IMO this off topic subject in another thread needs a place to become on topic.
I have always read the regulations this way;-
(And I only consider France AIP here)
For a VFR flight ETA is the time at which you are overhead the airfield. In France this would be at least 500’ above airfield elevation. The same ETA exists for a field served by ATS although you more than likely would not need to go overhead.
The AIP in France makes it manadatory to integrate overhead at a VFR field unless certain conditions are met. Eg there is ATS or you know from others in the circuit (definitively) which runway is in use.
This is termed “integrating”. The moment you transition from en route to the circuit procedure set out on the VAC which is I believe a joint collaboration between the airfield owner/manager and the DGAC via airfield architects/planners.
The French AIP makes it very clear that it follows
ICAO norms which are supplemented, added to or derogated from under SERA regs which in turn are added to supplemented or diverting from these rules by the national aircraft authority (DGAC.) Where such additions, supplementaries, or derogations exist the appropriate SERA rule is quoted alongside the National law reference.
One such example of this is the minimum altitudes for overflying conglomerations etc.
Under EU law these national rules are permitted to the point at which they may break a treaty.
The EU is quick to point out that as an EU member they do not cede sovereignty to others but share it when there is a common interest.
So for me what is meant by a VFR field is one where the everything from ground until you leave the circuit/zone is regulated by airfield dictat. If it says it is a VFR field you remain VMC until you exit this zone.
Then you can become IMC but to do that requires certain things such as being IFR qualified and two way radio communication, although this where IMO where there is the grey area. In class G "do you need two way communication (not a clearance, just 2 way air ground communication) before you go IMC or can you go IMC and communicate later (although regulation states “as soon as possible” I believe. This of course is different in the UK where AIUI you can fly in an out of IMC in class G without the need for any 2 way communication.
IMO this is also why in flying to any field with an IAP there is usually a distinct delineation between the APP or FIS as in cleared or approved for the approach during the arrivals procedure and on reaching the IAF (which is the anticipated ETA on your flight plan) you will be handed over to a tower frequency or you will be on auto information A/A depending on location.
The minimums and procedures for the approach are set out in the airfield documentation, published in the AIP ( and of course services such as Jeppesen)
I have been on the edge of setting up 2 IAPs for airfields, one non towered and the other a part time AFIS.
The airfield owner, in both cases the commune/town, owns the procedure. It has to be agreed with DGAC/DSAC adhering to ICAO, SERA and National regulations. Eg distance of holding point from runway is an ICAO norm accepted by SERA whereby the circle to land procedure in the absence of ATS is a National regulation.
So other countries will of course differ and add ons to ICAO and SERA are permitted.
I can talk about France 
here are the rules of the air:
- SERA allows IFR without clearance in Golf
- SERA allows IFR departures outside SID & IAP in Golf for NCO operators
- France require two-way com AND flight plan for IFR above 3kft amsl in Golf (Surface-S IFR TMZ)
Here are my understanding of aerodrome rules (those licensed by DGAC for CAP), France law does require “VMC for visual maneuvering” in absence of ATS (I am sure 1.5km pilot interpreted visibility is enough, we can argue about 400m, 10ft/400ft/500ft/1000ft/1500ft or just clear of clouds)
- 1.5km visibility is required for takeoff in absence of ATS (we could argue if I-FPL & ATC phone clearance then it entitle you to 400m)
- Circuit IFR integration is mandatory when landing IFR in absence of ATS, the absolute minima for CTL/MVL under visual IFR is 400ft
- Circuit VFR integration is mandatory when landing VFR in in absence of ATS, the absolute minima for VFR scud runs is 10ft agl
How far is size of circuit in non-ATS airports? there is no concept of AD ATZ in France for uncontrolled airfields but you can fill your boots with “RMZ” in AFIS/ATC AD and “control zone” for ATC AD (5nm in all axis maybe 1500ft agl if you assume 3deg paths)
