VFR to an airfield in Class G
 

Well the grotty weather seems to be upon us.

Is is still for the pilot flying in class G do decide if VFR ?

Or will atc decide for them, push the VFR flight into an IFR procedure and them MOR the pilot that was operating VFR for not having the IFR procedure plate??

OR IS IT JUST CRANFIELD THAT DO THAT

Hmm, I read about that.

Did ATC pushing a vfr flight (without the approach plate ) in to an IFR situation also warrant MOR action?

vfrflyer said in part.....
OR IS IT JUST CRANFIELD THAT DO THAT?

As a VFR only happy flyer I avoid Cranfield [ usually enroute from east to west and vice versa] as they have in the past come up with goodies like..... "proceed direct to Junction 13 on the M1" and such rubbish.
Or get you orbiting for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I listen but avoid calling as I am usually well outside their zone and am travelling at no more than 90 kts.


Aviate1138

My understanding is that ATC can only refuse to issue a VFR dep clearance if the weather is below the minima IF they are in a Control Zone. (remember the halcyon days at the College of ATC saying "unable to issue a VFR clearance what are your intentions?")

With regards to a zone transit, again I believe that it is for the pilot to determine whether or not they can fly VFR.

Vfrflyer - Have Cranfield filed on you then???

cranfield did mor such an occurence last year.

Is there a URL to read the details?

There has been a long relevant thread on Private Flying over the last few weeks.

Will

VFRflyer

A thought for you.

If you were VFR why did you let yourself get pushed into an IFR procedure? Did it not occur to you to re-iterate you were VFR, being captain of the aircraft and therefore final arbiter of which flight rules you wished to fly by?

Like I said - Just a thought.

(Be careful when you throw a boomerang - it'll only end up coming back at you twice as fast :cool: )

CHILLI
The pilot concerned did, and was then harrassed by ATC at a time of high cockpit workload.

I've experienced similar at cranfield from one particular member of the atc team.

When i attempted to discuss the matter informally, to resolve any confusion, the chap in charge wasn't very helpful at all.

Just come back from Turweston to our farm strip which meant an overflight of Cranfield. Called 5 minutes out and told them I was at 1,700 feet to maintain VMC and would like an overhead transit with FIS. The lady on ATC came back with "Report the M1" then "Report Overhead" and finally "Report leaving the frequency". She was busy with other transits and circuit traffic but it was all very straightforward and I felt it was very professional. What I think I'm saying is that if you make clear your intentions, Cranfield ATC have always been very helpful in my experience.

I suspect this is one of those occasions when it is definitely necessary to hear both sides of the story, especially as I believe I've seen a write up of the situation which tells a slightly different story :cool:

The atcreport summary i read was weighted against the pilot. It is possible atc wrote it that way deliberately, but let's not forget the summaries often don't recount the story as accuratelt as the original report!

It WAS Filed that way on purpose, to lay all blame at the feet of the pilot

Can I ask again for a URL to read this stuff.

pretty please

Timothy

terry1261, can you give a bit more information about why it WAS filed in that way. Are you saying that it was not the pilot's fault but he got the blame in the MOR ...... or what.

P.S. What are you Manager of? It it relevant in the context of this thread? :confused:

"As these are anonymous forums....."


SOME CHANCE!!

Another vote in favour of Cranfield ATC, if they need it.

I've been based there for many years as a private owner, and have heard each of the ATC team there at different times dealing with some quite incredible stupidity from various pilots both visiting and home-brewed.

I have never come across any situation there in which there has been any uncertainty at all about whether an arrival is under IFR or VFR. Where such doubt exists, the onus is in any case on the pilot to specify the type of clearance required if he either doesn't wish to, or cannot comply with the clearance he has been given.

"...any uncertainty at all about whether an arrival is under IFR or VFR. Where such doubt exists, the onus is in any case on the pilot to specify the type of clearance required if he either doesn't wish to, or cannot comply with the clearance he has been given."

The pilot WASN'T uncertain, perhaps the atc management would me more receptive to comments from a local supporter that obviously knows what's what

"Another vote in favour of Cranfield ATC, if they need it."

I believe it's a story of chief and indians, the indians are very good.