On some flights I have exactly the experience you have described (the airway climbs up to O2 levels and then back down and I don't particularly feel like pipes in the nose on the day - so I drop out and then back in). As an aside, sometimes there seems like a lot of pressure on Info as on occasion they have less than 10 minutes to get me my new join.

However, there have been other times when I have lost the squawk and the receiving controller seems to have the hump when I call (this tends to be picking L9 up again coming back from Ireland) and sometimes (only very rarely to be fair) have been unable to get clearance back into CAS.

The UK system is very different from most of the developed world, it does as C421 give tremendous freedom. Nowhere else allows the adhoc 'just do it' IFR of the UK Class G system. However, it also maintains a very unusual binary switch between total control and free for all.

A question this thread has brought up (and I don't have any charts to hand to answer this). My recollection is the general Class E airspace in France is from about FL115 up so any airspace below an airway MEA (not in a TMA) is going to be Class G. Is that correct?

Yes I have. Of course just about everything in the USA is better. I totally agree with you about aviation infrastructure and services being provided as a public good, part of the transportation network of the country. However, I tend to find that the vast differences between the US and Europe are at their narrowest when you are actually in the air. In Europe, the misery is the overall cost and regulation and access to airports etc. Once you have paid for your plane, and fuel, and found airports at either end you can use, and done whatever PPR nonsense you have to, and accounting for the fees and handling costs, and having filed an IFR FPL through IFPS and are actually flying IFR - then I think the system works rather well in Europe, and ATC services are rather good.

The problem isn't that I've disregarded it. The problem is that the entire political system has disregarded it. Fuel taxes are not hypothecated to pay for GA services. They are levied by EU law. There is, however, an established system by which enroute ATC services are paid for - the Eurocontrol charging system (by the way, some of us pay both the fuel duty and eurocontrol charges...). The challenge we have is not to get more for free (that is a fantasy), but to avoid paying more than we currently do. The airlines are constantly exerting political pressure that charges should recover more from GA. The best argument against that is "beneficiary pays"...ie. the airlines benefit from the cost of CAS and ATC, so they should pay. Sub-2t users get a free ride on the system. I think this is right and proper. Good luck in arguing this should be extended to providing OCAS IFR coverage for all, seamless integrated with airways control to let you pop-in and pop-out to your hearts content. It's more fantasty.

But, ultimately, I don't understand what you and IO are specifically complaining about? There are "complaints" in this thread that feel to me as if they misrepresent how the system works; to portray its normal and sensible workings, that a competent user should predictably expect, as "tricks" or mystifying anomalies. That is my main point in this thread.

Look at the substance of the 'complaints':
- bloke files OCAS beyond the CI CTZ and gets handed over to London Info
- bloke get a "clearance to destination" from Split to Shoreham on a route terminating OCAS for the last 50nm
- bloke files a route leaving CAS at the UK FIR boundary and get handed over to London Info

....where exactly is the 'problem' some posters are getting worked up about?

brgds
421C

Very generally, France is E from FL065 to FL115 (on the routes relevant to Eurocontrol filed flights), D from FL115 to FL195, and A above that. I am looking at the SIA chart now and that is the general idea.

You can file seamless Eurocontrol routes in France anywhere above (generally) FL065. They will be in E below FL070-FL110, in D FL120-FL190, in A FL200+. But all this is CAS for IFR.

(One can fly, on the day, in France, in Class G, of which there is plenty, by asking for various DCTs, but then ATC warns you that you are leaving CAS and asks if will you accept that).

However, it seems that someone in France has decided that D/A (FL120+) is handled by a different authority (generally Paris Control), from the lower level traffic.

And it appears that Paris Control (not the lower level controllers, however) has a LOA with London Control.

So, take the case of a flight from Dieppe to SFD (you have to see the map for this).

If you are at FL070 at the UK boundary, you will enter the UK in Class G (Class A base is FL075). You will get handed to London Information. Your IFR clearance is gone. One could argue that the pilot should have used the VFR chart but not many foreigners flying IFR will carry VFR charts on a purely IFR flight, and a FL070 routing will pass Eurocontrol validation.

