VFR?
 

I had an interesting experience recently. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this?

At the time, I was on an IFR training flight, in Class D airspace, practicing instrument approaches. I heard another aircraft call up on frequency, requesting a transit through the airspace.

The controller asked the pilot if he wanted VFR or IFR transit. IFR please, replied the pilot. Sorry, says the controller, too busy for an IFR transit. No problem, says the pilot, I'll take a VFR transit. Ok, replies the controller, descend to 2000', report VMC. Once he reported VMC, the pilot was cleared to transit, VFR at 2000', via the airfield overhead. The other pilot was passed traffic information about me. I was passed traffic information about him. All absolutely fine.

Except that there is absolutely no way the aircraft was in VMC at 2000'. I flew 4 approaches on that flight, and the highest point at which I became visual on any of the approaches was 1200'. At the point when I was passed traffic information on the other aircraft, I was on the final approach track, and became visual with the surface at 900', and visual with the runway at 800'.

I have debated whether I should take any action. My safety was not compromised, because I was given traffic information, and remained seperated from the traffic vertically at all times (assuming he really was at 2000'). If the aim of any action was to ensure that the pilot was reprimanded, it's unlikely to be successful because I can't prove what the weather was doing. And if the aim of the action is to educate the other pilot, it would pointless because I'm sure he already knows that what he did was illegal. So my current thinking is that there's little point taking any further action. But there's a nagging feeling in the back of my mind which suggests maybe a CHIRP report would be appropriate?

What would you do?

FFF
-------------

You say that your safety was not compromised, You were not in his aircraft at the same time ( impossible I know), to prove anything !

So the answer has got to be.................You do nothing.

AM

And that is the problem - how can you prove he wasn't legally VFR.

Are you sure he wasn't cleared NOT ABOVE 2000ft? (But it does sound like a bit of press-on-itis)

It happens - not nice but there you go.

This is the clearance he should have got (assuming UK Class D);

Cleared from (place) to (place) VFR via (routeing) not above (level),
maintain VMC while in the (name) control zone.

So the level should have been not above and the stipulation to maintain VMC should have been in there.

It's then a matter of trust between all parties...

Yes, positive. He was cleared at 2000', via the airfield overhead (which would have seperated him vertically from me, although no seperation is required from a VFR flight in Class D), and instructed to inform the controller if he was unable to maintain VMC at that level. It don't think it was press-on-itis (which implies he continued into weather he wasn't qualified to fly in). More a case of being qualified to fly IFR, and wanting to get his zone transit to avoid a few minutes routing around the outside (or even over the top, since the top of the zone in question is low enough to go over and icing wasn't a factor on that day).

AM and AlanM, your posts have backed up my own thoughts, but it's nice to get some outside views on the subject, thanks!

FFF
--------------

I think the saying about the man without sin casting the first stone comes to mind, when talking of flying VFR in IMC.

Personally I don't recall not getting an IFR transit but getting a VFR one offered. Was this zone particularly inconvenient to go around the outside?

First for me as well, never heard of an IFR transit being refused anywhere especially in marginal conditions.
But I am with IO540, I would also suggest that "he who is without sin cast the first stone". I for one would not be in a position to do so.......

Applying IFR separation may not have been possible, so a VFR transit may have been the only option available to the controller of Class D.

The "problem" with that is that the controller is reliant upon the transit requester not telling lies about met conditions - which, according to FFF, may not be the case here...

Whether in a past life someone else has lied to get an expedient clearance is interesting but irrelevant. ;) If FFF truly believes that the transit-er was in IMC at the time and, therefore, unable to separate themselves visually, he should CHIRP it if nothing else...

What good exactly will a CHIRP report do? It might make FFF feel better, but I'm not sure it achieves anything else, and I don't think that's FFF's purpose infileing the report?

Some people might read it and think "Oh that's not a good thing to do." but it's unlikely to have any effect on someone who would do that in the first place.

