Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Current legal situation to depart / approach IFR across Europe

gallois wrote:

It is why you can be cleared for the approach but not cleared to land. It doesn’t matter what NCO says.

Again, there is no such thing as “approach clearance” outside “controlled airspace”, in Golf the approach control service is “info” FIS service given by ATC (this is what all ICAO, SERA, AIP/DGAC/ATC will say), some do patch it as “Advisory Class F airspace” where PIC have to comply or lose his FIS service…there is procedural separation on approach one-at-time but difficult to implement if no airspace on STAR/IAF

However, there is a “landing clearance” at “controlled aerodromes”, it’s ATC service given by ATC

Yes having an “approach info” does not clear one to land, but you clear yourself…

The real question did Airborne_Again fly a straigh-in or circuit?

Last Edited by Ibra at 19 Nov 10:31
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

gallois wrote:

An approach can be under the control of a remote controller or under the radar coverage of an FIS, when the airfield has no tower or AFIS.
It is why you can be cleared for the approach but not cleared to land. It doesn’t matter what NCO says.

That’s not what we were discussing. Of course you can’t be cleared to land if the airport is uncontrolled. Nor do you need to be.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

You are quite right of course an SIV will use words such as proceed at your discretion or approved for the approach rather than authorised.
You also still need land at your discretion at an AFIS airfield or approved to land.
I was trying to make the point that approach and landing are 2 distinct sectors. There was a recent REX report where a pilot got caught out by this in VFR.

Last Edited by gallois at 19 Nov 10:31
France

there is no such thing as “approach clearance” outside “controlled airspace”

There is – widely used in the UK.

Probably it has no legal meaning, and is just due diligence for the airport and keeps the CAA happy because they can (and do) insist the IAP cannot be overtly used unless there is an approach qualified controller in the tower. In the meantime anybody unrelated can fly straight through the IAP, non-radio…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

Of course you can’t be cleared to land if the airport is uncontrolled. Nor do you need to be

Can you fly straigh-in IFR/VFR in Sweden in big airports if no one in the tower?

Or at Sundbro, can you fly straigh-in VFR or IFR?

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

Can you fly straigh-in IFR/VFR in Sweden in big airports if no one in the tower?

Or at Sundbro, can you fly straigh-in VFR or IFR?

In both cases, yes. There are no rules against it but in the VFR case it is not recommended and considered poor airmanship so it would be frowned upon.

I know of one airport (Västerås ESOW) with extensive traffic which is PPR when the tower is closed and to get permission you have to agree to follow certain arrival and departure procedures, but that is an exception.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 19 Nov 10:38
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

There are no rules against it but in the VFR case it is not recommended and considered poor airmanship so it would be frowned upon.

Why that is not “poor airmanship” or “issue” for IFR in good weather? especially with VFR mix?

Of course if weather is bad, “good airmanship” dictates an IFR straigh-in

PS: there is nothing in the law that prevents it as nothing in the law describes how IFR should fly to “VFR airfields”…

Last Edited by Ibra at 19 Nov 11:16
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

IFR in EASA land is a legal condition, not a meteorological or a flight situatio

What about VFR (in VFR conditions) ? Let’s say I’m flying over open water, in G, and with no visual horizon (yet VFR conditions according to the rules). There is no way I can fly without instruments, at least a compass and an AI. Can I then declare myself VFR or IFR at will, or only IFR? What difference would it make?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

What about VFR (in VFR conditions) ? Let’s say I’m flying over open water, in G, and with no visual horizon (yet VFR conditions according to the rules). There is no way I can fly without instruments, at least a compass and an AI. Can I then declare myself VFR or IFR at will, or only IFR? What difference would it make?

You decide VFR or IFR in this case. Actually all of the eight possible combinations of IMC/VMC, VFR/IFR, flight by reference to instruments necessary yes/no are possible legally.

These are rather obvious:

VFR, VMC, no instrument flight
IFR, VMC, no instrument flight
IFR, IMC, instrument flight

These are perhaps less obvious

IFR, IMC, no instrument flight (you could be outside clouds, but closer than VMC minima)
VFR, VMC, instrument flight (e.g. over sea in hazy weather and no clear horizon)
IFR, VMC, instrument flight (as above)
VFR, IMC, no instrument flight (special VFR)
VFR, IMC, instrument flight (special VFR, e.g. over sea in poor visibility and no clear horizon)

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Can tou really be VFR in IMC orher than in error.
Isn’t VFR special only available in CAS?

France
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top