It struck me the other day how dangerous VRPs are. For example, I left the zone to the NW the other day, "not above 2000" . Then later inbound from the NW "not above 2000". Seemed everyone was doing the same.

On the way in I maintained around 1700-1800' to keep within Rule 5 until fairly close to the airfield, and all outbound traffic was climbing to around this altitude. Needless to say several aircraft passed [or we passed them :D] at the same altitude not that far away. Ok it was VFR and there was little danger, but still it gets the old spincter twitching to see other aircraft so close, and makes you think about the one "you didn't see".....

So my questions are:
Am I right in my interperations of Rule 5? Rule 5 doesn't prohibit flight less than 1500' if taking off or landing at a licenced aerodrome. I maintained >1500' while inbound becasue I was talking to the radar controllers not the tower controller. Once I was passed off to the tower and was fairly close to the airport I decended to pattern altitude. Could I have decended earlier? I assume that once inbound and talking to the tower you are "intending to land" so Rule 5 can be broken, but before this time you cannot

Secondly, wouldn't it be better for the controllers to clear say outbound traffic one direction and inbound from another or something along those lines, to avoid head on traffic? I appreciate that in VMC traffic is resposible for seperation, but while orbiting over a VRP waiting for entry clearance, I heard someone else call over the same VRP who I hadn't seen....They must have been somewhere between ground and 2000' same as me, which is not a lot of room....I actually requested rejoin N of the field not over a VRP for precisely this reason, but was told to make for the VRP and orbit....

Cheers
EA:D

Englishal, in my experience (which admittedly isn't all that much, since I don't get to fly to Class D airports as often as I should) there's usually no problem reporting your position relative to a VRP, rather than over it. Certainly if the VRP is outside controlled airspace, ATC can't instruct you to route via it, so you could reply with "G-AB will report 4 miles north-abeam the VRP, request route direct to the field from there."

Remember that, when VFR in Class D, ATC will provide you with no separation from any other aircraft. There is no rule preventing them from routing everyone the same way.

FFF
-----------

Where I fly in class D there are specified entry and exit lanes so that we dont get these problems. Also, I was taught ( at a different airport) never to fly directly over a VRP, always to keep it to the left. This would stop (hopefully!!) potential conflicts between inbound and outbound traffic.

Rule 5 states (for a congested area) that you must not fly less than 1500ft above the highest object within 600m of the aircaft. If the area is uncongested then the 500ft rule applies.


I reckon you should stay as high as allowed for as long as is safely possible. No point in descending to circuit height well away from the airfield, especially if it is over congested areas because you may not be able to glide clear.

Some airports in Class 5, like EGHH, have standard VFR joins from the VRP, not above 2000'.

Knowing that most people usually leave the zone by climbing to about 1800' and flying direct to the VRP, I usually enter slightly to the west or east of that track, depending on wind, and descend to 1500' before the VRP. Any conflicting traffic is then usually higher than you or much closer to the field and easier to spot because you have a better idea of where they are.

In my experience, if you are talking to ATC, which you must be in class D airport zones, ATC will either advise you or the other aircraft of your position, even if conflict is unlikely. Likewise they expect you to report passing outbound so they know you are clear of their other traffic.

Inbound routing traffic should normally already be in touch with ATC before they get to any VRP, hence should be aware of you and the altitude you have declared.

I don't think it is obligatory to pass O/H, abeam should be just as good.

June's GASIL page 21 quite rightly points out the VRPs are just that - reporting points. They are not places to be overflown.

The article goes on to say that VRPs should be avoided and that they (the CAA Safety Group) discourage aerodromes from using VRPs as approach points to the aerodrome.


GASIL (http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/publications.asp?action=sercat&id=7)

Also - have a look at March 2002 GASIL

(I fact have a look at all of them - they are well worth a read)

Thanks for your replies...

I reported to the N of the airfield requesting rejoin in the hope they would clear me directly in from the N, but what they did was told me to proceed to the VRP and report there, stipulating "not yet cleared in". I could have of course refused, but then I'd probably still be orbiting there now :D They did give some traffic advisories for example "Cessna outbound, similar altitude"so I guess I can't complain too much. Just thought it'd be safer to use one VRP for outbound traffic, one for inbound on both sides of the zone [ie 2 OB, 2 IB]......

