VFR SIDs and STARs

[malecontrol]

Hi all

Are there SIDs and STARs for VFR flights any where in the world? Is introducing SIDs and STARs for VFR a doable thing by ATC? To me, based on what I know about VFR it sounds like an oxymoron but since our administration is on the brink of introducing VFR SIDs and STARs, I would like to know if any other country has such procedures of not.

I have, of course, advocated against it, so I am looking forward to go back at them and say that I was right all along more firmly

So tell me I am right and they are wrong to introduce VFR SIDs and STARs!

Looking forward to be proven right........................or wrong may be

Thanks

[supraspinatus]

https://www.ippc.no/norway_aip/curre...ZV_4-11_en.pdf

VFR-SID for offshore helicopters i western Norway.

[A I]

How can a "Standard Instrument Departure" be flown under VFR?

[galaxy flyer]

The FAA calls them Charted VFR procedures, usually CVFR are for visual approaches at busy airports. Don't see them being a SID, but that might just be semantics. I can see producing standard VFR routings and charting them in the AIO.

GF

[JustaFew]

If not flying in class A airspace, then VFR can follow the SID/STAR route but ensuring compliance with VFR requirements...

[twentypoint4]

In the UK we have certain instrument departure routes which are for all jets/turbo-props >5700kg (thus subject to noise restrictions) leaving class D controlled airspace. These routes can be flown under VFR with the clearance containing a level band rather than a fixed level i.e. "Not above altitude 3000ft".

Here is an example:
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/pamsl..._2_EGGW_6-7_en

What you're proposing wouldn't really work in the UK because our airways and TMA's are class A (upto FL195). Otherwise, as long as the pilots can adhere to all the rules why not?

[Mooncrest]

IIRC, Manchester used VFR SIDs at least until about five years ago for local training traffic, i.e. Ravenair. I think the southbound routes were via Holmes Chapel and Congleton. I'm not sure if this still goes on, given the paucity of training traffic at Manchester these days.

[soaringhigh650]

These routes can be flown under VFR with the clearance containing a level band rather than a fixed level i.e. "Not above altitude 3000ft".

That's a big space to give? Isn't greater capacity possible when you assign one aircraft for 1000ft, the next one for 1500, 2000, 2500, and 3000? (Flyable if the pilot can maintain the clear-of-cloud requirement)

[Spitoon]

male, I think (maybe hope) what your Administration is proposing is what I have seen called standard arrival and departure routes. The are usually based upon surface line features (they are for VFR flights after all) and often have level bands specified to keep them away from IFR procedures, thereby reducing the need to pass traffic information. Another possible benefit is a reduction in RTF because it's quicker to say 'cleared XXX departure' rather than a full and explicit clearance.

In the UK, certainly in the past, the CAA wasn't keen on them because some airports had had some bad experiences years ago, often IIRC because pilots didn't understand the concept and didn't follow the routes and levels very closely.

In my view, if properly done, such standard VFR routes can work well - but I would agree that there is no way they should be considered or referred to as VFR SIDs/STARs.

[ATC Watcher]

Playing with words, of course Standard mandatory visual departures routes cannot be called SIDs,( they could be called SVDs) , but mandatory headings, turn and altitude restrictions exists for VFR in many airports in many countries. One of them here ( look at the AD2 second chart)" only as examplehttps://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv..._AD-2.LFPN.pdf

[Glamdring]

Aberdeen has VFR departure and arrival routes for offshore helis.

[BOAC]

Being pedantically picky here, they could correctly be labelled as 'VFR STARS' but only 'VFR SDS'

[terrain safe]

At some UK airports certain aircraft (jets and props with MTOW greater than 5700Kg) have to follow a SID due noise restrictions but they have to maintain a level not not above a level. Difficult.

[Reflex]

Stansted has well established VFR routes.
We've made suggestions to NATS at Stansted (friendly people) that it would cut down on R/T time to have a standard "Puckeridge departure".
This makes sense to all but the CAA 'don't want it'

[BOAC]

I cannot understand the "Campaign against......" there. White Waltham had entry/exit lanes years ago in my Chippy days there. Manchester and Aberdeen likewise amongst many others. Most military 'fighter' airfields use 'IP's for a visual.

[spekesoftly]

I don't think it's the entry/exit lanes themselves that's the problem. I believe the concern is whether or not a Private Pilot visiting Stansted, for example, would be fully conversant with a published Standard VFR "Puckeridge Departure" ?

A similar VFR procedure did work well at Glasgow many years ago, but I think its use was confined to locally based operators (GFC & the UAS). The abbreviated clearance on the R/T was passed as Standard Exit/Standard Inbound, and annotated on the ATC Flight Progress Strips as SEX & SIN.

[malecontrol]

So I guess the conclusion is that, in principle VFR 'SIDs' and 'STARs' do exist and are perfectly legal - the only thing is to name them correctly? May be SVDs or SVARs? Annex 11 will help in naming them.

I guess Shakespeare isn't always right......name does make a difference (in our world)!!

[JustaFew]

the only thing is to name them correctly

Let's start with a SONET 1A