Help for a trainee ATCO on VFR/IFR

[twentypoint4]

Hi guys,

Thought this would be a good place to come with my question. Hopefully some of you don't mind helping with unraveling my confusion. I'm a trainee ATCO in the UK by the way.

Are there any rules prohibiting navigating via the use of nav-aids and instruments while flying under the VFR (or SVFR)? A scenario could be an aircraft joining controlled airspace on a VFR clearance and then wanting to use the ILS. Can this be done while still flying VFR, or should the clearance now change to IFR?

My simple understanding of the rules when I came out of initial training was that pilots flying VFR will navigate using visual references on the surface while pilots flying IFR will use VOR's, NDB's etc. However, when I think back to the rules in the ANO (what a horrible read) they don't state anything about how one is to navigate, just rules on the visibility and the compliance with clearances etc.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I'm amazed at you asking this! There is nothing to prevent a pilot operating under VFR from using any navaids he chooses. Many use GPS also. Frequently, in controlled airspace, ATC will instruct a VFR (or SVFR) flight to route via particular navaids. If the pilot is unable to do so, he just informs ATC.

[PPRuNe Pop]

My simple understanding of the rules when I came out of initial training was that pilots flying VFR will navigate using visual references on the surface while pilots flying IFR will use VOR's, NDB's etc. However, when I think back to the rules in the ANO (what a horrible read) they don't state anything about how one is to navigate, just rules on the visibility and the compliance with clearances etc.

...and you are quite right - using your "own navigation" its often called. That is a fundamental principle when you train for a PPL when instructors will also add in VOR's and NDB's for you to nibble at in your subsequent X country tests. IFR is another matter altogether but always remember that ATC is there for PPL's or anyone under training. You will certainly be asked by someone at some point "where am I?"

Hope all goes well for you.

[Tarq57]

Thing is, there are certain types of separation that will require navigation by visual reference (say, geographical separation) and in those situations, the pilot should be able to establish themselves by visual reference to one side of the (usually) line feature described. Or visually remain in a particular defined sector of airspace.

You wouldn't know if they are using GPS/ RNAV as an adjunct to this, of course. If they were solely using a navaid-based source to stay in a VFR sector, that would be invalid. But you probably wouldn't know.

There is no reason a VFR aircraft should not fly final approach via the ILS (traffic permitting) provided they are doing it in VMC, and capable of continuing to navigate visually. (T'would be sad if someone on an ILS final in VMC got lost if the ILS was turned off on them. But then, I've heard of some trainee pilots declare an emergency because the artificial horizon failed on a VFR nav-ex.)

[vfrrider481]

As a simple addendum, the key issue is seperating VFR/IFR and VMC/IMC.

As I'm sure you can recall from your course VMC are the visual conditions allowing flight where navigation by ground features and aircraft avoidance can be achieved using the mk1 eyeball. IMC is weather which precludes VMC.

Therefore it follows that VFR must take place in VMC weather. Navigation can be by any means, including visual, radio aids, gps and ILS if you so desire. The only issue is that an ILS approach is classed as an instrument approach so can't be used in anger ie. there is nothing to stop you dialling up the ILS and having it as the backup to your visual flight but the weather wouldn't need you to use it as your sole navigational aid.

IFR is either procedural due to airspace type and a required navigational accuracy (eg. class A airspace on a gin clear VMC day) or due to weather being below VMC. In both cases, the navigation will utilise non visual navigational equipment, VOR's, NDB's, GPS and so on.

Regards,
VFR

[twentypoint4]

I'm amazed at you asking this!

Glad I was able to amaze you! Thanks for all the answers though. Clears that up nicely.

I've heard VFR clearances involving instrument flight-routeings being given by controllers, however only once or twice and never thought about asking if it was allowed or not.

All the VFR practical training we had at the ATC college involved the aircraft following roads which obviously contributed to my (lack of) understanding. Also a huge shame we trainee ATCO's no longer get any flying training!!

[Lightning Mate]

at the ATC college involved the aircraft following roads

I Follow Roads. :\

BTW, are you at NATS Bournemouth?

[twentypoint4]

Ahhh, so thats what IFR stands for. Cheers

I was until fairly recently. I've since been posted to a unit to learn how to do it properly!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

No disrespects to rice.and.pea but I'm getting a bit scared about the standard of training at Bournemouth!

[Lightning Mate]

Oh dear......sorry I asked.......

[A I]

HD. Some of us have been scared about that for a long time Bren.

A I :E

[Spitoon]

I'm amazed at you asking this!

