Not from VFR traffic, Genghis. In class D, which is the only low level controlled airspace a VFR flight is likely to be doing circuits in in the UK, IFR traffic does not have to be separated from VFR.

However (from MATS Pt 1):

Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions and level restrictions in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the effective management of overall ATC workload.

Aerodrome control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to assist pilots in preventing collisions between: [virtually everything :)]

This implies, I think, that if ATC thinks that it's safer, more orderly and more expeditious to let the 747 preceed the C152 to avoid the 747 going around, it has the right and the duty to issue instructions accordingly.

bookworm - quite right. If the IFR inbound insists on flying IFR into Class D airspace in gin-clear VMC, perhaps it should be reminded that "IFR separation will only be available from other IFR traffic; VFR traffic avoidance will be provided on request". In other words, it should expect that it may be vectored around the VFR, not that the VFR should be booted out of its way. However, a 'request' to VFR traffic to extend upwind (never downwind) or to cross to the dead side would not be unreasonable....

Perhaps ATCOs should again receive the basic flying training they were once given.....

'Company rules require IFR thoroughout?' = Expect vectors in Class D in VMC!

BEagle,

Why never extend downwind? This was quite common at a secret airbase near St Andrews before the "light aircraft hold" was established. It is also common to hear requests from civilian pilots/instructors to "extend downwind for spacing".

What about aerodromes where there is no deadside available for use due noise restrictions?

What about the delay forced on other departing traffic by an aircraft extending upwind?

I refer you again to my point that unless the VFR traffic has filed a flight plan in the normal way and conformswith normal routing procedures, the flight falls into category Z which has a lower priority to those in the "Normal Flight" category (desscribed above). It is not always the case that the commercial boys are "getting their way" at the expense of the rest of the aviation community.

I guess you're not a pilot?

It is an axiomatic part of flying training that the identification of the point at which the base turn is commenced is readily understood by the student pilot. From that point onwards he/she is occupied with assessing power settings, attitudes and configuration changes to roll out on final at around 400 ft a.g.l 'in the slot' for the approach. They will then be in an aceeptable position from which to begin the landing process.

Whereas if the downwind point has bene extended, the task involved in setting up the final approach path is less easily qualified and unstable approaches are more likely; typically a student pilot will end up dragging it in on a shallow approach with a high power setting; this will lead to inaccuracy in the flare.

Furthermore, with any sort of wind (say 15-20 kts at circuit height), a 90 kt light a/c will only be doing 70-75 kts across the ground into wind, rather than 105-110 downwind, some 57% faster. So, to achieve a 'delay' for spacing, in a given time the a/c will need to travel much further downwind than it would into wind.

The effect of wind is far more marked on low speed ac; please believe that FIs teach circuit procedures from a background knowledge of quite some depth and experience. And get very annoyed at some ATCO who thinks he knows better!

Having done a fair bit of orbiting, since I fly out of an airfield that has commercial operations, i would make the following comments.
You can have to orbit for a fair amount of time and you feel you may have been forgotton by the tower but you are not sure how to remind them you are still there or if you are allowed to.
Orbiting is very tireing and requires a high level of concentration, hard work in cases where there is only1 pilot.
In cases of the pre solo student orbiting is demoralising as they are not getting enough constant circuit experience to allow any but a brave instructor to get out and it also wastes the students money.

Extending downwind is not to bad unless you have to go miles further than usual, this is because as Beagle says the approach will not be of the usual type and the flare could be misjudged especially with students or inexperienced PPL's but we do have the option of a Go Arround if we dont feel comfortable or dont like the look of things. I will do anything I can to avoid comming in too close to a 737 etc especially as I am not sure what 4, 6 or 8 miles looks like.

Adjusting the circuit is no harder than flying to an airfield that is new to you, if anything it is easier since you are familiar with the landmarks. Some airfilds have very strange normal circuits that are extremly wide and if you do the type of circuit as taught ATC will ask you to move wider.

So - some 250 hour newly qualified instructor knows better than someone who may have been controlling since before they were born?

