Do you listen to ATC if they tell you the weather ahead is bad?

[soaringhigh650]

Marginal VMC (poor vis with embedded thick clouds) is when you must decide to go IFR. Believe me, it's better to do it sooner than later.

[Fuji Abound]

BS: Unless the pilot has entered into an agreement with a controller to maintain a specific level or level band, a pilot may change level without advising the controller/FISO.

Bookie

Thank you, I hadn't read this wording before.

Its left me wondering in practical terms how the pilots enters into an agreement.

X-XXXX is IFR FL45 at LYD dct SFD requesting a basic service. (type and other rubbish etc).

X-XXXX basic service.

So what is the contract? Presumably the controller would be obliged to say something more akin to X-XXXX with basic service report any change in level.

Doubtless the CAP reveals all, but I must declare its not bed side reading these days and I haven't heard a radio exchange where such a contract appears to have been explicitly reached between pilot and controller.

[GeeWhizz]

You mention 'no compass, no gyro'. My first experience of 'no compass, no gyro' was during my course to remove the no-applied instrument restriction from my FI privileges. Didn't see it on my IMC course or my IR. But a marvellous thing to be on the receiving end of. Do ATCOs get exposure to it in training?

Yes we do. it's a nice simple procedure to deal with. It's usually accompanied by the aircraft becoming speechless just before the NCNG tell tale turn. So we end up with a speechless no compass no gyro aircraft to work.

It's easier for the the controller doing the final approach, not to much for the poor person establishing initial contact and sequencing... funny though in a synthetic environment, no great shakes wheen done for real. I've had aircraft go speechless for real (no practice), but only practice NCNGs.

My understanding is that no compass / no gyro (and by that people mean no DI - the artificial horizon is irrelevant to this discussion so ignore a previous person's inverted comment) is easier for controllers because they tell you to turn left / right instead of calculating a heading to follow

Correct. It is a little easier as we dont have to add or subtract 2, 3, 4 or 5 from numbers 1 to 360 It's surprising how difficult nursery school mathematics can become sometimes!

Its left me wondering in practical terms how the pilots enters into an agreement.

Fuji, an agreement in this sense is when the pilot is asked to fly at/not below/not above an altitude, fly no further West/East/North/South than its current position and such like. The 'contract' stands when the pilot agrees to the request.

[Fuji Abound]

GeeWis yes point taken but that is not how it usually works with a BS. Yes the controller could ask the pilot to do X or stay within Y but in the example I gave the exchange is usually initiated with the pilot declaring what he is doing and at what height.

OK I also take the point that even if he has declared IFR and stated a level there is presumably no contract (implied or otherwise) with the controller with regard to his freedom to change level unless the controller specifically says "report any change of level" to which the pilot agrees (and he is entitled not to agree).

[GeeWhizz]

GeeWis yes point taken but that is not how it usually works with a BS. Yes the controller could ask the pilot to do X or stay within Y but in the example I gave the exchange is usually initiated with the pilot declaring what he is doing and at what height.

OK as an example a pilot wants a BS. No problem. Under a BS the pilot is as free as possible to do what he/she likes. There's no 'control' (facilitation) involved, just the passing of information. So far there is no agreement or contract between the air and the ground (the hope is that there will be no requirement for the BS aircraft to do anything other than what it wants to).

However, there are always situations that arise where a BS aircraft needs to be identified and asked to do something so as to be deconflicted from something else. Usually in busy class G.

A classic example would be a civil passenger aircraft inbound to somewhere like Norwich (pre-class D), where the civil sched would inevitably be under a DS as its the highest level of service OCAS. While us (GA) Johnny BS are playing in the approach lane it would be necessary to ask us to fly not above say 1500ft xxx pressure for example so that the civil aircraft could then descend to 2500ft same pressure (vertical coordination). By agreeing to not to fly above a level the pilot enters a recorded 'agreement' or verbal contract, whereby sadly if all goes to pot and the BS climbs a touch above 1500ft in this instance (that the pax aircraft notices), the tapes will show that everything was in order and we (the GA BS traffic) were in fact the culprit leading to loss of separation. It's quite a subtle system, but may lead to a lot of s**t legally speaking.

As well as frequently asking pilots for their assistance in this way, I've had it happen while inbound to an airport myself. Something along the lines of...

Controller: "G-FO for coordination against inbound ILS traffic will you fly not above 1300ft xxx hPa?"

Moi: "Affirm, not above 1300ft xxx hPa G-FO"

Controller (with a cheeky giggle in his voice) "G-FO its a B757 flying 1000ft over your head."

Moi (jovially) "Thanks for that G-FO!"

Of course it's the common courtesy to return to the BS aircraft to inform them that the affecting aircraft has passed and to 'resume own navigation' or 'manoeuvre as required' etc.

