arj1 wrote:
@ibra, what the pilot is supposed to do in that case? Ask NM to create a custom FP for you?
Why not? Or ask NM to force your flightplan into the system. They did once for me when the only reasonable flight plan failed to validate. Of course, it may depend on the nature of the restriction you’re having trouble with.
Me? I have no issues with flying over water as long as I don’t have to change fuel tanks in the middle 
I will just file in AR as is and ask ATC to bypass while flying (before you ask if I lose com, set 7600 and I do what I like )
If it does not work, I would ask to leave airspace by descent and route on shortest crossing
Sorry, I forgot it’s the return flight, my bad
I was fiddling with AR for a flight soon and I got this, which seems to answer your question @arj1 ? maybe someone had taken your feedback into account?
Not flying it though at FL100: I hate to be controlled in IMC inside in LTMA inside the icing band, C172 engine & wings hates it as well !
Why looking for troubles? is IFR-IFR separation that important? if yes then don’t go up top mix with lot of heavy weights
In winter with icing, I prefer to keep low profile: depart on SID, fly OCAS IFR via Dieppe, Dover, Margate, Southend and follow M25 like a car (along that route one can go down as low as 1500ft amsl if icing is their concern, it’s bellow the radar just like smuggling something 
)
LFOP N0097F100 BANTI3N BANTI H22 ABB T22 RATUK L613 SANDY M189 LYD EGML
LFOP N0097F100 BANTI3N BANTI H22 ABB T22 RATUK L613 SANDY N57 LAM EGTR
arj1 wrote:
:) I’d stay at home.
I was talking about what is beneath you en-route (while you are probably VMC over the tops at FL120), not at airport for takeoff & landing
In the strict sense, for en-route, you need 1kft cloud-base & 3km visibility to fly safely bellow clouds and successfully deal with any single engine failure, some would even say it’s 2kft cloud-base & 5km visibility, bellow that I am not sure how much it’s useful to “visually select field” or “visually avoid obstacles/terrain using the stick"?
If you think about it, this effectively kills the utility value of any sort of IFR in IMC in SE
Ibra wrote:
Say for en-route you have 100ft ceiling & 400m RVR beneath with freezing level in stratus at 3kft, would you love to fly SEP over land or over water?
:) I’d stay at home.
BackPacker wrote:
I was told to remain at 2000’, and received a vector that took me well offshore and outside of gliding distance
Isn’t that related? the only place where you can get vectored at max 2kft is over water I suppose (maybe NL is very flat)
BackPacker wrote:
Whether you are happy with that route and whether you have the required equipment for the route is a different matter.
I am always happy to fly over water than terrain in serious conditions (convective, icing, low clouds, low visibility, strong winds, night…), although mostly following the coastline: it gives more room without risk of hitting ground or nasty weather and probably way more forgiving to engine failures
VFR and IFR in sunny days, I prefer terraferma but I can’t see a good reason to prefer flying over terraferma if you can’t see land surface? in the other hand, water surface is very “standardized”, even if you don’t see it it’s found at 0ft of on the altimeter
Say for en-route you have 100ft ceiling & 400m RVR beneath with freezing level in stratus at 3kft, would you love to fly SEP over land or over water?
This is why I fly 100% with a raft on the back seat. Even on the 20 departure from Shoreham one is probably out of glide range for a bit, and if you turn right back over land you will conflict with inbounds / circuit traffic.
ATC’s job doesn’t include assuming that they can’t do this.
