What the guy (posting in a closed group) says is this:
there is a general provision which says “1.1.10.3.4 Joining aerodrome traffic. Aircraft entering an aerodrome circuit are required to allow for both aircraft following the same circuit but also aircraft which may follow another aerodrome traffic circuits. On a non-controlled aerodrome, any aircraft flying within the aerodrome traffic and which is informed that another IFR flying aircraft is approaching, shall manoeuver so as not to endanger the IFR flying aircraft approach and landing unless the two pilots have made a prior agreement. This provision only applies if the IFR flying aircraft is making a final instrument approach prior to direct landing on the runway in service, or when its final approach is followed by a VPT (visual manoeuvring with prescribed track).”
Recently I flew to Orléans Saint-Denis. In that area it’s Class G under 4000 feet so they clear you down to 4000 then you descend under your own responsability down to 2000 for the NDB (or 2100 for the RNAV). We shooted the first approach then asked to perform the RNAV. At that time we were #2 as another aircraft was shooting an approach and were directed to MOTAL which is 19nm further South. We were stil in Class G but we accepted their initial direction as we wanted to be sure we had some separation. 2 minutes later we requested to resume to RISNO @ 2100 feet to perform the RNAV. In between a C172 arrived and was #3 behind us. Seine suggested he enters the hold @ ORS and maintain 3500 what he did. They don’t know the actual conditions you have and try to help. I would compare this situation to deconfliction service in the UK and the situation you experienced in Laval as Procedural Service.
I’ve read the comment on EurGA but I won’t connect there to comment. The “Arrêté du 17 juillet 1992” in France should be compared the the rules 10, 11 & 12 of the UK rules of the air. SERA has basically only 4 very simple and basic rules on this topic (SERA.3225) which doesn’t preclude having national rules which apply.
I have no idea of his background etc. Hopefully the above illuminates the matter, for those who can work their way through the regs.
Peter wrote:
SERA has basically only 4 very simple and basic rules on this topic (SERA.3225) which doesn’t preclude having national rules which apply.
I am certain that it does preclude having national rules. Recommendations, yes.
What AIP 1.1.10.3.4 says is that other traffic in the traffic pattern should give way to a IFR doing a straight-in (or VPT) approach (and not that there shouldn’t be any traffic in the traffic pattern as stated in post #16) .
It doesn’t say anything regarding two subsequant IFR straight-in approach.
As you experienced, in case of two subsequant IFR approach OCAS, ATC will only suggest the proper spacing
I am not making any claims for myself but there is a fair bit of really dodgy ATC ELP in that video. Especially the bit about descending to the safety altitude (a French pilot has listened to it). I find it hard to believe that is correct terminology.
Amazing video, some excellent learning in both the UK and the French system.
This flight was really havoc in terms of ATC. Millions of euros are put in those ATC and Eurocontrol systems for what ? Idiotic routings and random cancellations.
But it shows those systems have the flexibility we dream of in terms of inflight filing and clearance, it is the organizations that refuse to implement it.
You were lucky to fly on a winter week day, on a weekend, I doubt London Info would have been able to negotiate you a clearance.
It took 9 minutes to get a clearance 
Petern, you knew French ATC had your FPL because the AFISO had it, otherwise, would have taken off with London not finding your FPL ? Sounds hazardous lauching on an international trip with a lost FPL.
At 6:49, LC seems to have found your FPL back, giving you DCT LGL, after 20 minutes of searching
On the French part, ATC is typical, sounds lazy but efficient :)
I wouldn’t say it is bad ELP, it sounds like Rennes was completely unfamiliar of the LFOV procedures and called the AFISO (very good guy it seems) for help. Which is quite the opposite of what can expect 
ATS not finding your FPL does not mean you did not send one, if you have a confirmation you are off the hook for an international trip…
If you need it for ATC to give you a departure clreance or to validate an IFR in EC routes, yes that can be tricky, but for VFR you can re-file one quickly to then end up having two at the end ;)
I never had any of FPs sent via SD/AFPEx getting lost but two I filled by phone (calling BRIA) were never gone, so I am wondering if there is a way to check/retreive your FPs in the system before getting inside the aircraft?
Obviously, I just call the tower before heading to the airport but I always look dumb when they say “no worries we have it, why we should not?”…
Many thanks for the good feedback.
Peter, you knew French ATC had your FPL because the AFISO had it, otherwise, would have taken off with London not finding your FPL ? Sounds hazardous lauching on an international trip with a lost FPL.
I knew LFOV had the FP because I spoke to him on the phone when the 3rd version of it got filed and he said so. So I assumed (wrongly) that all of France had it
Why the UK end didn’t have it could be the same reason France didn’t, or something unrelated. I was happy to “just fly” because ATC will never force you back down; if you are IFR they will construct something ahead of you and coordinate and pass the problem down the line as necessary. My plan B was to depart VFR OCAS and call up EBOS at KONAN or something like that. Even if the EGKA tower told me they had no FP I would have still departed… this is probably not possible if EGKA has full ATC though.
