VFR?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the Dog house
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a few are happy with the Big Sky theory. Id ask " Were all parties aware of their responsibilities for separation? " VFR man didnt appear to be, as he had his head in the clouds - literally; so lady luck was doing the actual separating by the sounds of it. Though not responsible for providing an actual sep service I would have thought ATC would also have a duty of care regarding clearances issued within CAS. Surely the controller would have been aware of local met conditions within his area of responsibility from METARs, pilot reports, and sector obs etc. If I looked out the window and could se that the cct area cloudbase was less than 1500 or so I would be very careful about giving anyone a VFR clearance with potentially conflicting IFR traffic about. SVFR maybe if thats used in the UK and then I think a sep standard is required in class D ; that may be a localism country to country - I cant remember.
This type of incident probably happens in the UK a fair bit due in part to the changeable and very crappy polar maritime weather by the sound of it. Potentially an accident waiting to happen.
Id file soemthing if only to add to the CAA (?) flight safety database . May be useful for when the sh*t does hit the fan for some poor unfortunate . Or, if the "pile of similar reports " becomes too high, maybe someone will take a closer look at the "problem" before anything like an accident actually eventuates!
DogGone
This type of incident probably happens in the UK a fair bit due in part to the changeable and very crappy polar maritime weather by the sound of it. Potentially an accident waiting to happen.
Id file soemthing if only to add to the CAA (?) flight safety database . May be useful for when the sh*t does hit the fan for some poor unfortunate . Or, if the "pile of similar reports " becomes too high, maybe someone will take a closer look at the "problem" before anything like an accident actually eventuates!
DogGone
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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) "
I have also read of occasions where people have been instructed (for instance up North) to enter the LLR at 1500 when there is terrain between their current (OCAS) position and the LLR that is above 1500 ft.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mind you, other than with a radar service, I dont know why we all believe you are going to see and avoid in VMC.
The evidence aint great, and if another aircraft is going to hit you, the chances are you will never see it.
The evidence aint great, and if another aircraft is going to hit you, the chances are you will never see it.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Potentially an accident waiting to happen
Sure there is but the odds are close to zero.
The UK stats are:
4 VMC midairs in last 10 years, all below 1000ft. I read the details of 2 of them; one was in a circuit and the other one was a pilot taking photos (orbiting) at low level and got hit by a Tornado.
Last IMC one was during WW2.
As I have said so many times
a target on a genuine collision course will be stationary in your field of view (assuming straight line trajectories). The "see and avoid" principle, a cornerstone of PPL training since WW1, is plain rubbish. The only meaningful exception is targets that are changing direction vigorously e.g. aerobatics or gliders.
Circuits are genuinely unsafe IMHO especially the stupid idiotic overhead join where you get multiple targets all at 2000ft and unless you are flying a glass sphere with 360 deg field of vision and a rubber neck you will never get visual with all of them.
But enroute is fine.
Sure there is but the odds are close to zero.
The UK stats are:
4 VMC midairs in last 10 years, all below 1000ft. I read the details of 2 of them; one was in a circuit and the other one was a pilot taking photos (orbiting) at low level and got hit by a Tornado.
Last IMC one was during WW2.
As I have said so many times
a target on a genuine collision course will be stationary in your field of view (assuming straight line trajectories). The "see and avoid" principle, a cornerstone of PPL training since WW1, is plain rubbish. The only meaningful exception is targets that are changing direction vigorously e.g. aerobatics or gliders.Circuits are genuinely unsafe IMHO especially the stupid idiotic overhead join where you get multiple targets all at 2000ft and unless you are flying a glass sphere with 360 deg field of vision and a rubber neck you will never get visual with all of them.
But enroute is fine.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get very fed up with “see and avoid does not work”. If you tell the PPL population see and avoid is a waste of time, the amount of effort spent on lookout will drop and “see and avoid” will stop working as we will have stopped trying to keep a good lookout. This is bad news for all except the IFR boys.
I sometimes fly with an ex member of the royal observer core. He is three times better at spotting other aircraft than I am, and I think I am quite good. A good lookout is something which requires effort, make no effort to keep a good lookout and you are a bad pilot.
Rod1
I sometimes fly with an ex member of the royal observer core. He is three times better at spotting other aircraft than I am, and I think I am quite good. A good lookout is something which requires effort, make no effort to keep a good lookout and you are a bad pilot.
Rod1
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the Dog house
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See and avoid? Separate debate / thread really.
