Aviation Topic of the Week
By Michael Oxner, February 15, 2004


Introduction
Previous Week's Topic
Following Week's Topic
Aviation in Canada Blog
Archives

This week's topic:
Clarifications From IFR Flight Example, Parts 1-3

Some folks have taken exception to some things I've said, written to ask for further information, or written to add to the information I presented in the previous weeks' topics regarding the IFR Flight Example of a Beech 200 Super KingAir flying from CYJT to CYHZ. I hope this week to shed more light on why I said the things I said, and to add more info for those who were still left wondering.

IMC in Uncontrolled Airspace
IFR Clearance from FSS On-Site
RADIO vs. ARPT RDO
Mandatory Frequency Calls with ARPT RDO

IMC in Uncontrolled Airspace

One reader wrote asking me about flying IMC in Class G airspace, which is uncontrolled airspace, based on a statement made in the Flight Planning portion of the IFR Flight Example. I stated that our pilot needs an IFR clearance prior to departure since CYJT is in a Class E control zone, but none would be required immediately if CYJT were in uncontrolled airspace. First, let's qualify that.

Everything I write is based on Canadian airspace procedures, rules and information. Since Canada adopted the ICAO designations of airspace back in the early 1990's, it is reasonable to believe that other countries have similar rules. I would, however, confirm my interpretation of these issues with rules in other countries before using my writing as a defense if you're not flying in Canada. Many countries use ICAO standards, but not all. Also, many countries have rules and regulations which may differ from what is said below.

Having said that, let's move on. IFR flight is permissible in any class of airspace. Class F airspace is the one many might see as an exception. For example, restricted airspaces are Class F. If a pilot has received permission from the controlling agency (note that this is not the ACC within which the airspace lies, but the "owner" -- for example, it might be the Canadian Armed Forces in the case of a firing range), he may fly IFR or VFR (weather permitting) inside this class of airspace.

The way IFR flight in Class G airspace differs from other classes is the rules that are applicable. In uncontrolled airspace, ATC has neither the responsibility, nor the authority, to direct traffic flow. This means that an IFR pilot is on his own for separation from other traffic within Class G airspace, be it Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) or Instrument (IMC). The AIP Canada tells us that an ATC clearance is only valid "while in controlled airspace", and therefore a pilot is on his own hook outside of controlled airspace.

This doesn't mean that any pilot may fly in instrument weather conditions outside of controlled airspace. All the other rules and regulations in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) still apply. Any IFR flight in Canada still requires an IFR flight plan or flight itinerary to be filed. It also requires that the pilot be IFR qualified (has the rating on his license) and current, and that the aircraft be equipped appropriately. It also means that Air Traffic Services (ATS) personnel will still require a departure message after take-off, and an arrival message (which could also mean a flight plan closure even if the aircraft is still in the air) for alerting services purposes. Calls to ATC should still be made so that ATC can then provide information about known traffic or weather conditions which might impact the flight. Additionally, in uncontrolled airspace, the weather conditions which allow VFR flight are much lower, thereby increasing the potential for VFR/IFR conflict, and reducing the time factor to resolve conflicts once traffic is seen because of reduced visibility and distance from cloud requirements.

I'll refer you to the following passages in the AIP Canada, and this list is not, by any means, exhaustive.

RAC 2.5 Controlled Airspace
RAC 2.8 Classification of Airspace
RAC 3.6 Flight Plans and Flight Itineraries
RAC 6.1 Air Traffic Control Clearance
RAC 6.2 IFR Flights in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC)
RAC 7.4 IFR Clearances
RAC 7.9 IFR Departures from Uncontrolled Airports
RAC 8.8 Clearances -- Leaving or Entering Controlled Airspace
RAC 8.10 Class G Airspace -- Recommended Operating Procedures -- En Route

IFR Clearance from FSS On-Site

Another reader sent me a message through my Suggestions page with some details that are interesting. The message received was incomplete, which may have revealed another flaw in the anonymous message sending provided by the Suggestions page. I did not receive an e-mail address with it, so if you wrote in and were disappointed that I didn't get back to you right away, I apologize for that. In any case, I felt it contained points that were good enough to warrant a public response.

The message included many details and all were valid points. One that the general public won't know much about is the internal agreements used by ATS units, and, in this context, this is between an FSS or FIC and the ACC. He referred to my statement, "... since often ATC would rather issue a clearance directly when possible, rather than relay through someone who isn't even at the airport," in regards to the decision in my example flight to call Gander ACC over the PAL located at CYJT, rather than call the "on-site FSS". I'm glad he wrote in, since there are a few points to be made, and a common misunderstanding to be cleared up.

