I flew back IFR the other day from Shoreham EGKA to my base at Cambridge EGSC. Shoreham gave me a provisional clearance of 5000 feet on course to GWC and then handed me off to London Control.
London Control simply acknowledged me and I continued toward GWC. At 5000 feet I remained in Class G airspace. A couple of minutes later I requested (just out of politeness really) a 10 degree left to avoid developing weather. The response I got from London Control was “You’re not on a radar control service” so [paraphrasing the controller, you can do as you like].
Shortly afterwards I was cleared into CAS, and flew to Cambridge. En route ATC, Essex Radar, cleared me to leave CAS in the descent to 5000 feet, own navigation to EGSC, contact Cambridge Approach. I put a ‘direct EGSC’ into the GPS and duly contacted Cambridge Approach. Now back in Class G, Cambridge ATC said to maintain current heading. Almost on top of the airfield (in my limited experience Essex Radar always leave you high on approach to Cambridge from the South West) I continued to descend. I was suddenly asked by the controller ‘are you still at 5000 feet’? When I said 4400 he was most unimpressed, and said that the assigned altitude was 5000 feet.
So, within an hour of each other, I had two interactions with ATC at around 5000 feet in Class G. London Control expected me to do as I wished as not under a radar control service. Cambridge Approach thought that I should have maintained 5000 feet.
Were they both right (and I’ve missed something important)? Was it simply that I was on an IFR FPL and so the approach controller assumed that I would not deviate, despite being in Class G. BTW it all ended perfectly amicably – the approach controller offered vectors to 05 (first time I’ve had that at Cambridge) which I appreciated as the procedural approach was quite a bit of extra distance and I was in a hurry to make an appointment.
[Apologies to non-UK forumites – I know this IFR in Class G is a bit of a UK speciality!]
That’s worth a report. There was a distinct lack of clarity in both circumstances as to the type of service. It’s no individual’s fault, but without a report the procedures cannot be improved.
If you are under a procedural service (which Cambridge ATC may have thought that you were) you are effectively under a contract to maintain your assigned level. The question is how that procedural service is established and communicated. Essex often say something like “Cambridge will accept you at the CAM at 5000 ft” which implies such a service, though it could be clearer even then. Without clarity as to the type of service when you are in the handover between Essex and Cambridge Approach, such things may happen.
If you can’t easily find the email address of the Airport Safety and Compliance Manager (who I think is also manager of ATS at the moment) in the publications, PM me and I’ll put you in touch.
London Control should also have stated the type of service outside controlled airspace. But that interaction failed safe, so it’s less of an issue.
London Control simply acknowledged me and I continued toward GWC. At 5000 feet I remained in Class G airspace. A couple of minutes later I requested (just out of politeness really) a 10 degree left to avoid developing weather. The response I got from London Control was “You’re not on a radar control service” so [paraphrasing the controller, you can do as you like].
Yes – correct. OCAS, London Control should offer only a Basic Service which means you can do what you like, unless you are cleared to enter CAS in the climb in which case they will obviously be expecting you do that that on your current track.
If I read your post correctly, TJ, the statement
cleared me to leave CAS in the descent to 5000 feet, own navigation to EGSC, contact Cambridge Approach
means you should have descended to and then remained at 5000ft until Cambridge told you otherwise.
There is the obvious ambiguity that once you are OCAS, which you were at 5000ft, the concept of a “clearance” is a bit of a grey area. The phrase I normally get coming back to Shoreham is “Shoreham will accept you at xxxx” as bookworm says, so clearly the powers to be have been around this block before… and I often find that xxxx might actually place me back in CAS on my then current track 
Air Traffic Control in *uncontrol*led airspace is nonsense. It is incongruous. The system is at fault. Little wonder that there are so many such misunderstandings.
The solution, of course, is the utterly revolutionary and completely unproved one: Class E above 1200ft
The problem then becomes: who is going to pay for the ATC desks, at about £1M/year (radar ATCO pay grade, NATS radar feed, H24)?
Answer: nobody.
Result: no change, and the “UK Class G control charade” carries on (off to look for google/images of the emperor having no clothes)
But how many ATCO’s do you need? The ones handling it now could probably deal with a floor extension on the airspace they already control. At night – would you need more than one controller to deal with the whole country? How many low level IFR movements are there at night by GA in the UK? Not many would be my guess. There’s no bloody airports open you can land on at night anyway!
The solution, of course, is the utterly revolutionary and completely unproved one: Class E above 1200ft
Yes, that sounds familar from back home But keep your IFR in G!
The problem then becomes: who is going to pay for the ATC desks, at about £1M/year (radar ATCO pay grade, NATS radar feed, H24)?
In Germany, DFS is funded by IFR route charges. They get some extra money for FIS (around €3m/year) paid for by taxes on avgas (well, that is official language but taxes all go to one big account, they are by definition not for a specific purpose, otherwise they would be called a fee). With this, DFS turns a profit. If the constitutional court hadn’t blocked it, the government would have sold off DFS some years ago. I bet NATS could offer full ATC if they wanted to and turn a profit as the UK is similar to Germany in population/size/air traffic/compensation/etc.
Sort of a supplementary VFR question: when I not long had my PPL (in the US), I was flying somewhere with flight following and while I was descending (a fair way from my destination, in Texas it’s not too uncommon to fly VFR at ~10,000 feet in the summer simply because the heat down low is unbearable) I had to make some fairly large deviations in heading to remain VFR, and the controller giving Flight Following said he would rather have known that I was about to do that. So ever since then in the US while on VFR flight following, I’ve told the controller if I’m about to make deviations in heading and/or altitude. I can see why he might want me to do that too – he might have some IFR traffic in class E and some warning of this could be helpful to him.
But in the UK in class G airspace while VFR and talking to someone, what is generally the “done thing”? I’ve continued doing what I used to do in the US and no one has commented.
Cambridge will accept you at the CAM at 5000 ft
London descending for Oxford do the same. When you contact Oxford you are put on a procedural service where you must follow their instructions. You are OCAS but are often being sequenced into the hold with other trafffic below so they don’t want you to go below the altitude set.
On the broader point, if I am on a basic service I do what I want. Traffic or above in the UK class G I always tell/ask them as appropriate. Only time I treat basic as more serious is the basic in the climb to CAS, cleared to enter etc when talking to London Control.
Can’t speak for the UK (and, the more stories of this kind I see, the less likely I am to ever try the UK airspace, even strictly VFR as is my microlight limit anyway) but here in Belgium my experience is
-) if FIS staff are too busy, they’ll not care anyway (can’t really blame them, there)
-) if one has no active transponder, they won’t even pretend to offer any traffic information, either, or they should be under VERY light load
-) if it suits them to follow your bimbles, then they will indeed be happy to know your whereabouts and your intentions, and I do have known them to supply useful information about nearby traffic.