If you are at FL080 at the UK boundary, you would enter the UK in Class A, and the obvious expectation is a continuous IFR clearance i.e. a handover to London Control. Actually you will get a handover to London Information. This will happen well before you get to the boundary - presumably because the French know very well that if they leave it too long they will be "responsible" for the inevitable CAS bust ;) A UK pilot who knows the ropes will now realise he must immediately descend below FL075 and continue "UK style VFR/IFR".

The above situation will also happen up to FL110.

Only if you are at/above FL120 really soon (i.e. climbing like a rocket out of Dieppe) will Dieppe hand you over to Paris Control.

Of course, flying from Dieppe back to say Lydd is hardly relevant - a trivial flight. The tricky situation is if someone is flying from France, in VMC but above icing conditions, at FL110, and he is transferred to London Information, which then orders him back down below CAS (base FL075). Unless he is a fast worker, and gets London Info to rapidly negotiate a new IFR clearance, he will soon end up at 2400ft, hacking around the LTMA ;) If he leaves it for more than about 30 mins (so I am told by UK ATCOs) then his original IFR flight plan is binned and he will have a lot of trouble climbing back into UK CAS.

The simple solution, as I wrote way back, is to climb from FL110 to FL120 and then you are talking to Paris Control and you get a nice handover to London Control :)

Whether your filed route is on published airways is nothing to do with this; most practical routes going back to the UK in the lower airways are off the published airways anyway.

I think this is dependant on the destination airport. The South Coast and London airports have a range of different airway rules. For example coming back from France on A34 at F090 into the UK works fine for London Group (and you stay with London control), but isn't allowed for Denham (which isn't part of London Group). Further South you track under this level and go direct to London Information which sort of makes sense as you need to drop out of controlled airspace at some point.


C421 - I don't think there is a huge 'problem', particularly if one has filed OCAS. However, this happens on routes that one would reasonably expect to be in CAS (and which if VFR would be an infringement).




On some of these routes I do think it is a reasonable error for a pilot to think he is going to be provided a control service rather than Info. Take someone who is planning LFRG to EGKA at F080 - he

1 - Reads the chart, see an airway which goes where he needs to - A34 with base of FL55 (rising to FL85 at the FIR).

2 - Further looks at the chart and establish at the FIR boundary the Worthing control area starts at FL75

3 - Attempts to plan the obvious A34 route (get a rejection but a proposal back from CFMU to file DCT SITET DCT at FL080).

4 - Files this plan and gets an ACK and later a startup clearance that says he is cleared to his destination.

At this point I am struggling to see which chart our pilot should have looked at to tell him his route is OCAS and as such he should expect to be proided an Information Service for part of the route (and certainly if he flew it without a clearance London wouldn't be very impressed with him plowing into the side of Worthing CTA at FL080).

(Clearly there is a potential question as to Shoreham Approaches ability to provide a service for a brief period of time below FL55 but above the top of their area -which I don't think is clearly defined on the approach chart - but haven't looked at it).

Certainly, with just my IR training I would have expected to be handed over to London Control and then a bit closer to EGKA handed over to Shoreham Approach. I think it would be reasonable for a pilot who is making an IFR flight to an IFR airport, with an Approach Control facility to have his IFR enroute chart out, his Star chart (if applicable) and the approach chart for the ATIS notified approach. To 40 miles out suddenly need to scramble out your VFR chart to make a series of step downs seems like just asking for a bust. In addition, being told to remain clear of controlled airspace when you are already in it generates confusion.

---------
On a related note to Airbus Girl's post, I have on occasion been in a situation where the next sector needed me to wait, however, the instruction has always been 'hold at xxx, expect further clearance at xx'. If they say 'remain clear of CAS' (when you are already in it as I understand from the post) I don't quite see how holding in CAS complies with the instruction.

IO,
I just don't understand what point you are making with this post. Take the following part
This is a factual description of airspace and ATC arrangements in France. So what?

