They key to solving all this would be if NATS got paid for each traffic separation or service they provided. Today, they get paid as much if they provide the minimum as the maximum. It should be tied to movements. Everyone gets better service if that were the case.
Peter wrote:
Sure; I never suggested that somebody didn’t write it down
Except for the way it is phrased, it is no different from what many countries have in class G.
E.g. AIP-Sweden, concerning IFR and night VFR above 5000 ft or in TIZ/TIA (essentially RMZ):
A flight plan shall be submitted to ATS. (This can be done by radio, of course.)
No action requiring a change of the current flight plan (e.g. level change) should be taken until ATS has been so informed and has acknowledged this information.
The major difference between the UK and other countries is not this, but that there is not a single designated ATS to provide FIS at any particular point and the limited coordination between ATC for controlled airspace and FIS for uncontrolled airspace.
Agreed whole heartedly Adam.
And of course there should be no incentive to handle arriving/departing traffic over enroute traffic. As it is, airports want to look after their own traffic in preference to enroute traffic.
I don’t think you can receive a procedural service out of CAS.
Out of CAS you can fly where you want and at the level you want (provided you don’t break any rule) without the controller’s permission.
Nevertheless, you must inform the controller of any change in your plans. If you said you were at 5000ft you must tell the controller before leaving that altitude. If you intend to zigzag around the clouds, tell him before etc.
In France controllers are often not aware of the rules.
Last week, under VFR with a flight plan, while receiving a flight information service, I told the ATS that I was now IFR.
In France IFR out of CAS is allowed if you meet 3 conditions
- above 3000ft AMSL
- you filed a FPL
- you are receiving a flight information service.
The controller said not before he could change my flight plan (he has to refile it entirely, and as you know, there is no way to file under IFR a long distance DCT in the system, even out of CAS). I did not argue, but I was perfectly legal in being IFR without his permission out of CAS. The problem with the flight plan was his, not mine.
That’s my usual way to fly under IFR out of CAS in France. I file a DCT under VFR which is accepted, and in flight I change to IFR.
If you said you were at 5000ft you must tell the controller before leaving that altitude. If you intend to zigzag around the clouds, tell him before etc.
Any source, please? Excuse my scepsis, but I thought one is never even obliged to call FIS at all; far less to inform them of any change in intentions or actions. That it is good airmanship is beyond argument, of course, but I cannot imagine a formal obligation. That said, I have repeatedly found myself unable to talk to them, for one example when leaving EBBU FIR near Büllingen they could never receive me even from 4000’ AMSL. Was I then really leaving the FIR illegally?
BTW excuse me further for repeating the squibble of words but OCAS there is no controller, there can only be a FIS operator. Controllers are in charge of controlled airspace.
I don’t think you can receive a procedural service out of CAS
That you can do. For example an IAP is Class G, at a non radar unit, (like my base EGKA), has to be procedural.
Only an ATCO (in the UK; I vaguely recall France may have “bent” ICAO a bit on that one) is able to offer the procedural service. A FISO or A/G can’t do it. The purpose of such a service is to make sure you don’t get two planes doing it concurrently.
The key thing is that nobody can stop somebody flying straight through the IAP, VFR, IFR, “IVFR”, whatever. And it happens! It happens because PPLs are not trained to know anything about IAPs so they are very happy to fly straight through them. Especially in the UK where most PPLs are trained to fly at 2000ft which is “just right” for a lot of IAPs 
In the US this would be illegal because that bit will be Class E and even a plain PPL holder will know it.
OCAS there is no controller, there can only be a FIS operator. Controllers are in charge of controlled airspace.
That’s not correct (see e.g. above) but you may be right in that it may well be difficult or impossible to prosecute a pilot who just sticks a finger up to ATC, in Class G.
Peter wrote:
The key thing is that nobody can stop somebody flying straight through the IAP, VFR, IFR, “IVFR”, whatever. And it happens! It happens because PPLs are not trained to know anything about IAPs so they are very happy to fly straight through them. Especially in the UK where most PPLs are trained to fly at 2000ft which is “just right” for a lot of IAPs In the US this would be illegal because that bit will be Class E and even a plain PPL holder will know it.
I’m not sure I understand the last sentence. It would be illegal if the plane in Class E was illegally in IMC. Otherwise if the plane were in Class E on the 3 degree extended centerline of the ILS at 2000 ft, it could be VFR and talking to nobody on the radio. That would be about 7 miles from the runway, no? Outside of the typical Class D for the airport.
I’ve never flown an ILS in my life so feel free to correct me…
This is timely for me. After returning from flying today I realized to my chagrin that I made a 360 about 500 ft below the ILS of a local airport with jet traffic, no more than 1000 ft below a solid overcast, 10 miles from the runway. Perhaps not my smartest move of the day.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
BTW excuse me further for repeating the squibble of words but OCAS there is no controller, there can only be a FIS operator. Controllers are in charge of controlled airspace.
Sure there can be a controller. In Sweden FIS is usually provided by a radar controller — the same one who provides ATC for controlled airspace above. Of course the controller doesn’t control you.
Yes of course, in VMC that would be legal in the USA too.
But at least you have a chance to see it.
IMHO the PPL training is deficient in this area, because most traffic is never spotted even on a perfect day and pilots should really not do this. However the VFR charts don’t show the IAPs. The UK ones show chevrons to indicate an IAP but I think this is recent (last 10 years) so most people currently flying won’t be aware of it.
I think Chamberry LFLB is another interesting one where you can actually be legally snotting along at 4000ft QNH below the class D and the ILS in Class E without legally having to talk to anyone. Not saying it’s smart, but I know lots of ultralights who do it…
