VMC, VFR and Correct R/T
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VMC, VFR and Correct R/T
A NPPL is not permitted to fly in IMC & cannot add an IMC rating to the licence, therefore to comply with VMC would involve remaining in VMC & not entering IMC.
Complying with VFR would involve not flying under IFR.
Seems clear enough to me
----------------------------------------------
"How, exactly, does one "comply" with VMC? And how does that differ from complying with VFR?"
Simples. VMC minima change according to level, qualification, airspace, and aircraft type. To be VFR you must comply with these minima.
Please don't tell me you are unaware of the minima YOU require, as per ANO?
Complying with VFR would involve not flying under IFR.
Seems clear enough to me
----------------------------------------------
"How, exactly, does one "comply" with VMC? And how does that differ from complying with VFR?"
Simples. VMC minima change according to level, qualification, airspace, and aircraft type. To be VFR you must comply with these minima.
Please don't tell me you are unaware of the minima YOU require, as per ANO?
IMC = "Instrument Meteorological Conditions"
VMC = "Visual Meteorological Conditions"
IFR = "Instrument Flight Rules"
VFR = "Visual Flight Rules"
VMC are those conditions under which flight by VFR is permitted.
There is a difference. It's a differnce it is important to understand, and it's clear from the answers above that at least two people here don't.
As rata2e says, these minima change depending on various factors. Those factors, however, don't change the definition of VMC.
If you fly in less than the conditions required by the rules, you aren't failing to comply with VMC. You are failing to comply with VFR.
If you are flying along quite happily above 3,000', 9999 vis, and flying VFR, and everything in the garden is rosy, but then the cloud begins to descend and you can no longer maintain the distance from cloud required, you don't bust VMC. You bust VFR.
It's the Rule that you break. You don't break the Weather Conditions.
"
If you are flying along quite happily above 3,000', 9999 vis, and flying VFR, and everything in the garden is rosy, but then the cloud begins to descend and you can no longer maintain the distance from cloud required, you don't bust VMC. You bust VFR."
Not quite. In the example you give, using your wording, you would indeed bust VMC, ie not comply with the minima. Therefore you break the VFR's, as required by the ANO.
Some people however seem to consider that if they dodge the majority of clouds then they are VMC. Very few people appear to understand the reasoning for the different VMC minima, especially where controlled airspace is concerned.
If you are flying along quite happily above 3,000', 9999 vis, and flying VFR, and everything in the garden is rosy, but then the cloud begins to descend and you can no longer maintain the distance from cloud required, you don't bust VMC. You bust VFR."
Not quite. In the example you give, using your wording, you would indeed bust VMC, ie not comply with the minima. Therefore you break the VFR's, as required by the ANO.
Some people however seem to consider that if they dodge the majority of clouds then they are VMC. Very few people appear to understand the reasoning for the different VMC minima, especially where controlled airspace is concerned.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR Rules
Missed the thread all day as been in my sick bed..!!!! 
the following may be of interest but I guess you all know it really!! 
VFR flight is permitted in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) by day within UK Airspace except that which is notified as Class ‘A’
Airspace.
The VMC minima are determined by class of airspace, altitude and airspeed; however, the pilot licence privileges notified at Schedule 8 of
the UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) may impose more stringent requirements on PPL/NPPL/BCPL holders.
VFR flight is not permitted in any UK airspace at night. Night is defined as the time from half an hour after sunset until half an hour before
sunrise, sunset and sunrise being determined at surface level.
In general separation standards are not applied by ATC to or between VFR flights and therefore separation from other aircraft remains the
responsibility of the pilot in command of a VFR flight. The exception to this applies in Class C Airspace – where ATC will separate VFR from
IFR but not VFR from VFR.
The Visual Flight Rules (Rules 25 to 29 of the UK Rules of the Air Regulations 2007 refer) require an aircraft to be flown in accordance with
the VMC minima appropriate to the classification of the airspace. Additionally, when flying in controlled airspace (except Class E) unless
otherwise authorised by the ATC Unit, the commander of the aircraft must file a flight plan (see page 29), obtain an ATC clearance, maintain
a listening watch on the appropriate frequency and comply with any instructions given by the ATC Unit. Pilots are reminded that a response
of “Standby” from ATC is NOT a clearance and Controlled Airspace (CAS) should NOT be entered on such a command.
