ATC referring to airway names (and airspace discussion)

Guillaume wrote:

When you plan a route with a DCT en-route like “A DCT B”, it’s the pilot responsability to check that the airspace between A and B is likely to be flyable.

Indeed, but if you have planned a route in controlled airspace with DCTs and you get a clearance for the flight planned route, then surely the responsibility must be with ATC?

lenthamen wrote:

though it crossed borders via a DCT, which is forbidden.

@lenthamen, that’s not correct, RUPIN is on the boundary between EB and EH, so there’s no DCT boundary crossing involved.

Indeed, if you get explicitly cleared direct A and then direct B in CAS, it means that ATC is ok for you to fly this [AB] segment in CAS and there is no non-flyable airspace between A and B (provided the whole [AB] segment is located in CAS).

And to be clear, a start-up approval is not a clearance.

Guillaume wrote:

Indeed, if you get explicitly cleared direct A and then direct B in CAS, it means that ATC is ok for you to fly this [AB] segment in CAS and there is no non-flyable airspace between A and B (provided the whole [AB] segment is located in CAS).

And to be clear, a start-up approval is not a clearance.

Of course, but if the filed route includes directs and you get “cleared to (destination) via flight planned route”, then it must be ok to fly all the direct segments even if it is in some sense not “explicit”.

I wouldn’t bother much trying to find airway on such request. I would simply ask for intersection where they want me to join airway. Or I would simply state that this was not part of my flight plan asking for two next consecutive points. In general, I rarely have had such situations, maybe few times in Italy and France – I got some points to fly to that were not part of my plan as a consequence weather or traffic avoiding.

Airborne_Again wrote:

but if the filed route includes directs and you get “cleared to (destination) via flight planned route”, then it must be ok to fly all the direct segments even if it is in some sense not “explicit”.

In France you shouldn’t get this message “cleared to… via flight planned route” but rather “start-up approved”.
I’m not sure how other countries handle that.
The “via flight planned route” just doesn’t make sense. The departure airport ATC is not responsible for the mistake in the planned route or if the destination airport closes during your flight.
As I said earlier, you can easily get FPL accepted by eurocontrol and with a route that fly through a P area with a DCT segment in CAS or OCAS.

In France, a start-up aproval just means that there is no obvious error in your FPL (eurocontrol accepted), and that if you have CTOT, you will be able to make it.
Then you get a clearance to join CAS or a SID if the airport is located in CAS. Your clearance ends at the last waypoint of the SID. After that, you will need a new clearance to continue your route in CAS.

When you are approaching the non-flyable direct segment in CAS, ATC will re-route you to keep you clear of the military areas.
Looks like this what happened to Peter.

Then, there is the case of radio failure in IMC, with a non-flyable direct segment in your FPL.
In theory, you should fly your FPL route but if it contains a DCT segment through a non-flyable airspace OCAS or in CAS, It’s a bit of a grey area.
Personally I would fly arround the non-flyable airspace. Flying through a P area because of poor flight planning is generally a bad idea.

To make it clear :

Any direct segment in the planning phase is responsibility of the pilot.
A direct segment in the flying phase OCAS is responsibility of the pilot.
A direct segment in the flying phase in CAS is responsibility of the ATC.

tomjnx wrote:

@lenthamen, that’s not correct, RUPIN is on the boundary between EB and EH, so there’s no DCT boundary crossing involved.

Tom, I got a call from the Dutch ANSP that I should not use Autorouter because it is filing illegal routes
I asked what the problem was and they said I should file over airways when crossing the Dutch border (airway N873 via HELEN).

And yes, you’re correct that RUPIN is on the EB/EH boundary.

lenthamen wrote:

Tom, I got a call from the Dutch ANSP that I should not use Autorouter because it is filing illegal routes

I’m aware of their vendetta against us. I’ve also seen reports from pilots who got abused on the radio claiming it was a “crazy flightplan” when the flightplan used a single airway on a single level throughout all of the Netherlands…

Guillaume wrote:

In France you shouldn’t get this message “cleared to… via flight planned route” but rather “start-up approved”.

The “via flight planned route” just doesn’t make sense. The departure airport ATC is not responsible for the mistake in the planned route or if the destination airport closes during your flight.

Sense or not, that’s what I usually get…

Then you get a clearance to join CAS or a SID if the airport is located in CAS. Your clearance ends at the last waypoint of the SID. After that, you will need a new clearance to continue your route in CAS.

It was a long time since I was last in France, but in every other country when flying in controlled airspace, the departure airport tower gives me a clearance to my destination. In fact IIRC the ICAO SARPS say that ATC should give a clearance to the destination if coordination between the ATC units en-route can be expected.

Then, there is the case of radio failure in IMC, with a non-flyable direct segment in your FPL.
In theory, you should fly your FPL route but if it contains a DCT segment through a non-flyable airspace OCAS or in CAS, It’s a bit of a grey area.

There are lots of gray areas in the COM failure procedures…

To make it clear :

Any direct segment in the planning phase is responsibility of the pilot.
A direct segment in the flying phase OCAS is responsibility of the pilot.
A direct segment in the flying phase in CAS is responsibility of the ATC.

Well, then we seem to agree.