'What are your intentions'
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, summing up....
Assuming a Class D CTR.
If vis < 5000m and/or ceiling < 1,500 ft, ATC must ask the intentions of a pilot wishing to enter the CTR to land, or wishing to depart the CTR.
If vis < 5000m, VFR is not available to an arriving or departing aircraft (though it is to an overflight subject to his compliance with VFR).
If ceiling < 1,500 ft VFR is available subject to the aircraft being able to comply with VFR, and one would assume one wouldn't give a VFR clearance is the ceiling is so low as to preclude SVFR!
Clear as mud.
Assuming a Class D CTR.
If vis < 5000m and/or ceiling < 1,500 ft, ATC must ask the intentions of a pilot wishing to enter the CTR to land, or wishing to depart the CTR.
If vis < 5000m, VFR is not available to an arriving or departing aircraft (though it is to an overflight subject to his compliance with VFR).
If ceiling < 1,500 ft VFR is available subject to the aircraft being able to comply with VFR, and one would assume one wouldn't give a VFR clearance is the ceiling is so low as to preclude SVFR!
Clear as mud.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli, I think I'm still finding out what the odd things are, and still scared of upsetting ATC by getting things wrong! The club is there on sufferance, after all. Still, there are plus points (like being cleared to land, 'one on', today, which saved a go-around)...
Tim
Tim
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In the world
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TATC
I know that for airfields in class D then the met vis at the aerodrome is taken to be the flight visibility for inbound/outbound aircraft and would therefor preclude VFR flight. I am not sure if the same rules apply to airfields in Class G, but I guess rationally they would and for safety sake they should.
Last edited by Dizzee Rascal; 28th Apr 2006 at 08:29.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lock n' Load
So, summing up....
Assuming a Class D CTR.
If vis < 5000m and/or ceiling < 1,500 ft, ATC must ask the intentions of a pilot wishing to enter the CTR to land, or wishing to depart the CTR.
If vis < 5000m, VFR is not available to an arriving or departing aircraft (though it is to an overflight subject to his compliance with VFR).
If ceiling < 1,500 ft VFR is available subject to the aircraft being able to comply with VFR, and one would assume one wouldn't give a VFR clearance is the ceiling is so low as to preclude SVFR!
Clear as mud.
Assuming a Class D CTR.
If vis < 5000m and/or ceiling < 1,500 ft, ATC must ask the intentions of a pilot wishing to enter the CTR to land, or wishing to depart the CTR.
If vis < 5000m, VFR is not available to an arriving or departing aircraft (though it is to an overflight subject to his compliance with VFR).
If ceiling < 1,500 ft VFR is available subject to the aircraft being able to comply with VFR, and one would assume one wouldn't give a VFR clearance is the ceiling is so low as to preclude SVFR!
Clear as mud.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If ceiling < 1,500 ft VFR is available subject to the aircraft being able to comply with VFR, and one would assume one wouldn't give a VFR clearance is the ceiling is so low as to preclude SVFR!
Clear as mud"
Although if working on a day with low cloud but good vis beneath, as does happen sometimes, and the wx is say 7km bkn005 does that mean although the wx is too poor to allow a SVFR flight (ie cloud ceiling is less than 600ft) does that mean somebody could "grope his way" out of the zone VFR using the "clear of cloud and in sight of the surface" argument.
Unlikely, as he would probably be breaking the 500ft rule of the low flying regs by sneaking out underneath the cloud. But could you stop him if he insisted on going apart from using the dreaded refusing take off phraseology listed in E(attach) pg7 of MP1 to cover your a
e.
But if he still insisted on going would you clear him for take off? or use "GABCD there are no traffic reasons to affect your departure"
Lots of questions, but not many definite answers
Clear as mud"
Although if working on a day with low cloud but good vis beneath, as does happen sometimes, and the wx is say 7km bkn005 does that mean although the wx is too poor to allow a SVFR flight (ie cloud ceiling is less than 600ft) does that mean somebody could "grope his way" out of the zone VFR using the "clear of cloud and in sight of the surface" argument.
Unlikely, as he would probably be breaking the 500ft rule of the low flying regs by sneaking out underneath the cloud. But could you stop him if he insisted on going apart from using the dreaded refusing take off phraseology listed in E(attach) pg7 of MP1 to cover your a
e.But if he still insisted on going would you clear him for take off? or use "GABCD there are no traffic reasons to affect your departure"
Lots of questions, but not many definite answers
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duty of care, surely?
As an ATCO who has worked at a couple of GA aerodromes in class G airspace, I have myself, very occasionally, asked a customer "Gxx, the reported met visabilty is xxxm, which is below the minima for vfr flight, report your intentions". This is not to intimidate a pilot, or "police" the situation, it is to remind the (sometimes) inexperienced or (occasionally) overconfident aircrew of both the current weather and the vfr limitations. Just part of the duty of care and the purpose of the service; hopefully safe, orderly and expeditous! In this litigous world of ours, should anything happen to an unfortunate or unwary customer who got themselves into situation beyond their capabilties and I had not done everything I could to help protect their safety, then I would both feel and probably be held partly resonsible.
