Do you listen to ATC if they tell you the weather ahead is bad? [Archive]

pudoc

11th Jun 2012, 14:38

Based on what you've said, I'd say he is an idiot.

But he could be instrument rated and in an appropriate IFR equipped aircraft for the probable icing conditions then it doesn't sound as bad. Maybe he started to fly IFR but couldn't be bothered telling you?? What was his destination weather like? If the cloud base was a lot higher than en-route airfields then it's possible he did do IFR flying and then landed visually at home base.

What aircraft was he flying?

If it was me chugging along in my C152 I would have got the f**k out of there!!

It does beg the question, did he even check the enroute weather before departure??

Poor airmanship from whatever angle you look at it in my opinion.

Don't be put off giving us pilots help like you did. I'm very grateful when controllers go beyond what they have to do to help me out.

JOE-FBS

11th Jun 2012, 14:45

Quite the opposite for me. On my epic (for me) trip from Halton to Kirkwall and back last week, I asked various ATSU for the weather ahead of me to help my decisions on routes and intermediate stops.

Before anybody says anything, I had made detailed plans before I departed but kept them under review throughout the flights.

Genghis the Engineer

11th Jun 2012, 14:55

I've often asked ATC to get me met further down route, and used that information.

I've also often flown VFR in IMC; so long as things are within my personal limits at destination and hopefully my alternate, and most likely I'm receiving a traffic rather than just basic service. And of-course, conditions aren't consistent with risk of icing.

I'm an IMC holder, so my personal minimum will normally be 600ft and 1800m RVR or thereabouts. If I had an IR, that would come down to 200/900. In either case however I may have local knowledge of my destination that modifies my decision point - in either direction - compared to that based purely upon published data.

Similarly I want options in the event of an emergency en-route: cloudbase below is a significant player, but so is what I can see out of the window and my knowledge of what is around me en-route.

So I think that ATC providing this information is spot on, but ultimately the pilot has to make his own decision and will be using a lot of evidence that ATC doesn't have.

Was this pilot being sensible or stupid? Impossible to tell without being him in my opinion.

G

soaringhigh650

11th Jun 2012, 14:56

If your told the weather ahead is poor by ATC would you listen or just disregard??.....

Of course I would listen. And I would say thanks. If I can't climb over or go around it, I would find out if conditions are suitable for continued IFR flight (eg. Storms/winds/ice) and request IFR clearance to continue if so.

A few have left obtaining the clearance too late and killed themselves, where weather and controlled airspace is coming down and the ground is going up.

Others have also exceeded their capabilities (not IFR equipped and certified) and ended up losing control and killing themselves.

peterh337

11th Jun 2012, 14:59

It's not possible to answer without knowing aircraft details, altitude, etc, and thus possibly get an idea of the pilot's capability and actual flight conditions.

If you posted an mp3 of the radio exchange, it might be revealing :E

The UK has a negligible history of ATC helping pilots with weather. It's just not a part of the system - unlike the USA where they have the established PIREP system.

Personally, I would obviously not disregard an ATCO's concern but I would also explain to him what my plan was to get back down. The least I would say is e.g. vis up here is 50-100nm, blue skies, etc.

Fuji Abound

11th Jun 2012, 15:08

Far too many assumptions.

While he was VFR at the time he may well have been IFR capable and ready and able to fly an IAP. Alternatively he might well have had another good and safe plan in mind. We just don't know.

On the other hand I would agree that it would have been polite to thank you for the information and indicate that he was IFR capable and able to "accept" the weather.

Whether or not its in the rule book I don't know but I guess if in doubt there was nothing to stop you pointing out that it was unlikely he would be able to continue VFR and that he would probably need to accept an IFR clearance in due course.

After that I guess its down to Darwin, there wasn't much more you could have done.

Thinking again. more subtly you could have asked him whether he wanted to you to try an arrange over the land line or via a hand over an IFR hand over assuming this was available to you. At the least it might have "shocked" him into relising that he was about to do something "illegal" if indeed that was the case.

worldpilot

11th Jun 2012, 15:17

If you don't listen, you won't hear what ATC is saying.:=

Many Pilots disregard ATC briefings and end up not having the opportunity to fly any more.

Lets get it right here. It is a common sense issue to always take things into consideration to avoid unusual flight envelope. 4 youths passed away 2 days ago because the pilot apparently became disoriented in low ceiling and bad visibility circumstances, losing control of the aircraft and impacting terrain.

I always consider my exchange with ATC very seriously and never disregard information giving to me. I consider that "good practice" for safe flying.:ok::ok:

WP

thing

11th Jun 2012, 15:19

Don't think I would have plodded on IMC rating or not but as pointed out, we don't know the exact circumstances.

To put the boot on the other foot as it were I was flying in Yorkshire a couple of weeks ago when there was a big helicopter exercise on. I got up to Robin Hood's Bay and the infamous local 'Sea Fret' or thick sea fog rolled in. I told LARS I was going to climb to VMC on top and I had a variety of stations, including the LARS asking me about vis and cloud tops. Felt quite useful for once.

fisbangwollop

11th Jun 2012, 15:26

What aircraft was he flying?

Ultralight!!

While he was VFR at the time he may well have been IFR capable and ready and able to fly an IAP. Alternatively he might well have had another good and safe plan in mind. We just don't know.

I had a feeling in my water that his plan was to try to maintain VFR....with the weather reports I gave him I knew that would not be possible...but then I was not the pilot just the "Area FISO" trying to help him!

The reason I have posted this is to try and help people learn.......In this instance I handed the aircraft off to an aerodrome Radar unit as it started to become obvious to me that his planned route would take him through their class D airspace......in the end I am glad I did.!!:cool:

gasax

11th Jun 2012, 15:29

Freely offered weather is always good to have. I've certainly requested local and slightly further away weather from a couple of LARS providers in recent years.

That has made getting a picture of things generally much easier. But what it usually allows is a lot more flexibility.

The last time I was in this position I could have carried out a 180 turn and retraced my route, or it meant diverting a long way inland a long way off route. The station I was working would have no idea where I was off to - because I was not sure and so could not tell them - just that the weather they had given effectively blocked the route.

I told them I was going to try and route inland and left the frequency. Given they have radar, they probably watched my meandering route - but without that it would have left them wondering I guess.

'India-Mike

11th Jun 2012, 15:32

This wasn't the chap who made the Super Soaraway Daily Scum today, was it? Good picture of police 51 in formation with him if it was

Genghis the Engineer

11th Jun 2012, 15:33

Ultralight!!

That's an aircraft class that doesn't exist in the UK.

What type? [Or if you prefer not to say, I'd be happy for you to PM me the registration and I can offer an informed opinion of aircraft capability here without naming either type or registration.]

G

Jan Olieslagers

11th Jun 2012, 15:36

If it was an ultralight, IFR cannot come into this tale? Or do you Brits have one more peculiarity to allow microlights going into IMC, in certain situations?

fisbangwollop

11th Jun 2012, 15:38

That's an aircraft class that doesn't exist in the UK.

OK sorry it was an LAA type I believe.

BabyBear

11th Jun 2012, 15:41

FBW, given your location there wouldn't be any connection to a certain aircraft that was escorted in to Glasgow by the police heli, would there?

BB

Genghis the Engineer

11th Jun 2012, 15:52

OK sorry it was an LAA type I believe.

I have some expertise in this area, and can see many complexities here, but almost certainly no LAA type is permitted to fly an IAP through cloud except in an emergency.

Knowing the exact type and variant, which I could get from the registration if you can let me know privately, would inform the debate significantly.

G

fisbangwollop

11th Jun 2012, 15:57

FBW, given your location there wouldn't be any connection to a certain aircraft that was escorted in to Glasgow by the police heli, would there?

I believe it was the very one....I don't know the circumstances after I had transferred the aircraft to Edinburgh as he had indicated that he wished to transit their class D airspace at the time still VFR.....it was one of those situation that you just get a feeling in your water....gladly it all worked out well in the end....maybe next time a different story so lets all hope "Lesson's learnt" !!!!:cool::cool::cool::cool:

BabyBear

11th Jun 2012, 16:12

Then I think he was rather foolish not to listen and act upon the reports you were kindly giving him.:eek:

Hopefully a lesson has indeed been learnt.:ok:

BB

Talkdownman

11th Jun 2012, 16:19

I've also often flown VFR in IMC;
That's clever. How do you do that?

Floppy Link

11th Jun 2012, 16:28

Genghis the Engineer

11th Jun 2012, 16:42

Genghis,

See the photo in the following link for an idea of the type. Try to ignore the comments of the witnesses!

Lost Pilot - Scottish Sun (http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4365375/Lost-pilot-asks-Where-the-heli-am-I.html)

Dyn Aero MCR01 then.

High performance, but certainly on a PtF or French equivalent. Not permitted to fly in IMC; possibly the pilot *may* have had an IMC or IR permitting flight down to 1500m visibility, which would be fine in that aeroplane IF suitably equipped, particularly with an AI which isn't mandatory but is likely to be fitted.

I've a vague feeling I may be wrong, but again I think that an IMC holder can fly out of sight of surface in such an aeroplane - legally anyhow!

This does all sound like a bit of a misadventure doesn't it.

G

funfly

11th Jun 2012, 16:42

a certain aircraft that was escorted in to Glasgow by the police heli,
link please, this sounds interesting?

Genghis the Engineer

11th Jun 2012, 16:45

That's clever. How do you do that?

I could have sworn I'd replied to this once already, but it vanished.

Anyhow - own navigation in cloud.

As opposed to IFR in VMC, which is (potentially) somebody else's navigation out of cloud.

G

JW411

11th Jun 2012, 16:48

fisbangwollop:

In my humble opinion (which goes back to going solo at Edzell in 1957) you did exactly the right thing and I would have been very grateful to have received such advice (or should that be "notification").

Not many people in this country realise that ATC are virtually powerless to stop VFR pilots from killing themselves.

Between DC-10 contracts, I found myself flying a Dornier 228 for the Scottish Fisheries Department. We were cleared by the CAA down to 60 feet in order to get good photographs of the great unclean.

Therefore, there were some days when I would be airborne for 5 hours and never get above 500 feet. However, I had a "proper" Kipper Fleet navigator with a 300 mile colour Bendix radar.

So, for example, I went off one day from Kirkwall to go out to Rockall. The visibility was good but the cloudbase was low.

Five hours later, Andrew took us round the top of Lewis and I called right base for 27 at Stornoway. A BA 748 was just going around from his second VOR approach (MDA 700 feet) and asked me what the cloud base was? I had no difficulty in telling him that I hadn't been that high for over 5 hours.

We knew what we were doing but how do you expect ATC to know what your capabilities are?

If they are in any doubt then I would be very happy for them to ask if we really know what we are doing but that is not their job.

fisbangwollop: If I am ever on the other end of your frequency then I will always be happy to hear your advice.

(Born in Monkton with 17,000 hours and still alive).

flybymike

11th Jun 2012, 16:50

Anyhow - own navigation in cloud.

Fascinating, unique and innovative new definition of VFR!

Genghis the Engineer

11th Jun 2012, 16:53

Okay, poor phrasing on my part, and possibly digging a hole for myself without good reason. Perhaps I might stop now.

When entering cloud, I go IMC, and thus IFR, even if following my own navigation. Ignore all after "good morning".

G

Genghis the Engineer

11th Jun 2012, 17:06

I *think* you are right, but just have a nagging feeling there's a restriction on PtF aeroplanes somewhere that I've missed.

G

JW411

11th Jun 2012, 17:19

PtF;

Do you mean an LAA aircraft?

I had it in my mind that LAA aircraft were VFR only?

I was once interested in buying an RV-10 until I discovered that I couldn't go anywhere with it unless the weather was suitable for VFR.

(My current aircraft was fully-IFR with a Garmin 430, Mode S, ADF, DME and, most importantly for IFR flight, a second altimeter).

Genghis the Engineer

11th Jun 2012, 17:40

All LAA aircraft have historically been PtF (Permit to Fly), but that may not be the case in the future if they take on things like CofA Chipmunks.

Not all PtF aircraft are handled by the LAA (microlights and Spitfires for example).

With a few special exceptions, all PtF aeroplanes are limited to day-VFR; but whilst day is unambiguous, VFR minima can depend upon licence, speed, and altitude.

Plus all PtF aircraft have the potential for specific limits to be listed on the permit, and there are multiple flavours of Permit, e.g. Type-Approved, Type-Accepted, Amateur-Built...

I've not seen the document, but I know that the Vulcan flies on a PtF, and I think we can all safely assume that the conditions on that permit are not identical to those on permit for the the flexwing microlight I was flying yesterday morning. The odds are that the wording on the permit for the MCR01 we're talking about are different again.

G

Talkdownman

11th Jun 2012, 17:58

I could have sworn I'd replied to this once already, but it vanished.
You did, but somehow you managed to edit my post instead, which is why I went back and edited out your reply on my post, so there is no end to your talents...

Genghis the Engineer

11th Jun 2012, 18:03

Ooops - sorry about that. Perils of being a mod and having the "edit" and "reply" buttons next to each other. I usually notice in time when I've accidentally done that.

G

gasax

11th Jun 2012, 18:04

I was going to fly yesterday. In my neck of the woods there was a solid ceiling - but a good 1800 foot if not more.
To keep the peace, we drove over Glenshee and down into Angus. What was very apparent was the ceiling varied by around 1000ft within 15 miles. Not unusual in this neck of the woods and really no surprise given the effects of the high ground.