Of note maybe- if you keep your eyes moving; as in a scan mode, then I believe that the experts tell us that your peripheral vision is still able to detect an apparently "non moving" target that is a dead ringer i.e same crossing track/ level. Head on - no chance ! This was taught to us on basic Jet provost training many years ago!- I think - or it wasnt - and Ive read it somewhere since ( during the last 20 years). But I would agree with the sentiment that, all things considered, the 'risk" of such an encounter is minimal compared to the efficiency of the system as a whole. But should there suddenly be a dramatic increase in the number of hits v misses would the airspace be changed to class C and ATC expected to separate? I think not. Present system is cheap and relatively effective. Changing anything is expensive and time consuming for all. However UK is unique in that it is blessed with good radar coverage almost everywhere and a mil that offers a LARS based on RIS/RAS which doesnt take any chances with all that ICAO VFR/ IFR stuff. Probably the best system in the world at resolving potential conflictions between particiapting acft OCAS. CANP also helps resolve potential conflicts before they emerge (is it still going?) Should bases reduce further and radar coverage and associated LARS decrease then what?
Of course the number of near misses is ofetn unreported unless an AIRPROX is filed. OCAS filing probably rarely happens as it comes with the territory. But conjested airpsace, different skill / experience levels / changeable weather etc are all loading the dice on a daily basis.
If I were flying around the Uk, I would be listening and looking out very, very carefully in anything less than class C - even when IFR.
Lookout -Attitude - Instruements
DogGone
Of note maybe- if you keep your eyes moving; as in a scan mode, then I believe that the experts tell us that your peripheral vision is still able to detect an apparently "non moving" target that is a dead ringer i.e same crossing track/ level. Head on - no chance ! This was taught to us on basic Jet provost training many years ago!- I think - or it wasnt - and Ive read it somewhere since ( during the last 20 years). But I would agree with the sentiment that, all things considered, the 'risk" of such an encounter is minimal compared to the efficiency of the system as a whole. But should there suddenly be a dramatic increase in the number of hits v misses would the airspace be changed to class C and ATC expected to separate? I think not. Present system is cheap and relatively effective. Changing anything is expensive and time consuming for all. However UK is unique in that it is blessed with good radar coverage almost everywhere and a mil that offers a LARS based on RIS/RAS which doesnt take any chances with all that ICAO VFR/ IFR stuff. Probably the best system in the world at resolving potential conflictions between particiapting acft OCAS. CANP also helps resolve potential conflicts before they emerge (is it still going?) Should bases reduce further and radar coverage and associated LARS decrease then what?
Of course the number of near misses is ofetn unreported unless an AIRPROX is filed. OCAS filing probably rarely happens as it comes with the territory. But conjested airpsace, different skill / experience levels / changeable weather etc are all loading the dice on a daily basis.
If I were flying around the Uk, I would be listening and looking out very, very carefully in anything less than class C - even when IFR.
Lookout -Attitude - Instruements
DogGone
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course see and avoid is important. I've only been flying for about 18 months and there have been occasions in the open FIR where I've seen another aircraft and taken a significant course change to avoid. In one case it was an Apache at the same height as me who probably couldn't see me because I was coming out of the sun and even then passed pretty close. On top of that our circuit is sometimes invaded by military aircraft. See and aviod is important.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See and avoid is important because anything that helps you avoid another aircraft is a good thing.
However, see and avoid is a myth, however much we have been taught otherwise, and however much we wish other wise.
Here are some sobering facts that I referred to in another thread:
From the CAA
From the professional pilots association
Why did thet reach those conclusions?
Well at typical GA speeds between 90 and 180 mph, after the time to react, you have between 15 and 30 seconds to see an aircraft that will hit you. So in that time you have to be looking in the right place, spot a target on the screen that is not moving, and see the target when it is at least three miles away.
In short most likely you will see the targets that arent going to hit you, and hopefully you will see many of the slower moving and turning targets, but (excuse the phraseolgy) you are very unlikely to see the aircraft that is on a collision course with you if you are both travelling in straight lines.
What saves us most of the time is the big sky.
That doesnt mean dont see and avoid, and that doesnt mean dont keep a very good look out, but it does mean you will have a more realistic appreciation of the risks, and I guess it means that on an IFR day when there is inevitably a lot less traffic around you are probably far safer than on a really busy VFR Sunday afternoon in Summer haze.
Still IMHO doesnt excuse the pilot declaring himself VFR if he was not.
