achimha wrote:
It isn’t just a UK issue; you can get the same flying into a Class G airfield in say France.In France, they take care of you until you’ve landed.
I had the opposite experience about a week ago, in the Alps. IFR flight (“I” in first character of item 8) to airfield that doesn’t have any IFR approach (nor STAR nor SID). As I was approaching the last point on the route before the destination, the controller asked me what route I wished after that point. Feeling like I was stating the obvious, I said that I need to get to my destination so that would be a good direction to go to. He cleared me direct destination, and (radio was in French) “descente à convenance” which means “descend whenever you want” (“descend at your own discretion”). Fair enough. Then “below FL200, class E, there may be glider traffic unknown to me, keep a sharp lookout”. Fair enough. Feeling that I was being implicitly dumped from his responsibility, I acknowledged that traffic separation (I could have added “from VFR traffic” but didn’t) had become my responsibility, but asked whether he was still taking responsibility for terrain separation, which was a way to ask if he still felt any responsibility for me, an IFR flight in class E (controlled airspace, I need a clearance for IFR there). His answer was negative. I felt like he treated me like a VFR flight. I didn’t push the point to the point of being annoying and “asking” him for change of heading when his “direct destination” clearance was bringing me too close to peaks for comfort; I just navigated on my moving map. After descending really, really into a valley (far below minimum IFR altitude of that many ft above highest obstacle within that many nmi), I might have cancelled IFR for the “proper form”, but I’m not sure of that.
My past experiences in Germany or the Netherlands are more like that I get a clearance to descend to some minimum FL/altitude, then they tell me something like “I can’t descend you lower IFR, advise when ready to cancel IFR”, at which point (or earlier, anticipating that…) I cancel IFR.
@ Lionel, As I understand it, the pilot is always responsible for terrain separation unless being radar vectored.
Peter wrote:
because a 7000 in CAS etc will definitely be a bust in the UK.
Yes, 7000 did count as CAS bust even with resident aircraft (LoA state you don’t have to call but you need to listen to frequency and set a discreet xtpdr code)
gallois wrote:
@ Lionel, As I understand it, the pilot is always responsible for terrain separation unless being radar vectored.
Last year (or something like that) I flew IFR to a VFR-only airfield in North-Eastern France (departure was fog and thin layer of low clouds, necessitating IFR, but I had phoned the airfield and they reported severe CAVOK (“tempête de ciel bleu”)). There, the area controller asked me my intentions after I made my turn from the airway to destination, which I understood as the nudge of “when will you cancel IFR, but I’m not allowed to ask that”?
It is fairly common to get “pushed” to cancel IFR, literally, when going to a VFR destination. Happens everywhere. The UK just does it silently 
I have no problem with being nudged to cancel IFR. After all, I need to do it sooner or later, and it also keeps the pilot/ATC contract clear, in case the pilot switched to VFR but didn’t tell ATC ;) When I’m close to destination / relatively low in IMC, it also gives me opportunity to reinforce that I cannot yet assure my own separation, and to explicitly say I still require their service.
The silent bit, I find more dangerous.
gallois wrote:
@ Lionel, As I understand it, the pilot is always responsible for terrain separation unless being radar vectored.
According to PANS-ATM, the pilot is responsible for terrain separation only when aircraft is on a published route.
8.6.5.2 When vectoring an IFR flight and when giving an IFR flight a direct routing which takes the aircraft off an ATS route, the controller shall issue clearances such that the prescribed obstacle clearance will exist at all times until the aircraft reaches the point where the pilot will resume own navigation. When necessary, the relevant minimum vectoring altitude shall include a correction for low temperature effect.
This is annoying when you want to descend IFR towards a VFR airport and expect visual conditions above the MSA but below the MVA. ATC will not clear you below the MVA.
Airborne_Again wrote:
According to PANS-ATM, the pilot is responsible for terrain separation only when aircraft is on a published route.
Darn, PANS-ATM is full of repeated remarks that prevention of collision with terrain is not in the objectives of the ATC service.
In practice, can I rely on the fact that, when on a route, ATC will never instruct me to descend below MEA / MVA, and that this ensures adequate separation with terrain AND obstacles? I think it would take a perverse mind to give me “information on what is the lowest safe flight level”, but then actually tell me to descend below it without copious warning:
4.10.4.1 Appropriate ATS units shall at all times have available for transmission to aircraft in flight, on request, the information required to determine the lowest flight level which will ensure adequate terrain clearance on routes or segments of routes for which this information is required.
Airborne_Again wrote:
ATC will not clear you below the MVA.
While IFR I had the impression they just say “resume own navigation, cleared for decent to 2000ft”?
(and remind you MSA/terrain…)
Ibra wrote:
While IFR I had the impression they just say “resume own navigation, cleared for decent to 2000ft”?
Unfortunately Swedish ATC doesn’t – they will only clear you to the MVA. And AFAIK German ATC doesn’t either.