On pragmatic approach, before someone decides to go and try something fancy with VFR/IFR in low ceiling at Toussus/Etampes with no ATS (PS: for start, it’s impossible to actually fly on Z-FPL from LFPN), for given airport, there is an easy question: can you legally & safely fly tighter VFR circuits with “1.5km & 10ft” volume in sunny days in that place? can you depart/land with 5nm straight-in? if owner & neighbor and other pilots are happy in that place? Then you will have no legality & safety issues going out/in with low ceiling from that place as long as you have 1.5km visibility (if it’s your backyard ask yourself)
https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/SERA_complet.pdf
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000038864224/
FRA.7012Désignationdesportionsd’espaceaérienetdesaérodromescontrôlésoùlesservicesdelacirculationaériennesontassurésa)Lorsqu’ilestdécidéquedesservicesdelacirculationaériennesontassurésdansdesportionsdéterminéesdel’espaceaérienousurdesaérodromesdéterminés,cesportionsdel’espaceaérienetcesaérodromessontalorsdésignéssuivantlanaturedesservicesdelacirculationaériennequidoiventêtreétablis.b)Ladésignationdeportionsdéterminéesd’espaceaérienoud’aérodromesdéterminésesteffectuéede la manièresuivante:1)Régionsd’informationdevol.Lesportionsd’espaceaériendanslesquellesilestdécidéd’établirunserviced’informationdevoletunserviced’alertesontappeléesrégionsd’informationdevol.2)Régions de contrôle et zones decontrôle.i)Lesportionsd’espaceaériendanslesquellesilestdécidéd’établirunserviceducontrôledelacirculationaériennepourlesvolsIFRsontappeléesrégionsdecontrôleouzonesdecontrôle.ii)Lesportionsdel’espaceaériencontrôléàl’intérieurdesquellesilestétabliquelesvolsVFRbénéficientégalementduserviceducontrôledelacirculationaérienne,sontdésignéescommeespaces aériens de classes B, C ouD.iii)Lesrégionsdecontrôleetleszonesdecontrôledésignéesfontpartiedelarégiond’informationde vol à l’intérieur de laquelle elles sontétablies.3)Aérodromescontrôlés.Lesaérodromespourlesquelsilestdécidéd’assurerleserviceducontrôledelacirculationaériennepourlacirculationd’aérodromesontappelésaérodromescontrôlés.
SERA FRA7017 a écrit : e) Zones de contrôle
1) Les limites latérales des zones de contrôle englobent au moins les portions
d’espace aérien, qui ne sont pas à l’intérieur d’une région de contrôle, contenant les
trajectoires des vols IFR à l’arrivée et au départ des aérodromes dont l’utilisation est
prévue dans les conditions météorologiques de vol aux instruments.
Note. — Tout aéronef en attente au voisinage d’un aérodrome est considéré comme un aéronef qui arrive à cet
2) La zone de contrôle s’étend jusqu’à 9,3 km (5 NM) au moins du centre de
l’aérodrome ou des aérodromes intéressés, dans toutes les directions d’approche
possibles.
Note. — Une zone de contrôle peut englober deux ou plusieurs aérodromes voisins.
3) Lorsqu’une zone de contrôle est située à l’intérieur des limites latérales d’une
région de contrôle, elle s’étend vers le haut, à partir de la surface de la terre, au moins
jusqu’àlalimiteinférieuredela région de contrôle.
Dans le contexte du paragraphe SERA.5005 c), un vol est considéré comme évoluant aux
abords d’un aérodrome s’il est effectué :
i) à l’intérieur des limites latérales d’une zone de contrôle (CTR) et éventuellement dans un volume défini localement dans les limites d’une TMA jointive et porté à la connaissance des usagers parla voiede l’information aéronautique ; ou
ii) en l’absence de zone de contrôle,
- à l’intérieur d’une une zone réglementée établie dans le but de protéger la circulation d’aérodrome de l’aérodrome auquel elle est associée, ou
- à une distance de l’aérodrome inférieure à 12 kilomètres (6,5 milles marins) del’aérodrome
gallois wrote:
Then you can become IMC but to do that requires certain things such as being IFR qualified and two way radio communication, although this where IMO where there is the grey area. In class G "do you need two way communication (not a clearance, just 2 way air ground communication) before you go IMC or can you go IMC and communicate later (although regulation states “as soon as possible” I believe. This of course is different in the UK where AIUI you can fly in an out of IMC in class G without the need for any 2 way communication.