Of course your IFR clearance "is gone" - you have entered uncontrolled airspace. What do you expect? It's fair enough not to carry VFR charts on a normal (SID-Airway-STAR) IFR flight. But this isn't. You are flying off-airways and low-level. Of course you need a chart which depicts controlled airspace in full. You would need it anywhere you chose to fly IFR OCAS, not just in the UK.

You have, in this scenario, filed an 'ad hoc' route into the the Class A around London, off any published ATS route. You presumably are expecting to leave CAS, because all the IAFs for your destination are OCAS. So what exactly is the problem with leaving CAS. If you "know the ropes" then isn't it good airmanship not to try and bother London Control with this nonsense? If you don't, then you should hardly be shocked. You know you will be leaving CAS in the descent on track to a Lydd IAF. You know you are proposing to enter Class A which, without any great insight, your hypothetical Mongolian IR might guess was associated with airports like Heathrow and Gatwick. Your destination is below the base of the Class A. So ATC want you to fly a profile which keeps you just below rather than just within the 'inverted wedding cake'. Big deal.

Aviation has many things to complain about. You really don't have to get as convoluted as this. And, I repeat, why not help people understand how to work with the system, rather than invent convoluted examples to illustrate....to illustrate what exactly? I am still not sure.

Now that you shift from an arrival into Lydd to an arrival presumably within the London TMA (or beyond it), you shift to an entirely different issue. It is nothing to do with handover at the boundary and everything to do with the fact that you can not expect ad-hoc off-route IFR clearance low level through the London TMA. This is not exactly news to anyone, is it? Have you tried the same thing around Paris or Palma or any other big, comparable zone? Why should your mythical foreign pilot be surprised by this? Say he was going into Biggin. Well, he could try the published arrival - the rather convoluted ALKIN one. In many European countries, IFPS might only accept such an arrival. But in the UK, he can file a shorter DCT one - however, it might involve descent below CAS. He takes his choice.

The upshot of your long post is: if you want clearance through London Class A, file a published ATS route. If you want the convenience of DCTs, accept the consequences. Conspiracy theory but no cigar IO.

brgds
421C

mm

I find your example more clear than IO's, but I still have the same reply and find it a bit convoluted. Deauville to Shoreham in airways and Class A. Come on...
I agree it's not totally obvious, but it's a simple enough "trick" to UK IFR. If you want convenient DCT routes, fine - but don't expect them through Southern UK Class A and carry a VFR chart. If you don't want to carry VFR charts, file ATS routes only.

brgds
421C

Fair enough. The same thing happens no matter where you fly from if you are at FL080 on that segment.

For me its not a problem as I am part of the London Group. Hence am allowed to use the airway at that level (rather than be following the centre line on a DCT but not 'on' the airway). This seems to result in a handover to London Control and then a descent over the coast with Farnborough. Perfectly good and coordinated service from London and EGLF.


We have also moved off the original post, which in all likelihood was someone on a clearly OCAS routing, rather than some of the more convoluted issues in recent posts.

I think the key point in this whole conversation is -
Within the UK, if you are not filed solidly end to end on airways you are likely to be talking to Information for part of your flight with no Radar Service (and this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with an IR), AND, once you are talking to Information you don't have clearance to be in any of the remaining controlled airspace - that needs to be renegotiated (and this point I believe is a 'surprise' to many non-UK IR rated pilots ... and even some from the UK)

errrr....then don't file off-route, use only airways and published procedures.

mm: I agree. You have summarised it well in a single para. But I am no longer sure what we are debating. The only question may be the degree of "surprise". IFR is like that. This "surprise" strikes me as well within the scope of what an IFR pilot should be able to cope with. The phrase "Unable" and, ultimately, declaring an emergency, are there for when he can't.

brgds
421C

Reason people file off the published airways is because half the lower airways between the southern UK and Europe are in the wrong place, and the other half go in the wrong direction :)

Consequently, a totally pukka route pulled straight out of the standard route documents is often torturous, with overheads of anything up to 40% over great circle, and almost nobody flies it.

