IFR Sweden uncontrolled airspace

This is digressing, but the ritual phrase “cleared to XXXX” where XXXX is the filed destination airport, is meaningful only if the entire flight is in CAS. And it does entitle you to land, because it is intended for the lost-comms scenario.

Practice would of course be different…

gallois wrote:

As I wrote this is for France as was explained to me by a senior ATCO at an ACC.

France has a ‘sort of mini-joined IFR system’ above 3kft amsl & 1kft agl (Surface-S) even outside FL65 airway or FL120 general delta

It’s when you cross borders that you will have to learn something about ‘low IFR’, we have another similar thread on Lille/London handovers I never heard ‘clearance limit’ in France/UK but I heard it twice in Spain/Morocco border (I was flying lower than my filed level and was deviating outside VOR airway away one NOTAM area)

You need FL200 to fly fully in airspace between Spain-Morocco with ‘cleared to destination’ (also what you likely need to fly on radar)
You need FL195 to fly fully in airspace between France-UK with ‘cleared to destination’ (FL120 your are in some quasi-joined airspace)

I am not sure what is the figure between Denmark and Sweden? surely FL195 but how about FL120?

Anything bellow these figures you need to hack your way out under IFR…

pmh wrote:

Who is responsible for clearance through the restricted areas ahead?
Since you are IFR you already have a clearance. Had you been VFR you needed to ask for a clearance.

So far so good.

The problem is going back I did exactly the same and got the opposite response:
You are responsible for clearance through restricted areas IFR in uncontrolled airspace.

On both legs I initially was cleared to the destination.

The first controller was wrong and the second was right. To be super-precise, you don’t get a “clearance” through a restricted area, you get “permission”. In controlled airspace, “permission” is implied in you IFR clearance.

The clearance to your destination is not invalidated when you enter uncontrolled airspace (except in the UK), but of course it only applies when you are actually a controlled flight.

I have written an article about uncontrolled IFR in Sweden.

Malibuflyer wrote:

First and foremost: When you are cleared, you are cleared!
ICAO is very clear about that. It is not the responsibility of the pilot to double check if the controller who gave him the clearance has the right to give that clearance. That would be completely unfeasible in international travel anyways.
So if you got a clearance “cleared to destination, flight planned route” you can fly this and are cleared for any airspace that might be in between.

Yes, and no. Indeed if you are cleared to destination then you are cleared for any airspace enroute that requires a clearance. But restricted areas as such don’t require clearances, they require permissions.

But what could also be true (and not contradicting) is that you might typically not get such a clearance if you are flying in Swedish uncontrolled airspace.

You would typically get such a clearance. The only case I recall when I have not is when my entire flight, including take-off and landing, was uncontrolled. But even then you are typically given a clearance when you call ATC to open your flight plan.

gallois wrote:

I don’t know the system in Sweden well but if it is like France

It is very similar to France. Differences that I noticed.

1) It does work the same in Sweden, but technically you would be infringing if you did not get an explicit clearance. On the other hand, to get the transponder code you would have to contact ATC which would issue the clearance.

2) Uncontrolled IFR above 5000 ft in Sweden requires a flight plan. Although you can change route and level to your heart’s desire you must tell ATC (which is also responsible for FIS OCAS) first so that they can update your current flight plan.

3) In Sweden, ATC can’t route you OCAS along a different route than you have filed without your explicit approval.

4) Same in Sweden.

I once asked the ATC about flight following (VFR) in G. It’s sometimes very confusing because some hand you over, some don’t. He called me back and explained this, and also mentioned IFR.

In short, no such thing as flight following in Norway (EASA), as they have in the US. If someone hands you over, it’s because they are being nice. Flying IFR I would get “implicit clearances” (hand over) in and out of G, as long as I stayed in contact with ATC.

The only difference between flying IFR and VFR in G is you in essence get “flight following” IFR but not VFR, even when staying in contact with ATC with a pre filed flight plan.

I am sure (but not 100) that we did use to get something like flight following in the 90s. But airspaces were different as well, so. VFR flight following would make life easier though.

What if ATC does not even know about the position & status of those Golf Restricted Areas?

Unless they are adjacent to his airspace or 2kft bellow, I can’t see how it works? he won’t read en-route NOTAMS on behalf of PIC for whole route?

In UK, it seems OK to fly though Danger Area while IFR and talking to radar controller OCAS but bizzarly doing it while IFR and talking to non-radar units gets you a letter (the radar traces are available but not the radar service)

What if ATC does not even know about the position & status of those Golf Restricted Areas?

Unless they are adjacent to his airspace or 2kft bellow, I can’t see how it works?

In UK, it seems OK to fly though Danger Area while IFR if talking to radar controller OCAS (on Deconfliction & Traffic Services) but bizzarly doing it while IFR and talking to non-radar units (Approach & Basic Services) will get you a letter

AIUI ICAO and EASA regs allow you to fly through a danger area VFR or IFR but you are at your own risk. There is no penalty for infringing a danger area. This was written up in one of the French aviation magazines by an International aviation lawyer. The only possible penalty is the activity in the danger area itself but you have not committed an infringement.