An agreement isn't established at the outset usually while receiving a BS, but will be created where necessary and possible. I hope this makes sense, it's not something that is taught on the PPl course as far as I remember. And there's no way I'd expect many PPLs or even CPLs to read CAP 774 line by line to fully understand what the hell it's going on about.

OK I also take the point that even if he has declared IFR and stated a level there is presumably no contract (implied or otherwise) with the controller with regard to his freedom to change level unless the controller specifically says "report any change of level" to which the pilot agrees (and he is entitled not to agree).

This is slightly different. Whether IFR or VFR doesn't matter. Well I guess whether IMC or VMC doesn't matter either. But TS & DS requires positive identification (squawking being easiest). During the initial contact after being given a squawk, or identified via another method, the pilot should hear:

"G-FO identified FL/Alt/Height, TS" for example. Stating the level, height or altitude, implies that a pilot will advise or request a level change (dependent on service) thereby agreeing to maintain its stated level. Subtle again I know, and no officially drawn up written 'contract'. But its all recorded no question of that.

[riverrock83]

Originally Posted by GeeWhizz

However, there are always situations that arise where a BS aircraft needs to be identified and asked to do something so as to be deconflicted from something else. Usually in busy class G.

This is quite familiar to me. I was in the "Cumbernauld gap", getting a basic service from Glasgow Approach/Radar and they told me to stay below 2000ft (without a reason why).

The Glasgow CTA had recently risen to 3000ft and I had planned to go south in Class G at 2500ft so was a bit miffed to be told to stay lower, knowing that I didn't need to be talking to Glasgow at all and was below the controlled airspace. My thought was "why raise the height of controlled airspace, then treat it as controlled airspace anyway - maybe they have not realised that the CTA Base has now changed".

My instructor said (correctly) that we should remain at the mandated altitude and we did so, presuming that we were being kept down by traffic overhead, but my impression at the time was that we were doing it as a courtesy rather than something we were legally obliged to do.

[GeeWhizz]

Riverrock it is all courtesy, or airmanship as we call it. You are not obliged to do anything that you don't want to or can't. I'm happy to admit that when I'm flying I'm the only person using the sky. What I fail to realise (although I should know better) is that there's a lot more going on than I know about. There are others whizzing about above and below me, that have probably been told where I am on another frequency, at least 4 telephone calls have probably been made to tell others what I'm doing, my routing, my last reported level etc. All of these things we are unaware of by plodding about around the countryside.

Perhaps 'telling' you to remain below 2000ft wasn't quite correct. I'm unfamiliar with the area and their procedures but to my mind they should have asked if you were able first, with some kind of reason. If so then I'm sure you would cooperate anyway (agreed to the request). But there could have been many reasons for it, most likely a transit over the top of you that needed the vertical distance. A question for the general forum, next time you asked to do something and don't really grasp why, simply ask. Many would rather you knew why something was happening than just agreeing to requests because it's the 'done thing'.

It's a harsh world, but its more reasonable to restrict a pilot with one passenger on a PPL lesson/sightseeing trip, than to send an aircraft of 50 passengers or more on a tour of Scotland.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Fishbangwallop

I fly in the USA, so I can only tell you my view...(737 captain, major airline...also general aviation background...CFIIMEIATPMEL).

I've received the following...1/4 mile visibility in freezing fog...and I looked out the window and could see the runway 10 miles away...everything fine all the way to touchdown.

What YOU should have done was to ask him for a pilot report all along the way...he might have said: visibility in excess of 5 miles...ground in sight, many breaks in undercast north of my position. conditions improving.

You aren't there...you are reading a report which may be anywhere from 1 minute old to 59 minutes old. things change.

I think you were correct to let him know...but you should also know, that sitting in your little radar room, you really don't know what is going on .


PIREPS are very important here...seems you don't do them in jolly olde...

[GeeWhizz]

Mr Stroker

I fly in the USA, so I can only tell you my view...(737 captain, major airline...also general aviation background...CFIIMEIATPMEL).

This is all very nice, but not really relevant to the question posed. This happened in Scotland (that's North of London), in a little aeroplane, in poor weather conditions, 'period'.
With your impressive string of 13 letters of USA qualifications I would suggest that you are out of touch with what is happening in the world of GA flying, and more particularly UK GA flying.

I've received the following...1/4 mile visibility in freezing fog...and I looked out the window and could see the runway 10 miles away...everything fine all the way to touchdown.

What YOU should have done was to ask him for a pilot report all along the way...he might have said: visibility in excess of 5 miles...ground in sight, many breaks in undercast north of my position. conditions improving.

Quite correct, he might have done. I think we've established that a. he didn't, and b. he wasn't. Passing the reported weather conditions at locations along the route makes for duty of care and providing information essential to the safe and efficient conduct of flight.

