Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12
User avatar
By PaulB
#1746619
The CAA has just sent an email reminding ATC that

The CAA wrote:From 26 March 2020 the requirements of SERA.5001 Table S5-1 and SERA.5005(a) will apply without variation and reference to ORS4 No 1312 is removed from the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS) Part 1 (CAP 493).


This is the exemption that allows VFR daytime flights at <140kts to remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface with vis 5k or greater if at or below 3000'.

From 26th March SERA will apply and VFR flights will need to remain 1500m horizontally and 1000' vertically from cloud with vis of 5km or greater when at or below 3000'

The Supplementary Instruction is here
By Buzz53
#1746638
So, what happened to the consultation? Was it not supposed to report in July 2019 (in fairness I think at that time the exemption was going to end in September 2019 but even allowing for the extension it is well late). I was looking forward to the CAA telling me how I can legally transit the CTAs with moderate cloudbase, as nobody else seemed to know (as discussed here with the customary variable reception)!

Alan
#1746642
Surely this is an error? Surely they can't just close a consultation to which many GA people responded negatively, not report on what people told them in the consultation, then withdraw the exemption without any announcement of the decision to the GA community??
#1746643
This is absurd and I am sure I saw somewhere in the consultation that Special VFR separation requirements would be waived in the case of revoking this SERA exemption. However if I must have dreamt it as the text of MATS Pt 1 update:

"Once ORS4 No. 1312 expires SERA.5001 and SERA.5005(a) will apply. This change effects the Visual Meteorological Condition (VMC) applicable to pilots intending to operate in accordance with VFR within class D airspace. The expiry of ORS4 No. 1312 does not change the criteria governing when a VFR clearance may be issued, however controllers may experience an increase in requests for Special VFR clearances. There are no changes to separation requirements associated with Special VFR flights or the criteria governing when a SVFR clearance may be issued."

This is going to hurt especially those based at Class D airfields such as Cardiff where at the moment if the cloud base is at 1,200' (as an example) it is still possible to do circuit training. Once this is revoked unless a controller is willing for the aircraft to operate in the circuit on a Special VFR clearance it would be impossible on an otherwise good day for circuit training.

As the text states there is going to be an increase in SVFR requests.
#1746644
Yes I have found the Special VFR changes in the original consultation

As a result, SVFR flights would maintain separation from other SVFR flights through see and avoid principles. In effect this remains the same as flying VFR in accordance with the current UK exemption.

https://consultations.caa.co.uk/future-safety/proposed-changes-to-vmc-minima-in-class-d-airspace/
#1746646
WelshRichy wrote:As the text states there is going to be an increase in SVFR requests.
and an increase in SVFR request refusals, as we said in our consultation response, because SVFRs will have to be held 3nm away from the runway to await crossing clearance, and they won't be able to allow an IFR arrival or departure until that SVFR is 3nm on the other side of the runway. Controllers simply won't be allowed to permit those kind of blocks on IFR movements.
NS
User avatar
By BEX
#1746648
and an increase in SVFR request refusals, as we said in our consultation response, because SVFRs will have to be held 3nm away from the runway to await crossing clearance, and they won't be able to allow an IFR arrival or departure until that SVFR is 3nm on the other side of the runway. Controllers simply won't be allowed to permit those kind of blocks on IFR movements.
NS


Err.... as long as the viz is ok so that the Tower Controller can see all the a/c concerned, why wouldn't "reduced separation in the vicinity of the aerodrome" apply?

I'm a little confused by references to 3nm as well. Not all ATCUs can use 3nm separation, the standard is 5nm.

BEX
User avatar
By QSD
#1746661
WelshRichy wrote:This is absurd and I am sure I saw somewhere in the consultation that Special VFR separation requirements would be waived in the case of revoking this SERA exemption. However if I must have dreamt it as the text of MATS Pt 1 update:

"Once ORS4 No. 1312 expires SERA.5001 and SERA.5005(a) will apply. This change effects the Visual Meteorological Condition (VMC) applicable to pilots intending to operate in accordance with VFR within class D airspace. The expiry of ORS4 No. 1312 does not change the criteria governing when a VFR clearance may be issued, however controllers may experience an increase in requests for Special VFR clearances. There are no changes to separation requirements associated with Special VFR flights or the criteria governing when a SVFR clearance may be issued."

This is going to hurt especially those based at Class D airfields such as Cardiff where at the moment if the cloud base is at 1,200' (as an example) it is still possible to do circuit training. Once this is revoked unless a controller is willing for the aircraft to operate in the circuit on a Special VFR clearance it would be impossible on an otherwise good day for circuit training.

As the text states there is going to be an increase in SVFR requests.

Take offs and landings in class D airspace have never been exempted from the SERA rules, only transits.
T67M liked this
#1746665
QSD wrote:Take offs and landings in class D airspace have never been exempted from the SERA rules, only transits.


I was under the impression it was any VFR operations within Class D airspace as the exemption doesn't distinguish between any Class D operations. However, I have just looked up the requirements in MATS Pt 1 and I must apologise as yes it is transits only where one is remaining clear of the ATZ or aerodrome traffic circuit. I should have taken more of an active interest when my wife was validating last year!

It has been a while since I have operated from a Class D airfield where this would have been an issue (pre-SERA) and I know it is a mute point considering the exemption is being revoked but will remember for future reference.

I'm off to read up on SERA requirements in full now... :D
Bathman liked this
#1746666
I thought that changed back in September. The current exemption (ORS4 1312) states.

"1) This exemption does not include exemption from the requirements of SERA.5005(b) (Visual Flight
Rules)."


and SERA 5005(b) is

"Except when a special VFR clearance is obtained from an air traffic control unit, VFR flights shall
not take off or land at an aerodrome within a control zone, or enter the aerodrome traffic zone
or aerodrome traffic circuit when the reported meteorological conditions at that aerodrome
are below the following minima:
(1) the ceiling is less than 450 m (1 500 ft); or
(2) the ground visibility is less than 5 km."


So before March SVFR is required with a ceiling lower that 1500ft. After March at Liverpool I'm looking at needing SVFR with a ceiling below 2300ft especially when heading south due to the oil refinery, wind turbines and terrain. The standard VFR clearance is not above 1500ft and I generally fly out of the CTR at 1300ft.


However, I may have got this totally mixed so happy to be corrected. :thumleft:
User avatar
By QSD
#1746669
I do wonder what the S in EASA is supposed to mean. How can it be safer to be 1,000 ft from cloud but only 500 ft from ground?

This, combined with the Farnborough Class D, will effectively build an impenetrable barrier for any VFR pilots wanting to go through the old Farnborough gap on a large proportion of winter days. There may be a trickle of SVFR transits allowed, but not many due to separation requirements. The CAA know all this of course, because we all said it in our responses to them.

I suspect they Just don’t care about the light end of GA.
T67M, flybymike liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12