To clarify, why a Z FP, as far as I know it wasn’t possible to fly out of Le Touquet cleared IFR. We had to depart VFR and then pick up the clestance from Lille, which was provided to a number of waxpoints into UK airpace. Clearance was for FL 80 so definitely IFR. I can’t remember which ATC centre in UK terminated radar service but they did not authorize continuation on that FL.
It was like, IFR finishes here, continue VFR and stay out (in this case below) our airspace.
I still don’t understand how it is possible to file a FP for IFR arrival at an airport, get cleared on one side and being unilaterally terminated on the other side. First time I had this rather rude experience. This does not contribute to airspace safety, leaving a flight on its own in potentially IMC.
why a Z FP, as far as I know it wasn’t possible to fly out of Le Touquet cleared IFR. We had to depart VFR and then pick up the clestance from Lille, which was provided to a number of waxpoints into UK airpace.
A Z FP is VFR to IFR so that sounds correct.
Clearance was for FL 80 so definitely IFR
In France, that could be VFR. In UK airspace in the relevant area, base of Class A is FL075 so if Lille cleared you there IFR they must have coordinated that with LTCC.
I still don’t understand how it is possible to file a FP for IFR arrival at an airport, get cleared on one side and being unilaterally terminated on the other side.
The “cleared to destination” is an old phrase used for airlines and other traffic which flies wholly in CAS. Nowadays, GA context, it has no real meaning. It is just a ritual.
First time I had this rather rude experience. This does not contribute to airspace safety, leaving a flight on its own in potentially IMC.
Certainly.
Where were you going in the UK? IIRC, the LTMA has some FL090/100 crossing routes. But if you are going to one of the coastal airports, London Control (LTCC) will just drop you.
I had an interesting one today which I will write up when I get a moment. London Control specifically told me that once “cleared to leave CAS by descent” you can re-enter it during the descent if you fly into one of the stepdowns (e.g. FL075 and then 5500ft). One guy got MORd and possibly busted by the CAA for this, in the MOR reports I “get”; I posted this a while ago. I got the exchange recorded to mp3. This discussion has been squashed on the UK sites (they are dominated by NATS/CAA people in disguise) so LTCC must be reading EuroGA 
Peter wrote:
The “cleared to destination” is an old phrase used for airlines and other traffic which flies wholly in CAS. Nowadays, GA context, it has no real meaning. It is just a ritual.
Now you’ve just given up… I’m sorry but this is BS, it’s valid phraseology and the meaning has not changed. We cannot give in and need to continue fighting for real IFR, not this surrogate watered down version London ATC is illegally trying to impose on us pilots.
To clarify, why a Z FP, as far as I know it wasn’t possible to fly out of Le Touquet cleared IFR
Thanks for the details, why not possible to depart IFR out of LFAT, no one in the tower?
When LeTouquet Tower are not around and CTR is declassified to Golf, I still file I-FPL and depart uncontrolled IFR from LeTouquet at EBOT and call Lille West in the air to clear me to Echo and give IFR clearance
The cleanest way to do it is to file I-FPL and call them on the phone 3min before startup to get “initial clearance”, usually they give something along “climb XX, transponder/frequency, remain VMC” and get you proper IFR clearance once in the air
My feeling French TMA ATC, do like UK TMA ATC to handle uncontrolled IFR, especially departures, just replace “cleared IFR into IMC remain OCAS” with “cleared IFR into CAS remain VMC”, you have to do so until radar & radio contact are established and your transponder & altimeter & flight plan are verified (and some separation bubble is built around you), the only difference is no one polices your IMC flying while CAS flying is well guarded…
To remove doubts (as this may not be obvious in places where OCAS IFR is not possible or less understood), these initial phone clearances are “pure IFR departures on I-FPL”, I am bloody sure they are not “remain VFR” or some Z-FPL departure junk, they are “remain VMC” and “remain OCAS” while flying under IFR: in Paris, I launch into low Class A TMA straight after takeoff while staying outside clouds (not possible to get into Alpha TMA under VFR) , while in London, I launch into low clouds straight after takeoff while staying outside airspace (not possible to get into clouds under VFR)
The same stuff happens when you leave TMA to land somewhere under uncontrolled IFR, similar mechanics, better do it on I-FPL not Y-FPL as it comes handy for IFR diversion to alternate 
you don’t cancel in UK & France but you get to “freecall en-route” with no lower than 500ft DH for straight-in or visual overhead and circling never bellow 500ft and maybe see you on the other side for flying a missed or uncontrolled departure…
gildnn wrote:
t was like, IFR finishes here, continue VFR and stay out (in this case below) our airspace.
I still don’t understand how it is possible to file a FP for IFR arrival at an airport, get cleared on one side and being unilaterally terminated on the other side.
The question is where you unexpectedly left controlled airspace. If the route you filed was in CAS at that point them not clearing you to the filed level (CAS) level and then dumping you as soon as you left CAS is atrocious, and certainly MOR territory.
As I wrote above – if you file a route leaving or ask for a clearance to leave CAS, all this is is a different phraseology.
If you do not get a re-join clearance on your filed route is poor form at best. I would certainly file an MOR if I did not get an IFR clearance into CAS on the filed route with an IFPS validated flight plan, although I would expect having to negotiate it.
Now you’ve just given up
No; I do think this system is crap.
And I think that if you busted after getting “cleared to [destination]” (just like I got today from Pula, “cleared to egka”) and you had a good lawyer and a 5 digit budget for him you would get off. The system is rigged to make sure this doesn’t get tested. How much do you want to contribute?
I have not “given up”. Why do I spend so much time banging on about stuff like this? BTW, EGHE also give you “cleared to egka”.
