Cobalt wrote:
Sorry, but it would be EXTREMELY easy to provide IFR-IFR separation procedurally, for example by only clearing one aircraft at the time in a given ATC sector.
Sorry, but that is not the discussion here. The discussion is how to provide separation between IFR in controlled airspace and other IFR traffic that is (completely legally) flying without any clearance OCAS. So not about more than one in one ATC sector but one within the ATC sector ans one outside of any ATC sectors.gallois wrote:
How is it possible for a pilot to maintain separation OCAS if they don’t know the exact position and altitude of other aircraft?
That is exactly my point! It is not. But neither is it for ATC. If we believe it’s unfair to hold pilots responsible for something they can’t control it is equally unfair to hold ATC responsible for the same thing!
And that’s exactly the root cause of German ATC saying "The only way to live up to our responsibility is to not allow any IFR traffic in the “critical strip”".
Malibuflyer wrote:
The discussion is how to provide separation between IFR in controlled airspace and other IFR traffic that is (completely legally) flying without any clearance OCAS
There is no requirement whatsoever to provide that separation. The requirement is to separate IFR flights from IFR flights in class E or higher, not from traffic in adjacent class G airspace. Of course in a radar environment, ATC will never knowingly direct traffic to fly in conflict with known/seen traffic and provide traffic information where possible.
The whole argument is very obviously made up to defend continuing the previous practice by DFS.
Case in point: this was also done before IFR in Class G became legal in Germany. There was no IFR clearance below MRVA, even at a time when there was no (legal) IFR traffic in class G to separate from. To alleviate this, there were lower VFR minima in that layer before / after IFR flight, but these went some time ago.
Cobalt wrote:
The requirement is to separate IFR flights from IFR flights in class E or higher, not from traffic in adjacent class G airspace.
Where do you find that? My version of both ICAO as well as EASA docs says that IFR traffic is to be separated from other IFR traffic – not “from other IFR-traffic in the same airspace”.
Where can I find any references to the “fact” that this separation is only needed to other flights within the same airspaces?
And if that is true, does that also apply to cloud clearance (so that within class Echo I only need to keep a 100ft vertical distance to clouds within the same airspace and can fly closer to clouds which are in the adjacent charlie)?
I did NOT write in the same airspace, but “in Class E or higher”. ATC provide separation in their own airspace according to their rules (SERA.8005) and if they put somebody closer to the boundary of a neighbouring ATC unit, they coordinate with them (SERA.8010 (b)).
But we can go around the house and interpret what the text of SERA means (“provide separation between IFR flights in airspace Classes C, D and E” literally means that both flights need to be in either of the three classes, but no other, but that is not quite the intent)
Of course, those who resist change try to use everything they can to justify their feet dragging, and unfortunately, there is no recourse against regulatory overreach.
At least the German practice does not decrease safety. This rule has been routinely broken for decades (the permanent ‘VMC layer’ at the bottom of what then was called TMA sector A, B or C was already a running joke 30 years ago. BTW – at that time, Germany had lower VFR minima for this transition, gone since then). While there are plenty of accidents with illegal approaches in IMC, nobody comes to grief in a layer that by definition ends 1000ft AGL at the lowest.
With regard to post above (“cleared to leave controlled airspace by descent”) somebody has just been MORd for exactly that!!!!
Scandalous to MOR this, especially in light of his last 3 lines, which are exactly my experience as posted above. I hope he put a proper lawyer on this, should the CAA sentence him to gasco or worse. Even a warning letter is a black mark on his record, and the next one withing 2 years won’t be a warning letter (CAP1404).
Airborne_Again wrote:
and expect visual conditions above the MSA but below the MVA.
Old post but, aren’t MSAs always greater than or equal to MVAs? I thought an MSA would never be lower than a MVA, am I wrong?
Alpha_Floor wrote:
Old post but, aren’t MSAs always greater than or equal to MVAs? I thought an MSA would never be lower than a MVA, am I wrong?
MSA can actually mean one of two (related) things: Minimum Sector Altitude which is associated with an instrument approach procedure and Minimum Safe Altitude which is associated with particular route the aircraft is following. (At least in my interpretation) Both provide 1000 ft obstacle clearance within 8 km as required by SERA.
MVAs also provide 1000 ft obstacle clearance, but are not defined for points or segments but for areas. So within a particular MVA area it is quite possible that for some routes (route segments), the MSA will be lower than the MVA. The same is of course possible for the MSA of an IAP if the MVA is larger than the MSA sector.
Another thing is that MVAs are frequently determined not by obstacles but by radar coverage or by the lower limit of CAS. In that case it is more or less obvious that the MSA can be substantially lower than the MVA.
AFAIK, according to ICAO, MSA is not a „valid“ abbreviation for minimum safe altitude (as it is already used for minimum sector altitude), although many seem to use it.
boscomantico wrote:
AFAIK, according to ICAO, MSA is not a „valid“ abbreviation for minimum safe altitude (as it is already used for minimum sector altitude), although many seem to use it.
You’re right. The correct term is MOCA. (I thought that was a term only used by Jeppesen, but apparently not.)
This is an old thread but since I was confronted with that UK ATC problem recently I thought I could ask how fellow pilots would deal with it.
We had filed a Z flight plan from Le Touquet to Biggin Hiill. Right after departure we got the IFR clearance from Lille control. Since it was overcast in UK our plan was to stay IFR to destination and fly the ILS approach into Biggin Hill. Just after passing the UK coast line, to our consternation we were told by UK ATC that radar services were terminated and to stay below the control zones around London. We asked confirmation and basically were told they didn’t care what we did as long as we stayed below their radar. Fortunately we could spiral down through a hole to get below the overcast and continued VFR to Biggin Hill at 2700’.
I wonder what our options would have been in real IMC . A very unsatisfying and frustrating experience that I wouldn’t like to repeat.
So basically my question is, can the pilot refuse the unilateral (and rather rude imho) “radar services cancelled” in case of valid reasons e.g. IMC ?
