London SVFR - all OK?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Up, up and away
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shytorque
Good points. I don't know about the MEL but I know that non-IR/IMC rated pilots can fly IFR remaining VMC - at our unit its done all the time. Night ratings would be impossible otherwise because all flight at night is IFR.
I think its a slight anomaly in the rules, where IFR flights are permitted to fly clear of cloud, in sight of the surface below 3000' without having to follow quadrantal rule, min terrain separation etc.
Is it any different in class A?
ATCO 2
Is that specifically to provide a SVFR service on a dedicated frequency, or to issue any SVFR clearances whatsoever?
Good points. I don't know about the MEL but I know that non-IR/IMC rated pilots can fly IFR remaining VMC - at our unit its done all the time. Night ratings would be impossible otherwise because all flight at night is IFR.
I think its a slight anomaly in the rules, where IFR flights are permitted to fly clear of cloud, in sight of the surface below 3000' without having to follow quadrantal rule, min terrain separation etc.
Is it any different in class A?
ATCO 2
Is that specifically to provide a SVFR service on a dedicated frequency, or to issue any SVFR clearances whatsoever?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cdb,
I am sure that the Heathrow Approach guys are entitled to issue SVFR clearances at any time, but whether they have the capacity to offer a service to a Category Z low level photographic flight, whilst carrying out their primary tasks, is doubtful.
I am sure that the Heathrow Approach guys are entitled to issue SVFR clearances at any time, but whether they have the capacity to offer a service to a Category Z low level photographic flight, whilst carrying out their primary tasks, is doubtful.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
A fourth question: Under IFR in class A airspace, what are the minimum weather limits that a non instrument rated pilot can fly to when going to a VFR only airport embedded within the airspace over a congested area?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does a non instrument rated pilot enter class A airspace under IFR?
What is the requirement for submission of written flight plans for an aircraft operating IFR in class A airspace?
What is the minimum equipment list for an aircraft operating IFR in Class A airspace?
Under IFR in class A airspace, what are the minimum weather limits that a non instrument rated pilot can fly to when going to a VFR only airport embedded within the airspace over a congested area?
but
Helicopters can operate in visibilities appropriate to their forward speed if I remember correctly i.e. you can legally creep along in crap vis when visual.
The built-up area makes no difference....rule 5 makes no difference between IFR and VFR.
Special VFR is a system whereby at ATC's discretion, a flight which can not apply with the IFR requirements may be cleared to operate in a control zone in IMC or at Night or if Class A. The important words being ATC discretion.
Regards
DFC
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
DFC, they were rhetorical questions, intended to provoke further discussion. Your answers are correct in the main - which unfortunately means that your interesting proposal (although a nice idea if it worked) namely for helicopters to file IFR into Battersea, would be impractical in most cases.
A couple of points though; Battersea doesn't have a runway so RVR cannot be calculated. I mentioned congested areas because single engined helis must follow the routes (and ditch in the Thames if necessary, should the worst happen) whereas twins can also fly direct from A to B in the CTR. Single engined helis, (one excepted) can't file IFR in UK, in any event.
Without SVFR, Battersea would have a lot more free slots though, it must be said.
A couple of points though; Battersea doesn't have a runway so RVR cannot be calculated. I mentioned congested areas because single engined helis must follow the routes (and ditch in the Thames if necessary, should the worst happen) whereas twins can also fly direct from A to B in the CTR. Single engined helis, (one excepted) can't file IFR in UK, in any event.
Without SVFR, Battersea would have a lot more free slots though, it must be said.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
The rules for the Helilanes require visibility of 1000m, or 2000m in the vicinity of Heathrow.
Under IFR some of the routes could not be made available to any aircraft because of low maximum height rules. H3, H9 and H10 all have sections lower than 1000ft, which is OK under SVFR but not under IFR. Unfortunately, these are some of the more commonly used routes.
The thing to bear in mind is that the London Special VFR rules were introduced to increase the flexibility afforded to helicopters. Under IFR, this flexibility would be reduced.
For example, in ideal conditions (sufficient manning and reasonable workload) ATC request just 3 minutes notice by R/T before zone entry in order to issue a clearance. It is often totally impractical for a helicopter pilot to put in a written flight plan because of the type of ops involved (e.g. no facilities and no-notice changes to the task) so this is of huge benefit.
