ATC Workload?
I've just been doing my customary scan of the CAA Occurrencies booklet that comes with GASIL. I'm a bit disturbed with 200605680 (p11 2nd item).
This seems to be a complaint about a C172 wanting an approach in unexpectedly poor weather.
I got my PPL over 35 years ago, and immediately found that I needed an IMCR if one was to use the a/c to get about the country, and got this asap. By always being cautious about the weather, in my 1400hrs private flying since then, I have only 2 times found myself seeking ATC assistance due to unforecast WX.
Each time I got the impression that ATC were only too pleased to help.
The occasions were
1972. To Exeter in C172, forecast 3/8 SC base 1200', tops 1800'. Went at FL40, but getting nearer saw cloud below becoming OVC. Was informed WX was 900' OVC, well within IMCR limits. Immediately asked for, and obtained SRA.
1993. To Fairoaks, departed Filton in PA30 following telephoned WX enquiry giving 1000' base, good for visual circuit. When I checked in for RIS with Farnborough, asked if they could get Fairoaks weather, they came back with estimated 500'. I immediately requested PAR (no ILS then) into Farnborough, again immediately given, radar vectors thereafter.
In neither of these cases did I have the approach plate - but why would I have needed to look at it - OC(H) was way above published. My impression is that except for booked procedure training, ATC with radar would much rather vector arrivals in rather than clutter up the airspace with procedure approaches!
My concern is that fear of being reported may discourage pilots in unforecast WX from taking the safest option. We already have very many airports in the scheme to give free landing to genuine WX diversions to reduce the stress in such conditions.
Any comments from you ATC guys and gals? (In particular about that occurrence report)
Was my action in the above cases not absolutely right and proper?
MikeJ