Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1823243
WhoWhenWhy? wrote:Was there a link posted to the duff gen (apologies if I missed it). If someone can post it I can pass on to someone I know and ask them to check it out



The Google search will lead you here

But if you Google "Class e airspace UK " the quote appears at the top of the page as pointed out earlier.....
#1823280
AlanM wrote:
Irv Lee wrote:@AlanM of course Southampton found a fantastic solution to all this ignorance and confusion and orbitting in haze a few years later (they told GA residents to **** ***) - please don't do the same!


We wouldn't - we NEED GA in the Channel Islands. Jersey ATC engages with Jersey Aero Club, as does Guernsey ATC with theirs.

It is one of the reasons that we adopted full SERA with no derogations. Rock up - and even if we are in IFR conditions at any airfield, you get cleared to the VRP outside of the ATZ and you can determine your own flight rules. We tell pilots the weather at destination (or any airfield you may transit near) and let them decide. It is not for us to determine that for them - they are far better placed. Same for departures - we have to enforce the rules and only apply until the ATZ boundary. Most depart IFR/SVFR if the weather is marginal and then convert to VFR if they wish, 2nm from the ARP.


Done that many times departing from Alderney where the weather phenomena can be very localised.
AlanM liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1823282
I remember one famous departure IFR from Alderney when the tower asked me to report airborne :-) I won't say who was on duty :whistle:
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1824034
VFRBimbler wrote:.....,,exemplifies the increase in workload arising from the rules in force at that time.


Whose workload?
#1824055
My first thought was that of the pilot. If it was simply a case of staying clear of cloud and in sight of the surface, it seemed to me that it would have been easier to thread through the Farnborough airspace and e.g. not have to drop to 1500’ with the added complication of requesting an ATZ transit too.

I must admit, I didn’t really give a thought to the controller’s workload and how this would be affected although, if the pilot was VFR, my initial thought is maybe this was limited, and presumably much less work than if the pilot had requested SVFR or IFR instead, depending of course on other traffic and the extent to which separation issues might have arisen.

An insight from a controller’s perspective would certainly be of interest to me.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1824088
There's absolutely no reason why a pilot would have a different workload under the SERA rules, the controller would have to grant SVFR clearance not a VFR clearance and then manage separation.
#1824109
VFRBimbler wrote:An insight from a controller’s perspective would certainly be of interest to me.


One of the most recent comments on the aforementioned YT video was made by an ATCO. The gist is that they have zero interest in cloud separation outside the ATZ when it comes to compliance (or otherwise) with VFR.

I like some of TFR's stuff but on more than one occasion he has drawn attention to his desire to strictly comply with Class D VFR cloud separation minima. With respect, my personal opinion is that this hasn't done him any favours as it either forces one to fly impractically in order to remain compliant (descending towards an ATZ to maintain 1000' vertical clearance from reported FEW cloud) or it draws attention to the occasion where your otherwise strict compliance wavers.

Even before the rules change back, I will be prepared to merely remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface when transiting Class D whilst giving no further thought to vertical or horizontal cloud separation beyond asking myself if I can still apply the principle of see and avoid.
flybymike liked this
#1824127
Hi, Johnm. As I CFIT probably explains it better than me. By trying to comply with the cloud separation minima, TFR was forced to fly “impractically” including quite large changes in altitude - forced lower and resulting in the need to request an ATZ transit. The less onerous cloud separation minima would, it appears from the video, probably have resulted in less significant changes e.g. in altitude and made for a more leisurely transit.

Whether or not one should simply be more pragmatic about cloud separation minima in Class D outside an ATZ is a matter for individual pilots. Nevertheless, as I have not faced this situation yet (although the rules will be changing again shortly anyway), I found the video helpful in terms of a practical example of the consequences of trying your best to “follow the rules” (and yes, I am familiar with the various sayings etc. about blindly following rules).
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1824145
I am confused about the reference to ATZ as in Class G there is no issue. SVFR in Class D allows clear of cloud and insight of the surface and IMHO if the weather makes that hard the controller managed separation is a benefit to all
AlanM liked this
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10