Also, under SVFR (and 6kms visibility) a visual separation can be offered to pilots of opposite way aircraft on the routes; in practice the right hand rule is often used for aircraft to pass each other. Under IFR this would not be allowed, standard separation would be required.
Under IFR some of the routes could not be made available to any aircraft because of low maximum height rules. H3, H9 and H10 all have sections lower than 1000ft, which is OK under SVFR but not under IFR. Unfortunately, these are some of the more commonly used routes.
The thing to bear in mind is that the London Special VFR rules were introduced to increase the flexibility afforded to helicopters. Under IFR, this flexibility would be reduced.
For example, in ideal conditions (sufficient manning and reasonable workload) ATC request just 3 minutes notice by R/T before zone entry in order to issue a clearance. It is often totally impractical for a helicopter pilot to put in a written flight plan because of the type of ops involved (e.g. no facilities and no-notice changes to the task) so this is of huge benefit.
Also, under SVFR (and 6kms visibility) a visual separation can be offered to pilots of opposite way aircraft on the routes; in practice the right hand rule is often used for aircraft to pass each other. Under IFR this would not be allowed, standard separation would be required.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The height makes no difference. If it is safe when SVFR then it would be safe IFR provided that the flight was below 3000ft clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
Perhaps you have not realised it but your "ATC request" is in fact filing a flight plan. Perhaps the 3 minutes notice would be a bit short (10 minutes is quoted in the AIP) but having to hold for 7 minutes when you know you are going to get in is better than simply a "SVFR not available" message.
Standard separation is required under SVFR also. Not to mention that in Class A airspace and Class B airspace, all flights are provided with separation be they IFR, VFR or Special VFR.
If you are happy to give away your right to separation against an opposite direction traffic in 6Km SVFR then if you are IFR in the exact same weather, other than having certain rules to follow, where is the difference in safety standards?
Yes it would make Battersea a bit more quiet and would mean that only the better equipped and crewed heli's can make it through but it would keep the system operating for those people who made the investment in crew and equipment.
Regards,
DFC
For example, in ideal conditions (sufficient manning and reasonable workload) ATC request just 3 minutes notice by R/T before zone entry in order to issue a clearance. It is often totally impractical for a helicopter pilot to put in a written flight plan because of the type of ops involved (e.g. no facilities and no-notice changes to the task) so this is of huge benefit.
Under IFR this would not be allowed, standard separation would be required
If you are happy to give away your right to separation against an opposite direction traffic in 6Km SVFR then if you are IFR in the exact same weather, other than having certain rules to follow, where is the difference in safety standards?
Yes it would make Battersea a bit more quiet and would mean that only the better equipped and crewed heli's can make it through but it would keep the system operating for those people who made the investment in crew and equipment.
Regards,
DFC
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
DFC,
I am aware of verbal flight plans (it's not unusual to be obliged to request IFR crossings) but it appeared that you weren't, hence my comment about written ones. Unfortunately I think your 7 minute hold is very optimistic; even now under SVFR, with the possibility of visual (reduced) "right hand rule" separation on the routes (not allowed off-route, btw), holds can be longer than that.
Under IFR no aircraft is allowed to fly below 1000' above the nearest obstruction within 5 nms, SVFR gives a concession in that respect and also to required separation.
With regard to "safety", unfortunately we are talking ANO rules rather than "pure" safety! Obviously, any helicopter pilot flying in VMC along a line feature is generally quite happy to accept "right hand rule visual separation", irrespective of airspace classification. Everyone does this all day long in Class G without the benefit of ATC assistance.
I've often discussed the rules with London area ATC controllers over the years. Following a letter I sent to the head of LATCC for consideration, "off route" ATC SVFR clearance is now given as "not above 1500 feet" to reflect the change in rule 5 regarding minimum height over a congested area, now in line with ICAO's NB 1000 feet. Pilots are no longer mandated to fly "at" 1500 feet as they had been in the past. This gives more flexibility with regard to where we can fly over London. For example, pilots can now route "Brent to Barnes not above 1000 feet"; hopefully pilots are less likely to attempt to push their luck with regard to "Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface" in an attempt to avoid going below the cleared altitude in marginal weather and contravene R157.
