Eurolunacy
Guest
Posts: n/a
Eurolunacy
Redhill Aerodrome Operators’ Memo 1/2017
VFR minima ATZ within Class D Airspace
VFR minima ATZ within Class D Airspace
Introduction
WEF 24 April 2017 the CAA have removed the exemption from SERA VFR minima for Class D airspace which permitted aircraft to operate clear of cloud and with the surface in sight within an ATZ.
Class D ATZ VFR Minima
The weather minima for VFR flight within the Redhill ATZ is now 5000m and a cloud ceiling (BKN) of 1500ft. Aircraft must remain 1000ft vertically away from cloud. When the reported weather is below these limits VFR flight is not permitted; this includes helicopters wishing to undertake hovering exercises as the rules state that aircraft may not transit an ATZ or enter the aerodrome traffic circuit within a CTR when the offical meteorological report at that aerodrome indicates a ground visubility less than 5km and/or a cloud ceiling (BKN) less than 1500ft.
The minima set out above do not apply to police, air ambulance, SAR, powerline, pipeline or electricity helicopters.
When the weather is not suitable for VFR flight suitably qualified pilots may request IFR departures out of the ATZ.
Special VFR (SVFR)
Currently Redhill ATC is not permitted to operate SVFR however a meeting is scheduled with NATS for 10 May where this will be discussed. An update will be issued following this meeting.
WEF 24 April 2017 the CAA have removed the exemption from SERA VFR minima for Class D airspace which permitted aircraft to operate clear of cloud and with the surface in sight within an ATZ.
Class D ATZ VFR Minima
The weather minima for VFR flight within the Redhill ATZ is now 5000m and a cloud ceiling (BKN) of 1500ft. Aircraft must remain 1000ft vertically away from cloud. When the reported weather is below these limits VFR flight is not permitted; this includes helicopters wishing to undertake hovering exercises as the rules state that aircraft may not transit an ATZ or enter the aerodrome traffic circuit within a CTR when the offical meteorological report at that aerodrome indicates a ground visubility less than 5km and/or a cloud ceiling (BKN) less than 1500ft.
The minima set out above do not apply to police, air ambulance, SAR, powerline, pipeline or electricity helicopters.
When the weather is not suitable for VFR flight suitably qualified pilots may request IFR departures out of the ATZ.
Special VFR (SVFR)
Currently Redhill ATC is not permitted to operate SVFR however a meeting is scheduled with NATS for 10 May where this will be discussed. An update will be issued following this meeting.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
The plot has been completely lost, unless of course the plot is to kill the helicopter industry. It's difficult to keep up with all the changes EASA has brought. Few of these rules improve safety.
Shy....you wonder why Americans laugh when we compare our aviation rules to yours?
So these brilliant experts say it is safer for the aircraft to fly at 500' agl and keep the cloud 1000' above them???
How about "Clear of cloud, in sight of ground or water, and at a speed which allows an obstacle to be seen and safely avoided?"
When they finally legislate GA out of the sky, they will pat themselves on the back for achieving a zero accident rate. And then join the dole queue, along with the pilots.
How about "Clear of cloud, in sight of ground or water, and at a speed which allows an obstacle to be seen and safely avoided?"
When they finally legislate GA out of the sky, they will pat themselves on the back for achieving a zero accident rate. And then join the dole queue, along with the pilots.
At one point last week there was a danger that we would not be able to land off airfield in controlled airspace as of 24th April, that got resolved on Friday but the whole ruleset is full of anomalies which are slowly going to kill the helicopter industry and probably more airfields over time.
One of the problems is that often what looks innocuous to start with has a twist put on it by a different group of aviation professionals (usually not maliciously) and we end up with one group feeling like they are obliged (or nor permitted) to allow another group to do what they need to do. Take my example above, a NATS interpretation of who could assess visibility at an 'aerodrome' was what they were basing the stop landing off airfield decision on, so controllers were being told to not permit it inside controlled airspace (not their fault) but almost no pilots knew about it.
ShyTorque you are spot on it is literally a case of
One of the problems is that often what looks innocuous to start with has a twist put on it by a different group of aviation professionals (usually not maliciously) and we end up with one group feeling like they are obliged (or nor permitted) to allow another group to do what they need to do. Take my example above, a NATS interpretation of who could assess visibility at an 'aerodrome' was what they were basing the stop landing off airfield decision on, so controllers were being told to not permit it inside controlled airspace (not their fault) but almost no pilots knew about it.
ShyTorque you are spot on it is literally a case of
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown into Redhill with regular here (JohnR81) and it looks to me like those rules are the start of someone trying to close it. Of course, it is a perfectly good airport, but it now has neighbours. Who despite the airport being there "day one", want it gone now.
Disgraceful left wing lunacy.
No one wants helicopters until they need to be rescued (from various things). Same in AUS.
Arrrj
Disgraceful left wing lunacy.
No one wants helicopters until they need to be rescued (from various things). Same in AUS.
Arrrj
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
5,000 metres is 2.7 nm. This ridiculous development of the rules means that it's prohibited to air taxi unless the visibility is better than the radius of the ATZ. One must ask what the purpose of an ATZ actually is.
Guest
Posts: n/a
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...mplementation/
Lunacy .... Yes , but there are so many idiotic rules around that nobody takes notice of and this is just one more !
Out of interest who is going to enforce this ? You can currently fly into an airport that is declaring IFR and be VFR .... Nobody actually asks what viz and cloud base you had on the way in . As always the helicopter community will just accept it , as it has all the other nonsense over the years , and that will be another nail in the coffin ......and this coffin has already been shut firm for 10 years or more !!!!
Out of interest who is going to enforce this ? You can currently fly into an airport that is declaring IFR and be VFR .... Nobody actually asks what viz and cloud base you had on the way in . As always the helicopter community will just accept it , as it has all the other nonsense over the years , and that will be another nail in the coffin ......and this coffin has already been shut firm for 10 years or more !!!!
It will get awfully cold in the Pubs....for some if they do!
There are some very good folks that are caught in the middle here....and let's hope they are not treated badly by others who are victimized by this. Tower Operators are being made victims just as are Operators, Owners, and Pilots.
There are some very good folks that are caught in the middle here....and let's hope they are not treated badly by others who are victimized by this. Tower Operators are being made victims just as are Operators, Owners, and Pilots.
Only if you get a SVFR clearance. Without it, you won't be allowed to enter. That is what they will not give you now as I understand it.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: s e england
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have friends who lived very close to Redhill airfield for many years. There has long been a sustained effort by property developers to build hundreds of houses on it, aided and abetted by the local council. Most locals oppose this, but all sorts of devious methods and 'blackmail' have been employed to 'persuade' them otherwise. This might just be the final straw.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arrrj
These rules apply to all aerodromes in class D throughout Europe so if this was the work of Mr Nimby of Redhill he was a genius who got himself into the EASA process to achieve his objective.
I have flown into Redhill with regular here (JohnR81) and it looks to me like those rules are the start of someone trying to close it. Of course, it is a perfectly good airport, but it now has neighbours. Who despite the airport being there "day one", want it gone now.
I have never asked for a SVFR clearance when flying into an airport thats declared IFR .....i just fly in and land and no one in 35 years has ever asked anything !!
How about a flat bed trailer to take you outside the ATZ then lift ......!!
How about a flat bed trailer to take you outside the ATZ then lift ......!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sutton
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the airfield permit this? Will the local residents permit this?
Or will the airfield only permit circuits when the cloud base is 2000ft QFE, so that the normal circuit height gives 1000ft vertical clearance? This would seriously reduce the number of VFR flights taking place!