I suspect I know the pilot but I'm not sure - either way with any level of expereince in this area it would not surprise me that there would be a way to get to Perth VFR (legally!)

We dropped in at Perth on the way home and whilst we were there the ceiling was 1300 to 1500ft - but it had been down to 500 ft. So a pretty marginal day and one where staying VFR would be a real challenge.

Fishbangs weather would have perhaps helped in finding a way through - but the locations are a very long way apart and so less use than they might appear. Either way a handover to a radar unit must make sense.

The reporting from the Sun is not even worth the electrons used to transmit it - so valueless. Either way it would appear that the aircraft in question flew into Glasgow - although he had been intending to transit Edinburgh. So obviously he could still see out of the window and keep the shiny side up. Whether he should have been that brave/foolish is perhaps the crux of the issue.

Eeither way if fishbang tells me the weather at x and y is bad - that helps - but it will not make me carry out an immediate u-turn. There is usually a gap - how big and for how long is the question you have to pose yourself and whether it is simply better to be on the grouond looking up etc...

Generally it is. But with poor weather at Glasgow and Edinburgh it is usually still possible to fly north . Yesterday at Perth the ambient and dewpoint were about 1.8 degrees apart when I looked - so a day when all sorts of things are likely to happen!

fisbangwollop

11th Jun 2012, 18:11

GASAX..Fishbangs weather would have perhaps helped in finding a way through - but the locations are a very long way apart and so less use than they might appear. Either way a handover to a radar unit must make sense.

Maybe so but when your following the M74 both the Cumbernauld and Edinburgh weather were the ones I thought may be useful to him as they would be the barrier to cross on his way north to Perth!!:cool:

Talkdownman

11th Jun 2012, 18:49

I'd like a penny for every time I have passed traffic information to 'VFR' and 'SVFR' flights (yes...SVFR too...) only to be told 'Roger, I'm IMC at the moment...' :rolleyes:

BabyBear

11th Jun 2012, 18:50

Come on FBW, tell GASAX it is not your fishiness that is being questioned!:rolleyes:

BB

gasax

11th Jun 2012, 18:58

Cumbernauld would have been on a direct-ish track for him in that case. But again overhead the airfield they are affected by the high ground directly to the south, whereas a couple of miles north it is often reasonable.

Edinburgh - well 30 odd miles and a lot of terrain away - so useful to know but.

In short a pilot has to decide what the view out of the windscreen is and whether it is sensible to continue. The one thing I would never do is turnaround because somewhere up ahead the weatherat an airport is poor. Particularly in Scotland, being a couple of miles one way or the other can make a huge difference to conditions - one glen will be solid, the next clear, the windward slope solid, the lee side entirely clear, over the water clear, on the shore solid (and vice versa)

Obviously you had some insight to what could happen and it looks like going to Glasgow was probably the only possible/sensible option. In theory the pilot should have known better in that he was actually there. In this case it would appear he did not.

But my point would be this is not East Anglia where the weather tends to be 'the weather' and because of that the weather information is useful but not a 'go, no go'. So my answer to the query is yes I listen and if the conditions get nasty I'll turn around, divert, whatever, but I'll make that decision on the basis of what is there - not observations at discrete widely spaced points.

BabyBear

11th Jun 2012, 19:12

gasax, seems to me you may be in danger of defending what with hindsight is the indefensible, for reasons known only to yourself?

FBW, please continue to act as you did yesterday, I am sure I am not the only one that would not have dismissed your information.

BB

piperboy84

11th Jun 2012, 19:38

This link is a woeful story of a good friend and colleague who ignored 4 briefer/ATC warnings about weather with tragic results, I flew with him once about a month before the accident and said to myself "never again"

LAX03FA182 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20030630X00971&key=1)

mad_jock

11th Jun 2012, 19:44

These exam call signs can be a right bastard fis ;)

maxred

11th Jun 2012, 20:06

I was at Glasgow when this guy arrived, escorted by the police helicopter. It was my son who said to me that the event had happened, I had my head under the cowling looked up and said don't be daft. Read the paper today, and low and behold he was accurate. The cloud base was 900, with a lateral viz of 7k, at the time, with heavy shower activity. We were gong to go flying but due to weather did not. The end result here was positive, but could easily have not had such an ending. There have been a number of times when I have been flying south, having departed very marginal VFR, and have listened to Scottish Info giving weather updates, and still pilots soldier on northward into lowering cloud base. Never quite understood why???

Fuji Abound

11th Jun 2012, 20:14

Well given the facts i would like to add to my earlier comments and the discussion.

Rules are rules and perhaps sometimes rules can be bent but amoung all the myths in aviation the dangers of flying into imc without the training or the kit is not one of them. Now a current and capable instrument pilot in a suitable aircraft of any type (whether or not it is approved for instrument flight) will get on just fine and i know of a few pilots who will do just that. What they do is illegal but at least they are no more likely to kill themselves or anyone else.

What we dont know is if this pilot intended any such thing.

It is wrong to assume that all pilots operate to the same minima. When we start flying a base of 2000 feet seems low. With time experience and training vfr at 500 might work (as one of the earlier posters mentioned). I have done many a local jaunt with a 600 foot cloudbase quite happily. Ok i am not rcommending doing so unless you are certain you have the skills but the supposition that scud running is lethal is one of the myths.

For all of these reasons i feel rightly a controller should be congratulated for passing on weather information and on occasions using some of the other "tricks" available to him to test the pilots resolve to do something illegal or dangerous but that is as far as it should go.

I have heard on many occasions contollers asking pilots whether they can accept an ifr clearance. The pilots is now on the spot. While as we know in the uk at the moment he can continue on an ifr clearance in vmc without an ir not many know that! Moreover most pilots would get to grips with the reason for the controller asking being because he expects the flight to enter imc. So the pilot is now vocalising that he is prepared to do something illegal. Not many are prepared to go that far.

Of course as would seem to be the case here the pilot may simply state he will continue vfr and if he thinks he can he is entitled to do so as he will be outside cas. Equally in cas the contoller can refuse the clearance if he cant accept ifr albeit as i indicated ealier he can still "cheat" and claim he has maintained vmc although that may be very unlikely!

gasax

11th Jun 2012, 20:19

FBW posed a question do you listen to ATC? The sub-text was if this character had listened to FBW the 'incident' would not have occured. And that is entirely correct.

But and it is a HUGE but, if FBW says Edinburgh weather is pants does that mean flying north to Perth is impossible? No it does not. It means the weather at Edinburgh is pants.

This character got it wrong and the sensible thing would probably have stopped or returned to Carlisle / Kirkbride. But a weather report from somewhere else is information - it is not a ban on flight.

At the end of the day it is about judgement. This one was wrong and I would guess he just carried on into lowering cloud - which is pretty dumb. But babybear if FIS tells you somewhere is 800ft within 10 to 30 miles of your route do you immediately turn around? Somehow I doubt it - which is why I have not joined in the hang him now responses which pprune is so full of.

peterh337

11th Jun 2012, 20:43

I may be missing something, but if this chap was able to be escorted to safety by a helicopter, they must have been in VMC.

So it is a basic navigation issue.

Why could he not navigate?

I know people will take the micky out of me for mentioning the 3-letter word again, but why didn't he carry a GPS?

In the 20th century, never mind the 21st century, the concept of getting lost in VMC should be totally alien.

maxred

11th Jun 2012, 20:47

Not to get hung up on this incident, the flight I believe was to Perth. Perth has a VOR procedure, therfore. If this pilot was IFR proficient, he could have pressed on legally. However, it is flying on into higher ground. MSA for the sector would be 3k, higher as he went North. The aeroplane, what I saw of it did not look IFR capable, I may however be totally wrong. However, if controllers are indicating that between your current position, and, your destination, the weather is not good, it is a fair assumption that the weather at destination is not going to be good either. He was VFR.

The area is cluttered with controlled airspace, therefore if the pilot presses on into controlled airspace, verbally maintaing he is VFR, with commercials flying down glide slopes to CAT 11, then the controllers are going to ask at some stage do you wish IFR, or SVFR. Decision time for the pilot. He did I believe the correct thing, he landed with help. That is a result, a very good result, however, it does not get away from the fact, in this incident, should he have been there in the first place.

madlandrover

11th Jun 2012, 20:49

Perth has a VOR procedure, therfore.

No, it doesn't - it may have had one (a decent one!!) in the past when established under full ATC, but it does not have an instrument approach that can be used for planning purposes any more.

Pace

11th Jun 2012, 20:52

You take all information available to you and make a judgement based on flying within your and the aircraft limits.
I can remember a glorious flight in a mooney to San Sebastian. Flying in perfect VFR conditions low level over the beaches I could not believe my ears when Biarritz was reporting sky obscured RVR 300 metres.
I asked for the San Sebastian weather a few miles away which was still good with fog rolling in.
Checked the fuel for a return back and was soon flying over fog banks to San Sebastian.
Literally cleared fog banks with the runway below. Full flap and landed.
Another occasion In a private jet I was told to take up a radar heading into Bournmouth.
Right on track was a nasty CB. The controller insisted there was nothing on her radar my eyes told me different.
Declined the heading!
Yes you have to take information from a number of sources ATC included and make a judgement.
That Judgement should depend on flying within your own and the aircrafts limits!

Pace

maxred

11th Jun 2012, 20:53

I understand, but the VOR is still operable, and the procedure is still there. Obviously unless training, it is an emergency procedure, but it is still there.

robin

11th Jun 2012, 21:05

I think we can all safely assume that the conditions on that permit are not identical to those on permit for the the flexwing microlight I was flying yesterday morning. The odds are that the wording on the permit for the MCR01 we're talking about are different again.

Once a CofA machine goes to LAA Permit, the flight conditions revert to those of the Permit,

The Jodel 1050s moved from CofA and although some were able to fly at night, the LAA Permit is limited to day VFR only. It makes no odds whether the aircraft is equipped for night flight or has a glass cockpit - IMC or night flight is not permitted, though it is clear some Permit owners do stretch the limits somewhat.

Whether these limits are sensible or not, the insurers will certainly take note

BabyBear

11th Jun 2012, 21:19

Gasax,

To get this;

But babybear if FIS tells you somewhere is 800ft within 10 to 30 miles of your route do you immediately turn around?

from this;

I obtained weather ahead from airfields that he was liable to have to fly over....to say the least these reports were poor....the best OVC at 600ft and the worst OVC at 300ft....

causes me to further question your motive?

BB

thing

11th Jun 2012, 21:31

I'd like a penny for every time I have passed traffic information to 'VFR' and 'SVFR' flights (yes...SVFR too...) only to be told 'Roger, I'm IMC at the moment...'

Ah, but you might be just in a bit of muck for a couple of seconds.

Happened to me on the way to the Sherburn meet in March, I was crossing Doncaster zone on a VFR Traffic service no higher than 2,500'. It was good vis but there was a lot of cloud around at varying levels. The good lady controller passed me some crossing traffic just as I popped into some scud (you couldn't really fly around it, you would just fly into some more and it went down quite a bit), I called 'IMC this instant, watching on exit' which was literally one or two seconds later.

She called ' Can I remind you that you are on a VFR transit.' I said it would be no problem to go IFR and asked for an IFR clearance. She said 'No, that's OK stay VFR.'

I was left a little bemused. I might add that Doncaster controllers are always excellent.

Crash one

11th Jun 2012, 21:37

I notice the BBC said he lost his compass. How does that work then? Did mag north slip down the side for a bit?
In answer to Fisbang, Yes thank you, much appreciated.

dont overfil

11th Jun 2012, 21:42

Thing,
There is no halfway house. You are IFR or VFR. It should be pre planned.
You put the controller in a compromising position.

You need to understand the controllers position. The person who is the subject of this thread didn't understand either.

D.O.

thing

11th Jun 2012, 21:52

There is no halfway house. You are IFR or VFR. It should be pre planned.
You put the controller in a compromising position.

You need to understand the controllers position. The person who is the subject of this thread didn't understand either.I understand that, however on the day the weather (cloudbase) lowered rapidly en route against forecast. I had no problem changing to IFR after she reminded me that I was on a VFR crossing after my (minor) IMC excursion, it was the fact that she wanted me to stay at the same altitude and remain VFR that threw me a bit.

I bet there isn't a pilot on this forum that hasn't gone IMC for however short a period while VFR. Although no, having said that I forget that some of you have flown like saints the whole of your lives...:)

Genghis the Engineer

11th Jun 2012, 21:56

So, controllers - I'm on a long leg, I'm IMC qualified, I may well be flying quadrantal rule (or can easily adjust my height to do so), and receiving a basic service. VFR/IFR hasn't been discussed, no flight plan has been filed -I'm just flying in open FIR. And there's a big bank of cloud in front of me - so I elect to fly through it, as there's no reason not to. What do you want me to tell you? Serious question, as I really cannot recall ever being taught this and am pretty certain that there's nothing in CAP 413 about it either.

I know what I have done, but I'd like to know what controllers think I should do.

Back to the specific incident, there's a bit of a difference of attitude between light GA and microlight GA which is, I think, mostly down to stall speeds and weights.

The typical microlight has a Vs~30kn and a flying weight under 1000lb, which allows it to land in 100-200m without significant piloting skill. It also usually has an undercarriage specifically designed for grass.

The typical light aeroplane has a Vs~50kn, could well have a flying weight nearer 2000lb and thus may well need 400-600m to land on grass with normal piloting skill.

