Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1846041
Ibra wrote:Given that I don't understand why an IFR pilot would need any of that?

Pretty common to get vectors to an ILS. It allows a controller to manage spacing when CAT is coming from different directions and can be much more flexible. Can also allow shorter track miles rather than needing to follow a STAR every time.
#1846042
riverrock wrote:
Ibra wrote:Given that I don't understand why an IFR pilot would need any of that?

Pretty common to get vectors to an ILS. It allows a controller to manage spacing when CAT is coming from different directions and can be much more flexible. Can also allow shorter track miles rather than needing to follow a STAR every time.


Of course, it is for ATC managing traffic in busy places and effcient separation than procedural STAR...but it does not answer my question why the PIC needs it? If there is no traffic in VMC and no ATC separation (OP is flying ILS VFR im an empty airport) you can't just go straight no without ATC giving vectors?

Ignore saving fuel and shortcut as it's a training flight in VMC, if you want to save fuel IFR in VMC in an empty airport you fly visual approach at 180kts...

I am sure OP will not be training ILS when 10 CAT aircraft stack is on arrival
#1846049
In a quiet airport I think that would be fine, but vectoring also serves other purposes - it maximises airport runway and airspace usage, it saves fuel, and reduces some pilot workload.

Even if there is no traffic conflict right now, if one is flying in the specified direction and at a certain speed, those minutes saved would mean the runway would be predicted to become available at a certain time, which frees up the next aircraft waiting at the hold which frees up the next aircraft waiting on the taxiway, which gives the next plane on the ramp a start-up time, so on.... where it's all fairly fine tuned at those busier locations - from the Gloucesters to the Van Nuys to the Heathrows.

But to answer your question why would the OP need it, I'm guessing it might be some practice to follow some headings, but that could also be given when transiting airspace at higher altitudes.
#1846071
Yes it's good to practice, just pointing ATC tend to be more conservative on offering vectors to VFR traffic in zones or low near ground, traffic, airspace and weather (as James said it does happen en-route when you are flying VFR at 9000ft after 200nm, to avoid some airline TCAS going made, but again it's up to ATC, most would say if you made it that far on your own they won't get you lost on a vector), the vector given by the RHS instructor inside cockpit is well checked for traffic & clouds & terrain and hopefully airspace these days :twisted:

Personally, I get lost after 3th vector and I need my iPad or Direct to runway on GPS :lol:

Back to OP question, for new GNSS approaches with FISO ATZ, Sywell for example, which I understand is flown on Basic Service (correct me if I am wrong as there is no reference in new Cap413 for RNP IAP RT but my guess it's not flown under ATC approach control in ATZ, or Procedural Service, or Radar Service), so my guess a PPL with no IMCr/IR can PPR to book one of the 6 slots per day and then go an fly it VFR? all 100% legit, after all he is entitled to receive Basic Service from FISOs and he can navigate and clear himself VFR inside the ATZ on that GPS approach (or even fly IFR in ATZ if he has an IMCr or IR)
#1846078
GrahamB wrote:
Ibra wrote: correct me if I am wrong as there is no reference in new Cap413 for RNP IAP RT

I'm correcting you. It's on pages 43-45.


Yes there is the RNP RT now but does it say "Basic Service" somewhere in that "RNAV(GNSS) Instrument Approach Procedure" section of Cap413? I can't see where?

I think it's ok to assume you get a BS from FISO, but next time I will fly it I ask as I like to know what service I am flying on, it's bad to assume when things are not clear, I always ask ATC/FIS if I have a doubt on clearance or information :lol:

If it's FISO Basic Service then we are done with the OP question, a PPL can fly that RNP VFR all legal :thumleft:
#1846084
Ibra wrote:If it's FISO Basic Service then we are done with the OP question, a PPL can fly that RNP VFR all legal :thumleft:

We were done with the OP question many posts ago.

He was asking about requesting an IAP under VFR in Class D. Nothing about FISO's and Basic Service.
AlanM liked this
#1846151
Ibra wrote:ATC giving vectors to VFR traffic are doing it at their own risk, it's nowhere a standard SOP, probably ok for VFR in day light sunny VMC with ground and traffic in sight and far away from adjacent airspace, but try asking ATC vectors for VFR at night or when weather is around :lol:


There is nothing stopping UK ATC giving vectors to VFR traffic as long as appropriate precautions are taken. The below from the UK MATS Pt 1 regarding VFR traffic operating within Class D for example…

Image
Ibra liked this
#1846222
GrahamB wrote:We were done with the OP question many posts ago.
He was asking about requesting an IAP under VFR in Class D.


Not too soon, we are not yet done with the OP question: flying ILS VFR in Class D, we still don't know what OP is supposed to do if he is going around with lost comms on final? join circuit and land, or fly missed approach and another ILS, or leave controlled airspace?

I am not the one flying, so happy with vague and mysterious answers like "it has been discussed already" or "your instructor should have told you" :lol: but I am sure the OP will appreciate a crystal clear answer, he is the one doing the ride :wink:
#1846227
James Chan wrote:
ATC giving vectors to VFR traffic are doing it at their own risk, it's nowhere a standard SOP,


It depends on the airport and class of airspace.

It's fairly common in some places abroad if one is high enough ..


or low enough ?

Using then applicable jargon (I hope): In very early '70s I flew a C172 Fairoaks-Cambridge and return, VMC, with a newly qualified BCPL/AFI, both ways through London Zone('Rule 21 airspace') on a SVFR clearance which the AFI could request and accept but I (with a mere PPL) could then not. The clearance was conditional on accepting vectors from London Radar. The track directed (with precise headings) serendipitously took us low ("not above 1000' QNH", IIRC) over places where a FW SEP would not now be allowed, and yielded great sightseeing and photography for an American friend who was in the back seat on the way back: Palace of Westminster, Buckingham Palace, PO Tower, ... :)
TopCat liked this
#1846248
I've not heard of conditional transit vectoring that low before. Probably an ancient procedure before my time. As to avoid CFIT. I think they have Minimum Vectoring Altitudes of somewhere around 2000ft today.

AD EGLL 5-1 charts the Minimum Surveillance Altitudes, so I wouldn't know how they could vector without seeing.