Controlled airspace handover
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the flight (as far as we are aware) is going to be wholly within CAS then the clearance limit will be the destination airfield. If we know the flight will be going out of CAS when leaving the CICTZ then the boundary will be the clearance limit.
I could file a route from say Split in Croatia, to Goodwood, of which the last 50nm may be OCAS.
My departure clearance at Split will be "cleared to EGHR...".
The departure tower has no way of knowing if any part of the filed route will be OCAS. Well, it might do if you fly IFR from Bournemouth to Goodwood, but that is a daft route
Coming back to my "international pilot" example... this is important. It doesn't matter whether you have a JAA IR or an FAA IR or a Mongolian IR. You will get caught by this weird practice.
The only pilots who won't get caught will be those who did their UK JAA IR on the Bournemouth / Oxford / Cambridge run
and who then buy their own planes, and fly for real at levels which are potentially OCAS (i.e. did not go to the airlines).
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO's point is very important for the UK controllers who don't also fly.
A foreign pilot files a flightplan, receives and ack with the plan unchanged and then on starup at LKPR gets told 'Cleared to EGHH via the TANGO1, departure 124.25 squawk 2654' - He has had a pretty strong mindset that he is cleared through all of the controlled airspace in his flight plan. Yes he should know he is going to dip out of CAS. But having a transfer to London Information being the main clue to him he no longer has clearance into the next bit of CAS seems a bit risky and inviting the pilot to blunder into CAS if between him and Info they don't twig that he has his FMS programmed to plung him back into CAS in 20 miles and needs to be getting Info to get his new joining clearance.
HD
I have never flown in Africa so have no idea if it is just like the UK - or like the Wild West where everyone needs to make it up on the fly (but I have certainly heard a number of Wild West stories!)
In the US there are lots of airways all class E and the little bits between are Class G - However, if you are on an IFR plan, even if your DCT takes you through a bit of OCAS they don't cancel the remainder of your clearance and make you to call for rejoin - (From memory if it is a small bit of OCAS they don't even tell you) - AND you can't fly IFR without an ATC IFR Flight Plan and the difference between the radar service you receive in E or G is pretty marginal (either you are in coverage or not and you never get separation from VFR only advisories)
A foreign pilot files a flightplan, receives and ack with the plan unchanged and then on starup at LKPR gets told 'Cleared to EGHH via the TANGO1, departure 124.25 squawk 2654' - He has had a pretty strong mindset that he is cleared through all of the controlled airspace in his flight plan. Yes he should know he is going to dip out of CAS. But having a transfer to London Information being the main clue to him he no longer has clearance into the next bit of CAS seems a bit risky and inviting the pilot to blunder into CAS if between him and Info they don't twig that he has his FMS programmed to plung him back into CAS in 20 miles and needs to be getting Info to get his new joining clearance.
HD
I have never flown in Africa so have no idea if it is just like the UK - or like the Wild West where everyone needs to make it up on the fly (but I have certainly heard a number of Wild West stories!)
In the US there are lots of airways all class E and the little bits between are Class G - However, if you are on an IFR plan, even if your DCT takes you through a bit of OCAS they don't cancel the remainder of your clearance and make you to call for rejoin - (From memory if it is a small bit of OCAS they don't even tell you) - AND you can't fly IFR without an ATC IFR Flight Plan and the difference between the radar service you receive in E or G is pretty marginal (either you are in coverage or not and you never get separation from VFR only advisories)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Jersey
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the Split controller gave an incorrect clearance and that controllers should be aware of what they are doing, however this was an example from Split.
