compliance with IFR

[formationfoto]

Recently I was making a trip from a small east of England airfield to an international airfield in the UK. The journey involved passing through the Class D airspace of another airfield before entering the Class D airspace of the destination airfield. Vis was about 3k and cloud broken at 2,000 ft.

The journey was completed within the capabilities of Pilot and aircraft and within the ratings held.

Contact was made with the transit airspace who co-ordinated our entry into the destination airspace where we were given a radar sevice and vectors to the ILS.

Now to my point. Not once did we request an IFR arrival (although we would have asked for one had it not been offered). It was, however, assumed that were capable of accepting IFR.

Perhaps it was because the weather was reasonably poor and below the minima for VFR. Perhaps because we were flying a high performance single. Maybe because we seemed to know what we were doing?. Whatever the reason the assumption was that we wanted an IFR arrival and approach.

Now picture a recent PPL achiever making a first journey into an international airport. Routing to an NDB then expecting to arrive via VRPs and visual circuit. Attempting to comply with the instructions of air traffic woulc have been dangerous and would have led to flying outside the capabilities of the pilot.

So a safety question?
Is this typical given that responsibility for accepting a particular approach rests with the pilot (so I am not criticising the air traffic service here)?

It did strike me to be a potentially dangerous situation. In the past I have generally been asked whether I am IFR or VFR if I have not already stated it. In this case the subject did not get raised.

I suspect it should have been by the agency for the airspace we initially transited. The destination agency then accepted a co-ordinated handover and wouldn't have known any different.

[Chilli Monster]

Were you asked whether you were VFR or IFR when you requested the initial zone transit? Did you transmit what you were when you made initial contact with them? Either way if the transmission included that snippet of information then that would have been passed on.

Having said that it is up to you to say if you cannot accept a particular type of approach - so your newly qualified in your example scenario has got to open his mouth should he be given something he cannot accept. However, it's a two way street, and to be quite honest the first ATC unit shouldn't have assumed anything - they should have asked, especially as this would have decided the manner of your initial zone crossing.

As we always say:

never 'assume' - it makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'

[wet wet wet]

Interesting point but if, as you say, the viz was below VFR requirements then, by definition, you had to be flying under IFR!

[Aussie Andy]

G'day ff - how's the photo collection coming along!?

Funnily enough, when I was mid-Channel on Saturday heading home and I called London Info 124.6 I gave him all my details (I thought) but had neglected to say whether I was IFR of VFR - so he asked me. I guess there's scope on both sides of the equation for either party to neglect stating this, and for assumptions to be made therefore.

Having said that, being non-IMC rated, when I am given vectors within Class D I generally do as I am told as for all I know I may just be being vectored clear of other traffic - but if it was clearly stated that these were "vectors to intercept the ILS" then I'd pipe up and say "sorry no can do!"

Best to all,


Andy

[ajsh]

Quite agree, arguments on both sides. There have been a number of times during the past five years when I have been asked whether I can accept an IFR clearance and have always said no given my rating limitations.

I must admit however, to having learnt something from this thread. I cannot recall – with any degree of accuracy - the last time I stated VFR in my initial contact or flight information request with a new station. Like anything else, I suppose, complacency creeps in….

[rustle]

FF

Sounds like Solent/Bournemouth ;)

Has happened to me before now, but Solent usually query (if you don't state) what type of clearance you want on initial contact.

Don't see it as any more dangerous than being asked to report at VRPs you cannot find :eek:

If you cannot accept RV for an ILS approach it would be sensible to say so - especially in the scenario you describe where the weather is not CAVOK and you've never let it be known you're VFR...

[Flyin'Dutch']

The responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight lies squarly with the commander of the aircraft. After all they (ATC) are not going to stop and search you or ask for your licence number before issueing you with a clearance.

Less scrupulous aviators have been know to abuse this; no doubt their insurers will catch up with them on that bad day!

So if you with a vanilla PPL accept vectors in class D and get vectored into some juicy clouds you are to blame nobody else.

So in doubt make clear what you can and cant do.

FD

[Doghouse]

If the vis was 3km and you were either above 3,000ft or going faster than 140kts, then you were below VMC minima in class D airspace and therefore flying IFR. Given that the commander knows (or should know) he's IFR, then it seems ATC were quite reasonable to give you an IFR arrival. A VFR pilot in IMC (which are the conditions you describe) should declare this (and possibly an emergency with it).

Of course, if you were below 3,000ft and less than 140kts then you could have been in Class D VFR or IFR, so ATC would need to ask.

What were you speed and altitude at the time?

As well as making it clear whether you are flying IFR or VFR, it also demonstrates the importance of knowing the VMC minima!

