VFR?

[Fuji Abound]

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

I wonder why you think so .

I think the initial call up was very significant in terms of what happened next, and may have been even more significant in terms of what can be learnt.
Did the pilot call up IFR or VFR? If he called IFR then we can only assume the MDA was above 2,000 feet otherwise the controller would not have cleared his descent. Presumably both pilot and controller expected him to become VMC at 2,000 feet, but he didnt. Nothing wrong so far, but now comes the problem. Why did he not say I cannot maintain visual. Did he realise that if he could not the controller would probably have given him a climb and an IFR transit? If on the other hand he called up VFR, what was he doing descending into IMC for the transit?

Therein possibly lies some lessons. It is my perception that most controllers would clear the traffic IFR through the zone IF the pilot could not maintain VMC on most occasions rather than send him around - but maybe I am wrong? I would be interested in your comments.

As to flying IMC without a radar service therein is a judgement call. Unfortunately in much of the UK a service is just not available period. That either means you dont fly (if conditions are IMC) or you accept the risk.
On the plus side the number of aircraft that will be flying in those conditions in the UK is small. Aslo on the plus side the vast majority will hopefully be transponding. I have now decided I will not fly without TCAS or PCAS (even in VMC) and I think that offers sufficient protection to operate IMC IFR without a service.

[mm_flynn]

I think some of the comments are good examples of this fuzzy view many pilots have on VFR vs IFR and when/if it matters from a safety vs. legality perspective. The comments also show why getting the facts straight before doing anything else is important.

The facts could be

1 - The pilot is in Class G at an unknown altitude and under un-stated flight rules (i.e. has just said "G-xxxx 5 miles west of VRP blah request transit")

2 - Controller knows the weather is poor so the pilot may want IFR (but from further communication we can guess that the controller feels he will not have space or bandwidth to provide IFR separation)

3 - Pilot asks for IFR which is refused (see point 2) but offered VFR with the implication that the pilot is not going to be provided with IFR separation and will be responsible for own separation and terrain clearance (Standard Class D service I think)

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

If he called IFR then we can only assume the MDA was above 2,000 feet otherwise the controller would not have cleared his descent.

I don’t think,at the point the controller gave it, the instruction to transition at 2000 feet needs to be terrain safe (or above the MDA, or the MSA, or 1000 feet above the 5 mile object) – as the pilot is not being vectored or under a RAS so is responsible for terrain clearance.

4 - Pilot accepts the VFR clearance, is reminded of the need to be in VMC and given an altitude and route through the Class D airspace.

So far the only 'problem' is that the controller is reported to have cleared him at a level rather than not above a level on a VFR clearance (I didn't know controllers couldn't clear a VFR flight at a level?)

5 – The pilot reports he is VMC and enters Class D at 2000 feet

AT THIS POINT the issue is alleged to be created.

6 – Our observer says he is in solid clag at 800-1200 feet. The Pilot claims he is VMC but unless he can see the ground, is going less than 140 knots and has 5 KM of viz he is lying.

7 – Pilot has probably now broken his contract with ATC (and the law) and ATC should be able to rely on pilot separating himself from other traffic (and other traffic separating themselves from our Pilot) as is the spec for Class D, this could be a real safety issue.

[Rod1]

“it appears that the naughty boy was lying.”

The weather conditions can vary hugely over a very short distance. I would want more proof before I accused another pilot of lying. I am not saying he did not break the rules, just that it is unproven.

Rod1

[Knight Paladin]

OK chaps, we all know the weather can vary a reasonable amount in a short distance, but I think we're also aware that the pilot in question was lying - no two ways about it! Thought he was being the big boy by accepting a VFR transit. However, he was being expected to maintain visual separation on traffic he was called but had absolutely no chance of seeing - as he was flying in the middle of a cloud.

Therefore, this -proone won't allow me to use the word i want to- was guaranteeing separation from aircraft he could not see, and would not ever be able to see. Do not pass Go, do not collect £200, and give me your license, you selfish, ignorant, arrogant waste-of-airspace.