However, see and avoid is a myth, however much we have been taught otherwise, and however much we wish other wise.
Here are some sobering facts that I referred to in another thread:
From the CAA
“The principal means of avoiding collisions in uncontrolled airspace is “see and avoid”. Available evidence suggests that the effectiveness of “see and avoid” is questionable when used in isolation (i.e. not in conjunction with a radar service), implying an increased risk of failure to detect a loss of separation.”
“It is publications like the FAA's Advisory Circular on collision avoidance that help perpetuate the idea that all you have to do is pay attention, look out the windshield, and you won't have a midair collision. Rather, the FAA should be telling pilots how dangerous the see-and-avoid concept really is as a means of separating aircraft.”
Well at typical GA speeds between 90 and 180 mph, after the time to react, you have between 15 and 30 seconds to see an aircraft that will hit you. So in that time you have to be looking in the right place, spot a target on the screen that is not moving, and see the target when it is at least three miles away.
In short most likely you will see the targets that arent going to hit you, and hopefully you will see many of the slower moving and turning targets, but (excuse the phraseolgy) you are very unlikely to see the aircraft that is on a collision course with you if you are both travelling in straight lines.
What saves us most of the time is the big sky.
That doesnt mean dont see and avoid, and that doesnt mean dont keep a very good look out, but it does mean you will have a more realistic appreciation of the risks, and I guess it means that on an IFR day when there is inevitably a lot less traffic around you are probably far safer than on a really busy VFR Sunday afternoon in Summer haze.
Still IMHO doesnt excuse the pilot declaring himself VFR if he was not.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose - So has your fancily equipped aircraft got an air-to-air radar then? Because that's the substitute I'd be wanting to fly without an ATC radar service.
Bits of paper really don't bother me - I'm talking an airmanship issue - big sky theory or not, if I'm IMC I like some way of finding out who else is out there.
Bits of paper really don't bother me - I'm talking an airmanship issue - big sky theory or not, if I'm IMC I like some way of finding out who else is out there.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What seems to be missing from the discussion here is the "odd" way in which the UK handles the IR/IMC rating, the difference between IFR and VFR and the consequences of all this.
In most of the rest of the world, the distinction is quite clear. You are either VFR or IFR. If VFR, you are (supposed to be) in VMC (what VMC is depends on the airspace, obviously) and you can do whatever you please but you are responsible for your own separation (in most classes of airspace). If you are IFR, you have filed a flightplan, which you follow, you have an IR and ATC is responsible for your separation (in most classes of airspace). Very clear-cut.
With the UK IMC rating the difference between VFR and IFR becomes less of a formal thing, and more of a state of mind thing, leading to situations where a pilot can instantaneously (without telling anyone) switch from VFR to IFR and back in a lot of situations, to suit whatever is best for him. Can't get an IFR clearance through controlled airspace? Well, he'll take the VFR clearance then. But since he's got the IMC rating he'll possibly stay less clear of cloud as he's supposed to.
Mind you, the IMC rating is a fantastic thing if you look at the current (theory) requirements for the PPL/IR. But we all have to accept (plain PPL, PPL/IMC and PPL/IR) that there are pilots in the sky (over the UK) that are flying with an IFR mindset, but rely on "big sky" for separation. And depending on the actual weather, they may be in the same sky as a plain VMC/VFR PPL (but with their heads inside the cockpit) or in the same sky as a PPL/IR on an IFR flightplan (but without talking to ATC or having filed & following a formal flightplan).
So VFR pilots relying on see and avoid for separation may encounter other planes whose pilots have their heads firmly in the cockpit (because in their mind they're flying IFR), and IFR pilots may have it the other way around.
It's therefore not just the IMC pilots who accept that their separation is largely provided by the "big sky", but they place others in that same situation. Looks like that's what happened here.
In most of the rest of the world, the distinction is quite clear. You are either VFR or IFR. If VFR, you are (supposed to be) in VMC (what VMC is depends on the airspace, obviously) and you can do whatever you please but you are responsible for your own separation (in most classes of airspace). If you are IFR, you have filed a flightplan, which you follow, you have an IR and ATC is responsible for your separation (in most classes of airspace). Very clear-cut.
With the UK IMC rating the difference between VFR and IFR becomes less of a formal thing, and more of a state of mind thing, leading to situations where a pilot can instantaneously (without telling anyone) switch from VFR to IFR and back in a lot of situations, to suit whatever is best for him. Can't get an IFR clearance through controlled airspace? Well, he'll take the VFR clearance then. But since he's got the IMC rating he'll possibly stay less clear of cloud as he's supposed to.
