London Ctr

[IDENTING]

Can anyone tell me, if the flying-eye over London doesn’t fly IFR or SVFR, as someone told me the other day, how it is allowed to fly VFR in the London class A CTR?
If the answer is as simple as “it doesn’t, it only flies in the class D CTR and guesses as to the traffic in the west of London” then I hang my head in shame and slink off to re-read air law.

[ATCO Two]

Capital Radio always operates in the London Control Zone under a SVFR clearance, and in the London City Control Zone under a VFR/SVFR clearance as appropriate, (SVFR in the City Zone when met. vis. is 5000m and less, and at night).

[spekesoftly]

(SVFR in the City Zone when met. vis. is 5000m and less .......


Should that in fact read "when met. vis. is less than 5000m ........" ?

[2 sheds]

...and shouldn't that read "flight visibility..."?

[ATCO Two]

OK pedants.

It is the pilot's resposibility to determine his flight conditions and whether he can accept a SVFR clearance, bearing in mind that he must remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. However, when the reported MET VISIBILITY at LCY falls below 5000m all aircraft operating within the LCY CTR should be informed and offered the choice of a VFR or SVFR clearance.

[IDENTING]

Just as i thought, but i didnt argue with the 'someone' coz (because, to the grammer police), he used to fly the flying eye...high in the sky. And thank you all for a very precise reply! :}

[ATCO Two]

"he used to fly the flying eye." Really? So why did this "someone" always acknowledge his SVFR clearance in the London CTR of "not above 1500ft"? What sort of clearance did he think he was operating under? Did he read his non standard flight proforma? Good grief!

[Shermanator]

Whilst that seems to be the underlying theme here, grammer is spelt grammar.

Surely this thread has run its course!!

[2 sheds]

I was under the impression that, when it comes to the correct application of the rules applying to the provision of ATS and flight safety, we were actually in the business of pedantry! Otherwise, where is the finger going to be pointed when the rules are not applied correctly?

One could take further issue with the statement that "when the reported MET VISIBILITY at LCY falls below 5000m all aircraft operating within the LCY CTR should be informed and offered the choice of a VFR or SVFR clearance", which is inaccurate and very misleading, but that is probably beyond the scope of this thread.

[ATCO Two]

OK 2 Sheds, you had better rewrite our MATS Part 2 in that case.

[AlanM]

which is inaccurate and very misleading, but that is probably beyond the scope of this thread

So what is the correct criteria then?

[ATCO Two]

For the sake of expediency, I replied to IDENTING before checking the Thames MATS Part 2, and made a mistake with the weather criteria applicable to SVFR in the LCY CTR. Fair cop. However, if the mistake had been perpetuated into the operational arena, the situation would have in fact been slightly SAFER as far as the application of the rules is concerned.
I await further education about our unsafe practices by the great 2 Sheds who probably once spoke to a real aeroplane....

[Fletchers Left Boot]

2 sheds,
Thats what I was thinking..
I thought that if the met visibility was less than 5000m, then VFR flight is no longer permitted?? Well it aint at Seaton anyway.

But then I'm just a humble ATSA..... :)

[bookworm]

I thought that if the met visibility was less than 5000m, then VFR flight is no longer permitted?? Well it aint at Seaton anyway.

No. VFR arrivals and departures are no longer permitted. VFR transits make their own determination of conditions based on flight vis.

But there seems to be nothing wrong with using the met vis falling below 5000 m as a trigger to offer a choice to VFR transits to switch to SVFR if they require it.

[Fletchers Left Boot]

Thanks Bookworm.. I stand corrected. Serves me right for not reading the thread properly [:D]