Late "visual" in Luton crossing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Late "visual" in Luton crossing
On Sunday I was flying north to south across Luton zone on a VFR clearance.
I had been asked to report visual with the airfield, which I confirmed that I would do. At about 5 miles the controller came on and asked if I was visual, which I wasn't. I was told that I needed to be visual quickly in order to continue. Shortly after that (at about 4 miles) I confirmed I was visual and made the crossing without incident. I was told, politely and helpfully (no complaints from me then or now) that I needed to become visual earlier in future.
According to my GPS I was dead on track for the threshold of the westerly runway. I'd been cleared not above 2,000' and 2,000' isn't that high to spot the runway when approaching it at 90deg. There was a little haze too (definitely VFR, but some). Because of the GPS and the range I knew that the buildings I could see were those of the airfield, but from a purely visual point of view I couldn't confirm it - I wanted to see a runway, or a big plane with an orange tail. With no traffic on the runway it is quite hard to see from low level when perpendicular to it.
So, what would you suggest I do next time? Just say "Am visual" on the basis of the GPS and the sight of some white buildings that could have been something else were it not for the GPS? Say "Negative visual but I know I'm pointing straight at it?".
I know that some people will probably just think I am blind or stupid (and maybe I am), but none of the four people onboard could see it. Two of them were experienced passengers and the other a PPL/IR pilot.
I had been asked to report visual with the airfield, which I confirmed that I would do. At about 5 miles the controller came on and asked if I was visual, which I wasn't. I was told that I needed to be visual quickly in order to continue. Shortly after that (at about 4 miles) I confirmed I was visual and made the crossing without incident. I was told, politely and helpfully (no complaints from me then or now) that I needed to become visual earlier in future.
According to my GPS I was dead on track for the threshold of the westerly runway. I'd been cleared not above 2,000' and 2,000' isn't that high to spot the runway when approaching it at 90deg. There was a little haze too (definitely VFR, but some). Because of the GPS and the range I knew that the buildings I could see were those of the airfield, but from a purely visual point of view I couldn't confirm it - I wanted to see a runway, or a big plane with an orange tail. With no traffic on the runway it is quite hard to see from low level when perpendicular to it.
So, what would you suggest I do next time? Just say "Am visual" on the basis of the GPS and the sight of some white buildings that could have been something else were it not for the GPS? Say "Negative visual but I know I'm pointing straight at it?".
I know that some people will probably just think I am blind or stupid (and maybe I am), but none of the four people onboard could see it. Two of them were experienced passengers and the other a PPL/IR pilot.
Title? What title?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, I am not sure about this one. I use Luton for most of my flying and agree that from the VRP's, it is often impossible to see the runway but possible to see the tower/car park etc. As such, I have sometimes called visual from 10 miles out, because I can see enough to be certain that this is EGGW and that I know where the runway is based on the buldings. It also means that based on listening out for other traffic, I can build a mental picture of the environment earlier.
What does the 'visual' actually mean - visual with the field or visual with the runway. If its the latter, I am guilty of bad practice and I bet thousands of others are too.
What does the 'visual' actually mean - visual with the field or visual with the runway. If its the latter, I am guilty of bad practice and I bet thousands of others are too.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd not flown over Luton for more than a year, so I didn't recognize the buildings. I wasn't insisting on seeing the runway as I have always taken "visual" to mean being able to recognzie the airfield environment, though as you ask, there may be a strict definition.
And of course, once you SEE the tower you wonder how you ever couldn't see it, but until then the buildings could have just been a factory or something.
And of course, once you SEE the tower you wonder how you ever couldn't see it, but until then the buildings could have just been a factory or something.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt you're stupid, if you were you'd be in management 
OK,you didn't see the airport, if you're not familer with the area, it's no great suprise, but never rely on the GPS to get you out of a white lie, if you are confident that you know where you are, say so. ie. "Gxxxx, I don't have the field yet, but I know where I am, over or abeam, or xx miles nrth/east/south or west of xxxx".
On a VFR or SVFR clearance, you are allowed certain parameters which means we cannot assume you maintaining a particular level or route unless we ask you to, so the ATCOs request for you to report the field in sight was perfectly reasonable, as he or she would then require you cross the airfield to permit departures and arrivals to continue unhindered by your transit.
I must admit that Luton are very good at this and one of the few units within controlled airspace that do their best to accomodate transits through the overhead, which IMHO is the safest way of dealing with VFR traffic as at least you know exactly where they are/or are going to be.
OK,you didn't see the airport, if you're not familer with the area, it's no great suprise, but never rely on the GPS to get you out of a white lie, if you are confident that you know where you are, say so. ie. "Gxxxx, I don't have the field yet, but I know where I am, over or abeam, or xx miles nrth/east/south or west of xxxx".
On a VFR or SVFR clearance, you are allowed certain parameters which means we cannot assume you maintaining a particular level or route unless we ask you to, so the ATCOs request for you to report the field in sight was perfectly reasonable, as he or she would then require you cross the airfield to permit departures and arrivals to continue unhindered by your transit.
