[Satcop]

OK, since this thread is turning in to a Redhill VFR discussion here are a few facts:
1. ATCOs under take meteorological observations at the Aerodrome using certified and calibrated equipment including a cloud base recorder,
2. The recently signed Letter of Agreement with NATS En-route requires compliance with SERA VFR minima applicable to flights within an ATZ in Class D airspace,
3. NATS TC will not permit SVFR within the Redhill or Gatwick ATZs,
4. Whilst might be possible to get airborne form certain parts of the Aerodrome and turn to remain outside the Gatwick CTR it may not be sensible or safe. At some point all all circuits enter the CTR.

5. Currently we have procedures for helicopters to arrive and depart from the Runway 18 displaced threshold, however we have to be satisfied that in the event of a go-around or other event they do not enter that part of the Aerodrome that lies within the CTR.
Discussions are taking place in an attempt to find a workable solution (the simplest one in my view would be to return to the status quo and allow flights to operate clear of cloud with the surface in sight in 5000m visibility for fixed-wing, and 1500m visibility for helicopters) the flying clubs and based operators are being kept informed.

[AlanM]

Is it worth separating this Redhill Topic? Huge info/debate here

[AlanM]

Dare I ask.....?

Why can’t you operate SVFR in your (Redhill) ATZ and why not in Gatwick ATZ?

[Satcop]

AlanM - it originally went in to the NATS too difficult box, issues around ensuring separation between Redhill SVFR and any Gatwick SVFR flights.

Things are moving forward (slowly); SARG are reviewing the situation and will hopefully be arranging a meeting involving themselves and both ATC units in the near future.

[AlanM]

Thanks Satcop - hope you get it sorted to a satisfactory level.

[Iceman]

Satcop

Would a radar display (just for tactical awareness) be of use at Redhill in resolving this matter ? Compulsory squawks when weather conditions below certain specified minima.

Iceman

[Satcop]

Satcop

Would a radar display (just for tactical awareness) be of use at Redhill in resolving this matter ? Compulsory squawks when weather conditions below certain specified minima.

Iceman

Working on that one, see what happens in 2018.

[chevvron]

AlanM - it originally went in to the NATS too difficult box, issues around ensuring separation between Redhill SVFR and any Gatwick SVFR flights.

Things are moving forward (slowly); SARG are reviewing the situation and will hopefully be arranging a meeting involving themselves and both ATC units in the near future.

How about this:
The criteria as I understand it is cloud ceiling 1500ft or more.
Your met observers presumably have to decide the amount of sky covered by cloud - most automatic systems I've seen can't do this - , so when they report 'FEW' or 'SCT', that's cloud BASE not CEILING and hence it's OK to depart.

[AlanM]

How about this:
The criteria as I understand it is cloud ceiling 1500ft or more.
Your met observers presumably have to decide the amount of sky covered by cloud - most automatic systems I've seen can't do this - , so when they report 'FEW' or 'SCT', that's cloud BASE not CEILING and hence it's OK to depart.

Are you suggesting that the Met Observer is economical with the actual report and make it appear artificially better than it is in reality to allow a departure?

(Apologies if I read your post wrong)

[chevvron]

How about this:
The criteria as I understand it is cloud ceiling 1500ft or more.
Your met observers presumably have to decide the amount of sky covered by cloud - most automatic systems I've seen can't do this - , so when they report 'FEW' or 'SCT', that's cloud BASE not CEILING and hence it's OK to depart.

Are you suggesting that the Met Observer is economical with the actual report and make it appear artificially better than it is in reality to allow a departure?

(Apologies if I read your post wrong)

Now would I do a thing like that?
'Bending' the rules? I never heard of such a thing!
(Mind you I did find it useful when 'managing' my ATC Squadron )
(Then there was the day I arrived back from lunch at Sumburgh to find a piece of paper with '160/18' written on it. I asked Les Isaacs (permanent controller and airport manager at the time) what it was; he replied 'that's the wind the BEA Viscount needs to take off') [No I'm not going to tell you what the wind really was]

[Barcli]

How about this:
The criteria as I understand it is cloud ceiling 1500ft or more.
Your met observers presumably have to decide the amount of sky covered by cloud - most automatic systems I've seen can't do this - , so when they report 'FEW' or 'SCT', that's cloud BASE not CEILING and hence it's OK to depart.

Are you suggesting that the Met Observer is economical with the actual report and make it appear artificially better than it is in reality to allow a departure?

(Apologies if I read your post wrong)

Now would I do a thing like that?
'Bending' the rules? I never heard of such a thing!
(Mind you I did find it useful when 'managing' my ATC Squadron )
(Then there was the day I arrived back from lunch at Sumburgh to find a piece of paper with '160/18' written on it. I asked Les Isaacs what it was; he replied 'that's the wind the BEA Viscount needs to take off') [No I'm not going to tell you what the wind really was]

Still goes on at Keflavik

[flybymike]

How about this:
The criteria as I understand it is cloud ceiling 1500ft or more.
Your met observers presumably have to decide the amount of sky covered by cloud - most automatic systems I've seen can't do this - , so when they report 'FEW' or 'SCT', that's cloud BASE not CEILING and hence it's OK to depart.

Especially if they are really really big scattered clouds which go from horizon to horizon.