This is different to the OPs question about leaving Jersey Zone (and in my experience is the same in UK and France). You will be given a clearance limit and that is the limit. You should know as part of the flight planning where you're going next in terms of airspace. Everybody trained in UK airspace will have come across the issues with controlled airspace (entering and leaving from class g) and for foreign pilots of pilots who got FAA IRs then they need to do some work to understandthe airspace over here before flying in it (in the same way as a UK trained pilot would need to familiarise themselves about US airspace). I make this comment not as a 'pop' at FAA IR holders as that's what I did for some years, and the biggest thing I had to do when I got back from the US was to spend some time familisarising myself with UK and French airspace issues and understanding the issues with entering / leaving controlled airspace (especially class A) into/out of class G
This is different to the OPs question about leaving Jersey Zone (and in my experience is the same in UK and France). You will be given a clearance limit and that is the limit. You should know as part of the flight planning where you're going next in terms of airspace. Everybody trained in UK airspace will have come across the issues with controlled airspace (entering and leaving from class g) and for foreign pilots of pilots who got FAA IRs then they need to do some work to understandthe airspace over here before flying in it (in the same way as a UK trained pilot would need to familiarise themselves about US airspace). I make this comment not as a 'pop' at FAA IR holders as that's what I did for some years, and the biggest thing I had to do when I got back from the US was to spend some time familisarising myself with UK and French airspace issues and understanding the issues with entering / leaving controlled airspace (especially class A) into/out of class G
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the Split controller gave an incorrect clearance and that controllers should be aware of what they are doing
It's not his job to plot the filed route on a VFR chart (all 10 of them, or so) all the way to destination, and spot any sections going OCAS, and clear you only to the first bit of Class G, some 880nm down the road
A German IR holder will end up doing the same thing if he comes over here.
Not suggesting there is an easy solution, because clearly this is the way the UK system has worked for many years. I would guess, from listening to this discussion ebbing and flowing on various forums over time, that there is considerable institutional ATC resistance to changing the system. The reasons are opaque (PMs on this topic are rarely answered) but I'd guess that any change would require a French-style unified radar service which has implications on ATCO pay scales. You only have to look at the furore, occassionally vented over here by FBU staff, over the AFPEx system and the preceeding FBU closures to get a measure of emotions in this game.
I am informed by a French pilot I know that all French ATCOs are automatically radar qualified and this is how even sleepy French towers can have a radar display (probably coming over ADSL
). And, unlike those at London Information, they are allowed to use it.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Jersey
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you know better than me, however I can't see how he can give you a clearance that is outside of controlled airspace.
Edited to add I've just checked the FAA interpretation to ensure this is not a UK issue.
See "AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE" in A
AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE- An authorization by air traffic control for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace. <snip>
Based on this the split controller did indeed give an incorrect clearance.
Edited to add I've just checked the FAA interpretation to ensure this is not a UK issue.
See "AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE" in A
AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE- An authorization by air traffic control for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace. <snip>
Based on this the split controller did indeed give an incorrect clearance.
Last edited by derekf; 7th May 2010 at 21:02.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
And, unlike those at London Information, they are allowed to use it.
Tolka - reading your post I suspect your friend may have filed IFR, but on a route outside the airways route structure. IFR or not, you fly outside that and you will get passed to London info if they are the most relevant unit.
I suggest your friend wouldn't have had this problem if he'd actually read the chart properly in the planning stage and realised that IFR flight inside class 'G' isn't subject to a clearance or an ATC instruction, therefore no need to actually work an ATC unit.
You want to file IFR and work ATC - read and understand the chart, know the limitations of the airspace types and what is or isn't required in those classes of airspace, and file a proper route if you want stay within the ATC system.
Doesn't matter what flavour IR you have - if you can't comprehend the above you shouldn't be operating an aircraft IFR in the first place.
PANS ATM doesn't help a great deal.
4.5.2 Aircraft subject to ATC for part of flight
4.5.2.1 When a flight plan specifies that the initial
portion of a flight will be uncontrolled, and that the subsequent
portion of the flight will be subject to ATC, the aircraft shall
be advised to obtain its clearance from the ATC unit in whose
area controlled flight will be commenced.
4.5.2.2 When a flight plan specifies that the first portion
of a flight will be subject to ATC, and that the subsequent
portion will be uncontrolled, the aircraft shall normally be
cleared to the point at which the controlled flight terminates.
...
4.5.7.1.2 When prior coordination has been effected with
units under whose control the aircraft will subsequently come,
or if there is reasonable assurance that it can be effected a
reasonable time prior to their assumption of control, the
clearance limit shall be the destination aerodrome or, if not
practicable, an appropriate intermediate point, and coordination
shall be expedited so that a clearance to the destination
aerodrome may be issued as soon as possible
In principle, I guess 4.5.2.2 means a controller should be aware of a flight planned route leaving controlled airspace 6 FIRs downroute. In practice, 4.5.7.1.2 means that most controlled flights will be given a nominal clearance to destination, on the assumption that usual procedures for handing over traffic to neighbouring sectors will be used.
What would you say if you were told?
