Qalupalik wrote:
To the extent that the scenario in post 41 involves cruising flight under the IFR outside CAS, precisely what the first post depicts, the general permission may apply subject to a condition in subparagraph (b). There is insufficient information to support the statement I quoted.
I don’t really follow that, but Peter was in Class A above SAM and the provision is about IFR outside CAS.
Timothy you surprise me.
Xtophe wrote:
MATS Part 2
What is MATS Part 2 and why is it (and the LoAs) not public?
Sorry for the UK-ism.
MATS is Manual of Air Traffic Services. It is split in 2 parts. Part 1 is written by the CAA (CAP 493) and has all the generic things.
Part 2 is written by the ANSP and is approved by the CAA. It has the local procedures. It is considered to be commercially sensitive by the ANSP and the CAA agrees and so it is not published.
LoA don’t have to be secret (see the ones done by the BGA or gliding clubs by example) but I would guess that the ones between 2 ATS units could be considered as an agreement/contract between 2 business and so do not have to be publish. I would guess most LoA are not published wildly just because there is no requirement or process or good place for them rather than them being considered sensitive
Qalupalik wrote:
Timothy you surprise me.
Always like to keep people on their toes 
I am a bit late to this conversation. In the event of an ad-hoc transit which seems to be Peter’s issue, I would have expected the inital clearance to be ‘into’ the airspace you wish to transit (with no clearance onwards to the next bit of controlled airspace), but then very quickly an inquiry as to your intentions. ATC has no idea if you wish to leave their bit of airspace into an uncontrolled region (ATC doesn’t have to do anything), or into a adjacent controlled region (they might have to work with the next sector). In Peter’s original post he said that he requested routing via SAM. It is not clear from the post if he told ATC of the next point after SAM, which would have allowed ATC to ascertain that he was going to go through the offending section of airspace.
So for Peter’s case, I think that if he did not tell ATC his anticipated route and controller didn’t ask, it would have been a ‘bust’, because there was no onward coordination. However, Peter could have pre-empted that by saying ‘exactly’ what he wanted early in the exchange. Alternatively, the controller could have asked. Practically speaking, if I am getting near the new zone and haven’t had a handover, then I might ‘remind’ ATC asking for a frequency change; in the Canada this would most likely prompt ATC to pass your details to the next sector, but in the UK this might result in you being on your own (e.g. freecall). Instead, Peter told the controller he was going to descend.
I think this is always going to be a bit difficult and as a result I try not to fly ad-hoc in crazy airspace. It is a bit crap, but in the UK, it means I end up flying at a lower altitude to go under as much as possible…
In Peter’s original post he said that he requested routing via SAM. It is not clear from the post if he told ATC of the next point after SAM, which would have allowed ATC to ascertain that he was going to go through the offending section of airspace.
They knew I was going to Shoreham, so they would have known my routing would be something like the pic in the OP.
Instead, Peter told the controller he was going to descend.
Yes; because I am mega aware of this issue now. I fly watching the GPS very regularly. 1 more bust within next 2 years and my license is going up in smoke 
However, Solent (SAM) are also very aware. This is obvious circumstantially, from flying nearby, and from one incident whose details I won’t post (a different pilot).
To be clear, I probably would have done the same (descend), or alternatively if ATC was slow to get the clearance arranged, I would have been prepared to orbit before the boundary of the next zone. It is just an ugly ‘gotcha’ if you are unprepared.
It would be much nicer if they weren’t so ‘tight’ about the busts and everyone just got on with their lives, e.g. of course you were expected to go to Shoreham.
What is missing is the big picture. It is no problem if something minor like this occurs for an unimportant corner of airspace (does anyone care if a tree falls in the forest?). However it is a big deal if people cut right across and approach/departure path.
Are you allowed to take up orbits in CAS without getting a clearance for that?
This is really tricky.
Clearly it is important that while in CAS you don’t do anything which ATC are not expecting. They are separating you from other traffic.
But then what happens when you enter the next piece of CAS? There could be traffic there too. I would expect that the controller for Solent will see that traffic on his radar so if there is an issue he will for sure do something (because you are still on his frequency) but I don’t think one can rely on that, and if technically it is a bust then you will get busted for that.
Very very difficult…
Years ago I would not have thought about this at all but I think that in the new UK regime a pilot needs to have eyes on the back of his head and be aware of these possibilities.
As suggested, maybe a call to Solent will settle this particular one, but not generally elsewhere.
