OK. In VMC you are supposed to be looking out but that is not related to the airspace class. It is true in A too.
in IFR there is not a lot of difference between Class E and class D unless you are in VMC when you also have a certain duty to see and avoid.
In class E airspace the need for IFR traffic to see and avoid in VMC no different than it is for VFR traffic in the same airspace. That is equally true if the IFR traffic is flying a published departure or approach, which in class E airspace in VMC will have non-communicating VFR traffic to avoid. The existence of that properly non-communicating traffic in Class E is a significant issue for IFR traffic. It’s the job of both (all) pilots to visually prevent collisions in Class E, if the weather is good enough for VFR. Class E airspace does not require radio communication in normal practice.
In class D airspace the controller provides direction to both IFR and all VFR traffic, maintaining separation between IFR flights but not with respect to VFR traffic. The difference to Class E is that the controller is talking to all traffic, including VFR. It’s therefore still important for everybody to look out of the window, use ADS-B or whatever tools are available when flying in VMC, but IFR traffic has at least the hope that ATC will advise VFR traffic of his presence and vice versa.
In VMC you are supposed to be looking out but that is not related to the airspace class. It is true in A too.
In class B or A the controller provides separation for everybody until/unless visual separation between planes is established. This is quite different for IFR than in class E or D in which there is no separation for IFR relative to VFR traffic. The responsibility for see and avoid for the IFR pilot is therefore different too.
I think a good example of the distinction is the problem when IFR pilots descending in the US from class A that ends at 18,000 ft towards class B that starts at 10,000 ft don’t understand that they are in class E between those two altitudes, with the traffic situation that implies. By default it ends up being the VFR pilot’s job to miss them, under the often valid assumptions that they aren’t smart enough to look out of the window and that their radar controller isn’t always on the ball in calling non-communicating traffic. Some military pilots seem to be particularly clueless about their responsibilities in different airspace classes and fly only IFR, expecting the controller to hold their hand regardless of where they are flying.
Peter wrote:
If you say airspace class is relevant, use an example of an airline pilot. Then it becomes self evident nonsense.
I don’t understand what you mean by this.
How often do you see airline pilots referring to airway/airspace charts?
Peter wrote:
How often do you see airline pilots referring to airway/airspace charts?
I’m sure that if they operate in class G, at least, they will be aware of it. I would also expect their ops manual to discuss it.
That’s moving the goalposts because G is not the only airspace class.
Peter wrote:
The relative lack of input is really interesting.
Because it seems like you don’t really want to know the answer. You create threads with what appear to be rhetorical questions like the one about entitlement to CAS because when you get the answers you didn’t want you insist in your beliefs rather than taking on the new information.
Likewise on this subject it’s obvious you have to be aware of the class of airspace you are in since the class determines the services you are entitled to and in what manner and the limitations you need to respect. I don’t know how you can study Air law, particularly Annex 2 and SERA, Annex 11, ICAO Doc 7030, PANS-ATM Doc 4444, ICAO Doc 8168 and (EU) 965/2012 Air ops and not know. It’s all spelled out in those. Actually if you have an IR you should know this as you should have learned it while studying these regs for your rating. You have all of them on your server (and I’m very grateful for that btw – thanks!), why not have a read and refresh your memory.
I recently had an encounter of flying IFR in southwest Belgium in descend to Kortrijk (EBKT) from France. I was at ARVOL below 4500ft and descending in class G, talking to Brussels Information, still under IFR direct to MAK with the idea to start the RNP approach at MAK. Weather was VMC.
I requested a direct to destination to conduct a visual approach in Kortrijk . This request would make me have to re-enter the class D of Lille TMA (which protrudes into Belgium).
So the Brussels Info guy told me not to enter the TMA unless he had requested clearance again with Lille, or gave me the option to circumvent the Lille TMA portion, which I did. See tracklog below.
I believe this to be an example of the UK-OCAS-clearances-void phenomenon observed outside the UK. I was supposed to be aware of me flying in class G and trying to re-enter class D while under IFR and talking to an AFISO.
Its not quite the same is it?
1/ You wanted to change your plan.
2/ ATS advised you that you were OCAS and s/he would have to get Lille clearance. Different ATS different country.
3/ You were given a choice of how to route without entering Lille airspace.
I think what Peter writes about is that you leave CAS without anyone saying anything and if you want to get back in you have to negotiate it yourself. Despite the fact that you are still dealing with the same country’s ATS and both being London (info and control).
You create threads with what appear to be rhetorical questions like the one about entitlement to CAS because when you get the answers you didn’t want you insist in your beliefs rather than taking on the new information.
A fully expected narrow minded input typical of those members of your elite profession (can’t fool anybody here) who have never flown anywhere. In fact nowadays 99% have never even held any form of license. Those that have tend to see it differently.
I requested a direct to destination to conduct a visual approach in Kortrijk . This request would make me have to re-enter the class D of Lille TMA (which protrudes into Belgium).
So the Brussels Info guy told me not to enter the TMA unless he had requested clearance again with Lille, or gave me the option to circumvent the Lille TMA portion, which I did.
That is unusual for outside the UK, indeed. But at some level I would perhaps expect that IF ATC has previously warned me that I was entering “uncontrolled airspace” (the usual phrase in France). But if there was no ATC warning that will simply trap a lot of pilots.
But anyway this is airspace G. I cannot think of a reason why a pilot under an IFR clearance needs to be airspace class aware in general terms.
I think what Peter writes about is that you leave CAS without anyone saying anything and if you want to get back in you have to negotiate it yourself. Despite the fact that you are still dealing with the same country’s ATS and both being London (info and control). [ my bold ]
Yes.
Over the 18 years I’ve been flying IFR I have noticed a gradual change in France in the way they “hand over” traffic to the UK. Up to a few years ago if you were leaving France at say FL080 they would happily hand you over to “London 124.6” which, unless you are a “local” will cause a nice Class A bust right at the UK FIR boundary 
There is absolutely nothing in “London 124.6” suggesting that you must now be VFR, or you must now be in G. It took probably many years for the UK-FR inter-ATC-body discussions to develop some way to deal with this, so now, maybe 20-25 years after it started happening, French ATC (typically Lille or Deauville) actually know the UK has a CAS base there at FL075.
Of course there is absolutely zero CAT at FL080 way out there so before the mad CAA policy instigated c. 2018 there was no real trouble. But after 2018 they had to get French ATC to do something because the Gasco “fake charity” would not be able to cope with the level of business 