'Cleared to leave controlled airspace via the TANGO1, flight planned route, departure 124.25 squawk 2654'
It's technically correct!
4.5.2 Aircraft subject to ATC for part of flight
4.5.2.1 When a flight plan specifies that the initial
portion of a flight will be uncontrolled, and that the subsequent
portion of the flight will be subject to ATC, the aircraft shall
be advised to obtain its clearance from the ATC unit in whose
area controlled flight will be commenced.
4.5.2.2 When a flight plan specifies that the first portion
of a flight will be subject to ATC, and that the subsequent
portion will be uncontrolled, the aircraft shall normally be
cleared to the point at which the controlled flight terminates.
...
4.5.7.1.2 When prior coordination has been effected with
units under whose control the aircraft will subsequently come,
or if there is reasonable assurance that it can be effected a
reasonable time prior to their assumption of control, the
clearance limit shall be the destination aerodrome or, if not
practicable, an appropriate intermediate point, and coordination
shall be expedited so that a clearance to the destination
aerodrome may be issued as soon as possible
In principle, I guess 4.5.2.2 means a controller should be aware of a flight planned route leaving controlled airspace 6 FIRs downroute. In practice, 4.5.7.1.2 means that most controlled flights will be given a nominal clearance to destination, on the assumption that usual procedures for handing over traffic to neighbouring sectors will be used.
A foreign pilot files a flightplan, receives and ack with the plan unchanged and then on starup at LKPR gets told 'Cleared to EGHH via the TANGO1, departure 124.25 squawk 2654'
'Cleared to leave controlled airspace via the TANGO1, flight planned route, departure 124.25 squawk 2654'
It's technically correct!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One can debate this for ever, but nobody is going to change current international IFR practice, which is "cleared to destination".
4.5.2.2 When a flight plan specifies that the first portion
of a flight will be subject to ATC, and that the subsequent
portion will be uncontrolled, the aircraft shall normally be
cleared to the point at which the controlled flight terminates.
is obviously unworkable on any non-trivial flight.
The UK might have an excuse if it was not for its tightly compartmented ATS system with a lack of radar service in the lower bit, and if it was not for the stupid CFMU routing system which until very recently was sufficiently impenetrable to enable the likes of Jepp to charge 3 digits per month of working out the routings, and which remains impenetrable today to anybody but a small crowd of dedicated hackers But there is NO excuse for a transfer to London Information without informing the pilot that his IFR clearance has been terminated.
Almost every time I get chatting to a pilot at some airport (and outside the UK I fly almost only to international airports, because of the Customs issue) it is apparent that he hasn't got a clue how to work out CFMU routings, and usually hacks around until he gets something accepted.
I think that staying in CAS is the least of his problems....
There are other implications e.g. if one gets dumped out of the IFR service then one should carry VFR charts for the area. Almost no IFR pilot carries VFR charts; most countries in the world don't publish them anyway (one cannot regard the TPC/ONC charts as adequate, not least because they don't show CAS and have not been updated for 12+ years) and the VFR chart collection for a flight across Europe would be 10-20 charts and would cost about £200-300. Pilots routinely carry VFR charts only if on a Z/Y flight plan. But a pilot "transferred" to London Information most definitely needs the UK VFR chart.
The UK is simply out of line with international practice, but doesn't want to admit it because the required changes cannot be easily implemented within the current privatised-ATC / working practices structure.
4.5.2.2 When a flight plan specifies that the first portion
of a flight will be subject to ATC, and that the subsequent
portion will be uncontrolled, the aircraft shall normally be
cleared to the point at which the controlled flight terminates.
is obviously unworkable on any non-trivial flight.
The UK might have an excuse if it was not for its tightly compartmented ATS system with a lack of radar service in the lower bit, and if it was not for the stupid CFMU routing system which until very recently was sufficiently impenetrable to enable the likes of Jepp to charge 3 digits per month of working out the routings, and which remains impenetrable today to anybody but a small crowd of dedicated hackers
But there is NO excuse for a transfer to London Information without informing the pilot that his IFR clearance has been terminated.Almost every time I get chatting to a pilot at some airport (and outside the UK I fly almost only to international airports, because of the Customs issue) it is apparent that he hasn't got a clue how to work out CFMU routings, and usually hacks around until he gets something accepted.
I think that staying in CAS is the least of his problems....