To exclude certain flights or pilots (with a historical right to fly in an out of Battersea) is unacceptable. It would undoubtedly have huge implications on the non-IR qualified CPLH, around which the industry in the south depends to a large degree and therefore on the industry in general.
The best answer is to lower the classification of the airspace and get ATC the manning up to strength to cope with the increase in helicopter movements.
I am aware of verbal flight plans (it's not unusual to be obliged to request IFR crossings) but it appeared that you weren't, hence my comment about written ones. Unfortunately I think your 7 minute hold is very optimistic; even now under SVFR, with the possibility of visual (reduced) "right hand rule" separation on the routes (not allowed off-route, btw), holds can be longer than that.
Under IFR no aircraft is allowed to fly below 1000' above the nearest obstruction within 5 nms, SVFR gives a concession in that respect and also to required separation.
With regard to "safety", unfortunately we are talking ANO rules rather than "pure" safety! Obviously, any helicopter pilot flying in VMC along a line feature is generally quite happy to accept "right hand rule visual separation", irrespective of airspace classification. Everyone does this all day long in Class G without the benefit of ATC assistance.
I've often discussed the rules with London area ATC controllers over the years. Following a letter I sent to the head of LATCC for consideration, "off route" ATC SVFR clearance is now given as "not above 1500 feet" to reflect the change in rule 5 regarding minimum height over a congested area, now in line with ICAO's NB 1000 feet. Pilots are no longer mandated to fly "at" 1500 feet as they had been in the past. This gives more flexibility with regard to where we can fly over London. For example, pilots can now route "Brent to Barnes not above 1000 feet"; hopefully pilots are less likely to attempt to push their luck with regard to "Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface" in an attempt to avoid going below the cleared altitude in marginal weather and contravene R157.
To exclude certain flights or pilots (with a historical right to fly in an out of Battersea) is unacceptable. It would undoubtedly have huge implications on the non-IR qualified CPLH, around which the industry in the south depends to a large degree and therefore on the industry in general.
The best answer is to lower the classification of the airspace and get ATC the manning up to strength to cope with the increase in helicopter movements.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
When the SVFR position is closed, there are contingency measures to allow SVFR flights into and out of Battersea to continue, see the NOTAM at post #4
ShyTorque,
As I have stated before, there are sufficient SVFR validations available at the moment, and more trainees are in the system. We have been talking about a situation where there is significant short notice sickness, requiring the SVFR position to be closed.
As you know, there are plans to downgrade the London CTR to Class C, thus making the system more flexible, but under Class C Rules, VFR traffic is required to be separated from IFR and SVFR traffic. From purely a workload point of view, not much would change.
When the SVFR position is closed, there are contingency measures to allow SVFR flights into and out of Battersea to continue, see the NOTAM at post #4
ShyTorque,
As I have stated before, there are sufficient SVFR validations available at the moment, and more trainees are in the system. We have been talking about a situation where there is significant short notice sickness, requiring the SVFR position to be closed.
As you know, there are plans to downgrade the London CTR to Class C, thus making the system more flexible, but under Class C Rules, VFR traffic is required to be separated from IFR and SVFR traffic. From purely a workload point of view, not much would change.
I say there boy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the position with regards to NATS providing Approach Control services to Battersea? Is NATS remunerated for this or is it just provided for historical and geographical reasons?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Bandboxing
I'd like to make a couple of points.
Firstly, it's my understanding that the UK has an ICAO obligation to provide certain Air Traffic Services, regardless of how our particular State might choose to fund these, the basic obligation remains.
Secondly...
We fly PA28 postioning flights at night to/from Biggin to/from Elstree & Denham, remaining outside controlled airspace. Departing from Biggin at night (IFR mandatory) requires 2400' due to Wrotham mast. Crossing the Thames east of the QEII bridge passes under the City traffic. When we speak to Thames, my experience is an excellent service, but it is in the controller's interest that we make contact so that traffic descending for City, can be advised to avoid an unnecessary TCAS situation. Sometimes I am offered RIS, usually though FIS, I assume depending on workload but I feel occasionally due to controller preference. I have wondered sometimes if the controller is working more than one position. I am usually offered the choice, after any exchange I might need to make with Stapleford, of Heathrow or Elstree; I take the latter to ensure separation from traffic there as I route to BOV, before joining for Denham, so I've never really found out if Thames and Heathrow are ever bandboxed.
