The CAA has just issued an Information Notice regarding AFILs and IFR:
To conform to the rules above, IFR flight plans shall be submitted before departure. If, subsequently, a pilot submits an Air Filed Flight Plan (AFIL) this constitutes submitting multiple flight plans for a particular flight and is therefore in contradiction of EU Regulation No. 255/2010. If there is a genuine reason for altering a flight plan during the course of the associated flight (e.g. emergency, the need for weather avoidance etc) an ATC Flight Plan Proposal (AFP) can be submitted by an ATC centre to IFPS following a request from the pilot.
I suspect this isn’t a problem in most of the scenarios we are describing, but I wonder if it might affect at all?
I was offered an upgrade from VFR to IFR on a recent flight from Verona Boscomantico to Avignon. I only asked the Verona controller for a transit, but he thought it was easier to upgrade to IFR to allow me through Milano as well. The only quirk was that he asked me for preferred waypoints, so I had to do a quick re-routing.
Really good service first of all, and I am surprised that I got such a long IFR routing planned for me. I thought IFR upgrades in Europe were hard to obtain for anything other than approaches.
I personally find UK system complex and basic service is not that useful.
I agree.
Its advantage is it gives pilots an enormous amount of freedom OCAS, and undoubtedly unburdens NATS of a great deal of responsibility.
Rwy20 wrote:
According to the very pragmatic article I linked to, the controller couldn’t care less though – if it is the same system as in the US. I know we have some ATC staff on here, so it would be good to hear their perspective
The previous posts are refering to the UK ATC system outside controlled airspace. Although I know how it works, I’m not an expert in that field.
I personally find UK system complex and basic service is not that useful.
The law says :
SERA 5025
An IFR flight operating outside controlled airspace but within or into areas, or along routes, designated by the competent authority in accordance with SERA.4001(b)(3) or (4) shall maintain an air-ground voice communication watch on the appropriate communication channel and establish two-way communication, as necessary, with the air traffic services unit providing flight information service.
The whole airspace managed by France is designated as an area where establish two-way communication OCAS is mandatory for IFR flights per AIP.
SERA.4001
b) A flight plan shall be submitted prior to operating:
any flight within or into areas, or along routes designated by the competent authority, to facilitate the provision of flight information, alerting and search and rescue services
The whole airspace managed by France is designated as an area where a FPL is mandatory for IFR flights per AIP
The French rules are quite different from the UK rules.
So when you are VFR and would like to switch IFR in France, you need to establish two-way communication with the appropriate FIS, declare your intentions and submit a FPL (AFIL is a possibility).
The switch of flight rules is usually straightforward as the sector which provides FIS for VFR traffic is likely to be the same sector which handles IFR traffic as well.
So the switch is almost instant. The longer part is the AFIL.
In the cases you are talking to a VFR only en-route flight information sector (they are rare and tend to disappear), it may take a bit longer as the VFR sector has to phone the IFR sector to pass the details.
So you are automatically getting FIS when you are flying IFR in France. What you get is more or less a UK traffic service. Like in the US, you can request vectors if you are unable to avoid a VFR traffic visually.
I dont think you really want to let the controller know you are in IMC when you are in it.
Entirely from experience I find that especially at weekends there are occasions you will struggle to get any service other than a basic which is of very little value (I know some say none at all). However there are good reasons on days like this when you are above the cloud and need to descend through the cloud. Most of the GA traffic will be below. So I have found that the controllers are very helpful in giving you a traffic service when you let them know that you are descending IMC / IFR, where previoulsy you were VMC / VFR above the cloud. The controller of course cant do anything more than call the traffic but at least if you arent prepared to leave things entirely to chance you can make your best efforts to deconflict and even without a deconflcition service the controller will assist you in doing so. For example if I got a traffic same level four miles I might indicate my intentions to seperate from that traffic or simply check I had the same traffic on TAS, which would be a reassurance.
I agree about your point about IMC and cloud but I think (rightly or wrongly) controllers seem to relate IMC to not being able to see (ignoring the nuances of the precise definition of IMC) whereas that is not true when you declare IFR, so I have found that on the whole they are aware you have a greater need to have traffic called.
Obvioulsy in class D it is totally different. As soon as you call IFR then controllers implicitly know that they can put you were they like regardless of the met. but of course they are providing a positive service anyway.
Rwy20 wrote:
A second note pertains to the term IMC. You can very well be in IMC and still spot the traffic, because in class E if you are less than 1’000 ft from a cloud you are in IMC, but you could have 50 mile visibility and be in the clear. So it would probably be even better to say “I’m in cloud” or “I’m in cloud, requesting vectors for noise abatement” or something the like.
You are technically correct. but since there is no point in making the call that you are IMC unless you have restricted visibility or are in a cloud, it is more efficient to just respond IMC. No US controller would misunderstand what you meant.
Martin wrote:
IIRC some manuals allowed for a reason after negative contact.
According to the very pragmatic article I linked to, the controller couldn’t care less though – if it is the same system as in the US. I know we have some ATC staff on here, so it would be good to hear their perspective ( @Guillaume ?).
If I could get you to read both paragraphs in their entirety you might notice something. Neither paragraph mentions the weather. Neither paragraph mentions anything about “courtesy.” And I’m not Olive Oyl.
Just in case the preceding paragraph leaves you confused, I guess you would be one of the rare pilots who answers a traffic call with quaint phraseology like “Negative Contact.” Some pilots seem to be under the impression that controllers only call traffic when the pilot stands a chance of seeing the traffic. (Don’t feel bad — some controllers are too.) So they’ll answer a traffic call with a weather report: “We’re IMC, Center.”
Having talked to a few pilots in my career, I know that some are under the mistaken impression that we call traffic as a courtesy. I guess there are times that we do but the main reason is because the books says we’re supposed to. So when we do (call traffic) we’re expecting one of two replies: “Negative Contact” or “Traffic in sight.”
Edit: I can see the benefit if you are on a basic or traffic service in the UK to let the controller know that you are in IMC, in order to “upgrade” implicitly to a deconfliction service. But it would probably be much better to do that explicitly before entering IMC. You could also be IMC and still accept the collision risk and not want a deconfliction service that sends you all over the place. But what is the controller actually supposed to do if you are on a traffice service, he calls out traffic and you answer “I’m in IMC”? Imagine that you then actually hit that traffic, it would make the controller look bad even though he did everything by the book. Or do I miss something here, not having been raised in the UK system?
A second note pertains to the term IMC. You can very well be in IMC and still spot the traffic, because in class E if you are less than 1’000 ft from a cloud you are in IMC, but you could have 50 mile visibility and be in the clear. So it would probably be even better to say “I’m in cloud” or “I’m in cloud, requesting vectors for noise abatement” or something the like.
Rwy20 wrote:
Did you read the article linked to in this thread? It would have explained why that is not a good response.
He didn’t say how exactly he does that. IIRC some manuals allowed for a reason after negative contact.
I think that when due to controller workload a traffic service is not readily forthcoming declaring IFR prioritises a service which is no bad thing if you are making a cloud break and is a reasonable precaution for all concerned especially if you dont have traffic.
Peter wrote:
the only time I tell ATC I am in IMC is when they are feeding me contacts 5nm away
Did you read the article linked to in this thread? It would have explained why that is not a good response.