First, for background, there are many instances of "inter unit agreements" made between ATS facilities to determine a standard way of operating so that each knows what to expect from the other. The existence of these agreements, while they satisfy the internal workings of the Air Navigation System's units, are not generally public knowledge, nor are the practices contained within them. The part that was referred to in the message I received is that an airport served by an on-site FSS will normally have the FSS relaying IFR clearances, even if a PAL is located on or near the field and useable by aircraft on the ground. The statement was made specifically regarding Winnipeg FIR, but I believe this is standard across Canada. The idea is that this FSS is responsible for passing known traffic information, and the more they know, the better. Hence, when an FSS is located on-site (or if Remote Airport Advisory Service, or RAAS, is provided by an FIC), "Radio" is the best place for a pilot to call for an IFR clearance.

In our example flight, as published over the past three weeks, the outdated chart example provided showed St. John's FIC providing an RCO, or Remote Communications Outlet, on 126.7 at CYJT. This is listed as "RADIO (RCO) ST. JOHN'S". The Canada Flight Supplement entry for Stephenville shows 126.7 is used by the FIC for Flight Information Service Enroute (FISE), and not for providing RAAS. Regrettably, I did not mention this, nor did I provide a reference image regarding this fact, in the original topic. Those in the know will point out to me that Halifax FIC is now responsible for that service at CYJT these days. This is why I always say, "for real-world flight, use current, real-world publications". Read on for more.

RADIO vs. ARPT RDO

CYJTfreq Having said that, there was a misinterpretation of the chart provided in the example. The CYJT aerodrome chart has a list of communications agencies running across the top, as all aerodrome charts in the Canada Air Pilot (CAP) have. The image at left is a clip of that bar. The station on the far left is labeled "ARPT RDO", and this is what has caused the confusion. "Stephenville Airport Radio" is the radiotelephony for this unit, and it is not a flight service station. An FSS would use the callsign "Radio" and would be listed as "RADIO" with a frequency in the bar. The Canada Flight Supplement, page A76, defines Airport Radio as a "service provided by Observer/Communicators who are certified to issue aviation weather observations and radio communications to facilitate aircraft departures and arrivals ... at uncontrolled aerodromes." More detail on airport radio is provided in the AIP, RAC 1.2.2. They are allowed to provide weather and airport conditions as well as known traffic information, but they are not used to relay IFR clearances or communications with ATC. They are authorized to provide weather and NOTAMs specifically for their aerodrome (only), and they are also allowed to convey departure or arrival messages for flight planning purposes. Like their counterparts at Flight Services (FSS) they are not ATC, and should not get involved in directing traffic.

Mandatory Frequency Calls with ARPT RDO

Now we get to where I made my mistake. While ARPT RDO is not an FSS, it is a ground station in operation at CYJT. Once again, the inclusion in previous week's topics of the CFS entry for CYJT might have made this more apparent. In the CFS, there will be mention in the COM section regarding the local facilities, be they a TWR, GND, CLNC DEL, MF, ATF, etc. In the case of CYJT, we already know there is an MF. What I didn't include, and which causes some issues in the previous topic, was that there is a station specified alongside the entry for the MF at CYJT. In a comparably outdated publication to match well for our flight example, the entry states this:

MF aprt rdo 122.1  5NM 3100 ASL (CAR 602.98)

This means that CYJT has an MF in place, its dimensions are defined as a 5NM radius of the Aerodrome Reference Point (ARP) described in the the REF section at the top of the entry for CYJT, and it is capped at 3,100 feet ASL. In parentheses is the reference to the Canadian Aviation Regulations under which MF operations are described. The important part to show where I made a mistake? The term "arpt rdo" after the entry for the MF. The AIP RAC 4.5.4 tells us that when there is a ground station as specified in the CFS in operation, MF reports shall be directed to the ground station. The ground station specified here is airport radio, and since the name is omitted, it means the airport name shall be used. Hence, "Stephenville Airport Radio". What I said in last week's topic would be reasonable if ARPT RDO wasn't in operation, but the entry for ARPT RDO in the CFS (as in the above example) indicates a 24 hour operation. Times would be listed for the operation if it were otherwise.

All of that being considered, all the calls to "Stephenville Traffic" in last week's topic should have been directed to "Stephenville Airport Radio" instead. They would, in turn, relay known traffic information from aircraft reports, such as GLOB's reports in the downwind and on final as per MF procedures. Again, thanks to the anonymous writer's submission for pointing out my error. A note will be placed and last week's topic will be corrected in all cases to reflect what should have been said, including updating the example communications with a more realistic exchange. Please check back there since there will be some interesting information to add to the example. Here is a link to last week's topic.

One more note: The calls being directed to the ground station by default in this case doesn't preclude pilots exchanging information about each other's position and intentions directly without prefixing their calls with "Airport Radio". The normal course shall be to direct the calls to ARPT RDO, but it is often more appropriate for one pilot to direct a transmission at another pilot instead, depending on the nature and contents of the message. More on that in future topic examples.




Following this topic next week will be another part in the example flight started last month. Any comments or feedback, please send them along to me by e-mail at moxner@nbnet.nb.ca. Thanks to all who have taken the time to write, and especially those who have written regarding the issues raised in this week's topic.