I did the above trip again, same way, FL080 out and FL090 back.
Same result.
Hilariously, EGHE gives a departure clearance including “cleared to EGKA, FL100” (FL originally filed for 100 but reduced by Culdrose to 090 due to lots of Scilly commercial traffic at FL100). I thought the UK system banned that form of words because it creates an expectation which is impossible to fulfil; the reality is that you have no clearance whatsoever.
EGHE had my FP, as expected.
Nobody else enroute had it, suggesting LTCC didn’t distribute it.
I got a slightly different thing at Bournemouth. This time they didn’t call up London Control; they told me the correct procedure is for them to call Solent and Solent sorts it out with LC. This is a gotcha because often Solent comes back with a NO and then you are buggered, even though you are at say FL090 and they own the air only up to FL070. I got the clearance to both Exeter and Solent airspace with @15nm to run, which is tight at 172kt GS. I had my fingers on the heading bug, ready to do a 180 and optionally a plummet.
London Control were great as usual. Machine gun radio and kept me at FL090 most of the way to EGKA, with me needing several funny turns to lose height 
The obvious Q is: what if you were a TBM, PC12, or a bizjet? OK; you would likely to have filed for FL200+ which is Class C. But what if you didn’t? And what if you were a foreign pilot? Either this never happens, or there is a special rule in the system for these types. I once flew RHS on a CJ4 positioning flight Doncaster-Shoreham and it was at FL190 and with a great service with LC all the way.
The bottom line is that this experiment has worked twice so far but I had to work on the transits. The Eurocontrol FP gets binned even before one departs (as far as enroute goes) so maybe the “fait accompli” aspect of starting at a decent height facilitates the transits. For sure they are most certainly not assured if you are at say FL060.
Anyway, this higher altitude is the best way to do this trip, assuming you have an IR so can cross Class A. It keeps you above the typical cloud layer and makes it far nicer for passengers, especially on warm days when flying below the cloud (today’s base was 3k and tops at 4.5k) is usually rough.
The funny thing is that I posted about this on an obscure forum run by Eurocontrol (had some familiar old names on it though ) and nobody was able to find a reference to anything in SERA etc allowing the UK to silently and permanently terminate a clearance upon leaving CAS. Actually nobody from Eurocontrol commented, which is unsurprising given the politics.
Elsewhere on some UK GA chat sites I got the predictable hammering by UK NATS / CAA / ATC staff, all saying this procedure is “well known” and therefore correct. QED. Well, it is well known to old timers in the UK IFR system, but it would totally shaft a foreign pilot.
I can only conclude that the CAA does not bust foreigners in these scenarios, and possibly also does not bust UK residents either although obviously nobody is going to test that out because a proper Class A bust would likely remove your license on the first time.
Despite the question mark hanging over doing this trip at a “high” level (and the possibility of being forced down, possibly into icing conditions if in the winter, at very short notice) it is still worth doing it this way. This
is a lot better than this
especially for passengers.
BTW, on the return flight, Culdrose told me D011 is cold
but a later check with Exeter reported it as hot – as per the notam for the day – so it was as well I double checked. The top half (parts A and B) could be overflown at 090 (as the above track shows) but the bottom half (part C) was hot up to 100. Again, this would have trapped a pilot expecting to get a normal service on an IFR flight plan, on which it is normal to not get enroute notams. This was another point made by the NATS / CAA / ATC posters who said that everybody must get enroute notams. This is obviously bollocks because on most routes one doesn’t fly the filed route for various reasons, and it is ATC’s job to check for conflicts with e.g. military activity. Makes one wonder why there are so many clueless people who work in “the system” who hang out on social media. I guess I have never met anyone in “the system” (in the UK) who has an IR, let alone anyone who has an IR and uses it, and only a tiny number hold a PPL.
Just to add my own experience, I recall doing a flight from Inverness to somewhere down south a number of years ago at FL90/100, a flight planned and notified CAT A medical flight under a commercial AOC. The story was no different, I can’t remember the exact details but I know we dropped out of controlled airspace somewhere south of Glasgow (perhaps near DCS), we were transferred to Warton who asked us to pass details, and then when we asked them if we were cleared to re-enter controlled airspace somewhere closer to Blackpool, we were told to remain outside and (from memory) told to contact London Info to arrange a clearance. So in this case, being commercial traffic and on a CAT A flight no less, things were no better.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Yes and no. The relevant parts of PANS-ATM:4.5.2.1 When a flight plan specifies that the initial portion of a flight will be uncontrolled, and that the subsequent portion of the flight will be subject to ATC, the aircraft shall be advised to obtain its clearance from the ATC unit in whose area controlled flight will be commenced.