So, the well adjusted microlight pilot should have a clear mentality of "if in doubt slow down and go low level, and if that doesn't work out, pick something large and flat, and land on it". As a microlight pilot, I've done this several times - fellow microlighters hear the story and congratulate me on good judgment, whilst my light aeroplane flying friends will often look utterly shocked that I did such a thing as simply land in a field. Needless to say, on none of these occasions did the aircraft suffer any damage, and on most I managed to fly it out again.

In a light aeroplane with suitable instrumentation of-course I can climb into it, go IMC, and take an IAP somewhere with a nice big runway. If it had a CofA, that's even legal (taking the view that safe trumps legal every time). In a microlight - with usually no Tx, and no navaids but a compass and a GPS, I'd be really reluctant to do that, and in a flexwing I'd not even contemplate it.

Which brings us back to the chap flying the MCR01 - why the heck did this chap not, regardless of anything else, just land in a field? The aeroplane is quite capable of landing on 200m of flattish grass, which even in central Scotland is pretty easy to find (even if it may normally involve paying green fees :E)

G

thing

11th Jun 2012, 22:04

madlandrover

11th Jun 2012, 22:08

Obviously unless training, it is an emergency procedure, but it is still there.

Strictly speaking, even when training it doesn't exist as a procedure if flown in IMC ;). It is however a pretty good way to fly a series of sensible tracks down to MSA :E utterly legally. The danger of publicising it/people being used to flying it down to lowish levels during training is that someone might rely on it/come to think that it's a genuine licensed procedure. It is, of course, a perfect example of somewhere that one day should have a legal IAP to a non-ATC field!

DavidWoodward

11th Jun 2012, 22:37

I always listen to the weather and if it's poor, I turn back. I was heading back from Shobdon a couple of weeks ago and the very helpful lady on London Information asked if I wanted the weather information for back at Manchester. I said yes obviously, purely because her voice was lovely ;-)

Fuji Abound

11th Jun 2012, 22:42

I dont think open fir makes any difference. If you are entering imc you should tell the controller you are declaring ifr (and in imc). The point being that while he has no authority to prevent you doing so both he and any other aicraft on frequency are now aware that you can no longer see and avoid. If a radar service is available chances are even if their isnt capacity for vfr traffic you will get a service.

A common mistake having declared ifr is to believe that because you are in open fir you can deviate from the declared height. You shouldnt because the controller is entitled to expect you to maintain height unless you inform him to the contrary.

GeeWhizz

11th Jun 2012, 22:42

So, controllers - I'm on a long leg, I'm IMC qualified, I may well be flying quadrantal rule (or can easily adjust my height to do so), and receiving a basic service. VFR/IFR hasn't been discussed, no flight plan has been filed -I'm just flying in open FIR. And there's a big bank of cloud in front of me - so I elect to fly through it, as there's no reason not to. What do you want me to tell you? Serious question, as I really cannot recall ever being taught this and am pretty certain that there's nothing in CAP 413 about it either.

This is a good one Big G with a few potential answers all dependent on different things.

Ultimately as a controller I'll provide you with the service you ask for. If you are in receipt of a BS that is all you will get, whether you are VMC or IMC. I could pass you the weather and all sorts of other pieces of information that I feel is essential for the 'safe and efficient conduct of flight'. I will also do my best to provide you with any information you request. What do I want you to tell me? You can tell me whatever you like we can have a chat about anything ;) Unless absolutely necessary to impose a type of service upon you (in the utmost extreme) you will receive what you ask for.

It would be prudent for a pilot to ask for a higher level of service if entering IMC in the open FIR. Also it its a good idea all around to take a Traffic Service if flying within or through busy areas regardless of the met conditions as you will have much improved SA.

As a pilot I for one will not enter cloud without a TS generally; I'd perhaps contemplate doing so on a BS for a very short time i.e. plundering through a single 'fair weather' cu. A DS is really not required for my type of flying or probably most GA flying.

It is quite a harsh statement to make, but it not unusual for aircraft to go scud running on BS and lose comms behind hills etc. The pilot is ultimately responsible for terrain and collision avoidance... except the few circumstances involving vectoring.

FBW did a great job and any pilot should be thankful that someone took a moment to find relevant information. The only thing I'd like to mention on the reported weather issue is that METARs give cloud above aerodrome level as opposed to AMSL. Without a chart to hand I don't know the elevations of the aerodromes concerned, but where the cloud was reported as 300ft potentially at an elevation of 300ft, it could be possible to fly at 550ft AGL VFR in VMC and not break rule 5.

Just my thoughts :-)

Edit: Controlling in arguably one of the busiest areas of the UK, I'd to add that I am more than happy to visit your flying club or school of an evening to discuss either informally or by presentation the pros, cons and practicalities of ATSOCAS if required. Sometimes it can be daunting 'coping with the fat controller' (Beyond the PPL, Chapter 12, Nigel Everett, 2005, AFE).

Gertrude the Wombat

11th Jun 2012, 22:50

GeeWhizz

11th Jun 2012, 23:09

In response to "traffic passing left to right two miles ahead no height information" I replied "thanks, we're IMC just now".

Had exactly the same scenario just a few months back just after asking for a descent through a 2000ft layer of cloud to VMC. 'No height information' isn't helpful, but the clock code and distance were as it gave me an idea of when to descend.

E.g....

"Traffic right two o'clock 4 miles crossing right to left no height information."
"Roger nothing seen IMC maintaining 3500ft"

"Traffic 12 o'clock 2 miles opposite direction no height information"
(S**t, better not descend here then!) "Roger still IMC"

"Traffic left 11 o'clock 2 miles crossing right to left no height information"
"Roger request descent to VMC".

"Descend to 1500ft report VMC below"

It took a while, but was still useful... wouldn't want to be in this situation on a BS :eek:

Genghis the Engineer

12th Jun 2012, 07:10

All good stuff.

Okay my approach: "G-_ _ _ _ is now india-mike, request traffic service", and if required (and I remember!) adjust my altitude to maintain quadrantal rule. That's if it looks like I'm going to be IMC for more than a minute or so, otherwise frankly I have just got on with it and not bothered anybody.

But the lack of anybody saying "don't you know anything Genghis, CAP*** clearly says to....." says to me very strongly that there's a big gap in UK national procedures here. There should be standard RT for this, and approved standard practices, and there clearly aren't.

Incidentally, a couple of our ATC chums have said that they are obliged to give the service I ask for. Sorry, but airbollox. On numerous occasions I have been refused traffic / radar-information service when visibility is deteriorating and I've asked for it to be on the safe side (one instance for example is flying directly into the setting sun, good VFR, but still can't see aircraft on reciprocal and conflicting tracks). The common factor seems to be that I've been flying something with no transponder. I've also had even a basic service cancelled on me on a number of occasions the moment I am out of somebody's CAS and heading away from it, despite there being no obvious next service provider and any likely conflict will be with traffic approaching that CAS from the opposite direction. There are in my opinion definitely a proportion of controllers who regard BS/TS as solely about deconflicting me with THEIR traffic, and they have no interest in what pilots themselves might want or think they need.

I suspect that any controllers posting here are very much amongst the "good guys", otherwise they simply wouldn't show the interest to be reading this forum and posting here. But the attitudes shown on this thread are not, in my experience, universal.

G

dont overfil

12th Jun 2012, 07:28

The way I understand it concerning the current discussion.

In class G telling the Fiso or controller your in flight conditions and therefore rules is sensible and good airmanship. In controlled airspace it is a legal requirement.

For the record conditions at Perth were not VFR.

D.O.

mad_jock

12th Jun 2012, 08:07

I did think the current bun article was unfortunately funny.

The dirty Police pilot trying to mount an aero dyn in flight with a eurocopter.

I think a more usefull description would have been the police helli was shepherding a light aircraft back to safety.

And I would think the pilot was IFR and IFR being I Follow Roads.

bookworm

12th Jun 2012, 08:20

So, controllers - I'm on a long leg, I'm IMC qualified, I may well be flying quadrantal rule (or can easily adjust my height to do so), and receiving a basic service. VFR/IFR hasn't been discussed, no flight plan has been filed -I'm just flying in open FIR. And there's a big bank of cloud in front of me - so I elect to fly through it, as there's no reason not to. What do you want me to tell you? Serious question, as I really cannot recall ever being taught this and am pretty certain that there's nothing in CAP 413 about it either.

I'm not a controller, but I have a view on this. ATC is interested in the service that you require. If you're happy to fly through the IMC on a basic service (or traffic service) then you don't need to say anything to ATC. If you want a deconfliction service, then ask for it early, don't wait until the conflicting traffic is called!

A common mistake having declared ifr is to believe that because you are in open fir you can deviate from the declared height. You shouldnt because the controller is entitled to expect you to maintain height unless you inform him to the contrary.

No so Fuji. ATC expects you to report changes in level on a traffic service or deconfliction service (or a procedural service, though I can't imagine why you wouldn't ask first). Flight rules are irrelevant.

Happened to me on the way to the Sherburn meet in March, I was crossing Doncaster zone on a VFR Traffic service no higher than 2,500'. It was good vis but there was a lot of cloud around at varying levels. The good lady controller passed me some crossing traffic just as I popped into some scud (you couldn't really fly around it, you would just fly into some more and it went down quite a bit), I called 'IMC this instant, watching on exit' which was literally one or two seconds later.

Controlled airspace is a different game entirely. Before you cross, you ask for a clearance either under VFR or under IFR. If you elect to cross under VFR, you must maintain VMC, because the controller may ask you to separate visually from other traffic. A VFR flight in controlled airspace that enters IMC is, in effect, an emergency.

Talkdownman

12th Jun 2012, 08:34

In class G telling the Fiso or controller your in flight conditions and therefore rules
Not 'therefore'. They are different things. One's a set of met conditions, the other's a set of flight rules. They are not inextricably linked, ie. In IMC - IFR.
In VMC - VFR or IFR.

I called 'IMC this instant, watching on exit' which was literally one or two seconds later. She called ' Can I remind you that you are on a VFR transit.'Whilst on a ATC VFR clearance within CAS it is a condition to remain in VMC. Under such circumstances there is no option, or discretion, to enter IMC, even temporarily.

dont overfil

12th Jun 2012, 08:51

Talkdownman, you are of course correct. Poor english.

For the record conditions at Perth were not VFR.

This was also incorrect. What I should have said was conditions were not good enough to permit flight under VFR.

D.O.

mm_flynn

12th Jun 2012, 09:44

peterh337

12th Jun 2012, 10:10

I agree with mm_flynn above.

Controllers don't seem to care if you are VMC or IMC, in Class G. Even after you've told them you are in IMC, they still pass you traffic :)

I find this thread very confusing. What were this pilot's actual flight conditions? I don't suppose anybody knows, except him. I would bet he was VMC but got lost above an overcast because he had no means of navigation.

mad_jock

12th Jun 2012, 10:19

What were this pilot's actual flight conditions?

I would say its what we would deem in scotland as "****e"

And I would presume that he was actually on a GPS and then his bottle went when he got into "skimmed milk" conditions. Which isn't suprising when you fly towards a body of water.

As a matter of interest what was Dundee and Leuchars like?

Fuji Abound

12th Jun 2012, 10:28

A common mistake having declared ifr is to believe that because you are in open fir you can deviate from the declared height. You shouldnt because the controller is entitled to expect you to maintain height unless you inform him to the contrary.

No so Fuji. ATC expects you to report changes in level on a traffic service or deconfliction service (or a procedural service, though I can't imagine why you wouldn't ask first). Flight rules are irrelevant.

Bookie - I didn't say otherwise as my comment was with specific reference to IFR. You might be IFR under a basic service (if that is all that is available) and you might think just like VFR under a basic service you can change level as you wish.

I agree whether IFR of VFR under any surveillance service you are expected to report changes in level, and indeed I would expect the pilot to ask first although I don't think he strictly has any obligation to do so in open FIR?

VMC-on-top

12th Jun 2012, 10:29

The controllers seem to treat the IFR/VFR status (in class G) as broadly irrelevant, hence, I don't mention it

This is very concerning - so you opt for IFR lets say, primarily for traffic separation and the controllers don't treat you any differently to VFR? Perhaps FBW could comment? Do you mean IFR, as in CAS or IFR OCAS?

However, I have found that if you mention you are in IMC that can help bounce you up from a BS to a TS priority level. (as in 'G-xyzd (not me) request Traffic service' reply, 'unable BS only due to controller work load', 'G-ME request Traffic Service, currently IMC', reply 'Traffic Service squawk 4521').

You could still request a TS although VFR. You don't have to be IFR to request TS.

soaringhigh650

12th Jun 2012, 10:30

On numerous occasions I have been refused traffic / radar-information service when ...... There are in my opinion definitely a proportion of controllers who regard BS/TS as solely about deconflicting me with THEIR traffic, and they have no interest in what pilots themselves might want or think they need.

If you were talking to Approach they would be primarily interested in sequencing and separating aircraft to and from the airports they look after.

If you were talking to Center they would be primarily interested in separating en-route IFR aircraft in controlled airspace.

Above that (e.g. VFR transition over terminal airspace) is subject to traffic /workload at the time.

If you are cleared VFR through terminal airspace, you must maintain VFR. Suddenly declaring you're going IFR half way through it is going to cause a headache to the controller and others around you. So if you are going IFR declare it early (having ideally filed that flight plan) and be ready to note down your clearance through en-route controlled airspace so you can get some better looking after along the way.

