You are required to avoid danger, restricted and other threat areas (eg Gliding and Parachuting, NOTAM)
I think that is in the “FTO IR training scenario” which AIUI is largely a low level (say 5000ft) flight in Class G, not under London Control except maybe some bits, so de facto a VFR flight OCAS, and thus with no clearance of any sort.
On a flight in CAS, London Control, or any other CAS e.g. Solent, no way would I buy that. ATC get a feed of the notams on RAs etc and their job includes being aware of these, and not routing traffic through them. To argue otherwise is to argue that an IFR pilot is expected to be running a VFR satnav app depicting graphical notams, etc.
Getting back to Malibuflyer’s post “above” this illustrates the problem with the ritual “cleared to destination” phrase used in IFR departure clearances. It is a bomb looking for a place to explode. It would be interesting to know whether the pilot was in contact with radar ATC, between getting that departure clearance, and doing the alleged bust. If not (which may (?) be possible in Germany but not possible in the UK, if in CAS) then it is more debatable against him, but you are still stuck with that phrase “cleared to… via filed route”.
RobertL18C wrote:
The IR planned diversion component is designed to test this aspect of IFR flying. You are required to avoid danger, restricted and other threat areas (eg Gliding and Parachuting, NOTAM).
But that would effectively mean pilots flying IFR (on a flight plan, not just self-declared IFR) are required to conduct full VFR planning for their route and carry VFR charts, as well as whatever other navigational aids they might need?
Yes – exactly. Doesn’t make any sense to me IF under ATC control. Filing an IFR FP means nothing.
The only questionable thing is in the post by @malibuflyer about the “cleared to destination” bit, which “everybody” knows is an old IFR ritual and has no real meaning. But that clearance is still issued…
Is it possible in Germany to be in CAS, IFR, and not be under radar ATC control? @caba may know.
Not filing a flight plan for an IFR flight is just a UK thing, I think.
In France all IFR outside of the confines of an airfield requires the deposition of a flight plan.
It is possible to file an airborne flight plan but that needs to be done at least 10 minutes before the initial IFR waypoint/intersection.
As has already been said, in France once you have been cleared to a point, you are cleared, whether that is across an “R” or “D” zone or not.
(Actually a “D” zone is irrelevant, there is an article in Aviasport written by a respected aviation lawyer and pilot who points this out and we have done this here.)
You might well take the restricted zones into account during the planning stage (and as others have pointed out if you file with Eurocontrol they should already have received Notams on the activities of these zones in and will accept or reject a route based on that information. )
But once in flight, how would you deal with a situation, which happens regularly, when you are routed off your planned route due to traffic and then given a resume own navigation? In France, if resuming own navigation or given a direct will take you over an active zone ATS will inform you of such and ask you to avoid. There is no problem asking their advice on the most suitable way to do that. If they have cleared you inadvertently through an active zone it will be the ATSO who will be sent for retraining and not the pilot.
in France once you have been cleared to a point, you are cleared, whether that is across an “R” or “D” zone or not.
IME that is not the case for VFR, but the argument may be complicated by French ATC not using the phrase “cleared to”; rather they say “radar contact” or similar. In fact it is very rare to get a “cleared to” in France; in IFR (which is how I mostly fly there) one gets “Nxxxxx you can proceed to REM” or similar.
Not filing a flight plan for an IFR flight is just a UK thing, I think.
You do have to file a FP for an IFR flight in the Eurocontrol system. Airborne filing (AFIL) is supposed to be supported but will nearly always be refused, or otherwise frustrated by the system.
“IME that is not the case for VFR, but the argument may be complicated by French ATC not using the phrase “cleared to”; rather they say “radar contact” or similar. In fact it is very rare to get a “cleared to” in France; in IFR (which is how I mostly fly there) one gets “Nxxxxx you can proceed to REM” or similar.”
Agreed it is not the case for VFR and you have to ask for transit of each zone. That is mainly because you are communicating with an FISO and not an ATCO, or at least the FISO has not got his ATCO hat on.