VFR flight is not permitted in Class A Controlled Airspace.
Requirements for VFR flights
Weather minima for VFR flight within Controlled Airspace (Classes C to E Airspace).
(a) At and above FL 100
8 km flight visibility#
1500m horizontally from cloud*
1000ft vertically from cloud*.
(b) Below FL 100
5 km flight visibility#
1500m horizontally from cloud*
1000ft vertically from cloud*.
(c) At or below 3000ft
As in (b) above
for fixed wing aircraft operating at 140kt or less:
5 km flight visibility#
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
For helicopters:
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
# For the purpose of taking off or landing within a Control Zone, the actual meteorological visibility reported by ATC shall be taken
as the flight visibility. (Rule 26 of the UK Air Navigation Order refers).
There is no Class B Airspace in the UK FIR and Class C only exists above FL195.
the following may be of interest but I guess you all know it really!! VFR flight is permitted in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) by day within UK Airspace except that which is notified as Class ‘A’
Airspace.
The VMC minima are determined by class of airspace, altitude and airspeed; however, the pilot licence privileges notified at Schedule 8 of
the UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) may impose more stringent requirements on PPL/NPPL/BCPL holders.
VFR flight is not permitted in any UK airspace at night. Night is defined as the time from half an hour after sunset until half an hour before
sunrise, sunset and sunrise being determined at surface level.
In general separation standards are not applied by ATC to or between VFR flights and therefore separation from other aircraft remains the
responsibility of the pilot in command of a VFR flight. The exception to this applies in Class C Airspace – where ATC will separate VFR from
IFR but not VFR from VFR.
The Visual Flight Rules (Rules 25 to 29 of the UK Rules of the Air Regulations 2007 refer) require an aircraft to be flown in accordance with
the VMC minima appropriate to the classification of the airspace. Additionally, when flying in controlled airspace (except Class E) unless
otherwise authorised by the ATC Unit, the commander of the aircraft must file a flight plan (see page 29), obtain an ATC clearance, maintain
a listening watch on the appropriate frequency and comply with any instructions given by the ATC Unit. Pilots are reminded that a response
of “Standby” from ATC is NOT a clearance and Controlled Airspace (CAS) should NOT be entered on such a command.
VFR flight is not permitted in Class A Controlled Airspace.
Requirements for VFR flights
Weather minima for VFR flight within Controlled Airspace (Classes C to E Airspace).
(a) At and above FL 100
8 km flight visibility#
1500m horizontally from cloud*
1000ft vertically from cloud*.
(b) Below FL 100
5 km flight visibility#
1500m horizontally from cloud*
1000ft vertically from cloud*.
(c) At or below 3000ft
As in (b) above
for fixed wing aircraft operating at 140kt or less:
5 km flight visibility#
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
For helicopters:
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
# For the purpose of taking off or landing within a Control Zone, the actual meteorological visibility reported by ATC shall be taken
as the flight visibility. (Rule 26 of the UK Air Navigation Order refers).
There is no Class B Airspace in the UK FIR and Class C only exists above FL195.
@ fis
Quote :- "Missed the thread all day as been in my sick bed"
Too many freeby choccy biscuits was it ?
(oh, & of course you can fly IFR in VMC, as any fule know
Quote :- "Missed the thread all day as been in my sick bed"
Too many freeby choccy biscuits was it ?
(oh, & of course you can fly IFR in VMC, as any fule know
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite. In the example you give, using your wording, you would indeed bust VMC, ie not comply with the minima. Therefore you break the VFR's, as required by the ANO.
You are right that you bust VFR. But you can still be VMC, which merely means that you can see out.
Imagine that you are happily flying along. You are VFR in VMC. You decide, just for the hell of it, to pile the power on (remembering, of course, to trim for the greater speed. You bust the VMC speed limit. Met conditions haven't changed - only your speed. You have just broken Visual Flight RULES. You can't break Visual Meteorological Conditions, meaning the weather prevailing at the time.
In uncontrolled airspace by day, if you are IMC you have to fly IFR.