I fly professionally as well as for pleasure, and it worries me that people such as this are willing to jeapordise everyone's safety (a slim chance I'll warrant, but a chance nonetheless) for the sake of their own ego.

[Edited for spooling and offensive content...]

[ShyTorque]

I can see both sides of the argument and make no judgement because it is impossible to know what the second pilot could actually see.

Firstly if, as alleged, this aircraft was in solid cloud, for a mid-air collision to take place (this is what people are concerned about), it would have required another aircraft to be in the same place, same height, same time, under an ATC service.

Secondly, it is sometimes not possible for a pilot to see another aircraft, even in good VMC. What should he then do - declare IFR?

A CHIRP report would possibly achieve little except appease the contributor; the accused pilot may not be a member of the scheme. If the ATCO was concerned that rules were broken, he could submit an MOR. Unfortunately, for a pilot to "report" another for an alleged demeanour has as much chance of "success" as reporting another motorist for speeding or holding a mobile phone.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

A CHIRP report would possibly achieve little except appease the contributor; the accused pilot may not be a member of the scheme.

Did you actually read the CHIRP objectives which I posted earlier in this thread and which appear on the CHIRP website?

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

I can see both sides of the argument and make no judgement because it is impossible to know what the second pilot could actually see.

I think if you say you can see the ground (which had to be true in this case for him to be in VMC) overhead the airport and I breakout on the approach under a cloud deck, fly under your route and see a solid deck above me and then go back into solid cloud on the miss then I you are likely looking at the mountains or the moon not at the ground below!

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

Firstly if, as alleged, this aircraft was in solid cloud, for a mid-air collision to take place (this is what people are concerned about), it would have required another aircraft to be in the same place, same height, same time, under an ATC service.

Where ATC have no legal requirement to provide any separation against any another "VMC" pilot nor any requirement to separate from the IFR go around other than to call the traffic to the IFR pilot.

[Fuji Abound]

Did you actually read the CHIRP objectives which I posted earlier in this thread and which appear on the CHIRP website?

Yep, I have to say I didnt know what their objectives were and had a look at their site. It would seem to me this fits their objectives which may have been misunderstood by some who have posted on here.

A bit of thread drift I know (but as the discussion has pretty much come to its end) it left me wondering about a couple of procedures on which I am unclear so far as IFR outside CAS.

Firstly, what is your relationship with a FIS? I ask becasue you are not required to have any service OCAS and without a service could change level without telling anyone. However, if you were receving a FIS you would be expected to tell the controller if you changed level, and presumably are required to do so.

Secondly, if descending OCAS with a FIS or a LARS in IMC in my expereince the "controller" will usually remind you that you are responsible for your own terrain seperation and will often point out the SSA. Is this your experience and is there any "obligation" on the part of the controller to do so?

[Knight Paladin]

Why would you have to tell the controller if you were changing level on a FIS? It's not a radar service! And I really wouldn't want to be IMC anywhere without a radar service.

[jamestkirk]

Knight P

Your reply a few posts up sounds suspiciously like a thread I started a few day ago................................You see, we do have something in common.

[ShyTorque]

Did you actually read the CHIRP objectives which I posted earlier in this thread and which appear on the CHIRP website?

Yes, thankyou. I read them and I do fully understand them too - I have been in receipt of the paper bulletins for over 15 years and have been a contributor a few times. I was taking a realistic viewpoint of what it might achieve in these circumstances. CHIRP away, it's a free country .

Where ATC have no legal requirement to provide any separation against any another "VMC" pilot nor any requirement to separate from the IFR go around other than to call the traffic to the IFR pilot.

I agree, I said nothing about a separation service given. I was simply making the point that it would need another aircraft to be there in similar circumstances, not being given a separation service. It could be argued that complying with the ATC instruction to fly at a set altitude was the safest option.

If you want my opinion, which so far I haven't given, I think ATC could have reminded the pilot to advise if he couldn't maintain VMC, which might have been the case. The pilot should have advised ATC that he couldn't accept a VFR crossing because he was not in VMC, if that was indeed the case.

A question, for general discussion: Who is responsible for collision avoidance in a situation such as this - the "VFR" pilot or the IFR pilot?

