ATC separate VFR traffic!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SURREY
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the reported met. vis. at the airfield concerned shall be taken to be the flight vis" - MATS Part 11, Ch 2, para 4, VFR.
ATC decide if the zone is VFR or IFR dependent on met report. You decide if you want IFR or special VFR clearance. IFR flights have priority.
PS. Stand corrected. Precise ref: MATS Part 1, Sect 1, Ch 2, FLIGHT RULES, Para 4, Note 3.
ATC decide if the zone is VFR or IFR dependent on met report. You decide if you want IFR or special VFR clearance. IFR flights have priority.
PS. Stand corrected. Precise ref: MATS Part 1, Sect 1, Ch 2, FLIGHT RULES, Para 4, Note 3.
Last edited by AC2; 2nd Jun 2004 at 15:54.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon
Indeed it is one of those criteria that is being "bent", though not the one you have identified. You might be surprised by which one it is!
I do not think that a prosecution would be tenable in the circumstances I am talking about.
The problem is that a description, or a hint, would identify the zone and the manner of the bending.
I am happy to discuss by PM, but all sorts of people wander around these parts and I don't want any repercussions.
Indeed it is one of those criteria that is being "bent", though not the one you have identified. You might be surprised by which one it is!
I do not think that a prosecution would be tenable in the circumstances I am talking about.
The problem is that a description, or a hint, would identify the zone and the manner of the bending.
I am happy to discuss by PM, but all sorts of people wander around these parts and I don't want any repercussions.
"the reported met. vis. at the airfield concerned shall be taken to be the flight vis" - MATS Part 11, Ch 2, para 4, VFR.
ATC decide if the zone is VFR or IFR dependent on met report. You decide if you want IFR or special VFR clearance.
ATC decide if the zone is VFR or IFR dependent on met report. You decide if you want IFR or special VFR clearance.
Regardless of location, for VFR flights arriving or departing, the reported met vis must be taken to be the flight vis, but that does not apply to transiting VFR flights, which determine their own flight vis.
Airfields appear to have individual SFVR weather minima for arrivals and departures, but I can't see one that has minima for transit either.
Some airfields (e.g. Luton) even have that rather stark reminder: under no circumstances is the CTR to be declared "IMC" or "IFR".
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SURREY
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Bookworm
Correct ref: MATS Part 1, Sect 1, Ch 2, FLIGHT RULES, Para 4, Note 3.
It's the rule, the law, if you like, that flight vis in the zone is determined by ATC using A/D Met report AT THE AIRPORT. Applies to all the zone irrespective. So even if you claim to be VMC you can't have VFR if MET is against you.
Check the UK Air PIlot also. Same rules. All Zones. All ATCOs.
Pa!
Correct ref: MATS Part 1, Sect 1, Ch 2, FLIGHT RULES, Para 4, Note 3.
It's the rule, the law, if you like, that flight vis in the zone is determined by ATC using A/D Met report AT THE AIRPORT. Applies to all the zone irrespective. So even if you claim to be VMC you can't have VFR if MET is against you.
Check the UK Air PIlot also. Same rules. All Zones. All ATCOs.
Pa!
And Note 3 says:
"For fixed wing flights taking off or landing at aerodromes within Class B, C or D airspace the reported meteorological visibility at the airfield concerned shall be taken to be the flight visibility."
It doesn't apply to transits!
"For fixed wing flights taking off or landing at aerodromes within Class B, C or D airspace the reported meteorological visibility at the airfield concerned shall be taken to be the flight visibility."
It doesn't apply to transits!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it does apply to transits. Which I believe is stated in the ANO. As ATC cannot decide what flight conditions are present at the outer limits of the zone and SVFR flight may be possible and still complying with the SVFR criteria. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I will check the ANO.
ILS 119.5
This is getting greyer!
ILS 119.5
This is getting greyer!
I think it does apply to transits. Which I believe is stated in the ANO. As ATC cannot decide what flight conditions are present at the outer limits of the zone and SVFR flight may be possible and still complying with the SVFR criteria. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I will check the ANO.
(3) For the purposes of an aeroplane taking off from or approaching to land at an aerodrome within Class B, C or D airspace, the visibility, if any, communicated to the commander of an aeroplane by the appropriate air traffic control unit shall be taken to be the flight visibility for the time being.
Note the limitation to take-off and landing.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timothy, you don't say exactly why you would have needed a SVFR clearance in the first place. The implication being that you were up to do some IFR training (forgive me if that's not the case), why not just take an IFR clearance? The AIP clearly states that SVFR is for pilots "unable to accept an IFR clearance" (or for Perf A aircraft in "exceptional circumstances").
Also, the AIP (ENR 1-2-1-2) only applies the general 1800m/600' rule to aircraft DEPARTING from aerodromes in CTRs and nobody else (notwithstanding any notified local restriction).
Also, the AIP (ENR 1-2-1-2) only applies the general 1800m/600' rule to aircraft DEPARTING from aerodromes in CTRs and nobody else (notwithstanding any notified local restriction).
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, still wrong 
I will tell anyone who asks by PM (and satisfies me that they are not a CAA/NATS bod looking for loophole to stick a liquorice allsort into) exactly what I am talking about.
I will tell anyone who asks by PM (and satisfies me that they are not a CAA/NATS bod looking for loophole to stick a liquorice allsort into) exactly what I am talking about.