Now, in a former life and many years ago, during quiet periods at a very large airport, various positions would be very sensibly bandboxed but quite dangerously with the controller working the different frequencies without users on each frequency being aware of the presence of other users on other frequencies. This was eventually tidied up into an official cascading down of frequencies so that all users could hear and be heard if a single controller was working.
What is the present situation with Thames and Heathrow? Are they ever bandboxed? If so, would it not be better if we were all on the same frequency?
TheOddOne
Firstly, it's my understanding that the UK has an ICAO obligation to provide certain Air Traffic Services, regardless of how our particular State might choose to fund these, the basic obligation remains.
Secondly...
We fly PA28 postioning flights at night to/from Biggin to/from Elstree & Denham, remaining outside controlled airspace. Departing from Biggin at night (IFR mandatory) requires 2400' due to Wrotham mast. Crossing the Thames east of the QEII bridge passes under the City traffic. When we speak to Thames, my experience is an excellent service, but it is in the controller's interest that we make contact so that traffic descending for City, can be advised to avoid an unnecessary TCAS situation. Sometimes I am offered RIS, usually though FIS, I assume depending on workload but I feel occasionally due to controller preference. I have wondered sometimes if the controller is working more than one position. I am usually offered the choice, after any exchange I might need to make with Stapleford, of Heathrow or Elstree; I take the latter to ensure separation from traffic there as I route to BOV, before joining for Denham, so I've never really found out if Thames and Heathrow are ever bandboxed.
Now, in a former life and many years ago, during quiet periods at a very large airport, various positions would be very sensibly bandboxed but quite dangerously with the controller working the different frequencies without users on each frequency being aware of the presence of other users on other frequencies. This was eventually tidied up into an official cascading down of frequencies so that all users could hear and be heard if a single controller was working.
What is the present situation with Thames and Heathrow? Are they ever bandboxed? If so, would it not be better if we were all on the same frequency?
TheOddOne
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
Not true if you follow the exemption in Rule 29 Para (d) 
and provided you comply with any Rule 5 considerations.
Corect Rule 5 entries now in place.
Under IFR no aircraft is allowed to fly below 1000' above the nearest obstruction within 5 nms, SVFR gives a concession in that respect and also to required separation.
Minimum height
29. Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 5, in order to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless:
(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;
(b) the aircraft is flying on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;
(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority; or
(d) the aircraft is flying at an altitude not exceeding 3000 feet above mean sea level and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
29. Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 5, in order to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless:
(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;
(b) the aircraft is flying on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;
(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority; or
(d) the aircraft is flying at an altitude not exceeding 3000 feet above mean sea level and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
Low Flying
5. - (1) The prohibitions to be observed are -
(a) an aircraft shall comply with the low flying prohibitions set out in paragraph (2) subject to the low flying exemptions set out in paragraph (3).
(b) where an aircraft is flying in circumstances such that more than one of the low flying prohibitions apply it must fly at the greatest height required by any of the applicable prohibitions.
(2) The low flying prohibitions
(a) Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it, in the event of a power unit failure, to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface.
(b) The 500 feet rule
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
(c) The 1,000 feet rule
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft flying over a congested area of a city town or settlement shall not fly below a height of 1,000 feet above the highest fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft.
(d) The land clear rule
An aircraft flying over a congested area of a city town or settlement shall not fly below such height as will permit, in the event of a power unit failure, the aircraft to land clear of the congested area.
5. - (1) The prohibitions to be observed are -
(a) an aircraft shall comply with the low flying prohibitions set out in paragraph (2) subject to the low flying exemptions set out in paragraph (3).
(b) where an aircraft is flying in circumstances such that more than one of the low flying prohibitions apply it must fly at the greatest height required by any of the applicable prohibitions.
(2) The low flying prohibitions
(a) Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it, in the event of a power unit failure, to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface.
(b) The 500 feet rule
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
(c) The 1,000 feet rule
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft flying over a congested area of a city town or settlement shall not fly below a height of 1,000 feet above the highest fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft.