[Knight Paladin]

JT - It's OK mate, we can kiss and make up! Have a few very close friends who I disagreed with massively when we first met!

[Droopystop]

Knight Paladin,

As someone who has in past spent a fair bit of time IMC with no radar service (with no choice) I would hope that everyone informs whoever they are talking to at what altitude they are flying at and report when they change. Whether or not they are required to, I don't know, but I would have thought it was good airmanship.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

A question, for general discussion: Who is responsible for collision avoidance in a situation such as this - the "VFR" pilot or the IFR pilot?

As always IFR or VFR you need to try and 'see and avoid'. In the litigation following, it would be the pilot who has caused the incident/accident by his negligent / intentional violation of the law.

IMHO it is also unbelievably arrogant/rude to put some other pilot in the position of searching into the murk, knowing he can't see a thing and isn't being separated from our 'VFR' pilot when you are in controlled airspace.

[Knight Paladin]

Droopystoop - I understand where you're coming from, but a FIS is not giving you any kind of separation from other traffic, so I think you're probably just clogging up the airwaves with unecessary chat and giving yourself a false sense of security. A procedural service would be a whole different kettle of fish, where an ATCO would be separating you from other traffic via your position/altitude reports, and not via radar. I'd also question your "with no choice" comment - I'd guess you could have chosen to not get airborne in the first place, if you knew to do so would involve flying IMC without a radar or procedural service. I know there will always be exceptions - radars breaking while you're airborne, weather clagging in unforecasted, and I'm all too aware of operational pressures, but I wouldn't want to be making it routine and hence spending a "fair bit" of time IMC without a decent service.

[S-Works]

....but I wouldn't want to be making it routine and hence spending a "fair bit" of time IMC without a decent service.

Personal choice, but you will find it very limiting in the real world.

[dublinpilot]

And as has been pointed out here a number of times in the past.....while there have been very few mid air collisions in VMC in the UK, there has never been a mid air collision in IMC in the UK.

Seems like the odds favour IMC flight

dp

[Knight Paladin]

bose:

What world am I flying in at the moment then mate?!? The one where I don't fly IMC if I can't get a service! If I really needed to be somewhere and for whatever reason I wouldn't be able to get a service on a claggy day I'd drive! To be honest, I don't fly IMC much when flying recreationally anyway, and it's not exactly the most enjoyable of things to do - satisfying when you get it right though, I know.

I strongly suspect that you do a lot more private flying IF than I do, so I respect your experience there. Whilst I consider it somewhat foolhardy (despite the big sky theory), it is only the lives of yourself, your own passengers at risk and anyone else flying similarly at risk - I trust that if your aeroplane is IFR capable, you'll be squawking, and other aircraft flying in IMC who ARE receiving a radar (although not a procedural, obviously) service will therefore know about you.

I do fly in IMC a fair bit in my working life though, and would probably not be doing so much longer if I didn't have a bloody good reason for not having a service while doing so!

[Inverted81]

As Alan M said,
a radar controller shouldn't instruct an aircraft to descend below the appropriate sector MSA, just incase that the IFR aircraft doesn't end up in VMC (in this case clear of cloud, in sight of the surface and a forward vis of 5Km) The subsequent VFR cx, would have been "IfR Flight plan cancelled time xxxx , continue VFR not above xxxft via (route) " or along those lines. to say that you haven't time for an IFR transit, implies that passing the buck to go VFR would actually make the controller busier with all the relevant traffic info that would then result. Surely 2 or 3 hdgs would have at least kept him out the way, or even a change of level, to keep him above the missed app level?
Unfortunately, you cannot disprove that the transiting aircraft was in VMC, the rule book also states you cannot refuse a VFR TRANSIT clearance even if the reported met vis is below 5KM. the clearance can only be refused should the aircraft be taking off or landing at an aerodrome within class D.

[S-Works]

strongly suspect that you do a lot more private flying IF than I do, so I respect your experience there.

You would probably be right, but don't assume that I also don't have lots of little fancy bits of paper of my own either.

I also have an admirably equipped IFR aircraft for my private flying.