If you are in VMC you have a choice to fly VFR or IFR.
The RULES state what you can do in the CONDITIONS. You break the RULES. You can't break the weather CONDITIONS. You can't comply with the CONDITIONS. The rules merely state whether, given such-and-such a set of conditions, you are permitted to do.
Please stop confusing one with the other.
@ Captain Stable
Excellent last post - it would be great if that that description could be added to ATC & Pilot manuals - trouble is, by the time the powers-that-be finished with it, it would probably be back to square one
Excellent last post - it would be great if that that description could be added to ATC & Pilot manuals - trouble is, by the time the powers-that-be finished with it, it would probably be back to square one
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eric - thanks! The cheque is in the post, accompanied by a Kitkat.
Does it matter if people misunderstand the rules and insist on trying to peddle that misunderstanding? I posted in another thread a comment about someone giving the wrong signal to an aircraft and saying that it didn't matter that it was the wrong signal. Is that inmportant?
Yes, it bl00dy well does matter.
It matters that people use incorrect R/T phraseology, and in doing so jam up the airwaves for everyone else. It matters that helicopters have been following ground features with the feature on their right. It matters that people use words like "overshoot" when they mean "go-around".
In short, it matters every time people screw up or, even, deliberately disobey the rules. It puts others at risk.
Come down to my airfield some time and sit in the cafe. Listen to the peole who consider themselves "old, venerable" pilots sitting around and doing nothing but bullsh1t about flying, despite the fact that quite a few of them have never been seen in an aircraft in the last three years, or that many of those who have flown haven't ever actually been seen in the self-briefing facility.
Flying is a learning experience. Every day I fly, I learn. I learn from other instructors, I learn from my students. The day I stop learning will be the day I stop flying, because that will mean I have become dangerous through thinking I know everything there is to know about flying.
The best advice I was ever given by one of my instructors was one day while I was sitting reading AAIB reports waiting for the weather to improve. I had commented on one case where the pilot had been blo00dy stupid, and crashed, killing not himself but his innocent passenger. My instructor said "Every time you fly, imagine your flight narrated in the sort of terms they use in those reports, and think whether you want someone else, some time in the future, to read that report of your flight and say 'What a pr@t that bloke was'. For example 'Despite descending cloudbase and degraded visibility, the pilot elected to push on to his destination' or 'The pilot was not seen in the self-briefing facility, nor did anyone see him carry out a pre-flight inspection of the aircraft'."
Tha advice has helped me to ensure I try to cover all bases, that I perform to the highest level of professionalism that I can.
Too many people out there operate on the basis that they are totally within their comfort zone, and know what is going on. The danger is that they stop learning, or, rather, start thinking they don't need to learn. "Biggles" is one of those latter.
Too many people don't challenge themselves, by taking a pride in their flying - by seeing how damn close to their chosen altitude they can keep the aircraft (can you fly correct to +10'?) or how precise they can get their pre-flight planning and navigation (and heading keeping) in-flight, or ensuring their R/T phraseology is strict CAP413, without "ums" and "ers", getting the message out promptly, understandably, and complete.
How many pilots get their PPLs and then spend the next 20 years going off to the next airfield for a cup of coffee and another load of bullsh1t before going home? A significant number, I would suggest. Not enough go on to do other things with their licence - get an IMC rating, get a night rating, book a trip with an instructor before two years is up, just to trap any bad habits you might have got into, or to use him/her as a safety pilot while you practice PFLs keeping away from trees, or learn spin recovery, or get some aerobatics instruction, or join a precision flying group...
How many pilots, after qualifying, then buy the latest book on Human Performance to find out about latest thinking or discoveries? How many actually read Accident Reports so they can learn from the mistakes of others? How many put themselves on a single-pilot CRM course?
Too darn few.
How many, having qualified, buy themselves a GPS and then fly off trusting entirely in the technology to keep them safe, get into bad habits and then moan at an instructor when having a checkflight because they've got into bad habits and cannot remember the first thing about carrying out a PFL?
Too darn many.
It's time pilots themselves cleaned up their act and started to behave with a LOT more professionalism than one tends to see and hear around the place, and stopped trying to inculcate the same bad habits in others.