GeeWhizz

12th Jun 2012, 10:51

All good discussion here. As with all of aviation there are many if's and buts; I'll pick up on a few points if I may...

Once talking to a LARS unit it doesn't matter what level you are flying at, quadrantal or otherwise. The quad system is limited in its usefulness, which is mainly when flying IFR without being in receipt of an ATC service. Once under some kind of 'control' (read 'facilitation' in the open FIR) the quadrantal rule may be thrown out of the window and you may maintain your own level or be allocated another for separation purposes. Of course individual controllers may ask you to climb or descend for the correct quad.

Also it is nice to know the flight conditions but more to gauge whether an aircraft will become visual with something else when called. The rules are the rules so whether you will or will not see what you are being told about, you will be made aware of it. This also has its uses (see my last post).

If you are IMC then you may, even under TS, ask for 'deconfliction advice', in which case expect to be given 'avoiding action' upon which you will be expected to accept, but say so if you cannot. Avoiding action will take you 5 miles clear of conflicting traffic clear of CAS and above the terrain safe level (other rules apply to AA below the TSL).

Under a TS it is customary to tell your friendly controller what you are doing: turning, climbing, descending etc. Under a DS you should really be asking. Under these two services within class G airspace you may be separated against without knowing it, purely due to the expectation that you are monitored and information will flow from ground to air and vice versa.

As for being refused services I'm a little surprised. This shouldn't happen whether you have an operational transponder or not. SSR isn't the only way to identify an aircraft. So unless the controlling unit simply didn't have the equipment to identify you Genghis there should be no reason to refuse. I agree that there are some places that look after their own traffic, rather than providing the best possible service to everyone. It's a practice that I try not to fall into and can only provide assurance that it wont happen on my frequencies!

Lastly it is a fact OCAS that as far as controlling goes, it is the type of service that makes a difference, not the flight rules or met conditions. mm_flynn is quite right in that if the weather isn't great more attention is usually applied. It is very worrying to lose scud runners behind hills in poor met, trust me! A reduced service is normally available even during periods of high controller workload.

Sorry guys but I know nothing of ops within CAS from the controlling side, but as a fellow GA pilot what has been mentioned so far makes sense. A clearance is a clearance and it must be met at all times within the specified conditions.

That's all for now :-)

bookworm

12th Jun 2012, 10:53

Bookie - I didn't say otherwise as my comment was with specific reference to IFR. You might be IFR under a basic service (if that is all that is available) and you might think just like VFR under a basic service you can change level as you wish.

And you would be correct! There is no requirement to report a change of level under IFR or VFR when under a BS.

I agree whether IFR of VFR under any surveillance service you are expected to report changes in level, and indeed I would expect the pilot to ask first although I don't think he strictly has any obligation to do so in open FIR?

The "contract" under a TS or DS requires you to advise any change of level, even under VFR. See CAP 774 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3174). I've been there, done that, and got the T-shirt, courtesy of a slightly grumpy Brize controller. ;)

bookworm

12th Jun 2012, 11:06

Quote: "The controllers seem to treat the IFR/VFR status (in class G) as broadly irrelevant, hence, I don't mention it"

This is very concerning - so you opt for IFR lets say, primarily for traffic separation and the controllers don't treat you any differently to VFR? Perhaps FBW could comment? Do you mean IFR, as in CAS or IFR OCAS?

He wrote "in class G", which is OCAS. The whole point about class G is that traffic separation is not provided. If airspace is busy enough that IFR flights need separating, it would be controlled airspace.

mm_flynn

12th Jun 2012, 11:26

You could still request a TS although VFR. You don't have to be IFR to request TS.
Fully aware of that. The point I was trying to make is that on days when controllers are rejecting requests for TS and offering only BS, I have found that telling them you are in IMC puts you up the queue for receiving a Traffic Service.

GeeWhizz

12th Jun 2012, 11:39

But the lack of anybody saying "don't you know anything Genghis, CAP*** clearly says to....." says to me very strongly that there's a big gap in UK national procedures here. There should be standard RT for this, and approved standard practices, and there clearly aren't.

Just had a quick look at CAP413. There is an example on page 28 of chapter 11 of an aircraft going from VFR to IFR. With a little bit of rearranging it can be used for flight in VMC OCAS entering IMC.

e.g. "G-CD entering IMC request TS/DS"

Edit: The bottom of chapter 11 page 20 is useful too:

"Wrayton Information, G-CD, descending due weather. Changing to Westbury Approach for Traffic Service"

Little G :p

fa2fi

12th Jun 2012, 11:51

Anyway - getting back to this particular flight why was he guided in by a helicopter? The last time I remember anyone being guided in by another aircraft was the guy who had a stroke mid flight, lost his sight and landed at a small airfield. Maybe there's more to this than merely getting lost?

fisbangwollop

12th Jun 2012, 11:58

Anyway - getting back to this particular flight why was he guided in by a helicopter?

From what I understand the Police helicopter was already airborne on another task, he was also close by and therefore in an ideal position to offer assistance......it seems to me to be a very good job done by both the Glasgow controller and the Police helicopter crew...:cool:

Fuji Abound

12th Jun 2012, 12:19

Bookie

That is interesting - my T-shirt came about after changing level under a basic service while IFR in IMC - well in the days before it was called a traffic service. I suggested that I had no obligation to inform of a change of level and was told firmly to the contrary - in fact I even raised the issue on here at the time. I seem to recall the view was the controller was correct. I recall the controller very pleasantly pointing out that if I had reported FL45 IFR then their assumption was I would remain at that level and traffic that may be higher or lower would not be passed (albeit I fully appreciate that they have no obligation to pass any traffic). There was no argument that I was fully entitled to change level just that I should notify them of the change first.

With hindsight personally I think it is pretty silly to change level under IFR (especially in IMC) without notifying the controller under a basic service but am interested that you feel there is no "legal" obligation to inform the controller.

flybymike

12th Jun 2012, 12:24

It was the RAF who shepherded in the stroke/blind pilot to RAF Linton on Ouse.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | North Yorkshire | Blind pilot guided to land by RAF (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/7715345.stm)

flybymike

12th Jun 2012, 12:28

That is interesting - my T-shirt came about after changing level under a basic service while IFR in IMC - well in the days before it was called a traffic service.
A basic service would have equated to the old FIS, and traffic service to the old RIS.
No idea why they are still not called that either....:rolleyes:

DX Wombat

12th Jun 2012, 12:36

Unless you are in possession of a fully functioning crystal ball why on earth would you NOT take notice of weather information passed by ATC?

Fuji Abound

12th Jun 2012, 12:56

Oops that was the one - finger trouble indeed it was under a FIS, and yes I rather agree I liked that terminology.

mad_jock

12th Jun 2012, 13:04

why on earth would you NOT take notice of weather information passed by ATC?

Only time would be when its CAVOK for hundreds of miles with winds less than 10 knts and the controller is one of your mates and bored and then starts reading you out every sodding airport he can think of. Then demanding a read back of the QNH for every one usually after he has just read to you 5 of them and you haven't bothered writing any of them down.

And its not the done thing to tell him to sod off.

And Fuji personally I think the controller is wrong. what they are wanting to do is for you to be known traffic for there other stuff and not take the liability for a traffic service. If they refuse to give a traffic service bin them they are only talking to you for thier benefit not yours. Or as what one one ATCO pilot said to one service when they asked what thier operating level was "not above FL100" because he had zero interest in entering into any contract with them.

VMC-on-top

12th Jun 2012, 13:09

He wrote "in class G", which is OCAS. The whole point about class G is that traffic separation is not provided. If airspace is busy enough that IFR flights need separating, it would be controlled airspace.

Yes, I'm aware of that. The point I was getting at was that there really is no advantage to declaring IFR OCAS, unless it is with at least a TS, which can be VFR anyway.

Miken100

12th Jun 2012, 13:15

I remember vividly a day back in 2008; we were flying a PA28 back up to Liverpool from Exeter... we were working London Info at the time and knew we were flying towards a front coming south... we discussed alternates and got ready to turn back/land and get a taxi home if necessary despite IFR capability....

The distressing part of this tale is that another PA28, flying from Gloucester to Ireland was also on frequency and we heard London "doing the best they could" to advise the other PA28 that things were going to deteriorate over Ireland if they pressed on.

Sadly they did press on and four people lost their lives that day - still can't comprehend what made the PIC ignore the advice with such dreadful results...

Thank-you FBW and all of your colleagues for doing the best you can to keep us safer up there - keep it up.. most of us listen to you!!

Mike

Fuji Abound

12th Jun 2012, 13:21

And Fuji personally I think the controller is wrong. what they are wanting to do is for you to be known traffic for there other stuff and not take the liability for a traffic service. If they refuse to give a traffic service bin them they are only talking to you for thier benefit not yours. Or as what one one ATCO pilot said to one service when they asked what thier operating level was "not above FL100" because he had zero interest in entering into any contract with them.

I think your logic may be a little disjointed, although I am sure not intended.

To be fair the process usually starts with you asking for a service. In open FIR you dont need a basic service, and if you dont want it I guess the answer is dont ask, or positively refuse. If you declare IFR and agree a basic service in hindsight I can see that it is not unreasonable for the controller to expect you to remain at your declared level, even though as Bookie says you have no obligation to do so.

In short if you dont want a a service of any sort dont accept one in the first place.

Also to be fair in my experience most controllers do their best to give a usual basic service - yes sometimes it is for their benefit, and perhaps sometimes entirely for their benefit. On the other hand, for example, I have had a basic service approaching Farnborough on many occasions and asked for a transit. If nothing else it gives the controller an opportunity to co-ordinate you with other traffic as well as their own arrivals and departures. Of course you could ignore them and skirt around their ATZ, even directly under their approach outside the ATZ if you like but what are you achieving?

mm_flynn

12th Jun 2012, 13:37

Yes, I'm aware of that. The point I was getting at was that there really is no advantage to declaring IFR OCAS, unless it is with at least a TS, which can be VFR anyway.
Which is why I never do declare my flight rules - even though I am always IFR. I ask for the service I want and am generally very happy with the service provided.

Clydeport

12th Jun 2012, 13:45

Ok just to give you some facts on this particular flight. I was flying Police51.

We were on task and asked by Glasgow ATC if we would be able to help an aircraft in distress that Edinburgh were working who had gone IMC betweenGlasgow and Edinburgh.

We transferred to Edinburgh approach as the subject aircraft radioed that he could now see some water below him and some ground and was going to decent.

Edinburgh vectored us towards the aircraft. He then announced that he was VFR again. Edinburgh asked him if he wanted to divert and he said yes. They said the weather was better at Glasgow, did he want to divert there and did he want our assistance. He said yes to both. We located him and offered him the option of following us back to Glasgow airport which he accepted. With local knowledge we led him over the least congested route to put him on a long final onto runway 23 at Glasgow.

When he was lined up and happy, we moved to the side and let him continuehis approach to land.

I understand that when he went IMC his gyro toppled and Edinburgh weretreating him as a 'no compass no gyro' aircraft.

All's well that ends well but the weather was poor. I think I would have listened to FBWs advice

peterh337

12th Jun 2012, 14:21

Interesting post, Clydeport:ok:

I understand that when he went IMC his gyro toppled

Either somebody was pulling somebody's leg, or he severely lost control at some point, perhaps inverting the aircraft.

Sir Herbert Gussett

12th Jun 2012, 14:22

Good job Clydeport :ok:

'India-Mike

12th Jun 2012, 14:28

bookworm

12th Jun 2012, 14:58

With hindsight personally I think it is pretty silly to change level under IFR (especially in IMC) without notifying the controller under a basic service but am interested that you feel there is no "legal" obligation to inform the controller.

I agree. Before the DS TS PS BS, the obligations were not always very clear. In particular, while an approach controller had certain responsibilities as regards separation of IFR flights, the responsibilities of the pilot were unclear.

There is still no legal obligation to follow the instructions/clearance of a controller in class G (outside an ATZ), but the responsibilities of both parties are now set out in CAP 774 for all types of service.

BS: Unless the pilot has entered into an agreement with a controller to maintain a specific level or level band, a pilot may change level without advising the controller/FISO.

TS: Pilots may select their own operating levels or may be provided with level allocations by the controller for the positioning and/or sequencing of traffic or for navigational assistance. If a level is unacceptable to the pilot he shall advise the controller immediately. Unless safety is likely to be compromised, a pilot shall not change level or level band without first advising and obtaining a response from the controller, as the aircraft may be co-ordinated against other airspace users without recourse to the pilot.
...
In order to reduce RT loading and increase flexibility, pilots who require to frequently change level whilst receiving a Traffic Service should request a 'block' altitude to operate within.

DS: Controllers will normally provide level allocations for positioning, sequencing, navigational assistance, or to achieve deconfliction minima. If a level is unacceptable to the pilot, he shall advise the controller immediately. Unless safety is likely to be compromised, a pilot shall not change level without first obtaining approval from the controller, as an aircraft’s flight profile may be co-ordinated against other airspace users without recourse to the pilot.

PS: Controllers will normally provide level allocations for positioning, sequencing, navigational assistance, or to achieve deconfliction minima. If a level is unacceptable, the pilot shall advise the controller immediately. Unless safety is likely to be compromised, a pilot shall not change level without first obtaining approval from the controller, as an aircraft’s flight profile may be co-ordinated against other airspace users without recourse to the pilot.