I could be (probably am) wrong, but I was under the impression that CHIRP reports were for things you'd done wrong and wanted to relate to the pilot population at large (anomalously) so that they could learn from your mistake. Are they really for telling other people about poor airmanship that you came across? Is there really a lesson to be learnt here, or is it so obvious that everyone knows it already?

I wouldn't report it, mainly because I don't think it would achieve anything. Perhaps filing a MOR might achieve something, or calling the operator and discussing the matter with them might achieve something, but I really can't imagine what a CHIRP report would achieve in this case. There isn't really a lesson for the reader to learn.

dp

CHIRP Objectives: I would have thought this worthy, even if it is the report of an interested third-party

I find this a very difficult question to answer and the opinions interesting.

Reading the original post again I note:

Presumably the aircraft was already in IMC (given what FFF has to say about the met) outside CAS. That leaves me wondering whether the pilot declared he was IFR on his first call. If he did declare IFR, presumably he was responsible for his own terrain seperation, but could he have made the descent given that he never became VMC at 2000ft. This seems the more likely scenario because the controller said "report VMC" implying he knew he was not in VMC at the time of the first call. If he declared VFR on his first call then presumably, and not unreasonably, the controller assumed he could descend and remain VMC for his transit but again given what FFF has to tell us about the met the pilot was not telling the truth.

Having made his descent, whether from IMC or VMC, again on the basis of what FFF has to tell us, the pilot presumably found he never became VMC. Presumably had he told the controller this was the case the controller might have been a whole lot more receptive to an IFR transit and a climb to SSA.
Subject to what actually happened it seems to me the pilots "sins" may have started even earlier.

For these reason I have a feeling Rustle is correct.

Too many pilots these days it seems to me are prepared to declare VFR when they are not. Clearly some of these will cause problems for themselves (as I am sure there are more than a few without an IR) never mind problems for others. At least by CHIRPing, if the full exchange is known, it might reveal how a series of events could lead to a very real problem, and, more importantly, how these problems could have been avoided in the first place by the pilot informing the controller that he could not maintain VMC. In short, whilst perhaps this particular pilot was always going to do what he did, other pilots might better appreciate that there were alternatives in this situation?

It would be interesting to know the full exchange that took place if that were possible.

May I just ask If the controller knew that they couldnt support IFR why even offer one?
David

We saw something similar the other day. Aircraft ahead cleared VFR, as requested by pilot, to depart, we were cleared to depart with one ahead in sight. It wasn't in sight having just disappeared into/behind a cloud so had to wait for sufficient separation (we were IFR). No drama, just an incredulous comment across cockpit about VFR. Thank goodness for radar. But in this case how hard would it have been to call up for IFR (assuming the pilot was qualified and not going airways) - quick flight plan passed over the radio and off you go.

I don't think a CHIRP is the relevant way to report this, as I understand they're primarilt for people to report their own human factors type mistakes. but I do definately feel that this should be reported. I'm assuming that FFF is confident that the cloudbase where he was operating was uniform - no gaps the pilot in question could have been using, and, as has been m,entioned before, that the clearance was for "at" 2000ft, not "not above". The airfield actuals should have been logged - a BKN or OVC for the time in question would go some way to adding credence to the complaint.

The actions of this cowboy have potentially endangered the lives of others as well as himself - by agreeing to take visual separation on traffic he can't see - and as such he does deserve to be chased up and at the very least informed of the error of his ways. I don't think I'm overdramatising that first sentance.

My suggestion would be to contact the ATS provider, supply them with the time of the incident and ask them to check their logged actuals and ATC recordings - then let them take it further if they wish.

I think it would be worth carefully documenting the facts for yourself and then, after review, filing a report (try both ATS provider and CHIRP?). This could provide grist for the mill of various safety notices.


I think a root cause may be that VFR or IFR from a pilot perspective doesn't really shift the rules very much (other than the fact you can't be legal and VFR in weather less than VMC and the fact that you need to maintain a minimum height or be visual with the ground - which you should be doing enroute under VFR anyhow). This results in a very casual attitude towards IFR/VFR by a surprising number of IMC/IR pilots.


