Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
#1693120
48 hours on and nobody has been able to explain how I wil be able to legally transit Southend Class D VFR with a cloudbase of 2500 feet after the proposed change. Neither has anybody told me I'm just barking mad (which would be abolutely fine as long as they back it up with an explanation) so I still think this a a problem and am surprised nobody else seems bothered about it.
Alan
AlanM, alexbrett2, flybymike liked this
#1693140
AlanM wrote:Why on earth does the UK insist in having exemptions???

We introduced full SERA without derogations in the huge swathe of the Class D Channel Islands CTR up to FL80 and it seems to work well for overflights and inbounds/outbounds from the three airfileds.

Irrespective of the destination airfield met conditions (ie IFR/SVFR or VFR) you can declare your own flight rules with only departures and flights into the ATZ determined by the METAR. (Which is why your initial zone entry clearance finishes at a VRP outside the ATZ)

Therefore, if you are flying VFR but choose to want more protection from other aircraft you ask for SVFR, but we don’t force the separation on you. (Our CTR is so large that telling you what your flight conditions are at ORTAC is pointless and over restrictive - esp with lots of light twins flying in excess of 140kts.


I am with you brother :thumleft: :thumright: It makes little sense to me.

As you can see in my response to the OP many many moons ago!
#1693171
Buzz53 wrote:Anyone: how would you actually deal with the desired routing and conditions that I gave as an example? Elmsett - Northey Island - Sheerness - DVR? Cloudbase 2500 feet. No IR(R).


Why would you not simply descend to 1500 ft for the crossing of the Southend CTR?
#1693181
bookworm wrote:
Buzz53 wrote:Anyone: how would you actually deal with the desired routing and conditions that I gave as an example? Elmsett - Northey Island - Sheerness - DVR? Cloudbase 2500 feet. No IR(R).


Why would you not simply descend to 1500 ft for the crossing of the Southend CTR?

AM: I think we are at cross purposes! I’m saying that the problem lies with SERA, with or without the SFR tweaks.

viewtopic.php?p=1692630#p1692630

BW: thank you, I foresaw that as a possible solution, but consider the practicalities. Some fair time prior to reaching the CTA, I will need to descend to 1300 feet AMSL (following the recent “take 2” guidance to allow for altimetry and height-keeping issues etc) , putting me maybe 1000 agl +/- a bit compared to the 2000 or so I'd be at with the current rules. Not really a safety enhancement! Fortunately this area is fairly rural so I won’t have to worry about built up areas as one might elsewhere. I call for transit and, seeing my altitude the ATCO is presumably going to think I’m having a laugh, going by the usual “not below” transits that I get ( also I'm ashamed to say I can't recall offhand if SVR exempts me from glide clear etc). I presume I’ll therefore have to climb SVFR on entering the CTR, so the ATCO now has to deal with a target manoeuvring in 3D. Before reaching the other side, I’ll need to co-ordinate another descent with him, being careful of the overflying and glide clear rules. Now I'm out over the Thames at 1300 feet, super. Is this really a goer? Is it not so fraught with hassle that it will greatly diminish the chance of getting a transit at all, much less a timely one? As I said, it would be great to hear from a Southend ATCO (or anywhere else in the UK, I just chose one I'm familiar with).
Alan
#1693182
Some incorrect assumptions here, I think:

need to descend to 1300 feet AMSL (following the recent “take 2” guidance )


Take 2 is useful for infringements of airspace only, not for clearances within airspace.

the ATCO is presumably going to think I’m having a laugh


Nobody is going to think you're having a laugh. You request the route / altitude you'd like. You maintain VFR and clearance of terrain. The controllers permits it, if available. If not available, you could be offered alternative routes / altitudes, or even put int a hold for now. If it's too busy or the controller deems the situation unsafe, you won't be allowed in. If you cannot ask / accept for a VFR clearance then request for SVFR. If the route takes you into cloud or terrain or obstacles, then say unable.

Definitely avoid flying into cloud first and then ask "Can I change to IFR" or declare "Pan" (if you have no instrument experience) as it'll take much longer to arrange and cause you a lot of pain in the process.

I’ll need to co-ordinate another descent with him, being careful of the overflying and glide clear rules. . Now I'm out over the Thames at 1300 feet, super. Is this really a goer?


Of course! If you have to ditch at sea, it is better there than into buildings.

Is it not so fraught with hassle that it will greatly diminish the chance of getting a transit at all, much less a timely one?