(If that makes me sound like a fan of the DS TS PS BS, I'm not -- but it does clarify that aspect nicely.)

thing

12th Jun 2012, 15:34

Controlled airspace is a different game entirely. Before you cross, you ask for a clearance either under VFR or under IFR. If you elect to cross under VFR, you must maintain VMC, because the controller may ask you to separate visually from other traffic. A VFR flight in controlled airspace that enters IMC is, in effect, an emergency. I was always under the impression you could file a flight plan while airborne, are you saying (genuine question by the way) that you can't do it once you are in CAS? Also the scenario I was in was this in case I haven't made it clear, after receiving the 'May I remind you that your crossing is VFR' etc from the good lady I asked to go IFR if it would help. She said no need and remain at 2,500' which is the altitude I was scud running at. So effectively I was being asked to remain at an altitude at which it was nigh on impossible not to pop a bit of clag here and there but stay VFR.....

I'll say again that Donny radar are always superb and there was certainly no question of the radio con being anything but friendly, I was just a little bemused at what I was supposed to do, in fact I think I mentioned it to Ghengis when he landed.

One thing that this thread has shown is that there are some shortcomings in the IMC syllabus.

Edit: Good show Clydeport. I've had a vac failure and it's a bit of a WTF moment.

fisbangwollop

12th Jun 2012, 15:37

"Clydeport".... Another job well done, first class service as ever. Talk again soon. :cool::cool:

Brilliant Stuff

12th Jun 2012, 15:44

Fishbangwallop,

the few times I had weather issues I got excellent help from ATC unprompted which at the time gave me great reassurance this in turn of course made my life easier.

That is part of the reason why I always try to "meet" ATC in person for a chinwag in order to keep the lines of communications open and clear up any misunderstandings as well as to understand ATC's role better.

Glasgow situation sound to me that the events ran away from the pilot.....

soaringhigh650

12th Jun 2012, 15:52

I was always under the impression you could file a flight plan while airborne, are you saying (genuine question by the way) that you can't do it once you are in CAS?

Obviously you put your own safety first. If your VFR clearance puts you below minimum safe altitude and you have no choice to get out you're going to have to declare an emergency and keep flying at or above that altitude.

Don't go scud running into the ground. Pilots have been killed this way before.

The earlier you make known you can no longer maintain VFR the better.

peterh337

12th Jun 2012, 16:04

This touches onto another topic, which is that much (most?) of the VFR pilot community doesn't do MSA planning.

Presumably they think that nobody will fly into a hill when VFR.

But quite a lot of people do - including ones who apparently never entered IMC.

If one planned every route as an IFR flight (from the POV of MSA and navigation) then an inadvertent entry into IMC is a lot less hazardous, so long as some instrument flight capability exists.

dont overfil

12th Jun 2012, 16:04

Quote. I was always under the impression you could file a flight plan while airborne, are you saying (genuine question by the way) that you can't do it once you are in CAS? Quote

Every time you get a clearance to enter class D airspace you are filing a flight plan. It's a verbal one.

If you mean file an airborne flightplan to enter the airways system it is technically possible if you can find a facility which can do it for you in a timely manner. It is much easier in the USA.

D.O.

thing

12th Jun 2012, 16:07

The earlier you make known you can no longer maintain VFR the better. I did....there was no danger at any time by the way, it wasn't an 'Oooh you should have turned back' situation in the slightest, it was a great flying day. I was just caught in an odd situation technically so to speak. No doubt somebody will be along to say I should have flown back (through the scud again) to my home airfield, landed, filed IFR and set back off again, or some other bananas idea.

which is that much (most?) of the VFR pilot community doesn't do MSA planning. Got to disagree with that Peter, I always have the MSA even if it's just a local jaunt in gin clear weather. Being as our flight planner throws it up automatically anyway you would have to try hard not to have the MSA.

peterh337

12th Jun 2012, 16:08

If you mean file an airborne flightplan to enter the airways system it is technically possible if you can find a facility which can do it for you in a timely manner. It is much easier in the USA.

Not so much "airways" as "Class A", and I have found it virtually impossible to get a popup IFR clearance into Class A in the UK. Last time I tried (a few years ago) I was actively frustrated by Manchester Control who made it impossible, by asking me where I wanted to join CAS, and when I gave them the name of an intersection, they said at my level that was below CAS, and when I said I would enter CAS by climbing, they didn't want to know and transferred me to London Info. There was no intersection (that I could dig out with the tools I had to hand) which was on a CAS boundary at my then level.

bookworm

12th Jun 2012, 16:09

I was always under the impression you could file a flight plan while airborne, are you saying (genuine question by the way) that you can't do it once you are in CAS?

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that if you accept a VFR clearance in controlled airspace, you should maintain VMC until and unless you are given an IFR clearance. If you cannot remain in VMC, you shouldn't be accepting the VFR clearance. The controller can't see the flight conditions at the altitude you're at, but you can. Conditions may deteriorate, and you may need to negotiate an alternative plan with ATC. But the controller has the right to expect you to do that in a more timely fashion than "IMC this instant" as you "pop into some scud"! From what you say, it wasn't a major issue in this case, but it could have been more serious if the controller was unable to offer you an IFR clearance at the time and you also needed to separate from other traffic.

thing

12th Jun 2012, 16:19

Conditions may deteriorate, and you may need to negotiate an alternative plan with ATC. But the controller has the right to expect you to do that in a more timely fashion than "IMC this instant" as you "pop into some scud"

Well if there hadn't been an a/c to report crossing then she wouldn't have asked me to look for it and I wouldn't have had to tell her I was IMC. So it was the other guys fault. :)

Your last post actually cleared up the VFR/IFR situation in CAS quite nicely whether intentional or not so thanks for that. It does seem off though that IMCR pilots should be asking this sort of stuff, and it's not like I was told and have forgotten, I genuinely never covered this sort of thing.

mm_flynn

12th Jun 2012, 16:24

It does seem off though that IMCR pilots should be asking this sort of stuff, and it's not like I was told and have forgotten, I genuinely never covered this sort of thing.
Might not want to mention that, someone might conclude the IMCr a.k.a. IR(R) has an inadequate level of theory/operational practice training to allow mixing in with CAT ;)

maxred

12th Jun 2012, 16:27

This I think is what the OP intended from his post, in that this particular incident, travelling from Northumberland to Perth, adequate warning would appear to have been given that between his current position, and destination, it was NOT VFR. i.e. he could not complete the flight VFR. As I posted earlier he then had a decision to make. FBWs point, if I read it correctly, is that something else had to happen, determined by the pilot, and not ATC. What is your alternate??? Do not have one. Are you IFR capable (aeroplane and licence.currency skills??). No.This pilot ploughed on, the point that FBW was commenting on. Should he have, or should he have turned back???? It was not FBW that could make the decsiion for him, he had to do that by himself, and it would appear that things got difficult, it was then handled very well by all concerned. However, it could easily have ended in disaster. FBW would have had a different OP, telling us that he did tell and warn him, but that the advice was not heeded.
Comment and discuss:rolleyes:

riverrock83

12th Jun 2012, 16:29

Yep, excellent job well done Clydeport.

You mention 'no compass, no gyro'. My first experience of 'no compass, no gyro' was during my course to remove the no-applied instrument restriction from my FI privileges. Didn't see it on my IMC course or my IR. But a marvellous thing to be on the receiving end of. Do ATCOs get exposure to it in training?

During my PPL training, in the Instrument appreciation section, my instructor got me to do a no compass, no gyro SRA under foggles. ATC were happy to oblige (although they had been asked before we left the ground). Hard work! Not sure I'd be comfortable doing it outside of an emergency.

Perhaps all non-instrument rated pilots should be made familiar (even if not totally proficient) with the procedure so they know the procedure exists and it doesn't scare them if they ever need it in real life? Then perhaps ClydePort's excellent services might not be needed next time. I'm surprised IM that you didn't come across it in IMC or IR training - but then I'm still pre-PPL.

My understanding is that no compass / no gyro (and by that people mean no DI - the artificial horizon is irrelevant to this discussion so ignore a previous person's inverted comment) is easier for controllers because they tell you to turn left / right instead of calculating a heading to follow (which needs wind corrected, etc - so in reality is a delta on the previous heading). However - I'm not a controller...

It might be that my instructor got me to do the SRA because of the lack of nav aids in my cockpit - so if completely lost, I'm more likely to need to ask for navigational assistance from FBW or his radar operator friends than others. At least until I get my PPL and start carrying a GPS - but thats for another thread.

Jan Olieslagers

12th Jun 2012, 17:43

Back to opener:
Apologies if it seems but a quibble of words, and yet:
What ATC tell me to do is a direct order - they are controllers, after all, with authority.
Unless I missed something, o/p operates an information service, offering information but no control. Which means to me that, formally, if they inform me of T/Cu or a troop of octopuses in my flightpath or Miss Piggy, it is for me to assess that information and make my own decision.
The sheer fact that they take the effort to inform me would indicate things are rather serious, so the information might weigh in heavy in my decision. Beginner that I am, and having learned here how generous the service can be, I might be tempted to respond "Scottish info, you can see my flight plan, what do you suggest? Oscar Oscar &c" which I think wouldn't be much use on my usual Brussels information. Still, responsability remains mine, I could not expect more than a suggestion.

Gertrude the Wombat

12th Jun 2012, 17:43

This touches onto another topic, which is that much (most?) of the VFR pilot community doesn't do MSA planning.
Even before I had the IMCr I always had the MSA written down for each leg. Maybe I didn't always stick to it, when showing passengers something on the ground, but I always knew what it was.

Jan Olieslagers

12th Jun 2012, 17:51

Having lived, and learned to fly, in absolutely flat country, I had never even thought of MSA planning. My first southbound flight was rather a surprise - how come the ground is so close while I am still at 2000 AMSL?

The term MSA was never mentioned in all of my - exhaustive - training, though the concept came not unexpected, of course.

Rod1

12th Jun 2012, 17:54

GtE

There are three common versions of the MCR01. The ULC will land in 150m, the other two would need 350 / 450m. A 1/3 chance that he could have landed in a 200m field. This was not me, but if I got caught out by weather 90% chance I would declare an urgency, climb into cloud and worry about the paperwork on the ground. I fly a very well equipped MCR01 and practice under a hood on a regular basis just to cover this eventuality. I would however have run away quick given the information on the weather posted above!

Rod1

Jan Olieslagers

12th Jun 2012, 18:37

There is still no legal obligation to follow the instructions/clearance of a controller in class G (outside an ATZ)

How can there be a controller in non-controlled airspace?
Will I ever understand you, islanders?
Or is "controller" short for "radio operator" ? If so, it is one of the most confusing I came across!

thing

12th Jun 2012, 18:48

Will I ever understand you, islanders?

I was born and bred here and I don't understand us. I think you have to remember that where there is a regulation free zone then regulations have to be invented to fill it up. Britain abhors a regulation vacuum, there's work for many otherwise unemployable people in regulation. This country was built on it. We are closely related to our Teutonic cousins after all, our head of state is German.

Genghis the Engineer

12th Jun 2012, 18:50

Controller is basically short for radio operator.

Highly skilled radio operator, passing information and maintaining detailed situational awareness. But radio operator.

Pilots control aeroplanes, albeit often on the detailed advice and sometimes instructions from people called "controllers"

G

mary meagher

12th Jun 2012, 19:19

Funny thing, for such a small island with so much traffic, in the UK I always found it far less hassle to beetle around in the FIR, either in the Supercub or a glider, without talking to anybody at all on the radio; VFR to be sure, and keeping that very good lookout, clear of cloud, etc etc etc.

In the USA, flying power, would use the superb enroute assistance and file IFR every time. They make it so easy. (yes, I did have the IR) And more than once took the advice of the enroute controller regarding unpleasant conditions best avoided.

Gliders use to have - perhaps still do - the dispensation to fly into cloud first calling out on a particular glider frequency to notify other gliders of your location and height. I only tried that once, in a lovely big cu-nimb that had superb lift but no sign of sinister flashing or banging. Called out my height, so did another glider pilot, our separation in that cloud was 500 feet. Why we didn't hit each other I'll never know, because I was giving my height in QFE, and the other guy in QNH, as was correct..... so gave up cloud flying, realising my limitations.

DLT1939

12th Jun 2012, 20:32

A US perspective:

Ask_ATC_Storm_Week — AOPA Live (http://www.aopa.org/aopalive/?watch=JqMDAwNTpn5CDr3Z6eMD4G-v4TKcO7jh)

Maoraigh1

12th Jun 2012, 21:52

This touches onto another topic, which is that much (most?) of the VFR pilot community doesn't do MSA planning.

Presumably they think that nobody will fly into a hill when VFR.

But quite a lot of people do - including ones who apparently never entered IMC.

I fly VFR, with no DG or AH, almost always below MSA. I doubt if there is one daytime CFIT where a light aircraft flew into a hill, without first entering cloud.. I've been looking at the last 25 years AAIB reports, and hope to write something by the end of July. There have been several accidents where the aircraft was above MSA, but was unable to stay there.

soaringhigh650

12th Jun 2012, 22:02

Marginal VMC (poor vis with embedded thick clouds) is when you must decide to go IFR. Believe me, it's better to do it sooner than later.

Fuji Abound

12th Jun 2012, 22:03

BS: Unless the pilot has entered into an agreement with a controller to maintain a specific level or level band, a pilot may change level without advising the controller/FISO.Bookie

Thank you, I hadn't read this wording before.

Its left me wondering in practical terms how the pilots enters into an agreement.