Take the keys to this JCB................................................ ;)

Clearly what you say is going to be right in some situations ... but there are other ATCOs who can manage rather better, for example suggesting "extend downwind" to some students and "right hand orbit" to others and "go around from base leg" to others and "can you reposition for the (parallel to the main) grass runway" to yet others depending on the ability of the student, perhaps in consultation with the student's instructor if s/he's hanging around the tower. Seems like horses for courses to me.

A thought or two. Firstly thanks for pointing out my error of understanding on VFR .v. IFR, that piece of wisdom had passed me by. But..

Firstly, if joining to land an IFR cancellation shouldn't present a problem, secondly RAS , etc. is available in VFR, that or I've been getting a service under false pretenses all these years.




For an early hours student, certainly. But, I certainly don't require this as a qualified pilot, and I would have thought (speaking as a non-instructor) that any student allowed solo in the circuit should be able to cope with any conditions he or she might encounter - including separation from higher priority traffic or being forced by circumstances into a non-standard circuit.

I'd have thought that the captain of an aircraft has to be treated as knowing better what they can or should do with the aeroplane - regardless of whether it's a 10,000 hour greybeard or a 15 hour student just gone solo. A controller may advise helpfully or in a controlled situation give permission, and I hope that they will - but they are not responsible for the aircraft, the captain is and they must decide what is appropriate. Even legitimate instructions from a controller can, and must, be refused by a pilot of any experience level if it's appropriate that they do so.

G

I fail to understand why people get so animated about this.

When a plane that can fly safely on downwind (say 10deg flaps, gear down) at 90kt and not much less, and having joined crosswind, finds himself behind a C150 doing 60kt, he can either extend downwind or, if there isn't enough downwind distance left before the C150 turns base, he has to orbit. Or depart from the circuit and come back later.

Orbiting isn't a good choice in a non-ATC airfield because they tend to be more of a free for all, but there is no problem with orbiting if ATC tells you to. They have a pretty good picture of who is out there; much better than most pilots.

Totally agree IO540. This really is a storm in a teeny tiny T-cup.

2D

Cancelling IFR should be used with caution. A contact or visual approach can be requested by the pilot, whilst remaining on an IFR flight plan.

I read an interesting article in the AOPA magazine a while back, admittidely the US one, so some of what was said will not apply in the UK. But the gist was that an approach controller under heavy workload was "encouraging" pilots to cancel IFR as soon as they were visual. None of the commercial operators in the queue did, but this PPL decided he'd help the controller out and cancelled when he was visual. He was met by an FAA inspector on the ground, who wanted to know why he was flying VFR in less than VFR minima (for the class of airspace that this airport was located in). The pilot was "prosecuted" by the FAA..........

EA

Never assume, always check! I am in fact a qualified pilot of some 10 years experience and in current flying practice of both simple and complex types. I also get quite annoyed at pilots/instructors that seem to think that only their viewpoint is correct, and that they are the only priority in the sky. Inflexibility has cost many a pilot his life or his career.

I think that HelenD has probably hit the nail on the head. Orbiting, extending downwind (within reason) et al is not something that should be used everytime for every aircraft in the circuit, however they can be and are used as a tools to allow the needs of all the aircraft in the sky to be safely addressed. Do instructors no longer teach reference points in the circuit for puting the aircraft into the correct configuration for landing? What do your students do on a straight in approach, crosswind or base leg joins? The skills required to correctly configure an aircraft in these scenarios is no different to configuring the aircraft at an appropriate point in the cct after an orbit or extending downwind.

The visual ciruit is just that, visual. Look out of the window and avoid banging into things. The controller will give you as much information as he has available to help you achieve this, and will also give you instructions to safely integrate you with other traffic that may be of a higher flight category.

