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"?

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.

I am. Thanks for the thoughts, all good points.

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.

And thats the point, bookworm. You get the airfield in sight first and are transferred to tower. 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. hopefully allowing a seamless join to land.
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.

I refer you to my earlier thread in Private Flying:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=288737

Why would I need the airfield in sight before I do any of that? Realistically, I'm going to start position for the join at about 5 miles, start looking for traffic at about 2 miles, and set up the aircraft for landing -- depending on what you mean by that -- anywhere between 10 miles (engine and speed management) to 1 mile (configuration).

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.

which was the reason why I asked here. You didn't get a good answer there.

Reduced from what? I understood that we are talking about VFR flights, to which standard separation does not apply.

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.

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.

For the simple reason that Approach will not transfer you from his frequency until he is sure that you are going to proceed from your present position to the aerodrome. Last thing anyone wants is a VFR blundering around in the zone following the M1 instead of the M40 or whatever. You can be looking for traffic prior to that point [in fact, I sincerely hope you are!] but the person who knows where it all is in the immediate vicinity of the aerodrome is the Tower bod. Approach will transfer you to Tower once he/she is sure you are going to get there.

...and the correct phrase is "Aerodrome in sight" anyway.

Do I get my "Pedant Badge" now?

DwB:cool:

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.

>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