Peter,
It is legal in the UK, in any reg whose State of Registry does not prohibit it (91.175 prohibits it for N-regs for example).
My read of 91.175 is that it requires standard approaches to be flown, but I can’t find anything that prohibits flying standard approaches in G airspace. But I do also believe that in the US any airport with a standard approach will be surrounded by controlled airspace… so the effect is the same. On the other hand, it is perfectly legal in the US (but wise or safe ???) to fly around in uncontrolled airspace in IMC without any flight plan or clearance. This is per 91.173 by exclusion.
Hi Florian,
Your survey in Switzerland would seem to flag a certain deficiency in training, given that p36 (RAC 1-1 1.4) of the VFR Guide clearly indicates that VFR is not separated from IFR traffic in Class D. The current version of this guide is available free of charge on the Skyguide web site, so no excuse. Airspace classification rules is probably one of the most important and fundamental elements of RAC in the entire PPL curriculum.
Vince
On the other hand, it is perfectly legal in the US (but wise or safe ???) to fly around in uncontrolled airspace in IMC without any flight plan or clearance.
There are reports (sorry no references but old-timers may know) of US pilots having been busted for departing into IMC in Class G. But not for not having an IFR clearance (which you cannot have in G anyway) but for not having filed an IFR flight plan…
This kind of enforcement doesn’t seem to happen at all in Europe. There are rumours but nobody has ever come up with any detail.
Against this tough enforcement in the USA, they have a much more accessible IR, and that is the key to all this stuff.
Yes but in the US at many smaller airports you are in class G below 700’ AGL….when departing or arriving IFR….so clearly IFR is legal in class G…. FAR 91.173 requires a flight plan to be filed to fly IFR in controlled airspace….and since in most places in the US class E is down to 1200’ AGL flying IFR enroute in class G is just not done…
AnthonyQ wrote:
you must file a flight plan to fly IFR in the US but there is no such need in the UK…..
You file a flight plan to get a controlled flight and/or to get SAR. In controlled airspace (or F for IFR) you have no choice, but the flight plan can be short, just a clearance essentially. In Norway the TIZ (Traffic Information Zone, where the AFIS is in G) usually goes up to C/D, inside/below a TMA, but could in some cases be inside/below a TIA (Traffic Information Area). Both TIZ and TIA are defined as uncontrolled airspaces (G) where traffic information is given and where two way radio communication is required. You could in principle fly from one AFIS to the next within a TIA, or below the TMA/TIA (in “full” G), but I don’t think it is even possible to come from G below the TMA/TIA and into a TIZ for an IFR approach due to height limitations, mountains etc? (no problems VFR of course). In practice, for all IFR traffic, this will either be in controlled space, or in TIA (RMZ). In principle there is no requirement for a flight plan, but you still would have to talk to AFIS and information.
Absolutely agree with you both. The legalities discussion is a useful one, but the combination of widespread controlled airspace down to 1200AGL (and often even 700AGL) and an easily accessible IFR infrastructure means few situations where an IMC flt w/o plan or ATC contact makes any real sense… maybe some places in Alaska …
The UK situation intrigues me, with apparently widespread IFR flight outside controlled airspace and therefore not under ATC control. Other threads here report exchanges after takeoff containing “remain clear of control airspace”. What is the defined process if an entry clearance is not received or lost comm while in IMC? IFR lost comm rules wouldn’t apply because there is no clearance (limit).
As an aside, I find it interesting how almost every country in Europe has it’s own flavour of strict application of some rules and pragmatic flexibility applying others. :-)
Vince
chflyer wrote:
IFR lost comm rules wouldn’t apply because there is no clearance (limit).
Lost comm procedures make reference to the flight plan and not to a clearance as such. Which would make for an interesting case in the UK if someone with an activated IFR flight plan gets COM failure OCAS in IMC and proceeds according to the flight plan into controlled airspace. Or does the UK have special rules for this case?
In the UK you won’t get an ifr flight plan into the system unless it is a eurocontrol flight i.e. FL100 or something vaguely similar, in CAS.
IFR FPs filed in G are discarded and are treated like VFR ones.
The UK situation intrigues me, with apparently widespread IFR flight outside controlled airspace and therefore not under ATC control.
Actually, that’s not a UK peculiarity. Is is almost every other country too where IFR can take place OCAS, and as such obviously without ATC control. The only exceptions in Europe are in fact Germany and Switzerland.
The only UK peculiarity here is that the UK does not even require radio contact for that, whereas most others (for example France, Sweden) require it.
The only exceptions in Europe are in fact Germany and Switzerland.
And Austria “outside of published procedures”.
Well yes, I count Austria to Germany here, as most of their airlaw seems to be copy and paste exercise from the German one… 
By the way, I would be interested where this is written for Austria. Their ENR 1.4 does not mention it. Even if it is written somewhere else, ENR1.4 is misleading as that is where one would expect it (which is obviously in conflict with ICAO and SERA).