And when that happens we'll have fewer bl00dy stupid cases like "Biggles".
Originally Posted by dont overfil
Does any of this matter if as a couple of earlier posts suggest he was not even legal to fly in 100 mile vis cloudless VFR class G sky.
Yes, it bl00dy well does matter.
It matters that people use incorrect R/T phraseology, and in doing so jam up the airwaves for everyone else. It matters that helicopters have been following ground features with the feature on their right. It matters that people use words like "overshoot" when they mean "go-around".
In short, it matters every time people screw up or, even, deliberately disobey the rules. It puts others at risk.
Come down to my airfield some time and sit in the cafe. Listen to the peole who consider themselves "old, venerable" pilots sitting around and doing nothing but bullsh1t about flying, despite the fact that quite a few of them have never been seen in an aircraft in the last three years, or that many of those who have flown haven't ever actually been seen in the self-briefing facility.
Flying is a learning experience. Every day I fly, I learn. I learn from other instructors, I learn from my students. The day I stop learning will be the day I stop flying, because that will mean I have become dangerous through thinking I know everything there is to know about flying.
The best advice I was ever given by one of my instructors was one day while I was sitting reading AAIB reports waiting for the weather to improve. I had commented on one case where the pilot had been blo00dy stupid, and crashed, killing not himself but his innocent passenger. My instructor said "Every time you fly, imagine your flight narrated in the sort of terms they use in those reports, and think whether you want someone else, some time in the future, to read that report of your flight and say 'What a pr@t that bloke was'. For example 'Despite descending cloudbase and degraded visibility, the pilot elected to push on to his destination' or 'The pilot was not seen in the self-briefing facility, nor did anyone see him carry out a pre-flight inspection of the aircraft'."
Tha advice has helped me to ensure I try to cover all bases, that I perform to the highest level of professionalism that I can.
Too many people out there operate on the basis that they are totally within their comfort zone, and know what is going on. The danger is that they stop learning, or, rather, start thinking they don't need to learn. "Biggles" is one of those latter.
Too many people don't challenge themselves, by taking a pride in their flying - by seeing how damn close to their chosen altitude they can keep the aircraft (can you fly correct to +10'?) or how precise they can get their pre-flight planning and navigation (and heading keeping) in-flight, or ensuring their R/T phraseology is strict CAP413, without "ums" and "ers", getting the message out promptly, understandably, and complete.
How many pilots get their PPLs and then spend the next 20 years going off to the next airfield for a cup of coffee and another load of bullsh1t before going home? A significant number, I would suggest. Not enough go on to do other things with their licence - get an IMC rating, get a night rating, book a trip with an instructor before two years is up, just to trap any bad habits you might have got into, or to use him/her as a safety pilot while you practice PFLs keeping away from trees, or learn spin recovery, or get some aerobatics instruction, or join a precision flying group...
How many pilots, after qualifying, then buy the latest book on Human Performance to find out about latest thinking or discoveries? How many actually read Accident Reports so they can learn from the mistakes of others? How many put themselves on a single-pilot CRM course?
Too darn few.
How many, having qualified, buy themselves a GPS and then fly off trusting entirely in the technology to keep them safe, get into bad habits and then moan at an instructor when having a checkflight because they've got into bad habits and cannot remember the first thing about carrying out a PFL?
Too darn many.
It's time pilots themselves cleaned up their act and started to behave with a LOT more professionalism than one tends to see and hear around the place, and stopped trying to inculcate the same bad habits in others.
And when that happens we'll have fewer bl00dy stupid cases like "Biggles".
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Stable
I, as are probably numerous pilots, am looking out of this window at what closely resembles a monsoon. I as a 69 year old person understand & have understood for many years that this is a meteorological condition.
I also have realised since very early childhood that I cannot change these conditions. If I were to pull the aircraft out & fly it I would be breaking the Visual Flight Rules because I would not have the required 5 kilometers of lateral visibility required by the priveleges granted to me with my licence.
Having said all that I find it extremely tedious to continually describe in minute detail every situation where a rule has been broken or a condition has not been met.
