Laval LFOV, and the non ATC approach

The funny thing is that you can bust Class E airspace if you are IFR but you can’t bust it if you are VFR

I don’t have the latest SIA chart (the one which has the Class E routes shown) but here is a 2010 one which I scanned from the purchased paper version back then

and I would challenge anyone to work out the exact airspace from that… It has already been stated that this chart is not intended to fly a plane with, but is a discharge of the ICAO obligations.

I think this system works because … virtually nobody is flying there anyway, at such altitudes. The only GA traffic I heard on the frequency, in France, was another UK pilot heading to LFOV. The 3rd arrived about 1h earlier.

this underlines the usefulness of always knowing the class of airspace you are in

Since none of the printed charts seem to show it, which tablet app would do so, and show it immediately, at a glance?

Then I wonder what the real benefit would be. The benefit I see is that, knowing you are in G, you could just fly as you like, descend, whatever, and forget what ATC think about it. But you don’t know what ATC are thinking about it / what they are expecting you to do. I think most IFR pilots are expecting clear instructions along the flight – until possibly the end where they might drop out of CAS and land at some grass strip. This LFOV stuff was bizzare in the way they were completely nonassertive about the pre-IAF (i.e. enroute) bit, and then very assertive about going into the hold until the previous plane landed.

And what happens if 2 planes both head for the IAF? Are they both given “minimum safety altitude is 2900ft … [you aren’t my problem; take care of yourself]” and left to both hold at the published 3500ft, and collide? That is deffo the responsibility of the approach controller (Rennes) who can’t just leave them to it. I suspected this which was why I asked if the other plane is also in the hold.

If the UK ever gets IAPs with a remote approach controller (they have 1 or 2, at private places like Walney Island) they will need to address this, and looking how the UK does everything, there will be a clear procedure for dealing with the enroute bit all the way to the IAF, and then another clear procedure for the post-IAF bit (which France does have: you hold until the previous has landed). But in Class G it will all be meaningless because some d1ck will be able to fly straight through the whole thing, in IMC, non-radio, and with the transponder turned off

UK ATC DOES clear aircraft for the approch to be flown, even if it is entirely in uncontrolled airspace.

I think UK ATC have no power in Class G except within the ATZ, so the clearance is no more than a “custom” which is best not questioned And France then does it correctly, by not issuing a “clearance”. In any case, a “clearance” in Class G is impossible! The US does it exactly correctly, by using Class E down to a very low level, but that works only with taxpayer-funded ATC.

A big problem is that I could not understand much of what was said, due to the heavy accent. Note that the recording could well be clearer, since it goes straight from the headset socket to a high quality MP3 recorder. And then the stuff about the safety altitude…

Are these georeferenced image (raster) charts? Or is it something for a particular app?

I have access to Jepps for the terminal charts. I used to get the Jepp airway charts also but never found them useful because ATC doesn’t really operate the “airway system” by airway name; they route people within the 10nm or whatever wide corridors.

Gallois, maybe you are referring to the free VFR charts. These have been around for some time.

Another thread is here.

I can’t find the charts. The SIA website doesn’t show an AIP Enroute section.

If the SIA charts were online, that would be quite useful because they show some stuff which the IGN charts (which have been online for some time – in above linked thread) don’t show. In France, I fly with the IGN charts running on a tablet.