VFR to IFR

[flyinghigh66]

I have a couple of quick questions about switching from VFR to IFR rules that was never properly covered in my basic IR training.

Scenario 1 : Assuming that I am flying in uncontrolled airspace under VFR and have not filed a flight plan.

• Is it acceptable to switch to IFR without informing anyone?
• If I am in touch with LARS/FIS, what radio call should I make to them to advise them I am changing from VFR to IFR/IMC?

Scenario 2 : I am flying VFR in uncontrolled airspace and want to come back into an ATZ for an instrument approach (perhaps to practice IFR procedures, or perhaps because cloudbase has reduced and I need to complete an IFR approach).

• Before reaching the ATZ I assume that I must change from VFR to IFR. What information should I pass on joining? Is it as simple as a standard joining calling along the lines of "Norwich Tower, G-ABCD, IFR, inbound 10nm from the North, 2000ft, request procedural ILS"?

If anyone else has other scenarios where they are uncertain of what they would do, I would love to know and also would be interested in others comments.

[Mark 1]

In the first case, if you enter IMC then you must obey IFRs. Outside controlled airspace that basically means flying an appropriate heading and FL and maintaining IFR obstacle/terrain clearance as appropriate. Upgrading to a radar traffic service would seem a good idea, but is up to you. Non-radio is perfectly legitimate.

Inside controlled airspace means having a flight plan (could be an abbreviated onr over the R/T) and flying as directed by ATC and also having equipment functioning as required for the route and approach as dictated by the ANO.

Some countries don't allow IFR outside of controlled airspace and equipment requirements may vary, so you need to be specific about whose airspace you're interested in.

[IO540]

It's one of those cases where, without knowing the pilot background, one doesn't know whether to write a one-liner, or 2 pages.

In the UK, Class G, you can switch VFR to IFR non-radio i.e. the change can be done entirely inside your brain. This is regardless of whether you have entered IMC or not.

If you are in receipt of a service where the controller cares what you are up to (a radar service, basically) then you should advise them you are changing to IFR due to entering IMC - IMHO.

A flight plan is not needed within UK Class G.

[mm_flynn]

A UK example could be

flying Fairoaks to Lydd with the intent to shoot an approach.

I would depart and contact Farnborough for a service (but not even mention if I was IFR or VFR). If I was in IMC I would probably let them know if they only offered a Basic Service.

I am going to remain below the TA so IFR is just the terrain seperation requirement.

If I entered IMC I would let the radar service know in the call to upgrade to a traffic service.

When 20 miles out from Lydd I would call "inbound for ILS xyz with information alpha" and then get on with the approach.

They will then respond with a procedural approach clearance.

[flyme273]

flyinghigh,
basically I concur with the above replies.

However "flight Plan not required in UK class G", this requires a little thought. If one is expecting a procedural ILS then the airspace is likely to be controlled. Therefore to answer your first question "without informing anyone", you would have to obtain a clearance to enter the airspace with the approach facility.

Say for example the weather was closing in, then I would sugeest a call along the lines, "G-ABCD adverse weather, Request to continue IFR". The ATC would then have to increase to IFR separation requirements. Be ready for climb to MSA and for ATC to instruct to join at the IFR initial approach fix and respective altitude (typically the aid for the holding pattern), alternatively one may get vectors.

If you wanted a training ILS, then normally book in advance, no need for IFR plans.

flyme

[IO540]

If one is expecting a procedural ILS then the airspace is likely to be controlled.

May or may not.

Class G ILS: Lydd, Biggin, Exeter, Newquay, Cranfield, Cambridge, Norwich, etc.

Class D ILS: Bournemouth, Southampton, Gatwick , Birmingham, etc

Filing a written flight plan tells ATC that you are coming but it gives you nothing in the way of a more likely clearance to enter CAS.

People here normally file implicit ones i.e. a radio call to the Class D unit.

CAS makes little difference to the chance of getting it. Cranfield (Class G) more or less tells people to sod off unless booked in way in advance - as well as charging £60 for a landing+ILS

The bigger issue is airport PPR e.g. Bournemouth asks for PPR and they give you a PPR number. Why? Job creation.

[Simon150]

I hope nobody minds if I ask a similar question?

I am also recently ME-IRed and was wondering about cloudbreak procedures in the UK. I have been through Cap413 but could see anthing on the correct RT, or even if such a procedure exists 'formally'. I think the topic is linked to the OPs.

Example:-

Planned IFR flight from Caernarfon to Tollerton. Cloudbase is forcast to be lower than MSA in the vicinity of the destination preventing a descent in class G so plan an ILS into EMA to 'break-cloud' then VFR to Tollerton if Wx allows.

Presumably a call to EMA is required to book an approach?
Whats the RT required and have I missed this in 413?
Is a UK 'cloudbreak' a recognised procedure, and if so, where is it detailed?

cheers all

[IO540]

What is EMA?