4.5.2.2 When a flight plan specifies that the first portion of a flight will be subject to ATC, and that the subsequent portion will be uncontrolled, the aircraft shall normally be cleared to the point at which the controlled flight terminates.
4.5.6.1.2 After the initial clearance has been issued to an aircraft at the point of departure, it will be the responsibility of the appropriate ATC unit to issue an amended clearance whenever necessary and to issue traffic information, if required.
4.5.7.1.1 A clearance limit shall be described by specifying the name of the appropriate significant point, or aerodrome, or controlled airspace boundary.
4.5.7.1.2 When prior coordination has been effected with units under whose control the aircraft will subsequently come, or if there is reasonable assurance that it can be effected a reasonable time prior to their assumption of control, the clearance limit shall be the destination aerodrome or, if not practicable, an appropriate intermediate point, and coordination shall be expedited so that a clearance to the destination aerodrome may be issued as soon as possible.
4.5.7.1.3 If an aircraft has been cleared to an intermediate point in adjacent controlled airspace, the appropriate ATC unit will then be responsible for issuing, as soon as practicable, an amended clearance to the destination aerodrome.
4.5.7.1.4 When the destination aerodrome is outside controlled airspace, the ATC unit responsible for the last controlled airspace through which an aircraft will pass shall issue the appropriate clearance for flight to the limit of that controlled airspace.
Note that there is never any mention of either IFR or VFR. In theory IFR/VFR and CAS/OCAS are independent.
But the whole “spirit” (for lack of a better word) of Controlled Airspace is to provide ATC service to IFR traffic. That’s in essence the whole reason why CAS was set up in the first place. To protect IFR traffic from the little evil pesky VFRs.
In Spain most clearances are IMPLICIT. If you are in radio contact with the responsible ATS unit, they know about your existence, you’ve comunicated your position/intentions, AND THEY DON’T COMPLAIN, that’s implicitly accepted as a “cleared to proceed as intended”. But don’t wait for an explicit “Cleared to entre controlled airspace on route to…”
The subtlety here is that the UK says it is correct to
The first may be technically correct, since the concept of a “clearance” disappears when OCAS.
The second is of course highly debatable. A pilot will say it is outrageous. A NATS employee posting on fb will say it is how it should be
This is all in the context of a Eurocontrol flight plan for the entire route, so there can be no doubt in the system about your intentions.
Peter wrote:
The first may be technically correct, since the concept of a “clearance” disappears when OCAS.
An IFR clearance is valid until the clearance limit, usually the destination airport, and nobody but the pilot can “dump” it. It doesn’t matter if it was issued in Scotland with destination Shoreham or Zimbabwe with the same destination.
This would be so much easier if the UK used Class E rather than G.
Which is what happens in Spain, coincidentally. IFR aircraft will usually remain within CAS; or at least “IFR CAS, i.e., Class E”, because unless you’re doing 1000 ft AGL it’s pretty much impossible to get onto Class G.
Alpha_Floor, VFR pilots will object – Class E minima is much higher than in Class G for 140kts or less traffic.
For me Class E + TMZ would be ideal…
arj1 wrote:
Alpha_Floor, VFR pilots will object – Class E minima is much higher than in Class G for 140kts or less traffic.
For me Class E + TMZ would be ideal…
In Spain, VFR above 1000fr agl is indeed Class E+TMZ, you actually get VFR trasponder code before departure which valid for the whole VFR FPL route
Actually, away from Madrid, ATC may even clear you by mistake on VFR transit route that will take you in/out VFR in Class A TMA !
You have two choices:
- You refuse it then you get change clearance & frequencies & altitude & heading for the next 30min
- You don’t check the route and shut your mouth, if they want something they will tell you
As Alpha_Floor said, in radio contact with the right & responsible ATS unit you are not going to GASCO…