X-XXXX is IFR FL45 at LYD dct SFD requesting a basic service. (type and other rubbish etc).

X-XXXX basic service.

So what is the contract? Presumably the controller would be obliged to say something more akin to X-XXXX with basic service report any change in level.

Doubtless the CAP reveals all, but I must declare its not bed side reading these days and I haven't heard a radio exchange where such a contract appears to have been explicitly reached between pilot and controller.

GeeWhizz

12th Jun 2012, 22:12

You mention 'no compass, no gyro'. My first experience of 'no compass, no gyro' was during my course to remove the no-applied instrument restriction from my FI privileges. Didn't see it on my IMC course or my IR. But a marvellous thing to be on the receiving end of. Do ATCOs get exposure to it in training?

Yes we do. it's a nice simple procedure to deal with. It's usually accompanied by the aircraft becoming speechless just before the NCNG tell tale turn. So we end up with a speechless no compass no gyro aircraft to work.

It's easier for the the controller doing the final approach, not to much for the poor person establishing initial contact and sequencing... funny though in a synthetic environment, no great shakes wheen done for real. I've had aircraft go speechless for real (no practice), but only practice NCNGs.

My understanding is that no compass / no gyro (and by that people mean no DI - the artificial horizon is irrelevant to this discussion so ignore a previous person's inverted comment) is easier for controllers because they tell you to turn left / right instead of calculating a heading to follow

Correct. It is a little easier as we dont have to add or subtract 2, 3, 4 or 5 from numbers 1 to 360 ;) It's surprising how difficult nursery school mathematics can become sometimes!

Its left me wondering in practical terms how the pilots enters into an agreement.

Fuji, an agreement in this sense is when the pilot is asked to fly at/not below/not above an altitude, fly no further West/East/North/South than its current position and such like. The 'contract' stands when the pilot agrees to the request.

Fuji Abound

12th Jun 2012, 22:36

GeeWis yes point taken but that is not how it usually works with a BS. Yes the controller could ask the pilot to do X or stay within Y but in the example I gave the exchange is usually initiated with the pilot declaring what he is doing and at what height.

OK I also take the point that even if he has declared IFR and stated a level there is presumably no contract (implied or otherwise) with the controller with regard to his freedom to change level unless the controller specifically says "report any change of level" to which the pilot agrees (and he is entitled not to agree).

GeeWhizz

12th Jun 2012, 22:53

GeeWis yes point taken but that is not how it usually works with a BS. Yes the controller could ask the pilot to do X or stay within Y but in the example I gave the exchange is usually initiated with the pilot declaring what he is doing and at what height.

OK as an example a pilot wants a BS. No problem. Under a BS the pilot is as free as possible to do what he/she likes. There's no 'control' (facilitation) involved, just the passing of information. So far there is no agreement or contract between the air and the ground (the hope is that there will be no requirement for the BS aircraft to do anything other than what it wants to).

However, there are always situations that arise where a BS aircraft needs to be identified and asked to do something so as to be deconflicted from something else. Usually in busy class G.

A classic example would be a civil passenger aircraft inbound to somewhere like Norwich (pre-class D), where the civil sched would inevitably be under a DS as its the highest level of service OCAS. While us (GA) Johnny BS are playing in the approach lane it would be necessary to ask us to fly not above say 1500ft xxx pressure for example so that the civil aircraft could then descend to 2500ft same pressure (vertical coordination). By agreeing to not to fly above a level the pilot enters a recorded 'agreement' or verbal contract, whereby sadly if all goes to pot and the BS climbs a touch above 1500ft in this instance (that the pax aircraft notices), the tapes will show that everything was in order and we (the GA BS traffic) were in fact the culprit leading to loss of separation. It's quite a subtle system, but may lead to a lot of s**t legally speaking.

As well as frequently asking pilots for their assistance in this way, I've had it happen while inbound to an airport myself. Something along the lines of...

Controller: "G-FO for coordination against inbound ILS traffic will you fly not above 1300ft xxx hPa?"

Moi: "Affirm, not above 1300ft xxx hPa G-FO"

Controller (with a cheeky giggle in his voice) "G-FO its a B757 flying 1000ft over your head."

Moi (jovially) "Thanks for that G-FO!"

Of course it's the common courtesy to return to the BS aircraft to inform them that the affecting aircraft has passed and to 'resume own navigation' or 'manoeuvre as required' etc.

An agreement isn't established at the outset usually while receiving a BS, but will be created where necessary and possible. I hope this makes sense, it's not something that is taught on the PPl course as far as I remember. And there's no way I'd expect many PPLs or even CPLs to read CAP 774 line by line to fully understand what the hell it's going on about.

OK I also take the point that even if he has declared IFR and stated a level there is presumably no contract (implied or otherwise) with the controller with regard to his freedom to change level unless the controller specifically says "report any change of level" to which the pilot agrees (and he is entitled not to agree).

This is slightly different. Whether IFR or VFR doesn't matter. Well I guess whether IMC or VMC doesn't matter either. But TS & DS requires positive identification (squawking being easiest). During the initial contact after being given a squawk, or identified via another method, the pilot should hear:

"G-FO identified FL/Alt/Height, TS" for example. Stating the level, height or altitude, implies that a pilot will advise or request a level change (dependent on service) thereby agreeing to maintain its stated level. Subtle again I know, and no officially drawn up written 'contract'. But its all recorded no question of that.:yuk:

riverrock83

13th Jun 2012, 00:07

However, there are always situations that arise where a BS aircraft needs to be identified and asked to do something so as to be deconflicted from something else. Usually in busy class G.

This is quite familiar to me. I was in the "Cumbernauld gap", getting a basic service from Glasgow Approach/Radar and they told me to stay below 2000ft (without a reason why).

The Glasgow CTA had recently risen to 3000ft and I had planned to go south in Class G at 2500ft so was a bit miffed to be told to stay lower, knowing that I didn't need to be talking to Glasgow at all and was below the controlled airspace. My thought was "why raise the height of controlled airspace, then treat it as controlled airspace anyway - maybe they have not realised that the CTA Base has now changed".

My instructor said (correctly) that we should remain at the mandated altitude and we did so, presuming that we were being kept down by traffic overhead, but my impression at the time was that we were doing it as a courtesy rather than something we were legally obliged to do.

GeeWhizz

13th Jun 2012, 00:25

Riverrock it is all courtesy, or airmanship as we call it. You are not obliged to do anything that you don't want to or can't. I'm happy to admit that when I'm flying I'm the only person using the sky. What I fail to realise (although I should know better) is that there's a lot more going on than I know about. There are others whizzing about above and below me, that have probably been told where I am on another frequency, at least 4 telephone calls have probably been made to tell others what I'm doing, my routing, my last reported level etc. All of these things we are unaware of by plodding about around the countryside.

Perhaps 'telling' you to remain below 2000ft wasn't quite correct. I'm unfamiliar with the area and their procedures but to my mind they should have asked if you were able first, with some kind of reason. If so then I'm sure you would cooperate anyway (agreed to the request). But there could have been many reasons for it, most likely a transit over the top of you that needed the vertical distance. A question for the general forum, next time you asked to do something and don't really grasp why, simply ask. Many would rather you knew why something was happening than just agreeing to requests because it's the 'done thing'.

It's a harsh world, but its more reasonable to restrict a pilot with one passenger on a PPL lesson/sightseeing trip, than to send an aircraft of 50 passengers or more on a tour of Scotland.

sevenstrokeroll

13th Jun 2012, 00:31

Fishbangwallop

I fly in the USA, so I can only tell you my view...(737 captain, major airline...also general aviation background...CFIIMEIATPMEL).

I've received the following...1/4 mile visibility in freezing fog...and I looked out the window and could see the runway 10 miles away...everything fine all the way to touchdown.

What YOU should have done was to ask him for a pilot report all along the way...he might have said: visibility in excess of 5 miles...ground in sight, many breaks in undercast north of my position. conditions improving.

You aren't there...you are reading a report which may be anywhere from 1 minute old to 59 minutes old. things change.

I think you were correct to let him know...but you should also know, that sitting in your little radar room, you really don't know what is going on .

PIREPS are very important here...seems you don't do them in jolly olde...

GeeWhizz

13th Jun 2012, 01:01

Mr Stroker

I fly in the USA, so I can only tell you my view...(737 captain, major airline...also general aviation background...CFIIMEIATPMEL).

This is all very nice, but not really relevant to the question posed. This happened in Scotland (that's North of London), in a little aeroplane, in poor weather conditions, 'period'.
With your impressive string of 13 letters of USA qualifications I would suggest that you are out of touch with what is happening in the world of GA flying, and more particularly UK GA flying.

I've received the following...1/4 mile visibility in freezing fog...and I looked out the window and could see the runway 10 miles away...everything fine all the way to touchdown.

What YOU should have done was to ask him for a pilot report all along the way...he might have said: visibility in excess of 5 miles...ground in sight, many breaks in undercast north of my position. conditions improving.

Quite correct, he might have done. I think we've established that a. he didn't, and b. he wasn't. Passing the reported weather conditions at locations along the route makes for duty of care and providing information essential to the safe and efficient conduct of flight.

You aren't there...you are reading a report which may be anywhere from 1 minute old to 59 minutes old. things change.

They do. And FBW more than likely had access to the TAFs too (Terminal Area Forecasts), which may have been much different to those the flight was planned upon.

I think you were correct to let him know...but you should also know, that sitting in your little radar room, you really don't know what is going on .

He was. And he also knows that sitting in his 'little radar room' he is not flying. You clearly have never been to Scottish Centre to see the 'little radar room'... I think you'd be surprised. Not that a B737 will make it across the pond in one hop of course. And the last time I checked there aren't many B737s that have an air-air refuelling capability either.

PIREPS are very important here...seems you don't do them in jolly olde...

PIREPs are 'jolly' important here too, and are used daily if not hourly.

The tone of your comment is less than desirable here. For what was an informative and interesting discussion of something very relevant to GA flying not only in Scotland but the UK in general, I think you are misguided and misplaced. I urge you to reconsider your statements and post something more substantial, rather than mocking a helpful individual.

sevenstrokeroll

13th Jun 2012, 04:05

Dear GEE WHIZ

I fly the 737 because I have no desire whatsoever to fly to your side of the pond.

You guys seem so entrenched in ideas that don't seem to work very well. I think of all radar rooms as little...they certainly don't have many windows now do they?

I get such a kick about reading how you do things over there. They don't seem to work well as you are always complaining. Obviously this poor little private pilot in terrible weather actually made it to his destination or the original poster would have mentioned the investigation of his crash.

IF I am not mistaken, the pilot also mentioned everything was ''fine'' where he was.

You guys must have a huge inferiority complex or something. You won't believe that US guys over here who invented the freaking airplane might even know something you don't.

Sheesh.

And if the controller was so darned concerned for the pilot in question, he would have said: Sir you are flying into dangerous weather, reconsider your course of action...or he might have said: are you instrument rated and equipped?

now, why not eat your hagus and actually think for a moment that there are better ways to do things then what you are currently doing.

And dear monitor of the forum...I don't care if you kick me off PPRUNE forever.

Oh, and I listed my qualifications as a point of reference, as we don't know each other, now do we? I would hope you would do the same thing...but you didn't

And it sure was nice to see an AMERICAN built plane (planes) leading the flyover for the Queen. We call them DC3's or C47's...you call them Dakotas.

sevenstrokeroll

13th Jun 2012, 04:15

oh and GEEWHIZ

I am not out of touch with general aviation...I mentioned my credentials and perhaps you don't understand that I WAS AN INSTRUCTOR, and an INSTRUMENT INSTRUCTOR and a MULTI ENGINE INSTRUCTOR in addition to being an airline pilot.

and I've been to many ''radar rooms'' and I'm sure they are every bit as good as the nice ONE in scotland. And one of the first things our controllers here say is, without a PIREP we haven't a clue what is going on out in the real world except for METAR reports and those can be pretty old.

I think YOU should re-evaluate your methods and perhaps get some real flying experience...

and anyone that doesn't know a TAF can go quite ''wrong'' hasn't been around the block, let alone the circuit.

No, I've never flown in Scotland...never will if I'm lucky...I'd have to be darn off course...even worse than Douglas Corrigan.

But I do know this...your attitude would get you out of aviation in a new york minute over here.

fisbangwollop

13th Jun 2012, 05:36

7 stroke roll..I think YOU should re-evaluate your methods and perhaps get some real flying experience...

I think you will find the service we provide at Scottish Info is appreciated by most...as for flying experience I have a few hundred hours of gliding experiance in mountain terrain.

No, I've never flown in Scotland...never will if I'm lucky.

Maybe we are the lucky one's if that is your attitude!!

we haven't a clue what is going on out in the real world except for METAR reports and those can be pretty old.

In this case not the case, I actually phoned Cumbernauld airport to get an actual as I knew the pilot intended to route only 3 miles east of the filed....the weather I was advised had a cloud base of overcast at 300ft!!

My original post has thrown out an interesting debate with regards operating LAA type aircraft and what the pilot can and cannot do.

My fear in this incident was although I knew from weather reports I had obtained for the pilot that despite him keep telling me things were OK with the weather where he presently was that the weather ahead was probably not good enough for VFR flight.

At the same time as this incident I was speaking to 2 other LAA type aircraft that were also trying to get back to the same base at Perth though taking a different route up the coast North from Newcastle.......at one stage one of the aircraft reported to me he was at 200FT!!!, OK possibly over the water but in my thoughts another disaster waiting to happen.....the third aircraft was the sensible one as he elected to land at Eshott as the weather ahead was below his own limits!!!!

