Eurolunacy

[puntosaurus]

Redhill Aerodrome Operators’ Memo 1/2017
VFR minima ATZ within Class D Airspace

Introduction

WEF 24 April 2017 the CAA have removed the exemption from SERA VFR minima for Class D airspace which permitted aircraft to operate clear of cloud and with the surface in sight within an ATZ.

Class D ATZ VFR Minima

The weather minima for VFR flight within the Redhill ATZ is now 5000m and a cloud ceiling (BKN) of 1500ft. Aircraft must remain 1000ft vertically away from cloud. When the reported weather is below these limits VFR flight is not permitted; this includes helicopters wishing to undertake hovering exercises as the rules state that aircraft may not transit an ATZ or enter the aerodrome traffic circuit within a CTR when the offical meteorological report at that aerodrome indicates a ground visubility less than 5km and/or a cloud ceiling (BKN) less than 1500ft.

The minima set out above do not apply to police, air ambulance, SAR, powerline, pipeline or electricity helicopters.

When the weather is not suitable for VFR flight suitably qualified pilots may request IFR departures out of the ATZ.

Special VFR (SVFR)

Currently Redhill ATC is not permitted to operate SVFR however a meeting is scheduled with NATS for 10 May where this will be discussed. An update will be issued following this meeting.

[ShyTorque]

The plot has been completely lost, unless of course the plot is to kill the helicopter industry. It's difficult to keep up with all the changes EASA has brought. Few of these rules improve safety.

[SASless]

Shy....you wonder why Americans laugh when we compare our aviation rules to yours?:ugh:

[Ascend Charlie]

So these brilliant experts say it is safer for the aircraft to fly at 500' agl and keep the cloud 1000' above them???

How about "Clear of cloud, in sight of ground or water, and at a speed which allows an obstacle to be seen and safely avoided?"

When they finally legislate GA out of the sky, they will pat themselves on the back for achieving a zero accident rate. And then join the dole queue, along with the pilots.

[VeeAny]

At one point last week there was a danger that we would not be able to land off airfield in controlled airspace as of 24th April, that got resolved on Friday but the whole ruleset is full of anomalies which are slowly going to kill the helicopter industry and probably more airfields over time.

One of the problems is that often what looks innocuous to start with has a twist put on it by a different group of aviation professionals (usually not maliciously) and we end up with one group feeling like they are obliged (or nor permitted) to allow another group to do what they need to do. Take my example above, a NATS interpretation of who could assess visibility at an 'aerodrome' was what they were basing the stop landing off airfield decision on, so controllers were being told to not permit it inside controlled airspace (not their fault) but almost no pilots knew about it.

ShyTorque you are spot on it is literally a case of :ugh:

[Spunk]

1.500 ft ceiling and a visibility of 5 km? Now, how often does that happen in GB?

[Arrrj]

I have flown into Redhill with regular here (JohnR81) and it looks to me like those rules are the start of someone trying to close it. Of course, it is a perfectly good airport, but it now has neighbours. Who despite the airport being there "day one", want it gone now.

Disgraceful left wing lunacy.

No one wants helicopters until they need to be rescued (from various things). Same in AUS.

Arrrj

[Hughes500]

so presumably the same thing will apply to part of
White Waltham as half the field is inside the other half outside
?

[ShyTorque]

5,000 metres is 2.7 nm. This ridiculous development of the rules means that it's prohibited to air taxi unless the visibility is better than the radius of the ATZ. One must ask what the purpose of an ATZ actually is.

[puntosaurus]

so presumably the same thing will apply to part of
White Waltham as half the field is inside the other half outside
?
And Fairoaks, Denham ? Or maybe their parent aerodromes are more relaxed about delegating SVFR clearances.

[PDR1]

Disgraceful left wing lunacy.


I agree it's lunacy, but what makes it "left wing"?

Let's not fall into the habitual practices of our colonial copusins and start automatically labelling everything we don't agree with as "leftie" regardless of the reality.

PDR

[sycamore]

Anything to do with Biggin`s request for an RNSS approach for Rwy 03..?

[212man]

Anything to do with Biggin`s request for an RNSS approach for Rwy 03..?

I don't think it's aerodrome specific - it's all Class D airspace.
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Airspace/Rules-of-the-air/SERA-Implementation/

[nigelh]

Lunacy .... Yes , but there are so many idiotic rules around that nobody takes notice of and this is just one more !
Out of interest who is going to enforce this ? You can currently fly into an airport that is declaring IFR and be VFR .... Nobody actually asks what viz and cloud base you had on the way in . As always the helicopter community will just accept it , as it has all the other nonsense over the years , and that will be another nail in the coffin ......and this coffin has already been shut firm for 10 years or more !!!!

[SASless]

It will get awfully cold in the Pubs....for some if they do!

There are some very good folks that are caught in the middle here....and let's hope they are not treated badly by others who are victimized by this. Tower Operators are being made victims just as are Operators, Owners, and Pilots.

[Nubian]

You can currently fly into an airport that is declaring IFR and be VFR .... Nobody actually asks what viz and cloud base you had on the way in.

Only if you get a SVFR clearance. Without it, you won't be allowed to enter. That is what they will not give you now as I understand it.

[pettinger93]

Have friends who lived very close to Redhill airfield for many years. There has long been a sustained effort by property developers to build hundreds of houses on it, aided and abetted by the local council. Most locals oppose this, but all sorts of devious methods and 'blackmail' have been employed to 'persuade' them otherwise. This might just be the final straw.