I like the idea of staying high as long as possible but Pulse1 hit the nail on the head. Troube is en-route from the NW VRP [EGHH Tarrant Rushton for your info] to the airfield there is a 'congested' area, probably at about 200' msl, meaning that in theory I should be at 1700' inbound, unless Rule 5 is not applicable because I'm landing at a licenced aerodrome?.....

Cheers
EA:D

June's GASIL page 21 quite rightly points out the VRPs are just that - reporting points. They are not places to be overflown.

Kolibear, I finally get the chance to be pointless and pedantic like people like to be on my posts!!

A VRP isn't a reporting point - it's a reference point. As you say though not to be flown over!

I think things would be alot safer if people stopped trying to split zeros and flew quadrantal levels!!

bluskis - NO.

ATC are not required to give separation of VFR traffic from other VFR traffic in class D airspace. If they can, they may, but not always.

This is exactly why VRP changed from Reporting points to referance points a few years ago.

magneticflip1

At what altitude/FL would you suggest then for someone routing out of a control zone with a clearance of 'not above 2000ft', when they are over a congested area?? Quadrantal rules are only of use in the cruise.

Redhill is a reasonable example of a busy field - we have inbound and outbound VRPs to keep traffic moving in opposite directions seperated. ATC will give traffic in vicinity warnings both inbound and outbound so you know if you're up someone's backside (or vice versa) adn to look out for them.

Works for us...

Hersh

Expedite

Can't see where I said they must, but I did say that in my experience they usually do advise if other traffic is heading for the same position.

That is not quite the same as providing seperation.

However I did say that you must be talking to them, hence should be able to hear others who are also talking to them.

englishal,

Just thought it'd be safer to use one VRP for outbound traffic, one for inbound on both sides of the zone [ie 2 OB, 2 IB]......

Like Redhill, Liverpool also has a 'one way' system which is published in the AIP. While there is no need to provide separation between VFR flights, the routings do to some degree separate the inbounds from outbounds and cut down on the amount of traffic information that ATC has to pass. This is handy when it gets busy as it is sometimes impossible to get enough R/T time to give all the TI you need to.

Sounds a bit like Leeds

VFR traffic all leaves the zone at or below 2000ft through the VRP's

IFR comes in at 3000ft+

Yes it is bloody dangerous I have come way to close to various bits of traffic going both ways over Eccup. It wouldn't be so bad but the viz at Leeds is usually pants. And a twin coming at you at 5km if your lucky with a combined speed of 200+ knots aint fun.


And as for that VRP to the south which is at the bottom of a valley I still haven't yet been sure I have found the sod. Funnly enough tho you don't meet much traffic coming through there. They must cheat like I do and get one of the easier VRP's further north. Or radar vectors. ;)

MJ

Hmm, the invisible VRPs sounds like a common problem :D I'd strongly recommend visitors to Bournemouth NOT to route via Tarrant Ruston, as unless you know what you're looking for, you'll never see it ! [Disused WW2 airfield my ar*e, looks the same as every other field in the area:D].

Either plug the VRP co-ords into your GPS from Pooleys GPS companion [some people might take offence at this:D] or come in from the south along the coast, you can't miss those VRPs....

C yer
EA:D

One of the useful things the Ontrack project did was to produce photos of VRPs for Manchester and Stansted. Trouble is, they're all vertical photos!! I have this image of lots of GA pilots flying along looking straight at the ground below while careering straight towards each other.

Luckily some enterprising airfield operators are producing nice oblique photos of VRPs on their web sites - Booker and Barton are two excellent examples.:ok:

Tarrant Rushton's easy - just look for the circle of pig arcs, ISTR!! If it's the right phase of the season, you can see the runway outlines.

I dont see what the problem is guys. As I said in my previous post use either the quadrantal rule for separation, or if you have a 2000ft limit imposed, instead of flying at exactly 2000ft (like everyone else up there) fly at 1900ft or 1850ft. It makes sense.:p
Do you now understand EGPFlyer!

The only problem with this is that people leaving the zone tend to climb to 1800 feet outbound, and inbound you have to respect rule 5 so you should theoretically be at around 1800'. True you could stay at 1999', but had better not bust Solent zone :D

Cyer
EA:D