Practicality of IFR flying in Europe

Florian Rhyn • 16 July 2018

in community General Aviation

4 likes

I often hear about ATS delaying IFR flight plans by hours due to some allocated en-route slot. Just a few days ago again. A Cessna 421 wanted to depart the towered airport and TWR told the pilot that he now has to wait for 2 hours. The airport was not busy at all and en-route, there isn't a problem either. Most IFR traffic is above FL180. The space all the way up to FL180 is mostly empty skies and the slots are necessary not because of conflicting traffic but rather because the number of aircraft within a sector is apparently limited. This should be changed. The Cessna 421 pilot, of course, didn't have the time for that wait and proceeded VFR - this is lost safety right there, due to a rule that most likely isn't based on safety. This puts the pilot into a sudden change of plans, it can be assumed that a flight takes place with less accurate planning, if an IFR flight was expected and the pilot has to suddenly change the whole route to VFR.

ATC should be required to accommodate as much IFR traffic as possible, especially so at the lower flight levels, and should also allow (and welcome!) simple changing of flight rules, to amend a VFR flight plan in the air to IFR. This would enhance safety dramatically. Encourage IFR flying, make it more simple, easy and convenient, have more safety.

Comments (2)

Dominique Roland • 5 years ago

Dear Florian,

I like your post because I share your view that we should facilitate access to IFR flying. This was one of the 6 commitments taken by Patrick Ky during the conference of Rome, 4 years ago.

Since, we have developed the Basic Instrument Rating and the opinion should be published 4th quarter this year.

In parallel, we have created a working group with EuroControl to address the ATC aspects in order to ensure a successful implementation of the new concept.

Dominique

Florian Rhyn • 5 years ago

Just to follow up - and thank you for your reply - I just learned that LSZG (that's where this happened) has limited IFR slots to one movement per hour (any flight plans I, Y, Z). This has no safety background but is apparently used by ATC as political pressure.

I would like to remind EASA of this (European Parliament resolution of 3 February 2009 on an Agenda for Sustainable Future in General and Business Aviation (2008/2134(INI)):

"Airport and airspace capacity

9. [The European Parliament ,] Points out that it becomes increasingly difficult for general and business aviation to get access not only to major airports but also to regional airports as growing demand from commercial air transport is placing a strain on the availability of slots and parking stands;"

This is exactly such a case, where a GA airport, resp. its ATC, is working against its customers.

You are not allowed to comment on content in a group you are not member of.

View group