Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

The complete charade of Eurocontrol IFR routings

I would never fly long VFR trips with just Skydemon. If that device packs up (which definitely does happen – numerous pilots have reported crashes) then you have nothing. And not many people will have SD on two devices, with the 2nd one ready to go.

I do exactly that, with a paper PLOG printout and (by preference) a 1:1million scale map. I have Skydemon on an ipad, and my usual passenger has it up on an android tablet. I also have it installed on my phone, although I’ve never needed that. All of my routes are planned via “IFR” waypoints so they can be entered into the panel mounted GPS as well.

Planning 600nm trips takes a few minutes. It is actually most difficult in the UK, with all the low level class A around. With the exception of Belgium I always have a plan A to route around controlled airspace, with a plan B through the middle that is executed 9 times out of 10.

Having said that, I am well on my way to getting an IR, partly because I enjoy the challenge but mostly because it will make the actual execution of many of my flights a lot easier.

EGEO

Planning 600nm trips takes a few minutes

Of course this is possible, with software. Even the klunky old Jepp Flitestar (100 quid for Flitestar VFR Europe, which gets you a package covered in 5 years’ worth of dust) had a “VFR autorouting” feature which very impressively generated a route which avoids specified classes of airspace etc.

But try flying that on a real day, remaining in genuine VMC all the way, with your passengers puking up flying below a layer of SC when it’s hot.

VFR is a great tool for certain class of a job, and has a lot of use in UK Class G where nobody gives a damn whether you are VFR in IMC or whatever and where you can ask for an ILS without any flight plan never mind an IFR one, but there is absolutely no comparison with “proper” (high altitude) IFR. I can guarantee that the moment you get your IR you will not go back to VFR for a trip of any length.

You will however need a reasonably high perf aircraft, and oxygen is mandatory otherwise you have basically wasted your money because without it, your despatch rate will be more or less VFR. Also I am very sure that not carrying oxygen has killed a few IR-holding pilots, fairly recently, and totally pointlessly.

And, BTW, I did not enjoy my IR training at all. It wasn’t a challenge, because I knew all I was expected to know by the time I got the IMC Rating. The US IR was damn hard; the hardest flying I have ever done in my life. I came out incredibly current on hand flown VORs and ILSs. The JAA IR was 90% wasted on NDB work, and I was grateful to get a VOR approach (and an extremely nice and very professional examiner) in the IR test instead!

None of the IR training bears much relation to how you actually fly, and the European IR theory bears even less relation to anything to do with aviation.

BTW the quote system here changed sometime last year. It is no longer the > character. See Posting Tips

Last Edited by Peter at 16 Jul 18:23
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I can guarantee that the moment you get your IR you will not go back to VFR for a trip of any length.

Well.. we did choose a low level VFR route from Jersey to La Rochelle just the other day (2500ft) to enjoy the scenery and coast line south. It was great, but more work than an IFR route. But in general, you go IFR for “transport” flights.

Well.. we did choose a low level VFR route from Jersey to La Rochelle just the other day (2500ft) to enjoy the scenery and coast line south. It was great, but more work than an IFR route. But in general, you go IFR for “transport” flights.Regarding high performance aircraft, it’s definitely needed to get the dispatch up, but depending on your type of flying it’s doable in lower powered aircraft as well. You’re just much more WX dependent.

Last Edited by martin-esmi at 16 Jul 19:29

Obviously the choice of IFR over VFR in Europe is driven by airspace, ATC and border crossing issues, combined with European weather. I guess it makes a lot of sense on that level, but to me its still a case of IFR being the lesser of two evils. For about 90% of my cross country flying in sunnier US weather I don’t talk to anyone on the ground except airport towers (if applicable) at one or both ends of a leg. Airspace is not typically an issue. For the other 10% I do use ATC en route: I’ve recently been doing some VFR flying in some of the world’s busiest airspace and have maintained contact with ATC to get through the Class B and C areas. Its helpful hearing yourself being called as traffic to the airliners as they climb or descend through your route, and vice versa no doubt. However, I haven’t filed a flight plan since I did it as a student – VFR flight plans still exist in the US but for most people have been functionally replaced by optional ATC flight following.

I use an iPad Mini, backed up by an iPhone in my pocket and a Garmin 196 in my bag, plus paper charts. Foreflight has recently revised their system so that if you plan a flight/route on one device it can be quickly installed through their server onto all devices linked to the account (I have three devices running Foreflight).

Last Edited by Silvaire at 16 Jul 20:53

You will however need a reasonably high perf aircraft, and oxygen is mandatory otherwise you have basically wasted your money because without it, your despatch rate will be more or less VFR.

I beg to differ. I usually fly C172/PA28 type aircraft without oxygen and my IFR dispatch rate is way better than VFR. Of course, in Sweden there is usually no problem choosing your cruise altitude freely all the way down to the MSA. If you regularly have to fly above the zero degree level, I can see your point.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Obviously the choice of IFR over VFR in Europe is driven by airspace, ATC and border crossing issues

That’s the biggest point in this: airspace access. If one could fly VFR up to 17999ft as in the USA, that will enable most trips to be done in VMC – even if one has to “touch a bit of cloud” on the way up or down. But Europe has a messed up and pretty random collection of airspace layouts and ATC policies on VFR access vary hugely, even though ICAO supposedly allows VFR in Class B-G. Eurocontrol IFR throws all these restrictions away and you just fly…

Unfortunately even those doing the JAA/EASA IR will not appreciate this, because flight planning is taught (as I well know, from a few days at a ground school FTO at EGHH) with paper airway charts and with a process which will virtually never work in reality.

