IFR Direct Routing (and Free Route Airspace)

Dear Florian,

Thank you for your question. Please note that point 3.2. on the annex of Regulation (EU) No 716/2014 determines that the geographical scope of the Free Route-requirement is limited to Flight Level 310 or above. Therefore Switzerland is not obliged to implement it below that level, although of course it may opt to do so on a voluntary basis. That said, there may be terrain or SID’s, STAR’s and other airspace structures in the lower levels that limit the usefulness of the free route airspace concept.

Furthermore, due to the way that regulation implements the Free Route concept, there is a difference between the “direct routes” and actual free route airspace, in the sense that the former appear more like traditional routes, albeit enabling direct flight over longer distances. It also seems that even in States that have implemented direct routes, the use of term “DCT” in flight planning may not be supported by the national flight planning system, though the routes themselves are usable.

I hope this clarifies the situation a bit.

Best regards,

Jyrki Paajanen

Thank you very much for explaining this complicated matter. I appreciate that.

When looking at our IFR low enroute chart, I see so many ways to improve the system. I hold an enroute instrument rating and would like to be able to join IFR below FL100 and fly directs, because if I fly northbound I always have to first go 60nm South-East or West. To complicate things even further, most airways are only one-way.
This just isn't economical or practical.

It would be great if the GA department would take a look at this: The improvement of the IFR enroute environment for general aviation (getting airways lower, bi-directional and encouraging/requiring DCTs).

After all, the Air Ops Regulation has been amended with Part-NCO and the Continuing Airworthiness Regulation with Part-M light, as well as Part-FCL, with the aim to enlarge the instrument rated private pilot population and thus improve safety (CFIT, LOC, etc.).

Without improvements in the airway system for general aviation, all this work's output will be subject to a bottleneck -- holding back the safety improvements in the overall regulation landscape.

Thank you for taking this into consideration in case a rulemaking task would touch on this topic.

Best regards
Florian

Dear Florian,
This issue is actually tackeled by the GA Roadmap project. It is part of a holistics review of the barriers preventing the development of IFR flying for GA aircraft in Europe. In parrallel with the Basic Instrument Rating initiative, we have created a working group with Eurocontrol to try to progress on this issue. I can tell you that things are moving in the right direction, but certainly too slowly for the end user. In between, the use of software like autorouter helps a lot, and most of of my IFR flights end up in average being no more than 10% longer than a direct route, thanks to direct clearances granted during the fight. We are also working on the topic of IFR approaches on non IFR airfields, but this is another story :)
Dominique

I am glad to hear that and will keep my eyes peeled for the corresponding RMTs. :)
Thank you.
Florian

my dear florian
I wanted to talk to you about this now, but I do not have much knowledge of the general aviation system in Europe, but in Egypt we have the civil and military surveillance system togethe