You aren't there...you are reading a report which may be anywhere from 1 minute old to 59 minutes old. things change.

They do. And FBW more than likely had access to the TAFs too (Terminal Area Forecasts), which may have been much different to those the flight was planned upon.

I think you were correct to let him know...but you should also know, that sitting in your little radar room, you really don't know what is going on .

He was. And he also knows that sitting in his 'little radar room' he is not flying. You clearly have never been to Scottish Centre to see the 'little radar room'... I think you'd be surprised. Not that a B737 will make it across the pond in one hop of course. And the last time I checked there aren't many B737s that have an air-air refuelling capability either.

PIREPS are very important here...seems you don't do them in jolly olde...

PIREPs are 'jolly' important here too, and are used daily if not hourly.

The tone of your comment is less than desirable here. For what was an informative and interesting discussion of something very relevant to GA flying not only in Scotland but the UK in general, I think you are misguided and misplaced. I urge you to reconsider your statements and post something more substantial, rather than mocking a helpful individual.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Dear GEE WHIZ

I fly the 737 because I have no desire whatsoever to fly to your side of the pond.

You guys seem so entrenched in ideas that don't seem to work very well. I think of all radar rooms as little...they certainly don't have many windows now do they?

I get such a kick about reading how you do things over there. They don't seem to work well as you are always complaining. Obviously this poor little private pilot in terrible weather actually made it to his destination or the original poster would have mentioned the investigation of his crash.

IF I am not mistaken, the pilot also mentioned everything was ''fine'' where he was.

You guys must have a huge inferiority complex or something. You won't believe that US guys over here who invented the freaking airplane might even know something you don't.

Sheesh.

And if the controller was so darned concerned for the pilot in question, he would have said: Sir you are flying into dangerous weather, reconsider your course of action...or he might have said: are you instrument rated and equipped?

now, why not eat your hagus and actually think for a moment that there are better ways to do things then what you are currently doing.

And dear monitor of the forum...I don't care if you kick me off PPRUNE forever.

Oh, and I listed my qualifications as a point of reference, as we don't know each other, now do we? I would hope you would do the same thing...but you didn't

And it sure was nice to see an AMERICAN built plane (planes) leading the flyover for the Queen. We call them DC3's or C47's...you call them Dakotas.

[sevenstrokeroll]

oh and GEEWHIZ

I am not out of touch with general aviation...I mentioned my credentials and perhaps you don't understand that I WAS AN INSTRUCTOR, and an INSTRUMENT INSTRUCTOR and a MULTI ENGINE INSTRUCTOR in addition to being an airline pilot.


and I've been to many ''radar rooms'' and I'm sure they are every bit as good as the nice ONE in scotland. And one of the first things our controllers here say is, without a PIREP we haven't a clue what is going on out in the real world except for METAR reports and those can be pretty old.

I think YOU should re-evaluate your methods and perhaps get some real flying experience...

and anyone that doesn't know a TAF can go quite ''wrong'' hasn't been around the block, let alone the circuit.

No, I've never flown in Scotland...never will if I'm lucky...I'd have to be darn off course...even worse than Douglas Corrigan.

But I do know this...your attitude would get you out of aviation in a new york minute over here.

[fisbangwollop]

7 stroke roll..

I think YOU should re-evaluate your methods and perhaps get some real flying experience...

I think you will find the service we provide at Scottish Info is appreciated by most...as for flying experience I have a few hundred hours of gliding experiance in mountain terrain.

No, I've never flown in Scotland...never will if I'm lucky.

Maybe we are the lucky one's if that is your attitude!!

we haven't a clue what is going on out in the real world except for METAR reports and those can be pretty old.

In this case not the case, I actually phoned Cumbernauld airport to get an actual as I knew the pilot intended to route only 3 miles east of the filed....the weather I was advised had a cloud base of overcast at 300ft!!

My original post has thrown out an interesting debate with regards operating LAA type aircraft and what the pilot can and cannot do.

My fear in this incident was although I knew from weather reports I had obtained for the pilot that despite him keep telling me things were OK with the weather where he presently was that the weather ahead was probably not good enough for VFR flight.

At the same time as this incident I was speaking to 2 other LAA type aircraft that were also trying to get back to the same base at Perth though taking a different route up the coast North from Newcastle.......at one stage one of the aircraft reported to me he was at 200FT!!!, OK possibly over the water but in my thoughts another disaster waiting to happen.....the third aircraft was the sensible one as he elected to land at Eshott as the weather ahead was below his own limits!!!!

So sorry guys if in future once again I get a feeling in my water that all is not well.....yes it is true that from my cosy operations room I can never have the full picture what really is happening out there....the information I give is just that INFORMATION and I rely on the pilots to make the correct call with regards safety of flight!!

