New visibility rules AIC March 2007 - your interpretation?

[Julian Hensey]

Ok you clever ATC type people. If you are flying a hot air balloon from a local field that is in an ATC zone would this rule apply to you? It was published in March this year yet says "from an aerodrome within an ATZ". So I assume a field doesn't count?

J

AIC 26/2007
(Yellow 237)
29 March
Operational

1 It is apparent that some confusion continues to exist as to the application of Flight Rules with respect to differing meteorological conditions and ATC Clearances. It is apparent that some confusion continues to exist as to the application of Flight Rules with respect to differing meteorological conditions and ATC Clearances.

2 It is emphasised that the responsibility for determination of flight visibility rests with the pilot except that Rule 24(3) now requires that a pilot intending to take-off from or land at an aerodrome in Controlled Airspace shall take the visibility passed by ATC to be the flight visibility.It is emphasised that the responsibility for determination of flight visibility rests with the pilot except that Rule 24(3) now requires that a pilot intending to take-off from or land at an aerodrome in Controlled Airspace shall take the visibility passed by ATC to be the flight visibility.

3 Any attendant privileges of pilots licences are again the responsibility of the pilot concerned.

4 It follows, therefore that it is the responsibility of the pilot to judge, subject to the conditions of his/her licence, whether he/she can accept an ATC clearance issued to him/her. The meteorological information passed by ATC is, subject to the caveat detailed in paragraph 2, for the guidance of the pilot in helping him/her to make that decision. Meteorological information provided to ATC may notbe used by ATC to ‘declare’ sections of the airspace under their jurisdiction as ‘IMC’.It follows, therefore that it is the responsibility of the pilot to judge, subject to the conditions of his/her licence, whether he/she can accept an ATC clearance issued to him/her. The meteorological information passed by ATC is, subject to the caveat detailed in paragraph 2, for the guidance of the pilot in helping him/her to make that decision. Meteorological information provided to ATC may notbe used by ATC to ‘declare’ sections of the airspace under their jurisdiction as ‘IMC’.

[TheFox]

Aerodrome - Any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or
commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure
of aircraft.

From the CAP493, MATS part 1, glossary.

Though also from the MATS part1,

NOTE 3 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.

I am assuming this is said because helicopter met vis for being in vmc is the commensurate with the forward velocity, and no one thought of balloons.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/20070734.htm#sch1d25
Apears to be the latest Rules of the Air, and it seems to be rule 26 that applies.

[2 sheds]

Julian

The Rule applies to aircraft taking-off from or landing at an aerodrome within controlled airspace , not as you refer to, within an "ATC zone" (what's that?) or just an ATZ.

If you intend ballooning from a field within a controlled airspace where this is permitted, why not contact the ATC manager at the controlling aerodrome - or if you want a ruling on whether your field is included in the legal definition, write to the CAA and put them on the spot! You could argue the case, if you so wished, that your field is not "commonly used", but then what is the spirit and intention of the Rule anyway?

2 s

[RAC/OPS]

And why do paras 2 and 4 repeat themselves?

[Julian Hensey]

Thanks to all, I did mean "controlled airspace" - ATC zone duh

We have pendantic balloonists around who notice these AIC's and popped the question. I suppose a field that is regularly i.e. every summer evening that is weather flyable could constitute an aerodrome in that definition...

[2 sheds]

But, then, is operating only in a visibility of at least 5 km such a hardship? After all, you would like other traffic to be able to see and avoid you, n'est-ce pas?

2 s

[Julian Hensey]

Issues with local areas

No, but the issues discussed were that, for example, Bristol airport is some 600ft amsl. Our launch site for balloons is much lower. Often Bristol ATC report lower vis than is actually accurate for the city area. Therefore if we have to fly according to their vis criteria some flights may be affected.

[2 sheds]

Any reason why you could not negotiate to fly on a Special VFR clearance to leave the Bristol CTR? For example, in SW'ly wind conditions, you could guarantee to remain within a sector that could, given the will, be deemed separated from runway 27 approach.

