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?
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...
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.
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....
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.
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.
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!!
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?
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.
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
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?
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.)
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.
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.....
Last edited by Brilliant Stuff; 12th Jun 2012 at 15:45.