Once again thank you one and all for your valuable input...

[mad_jock]

I think that the current rule 5 will be changed to stop scud running at sub 500ft agl.

I think all of us forget the person at the other end of our mikes who is going to have to deal with being the last person to speak to us if the worst happens.

To be honest this ban on IMC operations with very capable machines needs looked at. If that report proved that LAA types were safe enough to over fly built up areas it must prove that they are safe enough for flying in IMC.

[peterh337]

To be honest this ban on IMC operations with very capable machines needs looked at.

One solution would be a mandatory forward-facing camera with a satellite video uplink to the CAA.

Should not add much to the costs of aviation. The average salary at Gatwick is c. £50k and one person can keep an eye on at last four screens.

Any other suggestions?

[JOE-FBS]

"invented the freaking aeroplane"

Yes, the Wright brothers were brilliant, practical people who went out and learnt the theory and hence developed a practical aeroplane but you need to look at the work of pre-Wright pioneers such as Cayley and Lillienthal. Like the rest of us, the Wrights stood on the shoulders of giants.

America does many great things but teaching its people history and geography is not one of them.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Originally Posted by mad_jock

To be honest this ban on IMC operations with very capable machines needs looked at. If that report proved that LAA types were safe enough to over fly built up areas it must prove that they are safe enough for flying in IMC.

This is, IMHO, long overdue. Allowing these types to fly legally in IMC may actually reduce the accident rate if it results in fewer folks pressing on visually in unsuitable weather.

Many moons ago, I'd arranged with another pilot to ferry an aircraft from Shoreham to Elstree. My wife drove us there, and the weather was perhaps 400-600' OVC in continuous rain the whole way down. This chap wanted to fly back under it (apparently he'd done this lots of times before). I said I'd happily fly it IFR to Luton (in those days landing + a night's parking was less than £20) but he wanted it back at Elstree & insisted it would be OK to go VFR under the overcast.

I refused to get in the aircraft & drove back home with my wife. His passenger (who had never flown before), climbed aboard & I watched them depart into the murk.

Somehow they got back to Elstree but nothing would have persuaded me to attempt the trip under VFR in those conditions.

[Pace]

SevenUp

Your style reminds me of someone who used to post here! The fact is that pilots in GA are a mixed bag. Some very capable some not so.
To the capable pilot he will get information from a number of sources ATC being one and then make a judgement on his course of action.
I hope always flying in his and the aircrafts limits.
Sadly many get into situations where they are flying out of their or the aircraft limits and either survive to fly another day or dont.
Many years back I was positioning a wreck of a Cessna 150 to a base 90 nm away.
This 150 had an instrument panel but not one piece of working nav aid.
I took off under a 1000 foot cloudbase in rain and as the area was in high ground elected to follow a river which went nearly past my destination.
The idea in my brain was that even if the cloudbase and vis came down keeping over the river would mean I would not hit high ground.
Before I knew it I was down to 200 feet agl in worsening rain and visibility.
When at 200 feet agl further scud cloud appeared below the aircraft I decided enough was enough and took the little 150 up into the clouds to the SSA. My new plan was to get an SRA or PAR at a military base enroute using ATC and the radio!
Luckily for me the weather broke up and I continued VFR to my destination.
Most pilots try to fly within their and the aircraft limits ATC can get them out of a mess and supply information to help avoid getting them into that mess in the first place.
Sadly the Controller does not know what sort of guy is on the other end and has to presume its a pilot who does not know his own limits or the aircraft limits.
As for Pireps we have them but they are not as abundant as in the USA.

Pace

[mad_jock]

Must admit if I was caught out by wx in a suitably equiped aircraft it would take a nano second to decide sod the rules I am climbing to MSA including if my IMC wasn't valid. Especially in Scotland.

I would hazard to guess that this has happened many many times already without incident (thats permit aircraft flying in IMC)

[peterh337]

I may have missed something, but AFAIK, in the UK, no aircraft without an ICAO CofA can fly in IMC legally, currently.

I know lots of people have been trying to change it but I don't think it has actually changed.

IFR certification is complicated. For starters, you need decent electrical bonding, which needs metal mesh to be embedded into the composite skin. On the ~560kg aircraft, this isn't going to happen (in a meaningful way). And even the certified ones had problems with avionics crashing big-time (Diamond and Cirrus) in the early days, when flying in IMC. A friend of mine got it rather more recently in, IIRC, a Cirrus.

[mad_jock]

avionics crashing big-time

**** happens with EFIS, bit of static on the intercom. FO starts laughing, the Captain says "its not funny" and has a shuffle to get comfy looking at the standby instruments. The AP kicks out and the screens go black. 5 mins later it all reboots, sort your overlays out and put the AP back in.

Never had it flying steam instruments

So suitable compromise is steam instruments only.