Lets end SVFR now

[tubthumper]

"Special VFR should be got rid of, and now. It is merely a way of increasing controller workload when he/she is invariably at his/her busiest due to poor weather. It gives the controller extra considerations which he/she could frequently well do without, and it has the potential to put PPL pilots in situations which are uncomfortable at best, and dangerous at worst."



I would, as ever, be interested in other people's opinions on the matter: is it a vital tool to allow traffic to move, or merely a pain in the a:mad: e?

[Standard Noise]

Pain in the arse!
Anyway, in my experience, most ppl's haven't a clue how it works.

During the day it should be either VFR or IFR, if they don't like it, they can operate out of a field where there are no ATC restrictions.
At night, I'm quite happy with the VMC at night principle using the VFR daytime criteria for the airspace.

But no doubt someone will tell me I'm a swivel-eyed mad man.

[Jerricho]

You're a swivel eyed mad man.

[AlanM]

Yes let's.

Bring on the EG's

[NATCA BNA]

Unless your rules in the UK are different than here in the U.S the pilot must request a SVFR, the controller can not solict one, and there is nothing that states that the controller must issue a SVFR.

Mike

[letMfly]

Things used to be relatively straightforward in Class D airspace when all traffic was either IFR / VFR, or IFR / SVFR depending on the weather conditions or time of day.

Controllers are now faced with a potential mixture of all three types and absolutely no guidance on whether to provide any form of separation between VFR and SVFR traffic.

If I was groping around in marginal WX conditions in my spamcan on a SVFR clearance, looking at the ground for navigational guidance, I would expect to be separated from other traffic. However there is now no guarantee that I won't be taken out by an opposite direction chopper being flown VFR at a speed consistent with forward visibility.

Sometimes I think that the office wallahs go out of their way to make life difficult for operational staff!

[Highland Director]

SVFR only exists because the UK wont entertain Class C. The entire UK airspace system needs a major review.

During the day it should be either VFR or IFR, if they don't like it, they can operate out of a field where there are no ATC restrictions. At night, I'm quite happy with the VMC at night principle using the VFR daytime criteria for the airspace.

In the Uk at night, all aircraft are IFR. Even using the "VMC at night principle using the VFR daytime criteria for the airspace", some ATCOs have to provide separation between IFR flights whether they like it or not regardless of the class of airspace.

I know that many UK ATCOs hold dear to their hearts the principle below:

(One inside controlled airspace + One outside controllled airspace = Separation)

I've never seen that principle in MATS Part 1 although at CATC we bowed to it everyday. Regional airports are getting busier.
See http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=177147

[Spitoon]

Controllers are now faced with a potential mixture of all three types and absolutely no guidance on whether to provide any form of separation between VFR and SVFR traffic.I thought MATS Part 1 was quite clear on this. You don't separate VRF from SVFR. What sort of guidance does anyone need?

The real problem is, as Standard pointed out, that most pilots don't understand what SVFR is all about. Perhaps there should be a rating for flying in controlled airspace.

There are probably a fair number of controllers who don't really understand SVFR, particularly those who don't know there's a world outside Class A airspace. But I've always assumed that those who operate in airspace where it's relevant will have a good grip on it! Am I right to have such confidence?

P.S. Never much liked the One inside controlled airspace + One outside controllled airspace = Separation principle myself. It seems a bit of a cop out.

[Kolibear]

most ppl's haven't a clue how it works.

You're absolutely correct there!

As a PPL, perhaps someone would like to explain to me & my colleagues exactly how it does work. Please.

[Evil J]

I agree, the "one in, one out" is a cop out-used when all other ideas have been exhausted!!

I must disagree with Highland Director, Aircraft may be SVFR inside CAS at night- but given that most of us use one of the reduced separations in the vicinity cop out-why cant we have VFR at night?? Any night that light aircraft are likely to be flying is going to be reasonable weather-and I personally find it far easier to see and avoid at night than during the day; so why no night VFR?? It works Stateside does it not??

[flower]

One of the big problems is that the basic PPL is unable to accept a SVFR clearance unless they have 10km vis, we of course apply SVFR to aircraft inside a Control zone at night and when the vis falls below 5 km.
I get asked more questions by PPLs on SVFR than practically any other subject ( RIS and RAS) being the other one.

