Wikiposts
Search
ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

London Ctr

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 13th Jan 2005, 22:49
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: london
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
London Ctr

Can anyone tell me, if the flying-eye over London doesn’t fly IFR or SVFR, as someone told me the other day, how it is allowed to fly VFR in the London class A CTR?
If the answer is as simple as “it doesn’t, it only flies in the class D CTR and guesses as to the traffic in the west of London” then I hang my head in shame and slink off to re-read air law.
IDENTING is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2005, 10:54
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Capital Radio always operates in the London Control Zone under a SVFR clearance, and in the London City Control Zone under a VFR/SVFR clearance as appropriate, (SVFR in the City Zone when met. vis. is 5000m and less, and at night).
ATCO Two is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2005, 15:12
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,916
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
(SVFR in the City Zone when met. vis. is 5000m and less .......

Should that in fact read "when met. vis. is less than 5000m ........" ?
spekesoftly is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2005, 15:47
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: South of England
Posts: 1,172
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
...and shouldn't that read "flight visibility..."?
2 sheds is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2005, 16:36
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK pedants.

It is the pilot's resposibility to determine his flight conditions and whether he can accept a SVFR clearance, bearing in mind that he must remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. However, when the reported MET VISIBILITY at LCY falls below 5000m all aircraft operating within the LCY CTR should be informed and offered the choice of a VFR or SVFR clearance.
ATCO Two is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2005, 18:41
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: london
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just as i thought, but i didnt argue with the 'someone' coz (because, to the grammer police), he used to fly the flying eye...high in the sky. And thank you all for a very precise reply!
IDENTING is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2005, 19:55
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"he used to fly the flying eye." Really? So why did this "someone" always acknowledge his SVFR clearance in the London CTR of "not above 1500ft"? What sort of clearance did he think he was operating under? Did he read his non standard flight proforma? Good grief!
ATCO Two is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2005, 13:01
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: A pretty sh*tty city
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
pedantic

Whilst that seems to be the underlying theme here, grammer is spelt grammar.

Surely this thread has run its course!!
Shermanator is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2005, 22:28
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: South of England
Posts: 1,172
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I was under the impression that, when it comes to the correct application of the rules applying to the provision of ATS and flight safety, we were actually in the business of pedantry! Otherwise, where is the finger going to be pointed when the rules are not applied correctly?

One could take further issue with the statement that "when the reported MET VISIBILITY at LCY falls below 5000m all aircraft operating within the LCY CTR should be informed and offered the choice of a VFR or SVFR clearance", which is inaccurate and very misleading, but that is probably beyond the scope of this thread.
2 sheds is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2005, 22:45
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK 2 Sheds, you had better rewrite our MATS Part 2 in that case.
ATCO Two is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2005, 14:20
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
which is inaccurate and very misleading, but that is probably beyond the scope of this thread
So what is the correct criteria then?
AlanM is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2005, 16:45
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For the sake of expediency, I replied to IDENTING before checking the Thames MATS Part 2, and made a mistake with the weather criteria applicable to SVFR in the LCY CTR. Fair cop. However, if the mistake had been perpetuated into the operational arena, the situation would have in fact been slightly SAFER as far as the application of the rules is concerned.
I await further education about our unsafe practices by the great 2 Sheds who probably once spoke to a real aeroplane....
ATCO Two is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2005, 19:24
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Coast
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2 sheds,
Thats what I was thinking..
I thought that if the met visibility was less than 5000m, then VFR flight is no longer permitted?? Well it aint at Seaton anyway.

But then I'm just a humble ATSA.....
Fletchers Left Boot is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2005, 19:30
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I thought that if the met visibility was less than 5000m, then VFR flight is no longer permitted?? Well it aint at Seaton anyway.
No. VFR arrivals and departures are no longer permitted. VFR transits make their own determination of conditions based on flight vis.

But there seems to be nothing wrong with using the met vis falling below 5000 m as a trigger to offer a choice to VFR transits to switch to SVFR if they require it.
bookworm is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2005, 19:41
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Coast
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks Bookworm.. I stand corrected. Serves me right for not reading the thread properly []
Fletchers Left Boot is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.