The grey area that seems to be winding you up is perhaps for instance:- cloudbase 3500ft, Pilot NPPL, altitude 2000ft. Pilot is legal.
Pilot climbs to 3200ft, He is now not legal. He did not change the conditions. The conditions are still the same. The rule is still the same. What the pilot did was to place himself in met conditions that the rule says he should not fly in.
If, like me, one cannot be bothered to describe this in such detail, what one may say is. "He broke VMC." Meaning "He did not comply with the rules with regard to the meteorological conditions that he was allowed to operate in."
I just wish that people such as yourself would give the rest of us a little credit.
My cat has looked out the back door & decided that perhaps it will not be raining out the front.
Believe me, I could have told him that it WILL be raining out the front!!
I, as are probably numerous pilots, am looking out of this window at what closely resembles a monsoon. I as a 69 year old person understand & have understood for many years that this is a meteorological condition.
I also have realised since very early childhood that I cannot change these conditions. If I were to pull the aircraft out & fly it I would be breaking the Visual Flight Rules because I would not have the required 5 kilometers of lateral visibility required by the priveleges granted to me with my licence.
Having said all that I find it extremely tedious to continually describe in minute detail every situation where a rule has been broken or a condition has not been met.
The grey area that seems to be winding you up is perhaps for instance:- cloudbase 3500ft, Pilot NPPL, altitude 2000ft. Pilot is legal.
Pilot climbs to 3200ft, He is now not legal. He did not change the conditions. The conditions are still the same. The rule is still the same. What the pilot did was to place himself in met conditions that the rule says he should not fly in.
If, like me, one cannot be bothered to describe this in such detail, what one may say is. "He broke VMC." Meaning "He did not comply with the rules with regard to the meteorological conditions that he was allowed to operate in."
I just wish that people such as yourself would give the rest of us a little credit.
My cat has looked out the back door & decided that perhaps it will not be raining out the front.
Believe me, I could have told him that it WILL be raining out the front!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<sigh>
What I have been trying to get across to you is that precision of language is important.
I'll write slowly since you seem to be having quite some difficulty with this.
You don't break VMC.
You break VFR by flying in conditions below the specified minima.
There is no grey area. You are legal or you are not.
You cannot use expressions such as "complying with VMC" (the original phrase with which I was arguing) because that expression is a total nonsense. You either comply with the requirements of Visual Flight Rules or you do not.
To say "He bust VMC" instead of "He bust VFR" or "He didn't maintain VFR minima" is not only a nonsense, but in being lax with a very specific language (Aviation English) wherein expressions have very specific meanings, you confuse two terms, and it is important that people realise there is a difference.
I would hazard a bet that you don't use precise CAP413 phraseology, since anyway they'll understand what you're on about? That you report "Finals" instead of "Final"? And so on.
What I have been trying to get across to you is that precision of language is important.
I'll write slowly since you seem to be having quite some difficulty with this.
You don't break VMC.
You break VFR by flying in conditions below the specified minima.
There is no grey area. You are legal or you are not.
You cannot use expressions such as "complying with VMC" (the original phrase with which I was arguing) because that expression is a total nonsense. You either comply with the requirements of Visual Flight Rules or you do not.
To say "He bust VMC" instead of "He bust VFR" or "He didn't maintain VFR minima" is not only a nonsense, but in being lax with a very specific language (Aviation English) wherein expressions have very specific meanings, you confuse two terms, and it is important that people realise there is a difference.
I would hazard a bet that you don't use precise CAP413 phraseology, since anyway they'll understand what you're on about? That you report "Finals" instead of "Final"? And so on.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP 413 (UK civil): Final
JSP 318A (UK military): Finals
(I know it's not JSP 318A any more but that's the one I was familiar with)
Both right in my book.
JSP 318A (UK military): Finals
(I know it's not JSP 318A any more but that's the one I was familiar with)
Both right in my book.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: More or less all over the place
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VMC, VFR and Correct R/T
(Visual meteorological Conditions and Instrument Meteorological Conditions) VMC and IMC are nothing more than the determination of the locally observed meteorological conditions at ones position.
