Airfield in sight
Thread Starter
Airfield in sight
At many if not most UK airports, VFR arrivals are transferred from Approach to Tower when they report the airfield/airport in sight.
I can't find mention of this procedure in MATS Part 1. What's the rationale for this? What's the significance of "airfield in sight"?
I can't find mention of this procedure in MATS Part 1. What's the rationale for this? What's the significance of "airfield in sight"?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming you are taking about a VFR joiner, rather than an IFR looking to make a visual approach, these are my initial thoughts:
In the case of the former, it gives ATC the confidence that A) The pilot will get to the airfield (ie: is not unsure of position), and B) Be able to position as instructed in the joining instruction, and C) have half a chance of seeing the other traffic you are telling the joiner about.
It has always struck me as a procedure that can lead to problems. If the aircraft does not get the airfield in sight in good time, it runs the risk of blundering into the circuit inappropriately. If the visibility is not brilliant, or for unfamiliar pilots, I personally will try and use an intermediate report such as to 'report with x miles to run' or a prominent ground feature.
An approach controller would not want to put a VFR pilot (who was unsure of position) over to Tower, as the tower controller will often not be in the best position to give guidance to the pilot in order to find the airfield (or an IFR clearance if required). These would be Approach or Radar functions normally.
In the case of the former, it gives ATC the confidence that A) The pilot will get to the airfield (ie: is not unsure of position), and B) Be able to position as instructed in the joining instruction, and C) have half a chance of seeing the other traffic you are telling the joiner about.
It has always struck me as a procedure that can lead to problems. If the aircraft does not get the airfield in sight in good time, it runs the risk of blundering into the circuit inappropriately. If the visibility is not brilliant, or for unfamiliar pilots, I personally will try and use an intermediate report such as to 'report with x miles to run' or a prominent ground feature.
An approach controller would not want to put a VFR pilot (who was unsure of position) over to Tower, as the tower controller will often not be in the best position to give guidance to the pilot in order to find the airfield (or an IFR clearance if required). These would be Approach or Radar functions normally.
Thread Starter
Assuming you are taking about a VFR joiner
C) have half a chance of seeing the other traffic you are telling the joiner about
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is, I guess what puzzles me. Passing a VFR joiner from Approach to Tower when it has "half a chance of seeing the other traffic" seems like a sensible transition point. However, sighting a square mile of airfield is likely from a much greater range than seeing a 30 foot plank of a wing with a small fuselage attached.
From a tower controllers point of view, they will now probably have you in sight (eagle eyes you see!) and be able to exercise reduced seperation in the vicinity of an aerodrome.
Thread Starter
You now have time to continue towards the airfield whilst, changing freq, receiving joining instructions and traffic information, looking for the traffic and setting the aircraft up for landing.
On a clear day, I might see the airfield at 25 miles. At the lower limit of VFR, I'll see it at about 1 mile. So having the airfield in sight seems to have little to do with the preparation above.
I refer you to my earlier thread in Private Flying
From a tower controllers point of view, they will now probably have you in sight (eagle eyes you see!) and be able to exercise reduced seperation in the vicinity of an aerodrome.
As has been said, Approach would like a report that you have the field in sight so that there is a reasonable certainty that you won't go blundering through the final approach while still looking for the airfield, and can intelligently position yourself for the appropriate join. Having got the field in sight also means that there is more chance of your sighting any relevant traffic, as you can use the field as a reference point.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spekesoftly, Yes my choice of the phrase " reduced seperation in the vicinity" was ill advised. I wasnt actually referring to the MATS pt1 definition but to the fact that a tower controller using the Mark 1 eyeball can comfortably get aircraft closer together than can be achieved by radar.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: By the Sea-side
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would I need the airfield in sight before I do any of that?
...and the correct phrase is "Aerodrome in sight" anyway.
Do I get my "Pedant Badge" now?
DwB
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's also important that the VFR inbound has the correct A/D in sight.
