|
Eurolunacy
Redhill Aerodrome Operators’ Memo 1/2017
VFR minima ATZ within Class D Airspace Introduction WEF 24 April 2017 the CAA have removed the exemption from SERA VFR minima for Class D airspace which permitted aircraft to operate clear of cloud and with the surface in sight within an ATZ. Class D ATZ VFR Minima The weather minima for VFR flight within the Redhill ATZ is now 5000m and a cloud ceiling (BKN) of 1500ft. Aircraft must remain 1000ft vertically away from cloud. When the reported weather is below these limits VFR flight is not permitted; this includes helicopters wishing to undertake hovering exercises as the rules state that aircraft may not transit an ATZ or enter the aerodrome traffic circuit within a CTR when the offical meteorological report at that aerodrome indicates a ground visubility less than 5km and/or a cloud ceiling (BKN) less than 1500ft. The minima set out above do not apply to police, air ambulance, SAR, powerline, pipeline or electricity helicopters. When the weather is not suitable for VFR flight suitably qualified pilots may request IFR departures out of the ATZ. Special VFR (SVFR) Currently Redhill ATC is not permitted to operate SVFR however a meeting is scheduled with NATS for 10 May where this will be discussed. An update will be issued following this meeting. |
The plot has been completely lost, unless of course the plot is to kill the helicopter industry. It's difficult to keep up with all the changes EASA has brought. Few of these rules improve safety.
|
Shy....you wonder why Americans laugh when we compare our aviation rules to yours?:ugh:
|
So these brilliant experts say it is safer for the aircraft to fly at 500' agl and keep the cloud 1000' above them???
How about "Clear of cloud, in sight of ground or water, and at a speed which allows an obstacle to be seen and safely avoided?" When they finally legislate GA out of the sky, they will pat themselves on the back for achieving a zero accident rate. And then join the dole queue, along with the pilots. |
At one point last week there was a danger that we would not be able to land off airfield in controlled airspace as of 24th April, that got resolved on Friday but the whole ruleset is full of anomalies which are slowly going to kill the helicopter industry and probably more airfields over time.
One of the problems is that often what looks innocuous to start with has a twist put on it by a different group of aviation professionals (usually not maliciously) and we end up with one group feeling like they are obliged (or nor permitted) to allow another group to do what they need to do. Take my example above, a NATS interpretation of who could assess visibility at an 'aerodrome' was what they were basing the stop landing off airfield decision on, so controllers were being told to not permit it inside controlled airspace (not their fault) but almost no pilots knew about it. ShyTorque you are spot on it is literally a case of :ugh: |
1.500 ft ceiling and a visibility of 5 km? Now, how often does that happen in GB?
|
I have flown into Redhill with regular here (JohnR81) and it looks to me like those rules are the start of someone trying to close it. Of course, it is a perfectly good airport, but it now has neighbours. Who despite the airport being there "day one", want it gone now.
Disgraceful left wing lunacy. No one wants helicopters until they need to be rescued (from various things). Same in AUS. Arrrj |
so presumably the same thing will apply to part of
White Waltham as half the field is inside the other half outside ? |
5,000 metres is 2.7 nm. This ridiculous development of the rules means that it's prohibited to air taxi unless the visibility is better than the radius of the ATZ. One must ask what the purpose of an ATZ actually is.
|
Originally Posted by Hughes500
(Post 9751608)
so presumably the same thing will apply to part of
White Waltham as half the field is inside the other half outside ? |
Originally Posted by Arrrj
(Post 9751550)
Disgraceful left wing lunacy.
Let's not fall into the habitual practices of our colonial copusins and start automatically labelling everything we don't agree with as "leftie" regardless of the reality. PDR |
Anything to do with Biggin`s request for an RNSS approach for Rwy 03..?
|
Originally Posted by sycamore
(Post 9751716)
Anything to do with Biggin`s request for an RNSS approach for Rwy 03..?
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...mplementation/ |
Lunacy .... Yes , but there are so many idiotic rules around that nobody takes notice of and this is just one more !
Out of interest who is going to enforce this ? You can currently fly into an airport that is declaring IFR and be VFR .... Nobody actually asks what viz and cloud base you had on the way in . As always the helicopter community will just accept it , as it has all the other nonsense over the years , and that will be another nail in the coffin ......and this coffin has already been shut firm for 10 years or more !!!! |
It will get awfully cold in the Pubs....for some if they do!
There are some very good folks that are caught in the middle here....and let's hope they are not treated badly by others who are victimized by this. Tower Operators are being made victims just as are Operators, Owners, and Pilots. |
Originally Posted by nigelh
(Post 9751792)
You can currently fly into an airport that is declaring IFR and be VFR .... Nobody actually asks what viz and cloud base you had on the way in.
|
Have friends who lived very close to Redhill airfield for many years. There has long been a sustained effort by property developers to build hundreds of houses on it, aided and abetted by the local council. Most locals oppose this, but all sorts of devious methods and 'blackmail' have been employed to 'persuade' them otherwise. This might just be the final straw.
|
Arrrj
I have flown into Redhill with regular here (JohnR81) and it looks to me like those rules are the start of someone trying to close it. Of course, it is a perfectly good airport, but it now has neighbours. Who despite the airport being there "day one", want it gone now. |
I have never asked for a SVFR clearance when flying into an airport thats declared IFR .....i just fly in and land and no one in 35 years has ever asked anything !!
How about a flat bed trailer to take you outside the ATZ then lift ......!! |
Originally Posted by puntosaurus
(Post 9751191)
Redhill Aerodrome Operators’ Memo 1/2017
VFR minima ATZ within Class D Airspace Will the airfield permit this? Will the local residents permit this? Or will the airfield only permit circuits when the cloud base is 2000ft QFE, so that the normal circuit height gives 1000ft vertical clearance? This would seriously reduce the number of VFR flights taking place! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.