Post this in any UK “forum” (they are dominated by NATS/CAA staff) and you will get beaten up – because they just cannot see what is wrong with it. They say (paraphrasing) “you left CAS, so your clearance is gone, and once gone, it is reasonable that it is gone for ever”. But they also all work for an institution in which the potted plants have been on a course on how to remain “on message” at all times, and in which every argument is circular, every argument is in terms which they have set. I have limited appetite for banging on this door; I was banned from both UK sites (once for starting EuroGA and once for pushing the CAA busts topic). I did a bit on FB, got beaten up there by a load of NATS ATCOs (“any criticism of the UK system is ATCO bashing”) and since I am there mostly to promote EuroGA I don’t want to waste my time.
GA exists in a void between (a) the airlines, and (b) having nothing. In the UK, GA fights hard for minimal CAS, for paying zero route charges, and with privatised ATC, this is the result.
The different GA “organisations” mostly hate each other. And the VFR ones all hate anybody pushing IFR (“IFR is elitist” – why do you think all flying mags have old taildraggers on the front covers? Old planes are “non divisive”).
CAA/ATC don’t have to do anything to screw GA. They can just sit and watch them screwing each other
If you do not get a re-join clearance on your filed route is poor form at best. I would certainly file an MOR if I did not get an IFR clearance into CAS on the filed route with an IFPS validated flight plan, although I would expect having to negotiate it.
I agree, but [the CAA man who threatened legal action if his name is mentioned] will still bust you, MOR or no MOR Having 5 digits to spend on a lawyer won’t help because the CAA man will suspend your license immediately, and you won’t be flying until after the court case comes up, 6-12 months later (the CAA will make sure it doesn’t happen too quickly). I do the FCS1521 on each such occassion; I doubt anybody reads them.
Peter wrote:
The “cleared to destination” is an old phrase used for airlines and other traffic which flies wholly in CAS. Nowadays, GA context, it has no real meaning. It is just a ritual.
Really? If it has no meaning for GA then surely if would have long been removed from the clearance, if only to save precious airtime. My understanding was always that the primary purpose is to provide a clearance limit in case of comms failure. Standard lost comms procedure is to proceed to the last clearance limit, wait until ETA arrives, and then continue as filed including an IAP at the end. I’m sure someone will now correct me, but that is what I was taught….. but then that was when there wasn’t 100% radar coverage and it was still common in some areas to make position reports (remember the old solid/empty reporting point triangles on the airways?). IFR magazine had an article on this here recently.
During this entire UK CAS/OCAS discussion, I’ve wondered what one would be charged with, if anything, if one just ignored the last clearance down out of CAS and instead changed to 7600 squawk and proceeded per FPL to destination. Of course there would be questions about the nature of the “comms failure”, but it would sure make a point!! Seriously, what should one do in the UK if one had real radio failure at TOD?
If it has no meaning for GA then surely if would have long been removed from the clearance
The UK did actually remove it at one point. I read it in some CAA publication. The justification for removing it was exactly this. They didn’t want pilots to think they had a clearance! But it seems to be there now, and I wish I had the publication where I saw it. I vaguely recall it was in a news magazine I read at the CAA HQ at Gatwick, and that would have been 2011.
During this entire UK CAS/OCAS discussion, I’ve wondered what one would be charged with, if anything, if one just ignored the last clearance down out of CAS and instead changed to 7600 squawk and proceeded per FPL to destination. Of course there would be questions about the nature of the “comms failure”, but it would sure make a point!!
As I said above, probably you would win, but at a considerable cost because once the MOR process gets moving, nobody in the system will give a s**t about the rights or wrongs of it.
It isn’t difficult to work out which bits of the UK ATS system would never be prosecuted if at all possible. And I am sure it is same in other countries e.g. the German one where cloud never exists below the MVA.
Seriously, what should one do in the UK if one had real radio failure at TOD?
Legally, you are entitled to the ICAO lost comms procedure. But NATS has bent this around. OCAS, they want you to land somewhere where you won’t bother anybody important. See here.
It’s understood that 7600 does not give you right to airspace or priority in UK, only 7700 does, at least those were the words from a senior en-route ATC but he was doing a talk for glider pilots
Be careful asking about lost comms while flying IFR CAS/OCAS in UK, I pointed this in another forum and some people got very sensitive (or for some reason think they are way smarter, well one turned up to be clueless on the topic**)
If push come to shove, I have an answer for my own consumption in UK: resume filed route, descend to IFR to route MSA on 7700 while staying away from departure & arrival paths (2deg glide paths & 30nm from airports), once there one can fly safely as they wish without ATC clearance or assistance, if you hit CAS so be it, if it’s IMC you fly to destination, if it’s VMC with airfield in sight you land, obviously, with handheld radios available it’s less plausible to claim you lost comms but “IFR flying at MSA you are entitled to sit there on 7700” for zillions of reasons (e.g. loss of power, airframe icing…you name it), you don’t and should not need ATC clearance to fly the MSA of your field route even if that sits in airspace as long as you stay are away from departure/arrival paths, that level is never occupied and if you hit anyone else both of you deserves it so nothing bad will have and mostly about dealing with paperwork later, which I am sure you will win on this case…it’s part of planning to look at how to fly FPL route away from it’s filed level down to MSA and en-route choices to discontinue IFR flight
**I was disappointed that one guy who moderated my post, claims to be UK IRI turn up to have sub-standard knowledge on one-to-one PM exchange: lack of understanding of aerodromes minima, alternate criteria, uncontrolled IFR even mentioned things like “IMCr bad weather circuit” on IFR departure, how the heck a German IR holder would know about these fancy tricks ? besides he was not aware it’s illegal & unsafe to circle bellow circling or circuit height under IFR in all countries (except UK where it’s allowed on straight-in final minima before climb to circling minima or during the IMC bad weather circuit)
I wonder if that was on FB?
