I don’t really understand the problem, having read through this and the other associated thread. If you’re IFR, you do what ATC tells you. Of course you keep an eye on things just in case they inadvertenty try to fly you into the side of a mountain, but otherwise you do what you’re told. You can’t fly IFR (except in Class G) without ATC.
I asked ForeFlight for a route but it wasn’t much help. It even gave me a choice of HO or GA405 as IAF. Personally I would choose HO and then descend from 6500 to 3000 on the HO-GA405 leg, if I had to plan it myself. But in reality I would request direct IGA19 if I was approaching from the west.
I find this whole situation a bit surprising because usually French approaches have associated arrivals (STARs) whose job is to get you from an airway to the IAF, at safe altitudes. Odd that LFGA doesn’t have one.
There is a convention in the UK (it may be general) that airports OCAS (which in IFR means Class G, or the never-used F) do not have SIDs or STARs.
So if you look at say EGKB (wholly in G) the UK avoids publishing them
(they used to but avoiding “SID/STAR” naming)
while Jepp just gets on with it 
johnh wrote:
I don’t really understand the problem, having read through this and the other associated thread. If you’re IFR, you do what ATC tells you. Of course you keep an eye on things just in case they inadvertenty try to fly you into the side of a mountain, but otherwise you do what you’re told. You can’t fly IFR (except in Class G) without ATC.
But in this case it was class G (except in the very beginning).
A bit off topic, so feel free to move it, but…
Yesterday I flew to Tarbes LFBT. That has a STAR which leads to TEPTI, then the approach goes from TEPTI to a normal IAF – IF (turn left) – FAF sequence. While I was on my way to TEPTU I got direct VAKPI. Huh? Not on any chart I’ve looked at. The controller spelled it and I flew there. It’s about 2 miles north of the IF at IBT20, no no problem.
I wondered where this mysterious waypoint was to be found, and eventually found it on the NDB Z! It’s also the IAF for the ILS. I still wonder why she sent me there rather than letting me make my own way to IBT20.
Incidentally the ILS has a very impressive missed, which involves a 90 degree or so DME arc back out to TEPTI. Even one of the SIDs has a short DME arc (USAKU2N) though USAKU2M – which I got – is identical except that the DME arc is replaced by a straight line.
Tarbes is a nice place to visit by the way (the airport I mean, not the town). I’m waiting to get the invoice before I do a database entry for it. There’s a big airplane dismantler (Tarmac) with about 10 380s waiting to be dismantled among plenty of other stuff.
Peter wrote:
(they used to but avoiding “SID/STAR” naming)
I think they have in many cases (EGKB/EGSC/…) the reference to other STARs, for example, for EGKB you are supposed to use EGLC STARs and for EGSC – EGSS stars. And that is in AIP.
Peter wrote: “but it is generally discouraged elsewhere, has been frowned upon in France (allegedly due to Brits doing all kinds of stuff there in IMC in Class E), ”
Absolute total BS. Peter you really must stop this you are the moderator and whilst you are entitled to your opinions I would encourage you to be more factual.
Flying to HO and descending is not a problem should you wish to but why you would want to fly the HO to GA405 at 3000ft I don’t know. The platform altitude is 3300’ so you.would have to climb again.
IGA roznet 19 is not an IAF as far as I can see and if you were to go direct from the west to there you would need to be at 6200ft so it would be quite a steep descent rate. But you also would not have followed an IAP.
johnh only the larger ,by French standards airports, (which isn’t large by International standards, have STARs and SIDs)
There are probably many more without them.
I could post a link to an old forum on which a French ATCO is posting some great opinions, but I won’t because the said person is still active in France at several levels.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Probably because he has an FAA IR. Under FAA standards (TERPS) MSAs are indeed establised “for use during emergency situations”. However, under international standards (PANS-OPS), which are applied in Europe, there is no such restriction. In fact, PANS-OPS states that “Omnidirectional or sector arrivals can be provided taking into account minimum sector altitudes (MSA).” Note that MSAs only depend on obstacle clearance. Radio coverage or airspace is not taken into account.
