ATCO's more likely to allow IFR over VFR

[LeeP-PA28]

Hello all ATCO's

I have a little query, and I know the answers will be personal opinion over anything else but here's a situation for you:

Pilot to Radar controller: "Radar, G-ABCD has just departed AirfieldA, overhead VillageA at 1500ft on QNH1015, request to transit the zone VFR on track VOR-X and basic service".

Radar controller to Pilot: "G-ABCD, basic service, squawk 1234, QNH1015. Stay outside of controlled airspace".

Pilot to Radar controller: "Squawk 1234, QNH1015, basic service and wilco, G-ABCD".

Radar to Pilot: "G-ABCD, due to traffic movements, clearance is unavailable. Confirm your routing outside please"

.....

10 minutes later, a pilot from the same club, who had mischievously planned the same routing, in VMC, but opted to try IFR...he was allowed to transit controlled airspace, albeit maintaining altitude 3000ft IFR.

There was nothing stopping the VFR pilot from climbing to and holding that, weather was fine, no Class A etc anywhere near to cause any issues.

My question to you is : as an ATCO, do you see VFR pilots inside your airspace more of a problem than say, an IFR pilot? Even if the routing is the same, even if the VFR pilot could maintain the same as the IFR pilot? It happens a lot at a nearby Class D and recently, I tried the same trick IFR and was allowed straight through, on my intended track at my intended altitude

Many thanks

Lee

[Akhorahil]

To an IFR you can order to climb, descend, turn... anything. With VFR you canīt. Thatīs a big difference.

Also, in C airspace you have to provide separation between IFR and VFR, and thatīs always difficult as you canīt really control the VFR. So YES, VFR are more a problem than IFR always in C airspace (not in E).

[possibleconsequences]

Surely the vfr transit would be easier to give in class d? you wouldn't need to provide separation then.

[BrATCO]

To an IFR you can order to climb, descend, turn... anything. With VFR you canīt. Thatīs a big difference.

Right !... and not.

Back in years, I had this discussion with a colleague who crossed the TMA I controlled.
When she landed, she told me that my method to "impose" altitude to VFRs wasn't legal.

I answered that altitude wasn't imposed : transit was approved at a precise altitude, any other altitude being refused.
I don't remember having refused any transit. I guess most of the time, people prefered changing by 500 or 1000' than wait outside.

Suggesting a trajectory (heading) to a VFR is not illegal either, as long as he agrees. We just have to get him back to a point from which he can start his navigation again. This is more work (but also more fun) than just say : "Stay outside".

[BrATCO]

you wouldn't need to provide separation then.

Depends on weather (think about special VFR)

I've always thought providing separation (even when not needed) is more comfortable than no separation, but compulsory visual before someone's scared and declares Airprox.

[landedoutagain]

Maybe in the example you quoted, the ten minutes later was enough for the other traffic movements to disappear!

[LEGAL TENDER]

Lee, where was that?
There are very few units in the UK that are that busy to justify a VFR transit refusal!

[LeeP-PA28]

The example is from Leeds Bradford, who rarely allow people through if they're not a) inbound or b) training from Multiflight. People from our side tend to hop around, getting close to Emley Moor mast or a large detour to the north.

When in IMC, you don't want to be any where near those big masts, or near high ground - so direct to POL is really the only option if going to the West.

Only recently did I attempt a transit IFR (I was planning on VFR and thought, I'm gonna try for DCT to pole hill VOR, IFR). On my return from my destination, I came back VFR and was told to stay outside controlled airspace.

[NudgingSteel]

I'm afraid you probably won't get a definitive answer on this one. Other posters have pointed out the advantages of one transit type over another. IFR means we can lock you on a heading and at an exact level, without worrying about you needing to dodge IMC, which usually makes separation against other IFR traffic straightforward. (Unless you're very slowly transiting the missed approach / departure / overhead at less than 1000' above MSA, in which case it's hard to issue a safe level to departures or go-arounds beneath you).

On the other hand, VFR vs IFR requires no separation, merely traffic information to both (plus avoiding action to the IFR if he requests it). Without having to achieve 3 miles or 1000', this often allows a more efficient use of airpace for everyone.

Planting my bum even more firmly on the fence, there are probably a host of other possible reasons why the examples you quote occurred! Your best bet would be to try to arrange a visit to the ATC unit involved and chat to their approach controllers. Take biscuits and be prepared to be talked at for absolutely hours....

[whitelighter]

I personally dont have a problem with VFR through a class D control zone. As a tower controller they are no problem, as all that is required is traffic information on IFR flights and vice versa.

