PS it is very easy to talk to solent controllers and it might be an interesting ‘phone call. To be fair, I have always found them very helpful. Has it changed (maybe) but a call to the Sth’ampton duty watch and they will patch you through.
Ibra wrote:
It is more grey than SERA.8005
Why? when it is crystal clear in SERA? It obviously isn’t the pilot’s job to control his own flight. IMO there are lots of overthinking in this thread.
I must say that I wasn’t aware that it’s still possible to get an IFR clearance F065. I wonder if there was a confusion between ATC and pilot as to whether the flight was IFR or VFR.
Incidentally, it might be a technicality, but the call for a clearance through CAS is filing a (n abbreviated) flight plan, so you are flying according to a flight plan.
There was no confusion, and anyway it was in Class A.
Still confusing. At FL65, you were not in Solent CTA at all, but in Portsmouth CTA. So you weren’t in any airspace controlled by Solent Radar, but in an airspace controlled by London Control. So, the clearance you received from Solent was not issued by them, but actually relayed, and issued by London Control. Hence, I would guess that your clearance was actually valid past the point where you would have entered the London TMA.
Some low corridors in LTMA are managed by zone ATC under some letter of agreement
especially when no explicit clearance limit is stated… I didn’t find a corresponding “adjacent airspace” wording in MATS Pt 1. Maybe it is there somewhere
When I request transit/clearance I include my destination (e.g. VRP) and if I am cleared to that VRP I may also get an altitude or lateral restriction (e.g. ‘ direct to’ or headings). I take these as my limits.
Once cleared, it is not my business to care whether an adjoining piece of airspace (and that’s assuming one exists) belongs to Bournemouth today, Southampton tomorrow, London next month, band boxed or sector split on any number of frequencies the following week or that evening.
A VFR chart marks the initial call frequency – not necessarily the frequency one always stays on when in the area, as one could be passed to another frequency.
Unfortunately unlike FAA 7110.65, MATS Part 1 doesn’t provide enough detail on ATC procedures which I presume is present in MATS Part 2 which is not published publicly.
So we can look at SERA and other European legislation to infer some of these things which I would expect to be inline with international/ICAO standards.
Peter wrote:
There was no confusion, and anyway it was in Class A.
SERA:
IFR flights use whole 1000’s of feet (e.g. 1000, 3000 etc. when flying eastbound, and 2000, 4000 etc. when flying westbound)
VFR flights use the intermediate 500 ft. levels (e.g. 3500, 5500 etc. when flying eastbound and 4500, 6500 when flying westbound)
I have never heard of a clearance to fly at an intermediate level in Class A in 4000 hours under IFR, pre or post SERA. Is it a common thing?
Timothy wrote:
SERA
SERA also says “the correlation of levels to track […] shall not apply whenever otherwise indicated in air traffic control clearances…”.
It is common to request and be granted clearance for a level in the “wrong direction”. Flying IFR at a VFR level is no different except that it blocks two “regular” IFR levels when flying at a even 1000’s of feet only blocks one.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It is common to request and be granted clearance for a level in the “wrong direction”. Flying IFR at a VFR level is no different
Really though? I’d’ve thought that it’s significantly different as it is contrary to SERA. I wonder what ATCO decided that it was OK to give Peter that clearance? Has anyone else ever had such a clearance?
I am not doubting it happened, I’m just amazed that it did.