Yes in TERPS and ‘US ATC system’, MSA is not usable operationally, it’s only for emergencies. The TAA is usable for normal flying: it has to be in feeder route, arrival or airway and everything happens in General Echo airspace above MIA altitudes (@NCYankee will know more)
Some PANS-OPS countries, also have similar implementations, Germany for instance require TAA on plates to be above MRVA with everything inside General Echo airspace, some TAA sits really high when MRVA is high. Germany also require SID and STAR+IAF for procedural IFR operations and any funky IAF that does not satisfy this is “ATC only” with continuous radar and radio contact (plus AFIS/ATC on radio while on final in RMZ/CAS)
In France, the MSA is operationally usable at pilot discretion when flying IFR outside controlled airspace (in controlled airspace, you are limited to MVA/MEA or any ATC min altitude), there is no requirement for published arrivals, departures, atc, airspace, radar, radio…to operate IFR while in vicinity of aerodromes (up to 25nm or even 50nm directs can be flown). Also, there is no requirement to join AWY/STAR to an IAF using published procedure or vectoring radar.
France has a filed ICAO difference on this in AIP
PANS-OPS
Standard instrument arrival (STAR). A designated instrument flight rule (IFR) arrival route linking a significant point, normally on an ATS route, with a point from which a published instrument approach procedure can be commenced.
GEN1.7 STAR…
A STAR should enable the transition between the en-route phase and the approach phase by joining a significant point, usually on an ATS route, to another point from which the instrument approach procedure will begin. The beginning of the arrival route varies depending on the situation:
1) if no controlled airspace is associated with the procedure: the last en-route fix, if situated less than 25 NM from the IAF; otherwise, the point situated at 25 NM from the IAF on the arrival route.
2) if controlled airspace is associated with the procedure: the boundary of this airspace or the closest possible fix to this boundary
ENR1.5.2.1 MSA…
if no controlled airspace is associated with the procedure : from the last fix, within a radius of 25 NM from the IAF, if not, from the point located at 25 NM from IAF on the arrival route.
if a controlled airspace is associated with the procedure: an Air Traffic constraint (procedure altitude) may be published if necessary ; it then precedes the minimum obstacle clearance altitude
French MUP4.2,
‘Transition entre la croisière et l’approche, l’arrivée permet à l’aéronef de rallier l’IAF. Selon le cas, elle peuts’effectuer suivant une trajectoire normalisée appelée STAR ou en utilisant les altitudes minimales de secteurpubliées (MSA ou TAA).’
I imagine Colmar being in Golf with AFIS would have been obvious? I think some of the confusion comes from ‘Classic IFR’ and ‘US IFR flying’: you fly fully in airspace talking to radar atc or on published routes. Anyway, the UK has similar instrument procedures and instruments runways that are not connected to airway or airspace, I am sure the pilot is always responsible of risk from hitting terrain (in addition to risks of hitting airspace)
I can’t see why one would want to fly shortcuts in IMC? I always ask to fly the whole procedure from HOLD (or racetrack/pt to burn altitude and align) => IAF => IF => FAF. However, if one is looking for additional shortcuts (icing, thunderstorm) they can use vectoring chart of Strasbourg, MSA, TAA, MHA of Colmar plate or read on VFR chart from SkyDemon.
No need to request anything from en-route ATC or airport AFIS, you can go straight to any IAF, or even FAF, or visual if you like, just self-announce it !
Ibra wrote:
Yes in TERPS and ‘US ATC system’, MSA is not usable operationally, it’s only for emergencies. The TAA is usable for normal flying: it has to be in feeder route, arrival or airway and everything happens in General Echo airspace above MIA altitudes
In the US, almost all of the TAA don’t have feeder routes due to their large airspace they encompass. Each TAA segment is thought of as an random RNAV feeder route to the respective IAF, so any airway that passes through the TAA will not use a separate feeder route to the IAF’s.. I understand that there are a few TAA (I was told in Alaska) that use feeder routes because no airways penetrate the TAA airspace. Now a days, much of the flying in the US is using RNAV point to point routings and utilize airways less often. When cleared for the approach while outside a TAA, descent may begin and by default is expected to occur once inside the TAA. ATC may assign an altitude to maintain until either inside a TAA or until a fix inside a TAA, but they have to issue a specific clearance to that effect. Once cleared of the approach, pilots may descend to the TAA segment altitude when inside the TAA segment without additional clearance. In theory, an MSA and a TAA are not supposed to be on the same approach chart as it would be considered as confusing.
NCYankee wrote:
Each TAA segment is thought of as an random RNAV feeder route to the respective IAF
That was my understanding, the TAA itself is a published feeder route. What about KBVY RNAV34? no TAA, no STAR, no AWY to connect with IAF
Is MSA usable in case of loss of radio or loss of radar?