It's OK if one is based at Bournemouth in which case there is never an issue... It is generally also OK with the other coastal airports - because one has to descend eventually, and it is fairly normal (if not exactly great risk management) to descend to say 1000ft above the sea and cross the Channel like that, underneath the bad weather.

But it's not OK if going further up into the UK. Or if one was going into say Lydd but due to hazardous conditions below has to divert to somewhere further up north, in which case one needs a continuous IFR clearance so one can stay VMC on top.

Plus, on the day, ATC don't operate the published airways network anyway (outside of Greek/Turkish airspace ;) ). You get DCTs all over the place.

Hence, over the years, an urban culture has developed among IFR pilots which is to file some kind of route that gets accepted and then see what ATC gives you on the day.

I don't go that far myself (I always fly with real routes which are validated and which look right and which I can fly with the fuel I have even if I don't get a single shortcut) but the issues highlighted remain and will be catching out pilots not familiar with the local practices.

I don't know why these France - > UK handover issues exist, because London Control is evidently perfectly capable of handling traffic on any route whatever, so long as it is in CAS (Class A).

Jesus, just noticed, this is my post #10,000. Better crawl back into a hole until I can write something that contributes positively to general aviation.

IO - I was going to congratulate you, but you seem to have been stuck on 10,000 for a long time. :)

421C

Me thinks even if you accepted there werent any short comings things are not about to change. Leaving aside whether or not things could change do you in fact think there are any shortcomings with the present arrangements? It is useful in debates such as this at least to establish what common ground there maybe.

In terms of whether things could change on that I suspect we do agree. The lobby of private IR pilots flying at lower levels is so small they almost have no influence what so ever. (unlike in the States). NATS doesnt care what they want or what would make life easier for them (and theirs a fact) and as you have rightly said since GA pilots are not paying for a service from NATS, they care even less if that were possible. This rather nicely contrasts with the IMCr where there is a sufficient ground swell of support that I suspect pilots may yet have their way in spite of many vested interests that would rather they did not.

I wonder whether we agree that for pilots crossing the channel at these lower levels bound for the south coast (and not transitting the London TMA) in reality were they accomodated within the system in fact they would not cause any conflicts simply because there is no commercial traffic at the same levels.

A private company operating for profit? perish the thought:rolleyes:

Loathe to make comparisons with Australia - and usually loathe to say the Australian ATC system works well (!) - but in Australia in the situation the original poster refers to the pilot would've been told "Leaving Class C airspace in 5 miles, control service terminated, contact <service> on <frequency>" and therefore know he was leaving controlled airspace.

The onus would then be on the pilot not to enter controlled airspace again without another clearance, although the next frequency will almost always provide it (without being asked) on first contact - because s/he knows you're coming and where you're going because your flight details are in the system. In fact, most pilots don't even bother asking for the clearance in this situation because the service is seamless and it will be offered anyway - possibly because ATC provides a flight information service (as opposed to a control service) to IFR flights in Class G.

BTW - in Australia you will always be cleared initially to your destination even though most of your route may be out of controlled airspace. This doesn't take away from your responsibility to get a fresh clearance before re-entering controlled airspace if you've left it - as leaving controlled airspace is deemed to cancel the previous clearance.

I could be wrong, but I think notifying the pilot that the control service is terminated is IAW ICAO recommended practice ...

Ted

IO540
OK. But there are some countries that will not allow DCT routes. At least in the UK one has this flexibility in most airspace. But the point remains...you file off-route and you accept the consequences...which are hardly onerous or unpredictable
- if outside CAS, you will not get a radar service in most places and you will have to get a fresh clearance back into CAS
- if inside CAS but off-route, you may not be accepted in some busy Class A TMAs (London, but also I think others in Europe).

I wasn't talking about Bournemouth, I was using your example of Lydd.

There are no circumstances that ATC or airspace force you to cross the channel at 1000' IFR, since the lowest base of Class A under Q41 still lets you go OCAS at 3000'. Why would you be at 1000' on an IFR flight? When did it last happen to you?