It’s bizzare that one needs to get the IR to fly mostly in VMC! This is the opposite of what most people think, and I am certain that many people get put off from getting the IR because they think it is for flying in clouds – but actually the last thing anybody does voluntarily is fly in cloud, because it is boring, turbulent and carries various hazards.

I beg to differ. I usually fly C172/PA28 type aircraft without oxygen and my IFR dispatch rate is way better than VFR.

Yes – it’s a matter of how you pick the weather for your flight. I too often find cloud (in non frontal conditions) to say FL130, and FL180-190 in non frontal but convective conditions, and you can’t fly there without oxygen. Maybe at FL130 but you will get very tired and most people will have a headache. So it’s a matter of degree.

Last Edited by Peter at 16 Jul 21:23
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Silvaire was right on the money. It’s all about airspace design & ATC services. (and weather systems of course)

Last week I flew a DA42 from LA to Miami & back – all VFR, about 4,500nm total. Half the time I was with flight following & the other half I talked to nobody. It was extremely enjoyable & completely straightforward. It’s what flying is all about.

Except for the odd surprise TFR (which is shown near-realtime on the G1000), navigating US airspace is unproblematic. And with class E extending up to 18,000 feet, you have very few limitations in a light aircraft. ATC even told me unprompted whenever some of the restricted areas were released for civil use & suggested shortcuts.

I similarly used to think IFR was the only way to go for “real” travelling (and in my part of the World it most definitely is), and I absolutely loved training for my IR, but honestly, free flight VFR can be a lot more enjoyable. I’ve flown IFR sectors 7 days in a row, and it gets monotonous & dull over time. Honestly, it can make flying feel like, well, “work”.

And yes, ForeFlight in the US is absolutely miraculous…

Last Edited by Hodja at 16 Jul 21:42

That’s the biggest point in this: airspace access. If one could fly VFR up to 17999ft as in the USA, that will enable most trips to be done in VMC – even if one has to “touch a bit of cloud” on the way up or down. But Europe has a messed up and pretty random collection of airspace layouts and ATC policies on VFR access vary hugely, even though ICAO supposedly allows VFR in Class B-G. Eurocontrol IFR throws all these restrictions away and you just fly…

It took me a while to understand that European situation, but I guess case study teaches pilots as well as law students A fair bit of higher altitude VFR flying is done as you describe in the US, except that US pilots (by my observation) are strongly conditioned in training never to touch cloud when under VFR. Maybe that’s just my experience. What I do see from my limited vantage point is US VFR flights transitioning into ATC controlled IFR approaches with essentially zero drama. It occurs to me that a seamless, flexible hybrid approach is actually what makes the most sense from first principles – why load up ATC resources for en route when they’re not needed, and why make a fuss when a VFR flight needs an ILS for the last few minutes of his flight, just to get on the ground and out of ATC’s hair. Just my thoughts.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 16 Jul 21:59

What I do see from my limited vantage point is US VFR flights transitioning into ATC controlled IFR approaches with essentially zero drama.

Especially if you’re already with flight following, asking to shoot the approach is completely seamless.

I’d imagine calling up London Control without a flight plan & asking to shoot an approach into Gatwick would be met with some amusement…

Last Edited by Hodja at 16 Jul 22:07

As I have often said, the creation of the two flight rules (VFR and IFR) is something out of ancient history and bears little relation to what one would teach if teaching somebody to fly for real from A to B.

Airline pilots are not taught VFR and IFR, with an option to drop IFR if they don’t want to do it!

IMHO the division comes from the business of flight training as a hobby activity, where there is no mandate to train anybody to do anything that’s actually useful. Once somebody got that idea, these divisions were set up to enable the product to be packaged into bite-sized chunks. Teaching a PPL/IR-only would result in the cheapest item on the school price list being about 30k and most customers would never be able to do it because IFR is, let’s face it, fairly technical. It would wipe out the non-ATPL flight training industry. You would still need to run aerobatic courses for those who want to do that, I guess. And then everything led from that. ATC policies were set up to keep VFR traffic (assumed to be a bunch of incompetent pilots) out of “important” airspace (with a lot of jobsworths deciding what is “important”) by the requirement to ask for a clearance (which can be refused without a reason, and which in turn has enabled VFR to thrive outside CAS) and everything has gone downhill from that.

Most of the Earth’s surface does not even understand VFR, which is why most people who do 3rd World flying (e.g. UK to South Africa, or around the world) do it under IFR and with various subterfuges if doing it in non IFR aircraft.

This then resulted in private IFR being pretty hard to get – not because it is hard to do but because it gives you automatic access to all airspace so is a political hot potato. Go to any ATC presentation (e.g. UK NATS, or Eurocontrol) and you will hear of ATC fears of various assorted things which will obviously never happen for very simple reasons, e.g. thousands of C152s/PA28s/etc doing 100kt in CAS. I think this fear is only very recently being addressed (the CB IR is one example) but the minimum requirements are still high and the syllabus is still antiquated.

Last Edited by Peter at 17 Jul 03:25
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top