Whilst HD undoubtedly has much experience as a controller it is this sort of attitude to trainees at units that is far more frightening than the standard of training at Bournemouth.

rice.and.pea, I have lots of sympathy for you right now. I can remember coming out of the college being able to quote the books on separation and the different rules about IFR and VFR..... but without having a clue about what they mean in the real world. I met a similar attitude from the OJTIs at my first unit who spent more time complaining about the standard of trainees than explaining about the job I was supposed to be learning to do. I hope things have changed for the better where you are. If it is of any consolation to you I have now been in this strange business for getting on for 35 years!

The problem is that after you have been doing the job for a few years it is very difficult to remember just how little you knew straight out of the college. That is not to say that the college does not give you a good grounding, simply that there is a huge amount to learn in this business - indeed, you never really stop learning - and your knowledge has to develop from the theoretical bias you get at the college to a practical one from your training in the real world. I sincerely hope that current OJTI training prepares instructors properly and ensures that the trainees get the support where it is needed to succeed.

Good luck with the training - and remember, never be afraid to ask for help and advice wherever it may be available, whether it is your instructor or PPRuNe.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Whilst HD undoubtedly has much experience as a controller it is this sort of attitude to trainees at units that is far more frightening than the standard of training at Bournemouth.>>

I'm really sorry if I offended anyone and I do NOT have that "sort of attitude". On the contrary, I tried my utmost to help trainees both at work and on here, but I was astonished that someone who had undergone professional training should have to ask something on one of the flying forums on PPRuNe. Would a trainee pilot ask questions on the ATC forum about engine parameters? Maybe they don't train as well as when the course lasted 4 years?

Any questions which ATCtrainees have should be directed to properly qualified training officers. If the question cannot be readily answered, the OJTI should show the trainee where the information may be obtained and discuss it until the trainee is satisfied. It's already been shown on here that answers can come from other countries where procedures might be different.

Good luck to rice.and.pea but I fear for the profession....

[Gonzo]

Concur with Spitoon, rice.and.pea, keep asking questions. :ok:

To lead on from Spitoon's post, I think some OJTIs forget just how condensed the pre-unit training has become. The rounding off of one's ATC/aviation knowledge, which used to begin during the time before one's posting (aerodrome visit to Bournemouth, flying training, OJT, BA course, fam flights etc), only begins now once the trainee has arrived at the unit, and at that point validation training looms large and that through necessity becomes the priority. Sometimes, it seems this only begins after validation!

[alfaman]

Spitoon & Gonzo make some very good points: I would add one more, FWIW.
Whilst the internet is a very useful tool, & forums have their place, there is always a risk that the information quoted as fact, may well be just opinion. It may also be irrelevant, if based on incorrect information, or information pertaining to a different rule set, say in a different country. If in doubt, there should always be someone in your training department, or back at your original initial training centre, who can help you sort it out - don't be afraid to ask in case "you should already know that": if someone says that, move on to someone else, since no-one knows everything & they've just demonstrated that themselves...

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

alfaman..... very sensible.

[soaringhigh650]

When I learnt to fly I was taught to expect vectoring whilst transiting through terminal airspace, and to advise the controller at the earliest opportunity if I could not maintain VFR and/or that instruction would take me into cloud.

It was easy for me to lose sense of where exactly I was after a lot of vectoring, so I would always have an exit point planned from where I can resume my own navigation. Seeing various jets and other aircraft fly above and beneath me showed how important it was to be attentive on the radio and to comply correctly with instructions given.

Vectoring is easiest to fly (controller just tells me headings and altitudes which I follow). Tracking using navaids are also easy. And tracking using VRPs can range from the easy (the mouth of a large river) to the impossible (a church spire in a small town that looks just like any other).

But to answer rice and pea's question, I fly VFR cross-country using navaids all the time after leaving the terminal area.

[chevvron]

Trouble is RAF controllers don't give you a position check in the same manner that civil ones do eg civil controllers are required to give you a position when they identify you if you're in class G; RAF controllers are not (may have changed with the 'harmonisation' of phraseology).
This happened to me when I was doing my qualifying XC; I was vectored all over the sky to miss military zones, then told to 'resume own navigation and cleared to en-route frequency' without being given a position or a QDM to my next turning point (of which I had informed them)

[soaringhigh650]

In my experience, the controller will vector me back to my planned exit point anyway so I don't get dumped somewhere unfamiliar.

[chevvron]

Maybe in the USA, but not in the UK.

[Glamdring]

civil controllers are required to give you a position when they identify you if you're in class G

That's only a requirement when using the turn method for identification. There is also no requirement to pass position when telling aircraft to resume own navigation. Common sense prevailing though I tend to do it if I reckon it will be helpful (PPL, Light Singles, VFR etc.)

[Behind Enemy Lines]

The position of an aircraft is only passed when considered necessary by the controller, but surely in Chevron case it should have been given as common courtesy. On a XC and vectored all over the sky then thrown to the next frequency.