Depends on the traffic and the weather really. Check the visual approach chart if there are any published/standard transit routes which could be less hassle. If nothing published, then you're free to ask whatever, within reason.
#1693183
bookworm wrote:
Buzz53 wrote:Anyone: how would you actually deal with the desired routing and conditions that I gave as an example? Elmsett - Northey Island - Sheerness - DVR? Cloudbase 2500 feet. No IR(R).


Why would you not simply descend to 1500 ft for the crossing of the Southend CTR?


I honestly don't think 1500ft is a sensible altitude for flying anywhere. Your engine-out options are very limited. I pass through 1500ft going up or down, I don't fly at it.
flybymike liked this
#1693186
James Chan wrote:Some incorrect assumptions here, I think:
Take 2 is useful for infringements of airspace only, not for clearances within airspace.

James, I appreciate your detailed answer but I don’t think you’re actually in tune with the topic.

I think you meant “for AVOIDING” infringements of airspace” and that is indeed the situation here – I need to remain below the CTA as the proposed removal of the SERA derogation means I can’t fly inside it VFR. This is the entire issue, everything else stems from it. I don’t think anything else you said relates to the practical issue under discussion. I especially don’t share your enthusiasm for ditching (or landing on buildings) when another 1000 feet (which I currently enjoy but won’t under SERA) might provide other options.
Alan
#1693188
This is the entire issue, everything else stems from it


I will not initially remain below the CTA in your situation as I can ask for a clearance earlier and hope to enter the CTA. Perhaps I have indeed missed the point, but I am still yet to see what this consultation resolves.

You 're welcome to fly with me at some point and I can show you how it is done. It's probably easier discussing it in a cockpit with our eyes out the window than on a forum. ;-)
#1693194
James Chan wrote:I will not initially remain below the CTA in your situation as I can ask for a clearance earlier and hope to enter the CTA. Perhaps I have indeed missed the point, but I am still yet to see what this consultation resolves.

Well one of us has missed it and even at this late stage I don't exclude it being me!

I do not have an IR(R) or better (my IMC rating expired an awfully long time ago and my aircraft is not IFR capable anyway). I cannot therefore request or accept a clearance to fly in the CTA under IFR as you appear to suggest. The removal of the SERA derogation means I can no longer fly VFR in the CTA within 1000 feet of cloud. If the cloudbase is 2500 feet I cannot therefore fly in the CTA at all and cannot reach the CTR (where SFR may be granted) without limbo dancing as BW has suggested. The CTA forms a moat around the CTR.

Unfortunately I don't see a solution under the terms of the consultation. Ideally I would retain the exemption from SERA as the present system isn't broken, and as Paul S has pointed out in the UK it is safe because it currently operates pretty much as if it was all SVFR anyway, but that doesn't seem to be on the table. Next best would be to allow SVFR in the CTA but that doesn't seem to be on offer either. So we are falling into an EASA-generated hole and there seems no way out.
Alan

PS Thanks for the offer, always keen to fly and learn but we need to agree the syllabus here :)
alexbrett2 liked this
#1693227
This is what's confusing me about this... at the moment we do SERA.... mostly as we have some exemptions. It seems that we propose to do SERA.... mostly, but with different exemptions?

Why does what we do now have to change? (or is the new change not a SERA change but an ATC change?)
#1693235
PaulB wrote:This is what's confusing me about this... at the moment we do SERA.... mostly as we have some exemptions. It seems that we propose to do SERA.... mostly, but with different exemptions?
Why does what we do now have to change? (or is the new change not a SERA change but an ATC change?)

A BW question really, but yes, AFAIK the difference is that the proposed (and controversial) arrangements for SVFR separation are permitted by SERA on a national basis, whereas the current UK VFR spacing-from-cloud and my alternative SFVR-in-CTA would require changes to SERA itself.
Alan
#1693242
So currently we have an exception to the SERA VMC minima which we want to rescind, but instead have an exception to SERA.8005(b)(4) (separation between IFR and SVFR in a CTR)

What's the difference?

.....and none of this answers how the cloud base in any area shall be defined for posterity (should it need to be cited in (say) a court case or AAIB investigation)
#1693256
PaulB wrote:So currently we have an exception to the SERA VMC minima which we want to rescind, but instead have an exception to SERA.8005(b)(4) (separation between IFR and SVFR in a CTR)

What's the difference?

AFAIK the option to implement the latter exemption, or perhaps variation is the better word, is already built into SERA, whereas the former is not.
Alan
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9