[oggers]

Arrrj

I have flown into Redhill with regular here (JohnR81) and it looks to me like those rules are the start of someone trying to close it. Of course, it is a perfectly good airport, but it now has neighbours. Who despite the airport being there "day one", want it gone now.

These rules apply to all aerodromes in class D throughout Europe so if this was the work of Mr Nimby of Redhill he was a genius who got himself into the EASA process to achieve his objective.

[nigelh]

I have never asked for a SVFR clearance when flying into an airport thats declared IFR .....i just fly in and land and no one in 35 years has ever asked anything !!
How about a flat bed trailer to take you outside the ATZ then lift ......!!

[Buttocknurdler]

Redhill Aerodrome Operators’ Memo 1/2017
VFR minima ATZ within Class D Airspace

The circuit height at Redhill is 1000ft QFE. If the cloud base is 1500ft, does the new ruling mean that the circuit must be flown at 500ft QFE in order to comply with the 1000ft vertical clearance rule?

Will the airfield permit this? Will the local residents permit this?

Or will the airfield only permit circuits when the cloud base is 2000ft QFE, so that the normal circuit height gives 1000ft vertical clearance? This would seriously reduce the number of VFR flights taking place!

[albatross]

Just put the all the aircraft in the hangar, call the fire services to standby and then weld the doors shut. Perfect safety will be achieved.

[puntosaurus]

The circuit height at Redhill is 1000ft QFE. If the cloud base is 1500ft, does the new ruling mean that the circuit must be flown at 500ft QFE in order to comply with the 1000ft vertical clearance rule?

Will the airfield permit this? Will the local residents permit this?

Or will the airfield only permit circuits when the cloud base is 2000ft QFE, so that the normal circuit height gives 1000ft vertical clearance? This would seriously reduce the number of VFR flights taking place!
I'm pretty sure it's the latter !

Actually I think I've been a little unfair titling this thread Eurolunacy. The UK CAA was so absorbed with the PART-OPS changes that it entirely missed the SERA thing. They rushed out a bunch of exemptions and permissions to deal with the worst problems, and published a dogs breakfast of a document that consolidated it into one.

I'm not sure whether what is happening now is Cologne pressuring the CAA to get rid of some of the exemptions, or bureaucratic incompetence in not renewing them. One thing is clear though and that is that Redhill have been blindsided by these latest changes.

It's obvious that the solution to this is to have Redhill issue SVFR clearances. Let's hope that the meeting on 10 May is productive and common sense prevails.

[SASless]

Let's hope that the meeting on 10 May is productive and common sense prevails.



EASA, CAA, Common Sense.....mutually exclusive concepts I would suggest.

[John R81]

Not just circuits; there is a noise abatement request to fly 1400ft as you leave the airfield to the VRP. To keep the we need cloud higher than 2400ft; not that many days autumn / winter /spring when we get that, and fewer of those are weekends when most training and pleasure flights take place.

Flying lower to / from the airfield make a rise in noise complaints look certain. That does not bode well for survival of the airfield.

[jivusajob]

Does ORS4 1195 not apply?

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1067.pdf

[puntosaurus]

jivusajob. You couldn't have better illustrated the confusion which currently exists around rules of the air in the UK since the introduction of SERA.

You quote 1195 which is the correct one for class D airspace. You then posted 1067 which covers class G airspace. Some of Redhill ATZ is in class D and some in Class G. Both 1195 and 1067 are listed as current on the CAA website, but I can only assume that the aerodrome has received different instructions from the CAA hence their memo that started this thread.

If a CAA flight ops inspector found your Operations Manual (SERA) amended by an unreadable collection of FSIs (ORS memos), they would quite rightly give you a good bollocking on safety grounds. When it comes to the basic law which governs our job however, sauce for the goose is definitely not sauce for the gander.

Seemples .... NOT !

[pax britanica]

I think all smaller airfields with or without helis in the South East are under threat , not from left wing lunacy but right wing avarice . As someone said houses are more valubale use for the land and what could be better for a new development than abig open space.

Redhill, Denham and Fairoaks are in areas with very very high property prices and Elstree and N Weald not far behind . I doubt they will all close but I wouldn't mind betting two out of five will be gone inside five years. Maybe even Blackbushe although thats a lot further from London

Assorted EASA etc regulations will just be manipulated/selectively interpreted to hasten the process to hasten the process

[Satcop]

A meeting took place this afternoon between the CAA Flight Operations Department and CAA Airspace Policy, they have confirmed that any Letter of Agreements in place before the SI remain in force.

In the case of Redhill we are back to operating clear of cloud, surface in sight with minimum meteorological visibility of 5000m for fixed-wing aircraft and 1500m for helicopters.

I have to say that Flight Ops have been much more proactive in this than AATSSD.

[puntosaurus]

Hurrah ! A victory for commonsense.

[SASless]

Any Expiration Date on those Letters of Agreement?

[John R81]

So our adventure is still on for Tuesday Big P? Have to take DLUX as mine is Tech (due to wrong part delivered from Airbus Helicopters)

John

[puntosaurus]

Straying dangerously close to an outing there John.

But now that we are allowed to fly in the presence of wisps of cloud below 2000ft it will be my pleasure.

[John R81]

Straying dangerously close to an outing there John.

But now that we are allowed to fly in the presence of wisps of cloud below 2000ft it will be my pleasure.

My apologies!

[Hughes500]

John

Did you fly and did you pass ?
:)