For understanding and explanation of the difference of the, often mis-used terms VMC/IMC and VFR/IFR (‘Visual/Instrument Meteorological Conditions’ and ‘Visual/Instrument Flight Rules’) we could simply just say (during day as well as night):
“Our position is in VMC if we could see anything (if it were there) away from the plane and we are in IMC if we would not be able to see anything away from the plane, due to clouds, fog, smoke, snow or rain etc. . .”
(Now, of course I know, we can further make this as complicated as we want by saying: “how much do wee need to see, are we in clouds, heavy rain haze, etc.” but that is not the first relevance for clearing up the usual misunderstanding and/or mis-use of these terms . . .)
VFR and IFR however, are just a set of rules we have to behave by and have, very controversially in this respect, not really to do with the actual meteorological conditions, unless these meteorological conditions should prevent us from using a specific set of applicable rules. (The rules would not cover for the conditions . . .)
In VMC we could (depending on local rules . . .) fly according to the VFR or according to the IFR.
In IMC we can usually not fly according to the VFR, because these rules usually forbid us to fly in IMC, so we have to behave according to the IFR . . .
(Again, of course I know, we can further make it as complicated as we want by saying: “What? IFR has everything to do with the meteorological conditions… etc.” but that is not relevant now and here for clearing up this usual misunderstanding and/or mis-use of these terms to begin with . . .)
Many pilots, of all categories, mean to say a thing and use the wrong wording more than often, such as: “The aircraft is flying VFR when meaning to say the aircraft is OUTSIDE the clouds. (In this case the wording should be VMC . . .) Or the aircraft was flying IFR meaning to say it was IN clouds. (In which case the wording should be IMC . . .)
I think it is this simple:
VMC/IMC tell us the (physical) conditions in which we are . . .
VFR/IFR tell us how to behave.
In VMC you MAY fly according either the VFR or the IFR. *)
In IMC you MAY only fly according to the IFR . . .
IMHO, only if this basic mis-use (I hear it almost on a daily basis . . .) is understood clearly, we can go a little further . . .
Kind regards, learner . . .
*) Edited for 'either' as mentioned in post below. Thank you, SoCal App. I used the wrong wording here. But I'm glad to keep on having opportunities for learning all the time . . . Captain Stable. Thanks for the slack . . .
For understanding and explanation of the difference of the, often mis-used terms VMC/IMC and VFR/IFR (‘Visual/Instrument Meteorological Conditions’ and ‘Visual/Instrument Flight Rules’) we could simply just say (during day as well as night):
“Our position is in VMC if we could see anything (if it were there) away from the plane and we are in IMC if we would not be able to see anything away from the plane, due to clouds, fog, smoke, snow or rain etc. . .”
(Now, of course I know, we can further make this as complicated as we want by saying: “how much do wee need to see, are we in clouds, heavy rain haze, etc.” but that is not the first relevance for clearing up the usual misunderstanding and/or mis-use of these terms . . .)
VFR and IFR however, are just a set of rules we have to behave by and have, very controversially in this respect, not really to do with the actual meteorological conditions, unless these meteorological conditions should prevent us from using a specific set of applicable rules. (The rules would not cover for the conditions . . .)
In VMC we could (depending on local rules . . .) fly according to the VFR or according to the IFR.
In IMC we can usually not fly according to the VFR, because these rules usually forbid us to fly in IMC, so we have to behave according to the IFR . . .
(Again, of course I know, we can further make it as complicated as we want by saying: “What? IFR has everything to do with the meteorological conditions… etc.” but that is not relevant now and here for clearing up this usual misunderstanding and/or mis-use of these terms to begin with . . .)
Many pilots, of all categories, mean to say a thing and use the wrong wording more than often, such as: “The aircraft is flying VFR when meaning to say the aircraft is OUTSIDE the clouds. (In this case the wording should be VMC . . .) Or the aircraft was flying IFR meaning to say it was IN clouds. (In which case the wording should be IMC . . .)
I think it is this simple:
VMC/IMC tell us the (physical) conditions in which we are . . .
VFR/IFR tell us how to behave.
In VMC you MAY fly according either the VFR or the IFR. *)
In IMC you MAY only fly according to the IFR . . .
IMHO, only if this basic mis-use (I hear it almost on a daily basis . . .) is understood clearly, we can go a little further . . .
