simply ask for clearance on the approach of your choice, and fly it once cleared?
Excuse me if this is incorrect as I live outside the UK, but my impression is that
many pilots use their IMC rating as an everyday tool for navigating through
IMC, and not as the "lifesaver" it is advertised to be. If that's true it seems to be
just as much of a loophole as the good old FAA IR, except it's sub ICAO.
simply ask for clearance on the approach of your choice, and fly it once cleared?
Excuse me if this is incorrect as I live outside the UK, but my impression is that
many pilots use their IMC rating as an everyday tool for navigating through
IMC, and not as the "lifesaver" it is advertised to be. If that's true it seems to be
just as much of a loophole as the good old FAA IR, except it's sub ICAO.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 - if you're at a towered airport in CAVOK conditions, can't you
simply ask for clearance on the approach of your choice, and fly it once cleared?
simply ask for clearance on the approach of your choice, and fly it once cleared?
So at a busy place the choice would tend to be either the primary instrument approach (usually vectored) or a visual approach to the same runway.However, the EIR will not allow instrument approaches of any kind - other than in an emergency.
Excuse me if this is incorrect as I live outside the UK, but my impression is that
many pilots use their IMC rating as an everyday tool for navigating through
IMC, and not as the "lifesaver" it is advertised to be.
many pilots use their IMC rating as an everyday tool for navigating through
IMC, and not as the "lifesaver" it is advertised to be.
- no Class A airspace
- min vis 1800m for arrivals and departures
- IFR allowed in UK airspace only
If that's true it seems to be just as much of a loophole as the good old FAA IR, except it's sub ICAO.
Whereas for example flying in IMC on a VFR flight is illegal (although practically everybody has done it at some stage).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So at a busy place the choice would tend to be either the primary instrument approach (usually vectored) or a visual approach to the same runway.
Personally I hate let downs outside an ATZ - it seems to me it is bl**dy dangerous and irresponsible to other users of the airspace - is this exactly what the EIR will encourage?