So sorry guys if in future once again I get a feeling in my water that all is not well.....yes it is true that from my cosy operations room I can never have the full picture what really is happening out there....the information I give is just that INFORMATION and I rely on the pilots to make the correct call with regards safety of flight!!

Once again thank you one and all for your valuable input...:cool::cool::cool:

mad_jock

13th Jun 2012, 05:58

I think that the current rule 5 will be changed to stop scud running at sub 500ft agl.

I think all of us forget the person at the other end of our mikes who is going to have to deal with being the last person to speak to us if the worst happens.

To be honest this ban on IMC operations with very capable machines needs looked at. If that report proved that LAA types were safe enough to over fly built up areas it must prove that they are safe enough for flying in IMC.

peterh337

13th Jun 2012, 07:41

To be honest this ban on IMC operations with very capable machines needs looked at.

One solution would be a mandatory forward-facing camera with a satellite video uplink to the CAA.

Should not add much to the costs of aviation. The average salary at Gatwick is c. £50k and one person can keep an eye on at last four screens.

Any other suggestions?

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

JOE-FBS

13th Jun 2012, 07:48

"invented the freaking aeroplane"

Yes, the Wright brothers were brilliant, practical people who went out and learnt the theory and hence developed a practical aeroplane but you need to look at the work of pre-Wright pioneers such as Cayley and Lillienthal. Like the rest of us, the Wrights stood on the shoulders of giants.

America does many great things but teaching its people history and geography is not one of them.

Sillert,V.I.

13th Jun 2012, 07:48

To be honest this ban on IMC operations with very capable machines needs looked at. If that report proved that LAA types were safe enough to over fly built up areas it must prove that they are safe enough for flying in IMC.

This is, IMHO, long overdue. Allowing these types to fly legally in IMC may actually reduce the accident rate if it results in fewer folks pressing on visually in unsuitable weather.

Many moons ago, I'd arranged with another pilot to ferry an aircraft from Shoreham to Elstree. My wife drove us there, and the weather was perhaps 400-600' OVC in continuous rain the whole way down. This chap wanted to fly back under it (apparently he'd done this lots of times before). I said I'd happily fly it IFR to Luton (in those days landing + a night's parking was less than £20) but he wanted it back at Elstree & insisted it would be OK to go VFR under the overcast.

I refused to get in the aircraft & drove back home with my wife. His passenger (who had never flown before), climbed aboard & I watched them depart into the murk.

Somehow they got back to Elstree but nothing would have persuaded me to attempt the trip under VFR in those conditions.

Pace

13th Jun 2012, 07:55

SevenUp

Your style reminds me of someone who used to post here! The fact is that pilots in GA are a mixed bag. Some very capable some not so.
To the capable pilot he will get information from a number of sources ATC being one and then make a judgement on his course of action.
I hope always flying in his and the aircrafts limits.
Sadly many get into situations where they are flying out of their or the aircraft limits and either survive to fly another day or dont.
Many years back I was positioning a wreck of a Cessna 150 to a base 90 nm away.
This 150 had an instrument panel but not one piece of working nav aid.
I took off under a 1000 foot cloudbase in rain and as the area was in high ground elected to follow a river which went nearly past my destination.
The idea in my brain was that even if the cloudbase and vis came down keeping over the river would mean I would not hit high ground.
Before I knew it I was down to 200 feet agl in worsening rain and visibility.
When at 200 feet agl further scud cloud appeared below the aircraft I decided enough was enough and took the little 150 up into the clouds to the SSA. My new plan was to get an SRA or PAR at a military base enroute using ATC and the radio!
Luckily for me the weather broke up and I continued VFR to my destination.
Most pilots try to fly within their and the aircraft limits ATC can get them out of a mess and supply information to help avoid getting them into that mess in the first place.
Sadly the Controller does not know what sort of guy is on the other end and has to presume its a pilot who does not know his own limits or the aircraft limits.
As for Pireps we have them but they are not as abundant as in the USA.

Pace

mad_jock

13th Jun 2012, 08:01

Must admit if I was caught out by wx in a suitably equiped aircraft it would take a nano second to decide sod the rules I am climbing to MSA including if my IMC wasn't valid. Especially in Scotland.

I would hazard to guess that this has happened many many times already without incident (thats permit aircraft flying in IMC)

peterh337

13th Jun 2012, 08:21

I may have missed something, but AFAIK, in the UK, no aircraft without an ICAO CofA can fly in IMC legally, currently.

I know lots of people have been trying to change it but I don't think it has actually changed.

IFR certification is complicated. For starters, you need decent electrical bonding, which needs metal mesh to be embedded into the composite skin. On the ~560kg aircraft, this isn't going to happen (in a meaningful way). And even the certified ones had problems with avionics crashing big-time (Diamond and Cirrus) in the early days, when flying in IMC. A friend of mine got it rather more recently in, IIRC, a Cirrus.

mad_jock

13th Jun 2012, 08:45

avionics crashing big-time

**** happens with EFIS, bit of static on the intercom. FO starts laughing, the Captain says "its not funny" and has a shuffle to get comfy looking at the standby instruments. The AP kicks out and the screens go black. 5 mins later it all reboots, sort your overlays out and put the AP back in.

Never had it flying steam instruments :D

So suitable compromise is steam instruments only.

Pace

13th Jun 2012, 08:47

I may have missed something, but AFAIK, in the UK, no aircraft without an ICAO CofA can fly in IMC legally, currently.

Peter

Of course correct with a caveat. The commander of an aircraft can overide any rules if he feels that complying with that rule will endanger his aircraft or its occupants.
IE having got himself in a dangerous situation where he feels that taking to the clouds is a safer option he is quite within his rights to do so whether the aircraft has an ICAO CofA or not!(Just hope there is no lightning around :)

Yes he will have to explain his actions! Also remember Gliders which are not lightning compliant can fly legally in cloud and are not IFR compliant (Mad World) Usually in the type of cloud where they are likely to find a FizzBangWallop :) While a very well equipt and capable homebuilt cannot!!!

I am sure the guys who kit out their homebuilts like mini airliners do so for a reason and VFR becomes NOT REALLY???

Pace

peterh337

13th Jun 2012, 09:12

Yes of course, it is immediately obvious on the most casual walk around the Friedrichshafen show that the vast majority of the "ultralight/sports" types are built to be flown unofficially IFR. The glass cockpits make it easy.

The gotcha (as you know :) ) is that once you are in IMC, there are thingies out there which can come and bite you and you won't see them coming.

Turbulence / convective wx
Lightning
Terrain

Even, as I said, plain static is likely to occassionally wipe out the fancy avionics in the all-plastic types. And you will get that from flying in almost any conditions where there are water droplets around, including perfect CAVOK VMC. I had a big problem with my VHF comms a while ago (posted the details here) due to bad bonding to the elevator, so its static wicks could not work properly, and mine is a metal aircraft.

PPL training doesn't cover much of what is needed to fly safely in VMC, never mind IMC :)

Pace

13th Jun 2012, 09:36

Peter

But in the USA homebuilts or experimental aircraft do fly IFR and are allowed to do so.
Over here while homebuilt aircraft dont file out IFR I am sure many are forced into IMC conditions :E by deteriorating Weather! (On Purpose)
Not all are plastic either! A friend had an RV6 which was a delight to fly and metal.
But having nearly hit one I do find it a madness that poorly equipt gliders made of plastic which are incapable of flying IFR do fly in IMC legally with not fully trained pilots in IMC flight.

Pace

peterh337

13th Jun 2012, 09:42

Yes; the USA does allow their Exp Cat aircraft to fly IFR, but you have to get some kind of signoff to allow it, and have to carry appropriate equipment.

I think the plane which is the subject of this thread is all plastic, however, and probably not bonded.

It is unfortunate that the ICAO CofA regs strap us into this regime but OTOH if it wasn't for ICAO there would be no GA in most of the world.

sevenstrokeroll

13th Jun 2012, 09:58

Dear JOE -FBS

geography, history? gee I do know where Scotland is.

And as to history, the Wright's added much to the theory of flight...you might want to read Orville's book.

and dear controller and others.

if you guys are flying below 200' agl to maintain VFR, below the overcast reported...you have some learning to do. Don't you have minimum VFR requirements like cloud clearance? (unless you are getting a special vfr)

I get such a kick reading about how you guys do things...and then a bigger kick when I realize how many europeans come to the USA to learn how to fly, or build hours...and how few USA citizens go to europe to learn to fly or build hours.

Genghis the Engineer

13th Jun 2012, 10:07

I used to sit on a joint CAA/industry committee called PRAG - the Permit Review Action Group.

PRAG did a lot of good - it generated CAP 733, created permissions for microlights to be hired out, standardised the 3-figure number of variations on wording of Permits down to a dozen or so, and looked hard at statistics and worked towards putting regulatory effort where genuinely needed by safety requirements.

When CAA quietly binned it, in my opinion because it was creating more change than it was comfortable with and allowing industry and associations (in particular BMAA and LAA) more genuine influence than it was happy with, it was in the process of actively looking at how to permit IMC and night with PtF aeroplanes.

We recognised particularly that there was a particular safety issue with high performance warbirds, being flown by highly qualified and experienced pilots, being forced to stooge around at low level creating a menace to themselves and everybody else.

The general philosophy was that it should be possible, but probably with certified engines, a minimum instrument fit, and the basic characteristics of the aeroplane having been assessed by a competent organisation (most typically LAA with aeroplanes like the Europa, or CAA with the warbirds) as having flying qualities appropriate to flight in IMC. Not as free as things in the USA, but still a huge improvement on the present situation, or that we had then. Personally I think that the certified engines bit was going to be problematic and needed serious discussion - but we didn't get far enough down the discussions before the group ceased to exist.

So there was, once upon a time, a clear move towards permitting IMC flight with PtF aeroplanes. It could reasonably be resurrected- in fact I'd love to see PRAG resurrected although doubt I'm the right person to sit on it any longer, because the steady improvement that it generated for the freedoms enjoyed by sub-ICAO aeroplanes in the UK was really beneficial.

G

pulse1

13th Jun 2012, 10:08

stroker,

I think you will find that the weather and cost of fuel are the only reasons people from the UK train in the States.

Pace

13th Jun 2012, 10:10

Seven Up

I hold one of your FAA ATPs and fly corporate jets as a Captain! Not quite a 737 but more fun ; ) I also have over 3000 hrs hard earned on piston twins and loads of single time too.
How I am still here amazes me ; ) as several oft myvfriends are not ( must have a good guardian Angel ?
Yes your system is far better than ours and no one but a masochist would do JAA /EASA licences by choice.
Pilots do not go VFR flying at 200 feet by choice it's by accident and that happens in the good old USA! Your accident stats are the same as ours!
More important you seem to be picking a fight or trying to stir for some reason?

Pace

peterh337

13th Jun 2012, 10:12

There is a lot of truth to your comments, sevenstrokeroll.

I have an FAA PPL and an FAA CPL/IR so I have had exposure to the US system, and it is a lot more rigorous than anything done here.

One issue we have here is a lack of formal funding for GA. In the USA, it is all wrapped up in the national transport infrastucture. Here, it is "user pays" in all respects, except ATC services, and the basic weather services, which are provided under ICAO obligations.

PPL training here is very basic too. The excuse given is that "a license is a license to learn" (and countless other banal proverbs) and anyway some 90% of PPL holders chuck it all in for good within a year or two.

In the UK, there is extensive Class G in which one can fly VFR or IFR non-radio and (obviously) without a flight plan or clearance of any sort. This fits in well with the UK funding model which is no funding for GA :) If the UK mandated certain levels of behaviour in Class G they would have to provide the ATC services to support it ;)

We do have some ATC services which service GA. We have the ICAO-obligated FIS (called Basic Service here now), and we have the LARS units which are historically there to support the military (whose navigation capabilities have historically been close to nonexistent, with GPS only a very recent enhancement) to help them out when they get lost. The LARS units get some funding, which is supported nowadays by the UK having several hundred serious CAS busts per year...

The UK IMC Rating fits well into all this because most CAS is Class A from which IMCR pilots are banned; otherwise the IMCR would be practically equivalent to the full IR and lots of people would raise hell over that because the full SE IR costs about £15,000 to get :) :)

But UK Class G is really a free-for-all where you fly on your own, navigate on your own, possibly talk to nobody, in IMC too. Lots of illegal IFR goes on, but the sky is big and the UK has had zero IMC mid-airs since WW2. Most people, myself included, are happy with this level of freedom. It does tend to scare the Germans though :E

Genghis the Engineer

13th Jun 2012, 10:13

if you guys are flying below 200' agl to maintain VFR, below the overcast reported...you have some learning to do. Don't you have minimum VFR requirements like cloud clearance? (unless you are getting a special vfr)

Clear of cloud when below 3,000ft (also 5km visibility, or if slower than 140kn: 1.5km visibility, and in sight of the surface).

200ft agl is more likely to create a breach of the low flying rules (which in the UK is 500ft msd), rather than VFR rules initially.

G

sevenstrokeroll

13th Jun 2012, 14:00

by the way folks, my on screen name is SEVENSTROKEROLL as in seven stroke roll, a drum rudiment.

recalling my history of WW2, the RAF and the FEW had more planes than pilots...I would think that lesson would have been learned and encouragement of general aviation to produce pilots would have been made.