I must admit that Luton are very good at this and one of the few units within controlled airspace that do their best to accomodate transits through the overhead, which IMHO is the safest way of dealing with VFR traffic as at least you know exactly where they are/or are going to be.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe Luton should adopt similar procedures to Heathrow where transit fixed-wing a/c are routed a minimum of 6 miles west or 8 miles east of the airfield and thereby separated from Heathrow traffic?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope I made it clear I wasn't complaining in the slightest about Luton's procedures. I was grateful for the service and I thanked the controller for it at the time.
But this sarcastic response makes me think that there is perhaps no obvious solution to the problem I faced.
Edited to say:
I thought this sounded sarcastic at the time, but upon further consideration and discussion, it is clear that it is not
Maybe Luton should adopt similar procedures to Heathrow
Edited to say:
I thought this sounded sarcastic at the time, but upon further consideration and discussion, it is clear that it is not
Title? What title?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, is there an official definition of 'Visual with the field' or is the definition based upon the circumstance ? i.e. for me, entering via the Pirton VRP intending to land, identifying the tower and buildings is sufficent to allow me to accurately position onto say right base 26, whereas someone intending to overfly and therefore needing to be kept clear of landing IFR traffic, will need to be able to identify say the 26 threshold.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drauk ...forgive me if I am wrong but I saw NO sarcasm in HD's post...rather a practical solution.I work in a class d zone and the last thing I want (usually) is traffic ploughing through my overhead. A route which takes the VFR transit aircraft on its' way and doesn't interfere with either its' progress or the IFR traffics' progress has to be good .
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ew, okay. Maybe it wasn't sarcastic. I thought it was because it didn't answer my question which was what to do when you can't see something you've been asked to report visual with. If it bothers HD I'll remove it.
'just another atco'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LTC Swanwick
Age: 60
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think Heathrow Director was being sarcastic, just very aware of how difficult it can be to accommodate VFR transits in a busy IFR environment.
While I accept entirely that VFR clearances are necessarily imprecise by their nature, it is imperative with these overhead transits that the transiting aircraft has the airfield in sight and transits over the landing threshold. In the case of Luton, we tend not to cross VFR traffic in front of IFR inbound traffic at less than 6 miles from touchdown and always with copious amounts of traffic information (protecting the go-around profile of a B737 at TOGA power IS important even if we are NOT required to SEPARATE - see OTHER thread
) Crossing via the landing threshold VFR is often done without reference to the Tower and therefore it is imperative that the crossing is accomplished behind any departing traffic and is therefore not a factor to that traffic when it rolls.
The alternative if you are visual with the airfield at say 5 miles is to hold you until we are sure that getting closer without visual reference is not going to result in a confliction. Not a big deal but sufficient to up the workload to a point where not authorising the transit in 'marginal' vis may have been the best course of action, in the first place.
As mentioned above, it is generally accepted by most ATCOs and indeed mandated by our regulator that while we may not have to separate IFR and VFR traffic inside Class D airspace, we should not push VFR traffic through the go-around track of IFR traffic when close to the airfield. To this end, it is occasionally difficult and is becoming increasingly difficult to accommodate zone transits at Luton via the overhead at busy times. This goes some way to explaining why at Stansted and Gatwick it is often impossible.
While I accept entirely that VFR clearances are necessarily imprecise by their nature, it is imperative with these overhead transits that the transiting aircraft has the airfield in sight and transits over the landing threshold. In the case of Luton, we tend not to cross VFR traffic in front of IFR inbound traffic at less than 6 miles from touchdown and always with copious amounts of traffic information (protecting the go-around profile of a B737 at TOGA power IS important even if we are NOT required to SEPARATE - see OTHER thread
) Crossing via the landing threshold VFR is often done without reference to the Tower and therefore it is imperative that the crossing is accomplished behind any departing traffic and is therefore not a factor to that traffic when it rolls. The alternative if you are visual with the airfield at say 5 miles is to hold you until we are sure that getting closer without visual reference is not going to result in a confliction. Not a big deal but sufficient to up the workload to a point where not authorising the transit in 'marginal' vis may have been the best course of action, in the first place.
As mentioned above, it is generally accepted by most ATCOs and indeed mandated by our regulator that while we may not have to separate IFR and VFR traffic inside Class D airspace, we should not push VFR traffic through the go-around track of IFR traffic when close to the airfield. To this end, it is occasionally difficult and is becoming increasingly difficult to accommodate zone transits at Luton via the overhead at busy times. This goes some way to explaining why at Stansted and Gatwick it is often impossible.
Last edited by TC_LTN; 25th May 2004 at 21:30.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC_LTN, thanks for the insight. There was nobody on final as far as I could hear and that included during the time I stayed on air until clear of the zone to the south (not long admittedly), though I could be wrong.
