FlyingForFun

I had an interesting experience recently. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this?

At the time, I was on an IFR training flight, in Class D airspace, practicing instrument approaches. I heard another aircraft call up on frequency, requesting a transit through the airspace.

The controller asked the pilot if he wanted VFR or IFR transit. IFR please, replied the pilot. Sorry, says the controller, too busy for an IFR transit. No problem, says the pilot, I'll take a VFR transit. Ok, replies the controller, descend to 2000', report VMC. Once he reported VMC, the pilot was cleared to transit, VFR at 2000', via the airfield overhead. The other pilot was passed traffic information about me. I was passed traffic information about him. All absolutely fine.

Except that there is absolutely no way the aircraft was in VMC at 2000'. I flew 4 approaches on that flight, and the highest point at which I became visual on any of the approaches was 1200'. At the point when I was passed traffic information on the other aircraft, I was on the final approach track, and became visual with the surface at 900', and visual with the runway at 800'.

I have debated whether I should take any action. My safety was not compromised, because I was given traffic information, and remained seperated from the traffic vertically at all times (assuming he really was at 2000'). If the aim of any action was to ensure that the pilot was reprimanded, it's unlikely to be successful because I can't prove what the weather was doing. And if the aim of the action is to educate the other pilot, it would pointless because I'm sure he already knows that what he did was illegal. So my current thinking is that there's little point taking any further action. But there's a nagging feeling in the back of my mind which suggests maybe a CHIRP report would be appropriate?

What would you do?

FFF
-------------

An Artificial Member

You say that your safety was not compromised, You were not in his aircraft at the same time ( impossible I know), to prove anything !

So the answer has got to be.................You do nothing.

AM

AlanM

And that is the problem - how can you prove he wasn't legally VFR.

Are you sure he wasn't cleared NOT ABOVE 2000ft? (But it does sound like a bit of press-on-itis)

It happens - not nice but there you go.

Roffa

This is the clearance he should have got (assuming UK Class D);

Cleared from (place) to (place) VFR via (routeing) not above (level),
maintain VMC while in the (name) control zone.

So the level should have been not above and the stipulation to maintain VMC should have been in there.

It's then a matter of trust between all parties...

FlyingForFun

Yes, positive. He was cleared at 2000', via the airfield overhead (which would have seperated him vertically from me, although no seperation is required from a VFR flight in Class D), and instructed to inform the controller if he was unable to maintain VMC at that level. It don't think it was press-on-itis (which implies he continued into weather he wasn't qualified to fly in). More a case of being qualified to fly IFR, and wanting to get his zone transit to avoid a few minutes routing around the outside (or even over the top, since the top of the zone in question is low enough to go over and icing wasn't a factor on that day).

AM and AlanM, your posts have backed up my own thoughts, but it's nice to get some outside views on the subject, thanks!

FFF
--------------

IO540

I think the saying about the man without sin casting the first stone comes to mind, when talking of flying VFR in IMC.

Personally I don't recall not getting an IFR transit but getting a VFR one offered. Was this zone particularly inconvenient to go around the outside?

S-Works

First for me as well, never heard of an IFR transit being refused anywhere especially in marginal conditions.
But I am with IO540, I would also suggest that "he who is without sin cast the first stone". I for one would not be in a position to do so.......

rustle

Applying IFR separation may not have been possible, so a VFR transit may have been the only option available to the controller of Class D.

The "problem" with that is that the controller is reliant upon the transit requester not telling lies about met conditions - which, according to FFF, may not be the case here...

Whether in a past life someone else has lied to get an expedient clearance is interesting but irrelevant. If FFF truly believes that the transit-er was in IMC at the time and, therefore, unable to separate themselves visually, he should CHIRP it if nothing else...

dublinpilot

What good exactly will a CHIRP report do? It might make FFF feel better, but I'm not sure it achieves anything else, and I don't think that's FFF's purpose infileing the report?

Some people might read it and think "Oh that's not a good thing to do." but it's unlikely to have any effect on someone who would do that in the first place.

I could be (probably am) wrong, but I was under the impression that CHIRP reports were for things you'd done wrong and wanted to relate to the pilot population at large (anomalously) so that they could learn from your mistake. Are they really for telling other people about poor airmanship that you came across? Is there really a lesson to be learnt here, or is it so obvious that everyone knows it already?

I wouldn't report it, mainly because I don't think it would achieve anything. Perhaps filing a MOR might achieve something, or calling the operator and discussing the matter with them might achieve something, but I really can't imagine what a CHIRP report would achieve in this case. There isn't really a lesson for the reader to learn.

dp

rustle

CHIRP Objectives: I would have thought this worthy, even if it is the report of an interested third-party

Fuji Abound

I find this a very difficult question to answer and the opinions interesting.

Reading the original post again I note:

Presumably the aircraft was already in IMC (given what FFF has to say about the met) outside CAS. That leaves me wondering whether the pilot declared he was IFR on his first call. If he did declare IFR, presumably he was responsible for his own terrain seperation, but could he have made the descent given that he never became VMC at 2000ft. This seems the more likely scenario because the controller said "report VMC" implying he knew he was not in VMC at the time of the first call. If he declared VFR on his first call then presumably, and not unreasonably, the controller assumed he could descend and remain VMC for his transit but again given what FFF has to tell us about the met the pilot was not telling the truth.

Having made his descent, whether from IMC or VMC, again on the basis of what FFF has to tell us, the pilot presumably found he never became VMC. Presumably had he told the controller this was the case the controller might have been a whole lot more receptive to an IFR transit and a climb to SSA.
Subject to what actually happened it seems to me the pilots "sins" may have started even earlier.

For these reason I have a feeling Rustle is correct.