AS to pilots flying at 200' agl, one poster indicated he took off knowing he would be at 200' agl...now, we don't encourage that sort of thing here. And yes, flying that low would almost certainly violate minimum altitude rules in both countries.

The whole point was whether or not this chap flying around, warned of bad wx should have continued on or not. I am simply saying that while the controller or whatever you guys call him, should warn him of known problems, it was entirely possible that the pilot in question had a better , real time knowledge of things.

soaringhigh650

13th Jun 2012, 14:17

by the way folks, my on screen name is SEVENSTROKEROLL as in seven stroke roll, a drum rudiment.

Seven up / seven strokes / seven lives.

Do I give a danm?

Genghis the Engineer

13th Jun 2012, 14:18

it was entirely possible that the pilot in question had a better , real time knowledge of things.

It's certainly likely that he thought he did.

The reality however may not have necessarily matched his perception! It certainly would appear not to have at the end of the flight and depending upon perspective he was either lucky to have a professional and obliging police helicopter available to get him out of the mire, or daft not to divert to a convenient airfield / field / golf course far earlier.

G

flybymike

13th Jun 2012, 14:24

Just as a a point of pedantry I think I am right in saying that at the moment there is no minimum height rule in the UK, only a minimum distance rule which is rather different. However this will change under new SERA regs

Genghis the Engineer

13th Jun 2012, 14:39

And certainly not minimum altitude.

Yes, that's why my post earlier said 500ft msd.

G

sevenstrokeroll

13th Jun 2012, 19:23

you mean you guys don't have a regulation that says (except for takeoff and landing) you must maintain a safe altitude which would allow for a safe landing should the powerplant (s) fail>?

peterh337

13th Jun 2012, 19:54

No, and neither do you in the USA otherwise one could not overfly water, mountains, etc.

There are regs on SE aircraft overflying built up areas and large public events.

mad_jock

13th Jun 2012, 19:55

The normal ICAO rule 5 is that your meant to be 500ft from any person object vessel etc and above the ground.

In the UK we don't have the above ground bit currently So nothing stopping you flying a 10 ft over the country side etc as long as there is nothing about which is very rare in some bits of the country but in other bits we have 100's of square miles with nothing apart from the occassional hillwalker. And of course the sea.

I presume its to allow gliders to ridge soar.

The UK gets quite often fog some of which is ornagraphic lift fog when the sea air gets lifted over cliffs and forms on the land. People have for years used the 200ft or so on the wet side to get to places VFR along the coast. They tend not to be your normal PPL's but there are a few of them that have been flying for years that do.

mrmum

13th Jun 2012, 20:21

Sevenstrokeroll,

Peter & MJ are incorrect, from the Air Navigation Order, (the UK legislation applicable to aviation) Rule 5;
Low flying prohibitions
5 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), an aircraft shall comply with the low flying prohibitions in paragraph (3) unless exempted by rule 6.
(3) The low flying prohibitions are as follows:
(a) Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface in the event of a power unit failure.
Note that it says surface, not land, so does not preclude overwater flights. It just means you need enough height to manoeuvre a bit and set up for a controlled landing. You may struggle to do that from say 50ft, but if experienced, current and familiar with the area, may make a decent attempt from a couple of hundred?

mrmum

13th Jun 2012, 20:31

MJ,

I don't think the UK not having a blanket "not below 500' AGL" rule is anything to do with gliders hill-soaring, as they have an exemption to Rule 5 (3) (b), "the 500ft rule", anyway within rule 6;
Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions
6 The exemptions from the low flying prohibitions are as follows:
(g) Glider hill-soaring. A glider shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule if it is hill-soaring.
So, even if we had a not below 500' AGL provision within the reg's, as some countries do, gliders would still have their exemption.

mad_jock

13th Jun 2012, 20:54

There are more than a few bits your going to struggle from a 1000ft never mind 50ft.

And its a pretty daft rule anyway because post event your either alive and thus proved you did have sufficent height or your dead and proved that you didn't.

Its all going to change anyway.

sevenstrokeroll

13th Jun 2012, 20:58

thank you mrmum for that information regarding safe altitudes.

mrmum

13th Jun 2012, 21:24

MJ,

I wasn't opining whether it was a good, bad, or indifferent piece of legislation, merely that it exists. I agree, there are areas of the UK where perhaps even 1000' AGL may not be safe, or legal, in the context of that part of rule 5, particularly the more pointy bits. Equally, 50' over some beach, with the tide out, at 4AM next week, might be?

Sevenstrokeroll, you're welcome. :ok:

mad_jock

13th Jun 2012, 21:29

I would go for 2ft on the beach.

Daft thing is when they do remove it, it will be impossible to teach PFL's to any meaningful standard.

mrmum

13th Jun 2012, 21:48

I think I read that if we get a blanket 500' minimum, then as well as all the current exemptions, there will be a further one for instructors carrying-out PFL's. You would have to have that, it's pointless going around at 500' AGL every time. The lower the you allow the student to go, the better and the more realistic it is, in my opinion. You could do some at an airfield or strip I suppose and utilise the current exemptions, or just make sure you touch the wheels in a field every time.:E

mad_jock

13th Jun 2012, 21:51

There has always been a part of the CAA thats never liked PFL's going lower than 500ft agl.

flybymike

13th Jun 2012, 23:00

The UK gets quite often fog some of which is ornagraphic
Jock, that was very nearly your best ever spelling mistake ;)

Pace

14th Jun 2012, 00:49

No Mad Jock is quite correct!!

Ornagraphic fog is a type of fog unique to Scotland and is created near Malt whiskey distilleries.

The fumes blend with normal fog creating unique shapes hence Orna as in ornament and Graphic.

It is usually only seen by people who have consumed vast quantities of Malt Whiskey hence the term my brain is all of a fog!!!

If you do the Met exams for the ATP the question on Ornagraphic fog is a trick question as they may ask how do you spell IT!!! :=

Pace

sevenstrokeroll

14th Jun 2012, 04:27

answer to previous post question: IT

mad_jock

14th Jun 2012, 07:34

We also have the sea Haar.

You mean you also don't have Cumulus Grantitus in the FAA ATP's?

See fbm told you nothing had changed

Pace

14th Jun 2012, 08:38

You mean you also don't have Cumulus Grantitus in the FAA ATP's?

MadJock

There you go again ;) Scottish Lady in the highlands of advancing years well known with the giant boobies. Nothing to do with met.

Now Cumulus Granitus? not very good for flying IMC through! Gets a bit HARD keeping things together with the aircraft (and the false teeth) in those big Mammas :E Inadvertent entry? Maintain straight and level airspeed will drop to zero very fast and expect high G.

Pace

peterh337

14th Jun 2012, 08:51

If she was of advancing years, wouldn't the effect be called Cumulus Gravitus?

Anyway, false teeth are supposed to be an advantage :E (if they can be removed as a complete assembly)

(getting out of here quick, got to go to work)

Unusual Attitude

14th Jun 2012, 10:09

I'll hold my hand up and admit I've done the scud running bit up the coast in the past but only in a very considered manner. I've lost track of how many times I've been coming north to be greeted by that layer of clag that often sits just south of Edinburgh and most of the time its not been an issue getting over or under it perfectly safely.

Its easy enough to ask for weather for Leuchars, Dundee and Aberdeen so you've a good idea of what’s up ahead... 9 times out of 10 once your past EDI / Leuchars the cloud base has lifted to allow you to continue VFR without issue and once your at Montrose basin its nice and flat all the way to Perth.

In something docile like a Cessna pootling along 1/2 mile offshore at 300' at 90kts or even a bit slower with 1st stage of flap to improve the view doesn’t take a great deal of skill and if you know its only for 10miles or so its no biggie. Very different prospect doing it in something fast, twitchy and unstable for a long period however and I'd not be giving that a go.

There is of course the question of what happens if the donkey quits whilst low over water but in some places such as Aberdeen your forced 1nm offshore VFR below 1000' for several miles to deconflict with the ILS traffic so its no worse than that!

I've met the chap who was involved in this incident and exchanged hanger chat with him many times, I've always considered him to be cautious and very sensible about his approach to flying and he takes very good care of his machine. I'm told he's also very experienced and has flown all over the world but we are all susceptible to a bit of 'push-on-itis' from time to time whether we are willing to admit it or not, especially in Scotland where the weather can be very different to the forecast.
Saying that, if I'd been looking for a way up the coast and told well in advance that Leuchars and Dundee were 300' I'd be looking for somewhere to land.....

BillieBob

14th Jun 2012, 12:16

I think I read that if we get a blanket 500' minimum, then as well as all the current exemptions, there will be a further one for instructors carrying-out PFL's.Such an exemption was proposed at the Single Sky Workshop held on 7 Nov 2010 but was rejected and the draft that went to the EC for comitology the following month read:4.6 Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:

a) over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons at a height less than 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft;

b) elsewhere than as specified in 4.6 a), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water, or 150 m (500 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 m (500 ft) from the aircraft.Note that this does allow the competent authority (i.e. the UK CAA) to determine different requirements in its own airspace (so much for standardisation).

Pace

14th Jun 2012, 12:41

BillieBob

All well and good but remember with all these regulations the Commander of the aircraft can over ride the regulations if he feels the aircraft and its occupants are at risk.

So the VFR pilot flying VMC up the coast who is forced below 500 feet to remain VMC is quite within his legal rights regardless of the regs.

He will have to explain himself had he been recorded or admitted to doing so but he could not be found guilty if there was a genuine reason for doing so!
Small point but we live in the real world not the pen pushers office.

Pace

Unusual Attitude

14th Jun 2012, 12:47

He will have to explain himself had he been recorded or admitted to doing so but he could not be found guilty if there was a genuine reason for doing so!

Would be terrible luck if Mode C happened to fail just as you dropped below 500' then magically started working again once back above. :E

soaringhigh650

14th Jun 2012, 17:40

Just going back to the beginning of this thread, I think fisbangwallop is to be congratulated for guiding a distressed pilot back down to the surface. :ok:

fisbangwollop

14th Jun 2012, 17:58

Soaring......it was not me, I only tried my best to stop him getting into the situation that he got himself into!......it was the guys at Glasgow ATC and the pilot of helimed 51 that did a great job.........I have enjoyed reading all the posts and if nothing else seems to have kicked off a discussion regarding how far you can push yourself and still comply with the VFR rules :cool::cool:

Floppy Link

14th Jun 2012, 19:08

"Helimed 51" ?

Was ole clydeport getting his call signs mixed up again?

fisbangwollop

14th Jun 2012, 19:31

Sorry I should have said Police 51......maybe next week he will be Helimed 5....:cool:

piperboy84

14th Jun 2012, 20:19

Apart from the one hill (Turin Hill) my hoose happens to be on the side off !!

Or possibly a reroute as its not unusual to get the Haar up the Fife and Angus coastline while the Strathmore valley and Mearns from Perth up to Aberdeen is clear.

ranklein

14th Jul 2012, 06:31

fisbangwollop,

Might be taking this thread sideways a bit..
My question (In regards to ICAO rules) is whether an airport ATC tower can deny access of a VFR traffic because of lower than VFR conditions exist?

In the US, if I correctly recall , you need 3 miles visibility and other clouds clearnces to operate VFR. Entering an airspace where these conditions are not met, the controler may advise you that less then VFR conditions are existing.You can ask for a SVFR clearnce if you meet the requirements.

The question though, can the controller deny access to that airspace if he knows the weather is beloew VFR conditions?
Can he file a complaint against a pilot who flies below these minimums?

Thanks!

peterh337

14th Jul 2012, 06:39

whether an airport ATC tower can deny access of a VFR traffic because of lower than VFR conditions exist?

Definitely if the airport is in CAS.

In the UK, each such airport has VFR minima in its operating rules. Generally 1500ft cloudbase, etc.

This can be a huge hassle if you are in say France and have no IR. 1200ft cloudbase but you are not departing. I was stuck at Biarritz like that for several days.

bookworm

14th Jul 2012, 09:33

MATS Part1 S2 Ch1
4 Effect of Weather on Operations
...
Class D
4.3.1
When the reported meteorological conditions at aerodromes in Class D airspace
reduce below the following minima, ATC shall advise pilots of aircraft intending to
operate under VFR to or from such aerodromes, and request the pilot to specify the
type of clearance required:
• Aircraft other than helicopters: visibility 5000 m and/or cloud ceiling 1500 feet.
• Helicopters: visibility 1500 m and/or cloud ceiling 1500 feet.
4.3.2
When the reported visibility at aerodromes within Class D airspace is below 5000 m
for aircraft other than helicopters, or 1500 m for helicopters, ATC shall not issue any
further VFR clearances to aircraft wishing to operate under VFR to or from such
aerodromes.
4.3.3
When the reported visibility consists of two values, the lower of the two values shall
be used when determining whether to implement the above procedures. Procedures
for operations into subsidiary aerodromes will be found in MATS Part 2.

Rules of the Air Regulations 2007
Reported visibility
26 For the purposes of an aircraft taking off from or approaching to land at an aerodrome
within Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace, the visibility, if any, communicated to the
commander of the aircraft by the appropriate air traffic control unit shall be taken to be the
flight visibility for the time being.

Note that neither of these apply to flights transiting airspace, only to flights arriving or departing from the airport at which the met observation is made.

There is no equivalent for class G, though an aerodrome operator is, of course, at liberty to set commercial terms and conditions for its use.