It is often much more expeditious for the A/C concerned, and really no trouble

[MrHorgy]

I find the guys at LBA very helpful. On a distant trip past, because I couldn't show me friend some airport down south (I forget which one) we returned but instead of going to Barton direct we went via Leeds do "ponce about" and see his old house. A zone transit was readily approved after the following discussion:

Them: "G-SA your zone transit is approved not above 1500' QNH, route towards the field.. *momentary pause* Do you know the area well?"

Me: "Yes, I live about 3 miles on the centreline"

Them: "Do you know the roundabout on the ring road, where it crosses the A660? One of the controllers live there and perhaps you could circle over it so we can plot it on the scope"

Me: "Of course, i'll route there now and call you overhead"

**makes a few orbits over location**

Them: "That's great, we've spoken to tower and they aren't busy so they've authorised a low pass over the runway. Contact them now on 118.025 Thanks again"

Me: "Nice one, we'll enjoy that. 118.025 thanks"

...most amusing days flying for a long time Although admittedly, that was before jet2 really ramped up the operation!

Horgy

[Talkdownman]

Originally Posted by possibleconsequences

Surely the vfr transit would be easier to give in class d? you wouldn't need to provide separation then

Yeah, but in Class D nasty Old Duty Of Care will rear its ugly head and the LCEs will expect a so-called 'best practice' element of lateral deconfliction from head-down IFRs busy watching instruments, the IFR pilots occasional get upset if they look up and get a nasty surprise and see a VFR self-separator playing it too close for their comfort. Also where I used to work VFR singles couldn't always be trusted to behave themselves (they were invariably already busting the Alight Clear Rule because just about the entire CTR was a congested area, dry or wet...) on their dodgy sightseeing flights and were subjected to a bit of a capability guesstimate on first contact. If they couldn't get the talking right in the first place they were unlikely to get the flying right. Much easier to clear IFR with a tactical vector, no messing, job done.

Originally Posted by LeeP-PA28

My question to you is : as an ATCO, do you see VFR pilots inside your airspace more of a problem than say, an IFR pilot? Even if the routing is the same, even if the VFR pilot could maintain the same as the IFR pilot? It happens a lot at a nearby Class D and recently, I tried the same trick IFR and was allowed straight through, on my intended track at my intended altitude

Many thanks

Lee

Hey, Lee, do you fly up and down the Lea Valley?

[possibleconsequences]

''Yeah, but in Class D nasty Old Duty Of Care will rear its ugly head and the LCEs will expect a so-called 'best practice' element of lateral deconfliction from head-down IFRs busy watching instruments, the IFR pilots occasional get upset if they look up and get a nasty surprise and see a VFR self-separator playing it too close for their comfort''

Pass traffic IFR to VFR and vice versa, if the pilot of IFR requests further separation, provide it. No need to worry about 'duty of care' - just do the job of an ATCO (Obviously this will vary from unit to unit depending on levels of traffic etc). Not sure why following the basic MATS 1 rules should agitate any LCE's?.

[Eric T Cartman]

@ possibleconsequences

No need to worry about 'duty of care' - just do the job of an ATCO (Obviously this will vary from unit to unit depending on levels of traffic etc). Not sure why following the basic MATS 1 rules should agitate any LCE's?

When I started in the business in 1970, a wise old ATCO told me he reckoned that at the end of the day, if it had gone to rats & someone died, AIP's, MATS Part 1 etc. would count for nothing. It's something I've taken into account in my job to this day !
Would you be prepared to stand up in front of Jo Public, the Press & the lawyers at a Coroner's Inquest or Fatal Accident Enquiry, giving evidence that you didn't take action that might have prevented an accident, because the rules & regs didn't require it ?
The phrase "duty of care" wasn't quoted by the regulators in those days but I reckon it's always been there in one way or another.

[Talkdownman]

Originally Posted by Eric T Cartman

I reckon it's always been there in one way or another.

Yup. It's all about 'acting reasonably' under the circumstances appertaining at the time.

[terrain safe]

If the IFR requests more separation or avoiding action, and that isn't pretty similar to what is happening already, then the VFR shouldn't be there. Keep it simple and let everyone have a nice quiet day....

[Talkdownman]

Originally Posted by terrain safe

If the IFR requests more separation or avoiding action, and that isn't pretty similar to what is happening already, then the VFR shouldn't be there

IMHO the 'Duty of Care Deconfliction' of VFR from IFR which occurs in some Class D airspace is often excessive. It creates extra workload for the controller and the VFR pilot and, unbeknown to the controller, can sometimes compromise compliance with Rule 5 (alighting clear).

Yes, keep it simple. Why overcomplicate it?

[terrain safe]

Yes, keep it simple. Why overcomplicate it?

Agree completely. Get the VFR visual and then make all instructions reference that traffic otherwise you then have to think rather than monitor. But don't give instructions that are ambiguous, so make sure that they can actually see each other before giving the instructions, and then we all can get along like a big happy family.

Keep it simple 'cos I am simple.