The German ATC provider DFS posted a document earlier this month to inform about changes coming into effect on 11 DEC 2014. It say that airspace F will be removed, a new RMZ (Radio Mandatory Zone) will replace it and due to SERA IFR in airspace G will be permitted.
So far I’ve only “seen” IFR in Germany from VFR-only airports and not yet flown IFR here myself. I’m eager to do it now that I got “the ticket”. As you can tell from prior postings, I do have a number of probably “funny” questions and hope they will all be answered soon. I have scheduled an introduction with a local instructor for that. But it doesn’t hurt to think ahead and educate myself – does it?
What I remember that after take-off from a VFR-only airport the first answer from ATC at the time of the IFR pickup contains the words “IFR starts at xxx”. I assume that xxx is the altitude where G ends and E starts in the area one is flying in. Will that now change from 11 DEC 2014 on?
I understand that there is no separation in G. The DFS document reviews those rules. Does that mean that in G we will then all subscribe to the big sky theory?
What else does “IFR in G” really mean? If there is no IAP and there is no separation, what practical use does it have? Or will we see all kinds of IAPs show up everywhere next year? I the US my instructors where flying VOR-A IAPs with me.
This document has a few interesting and welcome statements:
In Germany, IFR flight operations in Class G airspace will be permitted once the SERA Regulation comes into effect.
(opening the first bottle beer to celebrate that)
Additionally, Class E airspace will be lowered locally (where this has not yet been done) to 1000 ft AGL (see illustrations below).
(not sure that is reason for another bottle). IFR in E requires a clearance and by lowering E to 1000ft AGL it means they can easily prevent IFR traffic down low. It’s only in the vicinity of uncontrolled air fields with instrument procedures though.
The minimum visual meteorological conditions for Class G airspace shall continue to apply.
Ok, that is the next bottle for sure. It means Germany will keep its very generous VMC minima in G.
In addition to the application of the RMZ as a replacement for the existing Airspace F model, the RMZ can, in future, also be used in Class E airspace in the approach and departure area of controlled aerodromes, if necessary
It seems they got fond of their new toy “RMZ” and want to play more with it, like the UK.
I understand that there is no separation in G. The DFS document reviews those rules. Does that mean that in G we will then all subscribe to the big sky theory?
No, they will let you fly IFR in G on your own and uncontrolled like in the UK because that’s what SERA forces them. However, it is kind of useless because G is tiny in Germany and you have the 2000ft minimum altitude which puts you in E most of the time. They will continue to not issue IFR clearances below the MRVA (minimum radar vectoring altitude) and when climbing from G to E they will only clear you with “IFR starts passing altitude 5000 ft, maintain VMC” and when trying to get out of the system they will only clear you to leave E when you agree to cancel IFR and confirm VMC. Nothing much will change. Airspace F did its job for Germany but it’s not ICAO compliant.
Nothing much will change. Airspace F did its job for Germany but it’s not ICAO compliant.
This is exactly it. For me ( commercial all-weather operations and instrument training at small airfields, many of which presently have class F airspace) the situation will improve, because no non-radio traffic will be allowed there any longer and all traffic has to communicate with the airfield before entering the RMZ.
Addition: I looked around a bit on the map and I wouldn’t know which two airfields in Germany could be connected by a (safe! obstacle and ground clearance wise) flightplan-less IFR flight in airspace “G” only. Especially since all the published arrival, approach and departure procedures at such airfields start and end inside controlled airspace. The only thing that you will now be able to do (legally) now is to fly through some clouds inside airspace “G” enroute.
have the 2000ft minimum altitude
AFAIK, Germany has the (ICAO standard) “1000 feet in non-mountaineous terrain, 2000 feet in mountainous terrain” rule. However, I don’t know about a published map that defines mountaineous and non-mointaineous areas.
Anyway, even if your IFR minimum altitude were 1000 feet, it would be almost impossible to fly any significant route entirely in Golf, since there are just too many areas where E starts at 1000 feet…
I wouldn’t know which two airfields in Germany could be connected by a (safe! obstacle and ground clearance wise) flightplan-less IFR flight in airspace “G” only
Well yes, if you are looking only at airfields with instrument procedures, then this is true. But then most airfields don’t have any.
AFAIK, Germany has the (ICAO standard) “1000 feet in non-mountaineous terrain, 2000 feet in mountainous terrain” rule. However, I don’t know about a published map that defines mountaineous and non-mointaineous areas.
2000ft over populated areas and given that Germany is densely populated in a very distributed fashion makes it impractical. I would say this change merely migrates the current airspace F to a SERA compliant RMZ solution, nothing else.
However, it is a great starting point to demand more from IFR. We can now officially say that IFR in G is permitted and we want its utility value to be increased. As a first step, DFS could allow transits from G to E/MRVA with “own separation”. There are probably a lot of reasons this is absolutely impossible but our position with SERA is better than before. We not be allowed to grow or buy dope but we are allowed to smoke it…
It sounds like it will now be almost impossible to prosecute a pilot for departing “VFR” into “obviously bad weather” which is a good thing because it prevents self appointed guardians of aviation purity trying to stop aviation being done using modern methods and modern equipment.
If it makes it illegal for somebody to be flying in IMC through somebody’s instrument approach, that is also good (the USA uses this Class E method extensively) although it is only a marginal risk reduction because somebody can still do it in VMC and you will PROB99 not see him anyway. All such cases I have had were in VMC, and the one mid-air I recall from the UK (Coventry) was also in VMC.
The “big sky” does work (the UK has had no enroute mid-airs since about WW2 (AFAIK) but you do get an awful lot of near misses and I prefer to fly well above 2000ft where the traffic is much reduced. Above about 3000ft you get mostly Mode C/S equipped traffic which is then visible albeit at a substantial cost. No idea if these traffic behaviour patterns also apply to Germany.
the UK has had no enroute mid-airs since about WW2…
There was at least one: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/TOR_/C152,en-route,Mattersey_Nottinghamshire_UK,1999%28LOSHF%29
OK; I should have added “civilian” mid-airs, but also the one you found is a well known case where the C152 was circling somebody’s house at very low level, and I would not call that anything resembling “enroute” flight.
2000ft over populated areas
??
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
