If non radio you can’t know if there is a radar contact.
In Europe there usually is, and always there is in CAS, but that’s not the point. The weird thing here is the DCT scenario. I think ATC is responsible for the route in all IFR in CAS cases, but they are legally responsible for the obstacle clearance only if being vectored. A DCT is not being vectored.
Whenever you file a direct between waypoints you are responsible for the flightpath.
What you file is not necessarily what you fly. If ATC clears you across/through restricted area, you’re cleared and you can’t be responsible for infringement. We’re not talking here about IFR in G layer but about flight in controlled airspace.
Surely you can go through any Restricted or Military area if you are cleared to go through it. Obviously a clearance can be rescinded later, but as long as you are cleared through it, then that should be fine.
I’m not an IFR pilot, but my understanding is that on departure on an IFR flight you are usually “cleared to destination as filed”. So even if you lose contact with ATC, you have been cleared though all those areas. So you’re not busting any R or M area, as you’ve been cleared through them.
Obviously ATC intend to tactically manage your route and once you lose come that option disappears for ATC, but none the less, you are already cleared though them.
How could you prosecute someone for flying through a R or M area when they have already been cleared through it!?
my understanding is that on departure on an IFR flight you are usually “cleared to destination as filed”. So even if you lose contact with ATC, you have been cleared though all those areas. So you’re not busting any R or M area, as you’ve been cleared through them.
Exactly.
How could you prosecute someone for flying through a R or M area when they have already been cleared through it!?
We’re probably discussing here with some information missing or about someone didn’t understand how these rules were supposed to work.
Peter wrote:
they are legally responsible for the obstacle clearance only if being vectored. A DCT is not being vectored.
They are legally responsible for obstacle clearance also if they give you a DCT. This is not in SERA but in part-ATS:
ATS.TR.235(a)(5):
When vectoring or assigning a direct routing not included in the flight plan, which takes an IFR flight off published ATS route or instrument procedure, an air traffic controller providing ATS surveillance service shall issue clearances such that the prescribed obstacle clearance exists at all times until the aircraft reaches the point where the pilot re-joins the flight plan route, or joins a published ATS route or instrument procedure.
UdoR wrote:
How to lose your license in 35 minutes using ForeFlight that keeps you totally blind: plan, file and fly an IFR flight from EDQG to EDVK in FL60 (lowest possible flight level). The results from FF are all Eurocontrol and DFS valid but guide all through three military restricted areas Hammelburg, Wildflecken and Schwarzenborn
Well, I am not an IFR pilot, and totally unknowledgeable about it, furthermore no criticism is meant to anyone. But,
1) either you planned the route yourself, within Foreflight (but in a similar way as you would on a paper chart). In that case you would certainly have planned around those restricted zones? unless FF does not show them, in which case it is a severe shortcoming of the tool!
2) or the plan came from some sort of autorouter, i.e. machine-generated. Doesn’t it make sense to always double-check any machine-generated output? particularly if your license, your life, or both, are on the line.
They are legally responsible for obstacle clearance also if they give you a DCT
Well, that makes sense, but is automatic since you won’t get a DCT below the MRVA anyway. Exceptions happen if you confirm you are in VMC; the Italians sometimes do that. The thing is that you can’t fly a non-DCT route below the MRVA, either 
particularly if your license, your life, or both, are on the line.
The Eurocontrol system doesn’t work that way. It was probably like that some 30+ years ago but today’s IFR route generation is a wholly computer generated affair, where tens of thousands of rules are applied. A route is almost impossible to generate manually today. You could do a few bits in France still, in their Class E in particular.
I have some notes here on how it works.
They still teach the manual route gen, with paper IFR charts, in the EASA IR, but as I say that has not worked for about 30 years.
The whole game is now: get the computer-generated route, file it, fly it and accept it will be somewhat “dynamic”
Well, I am not an IFR pilot, and totally unknowledgeable about it, furthermore no criticism is meant to anyone.
I don’t want to sound harsh but that’s exactly the reason why you think what you listed within #1 and #2. It simply doesn’t hold because the things function differently and it has been explained in this thread by few IFR pilots.
@Airborne_again you missed the point. The problem comes when you file a direct between two waypoints and not when ATC gives you a direct.
You write WPT1 DCT WPT2 in the flight plan and then obstacle clearance and airspace structure is your responsibility.
You write WPT1 DCT WPT2 in the flight plan and then obstacle clearance and airspace structure is your responsibility
Source? If such route validates (which it wouldn’t if below min alt/level or within prohibited airspace), is filed and clearance received then how is that legally the PIC’s responsibility?
