Re-Writing CAP 417 - VFR Approaches

[twistedenginestarter]

In CAP417 the recommended calls for VFR approaches to airfields include full life history. But that's for non-radar. In practice major airports first give you a squawk and take things from there.

I therefore propose this sequence to reduce R/T clutter for a VFR approach without flight plan:

Stansted G-ABCD Inbound
G-ABCD pass your message
G-ABCD inbound. Request Squawk
or
G-ABCD inbound from the north. Request Squawk

Other details can emerge if and as required.

Would controllers find this less or more acceptable than the current recommendation?

[1261]

Interesting idea; I didn't realise that R/T loading was that much of a problem, at least not at airfields that accept VFR inbounds.

What happens if you crash in between the initial call and the other details being passed? What do we tell D&D?

Most controllers will be aware that they are about to get a life history when they say "pass your message" to a VFR inbound, and will probably manage it something along the lines of:

xxxx Approach, G-ABCD

G-ABCD, xxxx Approach, standby.

When there is sufficient time (or the controller has made time),

G-CD, pass your message.

I'm not trying to be patronizing, but it works, and we get all the info we need, when we need it - I'm not sure that it needs changing.

I'm willing to be persuaded, though......

[JuicyLucy]

Strange - I thought all airports except those in class A accepted VFR inbounds in the UK.
Manch, Gatwick, Stansted all did the last time I went there VFR (all within the last few months....)

[1261]

Okay, that wasn't meant literally.

Airfields which don't actively discourage would have been more appropriate, but point taken.

[twistedenginestarter]

1261

I think you've put you're finger on it: "Standby".

I've not done much of this but I find there tends to be a need to hassle ATC to avoid running into controlled airspace without clearance. The logic is asking for a squawk would permit an immediate response and then put you onto the controller's mental radar screen as well as his physical radar screen.

[1261]

I'll point out two things, and once again I'm trying to be constructive:

1. At EDI, you would generally not get a squawk as a VFR inbound - I can't speak for other units.

2. It is the aircraft commander's responsibility to "avoid running into controlled airspace" without a clearance. That's why controlled airspace exists. When I did my air law, you held outside until such time as a clearance was issued. End of story.

I appreciate that this will occasionally (and certainly at EDI it would be occasionally) mean a short delay to your flight, but you will be told the reason for the delay.

Remember, you can always phone us when you land to query any aspect of your service from us if you are unhappy - or better still, call in.

[Fly Through]

Well put 1261!

There are many number of reasons why a controller won't be able to get back to you straight away (ie. take feet of the desk and put the paper away :))but we will come back to you asap.

Whilst on the subject please, please, please don't reply when we tell you to standby, we maybe on the phone co-ordinating or just about to make/recieve another transmission.

On the original subject of the thread, nice idea but we do require all the info and there's too much risk of a pilot recieving a squawk and presuming he's allowed to proceed.

Rgds FT

[JuicyLucy]

I tend to just append "Inbound" to the end of the initial call to make it known that I am expecting an entry clearance. It just lets the controller that I`m not about to tell him my life story for no reason...not that I do of course, minimum RT R us :-)
and lets him prioritise. A "standby" when you are doing 180 knots towards the zone boundary can mean a lot of ground covered !!

[matspart3]

We definitely need all the details for SAR and traffic info purposes but I personally like the idea of putting your request in the initial call:-

"XXX Approach, G-ABCD request zone transit/join/RIS etc."

If the controller is busy and asks you to standby, at least he/she has a better mental picture and can afford a degree of priority to responding to your call. When they do get around to talking to you again (after tea and finishing the crossword) something along the lines of:-

"G-CD squawk XXXX, pass your message"

is not uncommon. Unfortunately, the standard of RT in the UK is pretty poor across the board...including some ATCO's too. We've all heard the calls "G-CD, er er Cessna 152...er...er...over a big lake...er...er..etc." When it's busy, you can blow your chances of getting an expeditious service/zone transit if you sound like a complete muppet on your first call. The RT manual (isn't it CAP413?...or is the 417 some other document that I should probably know about!) doesn't need re-writing, it just needs teaching properly. It never ceases to amaze me that sensible, intelligent people can't get to grips with RT. I can hear people wasting their money using 100% of their concentration trying to talk to me in what is only a slightly technical language when they're supposed to be learning to fly! It really doesn't take a lot to learn the standard meanings of the 30 or so words regularly used and memorise the list of things that need to be read back...that's all ATC are interested in. I had to do it when I got my student ATCO's licence before I got let lose with a real headset. The problem isn't just with students. I think as a result of low training standards in the past, a sizeable number of commercial pilots are very laid back when it comes to RT and this has led to countless incidents and accidents including the world's worst air disaster in Tenerife.
I'm always happy to show pilots around the tower so they can see first hand how we interact....I try to make it a valuable learning experience...just remember to 'phone first and bring cakes!

[Rad1]

Squawks are a limited commodity, most units have a small block which are used in sequence and, when you get to the end of the list, you allocate the first one again. When it's busy at those airports that don't discourage VFR traffic it's quite possible to 'run out' of squawks. For this reason the controller may choose only to give a squawk to those aircraft that need to be positively identified for some reason.

I also agree that many pilots make far too many assumptions when they're given a squawk - they're cleared to do whatever it was they asked for or that the controller will be watching them to name but a couple.

[1261]

R1,

This is exactly the reason that we do not issue squawks to VFR traffic. Too many pilots then believe that they are under some sort of radar service or have a joining clearance.

Surely the issue here is that when the R/T is at its busiest, by definition the airspace is also at its busiest, and you do not want more aircraft entering (especially without permission). If it is safe for further VFR traffic to enter the zone, the contoller will obviously have time to issue a clearance, simple as that.

[eyeinthesky]

Juicy Lucy:

Ref 180 kts with the zone boundary looming while standing by: That's precisely why CAP413 suggests you call in plenty of time! If you bust the zone while standing by then that displays remarkably poor airmanship.



------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"

[IFollowRoads]

Re: limited squawks: The (military) units I tend to end up working fairly often appear to use the same single squawk for all VFR traffic they are talking to - presumably it shows who they are talking to, but don't actually control.

[eyeinthesky]

I.F.R.: Yes, it's a conspicuity squawk so that if any neighbouring radar units want to know what the traffic's doing they can call the unit and they might know. Of course if you're under a FIS and VFR his info might be a little out of date unless you keep him informed.

------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"

[JuicyLucy]

Eyeinthesky - I do not enter CTRs (or any CAS) without permission, but flying orbits waiting is wasteful of time and fuel!
You may not fly around the SE of England, its very difficult to call in plenty of time simply due to the amount of CAS around and the number of ATC units to speak to.

[eyeinthesky]

Juicy Lucy: Funnily enough, I do fly (some 300 hrs per year) around the S. East. I agree that there are a lot of units to call, but perhaps you might consider that these also generate a lot of traffic which in turn means many units are busy. Whilst I believe that it is always a good idea to be in communication with a unit as you are then no longer 'unknown traffic', I do wonder sometimes about the need for particular services. Many is the occasion on a gin-clear day with no cloud below 4000' and vis in excess of 40km I've heard someone VFR requesting a RIS. Why? What's wrong with keeping a lookout? This increases the workload of radar units and will in turn generate more "Stand By" instructions to new traffic.

I appreciate what you say about time and fuel wastage. I cannot think of many cases in the S.East where (unless you are inbound to land) there is not an alternative route which you can follow if a zone clearance is not forthcoming. Indeed, as PPL students aren't we taught to plan on NOT getting a clearance so that we don't blunder in while waiting for one?



------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"