Where further up in the UK? You have been talking about a mid-channel handover and a coastal airport in which a Dieppe-Lydd airways route would be ridiculous. But the inland airports generally have some ATS routes to get to them sensibly (eg. the London Group) or my example of Biggin where you either choose the published route or go 2400' DCT.

IMC is not a hazardous condition for the purposes of IFR and IFR does not recognise "needing to stay VMC on top". If you need VMC then you need a VFR flight. If it's thunderstorms, you ask for avoidance. If it's ice and you are not deiced, you should have a back-up plan. If you haven't or it's anything else, it's Mayday time and you do what you need to and I have no doubt ATC would give you all the help they can. OTOH, perhaps I've misunderstood your example.

But if you have filed an airways route, whilst you will get DCTs, you will not get "dumped". Either the DCTs will shorten your route, or they are for tactical traffic management. Either way, what's the problem?

Several long posts exhanges, I still don't understand what these "issues" are. To me an "issue" is a systemic problem or an unforseen or incorrect working of a system. The system works in an entirely predictable way, which I believe is consistent with its published nature and accepted practices.

So you think London Control should in effect permit IFR "free flight" in the London TMA and associated CTAs? I don't know anywhere that does that - even in the USA. The IFR system is predicated on published routes - how can this be an "issue" for anyone?

Fuji,
You are shifting the debate. I was replying to IO's comments and specifically on the operation of the system. The tenor of IO's comments is that there are "tricks"/"issues"/"old chestnuts"/whatever about how low-level IFR is treated. The mythical Mongolian pilot he is concerned about I believe would be more mystified than helped by his comments, because I think IO's portrayal of the system's operation is unnecessarily convoluted and complicated. I still think our Mongolian would be best advised by 3 simple points

1. If you want to stay in CAS contiguously, file a contiguous airways route
2. If you file DCTs outside CAS, you will need to get a clearance back in to CAS
3. If you file off-route DCTs into London Class A, you may not get accepted

Now, there is your shift in debate. Yes, it would be wonderful if we had a totally different system in the UK - with ATC services for low-level IFR and free-flight everywhere.

IO himself just said "It is generally also OK with the other coastal airports ". So is there a problem for lower level IFR going to coastal airports or not? If so, what exactly is it and what "accomodating in the system" does it need?

brgds
421C

But that is my very point. You should understand that whilst IFPS may accept a filght plan off a published route in busy Class A, that does not mean ATC will let you fly it. Hence my words "if inside CAS but off-route, you may not be accepted in some busy Class A TMAs". By off-route I meant "off a published route".

Agreed. Of course we all like to be VMC on top, but I was replying to IO's point "... one needs a continuous IFR clearance so one can stay VMC on top". You can't expect IFR clearances specifically to let you stay VMC on top. If you want or need to stay VMC, you fly VFR.

That is a completely different point to the point by IO I am responding to. I am responding to the point that there are unreasonable anomalies in how ATC handles low level IFR, out there to trap all but the sharpest pilots familiar with UK airspace and methods. I am saying there aren't if you have the entirely reasonable expectation that IFR is predicated on published routes. Maybe the published routes are not useful. Fine. But that doesn't mean your expectation of IFR operations, when you are actually flying an airplane, should be anything other than the conventional ones based on published routes, and the consequences of not flying on published routes.
Maybe you want to change the airway route system. Fine again. But the point is there is nothing to "act surprised" about in the operation of the system as it is.

You and Fuji are posting as if I had said "low level airways are wonderful and perfect". I have not. But given they are what they are, I am saying that it is normal, reasonable and to be expected that when you cross over from France at, say FL80, off-airways inbound Lydd or Shoreham, you get asked to descend OCAS. Of course, as IO points out, if you fly high enough, it won't be practical for ATC to ask you to make that descent prior to the boundary. So then they clear you into it. This rather banal and obvious distinction seems to be presented as a failing in handover between Paris and London FIRs. It isn't. You can try and deconstruct this into a ATC union conspiracy intended to marginalise you, or you can interpret this as a sensible working of the system around London as it is. My only point on this thread is the latter point. I wish you and Fuji all the best in a campaign to get the airlines or the public to fund a low level IFR free-flight regime over Southern England, so light aircraft never have to be bothered with London Info for clearances, or that the odd Mongolian doesn't get surprised by being asked to start an OCAS descent a bit earlier than he expected.