Go and talk to the ATC manager, be willing to be flexible, and have a few facts available - e.g. how many times in the last year have you been unable to launch under VFR because of the current Bristol reported visibility? (Invite him for a flight, to see the operation from your viewpoint).*




*me too

[Spitoon]

This is not the most helpful of AICs and clearly, in the case under discussion, it is misleading. OK, I'm being kind - it seems to me that the AIC is wrong.
If you look at the actual legislation referred to in the AIC it says:

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.

Will a legal beagle please correct me if I'm wrong but a balloon is not an aeroplane (nor is a helicopter). My understanding is that rule 24 (3) does not apply to any aircraft, just aeroplanes - something that the AIC glosses over.
One is tempted to wonder whether whoever in the CAA wrote the AIC understands the legislation that they are supposed to enforce. Or have I got this completely wrong??????

[vintage ATCO]

This AIC is a re-issue of 13/2007 which contained a number of errors, allegedly! Unfortunately they haven't got it right with this one - check out para 7

'7 In Controlled Airspace (which in the UK currently exists) separation between all aircraft, whether IFR or VFR, is the responsibility of ATC.'

I e-mailed DAP about it a couple of weeks ago. It will be sorted I am told. I also asked when controlled airspace wouldn't currently exist in the UK . . . .

A balloon is an aircraft as is a helicopter.

[Spitoon]

Third time lucky then . Or let's hope so!

And as Vintage says, balloons and helis are aircraft but not aeroplanes. The classification of aircraft, in legal terms, is given in Schedule 2 to the ANO.

[2 sheds]

Spitoon, Vintage...

Quelle shambles! You are quite right, of course. I read the original post and even looked up the AIC - from the wording, I inferred that this was indicating an imminent change to Rule 24 to encompass all aircraft, not just aeroplanes ("Rule 24 now requires..."). However, looking at the current ANO, this is not so at all and the AIC is misleading.

There seems to be a history of various people at CAA trying to "explain" legislation in AICs etc and getting it wrong (usually prefixing it with "some confusion exists..." - yeah, right!). Like the patronising SI in MATS 1 some years ago explaining ATSOCA to us poor mutts who didn't understand it. Also, I seem to recall an AIC explaining the provision of radar service(s) in different classes of airspace, which was inaccurate and confusing in some respects. Having, in the UK, used the term "spacing" to refer to time/distance applied for vortex wake, they now seem to be mixing and matching and using the ICAO term "separation", thus blurring the distinction between vortex spacing and separation per se. A recent ATSIN indicates a (long overdue) change to ATC altimetry procedures and states that "When requested by the pilot, or local procedures require, the appropriate QFE and aerodrome or threshold elevation shall also be given.’ I have queried with them why ATC should provide "QFE and ...elevation" - recipe for confusion, I would have thought. As for the errors and inconsistencies in CAP413zzzz... Glad you stirred it, Vintage, re the "separation between all aircraft" bit - unbelievable.

[Julian Hensey]

Any reason why you could not negotiate to fly on a Special VFR clearance to leave the Bristol CTR? For example, in SW'ly wind conditions, you could guarantee to remain within a sector that could, given the will, be deemed separated from runway 27 approach.

Go and talk to the ATC manager, be willing to be flexible, and have a few facts available - e.g. how many times in the last year have you been unable to launch under VFR because of the current Bristol reported visibility? (Invite him for a flight, to see the operation from your viewpoint).

We have special written agreements with Bristol over flying in their zone. I was just interested in the AIC and the interpretation of it, and it seems that there is much debate over it and the purpose of what it is trying to achieve!

[loubylou]

I might be being thick (always a possibility!) - but is this not just to clarify the rules for VFR/SVFR?
ie - a/c intending to land or take off from an aerodrome have to use the repeorted met vis - but if you are not landing or taking off from the aerodrome ie from a random field, then the pilot decides whether the vis is acceptable and the reported met vis is to aid that decision

So - if the vis is 4000m at the aerodome then SVFR for anything taking off or landing, but any a/c transiting the zone could say that they were VFR as the vis was 5K, or indeed taking off or landing at a field.
Or - not!
But that was how I read it

louby