FLYER Forums

That's what I was looking for in 8005, but I can't see it. Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough or looking in the wrong place?

I'm looking in here

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... ERA%29.pdf

Well that's very interesting, it's not there. I wonder if that's an abbreviated version as it's called "easy access" hoho.

Looking at my downloads folder I suspect I was looking here:

https://tinyurl.com/yxo8bnv8

which is actually a UK mashup but the same is here:

https://tinyurl.com/yaj843wn

8005.5 in both cases.

Although it is from 2012, I don't know if that is the current situation.
Alan

So is the competent authority constrained by SERA or can they go further than SERA.

Does SERA actually forbid SVFR in a CTA? If not why could this not be offered? It’d go some way to making those CTA from 1500’ more accessible on cloudy days.

SERA only defines SVFR in the context of Control Zones i.e ‘SERA.5010 Special VFR in Control Zones’.

‘Twas always the case. Try transitting the LCY zone from North to South SVFR not above 2000ft..... 1nm of CTA....

The solution used to be..... “shhh ignore it!”

GrahamB wrote:SERA only defines SVFR in the context of Control Zones i.e ‘SERA.5010 Special VFR in Control Zones’.

Yes... I see that.... what I'm asking is why can't the CAA consult on offering SVFR in CTAs as well (if SERA doesn't forbid it.... in which case presumably it's allowed?)

... and what is it (to repeat Buzz53's Q) that allows the the option of not separating SVFR from IFR in class D?

(not being awkward... just trying to understand the issues.....)

I guess that allowing SVFR in a CTA would need a derogation from SERA and a change to the UK ANO.

What a mess!!???

(As I keep saying, why not adopt full SERA and only dictate in the ATZ the actual weather/flight conditions?)

AlanM wrote:I guess that allowing SVFR in a CTA would need a derogation from SERA and a change to the UK ANO.

So would absolving ATC from separating SVFR from IFR in class D not require a derogation (whatever one of those is)?

What a mess!!???

(As I keep saying, why not adopt full SERA and only dictate in the ATZ the actual weather/flight conditions?)

How would that help people get transits across low CTAs in anything but the finest weather?

PaulB wrote:

GrahamB wrote:SERA only defines SVFR in the context of Control Zones i.e ‘SERA.5010 Special VFR in Control Zones’.

Yes... I see that.... what I'm asking is why can't the CAA consult on offering SVFR in CTAs as well (if SERA doesn't forbid it.... in which case presumably it's allowed?)

The CAA are being whipped into line as the current variation is not actually allowed for in SERA (nor ICAO for that matter). What makes you think they'd be permitted another one that doesn't?

PaulB wrote:... and what is it (to repeat Buzz53's Q) that allows the the option of not separating SVFR from IFR in class D?

(not being awkward... just trying to understand the issues.....)

It doesn't allow the non-separation of SVFR from IFR, and that is not is what is being proposed by the CAA, so the question is moot.

SERA.8005 (b) 'Clearances issued by air traffic control shall provide separation: ...
...
(4) between IFR flights and special VFR flights
(5) between special VFR flights unless otherwise prescribed by the competent authority

(my bold)
The CAA would be exercising the option already provided for in SERA; so technically it would be compliant. The current variation via ORS41302 and its predecessor are not in accordance with SERA.

The bit that links the VFR rules and the ATC separation rules is 5005 (h), specifically (3) 'when operated as special VFR flights'.

@Buzz53 In answer to your question, you can't, according to the rules as would be wrote, so you have to be either Germanic in your interpretation, or go round the long way.

Ahhh... Je Comprends! They are proposing not to separate SVFR/SVFR, but will have to separate SVFR/IFR.

For them, that's not much of a change, is it, but as others have asked, how are the weather minima going to be applied? It could be foggy at Jersey, but gin clear at ORTAC.

A thought.

The irony is that if the GA community and its representatives didn’t insist on CAS being pared back to the absolute minimum, with all the tricky steps and shelves that result, we would have larger Control Zones and the problem that Buzz53’s example highlights would be reduced.

GrahamB wrote:A thought.

The irony is that if the GA community and its representatives didn’t insist on CAS being pared back to the absolute minimum, with all the tricky steps and shelves that result, we would have larger Control Zones and the problem that Buzz53’s example highlights would be reduced.

I was just thinking about that.... do they have all those "shelves" etc in France or Germany

PaulB wrote:Ahhh... Je Comprends! They are proposing not to separate SVFR/SVFR, but will have to separate SVFR/IFR.

For them, that's not much of a change, is it, but as others have asked, how are the weather minima going to be applied? It could be foggy at Jersey, but gin clear at ORTAC.

Chaps

Have a look back at the full SERA brief written for the Channel islands. It is really simple. It is only the ATZ and aerodrome traffic circuit that dictates the actual enforced conditions. ie in SVFR conditions you cannot the ATZ VFR or indeed depart VFR. Outside that; the pilot can self declare the weather conditions.

I will say it again - Full SERA is easier than the made up-to suit- rubbish.

AlanM wrote:Have a look back at the full SERA brief written for the Channel islands.

Is there a link to that?

@PaulB - yep as per post #4 on this page....

https://cidca.aero/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=115009&p=0

It talks about Self declared weather and tbh the ATCOs think it works much easier than before. @derekf - is it easier for you as a customer??