If I was planning to fly down somebody's ILS and then break off, I would call them to ask if they don't mind. I think in most cases it is OK, and same for most other places in Europe.

If anything, they may want your credit card details so they can charge for it

Some places also offer a low level letdown (or whatever they call it). I used to get this from Shawbury when going to Welshpool. Shawbury has an ILS but they were not keen on it being used for this purpose, but they do a letdown down to about 1400ft QNH, IIRC.

Otherwise, you do a DIY letdown The safe way is to do it offshore, but that's not a useful option for say Welshpool

[Simon150]

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/127...aerodrome.html

I found a good link on the subject of cloudbreaks (above) - i would imagine much of this could also be of interest to the OP.

EMA was East Mids (EGNX) but only for examples sake.

I get the impression that this may have been considered an acceptable procedure in the past, but now seems to be somewhat frowned upon by airports at least if not by pilots.

I wonder if this is truly the reason, or this type of approach is becoming out of favour due to the increased use of GPS and unpublished approaches/cloudbreaks in the open FIR?

[IO540]

I suspect that, if indeed airports are more reluctant than before to allow this, it is due to today's "cover your ar*se" management attitude, duty of care, and all the other legal bollox which increasingly penetrates every facet of our lives (and the vast majority of which has never been tested in the courts - in the specific aviation circumstances in question).

I don't think it is due to more people flying DIY GPS approaches, although the careful use of GPS has made those far safer than say 20 years ago.

One has to remember that most airports are the last surviving pockets of 1970s British Leyland working and empire building practices, and this is true all over Europe.

[Barnaby the Bear]

Back to the original post for a second:

Outside CAS the service you request is important.
Have a recap on ATSOCAS. It WILL guide you to the best service for the flight conditions.

Scenario 2, especially at a Procedural service providing unit.
As much notice as possible, but your intial call should request the service you want and approach requested. This is more important than stating you are flying under IFR.

[Fuji Abound]

This opens up the old debate about whether if you are in open FIR you should take a service. There are those that say no, there are those that say yes, and there are those that say only if a radar service is on offer.

Leaving aside the debate if you are in VMC, I am with the first camp if you are in IMC. This means I am going to take a service from who ever can give me one, but obviously if I can get a radar service I will take that over a basic service.

I could explain why but that is another debate.

So given that you can nearly always get at least a basic service and given that if you are in IMC you are IFR then I dont think it is acceptable to switch to IFR without telling the obvious service provider. Clearly it is also not acceptable having told the service provider where you are and at what level not to report any change in level or course.

The fact of the matter is that I find when conditions are IMC the number of aircraft about in open FIR is relatively few - the world and his wife are in the bar. Personally I would quite like to have an idea where you are even if you believe the big sky will keep us apart (although thinking about it I dont give a damn as long as you are transponding ). You might think the same if you had nearly met two aircraft in and out of IMC that were talking to no one.

Clearly to fly a procedural approach you are considered to be IFR so I am not sure that strictly you need to declare you are. The controller will always assume this to be the case. There are circumstances where you might want to fly an approach entirely in VMC (for example in France without an IR). It remains my understanding that the controller is entitled to accept you at his discretion in the procedure on a VMC declaration - in other words a contract between you and the controller that you will maintain VMC at all times.

[Barnaby the Bear]

So given that you can nearly always get at least a basic service and given that if you are in IMC you are IFR then I dont think it is acceptable to switch to IFR without telling the obvious service provider. Clearly it is also not acceptable having told the service provider where you are and at what level not to report any change in level or course

That's fine, but what difference are you expecting from the ATCO if you declare you are now IFR, but still on a Basic service and do not request a surveillance service or procedural service (from non radar units) by declaring that?
Also remember under a basic service you are not required to give a change of course and/or level.

As for flying a Procedural approach ATCO's never assume anything . You can be IFR or VFR on a procedural Service as you can on all the ATSOCAS services now.

Remember it's the contract (service requested), that will dictate the level of traffic information or deconfliction advise given. Not whether you are IFR or VFR.

[IO540]

Remember it's the contract (service requested), that will dictate the level of traffic information or deconfliction advise given

This "contract" business is actually a fallacy - as anybody flying for real will know.

You can be under a traffic service but the controller is under no obligation to pass you details of any traffic whatsoever, if he is busy. I have had many encounters with such unreported traffic.

Some legal tw*t in the UK regulatory apparatus came up with this "contract" idea, but what has happened is that pilots are told they must comply with it, but ATC does not have to comply, and if they are busy they obviously cannot so why the hell use the word "contract" when no contract can be possibly entered into because one party (at least) is physically incapable of complying with it

ATC is there to help you to the best of their ability but to call it a "contract" is plain bizzare. An ATCO providing radar vectoring is responsible for your obstacle clearance but that is about as far as legally enforceable ATC liability goes. Everything else is subject to controller workload, etc.