Kind regards, learner . . .
*) Edited for 'either' as mentioned in post below. Thank you, SoCal App. I used the wrong wording here. But I'm glad to keep on having opportunities for learning all the time . . . Captain Stable. Thanks for the slack . . .
Last edited by learner001; 24th Aug 2009 at 01:32.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by airpolice
I might point that I call "Finals" because that's exactly the right call for me to make. Some things may be not be as black and white as you think.
The word "finals" appears nowhere in all of CAP413.
Your profile describes you as an NPPL student. How prepared are you to ensure you learn correct phraseology?
SoCal, I don't think learner001's first language is English - cut him some slack. But you are correct. Where I'm not prepared to cut people some slack is where they KNOW what the correct words are but refuse to use them because they like to stick to their own idiosyncrasies. It's part of professionalism (which even Private Pilots / NPPLs can apply) and trying to make your performance the best you can for the good and safety of all.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That I cannot argue with in the least. As I say, my argument is with those who don't even try to use the correct phraseology, knowing what they say is wrong and making no attempt (either because they don't care or are too bl00dy-minded) to improve their performance.
In a former company of mine, pilots were notorious for saying things like "London, it's the Fastjet 123..." on first contact with a new sector's controller.
I've heard things like "[ATC Unit], G-XXXX, we'd like if we may, and if it won't cause any problem, to .... blah blah blah.". What's wrong with the one word "Request"? Time and again you hear all sorts of ums, ers, pauses etc. etc. simply because people won't take the trouble to work out BEFORE hitting the tit what they want to say, what to expect as an answer, and therefore what they need to acknowledge or read back. On a busy sector, you can just hear pilots all over the sky, fingers poised over the PTT, saying to themselves "come on, come ON, stop hogging the airwaves"!
But my basic theme is that too many pilots don't take a pride in their flying, not merely R/T, promulgate misunderstandings by listening to non-current drivers of cafe tables, never read a book, don't critique themselves on their performance, don't take steps to keep themselves current with changes in legislation or science, and end up in trees just off some fairway without paying their green fees or club membership.
In a former company of mine, pilots were notorious for saying things like "London, it's the Fastjet 123..." on first contact with a new sector's controller.
I've heard things like "[ATC Unit], G-XXXX, we'd like if we may, and if it won't cause any problem, to .... blah blah blah.". What's wrong with the one word "Request"? Time and again you hear all sorts of ums, ers, pauses etc. etc. simply because people won't take the trouble to work out BEFORE hitting the tit what they want to say, what to expect as an answer, and therefore what they need to acknowledge or read back. On a busy sector, you can just hear pilots all over the sky, fingers poised over the PTT, saying to themselves "come on, come ON, stop hogging the airwaves"!
But my basic theme is that too many pilots don't take a pride in their flying, not merely R/T, promulgate misunderstandings by listening to non-current drivers of cafe tables, never read a book, don't critique themselves on their performance, don't take steps to keep themselves current with changes in legislation or science, and end up in trees just off some fairway without paying their green fees or club membership.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Stable
Your hazarded bet would have won! Go to the top of the class.
I do not however think "they'll know what I'm on about". I make certain they do know what I'm on about by whatever terminology is required.
If you don't mind, do not try to guess at my level of couldn't give a f**k attitude. I can assure you, Mr Perfect, that I do very much give a f**k.
I have been known to use "over" or "wait one" or "copy that" or "say again" on occasion.
None of which are life threatening.
"Life is too short to stuff a mushroom" I believe is the term.
Your hazarded bet would have won! Go to the top of the class.
I do not however think "they'll know what I'm on about". I make certain they do know what I'm on about by whatever terminology is required.
If you don't mind, do not try to guess at my level of couldn't give a f**k attitude. I can assure you, Mr Perfect, that I do very much give a f**k.
I have been known to use "over" or "wait one" or "copy that" or "say again" on occasion.
None of which are life threatening.
"Life is too short to stuff a mushroom" I believe is the term.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Cap'n Stable:
Well, thank god we still manage to be human. What's the problem about someone saying "it's the Fastjet 123" instead of "Fastjet 123"?
