circling somebody’s house at very low level, and I would not call that anything resembling “enroute” flight.
Isn’t that because you are applying what “enroute” means to yourself? To me, “enroute” is everything except take-off, climb-out, approach, landing. If the purpose of the flight is to take photographs of aunt Bess’ garden, then circling that garden is (part of) enroute flying.
Only a squibble of words, though, first and above said photography remains a silly thing to do then and there. As, alas, was illustrated.
I think Peter meant no mid airs in IMC OCAS
as in the UK like Dundee or Inverness up here
AIUI, no matter how you mix and shake the wording, under ICAO you need
I don’t think anything has ever prevented a non-towered (unmanned) runway having an IAP, even in the UK. What you need is an approach controller. And this is true even for unpublished (private) approaches (I believe some Scottish airports have these now, reportedly designed by that Slovak firm mentioned here already). I think in Scotland they use a Scottish Control ATC desk (somewhere) to utter the magic words. There is no requirement for the aircraft to be within say 5nm, 50nm or 100nm of the runway, when the magic words are spoken. But they have to be spoken, and be spoken by an ATCO, and he could be on the far side of the moon…
Germany may now enable IFR to Class G airports but somebody will have to supply the approach controller. In the UK this is financially impossible (in most cases) because of cost recovery from the benefitting airport (which will prevent GPS approaches becoming widespread in the UK, for ever IMHO) but presumably Germany will supply them State-funded?
I think Peter meant no mid airs in IMC OCAS
I did mean OCAS in any conditions. The UK has had no IMC mid-airs at all, since WW2, as far as anybody can tell. Airproxes, sure, loads, but in IMC the only people who will know are those with active TCAS systems, which is hardly anybody. Probably more these days, with many/most SR22s having them.
I would not say that circling a house at 600ft AGL is “enroute flight”, especially if you are doing it in an area known for low level military flying. But I agree we can disagree on that one 
My views on the effectiveness of looking out are well known 
In the south east UK, if you fly between 1000ft and 1500ft AGL, on a nice day, it is like standing in front of a dart board in a darts competition in a pub, with everybody pissed. And you spot maybe only 10% of the others.
Doing it at 600ft AGL means you will be getting a lot of microlighters also. It’s going to be busy… You will also get a load of people phoning up the local paper with your aircraft reg, saying you nearly clipped their chimney and were flying at 30ft AGL.
I imagine the main benefit for Germany would the establishment of IAPs at airfields in Class G….as in the UK like Dundee or Inverness up here
Germany has been doing that for quite some time, only the airspace was called F instead of G with higher VMC requirements. Now F becomes RMZ with the standard G VMC requirements. Like what next said, the weather can be worse when meeting VFR traffic there compared to today but at least the VFR traffic will be required to announce itself on the radio.
The UK should have an RMZ around every Class G airfield which has an IAP
2000ft over populated areas
Sorry I was not entirely correct, the law actually says:
- 2000ft AGL when enroute unless not possible due to airspace or weather
- 1000ft above the highest obstacle within 600m when over populated areas
- 500ft AGL otherwise
There is nothing in the law that would let you go below 1000ft above the highest obstacle within 600m over populated areas, except an emergency of course. Flying 500ft AGL over a town is prohibited by law in Germany.
Yes sure, but I thought that previously, we were talking about IFR minimum altitudes…
Germany may now enable IFR to Class G airports but somebody will have to supply the approach controller.
Why…? It is one thing that the UK requires an approach controller but why should Germany need to do so? Sweden has had IAPs in uncontrolled airspace for at least since I got my license (30 years ago) and there is no need for an approach clearance, much less an approach controller.
(Sweden does have the requirement that an uncontrolled airport has to have an AFISO on duty if you are going to carry out an instrument approach, but that’s a different matter.)
AIUI, no matter how you mix and shake the wording, under ICAO you need
the pilot must be cleared to fly the approach
the clearance must come from an ATCO
the ATCO needs to be employed IAW the regulations for ATC working hours etc
No, you’re mixing in UK rules. Neither ICAO nor SERA have any such requirements.
Germany may now enable IFR to Class G airports but somebody will have to supply the approach controller.
As previously mentioned, Germany has had IFR approaches/departures in uncontrolled airspace for quite some time using airspace F. The aerodrome only needs AFIS, usually with some extra training how to communicate with ATC. Communication happens via telephone. AFIS does not issue clearances and ATC tells you “leaving controlled airspace, radar service terminated, contact Schwäbisch Hall Info at xxxx”. These approaches can go down to DA 200ft (ILS/LPV in Schwäbisch Hall is one example).
DFS could do the very same for all other airfields “radar service terminated, you’re on your own, don’t get yourself killed, have a nice day” but they don’t want to.