A bright, clear Summer evening; Manch, early '70s. APP hands over to TWR a non English first language DC6 off Congleton, runway in sight. Clear said DC6 to Final, RWY 24, then get on with talking to the "request start" traffic. The DC6 calls final and requests clear land. Look at the clear runway, look up the 24 glide slope; nothing. Reach for the trusty Ross 7x50s and look from threshold to Millbrook; nothing. Now feeling rather uneasy, scan entire sky from Stockport to Alderley Edge and then, just passing through the bit with Woodford in it, sight a 4 prop job climbing above the skyline off Woodford RWY 26! It caused quite a stir with the AVRO Gliding Club.
A bright, clear Summer evening; Manch, early '70s. APP hands over to TWR a non English first language DC6 off Congleton, runway in sight. Clear said DC6 to Final, RWY 24, then get on with talking to the "request start" traffic. The DC6 calls final and requests clear land. Look at the clear runway, look up the 24 glide slope; nothing. Reach for the trusty Ross 7x50s and look from threshold to Millbrook; nothing. Now feeling rather uneasy, scan entire sky from Stockport to Alderley Edge and then, just passing through the bit with Woodford in it, sight a 4 prop job climbing above the skyline off Woodford RWY 26! It caused quite a stir with the AVRO Gliding Club.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Speaking as an a tower and approach/radar controller, in my experience the request for a call of 'field in sight' (just to offer another variation in phraseology) is used for any or all of the reasons mentioned previously - but only in suitable circumstances. If there is a need to sequence the inbound into other traffic I would use different techniques. If, for example, the pliot appears to be having trouble navigating, I might ask for the call whereas in the same circumstances a pilot that appears to be on top of everything might get transferred earlier. Either way, I'd be keeping an eye on where the aircraft is in case the pilot doesn't do what I expected.
So, overall, for me there is no great significance to the call - I'll use it if it is useful in the pertaining circumstances, and something else if it is better.
So, overall, for me there is no great significance to the call - I'll use it if it is useful in the pertaining circumstances, and something else if it is better.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Norwich
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Speaking as an a tower and approach/radar controller, in my experience the
>request for a call of 'field in sight' (just to offer another variation in
>phraseology) is used for any or all of the reasons mentioned previously
This falls into line with what a couple of controllers have told me over the years. When flying into Norwich VFR in a little four-seater, the usual call is something like "G-Bxxx, overhead Aylsham, heading 180 degrees, field in sight"; the controllers have basically told me that my position and heading, combined with what they can guess about my speed from the aircraft type I'd already told them an hour ago, are what they care about.
Let's face it, sometimes we get "field in sight" at 20 miles, and sometimes at 5 miles (the latter if we're having a bad day and it's a bit hazy). I've had controllers call me up and say: "G-Bxxx, do you have the field in sight?" and I've said: "I know it's in my twelve o'clock, and that I'm five miles to the north-east, heading 260 degrees, but I'm right into the sun and I can't see it", and they've been happy - presumably because they know that I know where I am and that I'm heading where they think I'm heading.
And, of course, I've been with instructors who've called "Field in sight" in precisely the same circumstances because even though they can't see a bleedin' thing, they reason that what the controller wants to know is where you are and what you think you're doing.
David C
>request for a call of 'field in sight' (just to offer another variation in
>phraseology) is used for any or all of the reasons mentioned previously
This falls into line with what a couple of controllers have told me over the years. When flying into Norwich VFR in a little four-seater, the usual call is something like "G-Bxxx, overhead Aylsham, heading 180 degrees, field in sight"; the controllers have basically told me that my position and heading, combined with what they can guess about my speed from the aircraft type I'd already told them an hour ago, are what they care about.
Let's face it, sometimes we get "field in sight" at 20 miles, and sometimes at 5 miles (the latter if we're having a bad day and it's a bit hazy). I've had controllers call me up and say: "G-Bxxx, do you have the field in sight?" and I've said: "I know it's in my twelve o'clock, and that I'm five miles to the north-east, heading 260 degrees, but I'm right into the sun and I can't see it", and they've been happy - presumably because they know that I know where I am and that I'm heading where they think I'm heading.
And, of course, I've been with instructors who've called "Field in sight" in precisely the same circumstances because even though they can't see a bleedin' thing, they reason that what the controller wants to know is where you are and what you think you're doing.
David C
