As some of you might know, I like to fly to several countries and made different kind of experiences with ATC. I feel more and more comfortable to visit just another new country VFR, but still, I have sometimes not so a good feeling about the implicit clearances into controlled airspace (CAS).
Few examples:
1. Scandinavia. One get very good joined up ATC services (when flying with FPL) and they will just say “radar contact” or “identified” or just “squawk xxxx” and thats it. No “clear to enter CTR/TMA” or other stuff, however, they did say “max. 4.000 ft” or something. They do give VFR a proper departure clearance and also for arrival for controlled aerodromes, but I never heard the magic words “cleared to enter” or “cleared to leave”.
2. Poland/Czech Republic/Slovakia. Just like Scandinavia, very good joined up ATC services, but also not always a specific clearance for entering or crossing airspace C or D. You just get “radar contact” or “identified” and thats it. If you need another level, they say just “climb” or “decent”. Or just “continue”. However, I did hear the words “cleared to cross CTR” sometimes, but not always.
3. Croatia. Due the fact that the complete country is airspace D beginning at 1.000 ft AGL, you fly almost the entire time in CAS. You get an departure briefing in IFR-style and thats it. After climbing out a CTR, ATC hands you over to Radar and you will only hear “radar contact, continue direct xy”.
4. Italy. When beeing in contact with Approach or Radar (not FIS!), I only got some “identified, report destination in sight”, even when I had to fly trough airspace D for my destination. No clear clearance, just go ahead and fly. The same also with landing on a controlled airfield. No “clear to enter CTR”, just “report final” or something similar and thats it.
5. Austria. They love also to say “radar contact” and do nothing else. Especially if you do an initial call in IFR-style, like: “Graz Radar, D-EXYZ, 8.000 ft, decending 3.000 ft, inbound with information Lima”, they just say “Servus, radar contact, information Lima correct” and after a while “continue to 3.000 ft direct Autobahn West and contact Tower”.
For me, I always go ahead with the idea that I am cleared to enter CAS with such ‘clearances’ and for now, I got away with it. But when I got used to it, German ATC doesn’t liked it at all, when I just entered a CTR without the clear words “cleared to enter” even though they gave me the instruction to join base. And I also know, that just entering CAS without a clear “cleared to enter” is also not-done in the UK or in class Bravo in the USA. So what are your experiences with this? How do you guys interpretate ATC? I guess, it differs from country to country, but doesn’t SERA gives also a clear notice, that you need to hear the words “cleared to enter”?
No, there is no other way than
On the specifics:
Across Europe, in the last 20 years, I have had very very few misunderstandings of the type that I thought that I was cleared, but ATC didn‘t.
I remember one case (years ago) where I was enroute IFR, somewhere over Hungary, or Czech Republic, or whatever. There were some buildups around, and I was forced to climb higher, so got a clearance for that. I added that I might have to climb even higher shortly, to which the controller replied with something like „whatever you need“. I took this is as „you have no altitude restriction from my side“, so a couple of minutes later, I started climbing again and a few moments later, he said he didn‘t clear me for that. Frankly, I didn‘t care though. I urgently needed to climb, so it was all „aviate, navigate, communicate“.
Again, once you are away from the major TMAs, the airspace between 5000 and 20000 feet in Europe is virtually empty.
Frans wrote:
doesn’t SERA gives also a clear notice, that you need to hear the words “cleared to enter”
There is nothing in SERA that requires that particular phrase. A clearance doesn’t necessarily have to include the word “cleared”. E.g. “proceed” can also be used.
That said, there is a sloppy practice by some swedish ATC to say (to VFR traffic) that you are “approved” in a TMA without specifying a route or clearance limit.
France uses “radar contact” to mean a clearance 
Occassionally they say “proceed”.
In the UK it is absolutely strict; you must have the magic words “cleared to xxxx”. And then once in CAS you normally get “radar control service” which you must also read back. I am not aware of any CAS in the UK which is procedural (no radar).
Not much VFR in every bit of Europe but it seemed to me best is not to assume:
I won’t enter controlled airspace without the controller saying “Cleared go enter” unless I’m very familiar with the system in that country.
For example, in France it’s rare for the controller to use those words and implicit clearances seem to be common. In those cases, where it’s ‘obvious to me’ that the controller means that I’m cleared to enter controlled airspace, I just do my readback as normal and append “and understand cleared to enter your CTR” or whatever. It at least gives the controller an opportunity to correct an incorrect assumption.
In Ireland, the UK or anywhere that I’m not familiar with, I’ll ask the controller to confirm that I’m cleared to enter the controlled airspace. It’s just not worth getting it wrong on an assumption.
Ibra wrote:
aside from French FIS who are top pour “avancer le VFR schmilblick”
Agree. I’ve had FIS be genuinely surprised that I asked to switch to TMA APP frequency to ask for clearance, to him it was obvious that he had coordinated a clearance since I was “in contact” with him
Peter wrote:
In the UK it is absolutely strict; you must have the magic words “cleared to xxxx”.
Worse. Last Sunday, British ATC set me a trap, giving me route instructions into CAS with the admonition to stay outside CAS.
I got “route direct to Seaford, stay out of CAS, call London Control on XXX”. I was at FL060 flying parallel the the airspace border, outside of it where the floor of CAS is FL075; FL060 is CAS at SFD (Seaford). Had I turned, I would have immediately entered CAS. I don’t buy the argument that London Info doesn’t have radar and thus couldn’t know they were setting me a trap:
The most charitable interpretation is that London Control intended that as an “implicit” clearance to enter CAS at FL060, but London Info added the “stay outside of CAS” as an automatic add-on.
lionel wrote:
Worse. Last Sunday, British ATC set me a trap, giving me route instructions into CAS with the admonition to stay outside CAS.
What a sick joke. UK ATC really must be the worst in the world. Including so-called Third World.
With a Z plan (VFR to IFR) you normally will have a gate where you don’t proceed until you have received your clearance.
It is part of planning.
ATC did not issue a clearance because they were not coordinating that CAS. What is odd is that they did not issue own navigation instruction-a route direct is normally associated with a clearance.
Another oddity, today in France I had to acknowledge a “radar contact” whilst VFR on FIS. Usually it’s the end of the conversation, I was not sure what to say, in doubt I just replied with my callsign and he did not call back a third time.
Back on topic, a clearance to a distant point clears you through all airspace’s from your current position to there, restricted areas and all. If you get a clearance you are already in CAS or about to enter. If your were indeed instructed to “join base”, entry from whatever TMA into the CTR is implicitly included.
When approaching Sweden VFR from the south I was taught to not just establish contact but explicitly request a clearance into the Malmö TMA (which goes all the way out to the FIR border with the Bremen FIR) so I get back an explicit clearance. Can’t advise on implicit clearances there.
