SRA's to VFR traffic
 

I've got my own view on the legitimacy of offering SRA's to VFR traffic, especially in marginal weather conditions, but would be grateful for any input from others, as to their opinion on the practice

Only ever carried out SRAs with VFR flights in class D airspace, so usual debate may follow about SRAs outside CAS. I was taught to say to the pilot,
'Report any time if you are unable to accept a heading', as cloud may preclude a particular direction,followed by, 'Are you happy to maintain your own terrain separation?' Then continue as per usual SRA.

Man Friday

Im ex RAF Gib and would still be there given any choice!!

When we transferred Gib to SERCO back in 94, the airspace around Gib was not classified in the ICAO sense (if memory serves me right) . The SRA was only used in anger to Rwy 09 ( no PAR due to Spanish airspace restrictions) and must have been the only one in the world with a split arse 90 degree turn at about 2 mile final as you came around the NW of the rock. When the PAR on 27 was busted I think we used SRA then as well.

At the time , using mil procedures, JSP 318A now JSP522, we werent concerned with the flight catergory of the aircraft, just the type of service he was under i.e RAS or RIS and that was only as a consideration against breaking off an approach due to the Guardia Civil's helos operating in the Bay of La linea ;over the border so to speak - but within radar sep/ avoiding action distance. That said regardless of weather, if anyone wanted / needed an SRA they got one ( I think). This may have been restricted to mil acft at that time - I cant remember. We didnt get too many VFR lighties visiting in those days.

Having left uniform and been involved with the more comprehensive rules and regs of the civvy world, I understand that only civil acft in emergency may be given an SRA and this is with caveats attached. This is the case with the Australian MATS as it is strictly a military procedure over here.

Though we trained the civil controllers to control civil aircraft at Gib (an RAF airfiield under another banner) using military procedures (??) I dont know what rules etc you are using these days . If its UK MATS then maybe check there. If you are operating under JSP522 procedures I would perhaps check with the RAF Cat Board examiners at Shawbury along with their civil counterparts as to the legality of the procedure.

If the weather allows the flight to continue VFR then the viz should be good enough to get in, but if its poor, and below mimimas obviously an acft shouldnt be VFR anyway - SVFR at the very least. If he still cant get in SVFR or your regs dont allow for this then you have a real problem me thinks.

But at least youve asked the question.

Bye the way, be interested in a PM SITREP of the old place time permitting.

DogGone:ok:

<<I understand that only civil acft in emergency may be given an SRA>>

I'm not sure if I've taken this out of context, but be assured that SRAs are used by civilian ATCOs thousands of times a day, and many, many of them will be outside CAS.

As to the original question, I'm not aware of anything in writing preventing ATC from offering an SRA to a VFR pilot, but suggest that if it was due to bad weather then the pilot should request it rather than be offered. In an emergency any procedure which might help should be employed. Of course, many VFR pilots carry out SRAs for practice in good weather.

I cannot currently find an ICAO or CAA definition for SRA but they are assigned Absolute Minima implying an Instrument approach. The SRA terminating at 2 nm falls within VMC minima therefore I see no reason for VFR flights not to undertake SRAs for visual acquisition. The SRA is a Non-Precision aid so presumably compatible with limited instrument flight capability. Flying an SRA nevertheless requires a lot of instrument attention therefore the VFR pilot should take a competent look-out observer. Step-down fixes may preclude VFR flight. If the pilot chooses not to fly the GP then he will need to inform the controller who may be tilting the SRE aerial elsewhere and may easily lose the target. If VFR pilots are avoiding IMC on the approach then the pilot must inform the controller that he is unable to comply with the heading instruction. This may result in an unstable approach where the aircraft is poorly placed for a landing. For controller training I prefer the pilot to be IMC capable in order to achieve a stable approach without interruption. We are, after all, training for SRAs in IMC in order to achieve successful visual acquisition at minima, so I think VFR SRAs have limited mutual benefit.

Surely there is no problem with

" G-XXXX maintain your own terrain seperation, I shall be passing you ADVISORY altitudes, report if at any time you cannot maintain VMC"

TIO

Do they need to be told to "maintain your own terrain seperation, I shall be passing you advisory altitudes....."?

SRA's are carried out only where the powers that be deem it safe to do so and at the start of the whole shebang do we not say (although it can differ from unit to unit) "Check your minina, step down fixes and missed approach point."
We also make mention of "check minimum descent height/altitude". Why then the need for the "maintain your own terrain seperation"? Pilots on an SRA can fly down to the MDH/A at any point on the approach, or at least they used to be able to (see 737 accident at Coventry in the mid 90's), and the heights/altitudes we give them are already advisory thus the reason we say "x miles from touchdown, height/altitude should be......."
Are we not indanger of overkill syndrome or are we catering for the lowest common pilot IQ?

Anyway, just a few rambling thoughts.

Joining us on Friday, TIO?

Anything good happening on Friday, then?:)

Piss up at the Hilton....(cough) err, I mean, ahh, a constructive workshop discussing the merits or otherwise of centralised radar control functions. :O

Do them all the time in sunny Scotland for controller training, bit like VFR traffic flying an ILS. We tell them that all headings and levels are advisory and to report if at any time they are unable to maintain VFR. Great practice for the early part of radar training having the chrokees and twotters doing them. It's a lot harder to get the jets to do them but more interesting from the trainees perspective when they do accept them.

As usual we (as of yesterday) weren't aware of any such forum! :ugh: :ugh:

Im trying to resist the beer!

mmmmm beer

Hilton in Brizzel?

Talkdownman;

If we talking purely ICAO here then DOC 4444 8.9.7.1 describes the SRA procedure. It also goes on to cover the PRA.

