![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter" wrote in message
... wrote Ah, but the main advantage (AIUI) is that the IFR clearance "VFR on top" gives you the flexibility of chosing your own routing while still staying in the system. In congested airspace, it's often unlikely they'll give you a routing at IFR altitudes due to conflicting traffic. With VFR on top they're more likely to let you through without a big diversion. Why would this be? Forgive me for looking at this from the Euro POV, but it is true that if outside CAS one can fly anywhere one likes if VFR, whereas if IFR one is supposed to fly on ATS routes (published airways). However, there are countries (e.g. Greece) where *all* traffic (incl. VFR) is supposed to be on airway routes, and one can also get DCT clearances when IFR. Moreover, I can be flying VFR in CAS (say Class C) and be talking to some IFR (approach or departure) ATC unit, and they will be watching me (with a Mode C squawk) and in effect separating me and other traffic, occassionally giving me vectors. This is VFR, but it makes perfect sense. So I can't see why ATC would allow more routing leeway if VFR than if IFR. Does the minimum separation change? Yes, you are looking at it from a euro-POV and I think that's the disconnect. In US Class D & E VFR are not separated from IFR. In the US virtually all airspace is some class of controlled airspace; not just airways and terminal areas. There is some Class G (just enough to prompt some gotcha test questions or usenet replies) but for most discussions it's N/A. Within all that controlled airspace only one controller provides ATC Service within any one particular chunk of airspace. Since there is (virtually) no uncontrolled airspace and only one controller is responsible for the controlled airspace (and thus should have his Big Picture) there are no provisions (or really any need) for the ATSORA (RIS and FIS but especially RAS) that you find in the UK. When an aircraft in probably 90% of US airspace is VFR or in this discussion VFR-On-Top, ATC is not responsible for separation. The two main reasons for IFR re-routes or request denials are separation and traffic flow/sequencing into the terminal area. Since VFR-On-Top eliminates separation as a reason and sequencing only matters in the terminal area the result is more flexibility when it comes to routing. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|