Too many pilots these days it seems to me are prepared to declare VFR when they are not. Clearly some of these will cause problems for themselves (as I am sure there are more than a few without an IR) never mind problems for others. At least by CHIRPing, if the full exchange is known, it might reveal how a series of events could lead to a very real problem, and, more importantly, how these problems could have been avoided in the first place by the pilot informing the controller that he could not maintain VMC. In short, whilst perhaps this particular pilot was always going to do what he did, other pilots might better appreciate that there were alternatives in this situation?

It would be interesting to know the full exchange that took place if that were possible.

davidatter708

May I just ask If the controller knew that they couldnt support IFR why even offer one?
David

Droopystop

We saw something similar the other day. Aircraft ahead cleared VFR, as requested by pilot, to depart, we were cleared to depart with one ahead in sight. It wasn't in sight having just disappeared into/behind a cloud so had to wait for sufficient separation (we were IFR). No drama, just an incredulous comment across cockpit about VFR. Thank goodness for radar. But in this case how hard would it have been to call up for IFR (assuming the pilot was qualified and not going airways) - quick flight plan passed over the radio and off you go.

Knight Paladin

I don't think a CHIRP is the relevant way to report this, as I understand they're primarilt for people to report their own human factors type mistakes. but I do definately feel that this should be reported. I'm assuming that FFF is confident that the cloudbase where he was operating was uniform - no gaps the pilot in question could have been using, and, as has been m,entioned before, that the clearance was for "at" 2000ft, not "not above". The airfield actuals should have been logged - a BKN or OVC for the time in question would go some way to adding credence to the complaint.

The actions of this cowboy have potentially endangered the lives of others as well as himself - by agreeing to take visual separation on traffic he can't see - and as such he does deserve to be chased up and at the very least informed of the error of his ways. I don't think I'm overdramatising that first sentance.

My suggestion would be to contact the ATS provider, supply them with the time of the incident and ask them to check their logged actuals and ATC recordings - then let them take it further if they wish.

mm_flynn

I think it would be worth carefully documenting the facts for yourself and then, after review, filing a report (try both ATS provider and CHIRP?). This could provide grist for the mill of various safety notices.


I think a root cause may be that VFR or IFR from a pilot perspective doesn't really shift the rules very much (other than the fact you can't be legal and VFR in weather less than VMC and the fact that you need to maintain a minimum height or be visual with the ground - which you should be doing enroute under VFR anyhow). This results in a very casual attitude towards IFR/VFR by a surprising number of IMC/IR pilots.


I am not sure people remember how much higher the vis requirements for VMC are within controlled airspace - and the fact that the VFR pilot is supposed to be visually separating himself from the other traffic.
You can see why controllers so often 'over control' and separate IFR and VFR traffic.

IO540

I think one needs to distinguish between

1 - possible noncompliance with paper rules

2 - actual loss of safety

We don't know about 1; only the pilot would have known that. Cloudbase can vary from one spot to another.

Also what is the difference between an IFR and a VFR transit? There are some ATC rules about separation perhaps, but ultimately the difference must be that in VMC the pilot is supposed to be visual with other traffic. What if he isn't? Most "other traffic" is never spotted anyway, and if you are not visual with all of it then you are not visual as far as safety is concerned, are you?

If this was a radar unit then the distinction is particularly moot as far as safety goes.

It wasn't in sight having just disappeared into/behind a cloud

That is usually legal in the UK for deps in Class G. The moment you are outside the ATZ (typ. 2nm after takeoff) you are entitled to change your mind VFR-IFR and vanish in a cloud. This is commonly done. Most Class G fields are non-radar and are thus unable to offer any meaningful kind of separation/service. If ATC, they apply procedural separation from traffic they know about. If non-ATC, you are on your own anyway.

Obviously people should not declare "VFR" when they are in solid cloud but what matters is whether safety is actually compromised.

Droopystop

IO540,

I agree he was entitled to change his mind after departure (or indeed before starting his take off roll), however he disappeared way before leaving the ATZ and reaching MSA, we never heard a call changing VFR to IFR and I doubt he remained clear of cloud.

Safety wasn't compromised (assuming the pilot was qualified and current) and one could use the argument that it is big sky and what are the chances of someone else doing the same. But then again if he was doing it, it is reasonable to assume that someone else might be doing the same. Like I said, thank goodness for radar.

rustle

Again, talk of declaring yourself VFR or IFR when in G is interesting but irrelevant.

This was in Class D at all material times from what FFF said in his initial post.

VFR or IFR transits are negotiated as such and don't change just because the pilot thinks he/she can change the rules whenever they like: If the rules need to change it needs to be renegotiated.

Suggesting/saying/implying "it doesn't matter" is a bit crap imo even if they're only "paper rules"...

LateFinals

Interesting problem. One thought comes to my mind, I never go into IMC, apart from for a few seconds, without some sort of radar cover. Assuming this transiting aircraft was in dense IMC he either didn't have any radar service (or had just been handed over and was free-calling), or he felt is wasn't necessary (frightening). If he is cavalier enough to report VMC when he clearly wasn't, I hope I never get anywhere near him.

IMHO this is worth CHIRPing if only to remind all pilots of basic air law and good airmanship.

LF

AlanM

I often given clearances through the Heathrow/City Zones of "CAN YOU ACCEPT A VFR CLEARANCE LEVEL AT xxxxft PROVIDING YOU CAN REMAIN VMC"

The type of clearance is irrelvant in this case, as it appears that the naughty boy was lying.

Maybe the MSA is 2000ft or lower, so the controller cleared him to that, to get him VMC, to offer the VFR crossing. So the controller could still have had terrain spearation in mind.