[Jerricho]

It works Stateside does it not??

Certainly does. It's great :ok:

[Standard Noise]

Oi Jerricho, stop showing off!;) Swivel eyed mad man indeed.

Nowt wrong with aircraft flying round using the VMC at night principle (as long as the wx is ok, granted). We used to employ it (and they still do) at one of my former units, which happened to be a Class D CTR. Worked a treat.

[Scott Voigt]

I find SVFR quite valuable for the VFR folks (I am one of them from time to time.) and yes it does make for a bit more work at times, but hey, that's what they pay me for. If you are BUSY then you can keep them clear of the zone while you handle the IFR's. Then when you have time, get them in...

regards

Scott

[West Coast]

I would be happy to see SVFR go away from a pilots perspective. Its an accident waiting to happen.

[RustyNail]

We had strict rules re SVFR in that if the conditions in the majority of the CTR (Class D) were below VFR then the whole CTR was SVFR, we did not ever have a mix of VFR and CVFR, the question of separation never arose.

SVFR and IFR were always separated. We had SVFR control zone sectors which were geographically separated from each other, and from all published IFR approaches and MAP's.

You would clear a SVFR A/C into a CTR sector, then subject to IFR traffic you would clear them into the circuit. When they left their "sector" you could move the next SVFR guy into it, etc etc.

There was no SVFR at night. VFR at night in Class D airspace was seperated from IFR traffic. :ok:

[tubthumper]

It seems I'm not the only one with reservations about SVFR. Does anyone this side of the Pond have anything to say in defence of Special VFR?

[RPMcMurphy]

I think it is a marvellous invention, but then again I work at a Class G unit (at the mo) and therefore don't use it :p

[tubthumper]

Excuse me while I pause whistfully for a few moments of quiet recollection....


:rolleyes:



:(



:confused:




:eek:



:E



:ok:



That's better. Time to open another bottle, methinks....

[ShyTorque]

Tubthumper,

"It seems I'm not the only one with reservations about SVFR. Does anyone this side of the Pond have anything to say in defence of Special VFR?"

Without it London heliport would close (as some one who is required to go there on a regular basis, I'm not sure if that's good or bad from a personal point of view).

BTW, which side of the pond is "this" side.......:confused:

[jack-oh]

As far as I can make out there are a few reasons for keeping SVFR but all of them are a cop out. Namely the requirement that ac can't fly VFR at night, which means that you have to invent something that allows them to fly visually, namely SVFR. Why don't you just keep it simple and say they can fly VFR at night and the whole problem is sorted. This is especially pertanent when the PPL has an add on for visual flying at night but doesn't go as far as requireing an instrument rating. This means that the CAA accepts the fact that IFR is mandatory at night but doesn't go as far as regulating that a pilot has to have any idea how to fly an IFR approach. Seems stupid? yes it does.
The other is that helicopter routes in Class A could not work if they were IFR so the cop out of SVFR is introduced. As someone said earlier, if you are that concerned with separartion and rules, just make it Class C airspace and all confusion is removed.

The problem within UK airspace will always remain whilst we cherry pick from the ICAO buffet. The rest of the world manages to sort these problems out whilst opperating within a known set of regulations. Whilst we in the UK bodge things together, confuse the hell out of everyone and then pat ourselves on the back for being flexible. SVFR is one example the other is ATSOCAS.

[Johnm]

In the UK as PPL with IMC and Night but not IR I can only fly in Class A airspace SVFR so the Channel Islands zone would be completely verboten without it. I go there a lot in case you are wondering, usually parallel to N866 ('cos I can't go in it) and higher than the trislanders thanks to some decent Nav Gear.

To avoid being a burden to controllers I always fly VFR in controlled airspace unless the weather is completely hopeless (or it's gone dark) when I'll go IFR except in Class A where I can't go unless I can meet SVFR IMC minima in which case I wouldn't really need IFR (except when it's gone dark) .......

Clear as crystal as far as I can see:confused:

[tubthumper]

which side of the pond is "this" side

Sorry, my goof. "This side" is the UK. :O

I work at a Class G unit (at the mo)

Going somewhere nice, Murph? As for the matter of "working" at your Class G unit, one has opinions....:E