I always get the cleared to or cleared to via at xxx altitude when flying IFR (using the the word cleared or authorizez). If I am OCAS then I know the FISO cannot clear or authorize me s/he can only give me a proceed or approuvez or a you will need to contact.
“radar contact” just means they can see you and has no bearing whatsoever on whether you are cleared or not.
gallois wrote:
In France all IFR outside of the confines of an airfield requires the deposition of a flight plan.
Does that mean then that you cannot enter cloud (or more accurately, enter non-VMC conditions) unless you are on an IFR flight plan? Because to fly VFR you must be in VMC, so if you are not in VMC then by definition you are IFR and if you’re IFR without having filed a flight plan…
Yes it means exactly that. You are either VFR in VMC or you are IFR and you need to have filed a flight plan or file one in the air.
You can of course fly VFR on top. In that case you are in VMC above the clouds. Getting up there and getting down again requires a hole in the cloud layer.
It is a different matter if you get into trouble because of bad weather then the ATS will help you out with no recriminations, and that includes entering restricted zones or CAS if need be.
There is a good example of this in this week’s FFA REX where a ULM got into difficulty in mountain valleys due to fog in the valley and low cloud on hill tops. ATS radar was not good enough in the mountainous area so for him to contact the military which was used to monitoring low level fast jets in the valley and they helped him get to safety. An aggravating factor for him was that he had no AI.
Graham wrote:
Does that mean then that you cannot enter cloud (or more accurately, enter non-VMC conditions) unless you are on an IFR flight plan?
You can fly in Class A & IMC on pop-up IFR (RT contact and clearance in airspace), just ask ATC (or FIS on behalf), they need “reg, type & pob” to get you an IFR FPL on the system and clearance to first waypoint & level, you have to close IFR FPL on landing if it’s no AFIS/ATC on the ground or cnacel it in the air, phone call with your registration is the only option you have to close on the ground, obviously, it has to be a quick cloud penetration in same airspace sector en-route or quick arrival for landing (one waypoint + approach)
For technical IMC (+140kias at 999ft from clouds) in airspace or quick entry in cloud in uncontrolled airspace one should not bother getting CAS SVFR or OCAS IFR FPL from ATC, people will claim they never done it, but I happy to say I am one of those who have done it more than they can count, I hate low scud runs or chnage heading & altitudes bellow clouds, I rarely spend more than 20s bellow IFR MSA on climbs & descents, irrespective of flight rules & weather conditions…
Remember you don’t need IFR clearance in Class G (it’s uncontrolled IFR): above 3000ft amsl you need active IFR FPL and radio contact, bellow 3000ft amsl you don’t need anything, you can call yourself IFR if you wish (but your are considered VFR by ATC untill they say “IFR starts at xx”)
Malibuflyer wrote:
Now the pilot gets fined! Interestingly not for flying through the ED-R itself (which would be a crime under German law) but only for the administrative offense of “insufficient flight preparation” as the pilot should have realized that the rout leads through an ED-R and must not have filed the plan in the first place.
This alone shows that there is something wrong. They do not dare to bring a criminal case because they cleared him for the route, but they tell him he has not done his job.
So what they punish him for is that he filed a route which goes through an ED-R, which IFPS does not reckognize and therefore approve and which ATC did not notice at the time.
Malibuflyer wrote:
If this legal opinion will hold in front of courts, you basically can no longer accept any directs or vectors in flight as a pilot because it is practically impossible to check if that DCT or vector would lead you through an ED-R.
In my understanding, the fine is for “insufficient planning”. So it is the “offence” of filing a flight plan through an ED-R.
This is not the case if ATC gives you a direct however. You have not planned that direct. Neither do you plan vectors. ATC must know where they can send you to off the flight planned route. Note: They do not punish him for penetrating the ED-R, only for planning through it.
But you are very right, this whole thing is a dangerous farce which may well set a precedent with huge consequences.
