Would it not be possible to get them to agree to what we do here and in the US ie forget Z and Y flight plans and just file “I”.
Then telephone before take off to activate.
That way you are controlled from before take off and then a gap until you can obtain 2 way radio communications. Anything on radar they can see and control and anything such as VFR traffic below radar is VMC and see and avoid, pilot’s responsibility,(whether VFR or IFR) until radar contact is established.
I too am surprised that there is a lack of radio service in Class A.
gallois wrote:
Would it not be possible to get them to agree to what we do here and in the US ie forget Z and Y flight plans and just file “I”.
They won’t let you do that out of LESB or LESL which are “VFR only” airfields even though given their proximity to LEPA and LEMH it wouldn’t be a problem technically.
It’s Spanish bureaucracy at play.
Who is it that is blocking such a thing?
If it is ATC and Antonio and others are going to discuss changes, surely this would be a cheap and simple solution.
It is not EASA or ICAO because IIRC there is no delineation between VFR or IFR airfields, only those with or without instrument arrivals and departure procedures.
I can see only 2 options :
Option 1 is they merge LESB traffic with LEPA traffic within the CTR, and follow SID/STAR until MVA
Option 2 is a better one : they bring the Class A floor above MVA and below becomes Class C/D/E. Class C or D seems complicated without radar and radio coverage. Class E would be the reasonable choice.
What would happen if an IFR within the TMA requested descent to 2000 feet for whatever reason ? ATC would start panicking :)
FYI, out of LFPT/LFPN, Tower will keep you on frequency until radar identified, always below Class A. If you don’t show up on the screen, it will trigger some reaction (« please check squawk »). If a non-Txp plane joins the Paris Class A, it will be a huge affair.
@Jujupilote: I could imagine that the airlines would protest against having E and having to share their airspace officially with uncontrolled bugsmashers. But changing it to C or if need be B would solve at least the airspace legality problem.
I personally would prefer to get IFR as soon as possible and join the SID, eg. leaving LFMP Perpignan from the non-instrument runway (because it’s right next to the fuel station) you get “join SID visually” which works perfectly. But that’s in a civilized country regarding flight ops…
IIRC both LFPN and LFPT have instrument approach and departure procedures.
I was thinking more along the lines of departing Propriano LFKO or Bordeaux Leognan Saucat LFCS or even here LFFK, all being untowered airfields with CAS or RA nearby and above.
mri wrote:
the airlines would protest against having E and having to share their airspace officially with uncontrolled bugsmashers.
But this is what happens in Germany and doesn’t seem to be a problem?
I remember that one time where in Bremen they kept inbound IFR traffic high at FL100 over the Class E and then vectored you around the Class D to give you track miles to descend, but they seemed to have gotten rid of that.
Of course it works perfectly, but if there was A before and someone wanted to make it E, there would be a huge fuss anyway :-)
Just a curiosity: if one wants IFR pick up “soon after takeoff”, why depart Z in the first place and not full I?
Not allowed at LESB
