gallois wrote:
SIA eAIP 1.3.9.1.3 Services of control
Perhaps the French text says something different, but the English version is extremely clear: “… is implicitly authorized by the ACC following air traffic regulations from the first control clearance.”
You must not fly without an explicit air traffic control clearance. The only thing stated here is that after the first clearance you do not need a new one just because you cross an FIR boundary.
The acceptance of the flight plan by Eurocontrol does, however, by no means establish such a “first control clearance”. Neither does “opening” the flight plan with some ATC. The only thing that gives you such a clearance is a clearance by ATC.
And to that respect at least for people using the English language version of the French AIP the situation is like anywhere else in Europe: If you receive a clearance “cleared to destination…” from a German ATC unit, you also do not need to care about a new clearance just because you cross an FIR boundary.
Peter wrote:
Exception: on loss of radio contact under “Eurocontrol IFR” (IFR in CAS, basically).
To be even more precise: If and only if you are already in the air and already received a clearance for at least the first part of the flight.
You can be precise or you can look at the practical. You are sitting on the ground at an unmanned airfield. You call an ATS or an ATC, preferably one on the route. Yes you do get an authorization for your flight plan or your flight as planned. You might even get a clearance to take off if at a manned field. But I felt even in the English translation it is clear that the clearance is for your flight as planned across FIRs whether in or out of CAS and that is the way it works in practice in my experience. It is a different matter if you wish to deviate from that flight plan.
It is in fact supposed.to be one of the benefits of PBN.
In being precise you will find that many regulations, especially where certain words are concerned are contradictory. IIRC, following an accident in the Canary Isles the word “cleared” in the communications section was supposed to be limited to take off and landing. But then in other sections you find that the word “cleared” should be supplemented by “to taxi” “to take off” “for the approach” “to land”. No mention of “to transit” or “to enter controlled airspace”.
On the other hand if your flight plan is rejected, cancelled, or delayed you can not do the flight as planned unless declared. So surely an acceptance of the flight plan and the fact that you are expected at each ATC (or should be) and as you go OCAS to CAS to OCAS to CAS , ATC to ATS to ATC and FIR to FIR you need seek no further clearance until you need to be cleared or approved for the approach and again for the landing makes the acceptance of a FPL the first clearance of a flight. And if that is the case then the only clearances necessary are for take off and landing.
What regulation says different? I have been trying to find one.
In US, what you file is never a clearance. One must always receive a clearance from ATC and the clearance may or may not follow the filed route. If the route is to be the cleared route, you will be “cleared as filed”. At a non towered airport, there is a “release” in addition to the cleared route and it can contain departure instructions, such as to fly a SID or “on entering controlled airspace, fly heading”. Now in most locations, there is a phone number to call to get the clearance and the release. On the initial call for the clearance, you will typically be asked which runway you are using and how much time before you are ready to depart. After the clearance is given and read back by the pilot, one receives an instruction “hold for release”. If the pilot is not ready for the departure, the controller instructs the pilot to call back when ready for the release. On calling back for release, when ATC is ready, they will say something like, “Bonanza 83N is released, when entering controlled airspace, turn right to heading 090. Verify this clearance will allow compliance with local traffic pattern and terrain or obstruction avoidance, time now 1500Z, clearance void if not off by 1505Z, advise intentions if not off by 1510Z.”
NCYankee wrote:
In US, what you file is never a clearance. One must always receive a clearance from ATC and the clearance may or may not follow the filed route. If the route is to be the cleared route, you will be “cleared as filed”.
It is no different in Europe. (Except that you are unlikely to get a clearance by phone – but it may depend on the country.)
Malibuflyer is correct that AIP-France does not say that an accepted flight plan constitutes an implicit clearance. It says that once you have an initial clearance (e.g. a departure clearance) which does not cover the whole route (because in that case the rule would be pointless) then it is implicit that for the rest of the flight you are cleared along your flight plan route. (Unless ATC says otherwise.)
This procedure is common also in other countries, even if it is not explicitly written down. E.g. you can initially be “CLEARED TO destination VIA first point of the route.” Then it is implicit that you continue according to the flight plan after passing the point given in the clearance.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Peter wrote:Exception: on loss of radio contact under “Eurocontrol IFR” (IFR in CAS, basically).
To be even more precise: If and only if you are already in the air and already received a clearance for at least the first part of the flight.
And ‘’Eurocontrol IFR’’ or not is irrelevant, once you are in the air and you have received an initial clearance you are supposed to follow the flight plan as filed, whether that route takes you in our out of CAS is irrelevant.
LFHNflightstudent wrote:
And ‘’Eurocontrol IFR’’ or not is irrelevant, once you are in the air and you have received an initial clearance you are supposed to follow the flight plan as filed, whether that route takes you in our out of CAS is irrelevant.