I am not sure people remember how much higher the vis requirements for VMC are within controlled airspace - and the fact that the VFR pilot is supposed to be visually separating himself from the other traffic.
You can see why controllers so often 'over control' and separate IFR and VFR traffic.

I think one needs to distinguish between

1 - possible noncompliance with paper rules

2 - actual loss of safety

We don't know about 1; only the pilot would have known that. Cloudbase can vary from one spot to another.

Also what is the difference between an IFR and a VFR transit? There are some ATC rules about separation perhaps, but ultimately the difference must be that in VMC the pilot is supposed to be visual with other traffic. What if he isn't? Most "other traffic" is never spotted anyway, and if you are not visual with all of it then you are not visual as far as safety is concerned, are you?

If this was a radar unit then the distinction is particularly moot as far as safety goes.

It wasn't in sight having just disappeared into/behind a cloud

That is usually legal in the UK for deps in Class G. The moment you are outside the ATZ (typ. 2nm after takeoff) you are entitled to change your mind VFR-IFR and vanish in a cloud. This is commonly done. Most Class G fields are non-radar and are thus unable to offer any meaningful kind of separation/service. If ATC, they apply procedural separation from traffic they know about. If non-ATC, you are on your own anyway.

Obviously people should not declare "VFR" when they are in solid cloud but what matters is whether safety is actually compromised.

IO540,

I agree he was entitled to change his mind after departure (or indeed before starting his take off roll), however he disappeared way before leaving the ATZ and reaching MSA, we never heard a call changing VFR to IFR and I doubt he remained clear of cloud.

Safety wasn't compromised (assuming the pilot was qualified and current) and one could use the argument that it is big sky and what are the chances of someone else doing the same. But then again if he was doing it, it is reasonable to assume that someone else might be doing the same. Like I said, thank goodness for radar.

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

This was in Class D at all material times from what FFF said in his initial post.

VFR or IFR transits are negotiated as such and don't change just because the pilot thinks he/she can change the rules whenever they like: If the rules need to change it needs to be renegotiated.

Suggesting/saying/implying "it doesn't matter" is a bit crap imo even if they're only "paper rules"...

Interesting problem. One thought comes to my mind, I never go into IMC, apart from for a few seconds, without some sort of radar cover. Assuming this transiting aircraft was in dense IMC he either didn't have any radar service (or had just been handed over and was free-calling), or he felt is wasn't necessary (frightening). If he is cavalier enough to report VMC when he clearly wasn't, I hope I never get anywhere near him.

IMHO this is worth CHIRPing if only to remind all pilots of basic air law and good airmanship.

LF

I often given clearances through the Heathrow/City Zones of "CAN YOU ACCEPT A VFR CLEARANCE LEVEL AT xxxxft PROVIDING YOU CAN REMAIN VMC"

The type of clearance is irrelvant in this case, as it appears that the naughty boy was lying.

Maybe the MSA is 2000ft or lower, so the controller cleared him to that, to get him VMC, to offer the VFR crossing. So the controller could still have had terrain spearation in mind.

I wonder why you think so :).

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

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

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

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

The facts could be

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

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

3 - Pilot asks for IFR which is refused (see point 2) but offered VFR with the implication that the pilot is not going to be provided with IFR separation and will be responsible for own separation and terrain clearance (Standard Class D service I think)
I don’t think,at the point the controller gave it, the instruction to transition at 2000 feet needs to be terrain safe (or above the MDA, or the MSA, or 1000 feet above the 5 mile object) – as the pilot is not being vectored or under a RAS so is responsible for terrain clearance.

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

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

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

AT THIS POINT the issue is alleged to be created.

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

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

“it appears that the naughty boy was lying.”

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

Rod1

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

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

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

[Edited for spooling and offensive content...]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Knight P
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knight Paladin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems like the odds favour IMC flight ;)

dp

bose:

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

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

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

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

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

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