There are other implications e.g. if one gets dumped out of the IFR service then one should carry VFR charts for the area. Almost no IFR pilot carries VFR charts; most countries in the world don't publish them anyway (one cannot regard the TPC/ONC charts as adequate, not least because they don't show CAS and have not been updated for 12+ years) and the VFR chart collection for a flight across Europe would be 10-20 charts and would cost about £200-300. Pilots routinely carry VFR charts only if on a Z/Y flight plan. But a pilot "transferred" to London Information most definitely needs the UK VFR chart.
The UK is simply out of line with international practice, but doesn't want to admit it because the required changes cannot be easily implemented within the current privatised-ATC / working practices structure.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
Please elaborate further...
The UK is simply out of line with international practice, but doesn't want to admit it because the required changes cannot be easily implemented within the current privatised-ATC / working practices structure.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that the out of step part or the can't change part?
With regard to the out of step.
In France, Ireland, Oceanic (and the US), even if your flight plan takes you out of controlled airspace, you don't loose your clearance back in again, the controllers appear to co-ordinate this just like they co-ordinate moving from sector to sector.
It is only the UK where you can embark on an IFR flight and part way through discover your planned and acknowledge route is no longer available and you now have to make it up on the fly. I accept that a UK pilot should 'know' this is going to happen if he files an OCAS DCT or for a level below the UK airway base. However, this has never happened to me in any other country even if I have requested a level below the airway base (but above their MVA).
In the US this dipping out of CAS is really only an issue on approaches (where it would be pretty silly to not protect the missed approach just because the aircraft has descended below 1200/700 AGL) or the middle of nowhere (where it doesn't actually matter). However, the French and Irish (and I think the rest of the Europeans that allow IFR in class G and have Class G) all seem to maintain the clearance end to end.
With regard to the out of step.
In France, Ireland, Oceanic (and the US), even if your flight plan takes you out of controlled airspace, you don't loose your clearance back in again, the controllers appear to co-ordinate this just like they co-ordinate moving from sector to sector.
It is only the UK where you can embark on an IFR flight and part way through discover your planned and acknowledge route is no longer available and you now have to make it up on the fly. I accept that a UK pilot should 'know' this is going to happen if he files an OCAS DCT or for a level below the UK airway base. However, this has never happened to me in any other country even if I have requested a level below the airway base (but above their MVA).
In the US this dipping out of CAS is really only an issue on approaches (where it would be pretty silly to not protect the missed approach just because the aircraft has descended below 1200/700 AGL) or the middle of nowhere (where it doesn't actually matter). However, the French and Irish (and I think the rest of the Europeans that allow IFR in class G and have Class G) all seem to maintain the clearance end to end.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO,
We are friends and I agree with much of what you write much of the time, but I struggle to find anything I agree with in this thread. It just comes across as a vexatious rant.
The simple essence of this is as follows.
If you file an IFR flight plan which is not contiguously within the airways route structure, then you should expect
(i) deviations from airways into other controlled airspace to withdraw you from a contiguous airways clearance and you will require an ATSU to get you a clearance back into airways
(ii) deviations from airways into uncontrolled airspace to require you to operate accordingly - dealing with a Flight INFO service, requesting clearance back into airways or CAS etc, and carrying whatever charts are appropriate to the flight you are conducting.
It's incredibly simple and I think you are just being difficult or trying to pick an argument by making it sound like an "anomaly" out there to trap an unwitting pilot. Yes a Mongolian IR might find it confusing, but IFR is like that. The basic qualification is just that, and everyone needs some additional advice and training on using it in the real world. Unless one tries to make it sound horribly complicated, as you do, it is simple.
Either
(A) file a route contiguously within airways, and have a seamless ATC service end-end
or
(B) use whatever flexibility is available from IFPS to file a more prefered route (level-wise and/or directness) which deviates outside the airways route structure, but be prepared to do the work needed for an "ad hoc" IFR flight (in or out of CAS) outside the airways
If you file a route oustide CAS then that is not "being dumped". You are dumping yourself.
That is simply not true. What international practice is there for handling IFR flights outside controlled airspace in this way?
We've had this debate before. If you file a route across the channel in which you leave controlled airspace at the boundary into the UK then you should expect handover to London INFO. How is this a trick? You are perpetuating a myth that can only confuse people that there is some "trick" in the normal, predictable and correct working of the system.