I don't think we are being ignored and marginalised. I think some of this thread's points are a vexatious whinge. The best bit about flying IFR in Europe is actually being in the air - forgetting the costs and administration and planning needed to get there in the first place. Far from being marginalised, I think we are well treated (and that's coming from a eurocontrol fee payer). The current mix of UK low level routes and off-route DCTs strikes me as reasonable and workable. Not perfect, but it's about at the bottom of my list of headaches in flying IFR - compared to the cost, training, planning, airport access and all the other stuff.

brgds
421C

If it wasn't for me knowing that 421C does fly for real, I would regard the above as a grossly disingenuous statement.

In this case, however, I don't know what to make of it.

Flying VMC enroute is a standard method for avoiding icing conditions, turbulence and potentially an in-flight break-up of the aircraft due to embedded CBs.

A 421C (this one, anyway) has full de-ice and radar, and subject to its lower operating ceiling, has more or less the mission capability of a 737.

Most other people are not flying such a "tank", and remaining VMC on top during the enroute section of a flight is a standard and very effective strategy. It keeps all one's options open, which is the name of the game in safe flight.

One therefore negotiates with ATC, to the maximum extent possible (and in my experience there is never a problem with this because ATC are familiar with icing conditions etc) to remain VMC enroute.

This, in turn, requires a continuous IFR clearance, because only then can one ask for a climb in an unrestricted manner. If the continuity of the clearance is lost, then one has to either take avoiding action to avoid the hazardous weather (which might be a 180) or face a wait while ATC obtains a new IFR clearance.

I have no personal experience of anybody successfully obtaining a new IFR clearance into Class A in the UK - beyond the obvious case of getting one from say London Info following a non-towered departure. I've tried it a few times and it was always rebuffed. Abroad, one can do it; in France it can range for the casual and instant case where one cannot arrive VFR at the planned destination and flies the ILS instead, or (for an enroute IFR clearance for which ATC presumably have to quickly knock-up some kind of flight plan in the system) it can take 5-10 mins.

Anyway, this is probably digressing but reading my own posts I don't see conspiracy theories and the other garbage which has been suggested.

Your statement is fair enough if it means "I use the flexibility available within the system to try and stay VMC on top". My point is that if you have the expectation that the system should be designed around permitting you VMC on top, then this is an unrealistic expectation. When you can get VMC on top, great. When you can't, that's flying IFR for you. Plain and simple. Please don't personalise it referring to what anyone may or may not fly with what equipment etc.

Please also do not drag this out of context. The specific point about VMC on top occurred as follows.
1. You raised your Dieppe-Lydd example
2. I replied that I couldn't see the problem, since Lydd IAFs are all OCAS, whether you descend below the CTA from the boundary or fly a bit within it before your OCAS descent
3. You then countered with the following point:
"if one was going into say Lydd but due to hazardous conditions below has to divert to somewhere further up north, in which case one needs a continuous IFR clearance so one can stay VMC on top"

My reply said, quite clearly I think, that if you find yourself in this scenario of IFR to Lydd and diverting to an alternate, you should not expect the London TMA and ATC practices to be aligned around letting you stay VMC on top - unless, of course, you declare an emergency, in which case I am sure the system will give you whatever you need.

Were you rebuffed having filed a published route through Class A, or rebuffed having filed a DCT through Class A? I suspect the latter, in which case, what is your point? I have endlessy tried to make the distinction on this thread between Class A penetration "on published route" vs "on DCTs", because that is the essential distinction. But you don't acknowledge it. You are concerned for foreign pilots being tricked and mystified by the system. Doesn't the distinction make an important difference? If you file a published route, you should expect to be able to negotiate a clearance from OCAS into Class A. If not, expect to be rebuffed. Why just write how you are always rebuffed without making the distinction? In your super articles, you go to great pains to be as clear and detailed as possible to help other pilots. Yet in this thread I sense you are avoiding that clarity in order to "score points" against the "system" and ATC.

