Peter wrote:
Or an “I” departure with an unmanned tower (weekends in France, etc)?
It’s possible to file IFR from my home airfield in France, which is uncontrolled. Before entering CAS (which starts 1000 ft AAL), you would need to call the controller of that airspace and get a clearance. To me it looks like how it works in the UK or pretty much the rest of the world.
Gents, we have to distinguish:
One thing is what kind of restrictions on India flightplans have been programmed in the Brussels computer.
The other is which countries ban IFR
in class Golf as per their national air law (in contradiction with SERA).
The two are not the same.
boscomantico wrote:
The two are not the same.
good summary. Another point mentioned above is entering CAS – which is not the same as changing to IFR usually .
Let me look at Czech regulations where exactly they are speaking about G as non-IFR airspace. But the issue Ï see is having any instrument procedure to get out of uncontrolled airport as IFR flight from take-off – because I can´t keep the distance from the ground/obstacles required for IFR. Any hints here?
It’s an academic discussion.
You can depart VFR (if you are unsure if the airfield allows IFR departures), and when ten foot above the ground, you change to IFR.
boscomantico wrote:
ground, you change to IFR.
how to you deal with obstacle clearance ? you are not in instrument approach/departure and you are not 1000 ft above. Or has 1000 ft above some provision of “except for take-off and landing?” I never looked at this, I need to have a look at SERA
For terrain clearance, the same applies as if flying in cruise under IFR in Golf: take an aeronautical chart, assess the obstacle situation, crosscheck your climb performance and then plan your route of flight accordingly.
Nobod needs a SID for a climbout under IFR.
to Bosco – you are right, there is a magic word of “with exception of take-off and landing” in the rules of the air. Issue closed now – at least theoretically, practical implementation is not that clear. But this is another story.
Michal wrote:
But the issue I see is having any instrument procedure to get out of uncontrolled airport as IFR flight from take-off – because I can´t keep the distance from the ground/obstacles required for IFR. Any hints here?
Sure. There is no requirement for distance to the ground/obstacles on your initial climb-out – at least not for private flights. The important thing is that you have a comfortable margin to hitting anything.
The way you do this is like boscomantico describes.
(It can be interesting to note that CAT operators do the same thing for engine out contingencies – published IFR departure procedures are not designed for that situation.)
I also think that the term “provisional clearance” is problematic. Is that really the official UK term for that?
It’s called a “departure clearance”. Obviously the words “departure clearance” in the same sentence as “remain OCAS” is daft, but that’s what we have… it’s one of many emperors with no clothes in GA.
Technically, ATC (as opposed to AFIS or A/G Radio) do have authority within the ATZ (2nm or 2.5nm radius, according to runway length) but I am sure the bottom line is that if you openly disobeyed them nothing could be done because it’s Class G. If there was an accident you could be done under the “endangerment” ANO clause but I don’t know if that’s ever been used.
The ATZ system is openly abused all day long in full view of the restaurant, with many pilots lying about their position due to mistakes or to get an earlier clearance to a join, with ATC aware because of (a) VDF and (b) the €300 tracking boxes, but they can’t admit to their knowledge because of (c) the boxes are unofficial and (d) it would make them complicit in a mid-air.
The USA has the right approach to all this: an accessible IR, Class E down to a low level, and busting anybody seen to enter IMC without an IFR FP which is inherently illegal unless they have an IR. Europe has made the IR hard (because the ATP is handed out to anybody with a CPL/IR who has the 1500/500/100hr requirement etc) and the IR has been used instead of the ATP as the hallmark of the “professional pilot”, so we have this crap system in which “everybody” flies VFR in IMC…
Just my opinion, you understand … 
Peter wrote:
ATP as the hallmark of the “professional pilot”
don´t you want to feel like a professional pilot? ;-)