Mind you, the IMC rating is a fantastic thing if you look at the current (theory) requirements for the PPL/IR. But we all have to accept (plain PPL, PPL/IMC and PPL/IR) that there are pilots in the sky (over the UK) that are flying with an IFR mindset, but rely on "big sky" for separation. And depending on the actual weather, they may be in the same sky as a plain VMC/VFR PPL (but with their heads inside the cockpit) or in the same sky as a PPL/IR on an IFR flightplan (but without talking to ATC or having filed & following a formal flightplan).
So VFR pilots relying on see and avoid for separation may encounter other planes whose pilots have their heads firmly in the cockpit (because in their mind they're flying IFR), and IFR pilots may have it the other way around.
It's therefore not just the IMC pilots who accept that their separation is largely provided by the "big sky", but they place others in that same situation. Looks like that's what happened here.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However UK is unique in that it is blessed with good radar coverage almost everywhere and a mil that offers a LARS based on RIS/RAS which doesnt take any chances with all that ICAO VFR/ IFR stuff. Probably the best system in the world at resolving potential conflictions between particiapting acft OCAS.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172 Driver - reread the last sentence - PARTICIPATING aircraft. How many close calls that you may have experienced yourself would have been prevented if you'd both been in receipt of a radar service?
Not saying you should always take a service, far from it - on a good VFR day I'll happily shut up and not bother talking to anyone if I'm staying away from their airspace and not going through any choke points.
Not saying you should always take a service, far from it - on a good VFR day I'll happily shut up and not bother talking to anyone if I'm staying away from their airspace and not going through any choke points.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think many pilots fly with their head inside the cockpit - unless they are in IMC.
And the more automation one has e.g. an autopilot the more likely one is going to be looking outside.
I am sure I have had near misses with other planes who took avoiding action, and they cursed me blindly as yet another stupid pilot with his head inside the cockpit and playing with his knobs
The truth is that I was looking out about 99% of the time, and didn't see them.
The UK treatment of IMC/IFR/VMC/VFR is indeed odd, but it does rather suit the powers in charge because it absolves them from having to provide an ATS service in Class G!
Currently, there is no ATS service in Class G - there are just bits of LARS when one can get them. The IFR/airways traffic gets a proper service, as they do everywhere else in Europe, but below the airways there is an absolute watertight cutoff.
If we were to get a universal enroute service (I mean radar, obviously) in Class G, somebody would have to pay for it, and nobody wants to. And, to be honest, I am sure that if you lined up 100 GA pilots and gave them the choice, 99 of them would prefer to fly for free and be on their own. Like me, they are happy to fly under their own nav, using GPS, and keeping out of everybody's way. With their transponder on Mode C of course, for the benefit of anybody who has spent the money on TCAS.
And the more automation one has e.g. an autopilot the more likely one is going to be looking outside.
I am sure I have had near misses with other planes who took avoiding action, and they cursed me blindly as yet another stupid pilot with his head inside the cockpit and playing with his knobs
The truth is that I was looking out about 99% of the time, and didn't see them.The UK treatment of IMC/IFR/VMC/VFR is indeed odd, but it does rather suit the powers in charge because it absolves them from having to provide an ATS service in Class G!
Currently, there is no ATS service in Class G - there are just bits of LARS when one can get them. The IFR/airways traffic gets a proper service, as they do everywhere else in Europe, but below the airways there is an absolute watertight cutoff.
If we were to get a universal enroute service (I mean radar, obviously) in Class G, somebody would have to pay for it, and nobody wants to. And, to be honest, I am sure that if you lined up 100 GA pilots and gave them the choice, 99 of them would prefer to fly for free and be on their own. Like me, they are happy to fly under their own nav, using GPS, and keeping out of everybody's way. With their transponder on Mode C of course, for the benefit of anybody who has spent the money on TCAS.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trial by pprune again is it? (I've skipped a few posts but I can get the gist).
Nobody but the pilot knows their conditions
Both were under a radar service
No safety was compromised
So what are you going to report? That you didn't "think" the other pilot was in VMC?