You file an IFR flight from France in airways into the UK - French ATC hand you over to London Control
You file an IFR flight from France that leaves the airways near the boundary - French ATC hand you over to London INFO
Where is the "trick"? It's ridiculous there should even be an issue surrounding this obvious and simple practice.
What is the problem here? The controller has accurately indicated there is no clearance limit prior to your destination.
Exactly. That's because the system isn't built around routes which dart in and out of CAS. If you file such a route, you are responsible for negotiating the enroute clearances.
that there is considerable institutional ATC resistance to changing the system. The reasons are opaque (PMs on this topic are rarely answered) but I'd guess that any change would require a French-style unified radar service which has implications on ATCO pay scales. You only have to look at the furore, occassionally vented over here by FBU staff, over the AFPEx system and the preceeding FBU closures to get a measure of emotions in this game.
You rarely impugn anything other than the most venal motives on the part of any other member of the aviation community. Flight schools, airlines, ATC, regulators - they are all on some vested-interest gravy-train.
I agree that IFR users of lower airspace could, in principle, be better served by
a) an airways network with bases lowered more consistently to "non-oxygen" levels, to make it easier to stay within the route structure in a light airplane
and
b) a better IFR ATC service outside of the airways route structure
but, and it is a colossal but
Has it occured to you that the main category of user here (which I believe you are in) pays nothing for the IFR services they do get, as a result of the 2t eurocontrol exemption? It is about the only free lunch in aviaiton in Europe.
Given this, the low level IFR system is fantastic for light aircraft in Europe. If you use the full gold-plated airways service, it's free. Plus, in the UK, you have the flexibility to fly IFR outside controlled airspace and ad-hoc IFR through non-Class A CAS. It's fantastically flexible.
Why not put your talents to explaining to people how to use this system, rather than constructing elaborate arguments to make it more mystifying in order to be able to argue against some policy or practice 'conspiracy', when, frankly, your 'arguments' have no substance behind them.
brgds
421C
We are friends and I agree with much of what you write much of the time, but I struggle to find anything I agree with in this thread. It just comes across as a vexatious rant.
The simple essence of this is as follows.
If you file an IFR flight plan which is not contiguously within the airways route structure, then you should expect
(i) deviations from airways into other controlled airspace to withdraw you from a contiguous airways clearance and you will require an ATSU to get you a clearance back into airways
(ii) deviations from airways into uncontrolled airspace to require you to operate accordingly - dealing with a Flight INFO service, requesting clearance back into airways or CAS etc, and carrying whatever charts are appropriate to the flight you are conducting.
It's incredibly simple and I think you are just being difficult or trying to pick an argument by making it sound like an "anomaly" out there to trap an unwitting pilot. Yes a Mongolian IR might find it confusing, but IFR is like that. The basic qualification is just that, and everyone needs some additional advice and training on using it in the real world. Unless one tries to make it sound horribly complicated, as you do, it is simple.
Either
(A) file a route contiguously within airways, and have a seamless ATC service end-end
or
(B) use whatever flexibility is available from IFPS to file a more prefered route (level-wise and/or directness) which deviates outside the airways route structure, but be prepared to do the work needed for an "ad hoc" IFR flight (in or out of CAS) outside the airways
There are other implications e.g. if one gets dumped out of the IFR service then one should carry VFR charts for the area.
The UK is simply out of line with international practice, but doesn't want to admit it because the required changes cannot be easily implemented within the current privatised-ATC / working practices structure.
will settle nicely at say FL100, and about 99% of them will fall for this trick of being transferred to London Information 
You file an IFR flight from France in airways into the UK - French ATC hand you over to London Control
You file an IFR flight from France that leaves the airways near the boundary - French ATC hand you over to London INFO
Where is the "trick"? It's ridiculous there should even be an issue surrounding this obvious and simple practice.
I could file a route from say Split in Croatia, to Goodwood, of which the last 50nm may be OCAS.
My departure clearance at Split will be "cleared to EGHR...".
My departure clearance at Split will be "cleared to EGHR...".
The departure tower has no way of knowing if any part of the filed route will be OCAS
that there is considerable institutional ATC resistance to changing the system. The reasons are opaque (PMs on this topic are rarely answered) but I'd guess that any change would require a French-style unified radar service which has implications on ATCO pay scales. You only have to look at the furore, occassionally vented over here by FBU staff, over the AFPEx system and the preceeding FBU closures to get a measure of emotions in this game.