There is nothing called “Eurocontrol IFR”. What’s relevant is if the IFR flight is on a filed flight plan or not. Some countries (notably the UK) permit IFR without filed flight plans in some circumstances.
Well, in theory; in reality you will get busted if you do this in Class G, and same applies to any other country where IFR is possible non-radio. But we did this one many times. A filed FP means basically nothing; the ICAO lost comms procedure is a good “theory”.
I have not followed this thread closely; it seems to jump around all over the place, after the first post it is not discussing any specific topic 
Okay to stop jumping about
SERA 8015 extract:-
Operation subject to clearance
(1) An air traffic control clearance shall be obtained prior to operating a controlled flight, or
a portion of a flight as a controlled flight. Such clearance shall be requested through the
submission of a flight plan to an air traffic control unit.
Getting back to the title of the thread.
In France you must submit a Flight Plan for an IFR flight plan even in class G.
Above 3000ft you should have 2 way communication and can either just monitor or request information or advice. The list of types of information and advice that that the SIV provide are listed in SERA from memory I think it is 4001.
Now this is where the French aviation culture seems to differ from countries such as the UK, Sweden and Germany. (At least it is my impression from the posts on here.)
In the UK you appear to be taught to be subservient to ATS seevices and need permission for everything for fear of losing your licence or being fined “pretty please may I please transit your zone”
In France we are taught that ATS is there to help us, not to make life difficult. It might have something to do with the translation of “request” is “je demande”😁😁
So you want to take off from an uncontrolled field such as Propriano for an IFR flight to Brest you have several choices to start the flight. You can telephone Ajaccio or Marseille CTL and tell them you are about to take off from Propriano. And roughly the same as the US system, you will be given a transponder code and in my experience given a direct to somewhere out over the sea. You could try and call Ajaccio on the radio, but there is a big hill in between and radio communication is not always possible but if you can, the same applies. Or you can take off and climb into radio range you can call up Marseille CTL or Ajaccio.
Now in all these circumstances the word clearance never crosses the pilot’s lips and rarely those of an ATSO. On a uncontrolled airfield we would not be requesting clearance to “start up, taxi, line up or take off,” this is at our own discretion.
We do need to make ATS aware of the fact that we are there and what flight plan they should be looking out. Phrases such as take off time xxhours by minutes from Propriano to Brest as per IFR flight plan. Whilst you might be given vectors to maintain separation or a direct to,all as part of traffic flow management, but other than that you are expected to follow the flight plan. If you read the AIP your conversation should be limited to letting them know you are there even on handovers to ATCOs or FISOs. And as per the extract I quoted from the AIP re crossing FIR boundaries, the first ""cleared" you are likely to hear is “cleared for the approach” or French equivalent from either Iroise App or Landivisieu App, followed “cleared to land” from Brest tower.
Or you can take off and climb into radio range you can call up Marseille CTL or Ajaccio
Who does this for IFR in France? I met someone who does it but his case is hopeless
Propriano IFR is managed in/out by Ajaccio: phone call “le Chef de Circulation Aérienne” (+33495235973), get your “startup” and “initial clearance”: open flight plan, squawk, join instruction 
if not call Marseille or Nice ( +33442311411)
Btw, you do exactly the same in UK if planning “Eurocontrol/Airways”, you will call London/Scottish TC by phone, you will get exactly the same: open flight plan, squawk, join instructions the only tiny difference: you will get asked to “remain outside airspace” until you are properly identified (altimeter & transponder are verified and radio & radar contact established), in both cases, you takeoff IFR and fly IFR in Golf at your own discretion
Now if you tell me, one can fly Propriano to Brest IFR on 7600 as he filed after losing radio after takeoff by simple phone call to startup on the ground (before getting “proper ident & direct/vector" while airborne using his aircraft radio & radar contact), I would be very impressed curious to see where this is written? it’s a mind blowing concession for IFR in France without an assigned route, direct, vector (I know it’s not true in few places where you have to leave controlled airspace on straight line to nearest exits on lost radios or transponders )
Well, I have done all three ways I described out of Propriano. What you describe is the first of the choices I mentioned with a bit more detail.
Secondly I was only talking France which either has primary or secondary (plus mode S requirement) over most of France . I gave Propriano as an example, it could have been any other uncontrolled airfield (with certain differences). I was describing a principle.
I chose airfields on opposite side of the country to demonstrate the eAIP FIR to FIR implicit clearance.
You seem to have a thing about loss of radio. ICAO and EASA are perfectly clear about what one should do in the event of radio failure.
Legally, unless there is some distinct instruction in the AIP, once you have entered the system so to speak you could fly Propriano to Brest as per the rules for radio failure in IFR.
Of course whether there is a better way, or safer way is up to the PIC to decide. For me if both radios failed I would be looking for a sign of visual conditions to land at the nearest suitable airfield, which is also advised in both ICAO and EASA.