Before BEagle jumps up to argue about ATCO's issuing instructions to VFR traffic, note that within an Aerodrome Traffic Zone, At Aerodromes with an air traffic control unit, all movements are subject to the permission of that unit. Aircraft will comply with instructions given by radio telephone and maintain a listening watch. (MATS Pt 1 Sect 1 Chap 2 para 6.2)

If you want to do your own thing, in your own way without due regard for others then fine, but do it somewhere where you are not going to endanger anybody or anything whilst doing it. :mad:

PS Genghis:
MATS Pt 1, Chapter 5, Page 2, para 1.4.1 (a) regarding Radar Advisory Service states:
The service shall only be provided to flights under IFR irrespective of meteorological conditions.

You may want to have a wee chat with your local ATSU to see if they have any local variations to this just to clear up any doubts you have as to why you have been receiving a RAS under VFR.

Fair point, but the next paragraph says:-

"Pilots not qualified to fly in IMC shoul accept a RAS only where compliance with ARC advice permits the flight to be continued on VMC".

So, you can be IFR whilst simultaneously VFR - which is the get-out. In reality it primarily means flying quarantal rule. The same, I think, applies to Radar Control.


Actually I can't honestly recall ever using RAS outside of training (and not often then), I've always used FIS, RIS or Radar Control. The nature of my own flying never calls for RAS, and I can recall very few occasions when I've heard anybody else call for it either.

G

Thanks for the replies. I think the CAA needs to lay down a STANDARD procedure for orbiting and probably need to include it in the PPL sylabus. So far I have read 5 or so different methods of orbiting which has further added to my confusion.
It seems typical for posters on this forum to assume that we all have the same standard of knowledge or were trained to the same standards. I'm always very cautious of the phrase "I was always taught to ....". One man's breeze is another man's gale.
In conclusion, if i'm told to orbit i'l just do a 360 turn at 30 deg bank over my current position and if anything happen i'll sue ATC/CAA/etc:8
Capt. M

Genghis
Unfortunately not. If you reread the paragraph it states VMC not VFR.

VMC = the met condintions you are flying in.
VFR = the rules under which you are flying.

You can quite happily fly IFR in VMC (as offshore helicopters do all the time), but be prevented from flying IMC for various reasons (e.g. pilot qualifications, aircraft limits, inside Class A airpsace).

VMC is not the same as VFR. :ok:

When an ATC service is provided, I have no real problem with making orbits if instructed. I expect ATC to provide traffic information on relevant traffic and to have the sense not to make me orbit late downwind while other aircraft continue downwind towards my position.

An orbit is simply a turn through 360 degrees. No more and no less. The only time allowance is made for the wind is if one is told to "orbit in present position".

Where ATC comes to grief at many UK airfields in clas D or G is that they know the rules but have no real understanding of the practical implementation of those rules.

For example - If I am flying a C150, ATC can often say "number two, follow the B747 4 miles from touchdown, caution wake vortex, recomended spacing is 8nm, report ready for base". As I pass almost abeam the B747s position, I report ready for base that would place be horizontally about 1.5nm behind the aircraft and I am told to orbit until advised. After about 3 minutes, I am released from the orbit. The only thing that I can put this down to is that the controller has no idea of the practical application of VFR wake vortex separation. By doing this ATC are simply creating delays for no rational reason.

Ops an Mops give a second clear example of being able to quote the rules but not understanding them.

Yes, training flights are a low priority. However, GA flights (which are not training) regardless of flight rules are normal flights. It is not a requirement to file a flight plan to operate in class G regardless of what the flight rules are. Furthermore, it is totally within the rules to make short VFR flights in a B747 through class G carrying fare paying passengers without a flight plan (I say short because I can't remember the local UK max distance for such flights). Are you going to orbit a B747 downwind because of a steady stream of B737 arrivals? Doubt it ;)

If UK ATC were to insist on a full flight plan for all VFR zone exit, transit and entry flights then you can expect the ATC admin workload to increase dramatically as a result. NATS would have to more than double the staff at Heathrow AIS and the other parent AFTN units....especially now that many local ATC units refuse to process flight plans even for departure from their own aerodrome and refer the crew to Heathrow AIS.