IMO this is also why in flying to any field with an IAP there is usually a distinct delineation between the APP or FIS as in cleared or approved for the approach during the arrivals procedure and on reaching the IAF (which is the anticipated ETA on your flight plan) you will be handed over to a tower frequency or you will be on auto information A/A depending on location.
I have flown at Ouessant, IFR takeoff then IFR landing all under 3kft without even talking to any ATC/FIS while airborne only A/A calls on tower frequency, I only had a phone to call Brest FIS before takeoff & after landing to open and close my flight plan, it was in VMC but we could have done it in weather as well…
ATC in UK also clears you for the IAP approach in Golf but don’t confuse the unit with the service, under ICAO, “Approach Control” in Golf is a “FIS service” given by “ATC unit” that require compliance (view it like “Advisory Service” in Class F), the only controlled portions of your flight paths are IAF and Hold (if it sits in CAS/STAR) and the short straight-in final bellow AD circuit (and entitles you to land without circuit), basically: cleared direct to IAF, vectors and cleared to intercept VLOC and cleared to land on RWY by AD ATC, for the rest you can do what you wish, for sure you are entitled to fly a missed or circuit or circle
And ICAO
Same applies in France, actually if IAF & Hold is in Golf and RWY is not ATS, all you need from APP ATC is the QNH but you can’t go straight-in to land on RWY 
I think that’s roughly what I said @Ibra. There are some fields where there is CAS or R zones surrounding or above an airfield, in which case you will get your QNH from a ATC if not you can get it from the FIS. If the aerodrome is in G they will not clear you but might approve you for the approach or just say proceed with the approach but you will then be handed over to the airport frequency. In the absence of an ATS of any kind you auto announce and continue descent down to the minima quoted on the IAC. If you can see the runway at or above the minima and you estimate that you can keep visual throughout the circuit to land, you can do just that and make blind calls as you would with the VFR circuit.
That is why IMO, but I can not find a regulation to confirm or deny this, when taking off from an airfield such as this one can not enter IMC until at least that altitude. But as I have said as far as I am aware there is no precision on this either from SERA or national regs. I am aware and have read most if not all of the links you post above and having talked to many intstructors and examiners and still find it a grey area. More so as I regularly fly out of an untowered field in class G on an IFR flight plan, normally an IFPL, and request to open my flight plan as soon as I can get two way comms with an ATC or FIS.
The AIP also says you can fly an IFR circuit (whether this means approach procedure as well and whether it invludes in IMC or not, without a flight plan) is permitted. Again I find no precision in either SERA or national regs.
BTW I have often flown to and around Ouessant.
The great thing about it for MEIR revalidation is that you can file with Brest outbound and return, take off in very marginal conditions, fly the GNSS hold and approach at Ouessant, descend to circuit altitude and very often it is VMC at or just above minima which makes for a gorgeous circuit of the island plus being in VMC being a good place to do some MEP revalidation excercises and assymetric landings before returning to Brest climbing once more into IMC flying the ILS at Brest to minima plus the MAP and if necessary a circle to land or two either off the GNSS approach or the ILS approach and again followed by MEP and limited panel and a final approach and landing either ILS or GNSS.
Brest control are incredibly helpful as are Landivisieu app and Iroise app. Also the AFIS at Ouessant if he is on duty. But this whole flight is easily arranged with ATC and is very different from a flight from Fontenay Le Comte LFFK. But even here the IFR procedure and circling to land is not a great problem if one adheres to the charts. The take off citeria for IFR in marginal or actual IMC is much more of a grey area and much more difficult to find an accurate legal definition.
gallois wrote:
BTW I have often flown to and around Ouessant.
It seems one of the few RNP IAP with IAF being outside controlled airspace and bellow 3kft amsl S-surface?
gallois wrote:
But even here the IFR procedure and circling to land is not a great problem if one adheres to the charts. The take off citeria for IFR in marginal or actual IMC is much more of a grey area and much more difficult to find an accurate legal definition.
