At the risk of going of on a tangent again was anyone on the forum aware of the following change which according to EASA SERA.8015 will come into effect.
(6) When vectoring or assigning a direct routing not included in the flight plan, which takes an IFR flight off published ATS route or instrument procedure, an air traffic controller providing ATS surveillance service shall issue clearances such that the prescribed obstacle clearance exists at all times until the aircraft reaches the point where the pilot re-joins the flight plan route or joins a published ATS route or instrument procedure.
(applicable from 27 January 2022).
Here is the link to the reg, too bad the UK is no longer part of SERA as a regulation and will diverge further as it would have cut short to all the UK ATC nonsense in particular in the London Area which we have discussed so much here on this forum.
here is the link to the reg https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/easy-access-rules/online-publications/easy-access-rules-standardised-european?page=15
@LFHNflightstudent new thread created.
It has always been the case that ATC is responsible for obstacle clearance while vectoring, so I wonder if the above test merely means that this rule applies also when assigning a DCT (I thought ATC were supposed to check obstacle clearance on a DCT too, even if not formally responsible for it), rather than being a requirement to issue a continuous clearance (which is where the UK fails).
Peter wrote:
It has always been the case that ATC is responsible for obstacle clearance while vectoring, so I wonder if the above test merely means that this rule applies also when assigning a DCT (I thought ATC were supposed to check obstacle clearance on a DCT too, even if not formally responsible for it), rather than being a requirement to issue a continuous clearance (which is where the UK fails).
It’s the part where they now have to get you either back on your FILED route (which was on your FLP) or vector you onto an approach or onto an airway that changes I think.
Interesting, I think it alleviate some ATC/PIC confusions for being on DCT ! (in vectoring, ATC owns the ground)
LFHNflightstudent wrote:
an air traffic controller providing ATS surveillance service shall issue clearances such that the prescribed obstacle clearance exists at all times until the aircraft reaches the point where the pilot re-joins the flight plan route or joins a published ATS route or instrument procedure
It does not say ATC are responsible for terrain separation on DCT, so I assume it still PIC responsibility?
This means that there will be less and less “cleared direct XXX” for 100nm, how the heck ATC, can give you “cleared direct to destination” now, they have to bring you back to the filed route?
I tried once collating & merging vectoring charts for various ATC sectors, what seems min radar altitude at Beauvais is not good for Rouen as radars sits in different places, so I wonder how ATC do sort this out for headings or directs between ATC sectors?
Ibra wrote:
It does not say ATC are responsible for terrain separation, so I assume it still PIC responsibility?
That’s exactly what it does say!
This part, although not new, is interesting, and relates to a recurring discussion here on EuroGA:
SERA.8015(f)(6) When an aircraft intends to leave a control area for flight outside controlled airspace, and will subsequently re-enter the same or another control area, a clearance from the point of departure to the aerodrome of first intended landing may be issued. Such clearance or revisions thereto shall apply only to those portions of the flight conducted within controlled airspace.
That’s exactly what it does say!
Good to know, any idea what tools will be used by ATC to check MOC on en-route directs? min radar vectoring charts seems very refined for en-route navigation (e.g. 1nm circles around tall obstacles will not work for a direct on RNAV5) and min sector altitudes seems very coarse for directs (nm×nm grid)
Ibra wrote:
This means that there will be less and less “cleared direct XXX” for 100nm, how the heck ATC, can give you “cleared direct to destination” now, they have to bring you back to the filed route?
Is your destination not on your filed route?
Is your destination not on your filed route?
Don’t remember where we going 
I meant they have to re-assign you back to flight level from your filed route? or they have to figure out an MSA for your “cleared direct to destination” ?
I just had the impression some “vector ATC” rarely look at FPL or go beyond their sector when issuing directs (especially when going CAS/OCAS), London TMA ATC comes to mind but they rarely clear to destination, Paris TMA ATC usually asks for level you want before DCT DST…
(Maybe not in UKSERA), how this will work on the famous “dump at Detling”, cleared to leave controlled airspace by descent direct DET? 2400ft MSA and 2500ft CAS
Ibra wrote:
Good to know, any idea what tools will be used by ATC to check MOC on en-route directs? min radar vectoring charts seems very refined for en-route navigation (e.g. 1nm circles around tall obstacles will not work for a direct on RNAV5) and min sector altitudes seems very coarse for directs (nm×nm grid)
In Sweden they use the MVA.
