VFR through controlled airspace

[FILTONFELLA]

Just a quick question for Cardiff/Bistol ATCOs, how do you deal with VFR transits through your zones? How do you phrase your clearance, since I don't think there's any set phraseology. This would be a great help for me on my radar course. Thx.

[flower]

If we are able to accept VFR zone transits then of course we do.
Sometimes we have to restrict the track or level against IFR traffic but its very seldom we cannot accomodate zone transits.

phraseology is as standard G----- cleared to transit Cardiff Zone VFR at 3000ft QNH advise if unable to maintain VMC etc etc

Hope this helps

[almost professional]

whilst not a bristol/cardiff atco, might I suggest that you dont get into the habit of clearing VFR aircraft through controlled airspace at a level, far better to give a 'not above' clearance if you can, its better for the pilot and may keep you out of potential problems

[Bern Oulli]

Almost Pro. Never been into the CI Zone then? SVFR not above 1000 versus SVFR AT 2000 coming the other way. (can't have VFR - its Class A airspace for those who don't know.) Best one years ago was a guy who used to regularly shoot out of the zone in his Kingair (PPL twin rating) SVFR to maintain FL190. Not exactly illegal.

[Cosmic Wind]

Weather marginal, not above xxxxft, maintain VMC.
Cavok, no problem clearing through at a level at all, as always 'advise if unable to maintain VMC'.
Sadly VFR transits get treated with kid- gloves as a large proportion of pilots requesting them should'nt be trusted with a push-bike let alone a light aircraft!

[flower]

There are times when to fly not above or not below a level is fine , however we ususally specify to fly at a level for purposes of seperation against IFR traffic, without that specific level it may not be possible to give a zone transit.
If an aircraft is unable to maintain VMC then we will sort things out around that.

[Hilico]

Pardon my ignorance - very infrequent flyer here - but do the VFR flyers ever have mode C? At least then you can tell whether they're sticking to the level.

[eastern wiseguy]

At my patch we tend not to "seperate" VFR from IFR ....as to mode c ..yes they do sometimes have it and it is a useful tool .I find the level band a much more "aircraft friendly " way of doing things. The benefit being it allows a block of airspace and the aircraft can then find its' own level whereas in the Cardiff scenario there may be a case for saying the aircraft could be pushed into a situation where VFR may not be possible...low time vfr pilots might(and I stress might) find themselves in the position of not wanting to query a controllers instruction and discovering the way blocked with poor visiblity or cloud. Forms to be filled in all round! By the way Cardiff ...hullo from C company!:D

[2 sheds]

"There are times when to fly not above or not below a level is fine , however we ususally specify to fly at a level for purposes of seperation (sic) against IFR traffic, without that specific level it may not be possible to give a zone transit."

I find it of some concern that some contributers are confusing the issue. If we are talking Class D airspace, there is no question at all of separating VFR flights from either IFR or other VFR flights. You might allocate a route to avoid an obvious confliction, particularly in respect of traffic in an instrument procedure or on final - however, that is not separation per se. You might well specify a maximum level restriction, again to avoid obvious confliction - however, if the Class D airspace extends much above that level, it could be argued by the GA fraternity that the whole intention of that airspace being so designated was to give them the freedom to operate in it under VFR and that ATC should get on with ITS job, i.e. the passing of appropriate traffic information.

2 S

[flower]

2 sheds ,
in terms of class D airspace you are absolutely correct traffic information is all that is required as a minimum, however I will not launch a fast climbing jet aircraft into a transitting light VFR aircraft which is on a different frequency. Taught to me by many fine ATCOs as an unsafe clearance.

So hence the reasons , learnt by bitter experience , for placing restrictions on transitting VFR traffic. Unlike many other class D airspace aerodromeshowever we do allow transitting traffic.

[vintage ATCO]

Yep, I agree. I was an approach radar controller in Class D for 25 years. I wouldn't let VFR traffic just get on with it whilst passing traffic information to IFR. We kept the VFR out of the way, even a bit of 'controlled VFR'! :D Whoops! Wash my mouth out. ;)

But then, we had a good reputation for allowing VFR transits, and it was safe! :ok:


-------------------
vintage ATCO
www.stevelevien.com

[Bright-Ling]

Flower.....

Unlike many other class D airspace aerodromeshowever we do allow transitting traffic.

So who doesn't allow transits?

[almost professional]

some of us still do it the way you taught us steve!-yes sometimes you do have to 'control' VFR perhaps to the extent of a heading or level to maintain, but be aware of the consequences of the action you are taking or asking a pilot to take, and try to use other techniques if at all possible-we are lucky at our unit in that many transits can route via the overhead following the M1, or take a level that does not conflict-we have the airspace to allow it-just!, but still the most likely clearance is 6 miles east or west not above 2000 or 1500 to remain clear of the climb out or final approach track
ps if anybody says east midlands to the last post then that reputation is 10 years out of date!

[2 sheds]

Gentlemen

If you re-read my post, I was never suggesting that a fast-climbing IFR flight should be launched "into" a VFR transit aircraft, whichever frequency/ies they might be on.

In the context of Class D airspace, I was merely making the point that it is not only inappropriate but wrong to be thinking or talking in terms of "separation" and trying to apply separation in the same way as one would between IFR flights - apply appropriate action to deconflict, yes, by all means, in potential confliction situations soon after departure or near final approach, but separation _as such_, no. After all, in other phases of flight, ATC has the task of passing traffic information and, when requested, of giving traffic avoidance.

What concerns me is that the "not above x thousand feet" clearance to a VFR flight becomes dogma and SOP rather than an appropriate measure to avoid conflction in the prevailing tactical situation when just the passing of TI is inadequate. The VFR pilot, frequently in a single-engined aircraft, can often be left at an unnecessarily low level when the intention behind the establishment of such airspace was a greater degree of freedom and indeed, of safety, by permitting flight at a higher level.

2 S

[PhilD]

So, if I am in uncontrolled airspace heading towards your (Class D) zone and would prefer to route through it than around it, am I more or less likely to get through if I ask for an IFR transit on initial contact rather than VFR, or doesn't it make any difference?

[vintage ATCO]

PhilD, er, yes and no. . . . .

If you are IFR then we must provide separation on other IFRs, usually the arrivals and departures. If we don't have the capacity when you call you'd be refused clearance. If VFR then not, although as indicated above, most of us went/go in for a bit of 'separation' to keep you out of the way of the IFR. I'd suggest stay VFR if you can.

Caveat: Haven't done approach radar since 1996, and tomorrow have my aerodrome CofC again after being out of it (medically) for 14 months. Oh mother. . . . :uhoh:


---------------------
vintage ATCO
www.stevelevien.com

[almost professional]

sorry steve are you hoping to get it back, or have you got it back?
from three ex colleages(mike r and richard w are looking over my shoulder as I type:D

[vintage ATCO]

Got it back today, er, yesterday now :D

VA

[Thames]

Who doesn't allow transits..??
Have a look at EGBB website (http://www.egbb.co.uk)
Have a look at the DISCUSSION forum.:)