I'd still like to know whether I was supposed to say I was visual based on the information that I had. If I had the controller would have been completely happy and my passage wouldn't have altered in any way.
I'd still like to know whether I was supposed to say I was visual based on the information that I had. If I had the controller would have been completely happy and my passage wouldn't have altered in any way.
'just another atco'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LTC Swanwick
Age: 60
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always possible that inbound traffic on final was working the second, Final Director frequency?
Anyway, from an ATCO's point of view I will normally ask you to report visual with the airfield and when you do then instruct you to fly over the landing threshold before resuming your own navigation. If, at the time you report visual, you only have the odd large hangar in sight then so be it, just as long as you track towards the airfield, acquire visual reference with the landing threshold and fly over it.
It is interesting watching those blips that swear blind they have the airfield in sight and continue to track towards the LUT NDB which (unfortunately for them and me) is 4 miles east of the airfield!
Anyway, from an ATCO's point of view I will normally ask you to report visual with the airfield and when you do then instruct you to fly over the landing threshold before resuming your own navigation. If, at the time you report visual, you only have the odd large hangar in sight then so be it, just as long as you track towards the airfield, acquire visual reference with the landing threshold and fly over it.
It is interesting watching those blips that swear blind they have the airfield in sight and continue to track towards the LUT NDB which (unfortunately for them and me) is 4 miles east of the airfield!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always possible that inbound traffic on final was working the second, Final Director frequency?
Personally I would want you to call visual ONLY when you had the runway insight and in particular could see exactly which threshold you were ask to aim for (if that was the case).
To say to you, 'report visual earlier next time' got a lot of laughs at work today. If you aren't visual then you aren't visual, end of story. Don't lie!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi drauk. There was nothing remotely sarcastic in my posting and I think you started an interesting discussion. I made a sensible suggestion based on half a working-lifetime's experience on the Special VFR positon at Heathrow (119.9). Light a/c in the London zone are routed to the west and east, thereby passing safely under the Heathrow traffic and nobody has to worry whether they're going to be "visual" in tim to miss the Jumbos. Different procedures, usually based upon years of experience by both pilots and controllers, are employed at different airfields. I just like the one at Heathrow..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD, okay, thanks, I've edited my original "sarcastic" comment.
Your preference for the east or west procedure, rather than the overheard the threshold one is understandable; but it is less appealing to me as a private private flyer - it takes longer (though I realise we're talking a few minutes at most) and it isn't such fun. But presumably we have the same issues there in that you might say route via such-and-such VRP. I know I don't have to call that I'm visual with that point, but if I can't see it...
Perhaps the discussion should have been "how acceptable is using some navigation method other than a visual one to route via a VRP"?.
Your preference for the east or west procedure, rather than the overheard the threshold one is understandable; but it is less appealing to me as a private private flyer - it takes longer (though I realise we're talking a few minutes at most) and it isn't such fun. But presumably we have the same issues there in that you might say route via such-and-such VRP. I know I don't have to call that I'm visual with that point, but if I can't see it...
Perhaps the discussion should have been "how acceptable is using some navigation method other than a visual one to route via a VRP"?.
Just an observation or two. Heathrow Director quite rightly points out that different procedures for transits are used at different airfields, based on past experience and local conditions. The Heathrow CTZ, AFAIK, is the only UK (mainland) CTZ with Class A airspace, and therefore all 'VFR' transits require a 'SVFR' clearance. ATC are required to provide 'Standard Separation' between all SVFR and IFR flights - I do hope we can at least all agree on this point!! 
- and I suggest is another reason for LL ATC using their particular technique.
- and I suggest is another reason for LL ATC using their particular technique.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Speke,
But SVFR helicopters route over Heathrow using that excellent get out clause of "reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome".
drauk,
Re your question, I think the clue to the answer is in the V of VRP
WF.
But SVFR helicopters route over Heathrow using that excellent get out clause of "reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome".
drauk,
Re your question, I think the clue to the answer is in the V of VRP
WF.
Last edited by Warped Factor; 29th May 2004 at 14:57.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As WF says, Reduced sep'm in the vicinity is used daily by the tower peeps at LHR to excellent effect.
HD:
Changed to 125.62 now - due to the relay probs at our new home, and continued break through from the Low Cost Fave destination, Beauvais Approach. We are of course keeping this new freq as secret as we can so that even I may finish the crossword in a session.
Cheers
HD:
Special VFR positon at Heathrow (119.9).
Cheers
WF and AlanM,
Your points about the use of 'Reduced Separation in the vicinity of an Aerodrome' for crossers is fully accepted - fine until the weather precludes it use!
Out of interest, can you give me an official definition of 'Vicinity of an Aerodrome' - in terms of a specific distance from the Aerodrome?
Your points about the use of 'Reduced Separation in the vicinity of an Aerodrome' for crossers is fully accepted - fine until the weather precludes it use!
Out of interest, can you give me an official definition of 'Vicinity of an Aerodrome' - in terms of a specific distance from the Aerodrome?