DOC 9432 7.6 outlines the associated SRA phraseologies and a couple of rules.

Regarding your following statement:

"If the pilot chooses not to fly the GP then he will need to inform the controller who may be tilting the SRE aerial elsewhere and may easily lose the target".

Not to confuse the SRA with the PRA, this is only the case in a PRA when the aerials are moved by the controller via a servo. In the case of an SRA the surveillance radar is used and a line created from the start point of the approach to the touchdown markers (where available) - normally using a dynamic map - which replaced the old chinagraph overlays).

Heathrow Director:

As posted albeit probably ar*s about face, the VFR in emergency rule is as per the Ozzy MATS. I cannot find such a "rule" laid down in any ICAO docs.


FORUM:

Points to consider ( maybe). When completing an SRA you are vectoring and passing advisory altitudes. As the SRA obviously goes below minimum safetly/ vectoring altitudes etc caution needs to be exercised as to how far left or right of centreline you start the descent ( clearances planes and all that )Whilst a PRA may be calibrated the SRA is not ( I think). Once you start vectoring below MSA/MVA you take responsibility for terrain clearance (unless the pilot is flying VFR in VMC then its obviously only a training approach in which case you would remind him of his terrain clearance responsibilities).

Therefore, and from an operational approach aid viewpoint, it seems reasonable that this procedure is intended only for pilots unable to carry out a visual approach i.e. IFR. By default, to accept the procedure pilots must be able to fly on instruements i.e. IFR qualified - or - the weather has deteriorated below VMC minimas and a pilot needs to land; thereby breaking the VFR flight rules. This could be classified as an Emergency situation perhaps.

Obviously the approach can be carried out by VFR pilots when the weather conditions allow flight in VMC; for both controller and pilot training etc. After all, with UK weather ( unlike Brisbanes for example), one never knows when the weather is going to necessitaTe a change in the best laid plans.

Im not familiar with UK MATS but can only speak form experiences doing many SRAs whilst in blue and of my current knowledge and practice "Down Under" using local docs and ICAO refs. So apologies if I am a bit wide of the mark where your particular books are concerned.


DogGone:ok:

Sorry, Plessey ACR430 (a surveillance radar, allegedly), and Decca 424 (a real man's radar), both have (or had) aerial tilt at the contoller's position. Does anyone still use the 430 I wonder?

Hello Bern.
Old Buddy.
Real Radar Man here.
I am still regularly using a Decca 424 (It's six years younger than me, but older than the one in the Science Museum). It has a Decca-plot overlay on which I write headings and shopping lists with my chinese graph............plus I have to tilt my aerial, amongst other things. And, depending on which gives up first, I hope to be doing so for many more years yet, ATSSD permitting. We don't get many VFR customers, though, but they could try a PM for a run or three.........

Scatsta and Gloucestershire

Standing to attention; Corrected!

Almost used an ACR430 once but wasnt briefed on the knob!

Thought it was something to do with the in-console ashtray!!

Ah......the Plessey 424 or'Decca 424' to be correct. Originally a marine radar. Beautiful piece of engineering, sorted the men from the boys in bad weather. Fighting the aerial tilt, long pulse/short pulse, variable polarisation, FTC whilst doing 1/2 mile SRAs.......what nostalgia. The later versions with the 'KH front end' is quite a different animal. A lot of the fun ended after the 424!!
H49

H49, it's not over yet! I'm still having it! Ours originates from an RN vessel. I presume by 'the KH front end' you mean the Kelvin-Hughes version. I understand that Cambridge may still have one under dust-sheets.............

Gloster's 430 is now a MARIS 900...............and jolly good it is too!

(ACR430 Aerial & gearbox with solid state heads, processors and 21" Windows displays)

Our old Kelvin Hughes CRT displays are shortly going in the skip unless anyone wants them for nostalgia value..............

Nooooooooooo!!!! Not skip! see PM!

Two of these, one careful owner....

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...3/DSC00167.jpg

Fabulous! 'First refusal', please! (We have a spare ACR430 to replace our Decca 424). See PM.

Just popped in at the end of this, but (thinking back to my dim and distant past) are SRA heights not advisory, unlike with PAR? Certainly used to be advertised that way. You are only telling (advising) the pilot what height he/she should be at to have the ideal glidepath.

Therefore the responsibility would rest on the Pilot??

Just a thought

Anyone wishing to get rid of kit like this try the Science Museum at Wroughton (NOT the London one) before you do. They were accumulating some unique specimens of ATC gear last time I was there.

Anotherthing.

Yep, heights (at Mil QFE airfields) were advisory. I think the phrase was
" ... miles you should be passing .... ft" Alts no doubt the same.

The intent of an early post was to raise the issue of vectoring below MVA / MSA.

Good old PPRuNe! Another happy ending!
Thanks to PPRuNe's re-cycling potential Talkdownman's unit is now the proud owner of matspart3's hand-me-downs! Thanks, matspart3! Brings a whole new meaning to back-to-back SRAs! Perhaps we could play one end against the other.......so maybe I'll have to change my handle to '2-heads'.........:cool:

You're welcome!!!

Now I can proudly state that there's a Radar unit with crappier kit than us!

If anyone's got a Cat 1 ILS laying around, please pm me!

Why bother with ILS, last I heard Yeovil had a first generation MLS collecting dust in a hangar, and with all the high ground near you it would probably work better than ILS.

And you even got em' with the tip-ex'd acetate overlay! What a bargain!! So now the only worse equipped radar units than EGBJ are............Lasham and the Science museum (in no particular order!) Oh, and by the way Talkdownman...................I do plenty of work! (occasionally)