I was using a figure of speech relating to your posts....
....which combined with the (to use your word) 'disengenuous' way you try and characterise normal operating practices as "tricks" that could mystify people. Aircraft leaving CAS are "dumped". You are "rebuffed" trying to get an ad-hoc DCT route through Class A. It all sounds a bit conspiratorial to me.

However, this thread has drifted too for me to understand what we are discussing. It is a potentially interesting discussion, so please make a point we can have a more fresh-start discussion from.

What exactly is there which might catch-out the unwary pilot beyond the three points I have made?
1. If you want to stay in CAS contiguously, file a contiguous airways route
2. If you file DCTs outside CAS, you will need to get a clearance back in to CAS
3. If you file off-published-route DCTs into Class A, you are likely to not get accepted
Is there a specific way, within these simple prinicples, in which ATCs treatment of low-level traffic is unreasonably "tricky"?

If the answer to the above is nothing and no, then what remains is a gripe that the lower level airways aren't as useful as they could be, that radar services aren't always provided OCAS, that Class A doesn't allow ad-hoc transits. Fair enough. But these are not surprises that should surprise anyone: experienced, not experienced, Mongolian etc.

brgds
421C

The ongoing debate in this thread has produced some fantastic tips and information on Lower IFR ops. I'm doing my first IFR flight into France tomorrow and some of the points raised have helped me in the planning stages. Decided to fly the airways down (Biggin - LYD - G27 - NEVIL - Caen) and then fly back DCT - SFD to get experience of CAS and OCAS ops.

Just wanted to say thanks for the help :ok:

Will let you carry on with your debate in 3...2...1... :E

Recently I flew IFR to Scotland FL100 Egtf Egpg and thought about this three. For those not familiar with the route, North of POL the airway base is time dependant so it is Fl090 but during the day the base rises to Fl130. So you file a route on published airways, which validates. However, a look at an IFR chart clearly shows the airway base is time variable s one should anticipate part of the route is ocas.

On my way North I was advised of leaving CAS, asked if I wanted traffic info or deconfliction, maintained my squawk. A period of time later was advised i was cleared back into CAS and handed to the next frequence. This is the process I believe most foreign IFR pilots would expect (and is my experience in France and Ireland). Now I don't know if my clearance was cancelled and recreated in the background but I certainly had a mental model that ATC would coordinate the rentry without any input from me (which they did)

On the way South as the airway rose above me I was handed to Information and greater with remain clear of CAS, a new squawk, and pass your message. Now I have a clear mental model I no longer have a clearance back into Cas and that I will need to have info get it organised (I have never failed at getting cleared back in but would have a view it is not guaranteed equally having thought about it I am not sure what the expectation would be with a radio failure - assuming A VFR diversion was not practical).

I believe, mostly by comments from non-UK pilots that the second case comes as a surprise to them. On a related theme I often hear biz jets talking with Farnborough who clearly don't understand that they have departed IFR without a clearance (into CAS) and who don't have a VFR chart out - I am assuming these are 'surprised' non-UK pilots.

IFR is all about weather and traffic avoidance.

No one ideally wants to be bumping along in freezing clouds.

Every one likes to feel they are being separated from other traffic.

So far as traffic is concerned do we really care if we are in CAS or OCAS as long as we are getting a traffic service? Will yes I suppose we might. In the example of Paris to Shoreham via LYD or SFD once outside CAS the best we can hope for is a service from Farnborough. You might be lucky and get an advisory service or you might find they are closed, only a basic service is available due to controller workload or for nearly all of the crossing you are out of range – you get the idea.

So far as weather is concerned cruising along at FL75 in VMC across the channel is a whole lot more attractive than in the soup at or below FL55. How often are the tops somewhere in that range?