I once asked for IFR in the USA (entering LA basin from Banning Pass) coming back to Long Beach and the vis was getting bad, and I feared it may get worse. I was told to hold and that "time now is 20, expect further clearance at 44". It was still VMC, all be it at minimums and a sun going down, so I cancelled straight away and continued VFR with a radar service. Coming into Long Beach there was this bloke on the radio being told to descend to 1500' (our altitude) and he was winging and complaining that he couldn't maintain VFR at 1500'. So the controller asked us our conditions and we verified that it was indeed legally VFR. I say legally VFR because according to the definition of VMC we could still maintain VFR. I don't like marginal conditions which is why I asked IFR in the first place, but I also didn't want to spend 24 minutes in the hold. (we got a practice ILS to make sure we didn't miss the airport
).
My point is that this one bloke above us was complaining that we could not have been VFR when in actual fact we were in VMC....get the point?
Nobody but the pilot knows their conditions
Both were under a radar service
No safety was compromised
So what are you going to report? That you didn't "think" the other pilot was in VMC?
I once asked for IFR in the USA (entering LA basin from Banning Pass) coming back to Long Beach and the vis was getting bad, and I feared it may get worse. I was told to hold and that "time now is 20, expect further clearance at 44". It was still VMC, all be it at minimums and a sun going down, so I cancelled straight away and continued VFR with a radar service. Coming into Long Beach there was this bloke on the radio being told to descend to 1500' (our altitude) and he was winging and complaining that he couldn't maintain VFR at 1500'. So the controller asked us our conditions and we verified that it was indeed legally VFR. I say legally VFR because according to the definition of VMC we could still maintain VFR. I don't like marginal conditions which is why I asked IFR in the first place, but I also didn't want to spend 24 minutes in the hold. (we got a practice ILS to make sure we didn't miss the airport
).My point is that this one bloke above us was complaining that we could not have been VFR when in actual fact we were in VMC....get the point?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much more likely the guy didn't really think about (as in posts 50 and 15)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew from Leics to Spanhoe last week. Bits and bobs of cloud around 1400ft. Got to Spanhoe and it was on the deck 1nm away at Deenethorpe the sun was shining.
I would be less inclined to assume that because the cloud was so low at one point it was not perfect VFR a mile away.
Anther example, a couple of months ago I collect some aircraft from an auction. I was the only person that made it home VFR as I took a track a couple of miles further east than the other aircraft in the group, they encountered a lowering cloud base which got to around 700ft and they diverted to an airfield they passed straight over the top off. I flew all the way home VMC at 1400ft.
Lets not be quick to judge methinks.
Knight, One of the few things I dont have in the private plane is RADAR. Don't need it, see and avoid works well enough for me until I get into the Airway. Solid IMC the big sky theory works and there are few so people who are capable and equipped to fly in Class G that I stand more chance being run down on the way to the airfield. So I will take my chances and not succumb to your paranoia.
I would be less inclined to assume that because the cloud was so low at one point it was not perfect VFR a mile away.
Anther example, a couple of months ago I collect some aircraft from an auction. I was the only person that made it home VFR as I took a track a couple of miles further east than the other aircraft in the group, they encountered a lowering cloud base which got to around 700ft and they diverted to an airfield they passed straight over the top off. I flew all the way home VMC at 1400ft.
Lets not be quick to judge methinks.
Knight, One of the few things I dont have in the private plane is RADAR. Don't need it, see and avoid works well enough for me until I get into the Airway. Solid IMC the big sky theory works and there are few so people who are capable and equipped to fly in Class G that I stand more chance being run down on the way to the airfield. So I will take my chances and not succumb to your paranoia.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was a pilot requesting a zone transit VFR and the controller cleared me to transit at 2000ft, I would be very pi$$ed off if a pilot who was operating in the airspace, listening on the frequency knew that it was solid IMC from 1200 to 3000+ and did not report the matter straight away on the frequency.
xyz request cancel IFR. xyz be advised IMC reported in the vicinity of.......
Once again, while there may be an alleged breach of the ANO which would be very hard to proove, there is also a clear admitted case of sitting back and waiting for a VFR pilot to fly into airspace that was known to be IMC and not bothering to warn ATC or the other pilot.
Two sides to every report!!
Regards,
DFC
xyz request cancel IFR. xyz be advised IMC reported in the vicinity of.......
Once again, while there may be an alleged breach of the ANO which would be very hard to proove, there is also a clear admitted case of sitting back and waiting for a VFR pilot to fly into airspace that was known to be IMC and not bothering to warn ATC or the other pilot.
Two sides to every report!!
Regards,
DFC