I agree that IFR users of lower airspace could, in principle, be better served by
a) an airways network with bases lowered more consistently to "non-oxygen" levels, to make it easier to stay within the route structure in a light airplane
and
b) a better IFR ATC service outside of the airways route structure
but, and it is a colossal but
Has it occured to you that the main category of user here (which I believe you are in) pays nothing for the IFR services they do get, as a result of the 2t eurocontrol exemption? It is about the only free lunch in aviaiton in Europe.
Given this, the low level IFR system is fantastic for light aircraft in Europe. If you use the full gold-plated airways service, it's free. Plus, in the UK, you have the flexibility to fly IFR outside controlled airspace and ad-hoc IFR through non-Class A CAS. It's fantastically flexible.
Why not put your talents to explaining to people how to use this system, rather than constructing elaborate arguments to make it more mystifying in order to be able to argue against some policy or practice 'conspiracy', when, frankly, your 'arguments' have no substance behind them.
brgds
421C
Last edited by 421C; 9th May 2010 at 16:28.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm_flynn,
No, it's more that part that all the ills that IO540 perceives in the ATC system are down to unionised control staff somehow causing them.
I can only assume that he's had difficulties with unions in some other respect in the past for the ATC argument blame always to be laid at the foot of trades unions.
It's just a bit of a stuck record that, in NATS at least, has very, very little basis in fact and it would be nice if just once he acknowledged this rather than routinely perpetuating such rubbish over all over the internet.
Is that the out of step part or the can't change part?
I can only assume that he's had difficulties with unions in some other respect in the past for the ATC argument blame always to be laid at the foot of trades unions.
It's just a bit of a stuck record that, in NATS at least, has very, very little basis in fact and it would be nice if just once he acknowledged this rather than routinely perpetuating such rubbish over all over the internet.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: netherlands
Age: 51
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from a pilot that is used to have class E airspace down to lets say 2000 ft over the entire country, when i file a airways route through the UK where i stay above the MEA the whole route, should i then still be afraid to have my flight plane canceled. Look at Q41 (mea 4000), from my information controlled airspace starts at fl245. Does filing at 4000 on Q41 means i'm on my own?
Looking at UK's airspace i'm missing class E, that is available on the continent and gives a lot of flexibility to low level IFR.
Thks, Paul
Looking at UK's airspace i'm missing class E, that is available on the continent and gives a lot of flexibility to low level IFR.
Thks, Paul
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mmflynn
It is only the UK where you can embark on an IFR flight and part way through discover your planned and acknowledge route is no longer available and you now have to make it up on the fly. I accept that a UK pilot should 'know' this is going to happen if he files an OCAS DCT or for a level below the UK airway base. However, this has never happened to me in any other country even if I have requested a level below the airway base (but above their MVA).
I regularly fly Cardiff to Manchester, which means that between BCN and WAL I will be outside CAS for approx 20-30 miles (don't have the chart in front of me at the moment, but take a look and you'll see where the base level goes above O2 levels during the day.
So - Cardiff give my details to London info, who I talk to when outside CAS, and who re-coordinate my re-entry into CAS with Scottish (Manchester as was).
I even keep the same squawk all the way through. The crux of the matter here, as 421C points out in his post above, that you're not dumped outside of CAS, but you've planned a route that doesn't involve being in any (which I suspect happened to the OP's friend, as I intimated in my original post here).
All pilots look at charts, but I sometimes wonder how many actually read them
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Long White Cloud
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at Q41 (mea 4000), from my information controlled airspace starts at fl245. Does filing at 4000 on Q41 means i'm on my own?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you file a route oustide CAS then that is not "being dumped". You are dumping yourself.
That is simply not true. What international practice is there for handling IFR flights outside controlled airspace in this way?
Has it occured to you that the main category of user here (which I believe you are in) pays nothing for the IFR services they do get, as a result of the 2t eurocontrol exemption? It is about the only free lunch in aviaiton in Europe.
That seems to me a totally different argument. Should we suffer a poor service in the UK because we should be lucky to be given any service? Isnt it us who are out of step with the rest of Europe and the world? We opted to privatise air traffic and we also opted to allow CAT to pull all (or at any rate) most of the strings. We conveniently ignore that GA gets little or nothing for the considerable amount of duty we pay or fuel whereas CAT pays no duty. Unlike cars where at least in theory the duty contributes to the provision of roads and other services GA gets nothing.