For IFR landing there is surely a height cutoff > 200ft straight-in and >400ft circling and if there is a chart it’s min height & min visibility are legally binding
For VFR landing there is more “open room”: > 1.5km, ceiling well people can magically cloud break far away or fly through holes…you name it !
For Z/I takeoffs, I agree it’s not clear where are the cutoffs, visibility > 1.5km is always legal but 400m is not clear to me? can one transit IMC near the circuit? the ceiling as criteria for departure did disappeared since NCO removed weather conditions from SEP return planning and the requirement for SID to fly IFR, then SERA removed cloud distance requirements bellow 140kias, however, VFR takeoff with 1.5km visibility clear of clouds with surface in sight followed by low scud run on departure is 100% legal (it’s done slower than 140kts but still not safe against terrain) as far as you consider than a departure/circuit until the weather suddenly allow a higher cruise… in MEP, it’s much fancy as people will factor OEI height and N-1 return in visibility
For takeoff with visibility >1.5km, there is the legal VFR scud run under ceiling and the grey VFR/IFR transition, of course one could argue that the former is “more legal” and the latter is “more grey” while in the vicinity of an uncontrolled circuit, but the former seems like a dead end to me…
LFFK also has its 2 IAFs OCAS and below 3000ft. They are 2400ft. One has a section approachable from 2600ft when the military training area starting at 3000ft is active.
Text in above post is a complete mess, with no spaces between words. Can anybody read it?
The answer to the title is country dependent. What is a “VFR field”? One thread is here. In the UK, the answer for a Class G non ATC airfield is generally “immediately”.
Ibra wrote:
- SERA allows IFR without clearance in Golf
- SERA allows IFR departures outside SID & IAP in Golf for NCO operators
This is still baffling to me, and I don’t really understand what I’m allowed to do. So a few real examples:
I file IFR and call (phone) to get a joining clearance, which tells me to remain VFR until xxx
Is xxx is inside airspace? then yes you are not cleared IFR in airspace, you have a VFR clearance to enter airspace, you have to comply with VFR & VMC as you enter airspace
If xxx is outside airspace? it’s not ATC who decides in Golf as simple as that and it’s not “an aerdrome takeoff clearance”
If you want more bonker how about “cleared to climb FL80, in Class A TMA, remain VFR” (I am sure you will struggle to comply even in CAVOK)
The reason is that you may not have ATC IFR-IFR separation in lowest x000ft of airspace and ATC wanted you to be VFR with your own separation in that corner untill radar & radio contact are established:
- If you lose comms in VMC you fly like VFR out of airspace and land
- If transponder fails or altitude reporting is out of tolerances, you may get kicked out or routed away from busy airspace (don’t ask me how I know)
- If you are VFR in IMC in airspace you declare an emergency in your head and do what you gotta do but you surely failed to comply with the ATC instruction…
I am approaching EHHV under IFR, and it’s 700ft OVC. Can I make an IFR descent in class G into the circuit?
Can you fly 700ft agl uncontrolled circuit in good weather at EHHV?
Ibra wrote:
If you want more bonker how about “cleared to climb FL80, in Class A TMA, remain VFR” (I am sure you will struggle to comply even in CAVOK)
That is the different question on “What to do if ATC gives you an obviously illegal clearance”.
This is actually a tricky question as at least one CAA (you might have guessed: The German one…) started to fine pilots that flew according to such a clearance (in cases of low approaches at airports).
In such cases there is theory and there is practice …
Malibuflyer wrote:
That is the different question on “What to do if ATC gives you an obviously illegal clearance”.This is actually a tricky question as at least one CAA (you might have guessed: The German one…) started to fine pilots that flew according to such a clearance (in cases of low approaches at airports).
What you as pilot/operator may or may not do is generally not known to ATC, so it is up to you to determine if you can legally comply with a clearance and if not ask for a different clearance. E.g. I’ve been given VFR clearances at 700 ft AGL over densely populated areas.
In the case of the low approaches, isn’t the problem rather that no one imagined this to be illegal – clearance or not?