1) extra RT time? Yeah, about half a nanosecond
2) the guy's a ponce? Yeah, but if he wasn't we'd have nothing to say about him on this forum and elsewhere
3) Safety? I don't think so.
4) Private pilots not being professional enough? Absolutely. They're private individuals, not professionals. They have neither the professional training nor (in most cases) the experience. But our airspace system is designed to cope with the full range of users. Long may it do so.
Come the day when the sky's full of UAVs sending datastreams from their computers to the other computers in other UAVs and ATC centres, there'll be no-one speaking on the radio and every airspace user will by definition have perfect RT. Happily I won't be there.
NS
my argument is with those who don't even try to use the correct phraseology
1) extra RT time? Yeah, about half a nanosecond
2) the guy's a ponce? Yeah, but if he wasn't we'd have nothing to say about him on this forum and elsewhere
3) Safety? I don't think so.
4) Private pilots not being professional enough? Absolutely. They're private individuals, not professionals. They have neither the professional training nor (in most cases) the experience. But our airspace system is designed to cope with the full range of users. Long may it do so.
Come the day when the sky's full of UAVs sending datastreams from their computers to the other computers in other UAVs and ATC centres, there'll be no-one speaking on the radio and every airspace user will by definition have perfect RT. Happily I won't be there.
NS
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a house
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"final", "finals" c'mon who gives a monkey's! I am all for prompt, correct rt, it makes everyones life easier, and safer but the most important thing is to think before opening your mouth. Pretty soon we will be told what accent to speak in.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Crash one
I have been known to use "over" or "wait one" or "copy that" or "say again" on occasion.
Furthermore, I would never claim to be anywhere near "Mr. Perfect". I make an effort, however, which too many do not.
I have no beef with private pilots not being trained to professional standards. I know they are not. I well remember my GFT/IR courses and, like everyone else, I found them very demanding. What I am on about, if you could please re-read what I wrote, is professionalism of attitude. That's very different.
You say
Your hazarded bet would have won! Go to the top of the class.
...
If you don't mind, do not try to guess at my level of couldn't give a f**k attitude.
...
If you don't mind, do not try to guess at my level of couldn't give a f**k attitude.
NorthSouth, if you don't know the number of fatal accidents in which use of non-standard R/T procedure has been a very significant factor, I shan't bother enlightening you. If you can't be bothered to look them up and learn from them, you are part of the problem yourself.
American pilots don't understand the problem in the UK with use of standardised phraseology, for the simple reason that almost all pilots in US airspace speak good English and you have to go a long wasy to find someone who doesn't, so if they diverge from standard phraseology, it is generally very likely that everyone else will understand them.
In the UK it's rather different. There are a lot of people around for whom English is a second (or later) language and the only English they may know is what they've learnt in order to fly - in other words, standard aviation English. If you diverge from that, they won't understand. It is generally accepted that only 7% of normal communication is verbal. The rest is body language, tone of voice, facial expression, hand gestures, etc. etc. Subtract from that 7% for other transmissions "treading on" yours, for poor microphone quality, for background noise, and you begin to have a problem. Furthermore, in the debate over the use of English at CDG, it was pointed out by the DCA that, in Air/Ground communication, it is not assumed that the "party line" theory works, that pilots increase their situational awareness by listening to other aircrafts' transmissions. As pilots, of course, we know this is bunk, and we most certainly DO listen to and gain much situational awareness by overhearing other conversations. Limit the understanding of those and you limit situational awareness.
So Safety? Yes, very much so.
Add in extra words like "it's the" and you might be misunderstood - when transmitting, you don't hear how your words get to the other end. Did that crackle come just at the wrong moment? Will somebody else mentally fill in the gap incorrectly? Does inserting extra, unnecessary words actually HELP? Of course it doesn't. So why do it?
And see my comment above about professionalism of attitude. If you can't be bothered to fly with that sort of attitude, should you be flying at all? If you feel free to diverge from the accepted standard, where does that stop? If YOU decide to draw the line elsewhere, what is acceptable to you? What phraseology is ruled out? Anything at all?
"final", "finals" c'mon who gives a monkey's! I am all for prompt, correct rt