@gallois: kinda sorta
@Peter: I don’t recall if they had told me I was outside controlled airspace. The fact is that if you talk to Brussels Information while under IFR, the guy has to do the effort to concert with his colleagues if you can (re-)enter, which seems similar to the UK situation. Albeit in Belgium (or France or similar) such re-entry would never be refused while under IFR, as opposed to the UK apparently.
Niner_Mike wrote:
The fact is that if you talk to Brussels Information while under IFR, the guy has to do the effort to concert with his colleagues if you can (re-)enter, which seems similar to the UK situation.
Without of course knowing what exactly happened in your example but with the awareness of the regulations and looking at the route I don’t think you’re correctly interpreting what happened there. The excerpt of your route ARVOL DCT MAK meant that your flight plan was not sent to Lille ATC but to Brussels ATC, since MAK is inside the Brussels TMA. You have to have a flight plan to fly in controlled airspace. So when you wanted to change your plan coordination would have been necessary to get the flight plan to Lille for them to be able to accept you. My guess is that it’s as simple as that.
I just had spoken to Lille Approach as I came from the south of France IFR so they had my flightplan and a flight strip for sure: thats not the issue. Brussels Information had to call the ATC lady from Lille back where I just said goodbye to.
My point is: when OCAS under IFR I was not automatically cleared into CAS outside the UK. I believe Peter was looking for such examples.
Well to stay on the topic of the thread " On this occasion yes you should have been aware that if you wanted to do a visual approach you would need a further clearance to re enter Lille TMA.
However Brussels ATC did you a favour and tried to be helpful as most usually do. He offered to contact Lille on your behalf and he warned you that there might be a delay. He also gave you an alternative, being to stay OCAS. He did not say you wiuld need to wait whilst he negotiated clearance to re enter Brussels airspace. IMO Brussels acted perfectly as they should.
Oh yes everybody behaved very well, myself included. I dont complain here at all. All nice and dandy. All ops normal, no law broken, no ego harmed.
I just give a real life practical example about the fact that having previously been cleared on an IFR flightplan, it does not give you a clearance to (re)enter D from G when talking to Information… outside the UK.
Niner_Mike wrote:
I just had spoken to Lille Approach as I came from the south of France IFR so they had my flightplan and a flight strip for sure: thats not the issue.
That is the issue! You were handed off meaning they terminated their service to you and had another unit accept the responsibility. I think @gallois’s analysis is spot on.
As per Annex 11:
3.5 Responsibility for control
3.5.1 Responsibility for control of individual flights
A controlled flight shall be under the control of only one air traffic control unit at any given time.
And furthermore:
3.6.2 Coordination of transfer
3.6.2.1 Responsibility for control of an aircraft shall not be transferred from one air traffic control unit to another without the consent of the accepting control unit, which shall be obtained in accordance with 3.6.2.2, 3.6.2.2.1, 3.6.2.2.2 and 3.6.2.3.
3.6.2.2 The transferring control unit shall communicate to the accepting control unit the appropriate parts of the current flight plan and any control information pertinent to the transfer requested.
3.6.2.3 The accepting control unit shall:
a) indicate its ability to accept control of the aircraft on the terms specified by the transferring control unit, unless by prior agreement between the two units concerned, the absence of any such indication is understood to signify acceptance of the terms specified, or indicate any necessary changes thereto; and
b) specify any other information or clearance for a subsequent portion of the flight, which it requires the aircraft to have at the time of transfer.
3.6.2.4 The accepting control unit shall notify the transferring control unit when it has established two-way voice and/or data link communications with and assumed control of the aircraft concerned, unless otherwise specified by agreement between the two control units concerned.
3.6.2.1 Responsibility for control of an aircraft shall not be transferred from one air traffic control unit to another without the consent of the accepting control unit, which shall be obtained in accordance with 3.6.2.2, 3.6.2.2.1, 3.6.2.2.2 and 3.6.2.3.
OMG.
The word in the subject header is “pilot” i.e. somebody who is flying a plane.
Ok. There is no issue. There is no complaint. There are no bad vibes. There is no law broken. There is no discussion. There is no disagreement.
There is just a real life example of a perfectly normal flight that I am sharing here.
Niner_Mike wrote:
Ok. There is no issue.
100% agree. I absolutely had no intention of coming off as hostile or anything. I was just trying to understand your interesting example but what I think is not an example of what the OP was referring to and that is all.
I wanted to illustrate that I had to be aware of flying in Class G and that I could just not turn into Class D without extra clearance, while under an IFR clearance.
If I would have turned left DCT to EBKT it would have been a violation although I had “a IFR clearance”.
I am not convinced that all continental-Europe IFR pilots are sensitive to such issue.
So the answer is “yes”: you should be aware of airspace class as IFR pilot in continental Europe.