Genghis,

When in VMC regardless of the class of airspace, the pilot is responsible for operating the see and avoid principle. In class A our chances are reduced (high speeds, traffic density etc) and we rely alot on ATC backed up by TCAS to assist our visual scan. However, in class D,E,F and G, we are aware that eventhough we may be completing an ILS, if we are in VMC then we are responsible for avoiding according to the rules of the air all other aircraft and that includes breaking off the ILS to avoid gliders who have the right of way!!!!

Regards,

DFC

DFC,

How does your example point to me not understanding the rules? :confused:
There is no argument that this is within the "rules".
These flights, if they have not filed a flight plan, would not come under the normal flight category, but the lowest category, category Z. Flight categories are not dictated by aircraft type, but by the type of flight being undertaken.

Normal Flights = Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routins procedures OR Initial Instrument flight tests conducted by the CAA Flight Examining unit (RTF callsign EXAM)

Category Z = Training, non standard and other flights

As regards the example you quote regarding the B747, there are many different ways to deal with different aircraft types in the circuit under different circumstances.

I would say the safety of you and your aircraft was a perfectly rational reason. If you, as aircraft commander choose not to comply then the subsequent MOR or accident investigation will surely identify who was at fault. As ATCO's we have a duty of care to ensure the safety of you and your aircraft, and if we were to comprimise that in anyway we would be the ones with our heads on the block. There may however be other reasons why you were being kept in the orbit that you may not necessarily be party to. Out of interest, what is VFR Vortex Wake separation? Vortex Wake doesn't alter with different flight rules. A B747's vortex wake will quite happily throw a C150 out of the sky under VFR as it would under IFR. 8 miles is given as the minimum safe lateral distance for a light following a heavy, calculated over the years from hundreds of Vortex Wake incidents and accidents. Any reduction of this would be at your own volition and risk.
Again, where was this course of action suggested?

Please don't attack me and my understanding of my job unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that I lack both the knowledge and understanding you suggest in your post. Your opinion is just that, an opinion, not an assessment of my understanding, professionalism or competence.

So four questions then O & M,

1) Do you therefore look for a FPL for every flight that you serve?

2) How do you expect to receive a FPL for a flight which has filed one but for which your unit is not an addressee?

3) Do you mark every flight for which you have no FPL with a Z in box M of the flight progress strip as required to by MATS Pt 1?

4) Do you regard an abbreviated flight plan (MATS Pt1 Sec 1 Ch 2 9.1(b)) as a "flight plan filed in the normal way"?

Oh for goodness sake! :mad:

1) No

2) Of course if my unit is not on the addressee list, the plan wont appear, but that is a matter for the person submitting the plan, not the addressee.

3) I normally only mark Cat A or B Flts in box M. Do you?

4) No as an abbreviated flight plan only pertains to a portion of a particular flight.

The topic of flight categories was originally posted to clarify that priorities do have a bearing on how an ATCO does his job, and that it not just a case of the "big boys" getting priority over GA an training traffic because of the thought and biases of an ATCO.

If anyone else has a problem with flight categories or Air Traffic Standards, may I suggest you submit them directly to the Safety Regulation Group at CAA House.:suspect:

A difficult issue this, that regularly gives me professional headaches.

To fly IFR outside of controlled airspace means flying in accordance with rules 29 and 30. If a pilot is required to maintain VMC, they can still do so.

To fly VMC, you need to maintain the legal minima required for your particular combination of aeroplane, speed and licence - that doesn't stop you flying VFR OR IFR.

But, here's the thorny bit - and UK-CAA probably hold most of the blame for this. Certain aeroplanes are required by law to maintain VFR (not VMC, VFR). All permit aeroplanes fall into this category.

So, if I go flying in a permit aeroplane, I must remain VFR - the permit conditions say so. But, if I choose to comply with rules 29 and 30 (a very sensible thing to do, particularly on a long run at altitude), then I am by definition flying IFR - notwithstanding that I am outside of controlled airspace, have not filed an IFR flightplan, and may not even be in RT communication with anybody.

At this point, I'm going for a lie down in a darkened room, in night IFR.

G