[Aussie Andy]

Slowdown Doghouse... our friend ff said:The journey was completed within the capabilities of Pilot and aircraft and within the ratings held.and I happen to know he has an IMC rating, so don't go off on one!

And anyhow, how would a controller necessarily know the met conditions in flight anyway? I don't believe the radar set has yet been invented which can tell what the visibility and cloud-base are in a particluar spot in the sky... just because the visibility is 3km or less where the controller is (and if a radar controller, then he isn't looking out of the window anyway!), it does not necessarily mean that the conditions are thus where the aircraft is - which is why this is not meant to be guessed by teh controller: they have no way of knowing!

However, I do understand the point that the controller may well assume that a tacit response means "IFR" if, say, all the other traffic he has been working recently has been IFR and/or reported IMC condiitions.

But its not a drama really, is it - its just a question of setting each other straight about which set of rules we're working to (IFR or VFR) and not accepting any clearances we are unable to. As has been said above, if non-IMC rated and due to whatever misunderstanding the controller vectors you onto an ILS, or through cloud, or over an urban area above which you cannot comply with the "glide clear in event of an engine failure" rule, or anything else that you cannot legally do within the priveleges of your license, the you must say "unable" and give reason.

Happy flying folks :)

Andy

[bookworm]

As well as making it clear whether you are flying IFR or VFR, it also demonstrates the importance of knowing the VMC minima!

That's true, and though I agree with the principle of your post, I think you're getting your figures mixed up. The minimum vis for VFR in class D is always 5 km. The standard cloud clearance of 1000 ft vertically or 1500 m horizontally applies unless you're <= 140 KIAS and <= 3000 ft amsl in which case the requirement is only to be clear of cloud and in sight of the surface, but the visibility requirement is not reduced (for fixed wing). (Rule 25(2)(b) and (c))

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a controller to assume that an aircraft is IFR-capable when inbound to an ATIS-equipped field in controlled airspace where the vis is less than 5 km. Nevertheless, FF's original point is well made.

And anyhow, how would a controller necessarily know the met conditions in flight anyway? I don't believe the radar set has yet been invented which can tell what the visibility and cloud-base are in a particluar spot in the sky... just because the visibility is 3km or less where the controller is (and if a radar controller, then he isn't looking out of the window anyway!), it does not necessarily mean that the conditions are thus where the aircraft is - which is why this is not meant to be guessed by the controller: they have no way of knowing!


In general you are correct, but for the specific case of an arrival (or departure) in controlled airspace the requirement is to use the reported met vis at the airport. A VFR arrival is not legal if the airport is reporting less than 5000 m vis. It's not clear from FF's post if the 3 km was his estimate or from a METAR. (Rule 24(3))

[AlanM]

A good lesson for all of us who fly.

The controller obviously shouldn't have assumed but then on NO ACCOUNT accept anything you are not entitled to do or may endanger yourself. I now say " blah blah Providing you can maintain VMC" in lots of transmissions now

Don't forget those minima's!!!!

[Doghouse]

Sorry Aussie A. if my post came across clumsily - no aggression was meant. I don't think I implied the original poster operated outside the limits of his licence, but apologies if I did.

I guess my point was that PPL holders without the possibility to upgrade to IMC flight need to be very clear about VFR minima. If a pilot is intending to enter controlled airspace in a met vis below the VMC minima, then I believe they could easily be caught out by unexpectedly receiving an IFR clearance.

I don't know the regs on this, but I somehow don't feel it's odd for a pilot operating below VFR minima to be given an IFR clearance.

[formationfoto]

Thanks all

Was hoping to raise a genuine question as to whether this had happened to others. As I mentioned in the original post this was not a question about the legality of this flight which I am clear on, but a genuine concern about the possibility of others being put into a position of uncertainty. I have to assume that the less experienced pilot might not be aware of the need to advise the initial air traffic unit of the ability or otherwise to comply with IFR. Of course it is the responsibility of the pilot but that doesn't help if something goes wrong.

Can't quite recall but I may have omitted to make it clear to the first unit whether we were intending to complete the flight IFR or VFR so had I actually been intending to fly VFR I may have been in error but this still concerns me that the default assumption is IFR (and on first contact with the unit is was not in airspace / conditions which would require me to fly IFR).

AA thanks for asking about the pics. A slap on the wrist from BRL :-) prevents me from mentioning it much on this post but the library is building nicely. The pic on the front of the PILOT where to fly guide is one of ours. Feel free, by the way, to use the Dak pic in ads for the flying club if you want. Latest challenge is to get four Citabrias in the air together on a nice day - taking some organising but we will get there. Hope things are well with you and feel free to pay us a visit again some time.