gallois wrote:
It also brings some other questions.
1/Are airways CAS?
Yes. From SERA definitions: ‘airway’ means a control area or portion thereof established in the form of a corridor;
2/ Are SIDs and Stars CAS even when they pass OCAS.?
3/ Are IAPs CAS even when the airfield is class G?
I’m not sure I understand your question. Airspace is either controlled or not. It can’t be both at the same time.
(There some situations where aircraft in the “vicinity” of a controlled airport are subject to control even if airspace is class G, but that’s only in a very small area and only used in a few countries.)
“If no ATC at the aerodromes, it’s Golf, you will be given QNH & IAF, what you do on SID & ILS is 100% your own business”
Do you have a reference for that?
Also isn’t the MAP part of the IAP?
It’s uncontrolled airspace & uncontrolled aerodrome: you can do what you wish, you don’t even need a radio bellow 3kft (CAS & RMZ will be off near AD), you are likely on “auto-info”, so it’s not even ATC/FIS service and most of the time just talking to yourself…
If no other traffic around and weather is brilliant, you can fly as you wish: approach, circle, cancel, visual, circuit, touch-and-go, missed, depart, sideslip, overhead join, base leg join, downwind join, opposite runway…it’s the zoo, once you climb again you ask to clearance to join Airway or Airspace 
Ibra is indeed correct in that at LFAT you are OCAS and can do what you want. However, French law is different to UK law in that in France on an IFR flight above 3000ft you must maintain 2 way communication with ATS.
This cannot possibly be the right thing.
Going to LFAT, IFR, you are controlled by Lille Radar. It may be OCAS but it is still wrong to stick a middle finger up and do what you like. Lille is trying to separate you from other traffic, including VFR traffic which is not talking to them (or anybody!).
It is just like going IFR into a UK Class G airport which has an IAP. A few (very few) such airports also have radar. You can legally fly through their general area (not the ATZ) if VFR, non radio, which is stupid but lots of pilots do it, but if you are IFR then you need to do as instructed.
This thread has become horribly confused, by some making broad statements, some posting stuff which gramatically (or even actually) makes no sense, and some picking on points which are at best peripherally related to the discussion. For example, I haven’t got a clue what this is relating to
In 10 years of instrument flying it never happened to me that I got cleared to an arifield as waypoint
Going to LFAT, IFR, you are controlled by Lille Radar
Yes above FL80-FL120 in that corner (and FL65 on Airways) at 5kft I really doubt it…
Where do you see the airspace? or radar coverage?
Lille ATC will say “guidage radar dans 5nm” or “radar control in 5nm” if you ask them to clarify 
I am not talking about “doing as instructed” we all do when giving these by ATC irrespective of airspace, I even turn left if AG or FIS tells me to do so the core question was about understanding what “cleared for approach” means, my answer, you can descend to published 2kft plate altitudes (there is no ATC control or separation in Golf, the main concern is mostly getting properly established on procedure, as per the plates, rather than avoiding traffic)
Ibra wrote:
If you hear “clear for the approach”, you can descend to 2kft direct IAF (e.g. TUKVI) or intercept LOC (if vectored after TUKVI)
You can get vectored between TUKVI and FAF as it’s in Echo airspace TMA up to 6500ft
In the US, you would have to either be assigned an altitude to maintain until established or not begin the descent until reaching one of the IAF. So if vectored or cleared direct to TUKVI, it would be very difficult, but descent could not commence until crossing TUKVI. If that were to happen in the US, the pilot would undoubtedly request a lower altitude.
Airborne_Again wrote:
What’s the MSA?
In the US, that would not matter as the MSA is not an operational altitude that may be used when cleared for the approach. This is a significant difference from the way MSA is used outside the US.
I guess in US, ATC own terrain & traffic separation all the time? (on vector? on direct?), Radar & Echo seems everywhere…I agree any ATC should be explicit your assigned altitude (or altitude steps), when you get an ATC clearance, it should follow the “ICAO Annex 11 template”
I found clearance like “cleared for ILS” to be confusing when one is off-airway, off-radar, outside published routes (and even more confusing outside controlled airspace)…I see no harm in taking responsibility of terrain clearance when no longer on vectors, you are simply cleared to join the published plate altitude & tracks?
How about?
- Cleared to intercept Localizer, report when established
- Cleared direct to TUKVI, maintain 6kft
ICAO Annex 11
3.7.1.1 An air traffic control clearance shall indicate:
a) aircraft identification as shown in the flight plan;
b) clearance limit;
c) route of flight;
d) level(s) of flight for the entire route or part thereof and changes of levels if required;
Note.— If the clearance for the levels covers only part of the route, it is important for the air traffic control unit to specify a point to which the part of the clearance regarding levels applies whenever necessary to ensure compliance with 3.6.5.2.2 a) of Annex 2.
e) any necessary instructions or information on other matters such as approach or departure manoeuvres, communications and the time of expiry of the clearance.
Note.— The time of expiry of the clearance indicates the time after which the clearance will be automatically cancelled if the flight has not been commenced.
Ibra is possibly legally correct when writing about LFAT, however I see the reality more along the lines Peter described. You arrive in the area of LFAT and you will need to be in 2 way comms with FIS above 3000ft. It is usual in France for the FIS to coordinate with AFIS to get all the information you need, such as traffic, weather runway in use and condition and QNH etc.
So in my mind I would be silly not to use the FIS.
My logic also says that if someone has designed and published an IAP for an uncontrolled airfield and I am flying IFR on an IFPL, I should follow the IAP as published, otherwise why publish it?
At LFAT even though OCAS, isn’t TUKVI an IAF on ATS permission only, and if you were cleared to TUKVI at 6000ft would you expect to make a straight in landing. To my mind it might be legally permitted(I don’t know) but in reality would you do it? IMO your passengers might end up suffering earache for the rest of the day and you would more than likely fail any CPL flight test.
Doesn’t the USA have this obstacle protected area out to 25nm or TAAs? At LFAT for instance you are expected to be at most of the IAFs at 2000ft as I mentioned before, so in the USA would you.be expected to go into the hold to descend. I know for instance on Corsica a flight from Ajaccio LFKJ to LFKS on the other side of the Island would mean doing nearly all the descent to IAF level, in the hold within the 25nm circle.
In the US, that would not matter as the MSA is not an operational altitude that may be used when cleared for the approach. This is a significant difference from the way MSA is used outside the US.
I don’t think MSA is treated differently in Europe. In “classical IFR” you don’t need to be terrain/obstacle-aware, and indeed 99% of pilots, both private and airline, have barely got a clue, which is how this Citation jet pilot (good friend of mine), and countless others, ended up in a rock. You just follow standard procedures and ATC instructions and you don’t hit anything.
ATC are trained to not get you into situations where you might kill yourself so e.g. if you were cleared for an approach 30 miles out, 6000ft, platform 2000ft, and there is a 4000ft hill in between, they will keep you at 6000ft until 14 miles (except in Spain, in the good old days, according to reports ) and only then either issue explicit descents (the most common method) or clear you for the approach.
GA pilots need to be more obstacle-aware than CAT pilots because they do more “ad hoc” stuff, often OCAS, plus IFR GA is far less numerous than CAT so ATC don’t get so much practice. A lot of stuff GA does is really hair-raising, like cancelling IFR 50 miles out over the Alps and the diving into some canyon, non-radio until 20 miles to landing. But then one should be flying in CAVOK…
The 25nm MSA circle on Jepp plates is there to protect you from screwups – yours or ATC.
