5:38 was a good one
Why in particular? Based on the semicircular rule it should be on that track. I have no issue with FL110 being blocked for some reason; I can do +500fpm up there.
12:05 now also clarifies why Padova did in the end accept you at FL160. It was because in order to solve the issue, they proposed, and you accepted a VFR segment…. common practice over the Alps. They did in fact NOT accept you (IFR) at FL160.
OK; interesting.
BTW the IFR cancellation was not done till later, with Padova.
What I don’t get is why at no time did Innsbruck volunteer any useful information about the options. They could have said “if you cancel IFR then it is possible” or “if you plan to cancel IFR at point X then it is possible” or “if you climb to FL180 then it is possible”. Just saying “computer says NO” helps nobody. And, in this particular case at least, I don’t think the lack of ATC ELP was the reason for the economy in information.
Just sometimes (very rarely) I get the feeling that ATC is out to screw one into a corner. I once got a great case with (then called) Manchester Control who did everything possible to screw me from getting an IFR clearance. In this case, presumably, the lady ATCO has been “primed” by her self appointed policeman friend to think I was gaming the system.
Peter wrote:
What I don’t get is why at no time did Innsbruck volunteer any useful information about the options. They could have said “if you cancel IFR then it is possible” or “if you plan to cancel IFR at point X then it is possible” or “if you climb to FL180 then it is possible”. Just saying “computer says NO” helps nobody. And, in this particular case at least, I don’t think the lack of ATC ELP was the reason for the economy in information.Just sometimes (very rarely) I get the feeling that ATC is out to screw one into a corner. I once got a great case with (then called) Manchester Control who did everything possible to screw me from getting an IFR clearance. In this case, presumably, the lady ATCO has been “primed” by her self appointed policeman friend to think I was gaming the system.
Change from IFR flight to VFR flight shall only be acceptable when a message initiated by the pilot-in-command containing the specific expression ‘CANCELLING MY IFR FLIGHT’, together with the changes, if any, to be made to the current flight plan, is received by an ATS unit. No invitation to change from IFR flight to VFR flight shall be made by ATS either directly or by inference.’;
Although SERA Part-C was not yet in force when you did this flight, this “rule” comes directly from ICAO. It’s very likely the ANSP you were talking to had this rule in their national regulation.
either directly or by inference
Very useful input – thank you Guillaume.
This rule is not always followed however. A few years ago I was flying up the Adriatic and had to divert to Zadar. I was descending to get below some wx and the controller told me that I can’t go below 3000ft unless I cancel IFR. That was really useful and avoided getting into hazardous wx.
Also ATC often ask “when will you be ready to cancel IFR”, if you have filed a Y flight plan and are taking your time to do it.
I know only the pilot can actually request IFR cancellation.
Well, London Info does it for you silently but that’s another story 
5:38 was a good one
Well, it sounds like you “announced” you would starting climbing and then the controller reminded you that you first have to ask for a clearance for that…
The difference of such a VFR segment (over cancelling IFR) is that your clearance is retained and this allows you to go back to flying IFR later on. Austrian ATC does a lot, usually for small SEP aircraft that can’t climb to the MEA when crossing the high part of the Alps.
I think this is the problem with editing. There was an earlier conversation about climbing and he was going to get back to me. I have just listened to it again… something is missing allright; probably “ready to”. No way would I climb on my own. He could not give me FL110 for some other reason, but FL120 was OK.
These videos give a whole new meaning to “hostage to fortune”
Interesting about VFR segments, and a pity they can’t offer the option officially. What is the specific form of words if you want that?
Peter wrote:
Interesting about VFR segments, and a pity they can’t offer the option officially. What is the specific form of words if you want that?
It’s fully official. autorouter even automatically inserts those segments in a few places. Sometimes it’s also the only way to join 2 airways at a certain altitude. I do it this way 9 out of 10 cases when crossing Austria. This way I don’t have to fly at FL150 with oxygen implications. The Salzburg-Klagenfurt crossing (e.g. to Portoroz/Pula/Mali Losinj) only requires FL110 in reality but for IFR FL150.
However if you insert a … WP WP WP VFR WP WP WP IFR WP WP WP… then ATC prompt you before the “VFR” bit if/when you are ready to cancel IFR.
So while this procedure is obvious (and used e.g. for beating ATC strikes, and I did the same Cannes-Shoreham a few weeks ago when the French were on strike) it is hardly some unofficial / local procedure.
ATC are expecting the IFR cancellation and if you don’t do it, they will press you on it, and eventually capitulate when you have reassured them sufficiently that you are VMC which is their requirement for flying below the MVA.
The other way to do it, which I have done many times to e.g. cut the two doglegs on this route
without climbing to something like FL160-180, is to assure them I am VMC. Then one can fly it without any “VFR” business.
Yes I think you are right. It’s probably a bit misleading to refer to the latter as a “VFR segment”. It’s more akin to a visual approach or a visual departure… means: it’s an IFR procedure, where certain requirements of the IFR rulset are temporarily lifted (terrain clearance) at the condition that the pilot maintains visual terrain clearance.
Indeed, which takes us back to the Q of why e.g. Innsbruck was unable to offer this option, since they would not have needed to suggest (or even remotely infer) IFR cancellation.
They could have just said “you can fly that track but only if you maintain VMC” and actually IIRC the lady ATCO said exactly that a bit later on (“Padova will accept you on that track if you maintain VMC” or some such).
…but she needed to coordinate previously with Padova ATCC! She can’t just decide this. It’s still the Padova controller’s discretion to accept you with that restriction, at that level. If for some reason he doesn’t, then – unless you declare an emergency – you have to do what the controller says. It’s like any other clearance: it can’t be taken for granted.
It presumably was after she did that that she said "Padova will accept you on that track if you maintain VMC”.