Enroute, I go for a radar service only, with a listening watch the rest of the time.

Not whether you are IFR or VFR

True but there is ample evidence that ATC are likely to offer a better service (or any service at all) to a pilot who comes across as knowing what he is doing.

And navigating via IFR waypoints, or flying outright IFR at some "high for normal GA" level (e.g. FL040) helps to get ATC to work with you. Whereas if you turn up flying towards some piece of CAS and describe your route in terms of half a dozen village names (which only the locals will know) and flying VFR at 1400ft, the Class D owner is more likely to refuse a transit. Especially if you have wasted a lot of his time by stuttering on the radio, giving your whole inside leg measurement It is only human nature.

[Barnaby the Bear]

You can be under a traffic service but the controller is under no obligation to pass you details of any traffic whatsoever, if he is busy. I have had many encounters with such unreported traffic.

It's possible that traffic is not displayed for whatever reason, but if that is the case the Controller 'should' either reduce the service due to workload with the reason, or decline the service offering the best alternative and reason.

But we are now moving into the circular ATSOCAS debate.

Whether or not a controller is giving a better or worse service to the traffic he/she is working from your experiences (which I don't dispute). The service requested is more important to the ATCO than the flight rules as it dictates provision of service.

[Fuji Abound]

That's fine, but what difference are you expecting from the ATCO if you declare you are now IFR, but still on a Basic service and do not request a surveillance service or procedural service (from non radar units) by declaring that?

I am not expecting any difference. I am hoping that any other relevant IFR traffic will be "called" as will any other IFR traffic call the controller. I can think of numerous occasions when IFR traffic has been called over a particular beacon and I have been in the vicinity. If they are at the same level and a conflict possible I will adjust my level. I just dont get this business of saying nothing - it takes seconds to announce where you are, what you are doing and if you are IFR. As I said previously with TAS I dont really care whether you do or not but please make sure you keep your trasponder on.

As for flying a Procedural approach ATCO's never assume anything

I was not aware that you could fly a procedure without AT ensuring IFR seperation? Are you suggesting if the ATCO "assumes" you are VFR he is entitled to apply different seperation standards?

[mm_flynn]

I don't think any of the responses advocate not speaking with service providers if operating in IMC. (Although I really do question the value of a true basic service for any credible level of traffic information)

The key point (and directly responding to the OP) is, telling ATC which flight rules you are complying with (when seeking a service in Class G) is not particularly relevant. Ask for the service you want is very relevant. Sometimes, if the service is not forthcoming, mentioning you are in IMC joggs you up the priority list for a higher level of service.

It is also worth remembering that asking for a deconfliction service can wind up with you being vectored all over the place (or in the South East can even be nigh on impossible for a controller to provide - 5 miles/1000 ft and IFR terrain clearance is pretty hard to achieve in the OCK BIG slot)

[fuzzy6988]

5 miles/1000 ft

A bit large for separation between two light (and slow) aircraft IMHO! How about 2nm/500ft?

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by fuzzy6988

A bit large for separation between two light (and slow) aircraft IMHO! How about 2nm/500ft?

That is why it is alway worth knowing what you are asking for - as you may receive it

Deconfliction from CAP774 (Nov 2009) is

'surveillance-derived traffic information and issues headings and/or levels imed at achieving planned deconfliction minima'

Those minima are

5 NM laterally or 3,000 ft vertically and, unless the SSR code indicates that the Mode C data has been verified, don't allow the targets to merge.

or if coordinated

3 NM laterally or 1,000 ft (there are limited conditions where 500 feet is allowed)


As I said, be careful what you ask for or you may wind up on a long vectored tour of the country!


PS -
The separation standard are one size fits all - doesn't seem to matter if it is two C152s or a Tornado and and F16.

[Barnaby the Bear]

That is why it is alway worth knowing what you are asking for - as you may receive it

Exactly.

mm_flynn you managed to get that across better than me

I was not aware that you could fly a procedure without AT ensuring IFR seperation? Are you suggesting if the ATCO "assumes" you are VFR he is entitled to apply different seperation standards?

You can fly a procedure under VFR or IFR. Under a Procedural Service you will be provided with the same Procedural separation minima from other known Procedural traffic participating, whether or not you are IFR or VFR.
There nothing to stop you flying a Procedural approach under a Basic service, but don't expect standard procedural separation minima to be applied. Traffic info. will be passed to you (hopefully) and you may be asked to keep maintain a level etc. or arrive at the facility at a given time for co-ordination to protect anyone using the facility already. But standard deconfliction minima between Basic and Procedural traffic doe's not have to be applied.

However if a pilot did inform me they were requesting a procedural ILS, and they were on a Basic Service, I would ask them confirm if they are requesting an upgrade to a Procedural service.
It is upto the pilot to do this, but as we have seen from a previous answer, not everyone knows what they will get with each service.

I was not joking when I said ATCO's never assume anything (at least they shouldn't) .