(d) The land clear rule
An aircraft flying over a congested area of a city town or settlement shall not fly below such height as will permit, in the event of a power unit failure, the aircraft to land clear of the congested area.
Corect Rule 5 entries now in place.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In the world
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Departing from Biggin at night (IFR mandatory) requires 2400' due to Wrotham mast.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
PPRuNe Radar, OK but if aircraft are allowed in the airspace under IFR "per se" in marginal weather conditions, who decides which part of the rules applies? Effectively, that "caveat/let out clause" is essentially what allows "Special VFR".
Your second quote is from an out of date copy of the ANO, because it still contains c) para i ; namely the 1500 foot rule, which has been amended, as has the paragraph lettering. We now apply for exemptions from 5 (2) c, the 1000 foot rule..
Your second quote is from an out of date copy of the ANO, because it still contains c) para i ; namely the 1500 foot rule, which has been amended, as has the paragraph lettering. We now apply for exemptions from 5 (2) c, the 1000 foot rule..
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any reference to the "specified area" is also outdated.
Almost always bandboxed and cross coupled at the moment as the weather is not great and the staffing precludes splitting the freqs. It is best to have the SVFR traffic on 125.625 and Thames on 132.7 so that IF the roles are split it just needs Thames to deselect SVFR. You should hear all transmissions and aircraft replies irrespective of the freq you are on.
ST - 'bout time you came to the new gaff mate.
What is the present situation with Thames and Heathrow? Are they ever bandboxed? If so, would it not be better if we were all on the same frequency?
ST - 'bout time you came to the new gaff mate.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Alan M,
Yes, one of these days, I will. I'll let you know in the new year when I'm for do a stopover.
P.S. Look on the bright side, what type of biccies? At least if you're bandboxed due staff shortages, there's obviously fewer mouths to eat them...
Yes, one of these days, I will. I'll let you know in the new year when I'm for do a stopover.
P.S. Look on the bright side, what type of biccies? At least if you're bandboxed due staff shortages, there's obviously fewer mouths to eat them...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see a common thread running through this thread?
Lots of talk about resources and staffing and the ability, or lack, to run all the services required.
Commercial imperative seems to have a hand in this.
Safety versus the need to make a profit is raising it ugly head. Something non -NATS units have lived with for decades.
Lots of talk about resources and staffing and the ability, or lack, to run all the services required.
Commercial imperative seems to have a hand in this.
Safety versus the need to make a profit is raising it ugly head. Something non -NATS units have lived with for decades.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Radar, OK but if aircraft are allowed in the airspace under IFR "per se" in marginal weather conditions, who decides which part of the rules applies? Effectively, that "caveat/let out clause" is essentially what allows "Special VFR".
Your second quote is from an out of date copy of the ANO, because it still contains c) para i ; namely the 1500 foot rule, which has been amended, as has the paragraph lettering. We now apply for exemptions from 5 (2) c, the 1000 foot rule..
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Well, I guess I knew that all along, that's what we do already BUT allowing a pilot with a strong interest in making his destination into Class A under the "let out" clause of IFR, rather than SVFR, is perhaps likely to cause a problem sooner or later.
The controller will expect the pilot to fly "Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface", as for SVFR. However, the pilot, faced with bad weather, may believe he is entitled to press on regardless in the hope of the weather improving "any minute", because he has been granted an IFR clearance..... get my drift? A moot point, but it's because of the subtle change in terminology.
"Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface" might be needed to be included in the clearance. ATCOs would soon get as tired of saying that as the Battersea controllers are of mentioning cranes around the heliport.....
Hopefully this is all semantics.
BUT allowing a pilot with a strong interest in making his destination into Class A under the "let out" clause of IFR, rather than SVFR, is perhaps likely to cause a problem sooner or later.The controller will expect the pilot to fly "Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface", as for SVFR. However, the pilot, faced with bad weather, may believe he is entitled to press on regardless in the hope of the weather improving "any minute", because he has been granted an IFR clearance..... get my drift? A moot point, but it's because of the subtle change in terminology.
"Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface" might be needed to be included in the clearance. ATCOs would soon get as tired of saying that as the Battersea controllers are of mentioning cranes around the heliport.....
Hopefully this is all semantics.