tomjnx wrote:
You don’t.
Exactly. You don’t know this any better than I do, so you’re just nitpicking.
So relying on ATC services
Where did I say I was “relying on ATC services”? I was using ATC services, not relying on them.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Now you’re just being silly.
I don’t think so.
Airborne_Again wrote:
How do you know that you are in radio contact with ATC in controlled airspace?
You don’t. A friend of mine once got a bollocking because he didn’t respond to an ATC request in the middle of Frankfurt airspace. It then turned out that at the time he was called, he was just passing a DAB transmitter that turned out to have a huge noise floor, out of band. Yet he thought he was in constant radio contact.
The point is that controlled airspace (at least D and “better”) is usually designed in a way (not in Italy, though) that you have a chance to get radio contact propagation wise.
If, on the other hand, you fly around very low level, radio range seriously suffers, and there’s no way to know whether you are within (downlink) range of a suitable radio outlet, since their position is usually not published. So relying on ATC services when roaming about low level in G because “Scandinavian countries provide seamless ATC service to IFR aircraft in class G airspace” and because it seems like there is 2 way radio contact is a somewhat risky proposition IMO.
tomjnx wrote:
How do you know? Did you make a radio check every half minute? Did you check that the terrain is completely flat and that the station you were talking to had a radio outlet within 60 miles at all times?
Now you’re just being silly.
But seriously, I could hear ATC on the frequency all the time, so chances would be very good that they could also hear me. Which they did every time I called them.
How do you know that you are in radio contact with ATC in controlled airspace?
boscomantico wrote:
SERA which says that within “designated areas” (which may mean the entire airspace), authorities may mandate two way radio comms for IFR OCAS.
And what does that prove? Only that you can abuse pretty much any regulation to a point where it makes no sense.
Sure you can declare a whole FIR to be a RMZ, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense in vast spaces devoid of people, planes and only rich in mosquitoes and forests…
Airborne_Again wrote:
was in radio contact with ATC the whole time
How do you know? Did you make a radio check every half minute? Did you check that the terrain is completely flat and that the station you were talking to had a radio outlet within 60 miles at all times?
I’ll try that in Norway next week. Radio contact is not mandatory IFR in class G, btw, outside their version of radio mandatory zones (TIZ/TIAs).
Plan is to coast in from Lerwick, Land at Orsta/Volda (Hovden, ENOV) for a bit of fuel and scenery (and to have an excuse to file an MOR about the atrociously dangerous jepp approach plate), and then carry on to the Lofoten along the coast. Not relying on the weather too much, I expect to fly a random mix of IFR and VFR to see as much scenery as weather permits.
Given the prevalence of CTRs and TMAs on that route, I am kind of relying on getting clearances quite a bit… the airfields up there especially in the north are seriously busy, some of them have more than two scheduled flights per week, so I know squeezing me in might be a stretch for ATC, but one can always hope ;-) – same as in Norwich, really.
tomjnx wrote:
Sweden apparently distinguishes between low level “genuine G” and some airspace above which they operate somewhat like E but not quite.
You will be handled exactly the same at any altitude. When returning from Friedrichshafen this spring, I had very strong headwinds over Sweden and did the entire 3 hour flight at the MORA (2500-3500 feet). I passed three TMAs on the way and was in radio contact with ATC the whole time, got handovers, traffic info etc.
Fine, but that’s what the regs are you won’t change the regs with your opinion.
In the ICAO framework, you can either call voluntarily and get a flight information service (G), or must call and get at least IFR-IFR separation (E).
But that is not the ICAO framework! Above, Airborne posted the crucial paragraph from SERA which says that within “designated areas” (which may mean the entire airspace), authorities may mandate two way radio comms for IFR OCAS.
The same identical phrase is also written in ICAO Annex 2.
Read…
boscomantico wrote:
Why do you keep saying these things?
Because I find it utterly nonsensical to be required to be in contact with ATC, but in return only get a flight information service.
In the ICAO framework, you can either call voluntarily and get a flight information service (G), or must call and get at least IFR-IFR separation (E). But having to call but still getting only a FIS seems to serve no purpose to me.
Why do you keep saying these things?
These countries don’t operate it “like E” at all. In class E, IFR traffic is subject to air traffic control. Want to change altitude? Ask ATC for clearance. Want to change route? Ask ATC for clearance. (They need to separate you from other IFR traffic).
In Golf, no clearance. Just let ATC know what you are doing. Fundamental difference.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Sweden has such a requirement for flights above 5000’ (or 3000’ AGL, if higher).
That’s probably the difference. I’m used to countries where G is only the lowest layer, something like up to 2000ft AGL (such as in Switzerland, Germany, and even the US).
Sweden apparently distinguishes between low level “genuine G” and some airspace above which they operate somewhat like E but not quite.