I would disagree on the ELP but we have discussed this previously This sort of discussion is occassionally (and wrongly!) interpreted as an attack on Country X. Europe can be like that… The issue seems clear to me: a native of X will always understand English which is so heavily accented in X that perhaps nobody else can work it out. The rule holds for any country X. And ATC ELP is examined by examiners who are … natives of X. I am not sure if @Bordeaux_Jim is still around but he more or less said this himself and he does this for a living. So everybody is happy because all the boxes are ticked. I have just finished editing the EGKA-LOWS video and the difference between the two is nothing short of dramatic. Many people in France speak excellent English; why they don’t get recruited into ATC (which has an obvious need for clearly spoken English, just like running a beach bar in Malaga needs a waitress which can do the Birmingham accent ) is a good Q.
However I think the ELP was not the only issue; the stuff around the descent (issuing a safety altitude) is clearly wrong.
LC seems to have found your FPL back, giving you DCT LGL, after 20 minutes of searching
Yes; unbelievable. They must have separate systems, each running DBASE2 under MS-DOS, interconnected over telex Actually the telex bit is perhaps not a joke…
I never had any of FPs sent via SD/AFPEx getting lost but two I filled by phone (calling BRIA) were never gone, so I am wondering if there is a way to check/retreive your FPs in the system before getting inside the aircraft?
I am sure this problem was caused by my earlier-described FP EOBT manipulation. Autorouter probably performs the changes faster than the system(s) can process them, so they just chuck them away.
There was a way to query FPs via AFPEX but when I tried it (years ago) I got nothing back. I am pretty sure that, for obvious security reasons, you can’t just put in the tail number; you have to put in quite a lot of info, and it works only for FPs currently in the system. But AFPEX needs a windows computer (well, something which can run java) and even though one can run it on an android or ios tablet over RDP, and I have had this set up, even in a “usable” way, it is a huge hassle.
At 9:12 in the video, Rennes clears you to LA, the Laval NDB used in the NBD 32 approach.
Then, Rennes tells you your FPL is still to LFOX despite Paris Control changing your route. Seems he didn’t care to make the change in the system.
When you ask direct LADAV, ATC probably phoned LFOV to ask for the runway in use. Interesting because you decide which IAP you want to do. Maybe you could have called LFOV on COM2 and asked them runway and weather, and relay that to Rennes.
When you ask for descent below FL070, at 11:19, you enter class G and get to the limits of ATC’s knowledge of what to do. That’s why phraseology gets lost on the way. He definitely won’t say “cleared….” but he’s used to telling people what to do Why he couldn’t get the LFOV approach plates and give you guidance is a mystery for me…
If anyone can tell me why IFR in controlled in France above FL70 and not below, with charts showing no airspace change, I would be thankful
At 12:40, the situation gets trickier, you are number 2. I am sure the ATCO felt it was exam day
At 13:20, he gets your question but starts to sweat !! He said “you will be alone [holding] at LADAV”
At 14:42, the female ATCO says “Cleared approach, ehhhh no, you can start approach (Tell me the difference ) and report switching to LFOV Info”
So they got back on their feet in the end.
Hope it cleared the last bits of misunderstanding !
So at the end of the day :
PS : please don’t take this as an attack on French ATC, I respect them and I know their situation.
FYI, I took and passed the ATCO exam but decided to become an engineer after that.
Thank you for your valuable input, Jujupilote.
FWIW someone said to me the base of CAS is 6000ft at the relevant point, but I fail to see such airspace annotated on the 2018 IGN chart:
As we all know, most lower airways in France (in terms of the airspace, class E, that they constitute down low, see the yellow bar) go down to FL65. Hence, FL70 is the lowest altitude for controlled flight along these airways. Outside of the airways, it is class G up to FL120 in most of flatland France (if away from any TMA).
LGL is on the top right (where Peter was more or less coming from). If he was right on the airway, it makes perfect sense that any request for descent from FL70 did not lead to a further specific altitude assignment, but merely to the clearance to descend out of controlled airspace. In fact, that the is phraseology normally used. I think it was poor phraseology from the controller to mumble something about descending to “safety altitude”. But otherwise, everything was fine.
Now, if one was previously on a direct, and thus at FL70 it was already OCAS, then it is usually the same. In theory, then the ATCO wouldn’t even have to clear the pilot to descend at all. But in practice, most IFR pilots are not always aware if they are in E or in G. Also, when there are so many airways around (like here) then, if the controller “released” the pilot well above FL70, the “risk” would that the pilot “bust” a nearby airway. Therefore, they always consider FL70 as the level below which no specific altitude restrictions are given.
