And that’s also why I am a bit skeptic about those fantasy routings sometimes created by the Autorouter. One just cannot insist on flying these, even if “cleared flight planned route”
You’re looking at this from the wrong end. ATC are supposed to tell Eurocontrol which routings they want. There is a sophisticated system for doing that. If a computer looks for a routing according to its optimization targets and finds something ATC is not happy with, it’s the ANSPs (Eurocontrol speak for ATC) fault. As long as the computer algorithms are not able to perform certain calculations (such as the very complex DCT optimizations), the errors will not be found. The goal should still remain to find the fastest/shortest routing possible and file that. This is what you use for fuel planning and it gives you a strong argument with ATC to fight unjustified deviations. Also, when flying cross country, the border points are important because in most cases, those are fixed and nobody will do the cross-border optimization for you in flight, besides in a few cases, time permitting.
“Actually, your IFR clearance has never been cancelled. "
What do people mean by ‘IFR clearance’. Is there a such thing?
A clearance is a permission to fly in CAS. Out of CAS there is no such thing as an IFR clearance, or a VFR clearance (unless in the circuit of a controlled airfield).
Achim,
I guess you know what the I in IFPS stands for… 
The intention is not that each and every rule and restriction shall be mirrored in IFPS.
The goal should still remain to find the fastest/shortest routing possible and file that. This is what you use for fuel planning and it gives you a strong argument with ATC to fight unjustified deviations
Sure, but one doesn’t get “argue” with ATC normally (at least inplaces like Germany). The point is that in normal practice, those very, eh… “optimised” routings don’t allow me to effectively fly any shorter routings than if I had filed more “conventional” routings (without numerous DCTs and level changes).
But irrespective of that (and to come back to the previous argument of IFR route clearances), I agree that they are useless outside the NORDO scenario. If one airplane files from A to B via C and another one files from D to E via B (at the same altitude) they will both initially be cleared “flight planned route/as filed”, even though ATC will have to move at least one of them out of the way sooner or later…
The intention is not that each and every rule and restriction shall be mirrored in IFPS.
Huh? The opposite is true. And nothing is “mirrored”. The restrictions/rules are in IFPS.
The point is that in normal practice, those very, eh… “optimised” routings don’t allow me to effectively fly any shorter routings than if I had filed more “conventional” routings (without numerous DCTs and level changes).
That’s only half of the story. Sector entry and exit points play an important role. However, it only costs you one click to not generate DCTs, or search with minimum FL140 then you won’t get any DCTs in Germany…
If one airplane files from A to B via C and another one files from D to E via B (at the same altitude) they will both initially be cleared “flight planned route/as filed”, even though ATC will have to move at least one of them out of the way sooner or later…
In theory, IFPS makes sure that this is not possible and ATC clearances in flight do not change that. IFPS constantly keeps a 4D profile of all flights which is updated on every clearance and several times a minute.
One filed ICAO difference in the UK is that the use of radio in Class G when IFR is optional.
Peter,
I am probably being dim, but I don’t understand the problem.
EGKA is outside controlled airspace, so there must come a point when you leave controlled airspace. Controlled airspace above EGKA is quite high, so, in order for you to descend to the IAF, you must descend out of CA quite a way away.
In the UK, you can fly in Class G without a clearance, and without control, though there are ATSOCAS services available.
So it sounds like your experience into KA is quite predictable…you leave CA, remain IFR, avail yourself (or not, as you prefer) of ATSOCAS then transfer to KA Approach, who will provide a procedural IFR service.
So, forgive me for being slow on the uptake, but what exactly is the problem?
For Shoreham EGKA it’s not a problem. That is an easy case. It’s a straight descent and a landing.
It would be a problem for a place further underneath CAS; for example any of the airports around/under the London TMA. You would get a descent below CAS somewhere over the south coast (CAS base 5500ft) and then fly north where the base drops to 3500 2500 etc.
The old issue of being dumped out of CAS too early (around DVR) seems to have been addressed with improved ATC practices, some years ago, but they still can’t keep you high (say 5000-8000ft) in the LTMA, due to Heathrow/Gatwick traffic.
It’s not a problem for the “locals”, of course… but nothing is a problem for the locals, anywhere.
Revisiting this rather old thread, I had a chance today to take a closer look at this “descend below controlled airspace” thing.
LDLO-EGKA
and the usual scenario is that London Control clear you to leave CAS by descent, but (usually) they don’t add that you must remain OCAS upon leaving it. This is today’s scenario:
At around the “now below 5500ft” point, London Control went unusually quiet and I used the chance to ask the ATCO if it was really necessary for me to do that left turn to continue the descent without busting the 5500ft CAS. He said he wasn’t sure but it was probably sensible. He added it was fine with him for me to have re-entered CAS, anyway. He was most helpful but clearly there is ambiguity there. I don’t have the ATC exchange recorded, but it is a common scenario.
There was no change of squawk, and of course no cancellation of IFR. A Basic Service on leaving CAS.
In the past I would have just descended continuously and would not have worried about briefly re-entering CAS, and never had any issue (sometimes LC would ask “expedite descent”) but nowadays we know the CAA is taking no hostages and who wants to end up on the £200 + expenses (£400 usually) Gasco hotel session in a situation like this? And possibly lose their license on a repetition. Remember: if they want to bust you, or remove your license, there is no appeal and no defence.
I also wonder whether the new CAIT software would flag that as a bust. Does anyone know how this software works? Does it flag a bust if a Mode C target is OCAS and then enters CAS (which would need a user interface because that is what routinely happens when ATC issue an IFR clearance into CAS, so they would have to “mark” you as “CAIT immune”) or does it flag a bust if a known-VFR squawk enters CAS (e.g. 7000, one of the various 7xxx listening squawks, etc) since all of these must be unauthorised?
Peter wrote:
There was no change of squawk
I think this is key to the situation from a programmer perspective?
Try visiting an airstrip that operate “uncontrolled” inside CAS with a LoA, they have special transponder codes 