It still seems to me that IO has a very valid point. Why should we come out of France in CAS at FL75 and get dumped unless we initiate a climb when 40 miles later we would rather commence a descent?

I think the conspiracy theory comments are just daft. For me it is a straight forward discussion about the way in which the system should be improved to accommodate all categories of air space user rather than just predicated to the needs of CAT. It is very easy to forget if you don’t fly or only fly CAT that the performance, weather tolerance and avoidance equipment of a 172 is very different from a TB20 is very different from a King Air and is very different from large commercial air transport and yet in my view at least each should have the right to use the air space that belongs to us.

It is interesting that as soon as a loco opens up a new hub in the UK “mysteriously” a class D veil is suddenly possible as well as a drop from CAS directly into the new class D and while I am not suggesting that we should start throwing class D veils around every little airport in the UK we could at least make an effort to accommodate the needs of light aviation – frankly as I said earlier this is just a “I wish for” debate.

mm

The distinction in the Scottish example is that Nortbound your sequence is
Class A Airways > OCAS > Class D TMA, so the CAS "re-entry" is into Class D. In the Southbound, it is a Class A airways join, which is a different co-ordination issue.

I absolutely see that a non-UK pilot might have different expectations. Isn't the message therefore

1. In the UK, IFR is permitted OCAS, and operationally you may find yourself operating IFR OCAS in many circumstances
2. OCAS there is no "clearance"
3. Therefore, you need a clearance to rejoin CAS
4. Sometimes, this will be provided for you by ATC without prompting, but your baseline expectation will be once OCAS remain OCAS until you have negotiated a joining clearance (typically via an INFO freq)
5. Points 1-4 also apply departing IFR where a departure route segment takes you OCAS (eg. Farnborough)

I agree these points may help non-UK pilots. I have only been commenting on "noise" around this topic which drowns out the useful "signal".

brgds
421C

Quote:

---

It is very easy to forget if you don’t fly or only fly CAT that the performance, weather tolerance and avoidance equipment of a 172 is very different from a TB20 is very different from a King Air and is very different from large commercial air transport.

---

It's not easy to forget. It's obvious. My only point is that it's easy to forget that Instrument Flight Rules apply to Instrument conditions. If you are not de-iced, or you don't want to fly in cloud, you have to accept the limitation that imposes under IFR. Go back to IO's example. A non-deiced light aircraft has to divert from Lydd and the diversion takes him through the London TMA because he needs to stay high because of icing layers he can not cope with. Is that ATC's problem or perhaps he has forgetten, to your point, that the performance/weather tolerance/avoidance equipment of light aircraft is very different? What is he doing in this situation? If he inadvertanly found himself trapped like this, and it could happen, I have no doubt he would get help from ATC. But does this scenario mean there is something wrong with how the London TMA is managed?

Quote:

---

and yet in my view at least each should have the right to use the air space that belongs to us

---

There is no distinction between the rights of a 172 vs TB20 vs King Air vs Transport Jet to use CAS or OCAS. One could argue that the 172 and TB20 have better treatment - because they have the right to use it and not pay the eurocontrol fees. I imagine a low-level DCT through the London TMA would have the same difficulty in a Jet as a SEP. I imagine a bigger airplane would get the same handover to London Info when going OCAS.

So if you want to use your right to CAS in the London TMA, file a publshed route - this is what the CAT users do. If you want to use your right to airspace OCAS, then you are free to do so. What airspace do you not have the right to use on the same terms as CAT? Unless what you are actually asking for is something different - the "right" to have the eurocontrol-paying users fund more services (like traffic OCAS or more capacity in the London TMA to accept DCT traffic) or an extension of CAS for people who, generally, don't pay the fees?

Don't get my point on the 2t exemption from eurocontrol fees wrong. I believe it is the right thing. The costs of collecting the fees would be disproportional, and the fees are levied on the basis of a service level the airlines need, not a service level light aircraft need. So there is a reasonable argument for the 2t exemption. But it is 'just daft' (to use your words) to expect the airlines to pay for services they don't need (all the stuff complained about on this thread) that you want.