No, as has been said many many times before go to the States, see how it should be done surprisingly in the home of capitalism, or come to the UK and see how we have constructed a two tier service of which we should be ashamed.
I have to agree with IO - it may come across as a rant, but that would be to bury our heads in the sand and accept we are second rate.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you may have conveniently missed IO point which I think was that if British airspace was joined up with French airspace an airways clearance in France would translate to an airways clearance in the UK with the FIR boundary being an irrelevance. As it is unless you understand what is needed to continue the flight in CAS you will get dumped.
As it is unless you understand what is needed to continue the flight in CAS you will get dumped.
"Understanding what is needed to continue the flight in CAS" is a pretty fundamental aspect of being an IFR pilot. What exactly are you saying? That the system should cope with people who don't understand how to plan an IFR flight that remains in CAS?
That seems to me a totally different argument. Should we suffer a poor service in the UK because we should be lucky to be given any service?
So, my advice would be, understand the system and don't jangle it's chain with clueless complaints.
brgds
421C
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421C
You make some excellent points as always. I dont disagree that it is the pilot's responsibility to understand the airspace but with EASA should eventually come conformity - conformity in licensing, comformity in certification, comformity in airspace. I suspect in time if we are to live with Europe we will find we are compelled to do things their way. Time will tell.
We have done the rounds on this many many times and inevitably we will disagree. I have never supported NATS. I dont agree with our airspace being "run" by a private organisation and I dont agree CAT should have the influence they do.
I also dont agree that GA pays nothing for the reasons previously set out and which you have disregarded. I tell you what, all the duty that GA pays on Avgas should be directly subrogated to NATS since they are the only quasi government service provider that is able to provide a service, I suspect all of a sudden NATS might take a different view.
By the way 421C have you flown in the States? Do you think there is anything better about the service they provide to all airspace users in the US than here?
You make some excellent points as always. I dont disagree that it is the pilot's responsibility to understand the airspace but with EASA should eventually come conformity - conformity in licensing, comformity in certification, comformity in airspace. I suspect in time if we are to live with Europe we will find we are compelled to do things their way. Time will tell.
But my point about the 2t exemption would be that the "complaints" on this thread about "poor service" simply reveal a lack of understanding of how the system works. Not something any user community wants. Especially one that pays nothing. My sense of the 2t exemption is that it is a precarious thing, which could easily be swept away
I also dont agree that GA pays nothing for the reasons previously set out and which you have disregarded. I tell you what, all the duty that GA pays on Avgas should be directly subrogated to NATS since they are the only quasi government service provider that is able to provide a service, I suspect all of a sudden NATS might take a different view.
By the way 421C have you flown in the States? Do you think there is anything better about the service they provide to all airspace users in the US than here?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the pilot have a full IR? Just seems strange to me that they didn't understand the fact that you still need to be cleared into each airspace even if on a flight plan. I also trained on the FAA system before converting and to be honest doesn't make much difference.
I have been in the US on a IFR flight plan and been told to remain clear of controlled airspace (on handover and close to a big airport which was my destination).
I have been in a jet when on handover from French ATC, London ATC had problems and told us to remain clear of controlled airspace (we, along with a few others, had to take up an en-route hold....that was a busy few minutes I can tell you!!).
I wouldn't be surprised if I was in a light aircraft, flying IFR and on contact with the next frequency they told me to remain clear of their airspace - in the examples above it was just a case of taking up the hold until further clearance received.
It was all covered in my FAA and CAA IR ratings which is why I am confused that an IR pilot didn't know about it?
Or I might have got completely the wrong end of the stick here...
I have been in the US on a IFR flight plan and been told to remain clear of controlled airspace (on handover and close to a big airport which was my destination).
I have been in a jet when on handover from French ATC, London ATC had problems and told us to remain clear of controlled airspace (we, along with a few others, had to take up an en-route hold....that was a busy few minutes I can tell you!!).
I wouldn't be surprised if I was in a light aircraft, flying IFR and on contact with the next frequency they told me to remain clear of their airspace - in the examples above it was just a case of taking up the hold until further clearance received.
It was all covered in my FAA and CAA IR ratings which is why I am confused that an IR pilot didn't know about it?
Or I might have got completely the wrong end of the stick here...
